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."

Comments

Success

[quantaman]

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.

This is socialism in action

[CommunistTroll]

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...

Re:This is socialism in action

[Corgha]

If people wanted to do that, we could easily finance a private (or government funded) space program, under any system of government.

It is worth noting that there are some important differences between private and government-funded space programs (read: "allow me to rant in a half-asleep stupor for a while"). While I happily contribute whatever small percentage of my income taxes goes to NASA, and wish that percentage were greater, I'm not sure if I'd feel the same way about giving that same amount of money to some private space program.

First of all, at least NASA is to some degree accountable and is unlikely to go out of business, taking my money with it. When I look around at Excite and Enron and all sorts of other companies starting with 'E' that have flushed their shareholders' money down the toilet over the past few years in (relatively) down-to-earth businesses, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable giving money to some firm whose business plan consisted of space exploration. NASA may not do everything exactly how I would like them to, but at least they get something up into space every once in a while (which is more than can be said for, say, the Rotary Rocket corporation).

Second, were I to give some money to a private space exploration initiative, it would be a necessarily individual act. If no one else contributed, I'd feel like a sucker, and might even feel a little resentment about the affair. Have you ever been the first one to step forward out of a line and volunteer for some unpleasant task? It's a real scary feeling that quickly becomes less scary if others start stepping up. For public initiatives, there is none of that anxiety, and there is something good about knowing that we're all in it together (darn pesky emotions). Now, tax policy is a matter for another time, but at least I know that most people are contributing something, even if it's not the same amount.

The things that NASA does are things that we can all be proud of, because they are things we, the public, were all involved. I, for one, would like to see them keep doing them (and more of them), because people will, years from now, probably remember what Neil Armstrong said when he landed on the Moon a lot better than they will remember all the other crap we worry about.

That's about all I can think up at this hour, but I guess what I'm trying to say is this: For some things (and for now I think space exploration is one of them), public initiatives are a good thing precisely because they are public. Space exploration might not happen as much without NASA, and in my mind, that would suck.

Sometimes government-funded initiatives are not a bad thing -- those who feel otherwise can build their own rockets and launch themselves somewhere where they won't have to worry about the Man anymore. ;)

Time on dishes

[freeweed]

Dish time can be hideously expensive, and keep in mind your average home pizza dish doesn't quite cut the mustard in communicating with a small transponder millions of miles away.

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.

Remote Control

[MobyDisk]

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..."

Re:Funding?

[Waffle Iron]

...but that's just the tip of the iceberg. You've got to worry about the costs of securing antenna time (not cheap), the costs of computing time (also not cheap), and the costs of maintaining the facilities that could be used for other purposes...

But most importantly, you have to worry about the cost of decades of mismanaging a white elephant manned space station project and its associated fleet of hyper-expensive shuttles. It's hard to come up with a couple of million dollars after you've poured 100 Billion down the shit hole.

Reflections on a successful mission

[Ethidium]

When DS 1 launched in 1998, I was in my junior year of high school, and taking physics, which is now one of my three undergraduate majors. There was a girl in my class whose mother is a JPL scientist, and she and I would always spend our lab times talking about the mission. I remember reading that the ion engine created only as much force as a sheet of paper exerts on the hand of the person holding it, and wondered how in the world they expected anything to come of this. But F = ma, and in space there is practically no friction, so with the hours-long burns that the team discovered they could do, the acceleration added up. (For those of you who have asked, the ion engine is just another Newton's-third-law technology, with the big nuance being that rather than relying on the expansion of hot gases from the burning of fuel to provide the counter-force, the spacecraft uses an electified grid to propel tiny charged ions out the back).

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.

Suitable mission end

[JimPooley]

They should point it out of the solar system and turn the ion drive on. Just let it go...

Let's hear it for level heads...

[Slur]

... 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.

Welcome to the New NASA...

[cybrpnk]

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."

Re: why does it cost money?

[GileadGreene]

Ok its flying along in space, so how does that justify need for cash? I'm confused. Was it manned? Are we paying the astronauts wife?

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".