Engineers Solve Data Glitch On NASA's Voyager 1 (nasa.gov) 60
A critical system aboard the probe was sending garbled data about its status. Engineers have fixed the issue but are still seeking the root cause. NASA reports: Engineers have repaired an issue affecting data from NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft. Earlier this year, the probe's attitude articulation and control system (AACS), which keeps Voyager 1's antenna pointed at Earth, began sending garbled information about its health and activities to mission controllers, despite operating normally. The rest of the probe also appeared healthy as it continued to gather and return science data. The team has since located the source of the garbled information: The AACS had started sending the telemetry data through an onboard computer known to have stopped working years ago, and the computer corrupted the information.
Suzanne Dodd, Voyager's project manager, said that when they suspected this was the issue, they opted to try a low-risk solution: commanding the AACS to resume sending the data to the right computer. Engineers don't yet know why the AACS started routing telemetry data to the incorrect computer, but it likely received a faulty command generated by another onboard computer. If that's the case, it would indicate there is an issue somewhere else on the spacecraft. The team will continue to search for that underlying issue, but they don't think it is a threat to the long-term health of Voyager 1.
Suzanne Dodd, Voyager's project manager, said that when they suspected this was the issue, they opted to try a low-risk solution: commanding the AACS to resume sending the data to the right computer. Engineers don't yet know why the AACS started routing telemetry data to the incorrect computer, but it likely received a faulty command generated by another onboard computer. If that's the case, it would indicate there is an issue somewhere else on the spacecraft. The team will continue to search for that underlying issue, but they don't think it is a threat to the long-term health of Voyager 1.
Testament to human ingenity and endeavour (Score:4, Insightful)
Voyager 1 will fly across the Milkyway as a tombstone to humanity long after life on earth has been extinguished either by accident or foolishness.
Re: (Score:3)
Or on a slightly more upbeat note, we evolve into something else. Evolution hasn't finished with us yet over megayear timescales.
Re:Testament to human ingenity and endeavour (Score:4, Funny)
Or on a slightly more upbeat note, we evolve into something else.
I have it on good authority that in three million years we'll evolve into ship's cats.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no significant stressors for Homo S to evolve physiologically. It's more of a degeneration if anything as we keep working around selection process for humanitarian reasons. We do seem to modify our collective behaviour historically but if for better it remains to be seen.
Unless by 'us' you mean the life on Earth, then yea, there is some chance something will re-evolve to admire Voyager unless we destroy the Earth beyond repair.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no significant stressors for Homo S to evolve physiologically.
I disagree. For example: ability to eat at McDonalds and not die early to diabetes would favor you in gene pool.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no significant stressors for Homo S to evolve physiologically.
I disagree. For example: ability to eat at McDonalds and not die early to diabetes would favor you in gene pool.
That is only the case if diabetes kills you before you have children, which is very unlikely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if our descendants will go out and retrieve it someday.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if our descendants will go out and retrieve it someday.
Sounds like that would be a cool Star Trek episode...oh wait!
Re: (Score:2)
I think I saw a documentary about this a long time ago.
It actually comes back looking for some guy named "Kirk", and blasts everything in its way.
It ran into telepathic dolphins or some such in deep space . . .
Re: (Score:2)
V'ger
Scotty tried to fix it but messed up (Score:3)
'If that's the case, it would indicate there is an issue somewhere else on the spacecraft.'
You can't prove otherwise...
Kudos to the original engineers (Score:5, Insightful)
That any of the onboard computers are still working after 45 years. Most consumer IT kit tends to start to fail when it hits double digit age IME.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting edge tech is never easy to make whether its a computer or a steam engine. Just because something looks simple now doesn't mean it was simple to the people who designed or built it plus materials tech wasn't as advanced either them.
Re: (Score:2)
That 45 year old computer might not seem like much now, but then, it was.
And computers then weren't expected to last this long, either.
No matter how you swing it, this is a case of fucking excellent engineering.
Re: Kudos to the original engineers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However- the traces on the computers are not what fail.
Destruction of doped semiconductor surfaces is generally what befalls ICs exposed to ionizing radiation.
There's enough doped surface in the semiconductor to survive it for some amount of time, but eventually, that semiconductor will stop... semiconducting.
Ultimately, assloads of Voyager's ICs have failed. Where the engineering played an important part was the in-baked
Re:Kudos to the original engineers (Score:4, Interesting)
Kinda.. Sorta..
They weren't really designed with longevity in mind, that's just a happy coincidence to go with the "Rugged" part.
Less moving parts means less chance of failure. But several things on board the space craft already failed, and it's pretty much surprising everyone how long it's been able to keep running.
And not minutes, milliseconds :) You're a couple of magnitudes off in the power comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Several factor.
Cost - I'm sure Voyager cost a lot more than any consumer electronic device out there. It's much easier to build "rugged" when you have basically an unlimited budget.
Number - Buil
Re: (Score:2)
Yep!
And the 3 things that most determine the longevity of almost any mission are: Fuel, Energy, Cooling/Heating. Sometimes those are the same thing, sometimes they aren't.
But if any of those runs out, you generally end up with a paperweight.
Re: (Score:2)
And today's computers use a lot more power. Which V'ger doesn't have.
Re:Kudos to the original engineers (Score:5, Informative)
That any of the onboard computers are still working after 45 years. Most consumer IT kit tends to start to fail when it hits double digit age IME.
Plenty of things have failed. There's memory locations that don't work so they have to pad code around them to make it run, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
It's worth remembering just how much gamma radiation this thing already took as it's not shielded by massive atmosphere like things on the ground are. That alone causes what is effectively random, unpredictable damage to accumulate over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially considering deep space and interstellar space are full of particles moving at high speed, including those that are, or are akin to alpha and beta radiation. A high speed electron or helium nucleus could easily know a piece of circuitry askew and cause problems. Memory or storage devices corrupted, chunks in the middle of a file wiped, an IC trace broken, whatever (in my non-EE terminology). I'm surprised it works at all, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be that the space is relatively "empty" so the chance something critical gets damaged is still very low. I think it is more of 'self-degeneration' that usually kills electronics: repeated head-cool cycles (expansion/shrinking), chemical deterioration of capacitors, depletion of semiconductors doping, electrical corrosion.
Just what do you think you're doing, Dave? (Score:3)
Rats (Score:2)
MUCH better joke than mine; thank you!
Old code (Score:2)
Imagine debugging Voyager 1 code.
They must be using some long forgotten processor.
Obviously not forgotten by NASA (Score:2)
Otherwise they wouldn't be able to keep it going. And there are multiple processors, not just one to maintain which makes things even harder though I imagine they can all be easily simulated on modern equipment.
Re: Obviously not forgotten by NASA (Score:2)
Simulating and emulating brings up an interesting question. NASA likely had to invest sizable resources for such tools. How soon did they do this though. Did someone sit down and do a calculation with Moore's law to say, "in 5 years we will spin up the emulation team and in 10 years we can down scale it based on the assumption the development matured".
I mean in some regards, being part of one of these teams sounds more fun and obviously given a certain abstract nature that the engineering is complete, no ph
Re: Obviously not forgotten by NASA (Score:2)
Why build one when two can be had. Only one left in stoarge to simulate and test with.
It allows testing of various hardware configurations.
Of course by now i bet even that hardware is running by its use by date.
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume you want a "test env" because you wouldn't want to break/brick the working model. Likewise since the model is being shelved and isn't a continuous reflection, I think this likely explains why their are still some questions about which part of the system made this error in the first place. If this other system is slightly damaged, the model is effectively inefficient at explaining the issue unless you wish to try different ways to damage the physical model to create the same kind of error.
This
Re: (Score:2)
And the reason it's not as good as that there can be things like capacitive linkage between circuits that were never designed in, but just happened because of physical layout.
Re: (Score:2)
The quote is "Why have one, when you can have two for twice the price." at least from that occasionally good movie Contact.
And I thought they always built two for this purpose, or did they start with that for the Mars rovers?
Re: (Score:2)
They probably built considerably more than two. Voyager 2 is pretty much identical to Voyager 1.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to a permanent deployment with zero chance of future hardware access, I say make as many of the damn things as you possibly can.
[We will soon have the option to harvest our farts, so we can post & comment on stats about them.]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I always ASSUMED that the sw&hw design of this (Score:1, Interesting)
beyond exceptional. Something for the history books. Of unparalleled quality... add superlatives to taste.
Now, I'm not so sure. I mean, i was assuming so by definition I was never sure, it's just that, now, this assumption of mine should perhaps be lifted (questioned? resolved?)
Is the design of the Voyager 1/2 something exceptional even with today's standards (I am not sure if this last part is sarcastic... you decide), or was it "just" some of the best that have been completed and put to use?
I've read abou
this might be interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.righto.com/2019/07... [righto.com]
Re: (Score:2)
LEM (Lunar Excursion Module)
Re: (Score:2)
I've read about the LAM (llm? lunar landing module? LAnding Module? The eagle.)
That would be the LEM - Lunar Excursion Module. I think they did change to LM - Lunar Module eventually.
Now we know (Score:4, Funny)
45 years old and still ticking (Score:5, Interesting)
Happened to see this article [nbcnews.com] yesterday talking about both probes having lasted 45 years and the expectation they will make it to their 50th anniversary. The article mentions how over the years NASA has been shutting down components one by one to conserve the dwindling energy supply, and how much longer they expect to be able to communicate with both probes.
For those who haven't kept track, it's 22 hours, one way, to get a signal from Voyager 1. Not a good way to have a conversation. And forget your ping times.
Re:45 years old and still ticking (Score:5, Funny)
For those who haven't kept track, it's 22 hours, one way, to get a signal from Voyager 1. Not a good way to have a conversation. And forget your ping times.
Pinging voyager.nasa.gov [10.97.12.121] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.97.12.121: bytes=32 time=79200028ms TTL=63
Reply from 10.97.12.121: bytes=32 time=79200019ms TTL=63
Reply from 10.97.12.121: bytes=32 time=79200037ms TTL=63
Reply from 10.97.12.121: bytes=32 time=79200004ms TTL=63
Ping statistics for 10.97.12.121:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 79200004ms, Maximum = 79200037ms, Average = 79200022ms
Re:45 years old and still ticking (Score:5, Funny)
And, of course, I fuck up the joke by calculating 22 hours instead of 44. :(
Re:45 years old and still ticking (Score:5, Insightful)
Humor not lost.
This is the only web site on the planet where you have to worry that someone might check your math. But that's why we like it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, I was just doing that (checking the math) when I saw the replies :)
Re: 45 years old and still ticking (Score:2)
Ya blew it
Re: 45 years old and still ticking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, of course, I fuck up the joke by calculating 22 hours instead of 44. :(
NP. Your PING post was still funny...probably best of the lot in this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Impressive. No packet losses.
Re: (Score:2)
the expectation they will make it to their 50th anniversary, shutting down components one by one to conserve the dwindling energy supply
If I were on the team, I'd be much more worried about the dwindling budgetary supply. Money doesn't grow on administrator's trees.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure that money would be a problem in this case. The positive publicity that NASA gets from these two probes still working more than covers what it costs to keep them running. I imagine the costs of keeping this project alive is chicken feed compared to some of their more expensive boondoggles.
No systemd running, then this can happen (Score:1)
Systemd could have prevented all this.
And bring World Peace at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm imagining an entire alien civilization based on systemd...
Re: (Score:2)
At least it would explain these movies where the aliens are hacked with a laptop
Computer stopped? (Score:5, Funny)
Just swing the JWST around and see if the indicator light is still on.