Live data from Hacker News

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

smithsonianmag.com

291–300 of 318 posts

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

#291
post #103
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good reason is the lack of availability of the needed isotope (Pu238). The Europa Clipper has a huge array of solar panels instead of an RTG due to the last of the available supply going into the New Horizons spacecraft. Pu238 was a cast-off isotope from nuclear weapons development so it was more readily available during the cold war. We should be happy that it's scarce now. Also solar panels have gotten a lot bett…

There was just an article about a whole array of “nuclear batteries” using all sorts of decent chemistry: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42118306 Are any of those candidates or are they just too small or with too poor a mass ratio compared to plutonium RTGs?

Maybe. I don't know. I'd point out that tritium is a gas, so it may be hard to contain for long periods of time especially in space.

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

#292
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point wasn’t that innovation doesn’t exist. Obviously things change. Still, both Exonn, Coke and Wells Fargo are still fundamentally in the same business as they were before. That’s not the case of other companies. IBM became big selling punch-card tabulating system. Have you seen a punch card recently?

Ibm was not in the punch card machine making business. It was in the data processing business, and still is.

> Ibm was not in the punch card machine making business. It was in the data processing business, and still is.

IBM absolutely was in the punch card machine making business in that they were absolutely selling punch card machines and not data processing consulting. And no, they are not in the data processing business today. They are clearly a consulting company first with some software development bolted.

They actually pivoted twice from a mostly hardware company to a mostly software one and once again to a mostly service based one.

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

#293
post #198
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

You can get eternal licenses (or an outright sale of rights), if you are willing to pay Not for everything. When I can do that I do, but it’s getting harder and harder to avoid subscription fees for everything these days.

I mean effectively you could. Do something like the following:

Take a subscription product that costs $10/mo right now as an example.

Let's say you want a license that lasts your whole life.

Estimate the time you have remaining in your life. Let's call it 50 years.

Now you can use an interest calculator to see how much it would cost to effectively buy a license until the end of your life.

Plug in $10/mo contribution, plus 4% annual interest to cover inflation and price increases, for an investment length of 50 years.

So you can effectively buy an "eternal" license for $18,714.61

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

#294
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it was designed to take advantage of something that predictably happens every couple of hundred years. Can you explain this more? Does it mean something like a gravity assist based upon the location of planets when the launches were done?

Yes, but the program was cut down some from the original design:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour_program

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could Voyager have reduced velocity, glanced off Neptune, waited for the return path on a narrow elliptical orbit, and then boosted to effectively make the 90° turn to Pluto at that time? Was that impossible given its Neptune approach trajectory, or would glancing off and waiting have been more fuel? And, why didn't this vortical model that includes the forward velocity of the sun make a difference for Voyager's orbi…

Breaking that down: Voyager itself couldn't have reduced velocity, it had nowhere near enough reaction mass to do that. Hypothetically a spacecraft could but you might be talking about orders of magnitude more reaction mass. (Which means multiples more of the fuel to launch and accelerate that mass itself, which could quickly escalate beyond any chemical rocket capabilities.) It also likely wasn't possible to get to…

Is it possible to focus on a reflection on the Voyager spacecraft; or how aren't communications ever affected by lack of line of sight?

So there was no way to flip around and counter-thrust due to the velocity by that point in Voyager's trajectory (without a gravitationally-assisted slowdown or waiting for planetary orbits to align the same or in a feasible way)

FWICS; /? spirograph ... "Hypotrochoid" ... Hypotrochoid orbit

Aren't there hypotrochoid orbits to accelerate and decelerate using planetary gravity; gravity assist

Gravity assist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

- https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/10021/how-are-grav... :

> How can I intuitively understand gravity assists?:

> Aim closer to the planet for a lower pass for a greater change in direction (and velocity from an external frame of reference), farther from the planet for a smaller change; aim ahead of the planet for a slower resulting external velocity, behind for a higher velocity: gravity assist guide (image from this KSP tutorial)

- Vindication! KSP is what I probably would have used to answer questions like this; though KSP2 doesn't work in Proton-GE on Steam on Linux and they've since disbanded / adjourned the KSP2 team fwiu.

- JPL SPICE toolkit: https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/toolkit.html

- SpiceyPy; src: https://github.com/AndrewAnnex/SpiceyPy docs: https://spiceypy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/

- SpiceyPy docs > Lessons: https://spiceypy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/lessonindex.html :

- > various SPICE lessons provided by the NAIF translated to use python code examples

TY for the explanation.

Hopefully cost effective solar sails are feasible.

FWIU SQR Superfluid Quantum Relativity doesn't matter for satellites at Earth-Sun Lagrangian points either; but, at Lagrangian points, don't they have to use thrust to rotate to account for the gravitational 'wind' due to additional local masses in the (probably vortical) n-body attractor system?

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't affected by DEI nonsense yet.

It's not nonsense. Many of the radio receiver setups made use of diversity or dual-diversity configurations. Also, transmitter and receiver blocks from different manufacturers were wired in switchable primary/backup configurations.

xD

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

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our understanding of physics has also gotten much better, for example our understanding of tensegrity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurilpa_Bridge > The Kurilpa Bridge is a multiple-mast, cable-stay structure based on principles of tensegrity producing a synergy between balanced tension and compression components to create a light structure which is incredibly strong.

Delighted to see this here — the Kurilpa Bridge is less than 50 meters from my front door and is something to behold each time I get the chance to use it.

That must be such a treat. As an American, I'd love to visit it one day.

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

#298

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…

It also helps to have $4.5B (in 2024 dollars) to spend on a project. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/voyager-spacec...

It's not apples to apples of course but that's well within the ballpark of what spacex spends mostly just shooting stuff into orbit in a year: https://spacenews.com/spacex-and-the-categorical-imperative-...

Especially for a first time in all of humanity type of mission, half a century ago, which yielded brand new data on faraway objects we'd never had, and considering it's still going and reporting data, it's arguably a bargain basement price for such a thing.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it seems to involve moving parts, so I am not sure the reliability trade-off is worth it for decades/centuries long missions.

Yes, it's being tested (NASA ran one for ~15 years continuously, which seems promising, I don't know if the test is still running), but I don't know if any were actually launched and are used in space.

That seems actually quite impressive.

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

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA will be sold to friends like they privatized the Soviet economy.

Normally I assume that privatization is always bad, but can you honestly look at Artemis, Orion, and the fucking Lunar Gateway and think, oh yes more of that please? Commercial space produced almost all successes of the past decade. (That said nationalizing Boeing might be an improvement, but then I’d worry about Lockheed buying America with America’s money.)

You misunderstood: The problem isn't private enterprise, it's organized crime.

It's the conversion of public property for pennies on the dollar. It's theft and graft, except it will be legitimized by the government and supreme court. And you'll never get it back, because that would be considered "nationalization" of private property.

It was Putin's playbook after the collapse of the (orchestrated?) collapse of the Soviet Union - and they're apparently reusing it for the US as well.

Oh, did I mention that Putin was democratically elected?

Post reply on HN