Slashdot Mirror


Cassini Probe Has Camera Problems

xX_sticky_Xx writes "The BBC is reporting that the last billion dollar NASA probe, Cassini, (enroute to Saturn) is suffering from an unknown source of contamination on its narrow field camera. NASA has attempted to alleviate the contamination, which is causing a haze to appear around images, by "defrosting" it, with so far limited success. Another attempt will be made in January. If this problem can't be resolved this will be extremely disappointing. Cassini is set to expand our knowledge of Saturn more than Galileo did for Jupiter."

29 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. space dust? by moniker_21 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Worryingly, the origin of the contamination is unknown

    What about plain old space dust? According to this article there's enough of it out there to hamper astronomists when viewing celestial objects from earth. More closer to the point this article describes how people involved in space exploration are concerned with peices of space dust, too small to be tracked, causing serious damage to orbiting satelites. The Cassini article says they're pretty sure that it's related to the deep cold of space, which is why they equipped it with heaters. But if it's not related to the cold, it's not out of the realm of posibility that maybe Cassini simply encountered some of this dust? Although you'd have to think the makers of the satelite thought of this already, but who knows.
    --
    I posted to /. and all I got was this stupid sig
    1. Re:space dust? by cascino · · Score: 2

      What about plain old space dust? According to this [nasa.gov] article there's enough of it out there to hamper astronomists when viewing celestial objects from earth. More closer to the point this [spacedaily.com] article describes how people involved in space exploration are concerned with peices of space dust, too small to be tracked, causing serious damage to orbiting satelites.
      First of all, the stuff in orbit that's hampering astronauts is not "space dust", in the astronomy sense of the term. It's simply "space junk" - i.e. leftovers from stuff we've created.
      And while it's very true that clouds of space dust proper can create enormous blind spots for Earth-based astronomers, on a human level, it's actually quite sparse. Something on the order of one-part-per-million (billion?). As my astro professor put it, one single particle of dust per that many parts is equivalent to a single tennis ball in the state of Missouri. It's simply that sparse, and that's why only lightyears of it will have any noticeable effect on visibility.
      Yes, there are variations from location to location, but in general, space dust is simply not dense enough to cause this particular problem.

    2. Re:space dust? by DGolden · · Score: 2

      It's easy to visualise 1-in-a-million if you think of a 1 metre cubed volume, and imagine a 1 centimetre cubed sugar cube in it. This brings 1-in-a-million into distinctly human-sized terms. 1-in-a-billion* is easily visualised as a 1-millimeter cube of dirt in a 1 metre volume of space. Using Volumes rather than lengths or areas to visualise "large" numbers brings them to comprehensible scales - Think of filling a medium sized cupboard with sugar cubes for an approximation to one million....

      * 1000-million == 1000 000 000 == 1 "amercian" billion. Note that most British people now pretty much exclusively use the american definition of a billion (many people will still tell you that the British Billion is a million million, but if a British person says a billion, he now tends to mean an american billion, just to confuse you).

      --
      Choice of masters is not freedom.
  2. The man behind the name by moniker_21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So after reading the article (I know, rare for a slashdotter) I started wondering who they named the probe after. Turns out they named it after a 17th century astronomer who was the first to observe Saturn's four moons.

    Some more info on the man behind the name of the probe can be found here.

    --
    I posted to /. and all I got was this stupid sig
  3. Last Cassini report (12/12) indicated normal. by snStarter · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is from the report sent out:

    Cassini Weekly Significant Eventsfor 12/06/01 - 12/12/01The most recent spacecraft telemetry was acquired from the Goldstonetracking station on Wednesday, December 12. The Cassini spacecraft is in anexcellent state of health and is operating normally. "Present Position" webpage, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cassini/english/where/ .Recent instrument activities included two Radio and Plasma Wave Science HighFrequency Receiver calibrations. Engineering activities taking place onboardthe spacecraft this week include an Attitude Control Subsystem high-watermark clear and the uplink of the Mission Sequence Subsystem (MSS) D7.6.1Modules.

  4. Man that sucks... by bteeter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After all the risks that were taken to put this thing in space - it would be a shame for it to go to waste. (Risk = putting 75 LBS of plutonium within a few miles of crashing down onto the earth.)

    NASA is having a rough time with it lately. There have been a lot of pretty expensive and embarasing failures. If NASA were a private enterprise I'd suspect a management shakeup. Since it is a government body - I'm not sure what can be done. Clearly something should be done...

    Take care,

    Brian
    --
    We are almost out of Free Palm m100's...
    --

    1. Re:Man that sucks... by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 2
      If NASA were a private enterprise I'd suspect a management shakeup.

      There is a "management shakeup" occurring right now. Daniel Goldin, the longtime administrator of NASA, has retired (see what he's up to and his new computers at the L.A. Times Celebrity Setup).

      Dr. Daniel Mulville is the current Acting Administrator while Sean O'Keefe is waiting for confirmation.

  5. Lens cap... by arsaspe · · Score: 5, Funny

    In news today, Nasa scientists spent all last week trying to find the source of the contaminant on the Lens. After many hours of brainstorming, one of the engineers spilt coffee on a button labeled "Lens Cap". Shortly after, the camera apeared to be functioning correctly. Head NASA Scientists are trying to work out the function of this "Lens Cap" button, but the British designer of the button cannot be contacted, and Nasa officials are still unsure what has happened.

    1. Re:Lens cap... by bfuutctk · · Score: 2, Funny

      roflmao.

      The function of the "Lens Cap" button has now been determined by Nasa officials. It appears to be an emergency overide to remove the Lens protection device in the event of a failure to remove it automaticly. When asked why the Cover failed to be removed in the first place, the Nasa spokesperson told us that instead of making the cover 6" wide, the manufacturing company made the cover 6cm wide instead, and it was a very tight fit.

    2. Re:Lens cap... by SilentChris · · Score: 2

      In addition, the lens were set to 33 mm instead of 35. Damn BetaMax...

    3. Re:Lens cap... by Feng · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Slightly offtopic but there have been cases of space probes having lens cap problems. In the 70's a Russian probe (Venera, IIRC) landed on Venus and returned photos of complete darkness. In the end it was determined that its lens cap melted on to the camera.

      A subsequent Venera had an improved lens cap which popped off on landing. The funny part is the lens cap landed in front of the probe, where a spring loaded arm called a "penetrometer" was supposed to spring out from the probe and sample the soil around it...

      ...You guessed it. The penetrometer ended up sampling the lens cap which was lying where the arm was supposed to plunge in.

      --


      --- if y cn rd ths y cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmmng!
  6. January's too soon... by Carl+Jacobsen · · Score: 3, Funny

    it'll still be winter -- if we waited 'til spring and maybe it'd thaw out on its own.

  7. probably outgassing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    when you take something from earth pressure to zero pressure you'd be surprised at what will boil off. this is called outgassing, as polymers, etc... lose mass to vapor. the stuff outgassed can then condense on your optics and ruin your pictures. The usual practice is to put everything in a vacuum chamber and get it all out before flight, but this won't always be enough. Also, you can coat surfaces that will outgass, but you need to use anyway (such as electronics circuit boards) with a non-outgassing coating (such as uralane). If some electronics overheat and melt away some of that coating, the materials underneath might, you guessed it, outgass. It is a difficult problem to avoid and it is unfortunate that it might ruin the mission. hopefully not.

  8. something really needs to be done by mj6798 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This just keeps happening--the Vogon interstellar starliners keep illegally flushing their toilets into space in the vicinity of solar systems. I think we should file a complaint with the local authorities on Alpha Centauri.

  9. Reminds me of something by freeweed · · Score: 2
    When a friend and I were about 11-12, we went to this trade fair where different booths were handing out helium balloons. We must have grabbed 50 or so each. So what else do you do with 100 helium balloons? We slitted a garbage bag, made a huge black sheet of low-weight plastic, and tied the balloons to it. We also attached a note to it (hey, we were kids) to the effect of: "If you find this, call me @ xxx-xxxx".

    The sucker was visible for a LONG time as it rose (very little wind that day). We promptly forgot about it, until about 6 months later. Turns out it ended up in some farmer's field about 200 miles away!

    Yeah, completely offtopic, but further proof of just how geeky I was in those days. Thoughts like this are what inspires people to send probes to other planets, I guess.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  10. Stardust Project by KarmaBlackballed · · Score: 2

    The BBC article refers to the "Stardust" project as though everyone knows about it...

    Stardust project, which had a similar problem that was much worse. In that case, Stardust's team were able to completely remove the contamination

    You can read more about that mission at http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov.

    What a name.

    --

    --- -- - -
    Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
  11. Re:Wipers? by xinit · · Score: 2, Funny
    Unfortunately, that was an optional feature and they opted not to install the wipers at the factory, planning to get an after market add-on.

    See, the factory version would have added $5.7 million to the before tax cost, and this guy on the project knew a guy whose brother found the exact same component at a flea market for $10. NASA's trying to come in closer to budget now, after all, so...

    --
    --- http://foo.ca
  12. "around the edges" makes your dust theory remote by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful


    If dust got on the lens, or inside, most likely the fuzz pattern would be even or random. The fact that it is on the edges of the image suggests that something is condensing.

    If the camera was hit by a speck of space dust, perhaps the impact could have created a little cloud of dust when it penetrates (assuming it did not hit the lense or image sensor chip itself. If it did hit one of those, I doubt it would be just the edges.)

    The fact that a little heat reduced the problem is also kind of against that theory.

    Condensation of something is the most likely exlanation IMO.

  13. Return of the Dreaded... by Myriad · · Score: 2, Funny
    Oh no! It's sounds like the return of the dreaded space fungus that was eating Mir!

    Seriously though, one wonders if this could be even remotely related. I doubt it highly, but it is an interesting thought...

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
  14. Source of contamination by chazR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The source of contamination *has* to be the spacecraft itself.

    If the contamination were external, it would have had a signifigant (measurable) effect on the momentum of the spacecraft. The space through which it is travelling is pretty much completely empty anyway.

    That leaves one plausible possibility: Cassini is leaking something that is condensing on the cold (*very* cold) bits. The most likely cause is a small propellant leak. As far as I know, the spacecraft has three propellants on board, N2O4, N2H4 an monomethyl hydrazine. I'm too lazy to look up the charecteristics of these, but their boiling points differ.

    A heating cycle of the lens seems to have helped. I would be *very* surprised if the data from the heating cycle didn't give them a good clue as to the exact contaminant by looking at the amount removed by a known heat input (latent heat of vapourisation)

    The big worry is that the leak will leave the spacecraft with insufficient fuel for orbital insertion (unlikely - it's almost entirely a gravity-assist trajectory) or for manoeuvering. That would be bad.

    I may, of course, be completely wrong.

    1. Re:Source of contamination by cthugha · · Score: 2

      If the contamination were external, it would have had a signifigant (measurable) effect on the momentum of the spacecraft...That leaves one plausible possibility: Cassini is leaking something that is condensing on the cold (*very* cold) bits.

      Call me stupid, but wouldn't a leak also cause a significant change in momentum? Maybe you're just used to using some method of inertialess propulsion to get around, in which case we'd all be really interested to hear about it. :)

    2. Re:Source of contamination by nusuth · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Maybe you're just used to using some method of inertialess propulsion to get around, in which case we'd all be really interested to hear about it.

      Check woodward engine, you might find interesting. See http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ (sorry I don't know how to make those clickable, look for research proposal about mach's principle) for credibility, james woodward's homepage http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html for more info.

      For all too lazy to floow links guys out there, woodward claims to have detected transient mass effects, which might be used for propellantless propulsion. The idea is sound and experimental confirmation is present, but the experimental values are a few orders of magnitude less than predicted. It is unclear whether the theory or experiment design is incorrect right now. Both NASA and Mr. Woodward is looking into it, though the results have been painfully slow to arrive.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    3. Re:Source of contamination by leuk_he · · Score: 2

      would be *very* surprised if the data from the heating cycle didn't give them a good clue as to the exact contaminant by looking at the amount removed by a known heat input (latent heat of vapourisation)

      I would be *very* suprised if they had enough variables for that:
      -They don't know what part of the camera is contarminted. (ccd, ot what lense)
      -They don't seem to measure the "haze", it seems hard to detect, and they are much more intersted in calculting it away.

      And, if something is leaking, there is very little they can do since there is no service point/ R2d2 robot. They will have to rely on backup devices.

      --By the way instead of *very* you can use <B> for bold or the html <I> italic </I>

  15. Re:Good old American engineering by JoeRobe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Normally I'd laugh at that, but I do need to point out some technicalities. First, "crap" is a relative term. Yeah, if Dell tried to sell computers that worked as frequently (or infrequently) as NASA probes, it'd be out of business. Then again, Dell, Intel, AMD, Western Digital, et al all have the chance of trying their machinery out in real-life situations before putting it out on store shelves. How fortunate for them, but NASA doesn't have this luxury. Take a look at lunar missions starting in the early-to-mid sixties - see how many craft NASA shot up, and how many MORE Russia pumped up there. Then look at how many succeeded - you'll see a difference in approach right there. Russian mentality: keep trying, and if it drops out of the sky or flys by the moon or crashes, try it again! Just keep trying, and eventually you'll get one to work. NASA, on the other hand, has the opposite approach - make like the first shot is the only shot. Try to make sure it works as best as it can, then send it up. Maybe this is a result of a much more nosey press in America, or maybe its just the way Americans work.
    The spacecraft up there are the pinnacle of technological achievement. Go to http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/ , Deep Space 1's webpage and read about this amazing spacecraft if you don't believe me. Just to cut some people off right now - yes, the cpu's aboard these spacecraft are exceedingly slow (I'm talking PI or slower), but they are doing things longer and more continuously than any desktop here on Earth. Finally, if you want to see a spacecraft that has lasted longer than most of our cars, and acquired a lot more data, see Galileo's latest stat, as it's in its third extended mission and still going stronger than ever: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/

    Just my thoughts,

    JoeRobe

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
  16. They have three YEARS to solve the problem by Zarhan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Okay, most of the folks here seem to be bashing NASA and jumping to conclusions that the probe is lost. No damn way. They'll come up with a solution soon enough - for one thing, a similar incident occured with the Stardust probe earlier this year. Just take a look at the status reports.

    Start at somewhere aroud May 4,2001 and go backwards (by that report, the problem had been fixed). I bet the glitch on Cassini will be fixed just as easily. Note that the problem occured just before christmas, so they probably just tried a "quick fix" to see if it just went away. Like said, they have until 2004(!) 'till Cassini is at its destination to try a number of things. They'll probably get rid of the contamination just by turning on the heaters for a couple of months, but they don't want to start the operation and immediately leave for a christmas vacation (in case something comes up).

    1. Re:They have three YEARS to solve the problem by JabberWokky · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Okay, most of the folks here seem to be bashing NASA and jumping to conclusions that the probe is lost.

      Regardless, this is an *experiment* - we leaned *something* here. Either about materials in extreme cold and vacuum for years, if it is a NASA "error", or about the nature of interplanetary space if it is some sort of dust. Grant you, it's not pretty pictures, but I don't think the public even cares about pretty pictures anymore.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  17. Re:Good old American engineering by nusuth · · Score: 2
    You are dead wrong about 50ties and 60ties russian mentality. Soviet space program was planned in advance to establish orbital stations and lunar bases, while state's program was not planned at all. It was (and still is, to some extend) planned around single missions, with no vision of future direction. Alas, soviet engineering was inferior, and they failed. What did communist pary care abou future directions, they were after probaganda! Failing to be a good tool for probaganda, soviet space program lost support. 70ies and 80ties soviet space program was quite like states', lacking vision of any kind.

    For individual crafts, you are correct that soviets didn't care to lose one. But that was not a difference in engineering mentality, that was a (good) side effect of not having to disclose failures to public. So they could launch and learn, instead of going thru cumbersome process of checking and rechecking and then some more checking. Would you really care if you send ten times more probes to each target and have five times more failures? I thing it is sensible for unmanned missions.

    --

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

  18. Re:What kind of contamination are we talking? by EccentricAnomaly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't agree with the BBC's claim that this is a "major" problem... the narrow angle camera still works - the contaminent just effectively reduces the resolution of the NAC. But from what I understand, the NAC resolution is nominally very, very high and even with the contamination it still will produce amazing pictures.

    As far as what the contaminent is... the best guess so far is that it is outgassing from some part of the spacecraft... probably the camera. Something got heated up, vaporized and then condensed on the lens (either the inside or the outside of the lens). When they see if the stuff cooks off and what temperature it cooks off at, they'll have a better idea where the contaminent came from.

    Cassini has already had larger problems (the reaction wheel last December, and the probe relay problem) that have been overcome and Cassini is still on track to make all of its mission objectives and then some. This problem is minor by comparison and will probably be fixed.

    Cassini was launched in 1997, and arrives at Saturn in 2004... seven years later. Then its primary mission ends 4 years after that... and it is hoped Cassini can fly a 4 year extended mission after that... So this spacecraft will fly 15 years in deep space without any possibility of any repairs more sophisticated than commanding a motor back and forth to jiggle something loose or turning on a part to heat it up. Things are bound to break... hopefully, these things will be small and not cause the spacecraft to blow up when it turns on its engines the next time.... we all want to see the pictures of the pterodactyls flying on Titan, don't we?

    --
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
  19. Cassini report 10/25 discusses the problem by EccentricAnomaly · · Score: 2

    From the 10/25/01 - 10/31/01 weekly status report:

    The Imaging Science Subsystem (ISS) post-warm-up images were downlinked for analysis. The 15 images were planned in support of the UVIS Spica observation, and were examined for potential changes relative to the pre-warm-up images. Preliminary results show a change in the character of the anomaly with the halo gone but more spreading of the star image than before. ISS also performed a scattered light observation, in an effort to resolve an anomaly observed in C25 when an ISS observation received far more light than expected. This current observation included a series of scans across the sky to see how much scattered light ISS gets at different distances from the sun for a selection of different orientations, to see if reflection off another part of the spacecraft is causing the extra light seen by ISS.

    --
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.