Hack in Space

MelloDawg writes: "From the press release: NASA's Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) spacecraft, which some had given up for dead in December after critical guidance components failed, was returned to full operations when the team developed an innovative new guidance system. The system uses a complex new set of procedures that lets controllers use electromagnets in the satellite to push and pull on the Earth's magnetic field. Details of the mission are online."

Comments

The Real Deal

[cybermage]

Pretty clever hack. Every time I read about real scientists pulling off neat things like this, I get more and more disgusted with people who simply reboot a server whenever it hangs because it's easier than actually thinking about what the problem is and how to fix it.

Finally some good news

[Zarathustra.fi]

I admit, it's an excellent hack.

But on the other hand, it's hard to forget what NASA has been doing for the past few years. Failures and mishaps. Bugs in software. Human errors. In critical projects, in times when funding is already really hard to get.

Luckily this time, the engineers had the means and actually got something fixed - but most of the recent news have been pretty much from the opposite end of the happiness scale. Too bad this wasn't a Mars probe - it would've had a tremendous PR value for the whole Mars exploration concept.

Re:NASA these days

[PhoenixK7]

Everyone seems to think that since many of the outward looking missions are having trouble that NASA isn't really doing much, check out all the reasearch thats being done on our actual planet. NASA has been collecting huge amounts information about Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land, and they've been doing important analyses. I'd suggest you check out places like:

earth.nasa.gov
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
terra.nasa.gov
data assimilation office

and for image products:

visibleearth.nasa.gov

NASA does alot of interesting earth science too!

NASA's troubles

[colmore]

First off bravo to the NASA geeks. I always find it truly heartening when they pull these last minute hacks off. They don't really need to. I hadn't even heard about this one breaking, it wasn't that much of a PR problem. I think the only reason they really bothered is because, like any good geeks, this is their toy, and they love it too much not to try.

Second, to people bemoaning the absense of mars missions and moon bases. Why go? Can we learn so much more by sending people that it justifies the risk and cost of doing so? These are the questions being asked. And if you think this means our motives for going to space aren't pure, think about this: would we have gone to the moon had the Russians not been trying to beat us there?

I think the best way to get American astronauts on Mars today would be to convince Bin Ladin to start a space program.

I for one wonder if NASA has perhaps outlived its usefulness. Could it perhaps persist as a regulatory body, overseeing commercial space ventures, and allowing all-to-scarce public research money to go to other areas?

The mission to Mars sounds even less appealing once you consider how much cancer / AIDS / environmental / fusion / fuel cell / quantum computing / immortality / (name your favorite project) research it would replace.

Obviously the answer is more funding for public research, but then, does anyone really see that happening?

Re:NASA's troubles

[Rogerborg]

• to people bemoaning the absense of mars missions and moon bases. Why go?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon. . . . Not because it is easy, but because it is hard. . . . Because there is new knowledge to be gained. We shall send to the moon--240,000 miles away--from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented . . . on an untried mission . . . on the greatest adventure.

Now, I'm a pretty cynical old bastard, but those words, nearly forty years on, still choke me up. To me, the defining quality of humanity is that our reach can exceed our grasp.

It's impossible (I think) to justify space exploration in any rational or economic terms. But if "because it's there" isn't justification enough, then that's a sad indicator we have become society of navel gazers and bean counters. And history shows us that societies only go one way once they've reached that stage.

You're right that the space race was based on competition. But I believe that still applies, and if we no longer want to compete, sooner or later we will be superceded by a society that does.

Re:Where to put angular momentum

[iangoldby]

Thanks for that. One question though. Where does the unwanted angular momentum come from? I would have expected that once things have settled down after release of the satellite, there would not be much in the way of sources of angular momentum to deal with. The impact of dust might possibly add some, but wouldn't this be negligible? I can't think of any other sources off the top of my head. Induced currents and magnetic fields would tend to damp any rotation. What am I missing? Maybe this satellite is in low-earth orbit and being 'buffetted' by the upper atmosphere...?

Re:Where to put angular momentum

[Skuld-Chan]

Some sattelites you don't want to de-spin - like phase 2 and phase 3 sattelites which spin with the earth (or at least they seem to). Of recent concern is AO-10 which apparently is de-spinning by itself. Actually I don't think anyone is too worried about AO-10 anymore since it is a sattelite literally plagued with problems - but it still works! (when its in sunlight that is). But you read about what guys did to get AO-10 and AO-40 running again its pretty amazing nasa like stuff.

Read all about it - here