Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Black Boxes for Spacecrafts

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the so-many-raunchy-jokes-to-choose-from dept.

karvind writes "NewScientist is running story about NASA's plan to put small, heat-resistant black boxes that will transmit data back to Earth when future space probes break up during re-entry to the Earth's atmosphere. NASA will work with Aerospace Corporation to develop black boxes called Reentry Breakup Recorders (REBRs) weighing just 1 kilogram and spanning less than 30 centimetres."

29 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Just make sure you don't put Windows on these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Blue Screen of Orbit Reentry is not a fun thing to experience.

  2. Re:Good luck finding it by nakly · · Score: 4, Informative
    They've already thought of that. From the article:
    The heat from the craft's explosion would trigger the boxes to detach - perhaps by melting the adhesive that fixes them to the CEV. Then, as they fall to Earth, the boxes would transmit their data, obviating any need to retrieve them later.
  3. There I was ... by s20451 · · Score: 3, Funny

    There I was, walking down the street, minding my own business, when .... BONK! Black box to the head.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:There I was ... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      There I was, walking down the street, minding my own business, when .... BONK! Black box to the head.

      "Ah, here's the problem, Sir. A human wondered into our landing site. Good thing we have black boxes to know such."

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  4. Phone Home by qw(name) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's got to be a beacon incorporated into the design because if that thing (30 cm.) lands in a very deep spot in the ocean it's going to be hard to find!

    What good is a lost blackbox?
    1. Re:Phone Home by qw(name) · · Score: 2, Informative
      are recorded in briefcase-sized black boxes that can be retrieved and studied in the wake of a crash.
      ...
      Instead, flight data is continuously beamed to Earth using satellites - a stream that stops abruptly during a catastrophe like the break-up of the shuttle Columbia in February 2003.
      I think maybe it is you who needs to re-read the article.
    2. Re:Phone Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nice edit job there dude. How about in context:

      Aeroplane speed and altitude data, as well as pilot conversations, are recorded in briefcase-sized black boxes that can be retrieved and studied in the wake of a crash.

      I'll spell it out for you - this is how aircraft black boxes work.

      Instead, flight data is continuously beamed to Earth using satellites - a stream that stops abruptly during a catastrophe like the break-up of the shuttle Columbia in February 2003.

      This is the comm systems on the spacecraft, which depend on spacecraft power and control. When it breaks up, all of this goes with it.

      They would quietly take data during the flight, but would only "activate" in the event of a major disaster. The heat from the craft's explosion would trigger the boxes to detach - perhaps by melting the adhesive that fixes them to the CEV.Then, as they fall to Earth, the boxes would transmit their data, obviating any need to retrieve them later.

      The REBR, by comparison, is self contained. It doesn't depend on spacecraft power - or at least it doesn't after separation. This is how the spacecraft black boxes will work.

    3. Re:Phone Home by krunk4ever · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how bout we make it less dense then water so it'd float? or have it release inflate a tube around it upon contact with water?

      --
      HD Trailers
  5. The plural of 'craft' by tagish · · Score: 3, Informative

    is 'craft', not 'crafts' :)

    --
    Andy Armstrong
  6. Slightly worrying for bees by mrRay720 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "These things are so light and easy to attach, we would like to have several on everything that flies"

    Try getting back in your hive now, bitch!

  7. Re:This sounds fatalist by Ronald+Dumsfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why not put more effort into knowing ways not to break up? on reentry its not like we have to die. So why not put the effort into fixing things beforehand unstead of how to find out how we killed people?
    Just like in aircraft, the more data you can retrieve from any accident, the better your chances of preventing the next one.

    Besides, they are planning on attaching these to unmanned craft first. This will give them a great deal of information about how the materials used react to reentry. This helps make things safer for people on the ground as they really can design craft that disintegrate on reentry.
    --
    Where's the Kaboom?
    There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
  8. Re:This sounds fatalist by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we made stuff that never failed, how would we ever know we'd done it? We only learn that we haven't successfuly made things that never fail when things fail, and when things fail then we need the best evidence as to how they fail so we can stop it happening again.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  9. Re:This sounds fatalist by ThJ · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't think he had time to read that as he was trying to get in the first post.

  10. Re:"When" they break up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    For unmanned stuff, the goal is when, not if. You want this stuff to breakup on reentry so fewer (and smaller) pieces reach the ground, possibly causing damage.

  11. Linux there too? by ChipMonk · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've heard of squeezing Linux into small devices, but a window manager on a space probe is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? TCP just isn't designed to handle that much lag time and network interference.

  12. Re:Good luck finding it by qw(name) · · Score: 2

    But if the transmitter is damaged you'll still have to go find it.

  13. Re:Why just for recorders? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Because it would be too heavy to actually fly. A 1 cu ft box can be made out of whatever material you want. 1/2" thick steel, titanium, whatever. That can't scale up to the entire craft.

    I've seen wreckage of large aircraft. A lot of pieces were very recognizeable, or still in one piece. Engine turbines, weapons hard points. But obviously, you can't make the whole aircraft out of that. It would never get off the ground.

  14. Isn't that a bit heavy/large? by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Launching an extra kilo into orbit? That's actually pretty expensive isn't it.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Isn't that a bit heavy/large? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Crashing the next craft because you didn't know how to prevent it is even more expensive.

      And it's probably not an 'extra' kilo, it's one less kilo of payload.

    2. Re:Isn't that a bit heavy/large? by hkroger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, just put one kilo less of fuel. It's that easy.

  15. If Low-Gain Antenna fails.... by Hao+Wu · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This will be useless without a functioning omni-directional communication system.

    Keep that in mind.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  16. Its all well and good... by BlacBaron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but I'd think desinging the spaceships so they don't break up on reentry might be a better idea.

    --
    Update Watch - Automatic software update notification
  17. Re:Black Box? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm, I wonder what could be inside....

    Half-dead cats

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  18. Duh. by mtz206 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My Honda Civic has a black box to record crash data, but $100 million space craft don't. Um, duh.

  19. "Aircrafts," eh? by H_Fisher · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously, the editorim didn't pay attentions to verb endae during their English classices.

  20. I, for one, welcome... by marcsiry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...our new era of information saturation.

    As sensors become smaller, lighter, and more networked, it makes sense to put recording devices on ANYTHING remotely mission critical, mainly because at a certain point it becomes negligent not to.

    When I ride over the Queensboro Bridge in NYC, I stare up with apprehension at the thousands of rusting girders that hold that rattletrap together. The only thing forestalling a collapse is having actual dudes crawling over it all the time checking visually for cracks and obvious failures. The smart pebble technology previously mentioned on Slashdot - http://www.betterroads.com/articles/feb03b.htm - would make me feel more comfortable.

    I feel the same way on airplanes- do I trust that a ground tech working for a lowest-bidder maintenance company has adequately checked the airframe? I sure would like real-time fatigue information being beamed to the pilot, so he can decide wether to fly or not based on risking his own skin.

    The most amazing thing about our age of astounding engineering is still the amount of ignorance we maintain about our constructions (Bucky Fuller's famous, and unanswered question to an architect: How much does your building weigh?). Thus, safety margins, inspections, building codes, all serving as bandaids to a fundamental ignorance that bites back BIG when a failure does occurr (sure, the WTC can absorb the impact, but can it survive the potential energy bundled in a plane, including the BTUs in the fuel? Nope).

    Privacy wonks will worry about networked sensors in their toilets watching them take a crap, but really, if anyone wants to see mine, they're more than welcome to it- I just don't want to hear about it (eeewwww).

    --
    Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||
  21. Put Astronauts in the Black Boxes by porp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Really, if you can make something that will survive falling from space, shouldn't you just build that around the astronauts so that they can survive too? Hell, I'd like my car built like one as well.

    porp

  22. Re:$4500 by rpozz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't worry. Anyone can make that mistake. Including NASA.

  23. Re:a suggestion toNASA... by mnemonic_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe because the entire craft is subject to different performance requirements than the black box alone? You know, like low weight? And note that the survivability of the black box results from the survivability of the entire craft that houses the box. The black box only remains after most of the reentry energy has been used to burn up the rest of the craft.