Slashdot Mirror


NASA Probe Blasts 461 Gigabytes of Moon Data Daily

coondoggie writes "On its current space scouting mission, NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is using a pumped up communications device to deliver 461 gigabytes of data and images per day, at a rate of up to 100 Mbps. As the first high data rate K-band transmitter to fly on a NASA spacecraft, the 13-inch-long tube, called a Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier, is making it possible for NASA scientists to receive massive amounts of images and data about the moon's surface and environment. The amplifier was built by L-3 Communications Electron Technologies in conjunction with NASA's Glenn Research Center. The device uses electrodes in a vacuum tube to amplify microwave signals to high power. It's ideal for sending large amounts of data over a long distance because it provides more power and more efficiency than its alternative, the transistor amplifier, NASA stated." It kills me that the moon has better bandwidth than my house.

38 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Insane by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Their Cingular bill is going to suck.

    1. Re:Insane by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 3, Funny

      But they're going to get their speed throttled pretty soon because of stupid traffic shaping policies.

    2. Re:Insane by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Funny

      That was my slogan for a while, too. Pity my liver couldn't take the strain.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    3. Re:Insane by CecilPL · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually 10base is 10Mbps, or 1.25 MB/s.

      5.46MB/s is close to half of a 100BaseT.

    4. Re:Insane by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did anyone notice that it's all based on vacuum tubes?

      My question is why you need a vacuum tube in a vacuum? Just put the parts out in open space, save a bit of weight, no problem with the tube getting deposits on it over time, or thermal expansion and contraction stressing the tube, etc.

  2. Sure, it can blast huge amounts of data by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But can it learn to love?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Sure, it can blast huge amounts of data by shadowblaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure it can, after all it's got a 13 inch "tube".

  3. Don't feel bad, CmdrTaco by Shin-LaC · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure you can still beat the moon in latency.

    1. Re:Don't feel bad, CmdrTaco by fastest+fascist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, I'm almost sure he could get a 100 Mbps link to his house if he was willing to pay what NASA is paying for theirs. At least I don't think it would be much more expensive.

    2. Re:Don't feel bad, CmdrTaco by ivan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      At the very least, he could buy a new house near somewhere that has 100mbps connections.

  4. Bandwidth, sure, but the Ping? by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It may have better BW than your house, but the ping is going to suck.

    Or would you like your internet connection to be served by a SUV carrying hard drives?

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    1. Re:Bandwidth, sure, but the Ping? by dissy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or would you like your internet connection to be served by a SUV carrying hard drives?

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a fedex truck packed with 250 lbs of hard disks!

      Depending on the file size of what you would be downloading and with what technology, overnight shipping might STILL be better latency too!

  5. Spam by tsdguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    But of course, "In Space, No One Can Hear You Spam"...

    1. Re:Spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Vacuum tubes have always had higher frequency limits than transistors, since WWII in fact. Take a look at THz radiation sources, all tubes. No tranny is going to touch that for a while. And then tubes will have gotten better too.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_wave_oscillator
      Tubes just have more geometric freedoms to create bizarre fields and strange structures to do whatever you need.

    2. Re:Spam by ovu · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have never before heard a serious conversation pitting the respective benefits of trannys vs. tubes in this context...

  6. So wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now the internet is a series of vacuum tubes?

  7. This is not exactly a new device... by Manuka · · Score: 5, Informative

    Traveling Wave Tubes have been a mainstay of microwave communications and radar systems for the better part of a century. They're a very efficient way of amplifying microwave signals to the very high power levels needed to cross long distances.

    1. Re:This is not exactly a new device... by aicrules · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The article admits that the Traveling Wave Tubes are not new, but it also lists several points that make this implementation better and very much noteworthy compared to its predecessors. You seem to have an interest in/knowledge of these communication devices, so I would say that the article is actually a worthwhile read for you.

    2. Re:This is not exactly a new device... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. But it's not easy. A TWT is, in many ways, very similar to a linear acclerator, except that instead of using RF to put energy into an electron beam to make it faster, it takes energy out of a fast electron beam to amplify an RF signal. So whip out those books on linear accelerator design and construction, and have at it. You need an electron gun and some electron optics to make the beam, and then the section where the RF interacts with the beam, either a helix or a series of coupled resonant cavities. A helix would probably be easier for homebrew. You'll need all the usual stuff: vacuum pumps, HV power supplies, etc. I also wouldn't start with K band, because it's so small. Do something easier like 2.45 GHz.

      Amplifiers like the one on LRO run about a million bucks a pop, but a lot of that is because it has to work in space and survive the test campaign. Kind of difficult to make a service call to replace it if it fails.

    3. Re:This is not exactly a new device... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need an electron gun and some electron optics to make the beam,

      Check, old 19" TV tube... all the parts are there.

      and then the section where the RF interacts with the beam, either a helix or a series of coupled resonant cavities.

      Again, can be found in other surplus tech.

      but screw it, just buy one....

      http://cgi.ebay.com/NEC-LD7306A-B61-Travelling-Wave-Tube-TWT_W0QQitemZ200255211587QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item2ea0240843&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:This is not exactly a new device... by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Funny

      That is the most eloquent "RTFA" I've ever seen...

    5. Re:This is not exactly a new device... by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the point is that before you read it, did you know there was a TWT orbiting the moon withh 100Mbps bandwidth transferring over 400GB of data a day? if not, then you learned something new.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    6. Re:This is not exactly a new device... by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly. Why the hell does the summary go into depth on TWT's? They've been around since WWII, and have been extensively forever.

      Cause Joe Sixpack never heard of them? And with the possibility of NASA losing some more budget, it's best to keep talking up all that cool tech that's been around since the Stone Age, makes people think you just found something cool.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  8. Radar by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They are using a radar set as a data link. I'm wondering whether they are still using it as a radar to map the moon too, by using a different set of antennas.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  9. Vacuum Tube? by dunelin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anybody else think it's funny that in this case, a vacuum tube is a step up from a transistor?

    1. Re:Vacuum Tube? by confused+one · · Score: 3, Informative

      vacuum tubes are common in high power applications

    2. Re:Vacuum Tube? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Informative

      When you need to make serious power, tubes are still the way to go. Transistors have a significant reliability benefit.

      Also, for 99% of applications, transistors are better. For the other 1%, you have very application-specific tube designs such as TWTs and magnetrons, which rearrange the tubes in such a manner as to negate its usual disadvantage (large size USUALLY translates to nasty frequency limits - TWTs and magnetrons are exceptions that use various Neat Tricks to allow microwave operation from a large device.)

      BTW, one of the other common microwave tubes (magnetrons), while it is a "niche" device, it is a VERY widely deployed niche - basically all microwave ovens use magnetron tubes.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:Vacuum Tube? by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think he was referring to the "vacuum" of space. Why not just take the glass off the outside and save some weight?

      Because the tube would get contaminated by the pollutants & particles in the atmosphere, and some of that won't outgas as the probe gets into a decent vacuum. Also, the solar wind kicks particles out as well, and some of those could also contaminate the tube, threatening its lifespan and/or performance.

      Good idea, but it just won't work in practice.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  10. Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did they even bother to seal the tube, or are they using the vacuum of space?

  11. Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier? by Spazholio · · Score: 5, Funny

    You just KNOW that the original name for the device was "Traveling Wave Amplified Tube" until some NASA jackass noticed the acronym and ruined it for everyone.

  12. Re:better bandwidth? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative

    Plus people usually refer to latency in round-trip times (e.g. ping) so it would be 2.5s latency.

  13. I hope Nasa has the right ISP by kurt555gs · · Score: 4, Funny

    That much data and Comcast would throttle it no matter what the scientists said. If AT&T had it going through their "unlimited" 3G connection, NASA would be hosed and we would be increasing the national debt by trillions.

    One last thing, I m wondering if the **AA doesn't want access to the data stream to make sure it isn't a bittorrent containing their precious copyrighted work. After all, we all know there is no legitimate use for that much bandwidth.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  14. Re:Don't try this in Space by wbren · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tomorrow's headline: "RIAA Lobbies Congress to Shut Down NASA"

    --
    -William Brendel
  15. Slow news day from what it sounds like... by TheHawke · · Score: 3, Informative

    TWT amps have been used in microwave systems since the 2nd world war. The use of TWT in satellites are recent, as in 25-30 years ago. The NSA's LACROSSE and the new ONYX satellites use TWT amps in the finals on their radar systems. The Soviet ROARSAT's probably use them as well, or something similar, they love to overbuild their stuff.

    Hell, the YF-12a used 2 TWT's in tandem in its Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar, putting out over 10MW of raw power.

    But they are power gobblers, The YF-12A's ate over 40KVA of juice to operate.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  16. Of course the moon will have better bandwidth by pz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CmdTaco comments in the original posting:

    It kills me that the moon has better bandwidth than my house.

    I know that Taco's trying to be funny here, but, seriously, the moon should most certainly have better bandwidth. That is to say, a research project that is able to afford a custom solution to a highly specialized problem with plenty of money to throw at had damned well better have better performance than what is available to commodity markets. I expect this to be true just as nearly every other bit of the hardware they send up will be better, faster, stronger, lighter, and more able to withstand ionizing radiation than the equivalent, when available, from K-Mart. There's a good reason these projects cost hundreds of millions of dollars for a probe to be sent somewhere. The Mars rovers, as another example, are using a 256 kbps channel -- deployed five years ago when DSL was still considered fast -- over a distance that ranges 55 to 400 million miles. Now *that's* performance.

    It actually rather amazes me that Taco's or anyone else's house has close to the bandwidth available from the moon.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  17. Re:The moon vs. your house by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The best available at my house is 512Kbs DSL. I offered to lay the fiber myself for the final 2 1/2 miles or so, or pay them to do it, but they insist that there are legal reasons they can't serve me.

    So, in typical geek fashion, I set up a P2P wifi link for that distance. It works, and I get about 50 Mbs on a good day. I get terrible packet loss when it rains hard, though.

    --
    Learn about Photography Basics.
  18. Re:Don't try this in Space by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and asks for astronomical damages to be paid?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  19. if not, the tube would be ruined before launch by swschrad · · Score: 4, Informative

    curious thing about tubes, they don't become useful until they're sealed in vacuum, and boiled out in a high RF magnetic field to take impurities off the elements. and then you have to flash the last of the gases off by igniting a getter inside the envelope.

    that provides a higher vacuum on earth, inside the tube, than you can ever develop in space. and the electrons can do their work, instead of hitting stuff and just making a useless glow.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?