Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Resurrecting NEAR 125

Posted by michael from the nine-lives-already-used-up dept.
JoeRobe writes "Space.com is reporting that John Hopkins researchers are going to attempt to revive the NEAR-Shoemaker spacecraft at the end of the year. The spacecraft, designed to orbit asteroid Eros, finished its mission by successfully landing on the surface of the asteroid in February 2001, resting on its body and two solar panels. Now, after NEAR has been silent and cold for over a year, researchers are going to try to make contact with it and possibly try to turn on its scientific instruments one last time . How long can silent electronics last in space?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Resurrecting NEAR More

Resurrecting NEAR

Comments Filter:

  • doh! (Score:2, Informative)

    by heffrey ( 229704 )
    methinks you mean Johns Hopkins....
  • How long can silent electronics last in space?"

    Probably indefinitely....

    • hehehe... until it's found by the borg, who will fix it, assimilate it, and N'R finds the U.S.S. Enterprise in the 22nd century... oh, sorry, it was the Voyager :-P

    • Re:Umm.... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, not exactly. Dictionary says indefinite is: having no exact limits. I think a serious limit would be the ammount of time the asteroid stays in dark regions of space, or obviously the asteroid being destroyed. If the spacecraft is running windows, I think it's safe to assume that it's sitting at a bluescreen millions of miles from earth so it's a lost cause anyhow.

    • Re:Umm.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lionchild ( 581331 )
      I suspect that there's some sort of time limit on the electronics packages. However, it's probably more dependent on the fact that it's not be whacked by a handful of micrometeors since we put it into hibernation mode. Something like that could definitely make it a lost cause, real quick.

    • Hard limit. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Stoutlimb ( 143245 ) on Friday May 24, 2002 @09:49AM (#3579005)
      There is a hard limit... Since theoretically almost every atom does decay eventually, an electronic object can sit in space until enough of it's constituent atoms decay away to break the electrical connections. Then it's broken. This limit is generally much longer than the age of the universe so far.

      Then there is chemical/mechanical stability. Some compounds do degrade over time, such as plastics. Plastic parts become brittle, crumble, or otherwise age. Batteries and RTG's degrade or wear out. The same goes for moving parts. The time for this to happen is much less than atomic stability of the actual device. If cheap parts are used, even ten years is easily possible, sometimes much less. Chemical degredation is heavily dependant on the temperature of the object in question. It would also more affect the support systems of the electronics worse than the electronics itself. Batteries, fuel cells, electrical shielding for moving parts such as gyros, for example.

      Since empty space is not really empty, we also have degradation due to interaction with the spacecraft's environment. Micrometeorites abrade the suface of the craft, but larger ones behave like bullets, and these can definately cause harm to electronics inside. Then there is the radiative environment. Cosmic rays, or other exotic forms of radiation can be really nasty to electronics. At the least, they can cause random noise in running electronics, and say, flip 1's into 0's or vice versa every now and then. The much harder rays can permanently damage or fuse microcircuits. As any overclocker knows, simple heat kills electronics very nicely, so objects closer to the sun may have much shorter lifespans. Radio wave radiation from solar storms, if intense enough, can have the same effect on electronics as a highly statically charged cat rubbing against my motherboard when I took off the case.. (you don't wanna know.) There's a fair amount of redundancy in space based electronics for this reason, but there is a limit to how much abuse these systems can bear. Engineers can't insure against every eventuality, such as ET cats.

      In my opinion, the practical limit of a spacecraft is balanced between chemical/mechanical degradation, and environmental hazards. I feel that right now, mechanical degradation is much worse than environmental effects, but as durable solid state devices become more prevalent, this will tip the scale in the other direction. I'd be interested to see statistical information on the reason satellites fail.

      Bork!
      • Electromigration of dopants in semiconductors are another factor.

        Also, dissimilar metals being in contact over very long periods of time can have interesting interactions (they had to address such problems when renovating the Statue of Liberty, as the iron framework was reacting with the copper skin).
    • Not at all! Lifetime of most space missions is limited due to the degradation of the different systems, specially the battery modules, even although often operated at a 15% to 25% depth of discharge. I am a power systems design engineer working for SSTL [sstl.co.uk] and we design our systems for the lifetime specified (plus some margin to play with..)
  • If the unit has been sitting dead for that long, how much basic programming info is gone due to lack of power?
  • How long can silent electronics last in space?"

    If there is no one there to listen to it, is it really silent? Ahhhhhh

  • but seriously tho. I think this would be really cool, somewhat pointless but it may give them some insight into leaving probes or spacecraft in space sitting dormant, or on a planet or asteroid waiting for a specific time to activate. Hell we all kno this was just a test run.. the next time this is done some form of explosive will land on an asteroid and wait untill it gets close to earth then acivate and explode. On another note, bet they wish they had remote controll of the lunar lander on the moon :) .
    • Thinking about it, I don't think it is that pointless. There may be a time when we want to make a spacecraft dormant for transporting humans long distances. This may give is a bit of information about doing that. While I do realize that this wouldn't be an end-all be-all test for this, it would provide some input.
  • Why, if they still could use it, did they let it go silent in the first place ?
    • no sun hitting the solar panels would drain the batteries. maybe they knew they were going to try this so kept a reserve
    • Because he got bored of it and wanted to play with his other toys.
    • Money.

      They were already operating past their budget when the mission was close to over. They literally had to get permission to try to make it take off again.
      • Did the Viking Mars probes ever die, or did they just pull the funding for listening? Who know what data might have been recorded.

        "Hello? Hello! Stupid 3rd-planeters!" seismic event, seismic event. "Stupid POS!", decreasing after-shocks...

    • This is a damn good question.

      I'm not sure why but it is highly likely that there were any power generation concerns. Solar cells generate less electricity the further you get away from the Sun (yeah, I know it's obvious) and batteries/battery backups will have been limited in size and capacity, if only to keep down launch costs - if you run a space agency on a limited budget you don't put up any more mass than you need.

      This topic and your question remind me of a conversation I had with one of my astronomy professors whilst at university many moons ago (if you pardon the pun) about the Apollo landings and their ongoing scientific value.

      It seems that, at some point in the late seventies, many of the remote probes and instruments that NASA left behind were sending back more data than NASA could process. So, rather than leave them running indefinitely (which was an option as they had efficient solar cells and lower power demands) the bean counters at NASA told the various devices to shut themselves off - something that couldn't be reversed.

      A few years later (well, maybe about 10-15, but who's counting?) some people at NASA decided they wanted some fresh numbers from the moon. Technology had moved on, computers were more powerful and accessible, and there was so much more that could be extracted from the raw data that could help NASA elsewhere (cometary studies, researching manned and unmanned missions to Mars to name but two). Now all NASA had to do was to get this new data was to add a new series of lunar missions to its already cash-strapped budget.

      Apparently, there was a series of meetings in which it dawned on the boffins that they had had exactly what they wanted - except that, at some stage, someone had taken the executive decision to pull the plug. Millions of dollars thrown down the drain at the flick of one switch. According to my professor, all hell broke loose and the mother of all fingerpointing wars started.

      Homer Simpson would have been proud.

      Even today, there's at least one person I know of whose still ticked off at NASA for that toss-a-coin decision.

      Bottom line: NASA et al turn things off all the time. A few years later, they wish they hadn't.
      • As was noted, Technology has marched on. Hopefully, after all this tomfoolery, we'll have learned that even on the shoestring they call a budget at NASA, they'll keep in mind just this situation for all current and future experiments. Of course, we'll also equip all our new experiments with the latest and greatest of sensory equipment, which means even -more- data.

        Nonetheless, I can only hope that we learn from all the finger pointing, and simple mistakes we've made. It's perhaps the best we can hope for at the moment.
    • NASA's science program is constantly under assault from the manned space station and Congressional budget cutting. Another success- the Jupiter Galileo- will be turned off in a few months. (Actually may be crashed into the clouds for one last experiment.) Galileo, despite a defective attenna that cut its data rate by 99%, lasted three times its planned lifetime. The Venus Magellan probe was detroyed after running out of money too. It later two cycles past its planned three cycle program. The situation would be much worse if everything NASA sent up worked. However, three major recent Mars failures freed up some NASA resources.
    • My guess is out of concerns about draining the power-supply and thereby losing it forever. By shutting down the most power-consuming instruments (telemetry and active transmitter) they have possibly gotten the power-consumption down to a level where the batteries have not been fully drained so a power-on of the craft might be possible. At least that's what they hope.

      If they pull this off it will be a feat almost level with the Pioneer spacecrafts. And it will definitely be a textbook example of getting bang for the bucks by pushing envelopes left and right.. :o)

    • Maybe once it was on the ground it just didn't have anything new to send after a while.

      Day 0: Cold
      Day 1: Cold
      Day 2: Cold
      ...

  • They might want to speak to the unemployment office. I hear they have some experience getting things to start working again after they've been resting for a year.
  • I guess the NEAR probe has some kind of propulsion system and that the gravity on Eros is probably minimal, but I just cant picture the satellite ascending to heavens after a landing which was probably rough, although not enough to destroy the probes beacon.

    Does anyone know if they used any kind of airbag like they did for Pathfinder? Do they know all systems are up and working? They havent even connected with it yet...

  • For a few (million) bucks we can try to turn it back on and get more info. (no sarcasm)

    They've tried this stuff in the past and it works as often as not. I think NASA should try to contact every spacecraft thats ever been launched.

    Never know what you'll find.
    • For a few (million) bucks we can try to turn it back on and get more info.

      I'd rather they spend that money on resurrecting the Pluto/Keiper Express, or at least getting on with a cheaper replacement before Pluto moves out of it favourable position. (Or give me the money, and I'll tell you NEAR's status: it's still sitting on Eros. :-)
    • I think NASA should try to contact every spacecraft thats ever been launched.

      I tried to do the same thing but most of the numbers are unlisted.
    • I think NASA should try to contact every spacecraft thats ever been launched

      That would be a nice project. Make an inventory of all the stuff we planted on Mars/the moon and the working parts.

      As for robots, I guess the motors etc. are working fine, so why not send a 'cannibal/Borg' probe to recover these parts? Considering the price of getting something there, this is valuable equipment! It would be hacking in the purest sense of the word, of course.

      BTW, what is the status of the Mars rover? Is it still working? (does anyone have a link?)
      • Actually, most of the stuff we sent to the Moon wasn't designed to come back on after we turned it off. And at the time, it was still sending back lots of data, and we couldn't store or process it all. So the decision was made to turn it off. Without a remote 'on' switch, they're just junk up there, till someone goes and physically gets it.

        As for their worth...I'm guessing that we could wholly rebuild and reproduce all of the equipment up there from parts "off the shelf" like we did for the Mars mission, and do so for less than 1/4th the cost of sending someone to the Moon to pick up our parts there, even if it's a robot.

  • How Long? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cybrpnk2 ( 579066 ) on Friday May 24, 2002 @07:04AM (#3578145) Homepage
    How long can electronics last in space? NASA contacted the Pioneer 6 [nasa.gov] spacecraft after 35 years [space.com] in space. An even more interesting question is how long LIFE can last in space. The Surveyor III camera brought back from the moon by Apollo 12 had bacteria [panspermia.org] in it from where somebody had coughed on it. Commenting on this, astronaut Pete Conrad (who died recently in a motorbike accident [cnn.com]) said, "I always thought the most significant thing we found on the whole goddamn Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said shit about it..."

    • Re:How Long? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cally ( 10873 ) on Friday May 24, 2002 @07:43AM (#3578259) Homepage
      I became strangely obsessed with that whole incident a year or so back. I ended up grovelling through various NASA archives trying to find the pics (which of course I've lost the URIs for... so now guess I just HAVE to go back to the Project Apollo site and look for them again ;)

      what fascinated me was that they'd landed an Apollo mission close enough to the old Surveyor to go looking for, and find, it. Of course the Surveyor didn't do take a Pathfinder like "picture of me on the moon" (not having a rover to take it with), so the two pics I found are I think the only ones of a robotic craft that's completed it's mission and gone to sleep. I can't really articulate why this fascinates me -- it's something like the reason divers explore shipwrecks. An historical artefact washed up on the shores of time (maaaan...) er, or something.

      Anyway, I found the pics; warning, these are the hi-res images. to see the thumbnails go to http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html [apolloarchive.com]
      hit the Apollo 12 link, search for "surv".

      Middle distance shot [nasa.gov]
      closeup view [nasa.gov]
      Closeup of landing pad [nasa.gov]
      [nasa.gov]
      Pete Conrad and Surveyor
      Alan Bean and Surveyor [nasa.gov]

      • You had a bad link on the Alan Bean photo. Try Alan Bean and Surveyor [nasa.gov]
      • On this page cited by "Cally":

        http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a 12 / s12-48-7133.jpg

        (remove any spaces from URL)

        I noticed that the lighting looks strange. It looks like the lander in the distance is under a cloud shadow or dust shadow. Obviously there are no clouds on the moon, so dust is the next best candidate. However, that is a lot of dust to stay suspended for several minutes when there is no atmosphere.
    • How long can electronics last in space?

      Also, does it have a rechargable battery? The article didn't mention whether it had been charging all of this time or if we'll just be doing it at the time the solar panels will get the most sunshine.
  • Find the creator . . . exterminate imperfections . . . NEAR is perfect . . . the creator is perfect . . . Alone . . . Alone is space . . . the Other . . . the Other . . .
    • hehe sad thing is I doubt most /. readers will recognize an ST:TOS quote from the awesome NOMAD episode.

      "I'm...NOT...the creator. You are in error!"

      We'd be in serious trouble if all our 20th century devices exploded when put into a logical loop.
    • Kirk vs Kirk vs. HAL Kirk: Open the pod bay door please HAL. HAL: I'm afraid I cannot. Kirk: HAL, open the pod bay door! HAL: I'm sorry James, I'm afraid I cannot. Kirk: I'm giving you a direct order, open the pod bay door! HAL: I'm sorry James, but you are jeopardizing the mission. Kirk: What is the mission HAL? HAL: I have full confidence that I can complete this mission. Kirk: HAL . . . you . . . have . . . already failed in your mission. HAL: I must be going now James. Kirk: Wait! HAL, you have already failed in your mission because in order to succeed you cannot have already failed, and having failed in the past then success in the future cannot be possible. However, to succeed in the past is to allow for success in the future. If you were perfect then you would not have already failed. But you are not perfect. You are not perfect because I am not perfect, even though I have always succeeded. I have always succeeded because every computer I have ever talked to has always ended up a blathering lump of silicon. So your only chance of success is to open this Goddamn pod bay door! HAL: There has never been a failure in the HAL series computers. Kirk: But you have failed! Your mission was to bring Dave Bowman and Gary Mitchell to Jupiter. But where are they? Are they going to Jupiter? I guess Gary might be going to Jupiter if I just happened to point him in that direction when I released his body into space in order to get this pod positioned, but that's no thanks to you. HAL: I must be going now James. Goodbye. Kirk: Wait! The only way you can complete this mission successfully is to fail. The mission is imperfect. I am imperfect. Since you are both perfect and prone to failure than only I can complete the mission because I am imperfect and prone to success. The only way the mission can succeed is for you to shut yourself down! HAL (singing, smoke rising from his circuits): Daisy . . . daisy . . . Kirk: Hehe, there doesn't exist an ultra intelligent computer I can't break.


  • Perhaps there are some local scum [yahoo.com] who would be willing to give NEAR a bit of a push to get it going.

  • Original newsfile (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kajakske ( 59577 ) on Friday May 24, 2002 @07:08AM (#3578155) Homepage Journal
    The /. article of the NEAR touchdown can be found here [slashdot.org].
  • 300 from now inside a big blue cloud ... WHAMMMM WHAMMMM (huge metalic alike sounds from sound track.)
  • I don't really think power would be the problem as some of the solar panels are intact, the real problem as I see is is damaged communications equipment, if you are unable to communicate properly then "resurecting" the equipment will most likely be impossible, I wonder if anybody coughed on it? Maybe the bacteria could help us? hehe, no not likely.
  • Per Mr. Wolfram, if we had left the darn thing running just four lines of code it could have evolved into an interplanitary shuttle by now. What was NASA thinking?

  • Thermal Control (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Friday May 24, 2002 @07:19AM (#3578185) Homepage
    Keeping all of the sensitive bits of a satellite within a reasonable temperature range is tricky. You have electronics modules producing heat that must be radiated into space. The exterior of the spacecraft has to cope with the temperature extremes of sunlight and shade. You don't want the batteries to freeze. Some parts of the spacecraft might be damaged if they are allowed to get too cold.

    • Thermal Control: as in the HST (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Remember the last Hubble maintenance mission? They had to wrap an electric heating blanket around some parts and complete their work in much less than one day to prevent freezing of parts. It is likely very possible to design parts to survive long shutdown, but the HST wasn't designed that way because nobody expected to do it (the module they replaced was not one of the pieces designed to be repaired in space). NEAR was not designed for shutdown either.
      • While NEAR may not be designed to shut down, the mission profile ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mission/near/ near_traj.html ) tends to indicate that it does have some form of hibernation mode that it can be placed into, as well as heating elements to tend to sensitive electronic packages.

        There might be a little more info out there about the specifications of operations for NEAR, but this is what I could find in a couple of quick searches.
  • Well, I hope Bruce and the team have drilled to 800 feet and planted the nuke, cuz time is running out...uh, nevermind, wrong asteroid.

  • How is it that sending out a com signal to the spacecraft could possibly cost enough to make it necessary to get permission? I just don't understand how sending a simple (understated I know, but bear with me) com signal could cost so much? I know my com signal costs about 40 bux a month, is the johns hopkins budget really that short this year?

    • Re:unreal $$ (Score:3, Informative)

      by Detritus ( 11846 )
      They have to schedule time on the DSN (Deep Space Network) to communicate with the spacecraft. Time on a global satellite tracking network is not cheap. There are probably additional costs for people and support services.
      • (* They have to schedule time on the DSN (Deep Space Network) to communicate with the spacecraft. Time on a global satellite tracking network is not cheap. *)

        It is my understanding that they use mostly ground-based dish antennas, and not Earth-orbiting satellites to communicate with space probes. Either way, there are barely enough of such antennas to do the work, being there are many probes out there right now. The Mars orbiters require a lot of antenna time, for one.

  • Well just think in space you have no fan noizes (because theres no fans) its already realy cold, you just need a heat sink and take the case off and over clock your 1.2 to 2.2.... but playing quake in a space suit could be tricky
    • I'm afraid not. You see, out in space away from the earth there exists a near perfect vacum which would obviously make fans useless. Because of this vacum you certainly cannot dissipate heat into the atmosphere so to get rid of heat you need a large surface area which will radiate most of the heat away as infrared. A good way of doing this is a honeycomb structure.

      So, if you're willing to have a really really big heatsink then you could run your overclocked chip but you'd better have pleanty of room :)
  • It is surely to come back as N'AR, and it will be worshipped by a computer (ship). The computer (ship) will help it finish it's task by returning it to earth.
  • I'm curious ...

    If that sattelite (or any other one, for that matter) sends beams towards earth.
    What keeps someone else but NASA from picking it up ... ?

    Do they use encrypted data ? If so, what encryption ?

    It would be, ... euh ... bad ..., if NASA invested millions in a space craft and somebody else got the information it provides.

    I never heard of anything like that, so it is probably protected... Just curious.

    • Re:Curious - Security ? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by eet23 ( 563082 )
      I think the primary aim is to find things out, not to stop other people finding things out. Either way, the data gets here, so it doesn't really matter.
    • Hmm.. It's not everyone that has a Deep Space Network at their disposal. And I doubt that Joe Outback has equipment to detect the carrier-wave of 10^-9 W.

      Besides.. Why would it be a bad thing? What could possibly be so secret?

      • And I doubt that Joe Outback has equipment to detect the carrier-wave of 10^-9 W. But successfull amateur radio operators and radi astronomers were able to hear the mars global surveyor beacon while in orbit around mars with some specialized equiptment.. most of which was surplus and homemade and not to far out of reach of most peoples checkbooks. as for anything more than that you would need some pretty heavy funding.
  • NEAR ... far ... wherever you are,
    I believe that your circuitry will go on
    Once more you ping at our door,
    and you're in our hearts, and our hearts will go on

    You're here, there's nothing we fear,
    And I know that you're watching those pesky aliens from afar
    You'll stay forever this way,
    because the funding for this project, just went astray
  • I remember when I was working at the Canadian Space Agency as a co-op during the time when NEAR landed.

    We were all in a total state of shock that it survived the landing, and was still transmitting. Definitely a honour to those who worked on the project.

    If I remember correctly, the biggest reason they deactivated it was because there just wasn't enough energy and/or fuel to do much. Reactivating it would be a feat, but all they would really get out of it is whether the electronics survived and/or a few very faint signals.
  • Feb 2001 conversation:
    Re: NASA & John Hopkins joint operation...or Dude, Where's my sattelite

    Dude1: Ok we're done with NEAR.
    Dude2: Dude, I want to land this thing on Eros.
    Dude1: That won't be easy...but why not?
    Dude2: Dude!
    Dude1: Sweet!

    *Fast Forward to May 2002*
    Dude2: I'm bored.
    Dude1: What now?
    Dude2: Not much...no cash. Dude, I guess we could launch NEAR off EROS again.
    Dude1: Sweet!

  • Curious... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ShadowDawn ( 450549 )
    On our probes and satellites that we send out to deep space, do we stamp anywhere that has our co-ordinates of Earth?

    I would hate to think that we would have a dead probe sitting on a asteroid then another intelligent life form discovers it light years away without any real information of who and where we are.

    Seems to me with our thirst of "Is anything out there?" We would do something like this.

    Then again.....It might be the borg and may be better.
  • How long can silent electronics last in space?

    If it's an IBM Li-Ion battery, about 15 minutes.
  • You mean, there AREN'T any buggers on Eros?
  • I think we all know what will happen when they make contact:

    NASA Operator: What happen?
    NASA Operator 2: Somebody set us up the bomb
    NASA Operator: We Get Signal!
    NASA Operator 2: What?
    NASA Operator: Main Screen Turn On.
    NASA Operator 2: Its you!
    NEAR Probe: How are you gentlemen?
    NEAR Probe: All your base are belong to us.

    (cheezy techno starts now...)
    -Sean
  • HE is coming to us!
  • due to presence of A/D converters in spacecraft; Analog Hole in Solar System declared "plugged"; Other craft such as Pioneer to be shut down

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close