Slashdot Mirror
Deep Space One Mission Comes To An End
jfoust writes "NASA's Deep Space One mission will officially end this week, according to published reports. The spacecraft was launched over three years ago to test advanced technologies like ion drives and, despite the failure of its star tracker, was able to make a successful flyby of the comet Borrelly in September. The project tried to extend the mission by several months to fly by an asteroid, but could not coax the funding needed for the mission extension out of NASA. There's a short summary about the mission's end at spacetoday.net, and more details from the AP and the JPL Universe employee newspaper."
At this rate it'll take forever to get to Deep Space Nine.
does anyone know how the Ion Drives performed?
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
I am not too experienced in this area, but I often wonder why it costs so much to keep something like this going.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
I think it is easy to rate this mission as a great success. If I recall correctly it used something like 9 new technologies including the ion drive and AI. Considering the fact that it continued for 2 years longer than it was designed for (and probably could have gone for longer if they'd gotten the additional funding) says great things about the advancements in space exploration and lends the possibility to deep space exploration on a level significantly higher than what we could previously achieve.
I stole this Sig
Cannot coax the funding out of Nasa?
What funding?
How do you need "funding" to send signals to an already launched, 30year spacecraft? Just press the keys!
Seriously, if you can't "fund" it, give me the docs and I'll do the damn mission! And I bet there are many, more qualified people, who would do the same.
The end of this successful mission should bring our minds back to the fact that this was only possible through government funding and control.
Pure capitalism would never be able to make these bold steps into the future.
If we were to spend more time organising ourselves rationally through our government, and less time irrationally competing to produce slightly differently branded soft drinks, we would by now have a colony on Mars...
Obviously, it must be interesting to work at NASA, even more so when working on a project like this. Reading Mr. Rayman's post about the end of the mission, comparing it to the death of his grandfather, and giving what came across as a eulogy, you can really tell they treat their projects as members of the family. It has a similarity to child birth as well: Creating and bringing a new explorer into the world, setting it free, watching it explore, feeling a sense of pride for it's accomplisments and then watching painfully as the end of it's life draws near. I wonder if NASA employees have a history of neglected or beaten children. "God damnit Bobby! Your brother is up there taking pictures of asteroids, and you can manage to ride a tricycle!"
Now all they need to do is make eight more probes to produce Deep Space 9. Hell, if it blows up on liftoff it'll still be more interesting then the series.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Can't they set up a listening post to at least gather anything that it sends back? I mean, that's an expensive project to only use for 3 years and just toss into space somewhere.
For example, there are many people who would willingly donate their time and expertise to the SETI program. But for years they had to fight for funding. Why? Radio telescope time doesn't come cheap. And building your own isn't exactly feasible, either.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
How much is it to buy a DS1 remote control? I would love to have that for Christmas. Maybe they should auction off control of it.
"Cool, look ma! I got my very own deep space probe!"
"That's nice dear..."
The ion drive aboard the DS1 broke several records with its stellar (literally) tortiose-vs-hare performance. Does anyone know if this technology has any potential for being adapted to the ISS? Due to friction with the upper atmosphere, ISS is constantly losing altitude, necessitating frequent boosts using the Shuttle or a Progress vehicle to keep it on station (pardon the weak pun). A constantly-updated graph of its altitude variations is hosted on Heavens-Above.
Anyway, does anyone know if ion engines of the type used on DS1 would be effective in allowing the ISS to maintain altitude, or could they at least reduce its rate of orbital decay enough to justify the power expenditure?
I admit, this is offtopic, but while I'm thinking about it ...
Ok, Voyager (as in NASA's probe) was brought up (ok it was the focus) in one of the ST movies, but planet launched space probes from other species aren't really ever talked about in StarTrek. Why was warp drive the deciding factor for first contact? Why not "hey they shot a probe hundreds of millions of light years away from their planet, and they're still gathering information from it!"?
I mean, what if Voyager sends us back a picture of something living on another planet? "Hello, we know you're there and we're coming after you." Seems like a good reason to go talk to the people responsible for the craft.
~LoudMusic
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
I can't believe they'd spend all tha money on a research project and just send it into the sun. Am I the only one who thinks maybe something like this belongs in a museum? It's not like we don't have shuttles in orbit right now. They've gotta have some room in the trunk.
It has come to our most desirable attention that your spacecraft is utilizing our most powerful communication technology across our networks and your service cost has yet to be reviewed. If you are aware of your contract with Network Associates, please contact our esteemed financial assistant to discuss a better suited payment plan for your financial situation or discontinue using our service. Failing to comply with this notice will result in repossesion of our property and your property shall be placed under lien. Your space vehicle is currently outside our solar system and upon reentry to Earth's atmosphere we will seize its use until we, Network Associates, has been accounted. Thankyou.
-Bob Gulson
Xenon gas is ionized and then accelerated rearward through electrical repulsion. Xenon
.999 lightspeed. Knowing this, what would
ions go backwards, probe goes forwards.
What is so novel about this approach? High efficiency and much greater velocity potential
than chemical propulsion.
A particle accelerator can accelerate things
to
be the theoretical maximum velocity of an ion
drive equipped craft? Pretty fucking fast.
When the star tracker failed in 1999, I wept, for I was sure that the mission was doomed. When the ground crew, in a long stroke of genius, kept it going, I wept for joy.
In the past year and a half or so, DS 1 hasn't been doing so much. WIth most of its objectives achieved, the mission became largely a test of how long it would last. Nevertheless, it was always fun to read Dr. Marc Rayman's mission logs, "widely thought of and commonly spoken of in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy as the most reliable source of information on this bold mission of exploration."
This fall, the probe paid a visit to comet Borrelley. Nobody knew where in the tail the rock itself was, but DS 1's job was to get as close to it as possible, and send back pictures. Nobody expected it to work. If anything, this was supposed to be a dignified death for the bird, which the September 9 log referred to as being "kept flying with duct tape and good wishes." The chances that the probe would do anything but smash into the comet and die, or be pommeled to death by the microdust in the coma, were astronomically slim. But somehow, miraculously, it survived, and with the pictures to prove it.
DS 1 was the stuff of science fiction, and that so many things went right is simply amazing. While I , like Dr. Rayman, am happy that it lived so long, I think we are all somewhat sad to see it go. But we can be consoled by the fact that the funding, the DSN time, the space, and the positively brilliant staff that have kept DS 1 running will now move on to projects that have even more excitement and adventure to offer us, and science will march on, at a steadily accelerating tempo.
\
They should point it out of the solar system and turn the ion drive on. Just let it go...
"Information wants to be paid"
... prevailing to end this foolish mission. The folly of scientists never ceases to amaze me. Deep Space One, like Voyager 1 and 2 before it, will only be captured by one of a thousand nearby hostile alien civilizations, injected with mind-altering nano-spores and sent back to Earth. I pray this day never comes, but if it does it will herald a new awareness, just as the events of September 11 did. Scientists won't be able to hide in their committee chambers as they and the rest of the human race find themselves being consumed by the alien spores. They've already ignored this danger for far too long.
I for one am relieved to see funding going towards someplace where it's really needed for a change: to the essential and forward-thinking Laser Missile Defense Shield. You don't have to be a master of Redneck Rampage to see to smell the coffee burning. When the godless aliens arrive we need to be ready. We need to be prepared in every way to lase them into vapor before they possess the minds of our brothers and sisters and poison them against our deeply held moral values.
The laser defense is important, but I believe we must think even further if we are to survive.
Now that funding is going where it should scientists and engineers can devote their talented minds to things that really matter. What moral citizen hasn't dreamt of a day when the American People can stand united and secure beneath a neural-net controlled translucent bubble of ozone-infused anti-missile shielding? Agencies like NASA and programs like the Berkeley peacenik SETI "we want a big cosmic hug from E.T." project need to be exposed for the foolish wastes they are. The death of Deep Space One heralds the beginning of a new age of enlightened defensive spending.
I know that deep down beneath the part of you that hates humanity - those vile creatures who always taunt and belittle your superior intellects - Slashdotters care. I know when faced with the choice between a spore-infested world of android replicants and a utopian world where we can roam freely in a bio-dome safe from our enemies you'll make the wisest choice.
-- thinkyhead software and media
All set up to go by an asteroid but can't spring for the required sliver of incremental funding? Welcome to the new NASA. From a recent newspaper article (I think Houston Chronicle):
""...No one really knows what a finished station would cost. NASA said earlier this year that it faces a $4.8 billion shortfall over the next five years. Sean O'Keefe, nominated by President George W. Bush to become NASA administrator, testified Friday that he had no confidence in that number or any other estimate he had heard so far.
At the close of the hearing Friday, Mr. O'Keefe was asked an open-ended question: "What is your vision?"
.
Mr. O'Keefe spoke for several minutes about "prudent management principles," reinvigorating "the entrepreneurial spirits" of NASA, the importance of collaboration with other elements of the federal government, the need to be mindful of safety and the possibility of taking advantage of this moment when NASA is at a crossroads.
.
He did not mention space."
DS1 was actually part of NASA's cheaper/faster program. They tested a whole slew of totally new technologies, put it on a (relatively) cheap probe, and off it went.
As for using it as a listening post, I'd be very surprised if it had any equipment onboard to be of much use. It's got a finite amount of manuevering propellant, which is required to point an antenna at the Earth to send back whatever does manage to collect. If it hasn't run out yet, it will after not too long. Finally, there has to be a staff planetside to tell the probe what to do, when to send back data, etc. That's salaries and equipment that's better spent elsewhere.
So, no, it wasn't a waste of money. They set out to test new approaches, almost all of them worked fantastically. And after they completed the intended mission, they went off and did another one. There's nothing more it can do that'd be worth the trouble.
The time and money was well spent, I'd say, but it's done now. Look back on its accomplishments with pride, and look forward to the projects that will benefit from the results.
It's not manned, but it doesn't fly itself. That requires ground based controllers (the mission operations folks) plus some expensive time using the Deep Space Network dishes (as others have mentioned already). The mission ops center is not exactly free either. Throw in some project management people, PR folks, and the scientists that are actually doing the extended mission, and the bill starts to add up.
No one's saying "if you don't give us money, DS1 will stop flying". What they're saying is "if you don't give us money, we can't continue to operate DS1 and collect data from it, so it'll fly along doing nothing" (seems like kind of a waste, doens't it?).
Why does it take a million dollars for everything we do at Nasa?????? Why can kids build soda can satalites for 20$ and Nasa build soda can satalites for 20 million? whats the damn difference
While I have no particular wish to defend NASA, they are not entirely at fault here. There're two reasons that NASA spacecraft cost so much:
(1) They are far more complicated, ambitious, and longer-lived than their student-built counterparts. NASA spacecraft operate in extreme conditions, doing unprecedented work, for years at a time. They have to work, so they are designed to be robust, redundant, and fault-tolerant. Trust me, this doesn't come cheap - and NASA's got a lot better at making it cheap in the last few years.
Student-built satellites typically don't do much (a couple of minor experiments), although there are some neat things on the way (Three-corner sat for example). More importantly, student sats don't have to last as long, they only go to LEO, and no one cares if they fail. That means cheaper parts, less redundancy, and a simpler design.
(2) NASA also has to contend with the whole government appropriations issue. The best way to get congressional support is to have your program spend a little money in a bunch of different states. Let's face it, a large, arbitrarily distributed project (split up for political rather than technical reasons) is likely to cost more than the same project carried out in one central location. Plus NASA has to carry out all sorts of PR functions, and otherwise impress Joe Q. Public so that their budget doesn't get axed completely.
Which is not to say that NASA couldn't do better. They've done some pretty stupid things at times, and taken some enormous risks. On other hand, they've also done some pretty amazing stuff. NASA's biggest problems are corrosive bureaucracy, unrealistic project management, and congress.
If you really want a national space program to be proud of, write your congress-person. Don't say "Give NASA more money". Just say "Get off NASA's back, and let it do its job without having to pay a political bribe to everyone on congress. Ask for results, not for some concession for your home state. This is a national space program".
The big reason is that the Internation Space Station, way over budget, is sucking money out of other programs like a black hole.
It's sad that the political boondogle (ISS) to explore the most boring place in the Solar System (low-Earth orbit, been there done that)is killing off other, more interesting and cost-effective projects.
--Iz