Voyager Keeps on Trucking 51
spagiola writes "CNN has a brief story about Voyager I continuing on past Pluto, and about the problems of keeping in touch with it as it keeps heading further away. They've activated a spare sun sensor and star tracker. I wonder: would it make sense to send out another probe after it, to relay messages to/from it?"
They should learn lessons, but use money elsewhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks,
Travis
forkspoon@hotmail.com
Re:They should learn lessons, but use money elsewh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They should learn lessons, but use money elsewh (Score:5, Interesting)
Not even. Voyager 2 used four gravity assists off of the giant planets to build up speed. Even IF we launched today, we couldn't get to Uranus or Neptune with conventional rockets. The configuration of the planets that allowed the multiple-assist grand tour of the solar system (giving the two Voyager probes more delta-V than we can with today's (or even tomorrow's) technology) only occurs once every ~180 years.
To quote a NASA mission scientist on Voyager, "the last time this was possible, Jefferson was President. And boy, did he blow it."
Re:They should learn lessons, but use money elsewh (Score:2)
Still, you're right that we'd be short some of that Voyager delta-v! If memory serves (which is does at its own conviences, the punk), Voyagers overtook their Pioneer cousins a while ago.
Re:They should learn lessons, but use money elsewh (Score:2)
Your memory is doing just fine
The most distant spacecraft right now is Voyager 2, followed by Voyager 1, and then the Pioneers 10 and 11 (not sure which order).
The Pioneers, of course, were just test probes to make a rough estimate of what the Voyagers could expect. Went to Jupiter and Saturn. Discovered the Jupiter-Io flux tube (which resulted in a major Voyager redesign) and proved that it was possible to get through the asteroid belt (which was a big question at the time).
Good ships, all of them!
Re:They should learn lessons, but use money elsewh (Score:2)
Re:They should learn lessons, but use money elsewh (Score:2)
The Galileo and Cassini probes both used Venus and Earth slingshots to get to the outer solar system.
Re:They should learn lessons, but use money elsewh (Score:1)
What?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, you meant the probe... my mistake...
Re:What?!? (Score:1)
Relaying is silly (Score:1)
The Deep Space Network has some 70 meter dish antennas. Can you imagine trying to get a 35-meter dish antenna even so far as low-earth orbit, let alone on a solar-escape trajectory? Get real. I wish the editors would do a little thinking before posting.
Re:Relaying is silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you imagine trying to get a 35-meter dish antenna even so far as low-earth orbit, let alone on a solar-escape trajectory? Get real.
I see no such problem. Perhaps it is you who should take a little time to think before posting; The concept of a sectored parabolic dish that expands when it deploys is not a new concept. If you do that now you're down to an 18m long component. If you're willing to send it up and have a crew assemble it instead of have it self-deploy en route to its destination you can get that number down MUCH smaller.
C'mon, fire a synapse or two. It won't hurt you. (Score:2)
Compare that to a very expensive, single-purpose mission. Just because something might be feasible (notice that we've never done anything of the sort before) doesn't mean that it makes any sense to try to do it.
Re:Relaying is silly (Score:3, Informative)
The "Trumpet" SigInt (Signals Intellegence) satellites, of which the NSA has launched 4 or so, have an absolutly HUGE dish. See Pic here [fas.org] Size is said to be in the region of 150-200 meters in diameter, in a very high orbit (either Moylina, or Geosync)
(Of course, it needs to be that size to pick up your keystrokes and monitor radiation from orbit.)
Karma cap reached, so mod somebody else up.
Re:Relaying is silly (Score:1)
Actually I am surprised we don't see that happen more often with our shuttles and satellites that we send up.
Space Debris (Score:2)
1. Its in a fairly clean orbit, most of the manmade space junk is in low orbits.
2. The dish is made up of a light mesh, so its mostly 'empty space', the actual 'cross section target area' is relativly small.
3. At the frequencies that this disk is listening, you don't need a solid dish, so if a passing asteroid punches a 10 foot hole through it, it will still work. (although your signal strength and 'aiming sharpness' will be slightly degraded).
Useless information (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:" Voyager 1 was launched on Sept. 5, 1977 and completed flyby exploration of both Jupiter and Saturn. The spacecraft now is rising above the ecliptic plane -- the plane in which most of the planets orbit the sun -- at an angle of about 35 degrees at a rate of about 520 million kilometers (about 320 million miles) a year.
Voyager 2 was launched on Aug. 20, 1977 and also completed visits to Jupiter and Saturn and then went on to explore Uranus and Neptune, completing the reconnaissance of the giant outer planets. The spacecraft is now diving below the ecliptic plane at an angle of about 48 degrees and a rate of about 470 million kilometers (about 290 million miles) a year.
So Voyager 1 is travelling at 320,000,000 miles per year. That is about 3090 m/s or 0.0103C. Not too shabby! Voyager 2 is at 290,000,000 miles per year or 2800 m/s or 0.0093C.
I wonder what the fastest man made object is? Hmmm let's see, this [sunblock99.org.uk] page says that the Ulysses probe was the fastest at 15 km/sec. That's 15,000 m/s or 0.05C! Then this [nauts.com] page claims the Pioneer 10 was the fastest at 51,810 km/hour. That's 14,391.67 m/s or 0.04797C. So it looks like Ulysses wins. If you can find anything else to add to the list, please do!
Actually, not so useless... (Score:2, Informative)
The article says:
"Voyager I was launched in 1977 to study and photograph the giant planets in the outer solar system...."
and then later says:
"A robotic twin of Voyager I left Earth in 1975 as well. Voyager II is heading in the opposite direction of Voyager I and traveling at a slightly slower speed."
That confused the hell outta me. (Why would they name it "II" if it left 2 years earlier than "I"???)
As for the fastest man-made object, Deep Space 1 would have it I believe with its ion drive (53,100 kilometers per hour):
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sol
My guess... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Actually, not so useless... (Score:5, Informative)
That was just an estimate of capability. For actual speeds, check the official website out here [nasa.gov]. Also look at the log archives of the different staff members. Here [nasa.gov] you will see that as of July 29, 2001 it was travelling at 16.5 km/s! That's 16,500 m/s or 0.055C. So you are correct, it is the fastest man-made object so far.
Re:Actually, not so useless... (Score:3, Informative)
I dont know what you ppl are talking about!!!!
0.05C!!!!! *Are you MAD*?
One-Twentieth the speed of light????????
I was so astounded on seeing this, that I did the math myself.
I dont know how can so many people commit this simple mistake.
As far as I know, 16.5 km/s is just equal to 0.000055C. (Speed of light=300000km/s)
It will not be in our lifetimes that we acheive speeds of OneTwentieth the speed of light.
It is all relative anyhow (Score:1)
Speed compared to what? Earth? It is moving around in circles.
I suppose the Sun could be the point of reference, but then you are not counting orbital motion, nor am I sure you should.
Re:Actually, not so useless... (Score:1)
Re:Actually, not so useless... (Score:2)
Re:Actually, not so useless... (Score:1)
IIRC "2" was launched first and arrived at Jupiter second because it was in a longer transfer orbit.
Re:Useless information (Score:1)
http://vraptor.jpl.nasa.gov/voyager/pressrel/vg
Voyager 1's speed is 17.4 km/s
Voyager 2's speed is 15.9 km/s
http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Project
Pioneer 10's speed is 12.24 km/s
Pioneer 11's speed is 12 km/sec
And by my calcualtions that makes their speed relative to c (~300,000,000 m/s) to be:
V1: 0.000058 c
V2: 0.000053 c
P10: 0.0000408 c
P11: 0.00004
so it looks like you math was a bit off. Oh and incidentelly, 320,000,000 miles per year is about 16,000 m/s not 3090 m/s; and it looks like you used 300,000 m/s for c, not 300,000,000. Oops.
Re:Useless information (Score:1)
I'm gonna watch it again! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm gonna watch it again! (Score:1)
Now if only they could come up with sub-space communication these problems would be negligible. Though until then it is dreaming in front of the TV and using conventional radio frequencies to do the work.
Re:I'm gonna watch it again! (Score:1)
The fastest way between two points is a straight line.
Re:I'm gonna watch it again! (Score:1)
is there an echo in here? (Score:1)
Dare I Suggest ... (Score:2)
that future probes consider <focus_paranoia>nuclear</focus_paranoia > reactors for long term power needs when solar panels no longer provide sufficient means?
I know they got a bad rap after a Russian satellite equipped with a nuclear reactor crashed down into Canada a few years ago, but it seems like they'd be a good idea for interstellar probes of this kind.
Re: Dare I suggest (Score:1)
Maybe we need that Star Wars Missle defense program quicker than we think.
Re:Dare I Suggest ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dare I Suggest ... (Score:3, Informative)
NASA already uses nuclear power for their long range probes. For example, Galileo at Jupiter [nasa.gov] and Cassini-Huygens going to Saturn [nasa.gov] are all nuclear power.
Do note that the nuclear power is for the electronics. Both probes carry propellent for orbital maneuvering, etc.
Re:Dare I Suggest ... (Score:1)
Heliopause (Score:1)
Some day... (Score:1, Interesting)
completely offtopic but... (Score:1)
We should send out another one some day that sends signals in ALL directions, like a beacon. Sure, it might get us blowed up good by some bad-assed ID4 type ETs but it might also put us in contact with the Vulcan type MFs.
Just a rambling thought I guess.
Re:completely offtopic but... (Score:2, Insightful)
You, my friend, have a common misconception of the volume of empty space out there. We can't see shit, metaphorically speaking. Given the distances involved in comparison with (1) the size of voyager and (2) the speed of voyager I really think it would be akin to releasing a dandilion seed on the continent of africa and hoping someone on the other side sees it one day.
Check the numbers for the sizes and distances of the sun, the earth, and pluto.. then boil it down to scales we can see. If the sun was a basketball - how far away would the earth be from it, and how large would it be? What about pluto? Now, how far away from those objects is the next closest star?
Given those distances and sizes, how big would voyager be and how fast is it moving?
it boggles the mind, it does! :-)
Re:completely offtopic but... (Score:1)
It would be much more cost effective to send a strong signal from *earth* than send a weak one from just outside our sun.
However, the last time native americans were friendly with the odd visitors, they got slammed. So perhaps we should keep our planetary trap shut.
Re:completely offtopic but... (correction) (Score:1)
Correction: that should be "just outside our solar system".