Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Technology

Interstellar Pioneers Facing Termination 581

marcel-jan.nl writes "There are plans to terminate the interstellar missions Voyager 1 and 2 and the solar mission Ulysses in October to save money. The Voyagers alone need $4.2 million a year for daily operation and data analysis. Scientist say this cut is "an extremely foolish thing to do": the Voyagers are approaching the edge of the Solar System and Ulysses is observing the Sun coming to the end of a 22-year magnetic cycle."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interstellar Pioneers Facing Termination

Comments Filter:
  • *sigh* Figures. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaiBLUEl.com minus berry> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:21AM (#11899190) Homepage Journal
    I think there are very few intelligent people who would argue with collecting data from Voyager 1 and 2 as long as they are still in operation. After all, these craft have (boldly?) gone where no manmade object has ever gone before. Out into deep space. Considering that it took 30 years for the darn things to get out there, do we really want to blow this opportunity over a mesely few million bucks? I mean, 30 years is some people's entire professional career!

    That being said, I think this is an area where scientists tend to underestimate the value of manned space travel. You'll notice that as long as manned space travel exists, it generates excitement in the general population. And as it advances, young people dream of one day visiting the stars themselves. Remove manned space travel, and the funding to ALL space ventures will be cut. Joe Smith really has no idea of the significance of the Voyager program. To him it's just a piece of junk that the Klingons will blast out of space in a few centuries. But give him dreams of visiting the moon, Mars, or other interesting places, and he'll happily support funding for all forms of space travel.
    • by mntgomery ( 620581 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:34AM (#11899341)
      the significance of the Voyager program

      The Voyager program is the one that rebuilds itself as a giant starship, renames itself V-ger and blazes a path of destruction on its way to destroy Earth, right?
      • by Anonymous Coward
        That was Voyager 6. Since Voyager 6 never launched, then we know we're in a divergent (but parallel) universe where the probe will never come back to threaten Earth. No idea on the Whale probe, though.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:43AM (#11899449)
        Gee, we would have missed out on Anomalous acceleration [torun.pl] if we had pulled the plug the first time they wanted to. (Have they adequately explained that yet?)
        • by capologist ( 310783 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @12:41PM (#11900958)
          Gee, we would have missed out on Anomalous acceleration if we had pulled the plug the first time they wanted to. (Have they adequately explained that yet?)

          One proposed explanation is here [newtonphysics.on.ca]. I have no idea what the consensus opinion is.

          BTW, it was Pioneer, not Voyager, that revealed the phenomenon.
      • V'ger never destroyed anything, IIRC. It absorbed them into its knowledge bank. It was returning to Earth to deliver the data it had collected over the centuries.
      • blazes a path of destruction on its way to destroy Earth, right?

        You might be confusing it with a Vorgon constructor ship... It is yellow in color and kind of hard to miss and confuse with anything else... :)
    • The Klingons blast Pioneer 10 (which, incidentally, is farther out than the Voyagers are). Perhaps this funding cut is why Voyager comes back to kill us in a few centuries ...
    • Why go so faaaaaaar away?

      70% of the earth' surface are oceans.
      It's easier to send men to the moon and back, and have them do some space walk than to dive 4000m deep and do the same.

      Sub surface research is not "sexy" enough and you don't have this cool simulation videos what 42 million dollars spent might look like if nobody get confused by inches and centimeters...
    • Re:*sigh* Figures. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But no manned vehicle will ever get out to where the Voyagers and Pioneers are, so you're comparing apples and hand grenades. How does excitement about manned space travel translate into continued funding for the Voyagers?

      Guess what? The Voyagers (and SIM, and TPF, and LISA, and Con-X, and JIMO, and Hubble) are all taking budget cuts even as I type this in order to pay for your manned space travel to the moon and Mars.

      Congress allocates $16B to NASA and Bush says "Go to the Moon and Mars and pay for the
    • by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday March 10, 2005 @11:14AM (#11899834) Homepage Journal
      Even if the program is cancelled there may still be some data observerd. These guys [bbc.co.uk] still get occasional data from the Pioneer craft even though the missions ended in '96.
  • DANGER (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:22AM (#11899201) Homepage Journal
    Do not look into the sun with your remaining $4.2 million.
  • Poor management. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kngthdn ( 820601 ) * on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:23AM (#11899210)
    Okay, so NASA spends $15 billion of our money each year, and the Pentagon spends another $20 billion on satellites and rockets. It costs a billion to launch a shuttle, and there used to be four launches a year, before they started losing things so often. They even canceled development of the X-33 [nasa.gov], and sold it for scrap metal, after spending 912 million dollars on it.

    But we can't afford to spend a measly $4 million to maintain three projects that are still returning useful, interesting data, and haven't disappeared behind Mars or killed anyone?

    I guess they have PHBs at NASA too! Maybe it's just about PR...making things look good to the average guy on the street, who thinks going to Mars is way cooler.

    (I have to admit, the headline "Interstellar Pioneers Facing Termination" made me wonder the Aliens had finally taked over ISS...)
    • by sgant ( 178166 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:35AM (#11899353) Homepage Journal
      Maybe it's just about PR...making things look good to the average guy on the street, who thinks going to Mars is way cooler.

      No, Joe Average...at least the Joe Averages we have here in Michigan...think "gee, we spend billions on NASA, can't I just pay less taxes then see it go to some stupid robot on Mars?" (Just repeating what I hear around here, I do NOT agree with it, so don't yell at me).

      The Joe Averages vision is very narrow, they only see the factory/office/dungeon they work at everyday, and the bar where they get together with their buddies to complain about government waste and they see the space program as a huge waste.

      This is why we see great projects like Hubble getting scraped because of a pencil pusher being pushed by an administrator who's being pushed by a Senator who's being pushed by a few Joe Averages that may or may not vote for him next term.

      Nevermind the great advancements in science due to all these programs.
      • "[G]ee, we spend billions on NASA, can't I just pay less taxes then see it go to some stupid robot on Mars?"

        "Sheeyit yeah! It's not like I'm made of money, for God's sake! I really need that extra cash to pay for the important things. Like my credit card bills for my Hummer's gas, my 72" plasma screen TV with 700 channel cable TV plus 350 satellite dish subscriptions, my titanium alloy kitchen appliances (32 cubic foot refrigerator, dual dishwashers, counter-based ice maker, iced frappaccino maker, pa

      • There's a not-so-implicit elitism in your post that says "I know how to spend his money better than he does." But once you legitimize that principle (and unfortunately, we have), it will be turned around to bite you.

        This is especially true in a democracy, where special interests wield huge clout. Each of those special interests knows how to spend *your* money better than you do, in ways that benefit them.

        I'm as big a fan of space exploration as anyone, but I'm not willing to fund it by threatening peopl
  • *sigh* (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:23AM (#11899211)
    Once the probes are built and launched, and the bulk of the diagnosis and repair of early malfunctions is taken care of, the rest of the probe is cheap to operate by comparison. By contrast, how much does the U.S. spend on gasoline or diesel for military vehicles within the borders of the U.S.? How much does the U.S. spend to allow congressmen to use government-paid-for television studios to film whatever they decide?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:24AM (#11899220)
    Doesn't our government spend that much money like, every tenth of a second? Geeze, Congress should be able to find that much money in the seat cushions of their couch.
  • Can't Stop (Score:5, Funny)

    by sbowles ( 602816 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:24AM (#11899230)
    We must continue to monitor V_y_ger's progress so that we aren't taken by suprise when he returns.
  • Question... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:25AM (#11899231)
    Will the money saved enable NASA to save the Hubble Space Telescope?

    If not, then what is NASA planning to study after everything shuts down? I mean the shuttles arent flying, Hubble's about to be scrapped...

    Hey here's an idea, let's fake another landing on another solar system body!
  • Big Money Savings! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Evil W1zard ( 832703 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:25AM (#11899235) Journal
    We could use the money we save on scrapping these to help develop Iraq's space program! But seriously there are tons of other programs that the government should cut that are pretty absurd before they even think of scrapping a space program that is truly beneficial?
  • by datastalker ( 775227 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:25AM (#11899247) Homepage
    While I'm not railing against the war, and I believe we should be spending whatever money is necessary to protect the troops, I find it interesting that it's science that gets shoved aside...

    • by bman08 ( 239376 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:34AM (#11899334)
      That money's needed for faith based initiatives, abstinence-only education and 'my-granpappy-ain't-no-monkey' stickers for textbooks. Question; can they save money by shutting down the analysis portion and just collecting raw data until more generous hands are on the budgetary purse strings?
      • by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Thursday March 10, 2005 @11:18AM (#11899900)
        That money's needed for faith based initiatives, abstinence-only education and 'my-granpappy-ain't-no-monkey' stickers for textbooks. Question; can they save money by shutting down the analysis portion and just collecting raw data until more generous hands are on the budgetary purse strings?

        Half of our budget goes to Medicare and Social Security. How much of that money do you think is wasted due to government bureacracy?

        Now, how much of the budget goes to the (albeit stupid) programs you mentioned?

        Yet no spending cuts* can make it through Congress, because both sides are weighed down by lobbyists who will paint any cuts* in the most drastic light possible to sway public opinion. Everyone wants to cut spending, but not on THEIR projects, which means nothing gets cut.

        * Note: 'cuts' are a misnomer. No spending is ever actually cut by Congress. When they use this word, what they really mean is they are just SLOWING the GROWTH in spending on a particular program. Most programs have built in "raises" each year in spending. That way, Congress can say, "Instead of giving your program 2% more money this year, we're only giving it 1% more -- we're cutting spending!"
        • by Mr.Sharpy ( 472377 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @11:45AM (#11900165)
          Now, how much of the budget goes to the (albeit stupid) programs you mentioned?
          (speaking of faith based initiatives, abstinence only education, and "my granpappy-ain't-no-monkey" stickers for textbooks from the grand parent post)

          Bush has said that last year the government distributed$2 billion in grants to faith based organizations [yahoo.com] for social welfare purposes. His budget for the upcoming year includes $206 million for abstinence education [forbes.com], an increase of $39 million over last year! And the monkey stickers, that's a state issue; but you can be sure that some states have spent quite a lot of money on stickers that suggest creationism and evolution stand on the same level of scientific footing.

          The point is that while its true that the government spends most of its money on Medicare and Social Security, Bush is also blowing ALOT of money on socially conservative programs. The $39 million increase in abstinence education this year would have been more than enough to keep these clearly worthwhile science programs going at NASA had it received those dollars instead. But no, we're going to spend it on programs that have a clear history of producing and disseminating false, misleading, and distorted information about reproductive health. There's your Bush science right there, people.
    • by ntsucks ( 22132 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:39AM (#11899407)
      By my calculations at $166 million a day to be in Iraq, the US government could save the Voyager's first year's $4.5 million by leaving Iraq 39 minutes early. That seems reasonable.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:25AM (#11899248)
    The money needed to pay for that additional season of enterprise would pay to keep these running for quite a while.
  • V'Ger (Score:5, Funny)

    by StarWreck ( 695075 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:26AM (#11899251) Homepage Journal
    So... THIS is how one of the Voyager spacecraft becomes a super-powerful entity and we have no clue whats going on when it comes back to kill us all.

    If only we had kept monitoring the transmissions from the Voyager spacecraft, we'd be able to tell when it starts its homicidal rampage.
  • Oort cloud (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Phoenix666 ( 184391 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:26AM (#11899252)
    Forgive my ignorance here, but I thought I remembered reading a few years' back that everyone was looking forward to Voyager getting way out beyond the solar system because we might learn something more about the Oort cloud, source of all those nifty global killer meteors people got so worked up about after "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact."

    Or is the instrumentation on Voyager just inadequate for finding that little matter in that much volume?
    • Re:Oort cloud (Score:3, Informative)

      by ivano ( 584883 )
      the Oort cloud is way, way further out than (it's roughly 0.5-2 light years out) where Voyager is. And it's very, very sparse - whatever that is out there. No Voyager is just in the cold vacuum of space, trickling a bit of data back since it's power source is barely keeping some of the instruments warm.

      What everyone is hoping is that it will try and find some of the boundaries between our solar system (well our sun really) and the rest of this galaxy.

      Ciao

  • by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:26AM (#11899257)
    We apparently can't afford $4.2 million per year for discovering the origins of universe and having a presence beyond our solar system, but $1 million per year for studying wild shrimp [tucsonweekly.com] is apparently a needed project.

    I know that pointing out frivolous spending is the easy way to attack spending cuts for what one considers important, but this is just goofy.
  • How come (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:27AM (#11899264) Homepage Journal
    .. it's so expensive?

    $4.2 million dollars to analyse incoming data? You could employ 80 PhD astrophysicists for a year for that much. Surely there's not so much information coming back as to require that much computer time?

    I'm not trolling, I'd just love to know.
    • Re:How come (Score:5, Funny)

      by justins ( 80659 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:33AM (#11899329) Homepage Journal
      $4.2 million dollars to analyse incoming data? You could employ 80 PhD astrophysicists for a year for that much.

      If they were working in tents and using abacuses.
    • Re:How come (Score:4, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaiBLUEl.com minus berry> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:38AM (#11899384) Homepage Journal
      I don't know for certain, but I'm guessing that a large portion of the costs may involve the maintenance and renting of the necessary transciever equipment. There may even be costs associated with renting the Deep Space Network for relaying Voyager transmissions when the Earth is on the far side of the Sun.
    • Re:How come (Score:5, Informative)

      by krlynch ( 158571 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:46AM (#11899487) Homepage
      It's not $4.2million to analyze data ... it's that much to run "the mission". The mission includes the cost of salaries/benefits/overhead for secretaries, support staff, technicians, and scientists, graduate students, costs for hardware, maintainance contracts, portions of other programs of which the mission is a "client" (like the Deep Space Radio network telescopes, for instance, or computing services). And there's a ton of other costs that will nickle and dime you to death. The actual data analysis is probably done by a graduate student who's getting paid next to nothing :-)

      And you couldn't possibly support 80 PhD astrophysicists on that amount of money. You could support MAYBE 40 postdocs, early in their caeers. And no, they don't take home $100k per year ... closer to $50k. Then, you figure 2 to 3 times take home for benefits and overhead, and you get 30-40 per year, if you're lucky
    • Re:How come (Score:5, Informative)

      by jnik ( 1733 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:47AM (#11899500)
      I don't know the details of Voyager itself, but just keeping a program running does have some significant costs. Deep Space Network time isn't cheap; you have pure operating costs for that, paying engineers to run it (and the operations people are really *wonderful* on the whole, they do a lot of work, solve a lot of problems, and with very little fanfare), an appropriate fraction of upkeep/maintenance for it, etc. Then there's the grants for data analysis, keeping a few grad students fed while they work plus covering appropriate travel expenses, equipment, etc. And then all this is happening in a bureaucracy--add overhead. It adds up.

      Folks, I need to make this very, very clear: Research science is no longer a priority at NASA. It's all going to the manned program. We're trying to refocus where we can, support the effort with good science, but the only way we're going to continue to expand our understanding of the space environment as a whole is if you--all of you--get on the phone and convince your congressfolk that pure research is worth funding through NASA. Otherwise things are going to come to a pretty serious halt and space scientists are going to start leaving the US.
    • Re:How come (Score:3, Informative)

      $4.2 million dollars to analyse incoming data? You could employ 80 PhD astrophysicists for a year for that much.

      When I saw the figure I thought 4.2 million is quite cheap.

      You are assuming 80 astrophysicists would make $52k annually. This is a very naive assumption because it entirely ignores administrative overhead that must always be included with salaries.

      A rough rule of thumb is that a person costs about 2x their salary, to pay for utilities, housekeeping, human resources, etc. So a $50k salarie

  • by nels_tomlinson ( 106413 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:27AM (#11899265) Homepage
    There's no one as short sighted as a bureaucrat. I should know: I am one, and I work with them every day. We regularly do foolish things, to achieve short term, counter-productive goals.
  • by spookymonster ( 238226 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:28AM (#11899272)
    I mean, the V'grs havae a 28 year headstart. building a Human Resources probe fast enough to catch up with them may be cost-prohibitive. It might be cheaper just to keep 'em both on the books and write them off at tax time.
  • by stinkydog ( 191778 ) <sd@@@strangedog...net> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:28AM (#11899278) Homepage
    Spend a few dollars now to take care of our electronic children [imdb.com] as they race off into space and maybe they'll be a little less pissed off when they return [imdb.com].

    SD
  • by yndrd ( 529288 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:28AM (#11899283) Homepage
    I'd suspect funding the Voyager probes would be a better (and maybe more ironic, given ST:TMP) use of their money than more episodes of that television show.

    Imagine that: buying science instead of fiction.
  • This is horrible... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Peaked ( 856340 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:28AM (#11899284)
    This is insane. Sure some money will be saved, but nearly 30 years of funds will have been wasted. Do the math.
  • priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Robocrap ( 652257 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:29AM (#11899293) Homepage
    I think it's sort of indicative of our priorities that we spend $160 billion+ on a fanastic romp in the middle east and barely feel the need to justify the expense and yet we have trouble coughing up $4 mill a year when it comes to funding a scientific expedition which has the potential for giving us greater insight into our place in the universe. its times like these that i wish i had the option of controlling what my taxes funded.
    • Re:priorities (Score:4, Insightful)

      by murderlegendre ( 776042 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @11:15AM (#11899849)

      we have trouble coughing up $4 mill a year when it comes to funding a scientific expedition which has the potential for giving us greater insight into our place in the universe

      That's only par for the course, when the top officials in the US Government live in a "universe" that was made 6000 years ago, fossils and all, by an invisible superhero in outer space. They already know where we came from, and what our place is - that is, top dog - in all of creation.

      Scientific exploration is ultimately pointless, when we already have all the answers we need in our little black book. Why would we waste millions of dollars trying to answer questions that were answered in Sunday School?

  • Heliopause (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpille ( 547949 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:32AM (#11899315)
    I can't imagine a worse idea in the space program than terminating these missions to save a half-drop in the bucket of the overall budget.

    I've read a fair amount of discussion of how they're approaching the heliopause (the point at which the solar winds begin to be overpowered by interstellar winds) and, as JPL will say, "The thickness of the heliosheath is uncertain and could be tens of AU thick taking several years to traverse."

    Considering it'd take billions more dollars and waiting decades to get that piece of data from somewhere else, I'd call it a bargain. I'm sure I don't know the impact of that information, but if something as fundamental as how far our sun's influence really extends is unknown, it seems like it'd be at least somewhat important.
  • by selectspec ( 74651 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:33AM (#11899328)
    I'm surprised North Korea hasn't just hacked the Voyager crafts yet. It wouldn't take much programming skills (just a seriously powerful transmitter/receiver) to upload your own firmware into those suckers that locked out anyone else's signal.

    Maybe they should just open source the sucker. Let the open source community run the science. Put the sucker on sourceforge and give us access to the transmitters everyone once in a while.
  • by Aim Here ( 765712 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:37AM (#11899376)
    If a spacecraft is about to leave the solar system, then surely we should at least leave it running for a couple of years in order to get some more data on the Pioneer anomaly [wikipedia.org] - it would be a shame to pass up on the chance to study one of the few unexplained anomalies in elementary physics...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:52AM (#11899578)
    I am Jonathan Vos Post, formerly Mission Planning Engineer on Voyager 2, for the the part of the mission called "VUIM": Voyager Uranus Interstellar Mission.

    I worked for Charlie Kolhaase, Mission Planning Director, and Ed Stone, Chief Scientist.

    So far as I'm concerned, NASA is telling me that I wasted my time (except for those nice screensavers of Miranda, which was a part of mission under my responsibility). Now they want to kill me, bury me, and desecrate my grave.

    That's what this feels like, anyhow.

    The interstellar part of the mision is extremely serious science, as others have said. We only have 4 interstellar probes right now, two Voyagers and two Pioneers.

    Kill the still-working half of the fleet, and we're back to square one.

    Who cares how the sun interacts with interstellar medium? Who cares if anomalous acceleration of the Voyagers tells us something about Dark Energy?

    Let's go invade Iran, or shoot another Italian journalist, or detain a few hundred more people at Gitmo. Yeah, that's what our wonderful government wants to do with the money saved.

    The gentleman from the Voyager Navigation team with whom I worked most closely still at JPL (promoted to management) -- I won't mention his name to spare him retribution from above -- correctly described himself as "The other interstellar navigator, besides Sulu."

    My credentials on the subject are at
    http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/Spa cePu blications/210Ways.html
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @12:48PM (#11901053)

      This news makes me very, very sad and I can feel your pain...

      I was not born yet when the Pioneers/Voyagers were launched, but when I started to learn more and more about the world around me as a kid.. I became fascinated with space at a very young age.

      I just cannot tell you how much both projects and their teams have inspired me throughout the years... and how much I wish I had been born earlier and been part of the whole those mission teams!

      Those probes are IMHO still on the frontier of our knowledge and technological capabilities as humans.

      Even though they're 'just' made with technologies from the 1960's and 1970's... I have an enormous amount of respect for the way those probes have been built, their ability and stability.. and their precision!.

      IMHO, these missions are one of the 'wonders of the (tech.) world' and a beacon for what we should be doing as a race: explore the Universe!
      (indeed, instead of all those pathetic wars on this planet)

      Thank you and your collegues for everything!!

  • The bulk of the funding is needed to provide DSN coverage to the Voyage Interstellar Mission. The rest is for support costs. Each Voyager spacecraft requires 50-70 hours of DSN coverage per cycle (based on the reading of the mission status reports on the VIM mission website).

    If they terminate funding and someone doesn't find a way to sneak commands to the spacecraft on the sly, contact will be lost, the Voyagers will go into their command reset "safe modes" and we may never regain contact with them.

    This is shameful. They don't cost much to run but they give us valuable data on the Sun's influence and how it influences the interstellar medium. The data helps refine models on solar wind dynamics, wind influence and strength over distance, particle interactions with the interstellar medium and ultimate tell us where our neighborhood ends and interstellar space begins.

    To the layman, yes, go for it. But these spacecraft are the only two vehicles this far out. It would take a decade or more to get a new spacecraft out there and if they cut funding to these, what makes you think they'll spend the billions of dollars and time needed to design a new spacecraft to explore the same region. Probably not in my lifetime.

    I'm a big fan of the VIM. I stand in awe of the foresight and talent of the engineers who built the spacecraft and the fact they remain operational after decades in space. The communications needs aren't that much and it is incredible that these faint whispers can be heard from so far away.

    Someone can't just pick up this mission from NASA. They would need a network similar to the DSN to communicate with the spacecraft and the technology is so old that it is improbable that someone else could learn how to communicate and interact with the spacecraft in time. Likely the only hardware and software on earth that can understand the Voyagers exists at NASA and if shutdown or disposed of, this knowledge would be lost forever.

    If someone were to pay my living expenses, I would happily work to help keep the VIM running. There is grandeur in hearing the whispers of ourselves from so far away and we should listen until they can't talk to us anymore.

    Cut some other program to help fund it. I can think of several.

  • by veddermatic ( 143964 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @11:36AM (#11900080) Homepage
    Bush will just look up what they were going to teach us in the Bible....
  • by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @11:50AM (#11900232)
    How about we do this the old fashioned way and just ask people directly for money. If someone can raise 3 million in private funds to save a tv show about exploring space, Enterprise, then somebody could certainly come up with the same amount to keep someone receiving and recording signals from voyager. NASA should turn over the keys to whomever raises the cash to keep running the program.

  • by Murphy(c) ( 41125 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @12:02PM (#11900388)
    Let me point out to Bob Park's point of view [aps.org] on the way science is viewed by the current administration.

    For those of you who don't know who Park is or have not read the excellent Voodoo Science [amazon.com], he is the president of the American Physical Society.

    Murphy(c)
  • Hardly surprising (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Maury Markowitz ( 452832 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @12:06PM (#11900431) Homepage
    Once again we have another example of real science being killed off so NASA can continue it's slavish and visionless mission from before we even landed on the Moon.

    So we watch while they desperately try to scape up every amount, no matter how tiny, from worthy missions such as this in order to feed the Space Station and Shuttle programs.

    When the post-Apollo era was first being studied NASA came back with a 1-2-3 punch, a space station to study deep-space and long-duration missions, a space shuttle to support cheap, timely and safe crew exchange, both in order to get ready for a mission to Mars. Nixon balked (rightfully) and told them to pick one. They picked the Shuttle, justifying it by saying the cheap access to space would let them go back to the station in the late-70s/early-80s. That turned out well.

    What's sad about all of this is that the missions only support each other, neither, on it's own, would have ever made it to bent metal. They built the shuttle to make the station cheap, but when the shuttle turned out to be the most expensive launch system in history, they STILL kept to the original plan -- and now we have the most expensive launch system supplying the most expensive space station. And since the budgets go down (inflation adjusted) every year, NASA has to turn off every other project and feed every dollar into these useless projects.

    Someone needs to stop the madness. No one will. What's the sound of freedom? "Oink!"
  • by windowpain ( 211052 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @12:22PM (#11900638) Journal
    I can't believe NASA has been pissing away our tax dollars on some unmanned satellites out in the boondocks of the soloar system. By killing the support for this program we will save enough money to launch one more shuttle flight (where the REAL science is done) in just 302 YEARS!

    ($4.2 million / 1.3 billion average shuttle flight cost.)

    As I mentioned in a post yesterday, I love Microsoft because they "...will make the decision based on what is best for customers."

    Let me add that I love NASA because they always base their budget priorities on how to get the most scientific knowledge for every dollar spent.

    Oh, and they're immune to politics and mere PR crap.
  • by Winterblink ( 575267 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @12:25PM (#11900683) Homepage
    If they can scrounge up millions to try to keep Enterprise on the air, I'm sure funding ACTUAL REAL SCIENCE should be a more worthwhile cause.
  • $4.2 million? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Thursday March 10, 2005 @12:36PM (#11900891) Journal
    That's nothing. Divide it by the US population.

    Just my two cents. (literally)
  • by atcurtis ( 191512 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @12:50PM (#11901072) Homepage Journal

    If they are really short of the $4m per year to fund this project, put the mission up for tender...

    I am sure that there are other countries whose governments would love to have a deep-space mission ... as long as their own scientists get first dibs on the data.

    And for $4m per year, it's a bargain!

  • by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @01:39PM (#11901888) Journal
    Geeze, I can't believe I just read through this entire thread and haven't seen a single mention of what people (at least those who are US citizens) can actually do about this. Go here:

    http://www.congress.org/ [congress.org]

    Type in your zip code. Look at the list of your elected officials. Call them or send them a paper letter (even better if you include a donation in it). I did it, and you can too. Believe it or not, congresspeople actually listen to their constituents.

    That said, I hope in the future more and more science-related projects get handled by private groups, like the Planetary Society's Cosmos 1 [planetary.org] launch of the first solar sail spacecraft next month. That way, instead of whining to congresscritters about using other people's money for projects we care about, we can just give the money ourselves. I'm sure the actual Voyager space program would be able to raise at least as much money as the Enterprise television show.
  • by jurt1235 ( 834677 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @02:10PM (#11902335) Homepage
    Is that not a solution: There are lots of amateurs who love to analyze this data.
  • 4.2million ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mosb1000 ( 710161 ) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @03:03PM (#11903039)
    Let me get this right, it costs NASA $4.2 million a year to receive and analyze a few kilobytes of data from these probes a day? It sounds like they have a team of engineers working on this project for god's sake. Maybe they could, you know, just scale back their mission and put the engineers somewhere else? I mean, do they even really need one engineer devoted to this full time? It's no wonder NASA has budget problems.
  • by shanen ( 462549 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @03:40PM (#11903523) Homepage Journal
    Basically I just want to chime in here.

    When you look at the relative costs of BushCo's other priorities, the amount of money involved here is incredibly trivial. I admit that the RoI from this specific kind research is unknown, but it's exactly the kind of research that can only be funded by a government--someone has to have a long-term perspective. There might be an enormous breakthrough here, but no private organization could speculate on that and spend even a few million dollars per year. However, if you take a really long term perspective--the way government is supposed to--then whatever you learn, even if it is small, will eventually accumulate to a large value.

    Religious fanatics aren't interested, of course. They already know *EVERYTHING*. Meanwhile, BushCo is glad to exploit their deliberate and intentional ignorance for political advantage and personal profit. Sad.

    Note: Insightful has to start from the truth. I don't care how nicely you write and how well you package your lies. They is no such thing as an "insightful falsehood".

  • by cmholm ( 69081 ) <cmholm&mauiholm,org> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @03:53PM (#11903695) Homepage Journal
    While I'm horrified at the thought of shutting down the Voyager missions, the threat of termination doesn't surprise me. Come the begining of each local, state, or Federal budget cycle, especially when there's guns and tax cuts sucking at every dollar in sight, administrators become extremely "practical".

    With the exception of a few sacred cows, every office and program becomes expendable. If there aren't enough of the right people bitching and moaning to defend program X, then it's not important enough to fund. Sure, it's a pain in the ass to have to rejustify one's work each year or so, but it's not an unreasonable way to allocate resources within a huge organization such as the US Federal Government.

    Unfortunately, humans don't organize well beyond a certain size, hence the collapse of the Soviet state, and NASA considering wiping a program when it's just about to start paying off in valuable science again.

  • by FlexAgain ( 26958 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @04:32PM (#11904125)

    There are plans to terminate the interstellar missions Voyager 1 and 2 and the solar mission Ulysses in October to save money.

    A minor point, by Ulysses isn't actually a NASA mission, it's operated jointly by ESA and NASA, and ESA actually built the spacecraft. I'm not sure the USA actually has any right to terminate it, although it almost certainly does rely on the DSN for some, if not all, communications, so this could be seriously curtailed.

    At a minimum this would piss off ESA big times, and historically NASA/USA behaviour in regards to this mission hasn't exactly been brilliant. There were meant to be two spacecraft in the original mission, one built by ESA, the other by NASA, but the US one got scrapped and ESA got left with only half the mission.

    NASA has remained involved, since it was launched with the Shuttle, and they provided the RTG, and the DSN, but sometimes it really seems like they are taking the mick. :(

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...