Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 318 posts

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#171

Post by II2II »

johnklos wrote: post #152

I think the Voyager probes teach us lots about what's wrong with corporate America. Imagine devices that don't have built-in obsolescence, or licensing that expires, or that isn't built by committee where they just keep shipping requirements around from one department to another. Imagine if it weren't all proprietary and if it didn't have no public or even complete documentation. Think of all the problems we have ins…

While I agree that "corporate America" is problematic, the lessons from Voyager are not really applicable. For starters, it was designed to take advantage of something that predictably happens every couple of hundred years. Very few corporations last that long. Then there is the element of predictability. The solar system pretty much works like clockwork. You can predict simple things, like the orbits of major bodies, centuries in advance with a great degree of accuracy.

Compare that to the tech industry. IBM itself can trace it's origins back to a data processing company about 140 years ago. They probably had the most natural evolution into a modern tech company because of those origins. Yet noone at the original mechanical tabulator company could have predicted what IBM would be producing 70 years later, nevermind a century later. Nintendo is roughly the same ago and is more-or-less doing the same sort of thing (gaming) but has gone from low-tech to high-tech so their path was not predictable. Yet those are abnormalities. Almost anything that old is an institution of some form (e.g. government or education). Perhaps the closest thing we had to predictable was Moore's Law, but that wasn't a pure law in the physics sense. It was reliable enough to build an industry upon for many decades, but it could have failed much earlier than it did due to hurdles in technological developments.

The other thing about Voyager is that its intrinsic value grew with time. While we could develop a mission that could go as far as it did faster, and have better instruments to conduct research, it would take decades to build the probe and get there. It also makes sense to support it to get what little data it can return to us because it would help us develop better missions when we do decide to go that route.

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#172

Post by manwe150 »

cmonreally123 wrote: post #167
NL807 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We have finite resources So design systems that does not exceed those resources.

Why? You increase cost for what? The Boeing example I believe related to this defect which occurs after 51 days of operation: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.com/AMP/2020/04... This seems sane given that the planes don't operate for 51 days constantly (I'm not in aerospace so please correct me, it seems a reboot could occur with refueling without issue)

Usually planes are turned around too fast to be waiting for them to fully reboot every time they fuel. Typically they would prefer to keep them running for weeks at a time to minimize any issues or delays with extra steps when the clock is ticking and customers are waiting to board and fly

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#173

Post by WalterBright »

mmooss wrote: post #100
WalterBright wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the probes would be identical. Building two identical probes would cost only marginally more than 1, perhaps 10% more. > but that just shift most of the cost into the payload It reduces the cost, not shift it. > And then there is no point in having such a fleet if you there isn't enough funding for scientists to process the results. Plenty of funding would become available if the funding for junk science stop…

> Most of the probes would be identical. Is there some existing plan? A paper that supports this idea? It's not clear to me that the probe we send to one place for one purpose is the same we'd send to another. > Building two identical probes would cost only marginally more than 1, perhaps 10% more. I've read from experts - somewhere here on HN - that isn't how the costs work. > Plenty of funding would become availabl…

> It's not clear to me that the probe we send to one place for one purpose is the same we'd send to another.

We've launched twins before. The two Voyagers, for example. Two Vikings, for another.

When we build different airplane models, quite a bit comes from other airplanes. Even if the parts aren't identical, they are usually just resized or tweaked or modernized. Look at all the 737 variants, and the 747 variants, for example. If every model was a ground-up redesign, nobody could afford to fly.

When the 757 and 767 were developed, there was a big push to share identical parts between them. This was a big success, and saved huge amounts of money.

> I've read from experts - somewhere here on HN - that isn't how the costs work.

I debated those experts here, and a lot of their arguments didn't hold up. For example:

1. only need to design once for N craft

2. only need to devise a test plan once

3. only need to build test equipment once

4. only need to develop the expertise once

5. only need to write the software once

and so on and so forth.

> I don't see why that brain research is junk science

What's more important? Solar system exploration or half-brain cats?

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#174

Post by cmonreally123 »

manwe150 wrote: post #172
cmonreally123 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? You increase cost for what? The Boeing example I believe related to this defect which occurs after 51 days of operation: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.com/AMP/2020/04... This seems sane given that the planes don't operate for 51 days constantly (I'm not in aerospace so please correct me, it seems a reboot could occur with refueling without issue)

Usually planes are turned around too fast to be waiting for them to fully reboot every time they fuel. Typically they would prefer to keep them running for weeks at a time to minimize any issues or delays with extra steps when the clock is ticking and customers are waiting to board and fly

TIL. I had thought a computer reboot was snappy compared to filling those fuel tanks, that's so counterintuitive to me. That does make it more of an issue then.

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#175

Post by skissane »

mr_toad wrote: post #155
ivan_gammel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This probably can happen as soon as there’s some manufacturing and mining capacity beyond LEA, so that it’s safe to use nuclear technology without any environmental impact. Moon is an option here, so likely it’s 5-15 years after first Moon base is established (I‘d expect exponential growth of it).

> Moon is an option here, so likely it’s 5-15 years after first Moon base is established (I‘d expect exponential growth of it). I think that’s probably a very optimistic timescale. If there’s heavy industry on the moon inside 50 years I’d be surprised.

I think it will be a long time before local manufacturing of high-tech goods on the Moon is cheaper than shipping it from Earth. Lunar manufacturing is likely to be limited to proof-of-concepts (demonstrating that we can manufacture X on the Moon, even if more expensively than shipping it from Earth), basic construction materials (“mooncrete”), rocket fuel (H2O=>H2+O2, maybe CH4 from carbon-bearing lunar ices). Likely small scale greenhouse agriculture too (to improve the crew diet), maybe even some aquaculture

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#176

Post by wrycoder »

mmooss wrote: post #94
augusto-moura wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the exact reasons why Vikram didn't get a fission reactor. But I can assume from similar missions: 1. Solar is pretty good as far as Mars and it gets worse as it travel further from the Sun. This is why most probes that travel past Mars need a nuclear reactor (Voyager, Pioneer, Cassini, etc). Going closer to the sun they get even better 2. Sending radioactive materials on rockets presents a risk and it i…

> fission reactor Am I wrong that the plutonium in the Voyagers is not in a fission reactor but in an RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator), which converts the heat from the plutonium into electricity. ? I suppose the heat is result of fission, but I don't think an RTG is what is meant by a fission reactor. ??

Fission reactor without a moderator!

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#177

Post by ok_dad »

Waterluvian wrote: post #168
johnklos wrote: post #152

I think the Voyager probes teach us lots about what's wrong with corporate America. Imagine devices that don't have built-in obsolescence, or licensing that expires, or that isn't built by committee where they just keep shipping requirements around from one department to another. Imagine if it weren't all proprietary and if it didn't have no public or even complete documentation. Think of all the problems we have ins…

I have a hard time feeling complainy about stuff like this because if engineers are doing their jobs properly, they’re implementing the defined requirements. Requirements are guided by business decisions on what matters and what doesn’t matter for a project. So ultimately this means that if the argument is that the business is making the wrong decisions, then that means there’s an opportunity for someone to profit by…

The profit argument is not great for everything humans need, not everything can be driven by profit motives, look where that’s gotten us in medical care in America, social insurance, etc. Profit driven enterprise is efficient, but needs balance that doesn’t seem to be there today in order to limit the extremes.

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#178

Post by wannacboatmovie »

manwe150 wrote: post #172
cmonreally123 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? You increase cost for what? The Boeing example I believe related to this defect which occurs after 51 days of operation: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.com/AMP/2020/04... This seems sane given that the planes don't operate for 51 days constantly (I'm not in aerospace so please correct me, it seems a reboot could occur with refueling without issue)

Usually planes are turned around too fast to be waiting for them to fully reboot every time they fuel. Typically they would prefer to keep them running for weeks at a time to minimize any issues or delays with extra steps when the clock is ticking and customers are waiting to board and fly

But they don't reboot them every time they fuel.

Commercial aircraft need continual software updates to operate. They are, in a sense, living, breathing machines. Things like navigation and terrain databases are updated inside of 30 days.

Adding a scheduled reboot is one more item on a checklist that was already being run through.

It's counterintuitive, but performing a reboot as a scheduled maintenance item is far more risk averse than going in and touching code that has been otherwise thoroughly tested and signed off by regulatory authorities.

The chances of introducing a new bug when attempting to repair the former presents additional risk to what amounts to a convenience issue.

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#179

Post by inportb »

cmonreally123 wrote: post #158
johnklos wrote: post #152

I think the Voyager probes teach us lots about what's wrong with corporate America. Imagine devices that don't have built-in obsolescence, or licensing that expires, or that isn't built by committee where they just keep shipping requirements around from one department to another. Imagine if it weren't all proprietary and if it didn't have no public or even complete documentation. Think of all the problems we have ins…

What's wrong with the Boeing case on needing to be rebooted. It doesn't seem much worse then memory leaks in missle guidance tracking systems that exceed flight time. We have finite resources, if the effort to correct is minimal what's the harm?

Nothing, but I do find it amusing that we're comparing Boeing aircraft with guided missiles. How the mighty have fallen :)

Re: Voyager 1 breaks its silence with NASA via radio transmitter not used since 1981

#180

Post by eru »

johnklos wrote: post #152

I think the Voyager probes teach us lots about what's wrong with corporate America. Imagine devices that don't have built-in obsolescence, or licensing that expires, or that isn't built by committee where they just keep shipping requirements around from one department to another. Imagine if it weren't all proprietary and if it didn't have no public or even complete documentation. Think of all the problems we have ins…

> Imagine devices that don't have built-in obsolescence, or licensing that expires, [...]

You can buy long lasting stuff just fine, if you are willing to pay. You can get eternal licenses (or an outright sale of rights), if you are willing to pay.

It's all about trade-offs, and many people have priorities that are different from 'last as long as possible'. Eg many computers from the 1980s are still perfectly usable today, but who would want to use them? I'm sure you can probably also still use your old rugged Nokia phone today, especially since they had easily replaceable batteries. But who would want to use a 25 year old dumb phone?

There are some enthusiasts which do use these old devices. And it's great that they can do so! Never say corporations don't deliver!

But by and large people have different priorities than wanting their obsolete tech to live forever.

Post reply on HN