Antique Voyager Technology

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by kdawson on Saturday September 1, 2007 @08:51PM from the spinning-tapes-and-flashing-lights dept.

sea_stuart writes with a story from the Tidbinbilla space tracking station, outside Canberra, Australia. It is still communicating with the two Voyager spacecraft 30 years after they were launched and 18 years after Voyager 2 passed close by Neptune. Here's a little background on Voyager 1 and Voyager 2. "The bank of computers that would look at home in black-and-white episodes of Doctor Who cannot be junked... [T]he 1970s hardware is now our world's only means of chatting with two robot pioneers exploring the solar system's outer limits. Today Voyager 1 is humanity's most remote object, 15.5 billion kilometers from the sun. Voyager 2 is 12.5 billion kilometers from it. Both continue beaming home reports, but now they are space-age antiques. 'The Voyager technology is so outmoded,' said Tidbinbilla's spokesman, Glen Nagle, 'we have had to maintain heritage equipment to talk to them.'"

293 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I've got an old dell they can use... by DragonTHC · 2007-09-01 20:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is it really that impossible to run these machines inside an emulator on a modern server?

I can still play my atari 2600 games on my xbox.

--
They're using their grammar skills there.
1. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by QMalcolm · 2007-09-01 20:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is a total guess, but I'd think that just communicating with something like Voyager 1 would rely on lots of funky old hardware. I mean, the thing is 15 BILLION kilometers away, it's not quite the same as dumping a 2600 cart.
2. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by DragonTHC · 2007-09-01 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  and yet I don't think it would be a problem for modern software or hardware.
  
  how much computing resources did they have in the late 70's at nasa?
  
  less than my desktop PC has now.
  
  --
  They're using their grammar skills there.
3. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by joeava · 2007-09-01 21:08 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The problem is in the remote end.
4. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 21:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  and yet I don't think it would be a problem for modern software or hardware.
  I think he was thinking more about analog components like amplifiers or something which might be unusual. It's not always all just bits.
  
  That said, I think the real reason isn't that it's not possible to duplicate with modern technology (it is, of course; anything we could have built then, we can build now), it's just that producing a new system just to communicate with Voyager would probably cost more than maintaining what we've got now. Especially since any new system would likely have unforeseen bugs in it, which could possibly result in loss of communication with the space craft (imagine accidentally sending a command which orders the Voyagers to point their radio antennas away from Earth).
  
  Still, it's a bit like the ridiculous argument that some day we won't be able to read CD-ROMs, because the technology will have advanced so far, the hardware will no longer exist. Well, yes, maybe. But scientists will always be able to build something that can scan the surface of a CD-ROM, and decode the data there. But it might not be very economical (though I doubt it; a binary infrared laser scanning device is pretty dirt simple). There's a big difference there between what's economically and technologically unfeasible.
5. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by nyctopterus · 2007-09-01 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they'd have to employ someone to write the software and reconfigure the hardware to do it. Chances are it costs them next to nothing to keep the old stuff running. And anyway, maybe they like it for sentimental reasons (pretty much the same reasons we're still listening to the Voyagers I should think).
6. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Propagandhi · 2007-09-01 21:55 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  To keep them humming, Tidbinbilla relies on its most experienced engineers, including John Murray, who will have been working there for 40 years on Monday. His colleague Ian Warren has knotched up 42 years in the space business.
  
  Not that TFA can be trusted (honestly how would something be "too slow" for a computer? Does my processor get impatient?) but it kinda implies that these guy's primary responsibility is this computer. For the price of two senior engineers it really seems like they could cook up a modern replacement.
  
  Seems odd that they don't just salvage the analog components and connect it to a modern computer... I guess I'd understand not touching it if it's deemed fragile...
  
  Anyone know if the Voyagers rely on a heartbeat or something? If it's just a receiver I can't see why building a modern backup isn't worthwhile.
7. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by arth1 · 2007-09-01 22:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem isn't that a new computer can't emulate the software, it's more that it (a) can't do it out of the box and (b) can't emulate the hardware. If you, say, need a 75/1200 baud serial connection to connect to the tranceiver, it doesn't help that USB or Firewire is much faster. And where do you find a 75/1200 serial connector card for a PC? And how's your PC's EBCDIC character set support, for that matter?
  If you have to design both the hardware and the software, it's going to be expensive. Not to say untested. And with the probes being where they are, it's not like you get a second chance if there's a bug. Things have to work perfectly, every time. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that your emulation would be perfect enough to replace something that's aced the test of time for 25 years.
8. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Zarhan · 2007-09-01 22:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Anyone know if the Voyagers rely on a heartbeat or something? If it's just a receiver I can't see why building a modern backup isn't worthwhile.
  
  They do. First, take a look at
  
  http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/weekly-reports /index.htm
  
  Namely (of the latest one):
  
  Voyager 1 command operations consisted of the uplink of a command loss timer reset on 08/04 [DOY 216/0135z] and CCSL A064 on 08/06 [DOY 218/0236z]. The spacecraft received all commands sent and the CCSL was verified.
  
  Voyager 2 command operations consisted of the uplink of a TLMPRG and a command loss timer reset on 08/06 [DOY 218/1329z]. The spacecraft received all commands sent and the Telemetry Purge proceeded nominally per predicts.
  
  So yeah, they are still uplinking stuff - mostly just command loss timer resets.
  
  What happens if they don't send the timer reset? Well, see
  
  http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/science/thirty.html
  
  If the timer reaches zero, as a result of a command not being received by the spacecraft within the programmed six week duration, the command loss timer will have expired and the Command Loss (CMDLOS) routine will be activated which leads to the initiation of the BML.
  
  The implementation of BML-7 (the seventh BML to be loaded on-board Voyager 2), in conjunction with the baseline sequence, provides this automated protection against loss of command capability. BML-7, with some differences in implementation for the two spacecraft, is loaded on-board both Voyager 1 and 2.
  
  So yeah, if receiver on V-ger gets broken, or the transmitter down here on earth, the ship can continue to still send data down here in a completely autonomous fashion. However, a remote capability is probably a good idea to have if something interesting comes up.
  
  (The link has more details what the "BML" entails).
9. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Ash+Vince · 2007-09-01 22:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I studied Space Tech for a while so while this is still a guess I like to think it a fairly educated one:
  
  In order for something to be acceptable to NASA for use in the space program it has to be very thoroughly tested. This means you could write a software emulator that did everything required, but then it would have to run flawlessly for 10 years in order to be approved for use. You have to remember that these computers can also send commands to the satellites, so if they crash and send an erroneous command out, then that command will be actioned by the satellite.
  
  I know this is highly unlikely, but it is not impossible so why risk it when the result of that one command could be that we lose both satellites for ever.
  
  There is a mantra when it comes to dealing with any computer system that is running a mission critical app:
  
  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
  
  I would suggest that anyone wanting to be sysadmin, learn this. There are times when it doesn't apply but that is usually when the benefit of change out way the risks. In this case what is the benefit of upgrading the system at our end?
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
10. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by gone_bush · 2007-09-01 22:34 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  No can do - the licence specifically prohibits running the software in a virtual machine.
  
  --
  Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less travelled by. (Robert Frost, 1916)
11. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by mrmeval · 2007-09-01 22:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are stepping into the twilight zone of the military industrial complex/government procurement system.
  
  An existing system that works has gone through the bowels of this system and been sanctified.
  
  It would take as much money to re-engineer it as it does to maintain it. It is an annoying fact that getting money to fix something in either the military or government is easier than getting something new even if the new item would save money. This is one of the reasons several of the systems I've worked on were 20+ years old. The anti-mortar Firefinder radar being used in Iraq was designed in the seventies and finally approved and deployed in the 80s and is still in use today.
  
  There are plans to replace it but right this instant they need them in the field so it costs much more to refurbish one than to buy either a 'newly' made one which is intended for foreign sales and is not authorized for procurement or procure the newest model.
  
  Currently the latest and greatest is rumbling around the guts of the system and some prototypes were fielded in 1998 so expect them to be finalized in 2008 and accepted later....
  
  I wish I could point and say "graft and corruption" but it's fighting that which has led to our current procurement system. It's not ever going to be perfect but it does help to keep sawdust out of MREs.
  
  --
  I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
12. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by PetraData · 2007-09-01 22:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This assumes that:
  
  (a) they have the source code
  (b) the source code is not too obfuscated from 1970s engineering paradigms that it can be understood
  (c) the guy who originally wrote the system is not dead so that they can talk to him about all the eccentricities of it
  (d) that it isn't too bulky to cause a slowdown on NASA's emulators when dealing with real time communication
  (e) there is no funky encryption built into the system to protect it from the Soviets
  
  In terms of cost/benefit analysis, it's probably just cheaper for them to leave the old equipment running than pay millions for consultants to take a look at how to port a 1970s communication system built at the height of the Cold War ... to Windows.
13. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by jamesh · 2007-09-01 22:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It would take as much money to re-engineer it as it does to maintain it. It is an annoying fact that getting money to fix something in either the military or government is easier than getting something new even if the new item would save money.
  
  I'm sure you understand why... I think the conversation would go something like this:
  
  IT: "This new system will cost $1bn, and will save $3bn/year in maintenance on the old system".
  Management: "The previous system was supposed to cost $1bn to develop, and ended up costing $10bn. If I sign off on this it will be my ass on the line when the budget blows out, so I'll stick with known quantities thanks."
14. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Peet42 · 2007-09-01 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  It would be good if they were to build a modern receiver though, that they could run in tandem with the legacy equipment to allow them to carry on receiving in the case of a catastrophic failure.
15. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Ash+Vince · 2007-09-01 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  I expect they probably have, but they will still keep the old two way link going for as long as possible.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
16. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Aenoxi · 2007-09-01 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'm intrigued by a thought that occurred when reading your post. Do Voyager I and II still count as "satellites" given that they have achieved escape velocity from the solar system?
  
  --
  "The sum of all knowledge does not imply the knowledge of all sums" Kurt Gödel (paraphrased)
17. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Pseudonym · 2007-09-01 23:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And where do you find a 75/1200 serial connector card for a PC?
  
  Give me a week and a modern microcontroller and I'll build you one. Someone else can write the driver.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
18. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Dunbal · 2007-09-01 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  (a) they have the source code
  
  You do realize that the RIAA and MPAA's plan to cover the holes in the punch-cards to prevent piracy was a drastic failure, don't you? Of course they have the source code! How many boxes of it do you want?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
19. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by QuickFox · 2007-09-01 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  Do Voyager I and II still count as "satellites" given that they have achieved escape velocity from the solar system? That's an interesting question! For all you youngsters who don't know this, the word satellite originally meant a body circling a planet. I think the meanings of these words have shifted, so that nowadays a body circling a planet is called a moon, and the word satellite stands for a more-or-less autonomous machine in space.
  
  But I think both words are sometimes used in this new sense and sometimes in their old sense.
  
  --
  Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
20. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 23:53 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  What do you need a week for? This is a days job.
21. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Nazlfrag · 2007-09-01 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Bloody programmers, forever reinventing the wheel...
22. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Kjella · 2007-09-02 00:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So yeah, they are still uplinking stuff - mostly just command loss timer resets.
  
  And there's the #1 reason not to touch this system already. Both probes have left the solar system and entered interstellar space. There's something like ~70000 years to the next star system. We're not expecting them to find anything, and if they did the direction they're going is probably as good as any. Right now it's just the record for "most distant object we've held communication with", so don't mess with it. Is it seriously that big a problem to keep the system going here on earth when you manage to keep it going in outer space? Ir's not like we need to upgrade it for any reason, it's basicly living its own life together with the Voyager probes, like a small bubble of the 70s. Worst case the hardware completely breaks down with no spares and we have to just listen to it, which is what we do already (I assume we can do that with more modern equipment). So where's the upside of moving to a newer system?
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
23. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Gordonjcp · 2007-09-02 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Is it really that impossible to run these machines inside an emulator on a modern server?
  
  Yes. Yes it is. An emulator cannot capture all the subtleties of the real hardware. Every little quirk would have to be duplicated, even the ones you don't really know about.
  
  If it was possible, don't you think they'd be doing it?
24. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by ajlitt · 2007-09-02 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Do any modern micros even support divisors large enough to generate all the weird speeds from 75 to 1200? I'll quote "small FPGA and a week" and you can keep your old USB to serial adapter and driver.
25. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by mikerubin · 2007-09-02 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Is that what happened in Florida with the 'chads'
  
  --
  I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
26. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  Not at all close. O&M (operations and maintenance) money comes from a different pot of money then does buying systems, or developing systems. You read that right, developing systems is a different pot of money then buying systems. That means that there are things for which the money exists to buy, but development money ran out, and it also means that we're developing things for which there's no money to buy. It's stupid, but it's not just NASA and the military, it's the stupid, congressionally written Federal Acquisition Regulations.
  
  John
27. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by nurb432 · 2007-09-02 00:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ok, so run them in parallel for 10 years. Its not like there is a hurry here.
  
  And since you seem to hik we cant create 'new', what happens when one of the old ones die and we cant repair it due to its age? At least if we have tried to replicate the functions with modern equipment we have a chance.
  
  Cost is relative, in this case.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
28. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2007-09-02 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  I've read that a Furby has more processing power than everything on the lunar lander combined.
  
  --
  Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
29. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by FinestLittleSpace · 2007-09-02 01:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I always thought it was the Voyager 'probe', not satellitte. Satellitte suggests 'orbit'.
30. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by c_forq · 2007-09-02 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  The way digital photography is progressing I could actually imagine eventually just being able to take a picture of a CD and have a computer analyze the image to duplicate the binary data stored on it, and automatically run a hash through a database to check for corruption of commercial CDs. Kind of like how you can use webcams to scan barcodes today.
  
  --
  Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
31. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by ananamouse · 2007-09-02 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  Ham guys use the sound card.
32. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Lumpy · 2007-09-02 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually just fine.
  
  Using a linux install and maybe an hour in my junk bin I can build what you need and write the driver and converting from and to the documented different protocolos and sets is a snap. I bet that given the documentation a college grad student can give them a old outdated PC that will do the job in a weekend.
  
  It blows my mind that smart people think things have to be "purchased" they do not. build them. you have the specifications. and I bet that someone has a EBCDIC set for linux out there already.
  
  Anyone that gives up because "it cant do it out of the box" is either under educated or just plain old lazy.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
33. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Lumpy · 2007-09-02 02:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  a day? cripes! I dont even need to build hardware just a soundcard and a little bit of software, an hour tops.
  
  This kind of stuff is done daily in ham radio. I build a interface to read the old abandoned weather satellites slow scan TV signal with a soundcard and a connector plug. wrote the app in C in 2 hours and had a picture on screen the next pass.
  
  I would have been faster if I though to record the last pass's audio and replay it for debugging, but no It took me 30 minutes to find a different bird passing over that I could receive.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
34. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Megane · 2007-09-02 02:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Give me a week's vacation in France, and I can probably come back with a dozen old Minitel modems.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
35. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Megane · 2007-09-02 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Federal Acquisition Regulations? Curse those Ferengi and their Rules of Acqusition!
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
36. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by jafiwam · 2007-09-02 02:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If I recall correctly, there are several actual science projects still going on with these two spacecraft, despite most of the instruments not being relevant for the tasks, technicians have found ways to tease extra information out of them.
  
  First, the heliopause / helioshock transition did not happen the way they thought it did. It was in a different place and had different characteristics. They may still run into that, including vibration and change "bell ringing" of it. And, these things might be the only chance we EVER get to study the interstellar medium directly.
  
  Second, there are light speed, distances vs. gravitiy issues where the spacecraft are NOT WHERE WE EXPECT THEM TO BE based on the equations we have to calculate for that. In other words, basic, fundamental cosmological questions can be pondered using these things.
  
  The shame is, that people have been trying to turn them off thinking "we're done" when the cost to operate is a freaking drop in the bucket compared to the colossal waste that is the space shuttle. Put down your trashy science fiction novels for once and read some real papers produced by real science. Then you can get outside your narrow view of what one can "find" out there.
37. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by iminplaya · 2007-09-02 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of replacements, they should keep a couple hearts, lungs, and other organs around to keep these old codgers alive. Or maybe they'll be the first heads to put into those futurama jars.
  
  --
  What?
38. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by jafiwam · 2007-09-02 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  They are satellites of the galactic core now just like a star.
  
  (Or, maybe the local cluster core.)
  
  Definitely not satellites in the same sense that the layman thinks of them.
39. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by mikael · 2007-09-02 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  I found this link interesting
  
  Big Dreams Still Need Oversight:
  Missile Defense Testing and Financial Accountability
  are Being Circumvented)
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
40. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Tango42 · 2007-09-02 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, the Voyager probes are probes, they aren't satellites and never have been.
41. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by solitas · 2007-09-02 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  (from TFA): "The Voyager technology is so outmoded," said Tidbinbilla's spokesman, Glen Nagle, "we have had to maintain heritage equipment to talk to them."
  This man sounds like an asshole.
  Wouldn't you figure that they ought to be doing some parallel development of a new system just in case the earthside hardware craps out before the satellite does? So that he doesn't come-off looking like a bigger one? Maybe they are; but the article makes no mention of it.
  That is because the ageing probes can only chat at a sluggish 32 bits a second, far too slow for modern computers.
  The author sounds like one too.
  (parent:)If you have to design both the hardware and the software, it's going to be expensive. Not to say untested. And with the probes being where they are, it's not like you get a second chance if there's a bug. Things have to work perfectly, every time. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that your emulation would be perfect enough to replace something that's aced the test of time for 25 years.
  Until the first earthquake, brushfire, or mindless vandal comes along and sh*ts all over your 'test of time' theology. :) Like I said - parallel development running a sim of the real system using the same input until it's been been massaged to bulletproofness.
  C'mon - if you're reading /. then you're better than believing that the hardware will continue on and that having a backup system is unnecessary.
  
  --
  "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
42. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by maxwell+demon · 2007-09-02 03:35 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, just tell GWB that the voyagers might find hidden WMDs out there. That should ensure proper financing. :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
43. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by PhotoGuy · 2007-09-02 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  But an interface to the slower serial connection *could* be built/bought/hacked-up somehow for most modern PC's. And the emulation of the old system, on a modern desktop computer, would likely be far more than fast enough.
  
  I wonder what the cost (even in electricity alone) would be for the computers supporting this system, and if a single desktop PC, with enough work done on porting/emulating would be a far more cost effective solution.
  
  Of course, a *very* strong argument against such a transition, is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Especially when one half of your equation is many billions of miles away. There's little room for error in such a port, although it would be an interesting question of cost effectiveness comparisons...
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
44. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Mr2cents · 2007-09-02 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need low serial baudrates. I was thinking, why not use software defined radio like the USRP. And the sentence from the article "modern computers can't work that slow" is nonsense, think of PSK31.
  
  I'm pretty sure modern digital signal processing techniques can kick the old analog technology's ass any day.
  
  --
  "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
45. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by GPL+Apostate · 2007-09-02 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  That depends a lot on what is meant by 'computing resources.' Your desktop PC has the raw 'number crunching' ability to far exceed the resources being discussed.
  
  But raw 'number crunching' is only a small part of it. How many operators can simultaneously use your desktop PC? How many media devices can it write to at a time? Does it have the antenna and transceiver attached?
  
  People act like the fact that they can factor pi faster than ever before means they have a 'system' more powerful than the Mainframes of decades past, without understanding that it's 'peripherals peripherals peripherals' to paraphrase a monkeyboy rant from Redmond.
  
  --
  Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
46. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Mr2cents · 2007-09-02 04:52 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  After reading further in the wikipedia articles, I found this paragraph:
  On March 31, 2006, the amateur radio operators from AMSAT Germany tracked and received data from Voyager 1 using the 20 m dish at Bochum with a long integration technique. Its data was checked and verified against data from the Deep Space Network station at Madrid, Spain. AMSAT-DL article in German; ARRL article in English. This is believed to be the first such tracking of Voyager. There you have it. That old equipment isn't the only thing that can communicate wit V'ger. Probably just a reporting eager to romantisize a story.
  
  --
  "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
47. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by arth1 · 2007-09-02 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Receiving is not the same as communicating.
  Would you really trust an emulating system put together by a /.er to send control signals to a 30 year old probe, when the risk is losing all contact forever?
48. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 04:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Nope.
  
  1) It's not a software receiver, it's hardware
  2) There IS a newer receiver, the Block V, that uses a whole board full of custom ICs and demodulate all the old legacy stuff. I would imagine this is what's really being used at Canberra.
  3) There IS a newer (software based) receiver in the works, but not done yet
  4) The processing load is substantially more than your old Dell can handle (we're talking about finding and demodulating a very, very faint signal that is a few Hz wide in a substantially wider bandwidth)
  5) The interfaces to the analog RF hardware are somewhat unique.
  6) Doing the processing requires a very stable reference clock (I assume your Dell doesn't have a hydrogen maser driving the on-mobo sound card? DSN receivers do.
  7) There are a limited number of people in the world (probably 100) who really understand this stuff well enough to do the emulation, an even more limited number who are not retired, and a good fraction of them are busy working on #3, above.
49. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by rucs_hack · 2007-09-02 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  The voyager project is no longer funded as an active project, so there's no reason to embark on a major effort to build new hardware. Besides, why bother when it already exists? It's not as if we can upgrade the voyager probes themselves
50. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by mazarin5 · 2007-09-02 05:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Going by the progression of this thread, this seems like an appropriate point to suggest that I can do it in minutes with a tuning fork.
  
  --
  Fnord.
51. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by doti · 2007-09-02 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you have to design both the hardware and the software, it's going to be expensive. Not to say untested. And with the probes being where they are, it's not like you get a second chance if there's a bug. Things have to work perfectly, every time. So, you better start it now, while we have a working model to compare. Run it in parallel to the actual hardware to compare results, and you have all the rest of the life of the current equipment to test and perfect the new one.
  
  --
  factor 966971: 966971
52. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by arth1 · 2007-09-02 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  So, you better start it now, while we have a working model to compare. Run it in parallel to the actual hardware to compare results, and you have all the rest of the life of the current equipment to test and perfect the new one.
  
  The actual hardware has half its parts moving away from the solar system at high speed.
  How are you going to test that the signals that leave earth are identical to the signal sent from the old dish without an identical copy of the receiver at an identical distance?
53. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Brian+Gordon · 2007-09-02 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  In high school when my friend would bring me some game CD I always sat in class staring at it, wishing I could read the CD with my eyes and play the game :) I can't wait for laser vision..
54. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Bearhouse · 2007-09-02 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Amen to that - the number of times I've stuffed a working system by trying to 'improve' or 'upgrade' it - hardware and software.
  
  These days, if it works, I leave it alone...
55. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Tablizer · 2007-09-02 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  First, the heliopause / helioshock transition did not happen the way they thought it did. It was in a different place and had different characteristics. They may still run into that, including vibration and change "bell ringing" of it. And, these things might be the only chance we EVER get to study the interstellar medium directly.
  
  Not finding the boundary would also be scientific information, because the solar wind models may have to be rethought.
  
  Second, there are light speed, distances vs. gravitiy issues where the spacecraft are NOT WHERE WE EXPECT THEM TO BE based on the equations we have to calculate for that. In other words, basic, fundamental cosmological questions can be pondered using these things.
  
  I thought that Voyagers were not equipped to do such research because they are gas stabilized instead of spin stabilized like their Pioneer cousins.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
56. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by jlarocco · 2007-09-02 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It blows my mind that smart people think things have to be "purchased" they do not. build them. you have the specifications. and I bet that someone has a EBCDIC set for linux out there already.
  
  They *already* built the system. They already have a staff capable of maintaining it and fixing it when it breaks. Building a new one won't let them communicate with the probes any faster.
  
  So what would be the purpose of building a completely new one?
  
  It blows my mind that nobody seems to understand upgrading "just because" is a really stupid idea.
  
  --
  Maybe not
57. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by mycall · 2007-09-02 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  They should at least open source the parallel project -- open source requires no budget.
58. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by solitas · 2007-09-02 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder exactly how much of an effort it would be to "build" new hardware - receivers are receivers and their output is the same, and I'm sure they're decent receivers since I can't figure that they would throw-away the installation & dishes if the receivers failed. It's the 1970's computers that are the weak link.
  
  It would be nice to see some sort of theory of operation of the downlink chain to see what the old hardware is doing. Most of the effort would be in progamming and I'm sure they could find hackers to do it for free just to see their names in lights.
  
  Could you imagine seeing an 'all points' posting on /. linking to the source, descriptions of function and operation, and the platform it would be run on? Interested parties would be welcome to submit their works for informal testing, and the project could proceed from there on spare time.
  
  My point was that, from reading the article, it looks like they have no fallback resources if the earthside computers fail: and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for humanity's farthest-out satellite probes that are still functioning and me having to one day explain to the world why we don't have the capacity to listen to still-functioning satellites anymore because the original hardware crapped out and we haven't duplicated the functions of the 30-odd-year-old hardware on systems that are orders of magnitude better (during the intervening 30-odd years)...
  
  --
  "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
59. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Reaperducer · 2007-09-02 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  In Run, or Info, or one of those great 80's computer magazines there was a project for building a box that hooked up to a Commodore 64's user port. The other end hooked up to a TVRO antenna (those big old-fashioned black mesh satellite dishes) and you could download the data being sent back by Voyager.
  
  It was receive only, but still quite fascinating.
  
  --
  -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
60. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  sweet, so they have an existing backup to go in operation? no? then why are you being stupid? Lumpy is dead on, a replacement can be built for peanuts and would be a giant step forward to make sure the project stays viable by CREATING A WORKING AND TESTED BACKUP SYSTEM. WHAT A INNOVATIVE AND AMAZING CONCEPT!
  
  Oh wait, having a backup plan is incredibly stupid! What was everyone thinking? Things never fail!
61. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Reaperducer · 2007-09-02 07:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It blows my mind that nobody seems to understand upgrading "just because" is a really stupid idea.
  It's the Microsoft Mentality (tm).
  
  --
  -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
62. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Who said they didn't have a backup?
63. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by RealGrouchy · 2007-09-02 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  The shame is, that people have been trying to turn them off thinking "we're done" when the cost to operate is a freaking drop in the bucket compared to the colossal waste that is the space shuttle. A better comparison would be not to the cost of a space program that does something entirely different (LEO), but rather to the cost of sending something else out that far for the same purpose.
  
  - RG>
  
  --
  Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
64. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by wazoox · 2007-09-02 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is exactly how broken 78RPMs records are read today, mostly old radio archives. The sound can even be better than actually reading the disk on a real phono :)
65. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by tepples · 2007-09-02 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  How are you going to test that the signals that leave earth are identical to the signal sent from the old dish without an identical copy of the receiver at an identical distance? By comparing the signals before they hit the dish, perhaps?
66. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Plaid+Phantom · 2007-09-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  If the ./er is one of the ones that happen to be well-trained engineers who are trained for this sort of work, then yes. That's what engineers do.
  
  --
  All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
67. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Firethorn · 2007-09-02 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  All the rest are software and peripherals.
  
  Sure, my computer isn't currently ready to run a 50kw radio station broadcast.
  
  However, throw some software on it and it can, as long as you don't expect it to be doing the modulations itself(IE output the sound to a board to be transcoded to FM). Even that can be fixed with adding a different card. Then you just need the huge amplifiers to kick the signal up high enough for transmission to the antenna.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
68. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by pakar · 2007-09-02 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Never gonna happen... The recording industry would just shut it down since it could be used for copyright infringement =)
  
  Well joke aside... You probably never gonna be able to take pic of a CD to get any good info out of it due to image distortion and such, but maybe there will be some backward compability with the future holographic devices, or maybe just a brand new market for some future company that can sell those old cd/dvd-readers to people that needs to restore the data...
  
  I have written it once, and here it comes again... If people don't start taking care of their old picture albums that they have on their old CD's we will be the first generation in history that leaves any proof that we where here.. Except for a few old cd's that nobody can read...
  
  Remember that many of those cheap cd's might only last a few years before they start going bad, and even with one of those expensive you might have problems if you want to recover some data in 10 years, so try and migrate the data every few years to some new type of storage-media...
  And of course, those lifespan-estimates are if you store the media correctly in a black plastic binder so they don't get any light on them that shortens the lifespan quite a bit.
  
  What i have done to keep the data a bit more secure is running a raid5 and if a disk fails i just replace it.. And should probably be a good idea to do a few more backups to DVD per year... Or maybe just go back to the old-fashioned way of printing out pictures that i want to keep
69. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by paganizer · 2007-09-02 10:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  this might be a good comparison.
  I worked at bellsouth in '97; 1 of the midrange systems I was responsible for was a freaking ancient magnetic core drum & reel to reel monster that ran the switches that "a critical emergency system" used.
  yes, you could replace the hardware components with something a little more modern, but you would have to be absolutely certain that the replacement component was exactly 100% the same as the legacy hardware, down to once-every-3rd-monday bugs; otherwise you could damage the system.
  why not replace the whole thing? the company that made the system was out of business since the late 70's; no source for the software it was running was available, no complete logic diagram of the workings of the system. maybe it would have been possible, maybe not, but you are talking about a system that had been running without flaw for about 25 years. why replace it?
  to the best of my knowledge, it's still running.
  
  --
  Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
70. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Lars+T. · 2007-09-02 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well, just tell GWB that the voyagers might find hidden WMDs out there. That should ensure proper financing. :-)
  No, no, what would he do with such useless information. Tell him they can find WMD in Iran, then he'll listen.
  
  --
  Lars T.
  To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
71. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Takumi2501 · 2007-09-02 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's not as if we can upgrade the voyager probes themselves
  Well, not unless one happens to land on a planet inhabited by a machine race. They might do it for us... but that never ends well.
  
  --
  Sent from my computer.
  Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
72. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  I have to disagree. This would be a VERY valuable exercise for them. Both educational wise and money wise.
  
  Lets say it costs 10 mil to run a year (number made up). Over 30 years thats 300Million dollars. Lets say they can find a way to cut the cost in half to 5 a year. That amounts to 150 over 30 years. They can *USE* that 150 for something else? Like say pay off some debt, education, roads, other science, etc. They also get the SAME results.
  
  Also they could test it here. Before sending a command off they could send it to a local controller of the era and TEST it. Try every permutation etc... This is not an unsolvable thing.
  
  Also emulation could be leveraged for other such projects that are hanging around. So instead of playing with 60/70s era hardware they can 'get up to date' a bit. It also lets them 'try' other scenarios quickly and cheaply without endangering the real deal.
  
  Ive turned off computers in labs and other places before to find out who uses them. Usually they are left over and still running things from a long time ago. No use. It does not hurt to turn a computer off. The hardware is still there ready to be used if they need it. But support goes into the new things not old crap from nearly 30 years ago.
  
  There will come a time when getting some piece of HW *WILL* be impossible. They had better plan on it. I know I would. Emulation or at least a new program on something a bit more modern would help in that regard.
  
  I hope sysadmins learn this rule. The knuckle dragging hardware of today is tomorrows junk. Plan on it. Parts will be impossible to find and OS's will change. Do not lock yourself too tightly to your platform of choice. Sure some computers can chug along for 10+ years. But what about the day that computer decides not to start up again after a power failure?
  
  Also why does it have to run for 10 years? I doubt it took them that to build the original computer and software.
  
  Is it cool they are still using the same hw from then? Sure is. Is it cost effective? No. The reocurring cost on it must be huge. Racks of computers from that era probably need AC's able to handle the load. And people to pet them. Plus the power to run them isnt laptop level power requirements more like 'you could run X number of houses for Y months' kind of computers. Never mind 'part XYZ fried again we need to go to eBay to source another'. I would not want to depend on eBay/auctions/guy who knows a guy/newspaper for a 'mission critical' application, would you?
73. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by QuoteMstr · 2007-09-02 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's incredible. Did you actually build one?
74. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  You Poor Bastards! You're missing the point as usual! The point is our Vikings are 15.5 billion miles out and still sending info! The pity is that they both carry greetings from the then UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim on behalf of all mankind; yes, Waldheim, later president of Austria and, much earlier, A NAZI SS OFFICER responsible for the round up and shipment to work camps in Germany of all of my Greek relatives and thousands more during the winter of 1943 at the railhead in Saloniki, Greece. No wonder no other species in deep space have ever answered up! Who in their right minds would even put a trailer on the moon so close to us? We are nothing but a dangerous bunch of murderous assholes who like to think of ourselves as 'redeemed by God' and 'the crowns of creation' as we know it. In the words of Mr. T (The A Team): I pity the little green men fools who have pulled up next to our Vikings and are now planning to take their vacations on Earth! Better they should camp out on Mars with an AARP discount!
75. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by McFadden · 2007-09-02 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  (from TFA): "The Voyager technology is so outmoded," said Tidbinbilla's spokesman, Glen Nagle, "we have had to maintain heritage equipment to talk to them."
  This man sounds like an asshole.
  Get back to commenting on YouTube videos.
76. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  Message in a Bottle Sending Messages Into Outer Space Has Changed Since Voyager's Day. Copyright ©2006 by Jason Fry. Published by The Wall Street Journal Online - January 23, 2006. The New Horizons probe blasted off for Pluto last week, the start of an ambitious mission that promises to bring us pictures of the solar system's final unexplored planet a decade from now. If all goes well, New Horizons will begin to answer questions about Pluto and its three moons, the primeval worldlets of the Kuiper Belt, and offer clues to conditions in the earliest days of the solar system. It's a mission whose findings should enchant adults who remember the jaw-dropping Voyager photos from Jupiter and Saturn, and entrance children not even born yet. But even before New Horizons discovers anything, it raises a question we'll have to answer closer to home: What kind of messages should we accompany our space probes? Such messages date back to Pioneers 10 and 11. Launched in 1973, these twin craft carried plaques designed to tell any beings who found them something about who we were and where we came from. Four years later, the Voyager probes included phonograph records carrying sounds and images of Earth. Those plaques and records are still out there, attached to spacecraft speeding through the silent dark of the solar system's outermost precincts. It's easy to make fun of this stuff (and I'll do a little of that), but there's also something refreshingly uncynical about these messages in the tiniest of bottles cast into the most unimaginable of oceans. Particularly when you compare them with what we've sent out since then. The Pioneer probes carried the first message intended to be intelligible by beings who might find the probe many eons and millions of miles later. The Pioneer plaque -- you can see it on this Wikipedia page -- was hurriedly put together by Carl Sagan, Linda Salzman Sagan and Frank Drake, and designed to communicate a lot of information in a small space in a way that could be understood by any species that grasped the basics of physics. It included naked male and female figures and diagrams designed to show the location of Earth in the galaxy and the solar system. If the plaque were discovered today, aliens might be thrown by a couple of things: There are no rings around Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune; only one human gender seems to have genitalia; and we really needed hair advice in the 1970s. But the Pioneer effort was a bold step, one that paved the way for the Voyagers and their famous "Golden Records." The Voyagers carried 12-inch, gold-plated copper phonograph records containing 115 images and a wealth of sounds: snippets of the natural world, songs (including an Indian raga, a Navajo chant, Bach, Mozart and "Johnny B. Goode"), spoken greetings in 55 languages, and printed messages from President Carter and (oops) U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim. The record came with a cartridge and phonograph needle, and its cover includes visual instructions about how to make a record player. Voyager 1 is now far beyond the orbit of Pluto in what scientists call the heliosheath, defined as the area in which the solar wind drops below supersonic speed. Eventually it will reach the heliopause, where the solar wind becomes too weak to push back the flow of rarefied hydrogen and helium gas that fills interstellar space. That's expected to happen around 2015; when it does, Voyager 1 will be the first human-made object to pass beyond the boundaries of our solar system. (And it should still be able to send back data -- the Voyagers are expected to last until 2020 or so.) Mock the Golden Record if you wish -- and sure, there is something a bit funny about a spacecraft with a phonograph record bolted to it, along with instructions for making a device few American teenagers would recognize. (If you want more ironies, the Golden Record was released as a CD-ROM in 1992, though only on Earth.) But before you do, consider the messages that have gone out with later probes. The Cassini probe, which is currently exploring Satu
77. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by coaxial · 2007-09-02 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Still, it's a bit like the ridiculous argument that some day we won't be able to read CD-ROMs, because the technology will have advanced so far, the hardware will no longer exist. Well, yes, maybe.
  
  Well there's no maybe about it. This problem already exists. Do you know where you can find a an 8 inch floppy disk drive? I don't. The only one I've ever seen was in Matthew Broderick's room in Wargames.
  
  Well let's be clear about what type of problem this really is. Is the problem of effectively losing archival data an actual problem or just soething we perceive as a problem do to a pack-rat mentality? Humanity has lost data from the very beginning. Either Crug forgot it, or it died with him, or if it was recorded, it was lost or destroyed. Does it matter? Not really. The important stuff has pretty much remained accessable through oput the ages. Undoubtedly, some important stuff has been lost, or at least we would consider it important if we knew it existed, but all in all we've done okay, since the vast majority of data stored is records that's lose their value after a year.
  
  Right now I'm thinking of this story I heard recently about these old records that were found preserved in a vault from some early Chinese imperial dynasty. What was so imporant that the Chinese Empire felt compeled to preserve for all time?
  
  Tax Records. Tax Records! Honestly, it was rooms filled with with stacks and stacks of paper that read things like, "The boat belonging to Qin Xiaofu is hereby permitted to access to the Han river for the duration of the season."
  
  Interesting? Sure. It shows that bureacracies are timeless, and ads a poignant reminder of the old adage, "the only thing that's constant is death and taxes," but is it imporant? Hell no! It lost importance shortly after it was recorded. We could lose it today, and we'd be out of nothing. It could have been lost centuries ago, and it wouldn't have affected us one bit.
  
  I think that's because we could conceivably store these things imperpituity that we think we should, and "could" and "should" are two very different situations.
  But scientists will always be able to build something that can scan the surface of a CD-ROM, and decode the data there. But it might not be very economical (though I doubt it; a binary infrared laser scanning device is pretty dirt simple). There's a big difference there between what's economically and technologically unfeasible.
  
  A distinction without a difference if you ask me. The data is out of reach. The more pertinent question is wheter it matters if that data is out of reach.
78. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by fractoid · 2007-09-02 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Soon you'll be able to do it with three CCs of mouse blood and a boiled egg.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
79. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  I can hook it to the flux capacitor at the end and have it done before I start!
80. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by spaceyhackerlady · 2007-09-02 16:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  it's going to be expensive. Not to say untested. And with the probes being where they are, it's not like you get a second chance if there's a bug. Things have to work perfectly, every time. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that your emulation would be perfect enough to replace something that's aced the test of time for 25 years.
  
  Isn't that always the case? Yes, the system could be rewritten, if there was time and money to do so. Yes, the old hardware could be emulated, as-is, in new hardware. But the old hardware's bugs are known, are understood, and may even have become part of the de facto specification.
  Under the circumstances, I'd nurse the old hardware along too.
  ...laura
81. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by abertoll · 2007-09-02 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm, so with SETI we're trying to pick up alien signals without even knowing what their design might possibly be, but we have to keep around legacy hardware just to hear something that we already know the protocol and build for?
  
  How about we just pretend like those are alien probes?
  
  --
  "he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
82. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by zippthorne · 2007-09-02 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  Wait.. you choose as your evidence a poorly written, even more poorly researched comedy about four extremely selfish buckaroo bonzai clones?
  
  I mean, geez, "You just have to get halfway to the moon, then the moon's gravity takes over."
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
83. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Bonobo_Unknown · 2007-09-02 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Second, there are light speed, distances vs. gravitiy issues where the spacecraft are NOT WHERE WE EXPECT THEM TO BE based on the equations we have to calculate for that. In other words, basic, fundamental cosmological questions can be pondered using these things"
  
  Sounds very interesting, can you point us to some sources / further reading?
  
  --
  We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
84. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by mrmeval · 2007-09-02 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. And you can make a damn fortune if you work for a defense contractor and have even inadequate proof. If you pursue it you get 30 percent, if the government takes it over you get 10 percent but it's pretty damned firm and they usually grind more out of the contractor for you. ;)
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tam
  
  Congress seems to adore this law as do I. I'd love to have nailed the company I'd worked for but I never had any proof they crossed the line or I'd have turned 'em into tasty meat.
  
  --
  I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
85. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Cato · 2007-09-02 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  EBCDIC wouldn't really be a problem - just work in ASCII and convert to/from EBCDIC as needed for I/O. There are many libraries to do this for C, Perl, etc. The real issue is any Voyager-specific I/O hardware.
86. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by ddrichardson · 2007-09-03 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  "Still, it's a bit like the ridiculous argument that some day we won't be able to read CD-ROMs, because the technology will have advanced so far, the hardware will no longer exist."
  Not so ridiculous the BBC's Doomsday project to capture census data onto Laserdisc/Videodisc is now unreadable as the technology is no longer available.
  
  --
  A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
87. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by solitas · 2007-09-03 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, fine - you had a "critical emergency system" that apparently wasn't critical-enough to be worth having a backup controller? What will happen when it _finally_ craps-out and the "critical emergency system" isn't running anymore? ?:)
  
  I'm talking about parallel development: split-off the input and run it to the original system AND the new one under development. Essentially running a simulation with real data and making sure that the new system's output duplicates the old system's output with the same input. You're doing all the new work while the old one is still running so that you'll have something ready when the original dies (a case of "anything is better than nothing" when "nothing" is what you have right now).
  
  --
  "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
88. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by bar-agent · 2007-09-03 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  It has a suitably cryptic name...they call it "the Pioneer anomoly."
  
  <ominous crash of thunder>
  
  --
  i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
89. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by FailedTheTuringTest · 2007-09-03 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Seems odd that they don't just salvage the analog components and connect it to a modern computer
  
  I was just listening to a podcast interview with the original and current Voyager project team leaders, and the current team leader said that they are using newer (larger, 70m dish) antennas than they started with, and "over the years of course the receivers have gotten more sensitive".
90. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by petermgreen · 2007-09-03 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  One problem with software based emulators is they typically have to cheat to get speed. They tend to run the emulated processor in bursts allowing other tasks to be performed by the host OS in between in order to get an acceptable average speed. The trouble with this is that it doesn't work if the machine has external interfaces that need to be very low latency due to thier design (the gameboy link port is an example of such an interface)
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
91. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Muhammar · 2007-09-03 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  I remember a Slashdot story about 5 yeas back, about a retired NASA engineer who built himself a working replica of the onboard computer that was used in Apollo Moon landing. It took him several years and some thousands greenbucks and lots of ingenuity. The replica system was about a size of a dresser, and it worked with the original program tapes.
  
  --
  I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
92. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by KarMann · 2007-09-03 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Note that the (extended) interface in question has a latency measured in hours. I don't think that would be a problem at all for such emulation.
  
  --
  ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
93. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Thuktun · 2007-09-04 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Satellitte suggests 'orbit'. Well, they haven't been boosted beyond galactic escape velocity (by at least an order of magnitude), so they're in orbit around the galactic center.
94. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by jameskojiro · 2007-09-04 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Oh sure, summon Death why don't you.
  
  --
  Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
95. Re:I've got an old dell they can use... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-06 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you're too late, because I already did it. That's right. Just by whistling near a phone jack.
  
  And Voyager says "hello everybody.. what's up? Me!"
Useful information? by Shifty+Jim · 2007-09-01 21:03 · Score: 1

First off, I think it's amazing that we're still able to communicate with these space-age relics, it's just incredible.

That being said, while they're obviously a long, looong way out there, with their ancient instruments and our antique equipment, are they really giving us any sort of information that we either don't know already or can't glean easier with newer technology?

--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." -Isaac Asimov
1. Re:Useful information? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 21:08 · Score: 0
  
  They're the only working space craft outside of the solar system. They're still giving magnetic and other data. Sure, you can postulate and look at the area they're in, but you really don't know whats happening without actually putting an instrument there and taking data.
2. Re:Useful information? by fr4nk · 2007-09-01 21:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  From the Wikipedia article:
  If Voyager 1 is still functioning when it finally passes the heliopause, scientists will get their first direct measurements of the conditions in the interstellar medium.
3. Re:Useful information? by Maelwryth · 2007-09-01 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. The information is that you can go that far. We assume that you can. Until we try it, we don't know.
  
  --
  I reserve the write to mangle english.
4. Re:Useful information? by QuickFox · 2007-09-02 00:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yes, the science community will be rather surprised when the Voyager spacecraft smash into the huge black sphere with the painted stars.
  
  --
  Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
5. Re:Useful information? by PyroMosh · 2007-09-02 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they do in fact continue to give us more data that we did not know.
  
  For instance, when they reached the heliopause, we found out that not only were conditions diffrent than our best models suggested, but we were wrong about the location! IT changed a lot of thinking and models on how the heliosphere and the heliospheric shock front (helioshock) work.
  
  Not to mention the fact that the probes are off course based on where our simulations said they'd be by now. Why is that?
  
  There's no replacement for testing of theory, and that's part of what these probes are continuing to do.
  
  --
  Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
6. Re:Useful information? by Maelwryth · 2007-09-02 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  As they have been before?
  
  --
  I reserve the write to mangle english.
7. Re:Useful information? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  What the hell are you saying? No, modern uber equipment here on earth can't tell us what is going on 11.5 light hours away. It just can't. But you say, quad-core opteron, and I reply, we still can't. We are here, and it is there. It was equipment that was designed to observe and transmit data. Its doing that. Even if we sent modern stuff after it, it would take 30 years for our current modern stuff to get to where this is already. At that point, todays ultra-modern uber stuff would be 30 years old, and a 30 year younger version of you would be posting 'but its all so old, 30 years blah blah blah'. In 13 years, I will let you know how I feel when we can't talk to it anymore.
Functional replacement with modern components? by Mostly+a+lurker · 2007-09-01 21:08 · Score: 1

I can well imagine that just running an emulator on modern equipment would be inadequate as the whole peripheral interface is likely incompatible with current standards. However, I am at a loss to understand why they cannot just reimplement the current setup using modern and more reliable components. It must cost a fortune to maintain such old computers and, according to TFA, they want to keep them running for well over 10 more years.
1. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by MichaelSmith · 2007-09-01 21:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It must cost a fortune to maintain such old computers
  Not really. As long as you have people who understand the hardware and a supply of old machines for spare parts you should be able to keep things ticking along for decades.
  
  In my last job we ran the entire Melbourne traffic signal system off PDP 11/84's and 83's. Its a good way to keep your wire wrap skills up to scratch.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 21:56 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't it cost more to rebuild the entire system? How long would it take? Are all of the specifications still known? Why rebuild when the current system seems to be working fine. I don't think they would want to take the current system down to reverse engineer if it came to that.
3. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by unfunk · 2007-09-01 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Ah.
  So that explains Melbourne drivers then... :D
4. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by unfunk · 2007-09-01 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they would want to take the current system down to reverse engineer if it came to that.
  
  Exactly. If it ain't broke, don't bloody well fix it!
  
  *pats his 386*
5. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by MichaelSmith · 2007-09-01 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  So that explains Melbourne drivers then
  It must :)
  
  The same software SCATS (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System) is used in Adelaide and Sydney as well as a few places in other countries.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
6. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by unfunk · 2007-09-01 22:25 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The same software SCATS
  That sounds like some pretty shitty software...
7. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2007-09-01 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever tried to backport software to a previous operating system release? Simply finding the documentation and the backups and installation media, then being able to read it is a major issue. I've actually seen old software lost, from my undergraduate days, because there weren't any readers available to recover it.
  
  Go ahead: find an 8 1/" floppy drive that still works, or a paper tape reader. Finding the set of Rosetta stones to understand such old hardware and convert its capabilities to modern work is a serious, serious problem. It actually helps pay my salary when I come across old projects and upgrade them to new software.
8. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by RAMMS+EIN · 2007-09-01 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  ``However, I am at a loss to understand why they cannot just reimplement the current setup using modern and more reliable components.''
  
  Because modern components aren't more reliable?
  
  --
  Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
9. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 22:56 · Score: 0
  
  an emulator running on modern equipment would be orders of magnitudes less reliable than what they have now due to the increased parts count.
  
  mtbf is inversely related to the number of parts in your system.
10. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by Gordonjcp · 2007-09-02 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  In my last job we ran the entire Melbourne traffic signal system off PDP 11/84's and 83's
  
  There are still thousands (yes, really thousands) of QBus PDP-11s in embedded hardware kicking about. Ventilation systems, process control, all sorts of stuff.
  
  I've seen a T11 chip (basically a PDP-11 without memory management or hardware floating point) used in an engine management system in a car, dating from about 1982. The whole unit was about the size of a telephone directory.
11. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by PachmanP · 2007-09-02 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  However, I am at a loss to understand why they cannot just reimplement the current setup using modern and more reliable components
  I suspect you'd be hard pressed to get modern equipment that'll kick around for 30 some odd years.
  
  --
  You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
12. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by GPL+Apostate · 2007-09-02 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I bought a machine at a University surplus auction recently that has an LSI-11 processor with a bunch of other stuff on two ISA cards, staked together and plugged into a 486 motherboard. The 486 motherboard has all the components to be a pee-cee, and there is a cable running down from the LSI-11 boards to a QBus card cage beneath in a separate compartment of the enclosure. I haven't had or spent the time to investigate it further, but intend to. It cost me $3 at the auction.
  
  I got it in the same lot ($3 per 'box') with two other LSI-11 based machines which both look like 'earlier revision' versions of the same scientific instrument.
  
  --
  Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
13. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by GPL+Apostate · 2007-09-02 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  I have three or four 8" floppy drives that still work.
  
  A paper tape reader is actually a pretty trivial thing to construct. A high speed paper tape reader is the kind of thing someone with a machine shop could throw together in a few days.
  
  --
  Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
14. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2007-09-02 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Good. I respect your resources. Now find the intact paper tapes, or 8" floppies that still work or can even be duplicated to modern media. Paper tapes are more durable than floppies, but finding material that can parse that old source material is often quite an adventure. And finding old paper tapes that have never wound up soaked or thrown out in purges of old material can spell doom to a backporting project. (I actually saw this happen once.)
15. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by MichaelSmith · 2007-09-02 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  I bought a machine at a University surplus auction recently that has an LSI-11 processor with a bunch of other stuff on two ISA cards, staked together and plugged into a 486 motherboard.
  Yes we had them at Vic Roads in the late 1990's. The 486 ran MSDOS and (in our case) the PDP/11 plug in card ran RSX11M.
  
  I think RSX had access to external devices (disk, etc) through DOS. Perhaps it booted off a disk image or something.
  
  Its been a while and I wasn't heavily involved in that part of the system.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
16. Re:Functional replacement with modern components? by Gordonjcp · 2007-09-02 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  Are you on the classic computer mailing list? You can find it at http://www.classiccmp.org/ - well worth it if you're trying to find out more about it.
It's Alright... by VE3OGG · 2007-09-01 21:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Even after being flung across the solar system, I am sure Captain Janeway will find a way to repolarize the deflector dish to emit a warp bubble that combined with future Borg technology and that from Species 4971, some old fashioned ingenuity, a transwarp generator, a friendly if dull-witted Talaxian, a half-human half-Klingon baby, a group of Maquis rebels, a hot-shot pilot who doesn't give a damn for regulations, and a hot Borg in a skin-tight leotard will be able to make it back, and the ship will probably be in better condition then when it left!

I'm sorry... I'm bitter...
1. Re:It's Alright... by zzottt · 2007-09-01 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  bravo!
2. Re:It's Alright... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2007-09-01 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Just have Voyager broadcast pictures of the hot babe in the skin-tight outfit. Some /. fanboy will break the 30 year-old DRM in a matter of moments, although Voyager will crash from the download traffic.
3. Re:It's Alright... by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2007-09-02 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's more like analog rights management.
  
  --
  Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
4. Re:It's Alright... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  "'I'm sorry... I'm bitter..."
  
  I think you misspelled that last part... you meant to type:
  
  I'm sorry... I'm a loser...
5. Re:It's Alright... by Jfarro · 2007-09-02 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, you are such a dork. Hear about voyager, and first thing you think of is that show?
  
  To everyone else, its obvious your first thought should've been of the 1st Movie, with the V'ger tie in. Secondly, if you were worth half the weight of your portable wifi detector, you'd know that it's species 8472 that matters.
  
  *sigh*
  
  (j/k, aweome rant :) )
Science for the man on the street by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 21:14 · Score: 0

This is an interesting story, but there's a bit too much of the usual dumbing down of the details for the popular media.

One of the analogies used in the article is just plain nonsense: "When [the signal] reaches us it's 20 billion times weaker than a watch battery." Since when is "a watch battery" a measure of power? I'd like to know how many picowatts that is.

Also, the main difficulty in reciving and decoding the signals is probably that they use advanced (for the time) error-correction codes. This coding and decoding could probably be duplicated with modern equipment, but I suspect that it's more a question of spending the money.
1. Re:Science for the man on the street by pv2b · 2007-09-02 00:45 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Let's assume (assumption number one) they mean the voltage of the received signal in the antenna is 20 billion times weaker than a watch battery.
  
  Now, a watch battery is approximately 3 volts in voltage, if I recall correctly. 3 / 2e10 == 1.5e-10 V -- so if that's what they meant by signal strength, they're getting a voltage of 150 picovolts somewhere in the antenna.
  
  P = U^2 / R. If we assume (assumption number two) they've got their antenna matched to 50 Ohm wherever they connect their antenna to their equipment. (1.5e-10)^2 / 50 = 4.5e-22 W == 450 yoctowatts. (That, incidentally, is also how far down the SI prefixes go. :-)
  
  You wanted to know how many picowatts that is... well, that's 4.5e-10 picowatt -- or -184 dBm. This is probably the power they get in their connector after their antenna.
  
  Or, in other words, 20 billion times weaker than a hypothetical watch battery that emits a RF signal at 3 Volt transmitting into a 50 ohm antenna. ;-)
  
  This, of course is assuming that's what they meant. They could have meant something else arbitrarilly entirely.
2. Re:Science for the man on the street by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2007-09-02 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  I love slashdot for the posters like you. You make all that look easy while all that makes ME nerdy is that I assemble computers and know my way around inside them.
  
  --
  Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Any real info on the systems used? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 21:18 · Score: 0

I'm a history junkie and love to read about old systems and such. Is there anything out there technical info about these computers, and possibly pictures?
32 bits a second by Nymz · 2007-09-01 21:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

FTA
That is because the ageing probes can only chat at a sluggish 32 bits a second, far too slow for modern computers.

(32 bits) x (60 seconds) x (60 minutes) x (24 hours) x (365 days) x (30 years) = (30,274,560,000 bits)
(30,274,560,000 bits) / (8 bits) / (1024 bytes) / (1024 KiB) / (1024 MiB) = (about 3.5 GiB over 30 years)

I don't think a modern computer would help, because it's clear that Comcast is seriously throttling their torrent connection.
1. Re:32 bits a second by tehSpork · 2007-09-01 21:35 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The Voyager probes are 15.5 and 12.5 billion kilometers from the sun and Comcast can connect to them, yet still couldn't get a connection out to my house in relative suburbia until a couple years ago?
  
  I call BS.
2. Re:32 bits a second by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 23:20 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Actually, they haven't been using 30bps all the way. The transmit rate has been reduced due to the decreasing signal power that is received at earth, but maybe also due to the reduced power output of the RTGs, but have been able to increase it from the planned rates due to upgrades to the receiving equipment.
  
  At Saturn, they were transmitting at 115200 bps, at Jupiter 44800bps, 29900bps at Neptune and 21600bps at Uranus. There are multiple different transmit modes, with varying power requirements and different receiver requirements. The high rates given above were only possible by combining multiple antennas, so in cruise mode, they have to make do with much lower data rates. There's more documentation here, and, while I haven't found anything about the ground station computers that are used, here's an interesting article about the onboard computers of the voyager spacecraft.
3. Re:32 bits a second by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  The Voyager probes are 15.5 and 12.5 billion kilometers from the sun and Comcast can connect to them, yet still couldn't get a connection out to my house in relative suburbia until a couple years ago? Yeah, but the Voyagers' ping time is *abysmal*.
4. Re:32 bits a second by gyrogeerloose · 2007-09-02 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  it's clear that Comcast is seriously throttling their torrent connection
  
  They originally wanted DSL but the local loop length was way too long.
  
  --
  This ain't rocket surgery.
5. Re:32 bits a second by dracken · 2007-09-02 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Awww, just give it a few hundred years, and it will come back searching for us and start talking to us.
6. Re:32 bits a second by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know - 1,718,000 ms compares favorably to comcast ping times! ;)
7. Re:32 bits a second by qzulla · 2007-09-02 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent link! Thanks for sharing it. It was a truly amazing effort in design that has stood the test of time.
  
  qz
Cost benefit analysis by Colin+Smith · 2007-09-01 21:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seems like nobody's done one for the costs of hiring a couple of engineers to reverse engineer or re-implement the protocol...

--
Deleted
1. Re:Cost benefit analysis by Onlyodin · 2007-09-01 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone heard of VMWare? Their products help virtualise old systems :P
  
  They have a freebie product too!
2. Re:Cost benefit analysis by arth1 · 2007-09-01 22:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  More likely, they have done just that, which is exactly why this runs on legacy hardware and software.
  
  (The definition of legacy is "something that works".)
3. Re:Cost benefit analysis by stargazer_55 · 2007-09-02 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  It is still inconceivable to me that any hardware that is 30-something years old is bound to have some amount of breakdown. And when that occurs you have to have engineers who understand how the thing is built and to have spare parts that you have readily available to make the repairs. Now as far as the hardware that is 15.5 billion kilometers from Earth, I guess we'll have to wait for Voyager to meet up with a race of living machines to give it an upgrade, and then maybe call it "V'ger"?
4. Re:Cost benefit analysis by wolverine1999 · 2007-09-02 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Or it ends up, due to a faulty queller drive, devastating a whole planet of intelligent beings.. making them angry against humanity when Space:1999's moon meets the voyager space probe..
  
  Paul: "Signal from Voyager One"
  
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0706356/
  http://www.space1999.net/~cosmos1999/12/tivrvsact4 .10.html
  
  --
  SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
What about this requires old equipment? by general_boy · 2007-09-01 21:36 · Score: 1

Either there's something they're not telling us, or the reporter may be clueless.

A 32bps data stream is plenty slow alright, but if anything, modern equipment should be able to do a better job at plucking the oh-so-faint signal out of the noise.
1. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by Detritus · 2007-09-01 21:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The reporter is clueless. It's all a matter of money. It's very expensive to take an old piece of software, written in some obscure language, running on an old machine with a weird architecture, reverse engineer the requirements, rewrite it for a modern machine, and debug and test it thoroughly. You need people who understand the old system and the environment that it ran in. It's usually much cheaper to keep the old hardware running. Plus, many older systems were custom designs, optimized for a particular task, and can still do a better job than more generic modern hardware.
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
2. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by Plunky · 2007-09-01 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  The reporter is clueless. It's all a matter of money. It's very expensive to take an old piece of software, written in some obscure language, running on an old machine with a weird architecture, reverse engineer the requirements, rewrite it for a modern machine, and debug and test it thoroughly. You need people who understand the old system and the environment that it ran in. It's usually much cheaper to keep the old hardware running. Plus, many older systems were custom designs, optimized for a particular task, and can still do a better job than more generic modern hardware.
  
  Ok, here is an idea then.. open source. Yes, there are thousands of geeks out there who, if the protocol was simply published, would write that software for the pure pleasure of it.
  I didn't read TFA, but TFS said they were 'tracking faint whispers' which would make it a one way street I guess, is there any way to control these spacecraft remotely that would be not safe to publish?
3. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by Detritus · 2007-09-01 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  Open source is not some magic wand that solves all problems. Besides knowing how to program, it takes at least several years of full-time experience in a very specialized field before someone can be expected to produce useful software.
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
4. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 22:49 · Score: 0
  
  It would be sad if the equipment were to fail and contact is lost permanently. Though if you think about it, it would be kind of funny. Just think, wouldn't be ironic, after sending these probes into the most dangerous region known to mankind and survive innumerable hazards, just for contact to be lost, not by them, but by us?
5. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by jamesh · 2007-09-01 22:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ok, here is an idea then.. open source. Yes, there are thousands of geeks out there who, if the protocol was simply published, would write that software for the pure pleasure of it.
  
  Failing that, you'd put the software under the DMCA and claim that it was the hd-dvd encryption algorithm. You'd have three different OSS solutions in a week.
6. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by Dunbal · 2007-09-01 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's very expensive to take an old piece of software, written in some obscure language, running on an old machine with a weird architecture
  
  However this is countered by the fact that the entire program is probably only 4kB...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
7. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by Detritus · 2007-09-01 23:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You underestimate how much a clever programmer can do with 4kw (kiloword) on many of these systems. These programs can be very complex and difficult to understand, even with the source code.
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
8. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by QuickFox · 2007-09-02 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  Open source is not some magic wand that solves all problems. How dare you!
  
  --
  Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
9. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by Mostly+a+lurker · 2007-09-02 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  You have a point. I remember looking at the source of a roughly 1989 vintage version of Kermit. Although the source was tiny, compared even to most sophisticated programs of that era, I felt like I was involved in advanced cryptography. Most of the (to me) impenetrable code was designed to deal with the quirks of dozens of kinds of communication equipment while using minimal memory. If the source code had been properly documented, it would have been OK, but it wasn't. Mind you, modern root kits seem to use many of the same programming techniques (along with the lack of comments).
10. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by GPL+Apostate · 2007-09-02 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  I wrote some and deployed some code just last week for a processor with 512 bytes of program memory and 24 bytes of RAM.
  
  --
  Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
11. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by shadowbearer · 2007-09-02 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  We *could do it*, however. (if we can't we're screwed anyway...)
  
  The sooner, the better, I say. That hardware is going to fail, sooner or later, and if the two Voyagers are still operating at that time, we'll look pretty foolish, yes?
  
  Not that that's anything new...
  
  SB
  
  --
  It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
12. Re:What about this requires old equipment? by MrPeach · 2007-09-02 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  An Atari 2600???
Pictures by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 21:41 · Score: 0

Is there any pictures of the hardware? I'm curious what the old monsters look like
1. Re:Pictures by fr4nk · 2007-09-01 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  The NASA-Site has some pictures of the probe during assembly.
2. Re:Pictures by MichaelSmith · 2007-09-01 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think he means the ground hardware
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:Pictures by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  Yea I meant the computers, pics of the Voyagers can be found anywhere.
4. Re:Pictures by Whiteox · 2007-09-02 00:45 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Pic here (from a post above) about half way down the page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computer s/Ch6-2.html
  
  A 16 bit computer with 128 registers and an 8k memory. Pretty good as in 1977 I was playing Star Trek (simple grid system)on an IBM at uni with 8k. The Voyager was cutting edge at the time.
  
  --
  Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Its probably the different pots of money question. by Thanster · 2007-09-01 21:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

In (my experience of) public finances, an expenditure to re implement a protocol would be a capital expense, bring on "careful" scrutiny of the whole programme, and risk all these scientists jobs etc. (with no guarantee of getting the cash) and given that the question being answered is more than an entire career in the making (wall clock wise)......... A maintaince bill for existing equipment gets paid (almost) no questions asked.......
it's cheaper, this way. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 22:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

reanalyze and redesign the whole system, even with the goal of emulating it on current hardware, would cost a fortune.

i think it's safer and cheaper to leave it alive...

for younger folks thinking about emulating it on an off the shelf machine: current architectures and hardware are not always "better"; space exploration aside, for certain goals it's simpler to use a '70 thing working a custom tailored board than a oh-shi...-look-at-that-latency-its-impredictable!- harware...

6502s and z80s are still manifactured, indeed.
1. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by Detritus · 2007-09-01 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  You make a very good point. Old systems had deterministic timing. No cache, no virtual memory, no bloated-pig operating systems designed by idiots in Redmond. You could actually make statements like "there is a 13 microsecond delay between receipt of command X and the initiation of pyro Y".
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
2. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by MichaelSmith · 2007-09-01 23:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Old systems had deterministic timing. No cache, no virtual memory, no bloated-pig operating systems designed by idiots in Redmond.
  A typical mainframe of 30 years ago would have done a lot of batch processing. But it still multi tasked. Only an embedded system would have had deterministic timing. And that is true of today as well.
  
  I funded a hitch hiking holiday in Tasmania in 1986 by doing small withdrawals in the middle of the night when ATM's couldn't connect to the banking systems because overnight jobs were running.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by Alioth · 2007-09-02 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  6502s still manufactured? I thought CSG went bust years ago. Who makes them now, where can you buy one?
  
  I know the Z80 is still manufactured; I have a 40-pin DIL "classic" Z80 on my table datecoded late 2006, and many electronics wholesalers stock them.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
4. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by ajlitt · 2007-09-02 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  WDC holds the patent on the 6502 and still sells chips and cores.
5. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by Megane · 2007-09-02 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think the patent on the original 6502, and probably even the 65816 ran out years ago. VHDL cores would be another matter entirely.
  Did they even have the patent on the original 6502? That was MOS Technology, who later got bought out by Commodore.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
6. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by megaditto · 2007-09-02 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  wouldn't it post your withdrawal at a later time, though? In fact, you could get out more money than you had in your account, but the next business day they would slap you with the overdraft charges which hurt (unless your trip to Tasmania is one-way, that is).
  
  --
  Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
7. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by tygt · 2007-09-02 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you apparently got to Tasmania yourself unlike the early settlers, but sounds like you were of like mind ;)
8. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by MichaelSmith · 2007-09-02 14:54 · Score: 2
  
  wouldn't it post your withdrawal at a later time, though? In fact, you could get out more money than you had in your account, but the next business day they would slap you with the overdraft charges which hurt (unless your trip to Tasmania is one-way, that is).
  At the time I was completely out of money but I had a separation cheque (remember them?) from my previous employer which I wouldn't be able to cash until the end of the holliday. The account went into debt but I paid it back around the time the bank caught up with my balance.
  
  Remember that this was in the days when the banks were geared to resolve transactions within a week or two, as opposed to seconds now.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
9. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by RabidMonkey · 2007-09-03 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  they had ATMs in 1986? In Tasmania? that connected back to banks here?
  
  I can vaguely remember the first ATMs appearing here around that time. That they had them in Tasmania, that would talk back to FI's else where is remarkable.
  
  --
  We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
10. Re:it's cheaper, this way. by MichaelSmith · 2007-09-03 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  I can vaguely remember the first ATMs appearing here around that time. That they had them in Tasmania, that would talk back to FI's else where is remarkable.
  There were definitely some. I might have stocked up on cash before leaving Melbourne though. They must have run on dial up modems.
  
  One ATM from that era used to print the transaction report on to a convenient stiff card. It would spit the card out on the ground (the hopper was faulty) and warn the user "not to litter"
  
  I also remember from when I was in the UK with my parents in 1975. Expat Australians knew lots of hacks which you could use on the British phone system to get a free call back home. One hack involved repeatedly dialing and hanging up from a particular public phone near the GPO until the phone system decided that the phone was faulty and let you make the call.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
The original equipment probabily just works... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 22:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Communication with different equipment has been done. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/25/2/

Proof that it's not a problem to receive and decode. Transmit can't be any harder. But why "upgrade" it if they don't have to? The old equipment probably works just fine, so there is no incentive.
1. Re:The original equipment probabily just works... by Opportunist · 2007-09-02 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  The old equipment most likely costs a fortunate to maintain and operate. It most certainly swallows a lot of power compared to modern equipment. Not to mention that it could be harder in the future to get spare parts that blow out, manufacturers going bankrupt or simply ceasing to build something where you are the only possible customer. And those parts will be more expensive than current parts.
  
  It is likely, though, that the operating costs difference would only offset the investment necessary to switch in a few decades, and they fear that as soon as they're done, the probes go silent and everything's wasted. I mean, those probes were built to last into the 80s, they're already 20 years over their MTBF. I mean, granted, back then electronics was built to last more than the warranty period, but still...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:The original equipment probabily just works... by bware · 2007-09-02 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  The old equipment most likely costs a fortunate to maintain and operate.
  
  I doubt it costs a fortunate, or even a fortune. It sits in the corner and ticks away.
  
  It most certainly swallows a lot of power compared to modern equipment.
  
  They move a 70m (!) dish around constantly, which is pretty damn impressive to watch when it switches from one mission to another. Not to mention the other smaller dishes (only 10 or 20 m). So the power difference between the old equipment and the new has got to be lost in the noise. Certainly lost in the noise of continuing mission costs.
  
  Not to mention that it could be harder in the future to get spare parts that blow out, manufacturers going bankrupt or simply ceasing to build something where you are the only possible customer. And those parts will be more expensive than current parts.
  
  Still probably cheaper than paying a couple of engineers for a couple of years to build, debug, and test thoroughly a new system. Engineers at NASA typically run $200-300k/year in budget costs, including overhead (they do at your place of employment also). Could you get one of the smartasses above to build it cheaper using a Dell and spare parts from their mom's microwave oven? Sure. Would you trust it to run two priceless irreplaceable probes? Not without paying the two NASA engineers to test it anyway and have it run through several review committees. So you wouldn't save much. And wouldn't you rather spend that money on a new mission? It is a zero-sum game after all. Any money spent upgrading equipment that's working perfectly fine is money that doesn't get spent on something new elsewhere.
  
  Seems like risk is high, cost is relatively high, utility is low, opportunity cost is high, benefit is low, opportunity to screw up is high. So who's going to look at that cost/benefit ratio and make the decision? And who's going to want to do the work? Sounds pretty unfun to me, I'd rather work on something new.
3. Re:The original equipment probabily just works... by Mr+Z · 2007-09-02 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, they got the signal, but did they understand what it said? Like as not the decoding software is what runs on that ancient computer the article referred to.
  
  It's probably some crummy old FORTRAN-66 or BLISS code running on an ancient PDP.
  --Joe
  
  --
  Program Intellivision!
Relivs of a time... by Swampash · 2007-09-01 22:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

...when NASA inspired me, and the projects in which it was engaged filled me with wonder and curiosity. Nowadays the only thing that amazes me about NASA is the bureaucracy. Well, and the big explosions of course.
1. Re:Relivs of a time... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because there is no wonder in 2 man made objects being where none have been before. Not to mention surviving much longer than was expected.
2. Re:Relivs of a time... by Opportunist · 2007-09-02 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it's kinda sad when the exciting part of space exploration shifts from "will they find something new" to "will they make it back in one piece".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:Relivs of a time... by Moridineas · 2007-09-02 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, the Mars rovers aren't interesting to you--you're not amazed? Maybe it's more you that have become world-wise/jaded and less NASA changing :p
The reason for all that legacy equipment... by itsdapead · 2007-09-01 22:55 · Score: 5, Funny

(ring) (ring) (click) G'day, this is Tidbinbilla, how can we help?
"Er, Hi, This is Ranesh from Advanced Emulation Solutions... I'm testing the VM you commissioned to replace your legacy communications solution. Thing is, there seems to be an undocumented bug in the command protocol and the remote client has locked up. Could some one pop over and power-cycle the client, please?
****???^^^^!!!!
Hey - take it easy - "no worries" as you guys say - just turn off the power, count to ten and turn it on again!
$$$$!!!!##### !!!!!
Er, 15.5 billion kilometers, you say? Look, I know you guys like to boast about the size of Australia, but...
$$$$ ****ING OUTER SPACE !!!!! MOST DISTANT MAN-MADE ****ING OBJECT !!!!!
Oh. Shit. I wonderered why the ping time was 24 hours.
Don't you guys have on-site support?

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
1. Re:The reason for all that legacy equipment... by Bob+of+Dole · 2007-09-01 23:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I was gonna do the standard slashdot geekjerk thing and point out what the actual ping would be, but
  12.5 billion kilometers / speed of light is 11.58 hours.
  So 24 hours is just about right! Well done sir.
  
  (although it's closer to 23 hours...)
  
  --
  I respond to your sigs
2. Re:The reason for all that legacy equipment... by MichaelSmith · 2007-09-01 23:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  although it's closer to 23 hours
  Takes an hour for the processor on Voyager to unpack an ICMP message, parse the ping, compose a reply, encapsulate and send it.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:The reason for all that legacy equipment... by Ron+Bennett · 2007-09-02 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  So at their current rate of travel, in about 30 years, get prepared to celebrate when the first of the probes will finally reach the distance of 1 lightDAY!
4. Re:The reason for all that legacy equipment... by stargazer_55 · 2007-09-02 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, pretty much sums up the problem doesn't it?
5. Re:The reason for all that legacy equipment... by zero_offset · 2007-09-02 01:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Er, Hi, This is Ranesh from Advanced Emulation Solutions..."
  
  Or more likely:
  
  "Hello sir, my name is Tom, calling from your Houston of your Texas. With the client we are noticing a problem. Please to do the needful."
  
  --
  Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
This contradicts wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-01 22:57 · Score: 1, Informative

Wikipedia says that it was possible for amateur radio operators to receive data:
On March 31, 2006, the amateur radio operators from AMSAT Germany tracked and received data from Voyager 1 using the 20 m dish at Bochum with a long integration technique. Its data was checked and verified against data from the Deep Space Network station at Madrid, Spain. AMSAT-DL article in German; ARRL article in English. This is believed to be the first such tracking of Voyager.
1. Re:This contradicts wikipedia by ChrisMaple · 2007-09-02 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. Voyager uses a 3.7 m dish and has a 23 W transmitter at about 8 GHz. Knowing the 20 m size of the receiving antenna, it's possible to calculate the power at the receiver; knowing the data rate and the temperature it's possible to calculate the ideal S/N ratio. I guess the effective temperature is the universal background, which is about 3 Kelvin.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Where can I get some of these computers? by BlackMesaLabs · 2007-09-01 22:57 · Score: 1

There was a really awesome picture (in the newspaper here in Sydney) of the scientist in front of the computer equipment they were using. The stuff looked like your stereotypical retro computer control panels/racks, complete with illuminated, colourful buttons, blinking lights, and so on. It looks like the control room for an old missile silo, or, (would you believe it) old-school space command!
Where can I get some dummy/discarded panels? I want to replace all the walls in my room with them, and wire up some LED's to blink randomly/illuminate when I press the buttons.
1. Re:Where can I get some of these computers? by BlueStrat · 2007-09-02 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Where can I get some dummy/discarded panels? I want to replace all the walls in my room with them, and wire up some LED's to blink randomly/illuminate when I press the buttons.
  
  Well...a couple places I'd look for starters would be Fair Radio Sales:
  
  http://www.fairradio.com/
  
  They carry a wide range of varied military and commercial electronics.
  
  Also might try Uncle Sams' own surplus sales through the DRMS (Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service):
  
  http://www.drms.dla.mil/
  
  Or, hey...you could actually get something that actually works plus looks cool as heck. How about an IMSAI computer ala 1975? Here's an updated but still vintage-appearing IMSAI (Series 2)..plus, who wouldn't want the computer that had a brief spot in the movie "Wargames"? (Check the pic at the bottom.) How geek-cool is that???
  
  http://www.retrothing.com/2005/08/the_imsai_serie. html
  
  Hey, wait!!! There's the answer right there!! All they need is to buy a few of these puppies, and problem solved!! :P
  
  Cheers!
  
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
2. Re:Where can I get some of these computers? by qzulla · 2007-09-02 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  All the blinking lights served a purpose. A repeating pattern would show it is in a loop.
  
  I used to maintain a Tandem mainframe. I could tell from the lights what the disc access rate was, page swapping and general overall load. They were very helpful in checking the health of the system at a glance.
  
  The most helpful was all solid. CPU out of commision.
  
  qz
3. Re:Where can I get some of these computers? by ajs318 · 2007-09-02 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Very true.
  
  If you're ever building your own CPU out of individual logic gates, it's well worth wiring up LEDs to the flip-flops you use to make the registers, accumulator, program counter and status flags. (I've got a couple of nice 16-bit designs in mind: one using just an accumulator and with only 16 instructions; and another using an orthogonal instruction set, 15 general-purpose registers, every instruction conditional.)
  
  --
  Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Where are the photos? by trawg · 2007-09-01 23:02 · Score: 1

How'd they manage to write an article saying the computers "would look at home in black-and-white episodes of Doctor Who" without managing to include a photo of said computers :(
1. Re:Where are the photos? by jd · 2007-09-02 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Because that was one of the trashed episodes. Duh. :)
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They have the source code and the architecture by Qbertino · 2007-09-01 23:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

The reprogrammed Voyager 2 to send color pictures while it had been en route for 15 years allready. Mind you, they reprogrammed Voyager 2 to send *color pictures* made with a system that was built to make b/w pictures. Using a single digit amount of registers to push single bits around a 30 year old computer that has less oomph than todays cheapest calculators aboard a space probe that is a kazillion-billion miles away is quite a stunt. Let alone updating the OS this way to generate color images.

I think these guys know what they are doing and if they choose to keep the old equipment running in order to communicate more relyably with the Voyagers, I trust they have perfectly valid reasons for it. And no, an off-the-shelf Dell is most probably not a feasable replacement. No matter how powerfull it is.

Oh, and by the way: A modern computer would drain voyagers batteries so fast, they'd be dead in a few hours. My old Sharp 1403 H Pocket Computer, built with technology from the early-to-mid 80s runs 200+ hours under full load on a pair of button-cells. I haven't replaced them in 10 years and it still runs on them. I have yet to find a modern handheld computer that can do this.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
1. Re:They have the source code and the architecture by Lumpy · 2007-09-02 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  you sounded 1/2 way intelligent until you spewed forth this....
  
  Oh, and by the way: A modern computer would drain voyagers batteries so fast, they'd be dead in a few hours.
  
  there is no way in hell you can cause a greater battery drain on a spacecraft that is out of reach by any human ship by changing the computer here on earth that is acting as transmit/receive controller for the earth station.
  
  Also, batteries? you are kidding right? The Voyager spacecraft are powered by radioisotope thermoelectric generators, that feature a plutonium 238 heat source, which is converted to electricity via thermocouples. you CANT drain the supply faster, you have a set power generation capability and that is it.
  
  Also the computer on board, while being a miracle for the 70's is not low power draw. it's TTL logic that draws WAY more than CMOS does. I bet it draws close to 5 amps off the power supply.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:They have the source code and the architecture by InvalidError · 2007-09-02 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Oh, and by the way: A modern computer would drain voyagers batteries so fast, they'd be dead in a few hours. Never mind that Dell's on-site technical support service is currently not offered in extra-solar-system locations.
  
  Most people here are talking about upgrading the base station on Earth, not the spacecrafts. As someone else pointed out, most of the reason they are sticking with the old system must be quirky analog/RF components, not the bitstreams themselves - the Voyager base-station antenna is a huge dish array that recovers sub-yoctowatt signals from the probes. The analog/RF front-end needed to filter and amplify this signal before it can be decoded by digital equipment must be a very unique piece of analog kit with decades worth of tweaking and refinement poured into it both before and after the launch.
  
  The digital decoding should be trivial with modern CPUs but the analog parts were most likely tuned to the point of defying modern technology.
3. Re:They have the source code and the architecture by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  V2's RTG is putting out about 300W ATM
  
  http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=mi ssions&Number=415278&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o= 0&fpart=
4. Re:They have the source code and the architecture by Kadin2048 · 2007-09-02 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  there is no way in hell you can cause a greater battery drain on a spacecraft that is out of reach by any human ship by changing the computer here on earth that is acting as transmit/receive controller for the earth station. I was giving the guy the benefit of the doubt and figuring that he was speaking hypothetically.
  
  However, your points about the power source and TTL logic are well-taken; TTL logic is a disgusting power hog and we're well to have moved on back here on Earth, even though sometimes I think we've more than made up for our more-powerful, theoretically more-efficient systems by introducing so much software bloat so as to eliminate any efficiency gains that they ought to bring us.
  
  --
  "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
5. Re:They have the source code and the architecture by Lumpy · 2007-09-02 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  300W at 5 V = 60AMPS.
  
  Plenty of power, so your point is well taken, The computer can draw far more than 5 amps. So my initial though of 10Amps would be correct as it is very much all TTL circuitry that is a very logical point of power use for that generation.
  
  thanks for backing me up, 60amps in a space probe like that is HUGE power, did not realize that they gave it that much power.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
6. Re:They have the source code and the architecture by Lumpy · 2007-09-02 09:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The funny part is the TTL power hogs of yesteryore have a better chance of dealing with space radiation than the new stuff. The full 5V swing between logic levels, and some of the older 70's computing that did a full 10V swing from +5 to -5 volts makes the current stuff seem like unstable messes when exposed to radiation. It is probably one of the reasons those great giant science projects from the beginning of the space race still work.
  
  Granted, we still have some amazing engineers, the two rovers on mars are proof of that.
  
  I think the funny part is that most people do not realize how incredibly big that voyagers are. 733Kg is HUGE for a space probe. The thing is nearly the size of a City BUS, and it actually has 420Watts of power from it's power source giving it an incredible amount of electrical power on board. the things were massive, but back then a basic computer with less processing power than my watch took up a toolbox, so it makes sense.
  
  honestly I am sad that they havent done any follow up deep space probes with an ion engine to get them going on insanely fast (compared to the other probes) trip on out. it would be cool to see a photo of Pluto or some oort cloud objects.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
7. Re:They have the source code and the architecture by amightywind · 2007-09-03 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  The reprogrammed Voyager 2 to send color pictures while it had been en route for 15 years allready. Mind you, they reprogrammed Voyager 2 to send *color pictures* made with a system that was built to make b/w pictures.
  
  I worked on the Voyager Uranus and neptune encounters. The Voyagers have monchrome cameras. They achieved color images using filters and multiple exposures and geometric restoration (rubber sheeting).
  
  --
  an ill wind that blows no good
Awesome by KlaymenDK · 2007-09-01 23:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Whenever I come across news about the Voyagers, I generally dig deep and read a lot. I am utterly in awe -- of the spacecraft themselves, that they are still functioning, that they are so mind-bogglingly far away, and that humans have created them with the tools of their time. Wow. The link you posted shows in what incredible detail the mission was thought through.

I am very glad that there are still people who monitor and maintain the Voyagers. They deserve it.

--
"Good news, everyone!"
1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Deserve what?
2. Re:Awesome by maxwell+demon · 2007-09-02 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  To be monitored and maintained?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
3. Re:Awesome by KlaymenDK · 2007-09-02 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  They deserve it. Deserve what? To be monitored and maintained? Hm, I realize that statement could be read in several ways. I don't know what the maintainers deserve, that's not what I meant.
  
  The Voyagers, having survived thus far and giving us the unexpected opportunity to study the heliopause and interstellar space, deserve to be maintained and kept alive. It would be a shame not to make the most of that opportunity. I really feel the probes should be tracked for as long as they live. And, if possible, even after they eventually have to shut down. The probes may have lost their 'senses', but if one could still track their whereabouts and movements, that alone may yet yield interesting data (for the next long-range mission, if or when one would ever be undertaken).
  
  --
  "Good news, everyone!"
but would they do a proper job? by fantomas · 2007-09-01 23:25 · Score: 1

Yes, there are thousands of geeks out there who, if the protocol was simply published, would write that software for the pure pleasure of it.

Looking at the number of v0.1 projects that are fossilised and not moving on sourceforge you can understand the astronomers concern that this might not be the most reliable way forwards... open sourcing might draw in a wider crowd (and I agree it would be a good thing to do) but that in itself won't assure you of a reliable piece of code being created.
1. Re:but would they do a proper job? by Plunky · 2007-09-01 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, publishing specs may or may not produce something, but its a better chance than not publishing anything I would think..
2. Re:but would they do a proper job? by Provocateur · 2007-09-02 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  And given the amazing coding skillz of some Russians, all it takes is for one of them to 0wnz teh Voyagers, have it start transmitting in their language, and proclaim, with a shaking fist: Hah! Sure you were first on the moon, but now we are first to reach the heliopause! The Soviets have won the space race! We have waited decades for this! Take *that*, America!
  
  --
  WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
I worked on this project by rimcrazy · 2007-09-01 23:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

What is little known externally except by those that actually worked on this project is that the radios work at all is amazing. Motorola GEG built the radios in the Voyager spacecraft. Right after launch of both space crafts there was a failure of a critical capacitor that sets the bandwidth of the acquisition loop filter. The net result of that failure was that the signal acquisition of the radios was severely impaired. In order to compensate for this NASA engineers developed an emperical model of the entire spacecraft while it was on it's initial loop around the sun for it's slingshot to Jupiter. Since it was relatively close they could hit the spacecraft with a very large signal thus ensuring acquisition of the transmitted commands. The model consisted of predicting exactly where the front end input LO would be depending upon the temperature of the space craft, the added doppler due to movement, aging of the crystals, etc, etc. Basically anything that could effect the LO was factored in. Once the model was complete, the ground stations would then use and probably still use, this model to predict what the frequency for lockup needs to be. Due to the efforts of the engineers at NASA, they were able to "save" both spacecraft and the mission. And they still work today!!! Pretty amazing.

--
"TV, a medium as it is neither rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs
1. Re:I worked on this project by paffy · 2007-09-02 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  And that's why NASA should invent some anti-aging technology for humans. Once all the people in the know retire/die, the Voyagers are doomed with the latest crop of engineers. Maybe they can have the Cassinni recovery "team" take over?
  
  P.
2. Re:I worked on this project by rimcrazy · 2007-09-02 03:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Cassinni is using the same transponders as Voyager. They were "left over" from the original build. The loop caps were replaced. The problem somewhat discussed above is it took FOREVER to qual all of the devices used for the electronics. Once they were finally qualified, they were obsolete. In the case of this specific transponder we (Motorola) actually had to convince TI to restart one of their LSTTL fab lines (for you young whippersnapers you can Google what that is) because we needed some replacement parts and these were qualified and rad-hard so we could not replace them with anything else.
  
  On the Anti-aging we see it all around where US companies are out-sourcing so much technology and the old farts are all being "right sized" or simply retire. In one sense a deep understand of old technology at some point becomes immaterial (Who needs an SXN7 or an AU25.....google that too!) but if the basic problem solving skills are gone to then we are in deep shit if we ever need to do something ourselves.
  
  --
  "TV, a medium as it is neither rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs
3. Re:I worked on this project by Tablizer · 2007-09-02 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  On the Anti-aging we see it all around where US companies are out-sourcing so much technology and the old farts are all being "right sized" or simply retire.... but if the basic problem solving skills are gone to then we are in deep shit if we ever need to do something ourselves.
  
  Free-trade is like junk-bonds: you can make a lot of money, but it adds a large dose of uncertainty and instability into the system (for both countries and individuals). If we ever have to go to war with China, for example, we are fucked because they make the replacement parts. And on a smaller scale is sector-specific economic bubble burstages.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
4. Re:I worked on this project by 808140 · 2007-09-04 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  If we ever go to war with China, they're fucked too. We buy all their shit, and all of their money is tied up in US treasury securities.
  
  This is why we will never go to war with China. Fuck Taiwan.
outmoded? by timmarhy · 2007-09-01 23:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sounded a lot like penis envy to me. Those engineers in the 70's knew what they were doing, unlike the kids today who breeze past their competency based exams.
The voyager sats are some of our most successful missions, i'd challenge anyone to do better then their "out modded" systems.

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
1. Re:outmoded? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2007-09-02 00:04 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The voyager sats are some of our most successful missions, i'd challenge anyone to do better then their "out modded" systems.
  
  The IRS seems to be pretty succesful: they still run their 1960s mainframes, yet they're still pinching everybody's money. That's one mission everybody would like to see fail...
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
2. Re:outmoded? by Opportunist · 2007-09-02 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhh, now the tax forms make sense. The IRS goes by the old school hackers mantra "What was hard to implement should be hard to understand".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:outmoded? by nwbvt · 2007-09-02 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Penis envy? Well, if you can design a space probe with your penis, then maybe I do have a little envy, though thats not what most people use those things for (and feel free to make the obligatory joke about other types of probes)...
  Were the Voyager space probes and other successful space engineering projects of the time immensely successful marvels of engineering? Of course, especially considering the technology that was available at the time. But are you seriously denying that the technology has not evolved since then, making those techniques used (as successful and impressive as they are) outmoded? Sure the Great Pyramids were marvels of engineering, but I certainly wouldn't claim their techniques were just as good as modern techniques.
  
  --
  Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
4. Re:outmoded? by HeLLFiRe1151 · 2007-09-02 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  There's 2 little robots running around on Mars. They were only supposed to last a few months.
  
  --
  I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
5. Re:outmoded? by marcello_dl · 2007-09-02 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  "Penis envy? Well, if you can design a space probe with your penis..."
  
  The penis probes space already.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
6. Re:outmoded? by rjason · 2007-09-02 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  like when we lost 2 or 3 probes to mars very recently. one of which was a simple conversion error in the software
7. Re:outmoded? by ajs318 · 2007-09-03 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  like when we lost 2 or 3 probes to mars very recently. one of which was a simple conversion error in the software
  ..... which is something that would not have happened in any other country in the world. Think about that.
  
  --
  Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
8. Re:outmoded? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-04 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Simple is an utterly inappropriate term for the failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter. Go read the wikipedia article on the mission for an introduction to the error.
  
  In extreme summation:
  
  The MCO reused some code from the Mars Global Surveyor (a sucessful mission). Part of this determined trajectory based on thruster firings. However, although algorithm was similar between the two missions, the thrusters weren't. One had a spec in Newtons and the other pounds. The specs were inputted correctly, but the unit conversion was not noticed in the reused code.
What's the problem with modern comms hardware? by Jugalator · 2007-09-01 23:59 · Score: 1

I don't really understand the part about having to preserve ancient hardware from the 70's to communicate with them.

Isn't it just based on pretty simple technology, and a quite simple communications protocol?

How complex can a software to communicate with the Voyager probes be, and can't it be ported?

Sure, the hw it runs on over at NASA won't be the same, but the end requirement simply has to be to communicate with radio waves over high latencies, and they have plenty of modern hardware for that, or...?

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
1. Re:What's the problem with modern comms hardware? by jbengt · 2007-09-02 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  As you quoted, TFA talks about needing to maintain the exististing Hardware.
  Yet I see dozens of comments about how it wouldn't be that hard to port the existing Software.
  This is something of a non sequitur.
  There are probably some (physical) signals being received and processed that would not be trivial to receive on modern hardware.
  
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. Re:What's the problem with modern comms hardware? by charlieo88 · 2007-09-02 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Riiiiight.
  
  That would make things pretty grim for SETI. Somebody should let them know.
3. Re:What's the problem with modern comms hardware? by jbengt · 2007-09-02 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  I was refering to the form of signals in the earthbound hardware, not the radio signal.
Photos by Alioth · 2007-09-02 00:02 · Score: 1

Anyone got any good pictures of these "old computer banks"? If so, URL?

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
1. Re:Photos by FeebleOldMan · 2007-09-02 01:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I couldn't find any pictures of the Voyager computer banks, but I found these pictures of old computer banks from the Viking era, which is about a year or two before the Voyager program. The Voyager computer banks would probably look something like this.
2. Re:Photos by hedkandee · 2007-09-02 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  When is OOlite going to let me fly the voyager probes? I fancy mounting a military laser on those suckers!
  
  --
  Up for it.
3. Re:Photos by mpthompson · 2007-09-02 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhhh!!! Sideburns from the 70's...
Old but built to last by edwardpickman · 2007-09-02 00:10 · Score: 1

It's the computer equalant of tin cans and string. The string may be frayed but if you cut it you may never get it working again. It does make you wonder how much luck alien civilizations will have decrypting our signals if we have this much trouble communicating with our own technology? Can they possibly do it? Of coarse but how much effort will it take and are the shaved chimpanzes beaming I Love Lucky at them really worth their time and trouble to talk to? Or will our first communication with aliens be, "please resend episode 23, signal got garbled by solar flare."
As a note aside on the article by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 00:35 · Score: 0

Voyager carries disks containing images, languages, scripts and sounds of Earth, cut into a groove of a disk made to last. Those images have been put together from the finest exhibits of art, music, photography and other areas that the team responsible for the disks could muster.

As a consequence, the material is mostly copyrighted, not in the public domain. There has been a limited amount of books and CDs with the contents sold on Earth, but it has long since gone out of print, and copying it is, of course, not permitted. When this changes in centuries to come, the CDs will no longer be readable.

So for us humans, this unique collection of the finest pieces of what makes life and culture on our planet unique in space, is bent to be lost. It is already no longer available to the public.

Maybe at least some bug-eyed aliens will at one point of time be able to enjoy them. But looking at how our own historians keep things like the Qumran scrolls, finds of a distant culture, under wrap and control, we should not hang our hopes too high.
1. Re:As a note aside on the article by HalifaxRage · 2007-09-02 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  Send more Chuck Berry!
  
  --
  bomb the us up set someone
"Why can't they just" by DynaSoar · 2007-09-02 00:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

When someone says "Why don't they just", it usually means they have no idea how it's being done, and is just taking that opportunity to show what they know, even though they have no idea if it's applicable.

When someone says "Why don't we just", they're probably working on the project and know what they're talking about.

If they could just, they probably would have justed a long time ago. These are, after all, the people who rebuilt the receiver scheduled to receive the Apollo 11 LEM and EVA transmissions in just 12 hours, after it caught fire 1 day into the mission. It was NASA's call not to use them due to the problem, but they could have done it because they know very well what they're doing and how to do it.

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
1. Re:"Why can't they just" by evilviper · 2007-09-02 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  When someone says "Why don't they just", it usually means they have no idea how it's being done, and is just taking that opportunity to show what they know, even though they have no idea if it's applicable.
  
  I can't say I blame them. TFA was so light on actual details that the old equipment could include a rat on a wheel, for all we know.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
2. Re:"Why can't they just" by DynaSoar · 2007-09-02 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  > I can't say I blame them. TFA was so light on actual details that the old equipment could
  > include a rat on a wheel, for all we know.
  
  On the second, point taken. If anyone were really interested they could either locate or request the information. With that in hand they might actually be able to suggest a reasonable upgrade path, as well as open up a career opportunity for themselves. At the very least they'd learn something.
  
  But they don't. They only criticize what they don't understand and make no effort nor have any intention to of doing so. For that, I do blame them.
  
  --
  "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Re: Copyrights & Aliens by TaoPhoenix · 2007-09-02 01:09 · Score: 1

"Maybe at least some bug-eyed aliens will at one point of time be able to enjoy them."

I'd love to see what happens with RIAA politics when the Alien Bay shows up!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Re:Its probably the different pots of money questi by joshuao3 · 2007-09-02 01:31 · Score: 1

I think you've figured out the real reason for not upgrading the system. If they spend money on the upgrade, somebody'll likely raise the "this project is superflous" flag and the whole thing could be in danger of being shut down. If they just let the program spend the same next year as it does this year, then nobody raises a brow. Clearly, the general concensus in the administration is that the project has no real value, but isn't worth scrapping either. I bet $5 (USD) that the budget line for this project doesn't even properly describe what the money's being spent on, they are using budget from another project to find the maintenance and monitoring, or principals on the project are working on this on the side. :-)

--
Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
spelling by phaunt · 2007-09-02 01:45 · Score: 1
Hey, just wanted to politely point these out:
- relyably should be reliably;
- feasable should be feasible;
- powerfull should be powerful.
English is weird. Oh, btw, in English, unlike in German, the names of languages are capitalised; you have them uncapitalised in your sig. (In that respect, German is a bit weird too.)
1. Re:spelling by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, btw, in English, unlike in German, the names of languages are capitalised; you have them uncapitalised in your sig. (In that respect, German is a bit weird too.)
  
  What about (my) Finnish, then? We too don't capitalise language names; furthermore, we have nouns for them instead of your weird adjectives. ;-)
  
  (Think "I speak england" instead of "I speak [the] English [language]"... Weird huh? Languages are fun!)
What a Radio System by BanjoBob · 2007-09-02 01:46 · Score: 1

The communications are the amazing part of all of this. Imagine a 7 watt transmitter 12+ billion kilometers away. The receiver to caputure any signal from the noise is an amazing feat of engineering. Even with dish antennas, the signal is so weak by the time it reaches Earth that it must be buried deep in noise. Thus, the receiver would need to be able to filter out the noise and that isn't an easy task. The radio engineers for Voyager deserve their recognition too.

--
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
1. Re:What a Radio System by rickshaf · 2007-09-02 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  I worked at a Deep Space Network Station (Goldstone) in the mid-70s, and then at the DSN headquarters (doing radio astronomy)at JPL in Pasadena, CA, from 1978-1993. BanjoBob is right to be amazed by the technology of that time, primitive though it might seem compared to what we have today. A few details: 1. As I remember it, the computers that served as the "Telemetry & Command Processors" were SDS-930 16-bit minis. They were so reliable that I remember going an entire year at the Goldstone DSS-12 station without either of them failing! The machine that decoded the telemetry and fed it to the TCP was an Interdata-4. It was also very reliable. However, the software that was doing the decoding occasionally got lost, and would go to its highest memory address and crash there. The address was "FFFF" in hex, so, of course, when that happened, you were "FFFFed"! 2. The big dishes then were 64-meters across, big enough to play frisbee inside them, which I did once, and VERY carefully. Those antennas are now 70-meters across. The first-stage amplifiers were both extremely high gain (about 45-dB at 8.5-GHz), and cooled to an extremely low temperature with liquid-Helium, so the whole receiver behaved as if its physical temperature was about 11*-Kelvin. So, the receivers contributed very little noise of their own to obscure the weak signal. Thus, these antennas were and are among the most sensitive on Earth. As I remember it, for the data rate currently being used by the Voyages, the sensitivity of the antennas was about -176-dBm, or about 176-dB less than one milliwatt of received power! With the improvements since then, it's likely about 3-4-dB better than that. If you'd like to read more, just click on over to: http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/95_20/95- 20.pdf
Lets not forget Pioneer 10 by Lawrence_Bird · 2007-09-02 02:04 · Score: 1

now at an estimated 94.3 AU or 14.1 billion km (8.8 billion miles). Lets just hope nobody figures out that plaque and decides to build an interplanetary bypass through our solar system.
1. Re:Lets not forget Pioneer 10 by danlock4 · 2007-09-02 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Currently: Pioneer 10 is 93.931 AU from the Sun. (Precise definition of AU)
  
  Disclaimer: that distance is valid now, when I'm posting this. It'll probably be larger when you look at the linked page.
  
  --
  To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
2. Re:Lets not forget Pioneer 10 by Lawrence_Bird · 2007-09-02 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  I just did it off the estimated 2.6/year from one of the last official posts. thanks for the link
3. Re:Lets not forget Pioneer 10 by danlock4 · 2007-09-02 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  I noticed that you had said the value was "estimated" and surmised you had done something like that. :-)
  
  --
  To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
Probe, not satellite by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 02:14 · Score: 0

No, I think that FinestLittleSpace was right; if I think about it, I've heard Voyager referred to more often as a "probe" than a "satellite", so the original question is misleading in its implication anyway.
There are few that build from scratch still... by jackb_guppy · 2007-09-02 02:18 · Score: 1

Building some parts from scratch is still possible. Plans for old equipment is still available. Using unique parts instead of high tech chips are still possible.

The issue here BRAIN power. Go watch "Space Cowboys", that is showing the our thought process that the young do not understand the basics.
1. Re:There are few that build from scratch still... by thealsir · 2007-09-02 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  "The issue here BRAIN power. Go watch 'Space Cowboys', that is showing the our thought process that the young do not understand the basics."
  
  The young lack an ability to understand mangled English?
  
  --
  Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
deterministic by slashbart · 2007-09-02 02:18 · Score: 1

You may be unaware of the fact that the very large embedded market still has large numbers of brand new design 8 and 16 bit micros. Predictable latency is very often a main requirement for embedded work. A lot of this stuff runs without any kind of operating system at all.
that aliens can play such outmoded technology by gatkinso · 2007-09-02 02:22 · Score: 1

Hell, it sound like WE can't play the damn thing anymore.

No matter. I have always thought that the message on V1 and V2 were waste. The aliens of course would recognize that intelligent creatures launched the spacecraft, and know what direction it came from, namely Sol.

What more would they really need to know to either 1) start a conversation or 2) plan an invasion?

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
1. Re: that aliens can play such outmoded technology by danlock4 · 2007-09-02 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Sure they can play it... A stylus is included with the record and also included are instructions for using the stylus to play the record.
  
  ...as long as it is discovered by someone who is educated enough to examine the details on the record's case and interpret the information before destroying the craft or something...
  
  --
  To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
Maps & data re: Voyagers on Heavens Above by danlock4 · 2007-09-02 02:55 · Score: 0

Heavens Above's Spacecraft Escaping the Solar System page is an excellent resource when looking for specific information and visual representations of the spacecraft escaping the Solar System (Pioneer 10 & 11, Voyager 1 & 2).

--
To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2007-09-02 03:07 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Offtopic... by nwbvt · 2007-09-02 03:12 · Score: 1

I know this is off topic, but I have to complain anyways. Why on earth did you waste the time linking to the Wikipedia for "background information" on the Voyager space probes? The reliability of a community edited "encyclopedia" aside, do you really think we wouldn't be able to find those links ourselves had they not been part of the article? Do you really think the Wikipedia is so difficult to navigate that only you have the smarts to find those articles?

--
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Re: anti-mortar radar by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 03:18 · Score: 0

The anti-mortar Firefinder radar being used in Iraq was designed in the seventies and finally approved and deployed in the 80s and is still in use today.

I remember when I was a kid my mother's boss told me about serving in Korea and operating anti-mortar radar units. They used vacuum tubes. He said if they were under fire and had a problem with the units they'd slide the trays of tubes out and shove them sharply back in to give all the vacuum tubes a good jolt and hopefully reseat any that had a dodgy connection.
Yuggoth by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 03:28 · Score: 0

Someone let me know when they pass Yuggoth.
Indeed! In fact, just use a cheap microcontroller by Simonetta · 2007-09-02 04:09 · Score: 1

Indeed! In fact, just use a 40 cent microcontroller like the Atmel Tiny11 or the PIC 12C905.

The ham radio community has some of the best people for coming up with cheap and innovative ways to make use of old but functional technological machinery.
32 bits/sec should still be doable by Krellan · 2007-09-02 05:26 · Score: 1

As others have said, 32 bits/sec should still be doable on current hardware.

1) Just oversample, and look for the steep changes in the waveform, to recover the original clock edges of the signal.

It's what analog modems and soundcard modems have been doing for some time. The landline phone system is only 8000 Hz, but sampling is done at the highest multiple of that frequency that the soundcard can do, usually 48000 Hz, for maximum clarity. Software can then analyze the 48000 Hz recorded signal and recover the original 8000 Hz wave. This also helps compensate for clock drift.

2) A classic PC serial port, of which there are many still in use on modern machines, can still be programmed that low.

The original way of programming the PC serial port's baud rate was (115200 divided by X), where X was a 16-bit register, giving a range from 1 to 65536. To achieve 32 baud, simply program this register with a value of 3600. It divides evenly, too. 115200 divided by 3600 is 32. This way of programming the baud rate was also the reason for the classic PC serial port's historic "speed limit" of 115200 baud, since the minimum value for the register was 1.

So, in summary, I don't think slowing down to 32 bits/sec is a problem. As others have said, I think the critical component is the very delicate analog radio components that have been very carefully tuned to isolate and recover this very weak signal from the Voyager probes. As for those, I'd be afraid of them breaking down. But, as for transferring the signal into the computer once the signal has been recovered, no problem.

--
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
Old computer pic by spankymonker · 2007-09-02 06:28 · Score: 1

Here is a snapshot of part of the computer at issue.
Is the earth hardware inferior to that in space? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 06:39 · Score: 0

The Voyager space based hardware have been functioning for 30 years now. Surely the Earth based hardware (that actually receive maintenance) can outlast the hardware and power supplies on those spacecraft.
Usable data, or just a signal? by Neuticle · 2007-09-02 07:06 · Score: 1

If you're using a 20 meter dish, I don't think it qualifies as "amateur" anything*. But my main question is did they get usable data, or just a signal that they can't decode or use? I don't think NASA would keep those computers around if there was a way to get at the underlying data without them. If they actually got real, usable data then it is beyond cool, like a gold medal of geek-dom.

*Sure, you may just do it as an unpaid hobby, but I'm guessing most people consider "amateur" in this sense to mean within the realm of feasibility for the average Joe, e.g. an amateur pilot could fly around in an F-22, but it wouldn't be considered amateur aviation at that point - there is no "hobby" use for an F-22 (joyriding fun notwithstanding), and the cost and training required would be prohibitive anyhow. "Amateur" ARRL members can re-task a 20m dish, but it is beyond the scope of amateur radio in the same way - expensive, non-commodity equipment that takes specialized skill and training to use.

Now if you did it with an old C-band TV satellite dish, an oscilloscope and a pc, that would be amateur, and by amateur I mean totally sweet.

--
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
1. Re:Usable data, or just a signal? by ajs318 · 2007-09-02 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  If you're using a 20 meter dish, I don't think it qualifies as "amateur" anything*
  Never underestimate what Fred in the Shed can muster. I once knew someone who picked up a mostly-complete electron microscope second-hand at a radio rally. Manufacturers didn't believe him at first when he tried to order spare parts for it.
  
  Oh, and who would ever have thought that a spider could actually survive being gold-plated?
  
  --
  Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
2. Re:Usable data, or just a signal? by Neuticle · 2007-09-05 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  That has to be the coolest swap meet buy evar. I would think sputter-coating a live spider would necessarily kill it though (electricity, and plasma etc). If it did manage to live, it probably didn't have a very good coating, as any movement would start to rub it off.
  
  --
  "Cheeze it!" - Bender
Yes, our information must be filtered by Iowan41 · 2007-09-02 07:44 · Score: 1

By the Credentialed, lest we deviate from RightThink.
Build your own computer that's inside the Voyager by leighklotz · 2007-09-02 07:49 · Score: 1

The Voyager uses three computers whose CPUs are RCA 1802. The 1802 was (and still is) made in a rad-hardened ceramic DIP.

You can build your own 1802 computer, thanks to a retro kit, which updates the 1976 Popular Electronics $99 COSMAC Elf project. We built one of these, and chose not to get the full kit, but instead spend months chasing down parts. I'd got for the full kit if I did it again.
To guard against parts and labor supply disruption by tepples · 2007-09-02 08:29 · Score: 1

They already have a staff capable of maintaining it and fixing it when it breaks. What happens when many of these employees quit? And will replacement parts remain available?
Re:To guard against parts and labor supply disrupt by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 09:48 · Score: 0

What happens when many of these employees quit?

Then you hire new ones. I'd bet money they have extensive documentation about everything they do and all of the equipment they use.

And will replacement parts remain available?

When you have all the schematics and design documents for everything, you can build it yourself. It's not like they built these things from off the shelf parts.
It impossible to run these machines in an emulator by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 10:04 · Score: 0

Is it impossible to run these machines inside an emulator on a modern server?

Yes

First most of the equipment on board is not digital; it is analog.

Second it is not a computer system but a transmitter - receiver system.

Third, there are real issues with modern vs 1970 era transistor switching time. If you attempt to replace old transistors with modern faster ones there is a very strong probability that bits will be dropped or added. The relation is not on - off for older transistors but on, translation state, off, transmutation on. This means that modern transmitters with modern bit patterns at the same time rate will not be understood by the satellite or ground station reliability.
When aliens play the golden record . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-02 12:53 · Score: 0

In a memorable Saturday Night Live segment, it was announced by Steve Martin that the first message from extraterrestrials was being received. Once decoded, the message stated, "Send more Chuck Berry."
Furthest Human made object? by Cyno01 · 2007-09-02 15:06 · Score: 1

I think i read on here one time, probably in another voyager thread that the furthest human made object is actually the cap on a bunker that a nuke was tested in. Factoring in the power of the blast they calculated that the cap was blown off with such velocity that it is already quite a bit further out that voyager. Anybody else remember reading something about this, my google-fu is weak on the matter.

--
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
1. Re:Furthest Human made object? by Slashcrap · 2007-09-03 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think i read on here one time, probably in another voyager thread that the furthest human made object is actually the cap on a bunker that a nuke was tested in. Factoring in the power of the blast they calculated that the cap was blown off with such velocity that it is already quite a bit further out that voyager. Anybody else remember reading something about this, my google-fu is weak on the matter.
  
  This is pure unadulterated bullshit.
  
  There was an underground nuclear test that launched a concrete cap at high speed, and there was some initial speculation that it might have achieved escape velocity. But then they did some calculations and realised that it couldn't possibly have done so.
  
  Nobody ever speculated that it had made it as far as deep space. That would be fucking retarded.
2. Re:Furthest Human made object? by u38cg · 2007-09-03 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  That is pure unadulterated rudeness. Just because you happen to know something another poster doesn't is not a good enough reason to swear and describe them as 'retarded'.
  Yes, a few back of the envelope calculations will show that a nuke isn't going to supply enough energy to get such a massive object up to escape velocity, never mind solar escape velocity, but you could just say so and maybe even supply a few numbers instead of behaving 'fucking retarded'.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
Qin Xiaofu by skiddie · 2007-09-02 15:46 · Score: 1

Actually... That tells us that individuals owned their own boats (indicates government policies, distribution of weatlth), that their use was restricted by the government (it had enforcement resources), that boats were used for seasonal commerce/pleasure, etc. Boring shit matters.
1. Re:Qin Xiaofu by coaxial · 2007-09-02 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  So does a painting.
  
  Also you don't need ten thousand receipts.
2. Re:Qin Xiaofu by Yoozer · 2007-09-02 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  So does a painting.
  
  Script doesn't lose color, can be translated/read, filled in with relative ease. You can't tell how someone looked if the head's cut out - but you can make an educated guess about how a letter's lower part should look because there's context and the symbols are repetitive. You can tell details of a story that, in a painting, would get lost because the modern viewer doesn't consider the older framework of the allegories. The completely anal retentiveness concerning history of the Egyptians means that even when a state-wide purge was done of data, some was still left; which now tells us something about a pharaoh they'd rather forget.
  
  As an example, please see this painting - "The Netherlandish Proverbs" by Pieter Brueghel the Younger. Now, this was solely done to illustrate proverbs, but if you didn't know this, and you had to find out from scratch, you'd be utterly puzzled.
  
  Sure, knowledge is lost and maybe then rediscovered - maybe. We were still guessing about the pyramids (nobody wrote down that they casted the blocks). Not that we're going to use that knowledge again, but it'll take something away from the wild guesses about aliens, magic, or giants.
  Also you don't need ten thousand receipts.
  Redundancy is good if the material's cheap enough.
Re:To guard against parts and labor supply disrupt by NeilTheStupidHead · 2007-09-02 16:02 · Score: 1
As an Naval Electronics Technician in-training, I can tell you we still work with 70s era tech to help build basic skills and understanding.
Two main reasons:
- That stuff is tough! I've seen logic circuits easily withstand twice the rated voltage and current.
- It's big. Even the most unsteady-handed person can solder with little fear of shorts or cooking components.
--
Lose: misplace or fail || Loose: not bound together
A pagan Libertarian? I like that.. by Wyvern2005 · 2007-09-02 16:53 · Score: 1

It's almost as rare as a female Slashdotter (which I am) http://www.myspace.com/lisawyvern Ta ta :)

--
Oops..was I supposed to push that button?
1. Re:A pagan Libertarian? I like that.. by paganizer · 2007-09-02 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  Nice 'Shrooms.
  Yeah, it's hard being unique. REALLY hard to find someone to vote for.
  
  --
  Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
"News for Nerds"? by chris_sawtell · 2007-09-02 17:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

If /. really was "News for Nerds", it would tell us exactly what 35 year old equipment is still working.
It doesn't. Therefore /. must have made it into the "Mainstream Media" cabal.:-)
I don't know whether I should celebrate or commiserate. I fear the latter.
Anyway, anybody know what comps. etc are being used at the Tidbinbilla space tracking station?br I'm old enough to be genuinely interested.
1. Re:"News for Nerds"? by Goffee71 · 2007-09-02 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  Not fair, that article is clearly a 'News for everyone else' article... It's up to slashdotters dig out the juicy (old)tech info underneath the story and report on it. Community spirit and all?
  
  --
  If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
What bullshit by Askmum · 2007-09-02 19:38 · Score: 0, Troll

No seriously, what bullshit is this article? Does it say that no one can make some device that samples 32 bits/s communication? Never mind computers, a simple one-chip design with a memory card for intermediate storage. Maybe even hook some network chip to it and connect it to your network. Give it an IP address and a web browser and you're good to go.

Seriously, no one can build this? My god, I submit that you can communicate with voyager with a bunch of latches and flipflops in 7400 hardware.
Re: solar physics by ghostlibrary · 2007-09-02 23:58 · Score: 1

Frequently we've predicted where the heliopause is, then been surprised it's further. The unofficial solar physics definition of where the heliopause is: 'just past where Voyager is'. Kind of neat our furthest probe is the only detector mapping the extrema of our nearest star. Still lots of fun unknowns there.

--
A.
Re:To guard against parts and labor supply disrupt by tj2 · 2007-09-03 01:12 · Score: 1

As an Naval Electronics Technician in-training
So, how is BE/E these days?
From a once-upon-a-time ET1.
Re:To guard against parts and labor supply disrupt by NeilTheStupidHead · 2007-09-05 07:11 · Score: 1

Wrong country I'm afraid, good sir. I'm not familiar with your acronym BE/E, but if I were to guess, I'd guess you're referring to one of the USN training centres in Illinois or S. Carolina, but feel free to correct me if wrong. I'm stationed at the Canadian Forces Naval Engineering School - St. John's Detachment, and since our current fleet was built in the 80s but designed in the 70s around proven technology from the 60s, I'd imagine that my training is much more similar to your than to your modern day equivalents.

--
Lose: misplace or fail || Loose: not bound together
Re:To guard against parts and labor supply disrupt by tj2 · 2007-09-05 07:27 · Score: 1

Similar indeed. BE/E is/was Basic Electricity and Electronics, the percursor training for all electronically-oriented rates in the U.S. Navy. And yes, I'm a graduate of the training center in Illinois (Great Lakes Naval Base), circa 1982. BTW, I've been the recipient of some excellent hospitality from the Canadian Navy in Esquimalt.
Not really a disc by rubberbandball · 2007-09-05 07:43 · Score: 0

So much as a phonograph record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

The images cut into the cover of the record are the same from plaques on the 2 pioneer spacecraft, minus your over-detailed nude man and under-detailed nude woman.

--
oh marmalade.
Re:To guard against parts and labor supply disrupt by NeilTheStupidHead · 2007-09-05 15:19 · Score: 1

Okay, the program I'm in now is something similar, though even at this point, Naval Electronics Techs are seperated from Naval Weapons Techs, who also deal extensively with eletrical systems. Our program touches on a bit of the various fields the subsets of NET deal with. We have classes in Radar and Sonar theory as well as RF theory along with your typical DC & AC circuit analysis and theory. Once this program is complete (6 of 18 months completed) a six month 'equipment phase' begins where we learn the specifics of our sub-trades. The training centre we have here in Newfoundland is actually just DND administered with civilian instructors, so I'll have a civilian accredation as well as my CF accredation.

It's an accelerated program where after two years training, I'll come out with my LS, the Canadian equivalent to a USN PO3. This would normally take 4-5 years so I'm rather fortunate in that regard.

--
Lose: misplace or fail || Loose: not bound together