Slashdot Mirror


Voyager 2 Speaking In Tongues

dangle sends in an update from the borderland of Sol. "Voyager 2's flight data system, which formats information before beaming it back to Earth, has experienced a hiccup that has altered the pattern in which it sends updates home, preventing mission managers from decoding the science data beamed to Earth from Voyager 2. The spacecraft, which is currently 8.6 billion miles (13.8 billion km) from Earth, is apparently still in overall good health, according to the latest engineering data received on May 1. 'Voyager 2's initial mission was a four-year journey to Saturn, but it is still returning data 33 years later,' said Voyager project scientist Ed Stone of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. 'It has already given us remarkable views of Uranus and Neptune, planets we had never seen close-up before. We will know soon what it will take for it to continue its epic journey of discovery.' The space probe and its twin Voyager 1 are flying through the bubble-like heliosphere, created by the sun, which surrounds our solar system."

260 comments

  1. Decoding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think I can make it out. It says "All... your... base..."

    1. Re:Decoding by Majestix · · Score: 0, Redundant

      ZIG!!!

      --
      --- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
    2. Re:Decoding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do...

  2. They broke it by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh no, it's hit the crystal sphere!

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    1. Re:They broke it by MRe_nl · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, Voyager's obviously Snowcrashed.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:They broke it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they broke it, then they should go and fix it.

      (Or we could just draw straws to see who from /. is sent to fix it).

  3. V'ger expects an answer. by axl917 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't piss it off, NASA.

    1. Re:V'ger expects an answer. by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I have that original comic book, somewhere... I wonder how many will understand the reference?

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    2. Re:V'ger expects an answer. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It's from Star Trek: The Motion(less) Picture.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:V'ger expects an answer. by Thoughts+from+Englan · · Score: 1

      Anybody who's seen Star Trek the motion picture

      --
      That was supposed to be "Thoughts from England" ... Oh well.
    4. Re:V'ger expects an answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      NASA is infested with carbon units

    5. Re:V'ger expects an answer. by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      If the message says "We are at peace... Always" I'm going to freak out!

    6. Re:V'ger expects an answer. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was Voyager 6. This article is about Voyager 2.

    7. Re:V'ger expects an answer. by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      John Mays lives !!!

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    8. Re:V'ger expects an answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's got droid rot!

  4. Oblig. Red Dwarf reference by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    Arnold Rimmer: Aliens!

    1. Re:Oblig. Red Dwarf reference by bobdawonderweasel · · Score: 2

      No it's not. There's just you,me the cat and bunch of smegging rocks.

      --
      "We'll cross the minefield under the cover of daylight..." -A. Rimmer
    2. Re:Oblig. Red Dwarf reference by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      I for one Welcome our new Alien Overlords.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    3. Re:Oblig. Red Dwarf reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe is really aliens? :)

    4. Re:Oblig. Red Dwarf reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lister: Whenever something happens its always aliens! Like that day we used a whole roll of toilet paper.
      Rimmer: Well we didn't use it Lister. Who did?
      Lister: What?! Aliens used our bog roll?
      Rimmer: Just because they're aliens doesn't mean they don't have to visit the little boys room. Though they probably do something weird and alienesque, like it comes out the top of their heads or something.

  5. v'ger by CDS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought it was Voyager VI that was supposed to come back and we couldn't understand what it was saying...

    1. Re:v'ger by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      No that's V'ger. Voyager 6 is no more.

    2. Re:v'ger by CDS · · Score: 1

      Just scrape off some dirt & carbon over the label - it's still there, it's just smudged a bit.

    3. Re:v'ger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was Voyager VI that was supposed to come back and we couldn't understand what it was saying...

      Actually it was Voyager 1.

  6. What! by Tobor+the+Eighth+Man · · Score: 5, Funny

    "It has already given us remarkable views of Uranus..."

    Well, I never!

    1. Re:What! by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA, apparently it clicked links on the Slashdot comments without reading the destination URL.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    2. Re:What! by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 5, Funny

      "It has already given us remarkable views of Uranus..."

      Well, I never!

      You most certainly *did*. And NASA has the pics to prove it.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    3. Re:What! by Spazztastic · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "It has already given us remarkable views of Uranus..."

      Well, I never!

      You most certainly *did*. And NASA has the pics to prove it.

      I'm going to make a decision for the safety of us all and state that nobody wants to see GP's anus.

      Thank you.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    4. Re:What! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orbit Uranus, launch probe, listen to ship's AI:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-CDNLYZ0zA

    5. Re:What! by thijsh · · Score: 1

      It's not about 'wanting' or not... i'm afraid your statement is superseded by rule 34.

    6. Re:What! by tom17 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Rule 34? "Any officer caught sniffing the saddle of the exercise bicycle in the women's gym will be discharged without trial?". I really don't see the relevance here.

      Tom...

    7. Re:What! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the Goatse Directive?

    8. Re:What! by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      I think he means:

          Article 34: Bros cannot make eye contact during a devil's threeway.

      --
      This is blinging
    9. Re:What! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Nonono, it's war is good for business.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    10. Re:What! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is "discharged" the word we really want to use here?

    11. Re:What! by Old+Sparky · · Score: 1

      Is there a "Funnier" mod?!? Mo funny?

  7. It's so obivous by asukasoryu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Either the probe has been out there long enough to become sentient or this is an elaborate trap set by aliens. Either way, our doom is imminent.

    --
    There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    1. Re:It's so obivous by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Either the probe has been out there long enough to become sentient or this is an elaborate trap set by aliens.

      Well, I’d say that’s the same thing by now. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:It's so obivous by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Either way, our doom is imminent.

      Not a problem. We just need to cook with gas and be a 12.0 on a 10.0 scale of badness. With a headful of mad and a handful of vertebrae, no one can stop us.

      Even if we're going to be radioactive. That can't be good.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  8. Orly? by somersault · · Score: 1

    It has already given us remarkable views of Uranus

    Teehee. I could never be an astronomer.

    *insert oblig goatse reference here*

    --
    which is totally what she said
    1. Re:Orly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I used to work for a chemistry department whose *nix boxes were named after elements. The back up sun server (it was previously was the primary server, but it was retired in favor of a more powerful sun box and just kept as a backup) was Uranus. Every time you said Uranus, one of the *nix admins would say "Whose anus?"

      Now, what was really funny was this person had a memory issue. So EVERY TIME he thought it was the first time he had told you the "joke". It got to the point where before he could even say Uranus, every professor would say yes whose anus, and he would just sit there shocked and say "How did you know I was going to say that?"

    2. Re:Orly? by medcalf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      At least he got to see the world anew each day.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    3. Re:Orly? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I used to work for a chemistry department whose *nix boxes were named after elements

      Wouldn't that guy have to ask "Whose Anium?" then??

      --
      bickerdyke
    4. Re:Orly? by vegiVamp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uranus isn't an element.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    5. Re:Orly? by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      So his life was like a nerd version of the movie 50 First Dates?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    6. Re:Orly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanna check? You'd be surprised.

    7. Re:Orly? by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      Uranus isn't an element.

      He also didn't specify that the server or backup server were in the Chemistry department. He only said that the *nix boxes in the department were named after elements. [/pedantic]

    8. Re:Orly? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Yes it is.

      It's a heavy element, even.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    9. Re:Orly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uranus isn't an element.

      Thank you for granting me insight as to the molecular structure of myanus. 4:insightful mod indeed.

    10. Re:Orly? by yabos · · Score: 1, Funny

      Pootonium

    11. Re:Orly? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Who's anus?

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    12. Re:Orly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whose anus?

    13. Re:Orly? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      No, apparently it's a sun!

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    14. Re:Orly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's probably forgotten. But, he probably never knew that in the first pla...wha?

    15. Re:Orly? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of Uranium, the stuff used in nuclear powerplants and stuff.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    16. Re:Orly? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    17. Re:Orly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your's might not be. Mine, however....

  9. ROI by BloodyIron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Talk about return on investment!

    1. Re:ROI by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      People, in general, don't really see that NASA funds tend to have a gigantic unplanned ROI potential. I mean, look at all the rovers sent to Mars that outlasted their planned lifetimes, all the satellites that did the same, all the space probes that have insane lifetimes...

  10. Eventual Deciphering: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Send... more... paramedics."

  11. 33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going ba by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going bad??

    Battery getting weak?

    Some kind of y2k error?

    Rollover error?

  12. Tried to find some more info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All the news articles report pretty much the same, digested, not particularly informative stuff. The mission page hasn't been updated in a while, the NASA news item isn't any more detailed, and the last operations report was from March 12. But I did learn this from the operations report: they're running the whole mission on less than 275 Watts of power from the RTG units. Wow.

    1. Re:Tried to find some more info by dtmos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Reading that operations report I was most impressed by these two lines:

      There were 97.9 hours of DSN scheduled support for Voyager 1 of which 61.3 hours were large aperture coverage.

      and

      There were 62.3 hours of DSN scheduled support for Voyager 2 of which 39.3 hours were large aperture coverage.

      Wow -- that's an incredible amount of Deep Space Network time in a week -- and, looking at earlier reports, it seems to be representative of the time used in a typical week. I had no idea that the Voyagers were consuming that much DSN time. I assume "large aperture coverage" means use of the 70m dishes -- also an impressive number.

      That much DSN time must be very expensive.

    2. Re:Tried to find some more info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Out of 500 odd total hours in a month for 70m (there are 3 stations, after all)...

      There aren't a whole lot of missions using the 70m right now (Cassini, New Horizons). Lots more on the 34m antennas, but there's also more of them.

    3. Re:Tried to find some more info by dtmos · · Score: 1

      To be sure; I was simply under the mistaken impression that contact with the craft was made much less frequently -- perhaps monthly or quarterly -- due to the fewer number of operable instruments present on the craft and the expense of funding such a large fraction of the DSN with a single program. I wasn't aware that we were still getting that much data from the craft.

      It's nice to be pleasantly surprised once in a while.

    4. Re:Tried to find some more info by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      It probably is expensive, but considering that it takes 33 years to get to their current locations, I bet it's worth it!

    5. Re:Tried to find some more info by Muros · · Score: 1

      If its out someplace that took 33 years to get to, I'm sure they want to get every single second's worth of data before it fails.

  13. Garbled how? by hcdejong · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if it'd be possible to reconstruct the signal. We know what the signal is supposed to look like, and should be able to find out what's different.

    1. Re:Garbled how? by rbochan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You hope in any future endeavor like this, if it hasn't been done already, that each batch of data it sends would start with some sort of test/reference data that they could compare against.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    2. Re:Garbled how? by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      Sure. Just print it out and wrap the paper into a cube shape. Don't you ever listen to Mr. Hadden?

    3. Re:Garbled how? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 5, Funny

      They should put it on BitTorrent labeled "Assasin's Creed 3 with Ubisoft's unbreakable DRM -- REAL !!!1! 0-day warez CDC propz to Hippie!!!". It will be fixed in a week.

    4. Re:Garbled how? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it'd be possible to reconstruct the signal. We know what the signal is supposed to look like, and should be able to find out what's different.

      I suggest calling up Jeff Goldblum to see if he can take a crack at this by plugging the signal into his laptop.

    5. Re:Garbled how? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      That takes memory and processor cycles - which they had not nearly enough of to do the job, let alone enough to guard against a small class of failures which may or may not happen.

    6. Re:Garbled how? by Spatial · · Score: 1

      That's how the whole V'ger thing happened. Crackers programmed it to go to back to the publishers and have a word with them. :p

    7. Re:Garbled how? by i.am.delf · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what I remember from a tour I had of the DSN facility at Goldstone is that even back then(~2000) that both Voyager 1 and 2 were well beyond the noise background. I think they said it was 9dB below noise even then. The only way they could understand the signals coming back from the probes was by "voting". Basically they would have the probe send the same message over and over and over. The message was then reconstructed by saying Bit #125 was 65 for and 35 against, probably a 1. More than that they also knew the formats of the messages so they would have a good idea of this bit is probably going to be a 1 or a 0 in particular spots. If something has happened with it, it might be impossible to ever reconstruct the messages coming back even if we have them recorded. The signals have only gotten weaker since then because the probes are that much further and their power sources that much weaker. It is absolutely amazing they have been able to keep in contact as long as they have.

    8. Re:Garbled how? by asvravi · · Score: 1

      I am sure it does that already. Even a lowly LVDS communication link between Integrated Circuits a few inches apart on the same board uses that technique.

    9. Re:Garbled how? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      So by pattern change, they probably mean that the bits that they are coming up with via the voting process [suddenly?] no longer match the expected pattern of the data.

      Maybe that just means that the signal has become too weak for even the voting method to work.

      Or... [puts sci fi hat on] maybe we are picking up an alien transmission, that without the voting process would be too weak to notice.

    10. Re:Garbled how? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah but what good is it going to do NASA when the pirates figure out how to work Voyager's data into a playable version of AC3? They want the science data!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Garbled how? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Never mind... I just RTFA... apparently only the science data is affected by the change. Other data is still being received normally.

    12. Re:Garbled how? by shogun · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you could make a diff patch to convert the data into the game.

      Of course then you can argue whether its the data or the patch that is breaking copyright...

    13. Re:Garbled how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the chances that this signal was changed by another race in order to get our attention? PAY ATTENTION NASA!!!

    14. Re:Garbled how? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      That makes sense now but the Voyager probably had a RCA CDP 1802 processor which typical ran from 1.78 Mhz down to single-stepping by pushing the switch with your finger! There is only so much you can do with that, especially when memory was probably ferrite core.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:Garbled how? by Yggdrasil42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Ramans do everything in 3D. Oh wait...

    16. Re:Garbled how? by budgenator · · Score: 1, Informative

      The CPU likely started running at 1.79 Mhz, but they've probably dialed that down to save power decades ago; unlikely any form of error-detection was used.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Garbled how? by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you notice that the RCA 1802 page you linked to specifically says that the chip was not used on Voyager?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    18. Re:Garbled how? by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Actually, you'd hope they don't do that, but use other, more fault tolerant means of error correction. A fixed string is a huge waste of bits that you can use for longer checksums to detect/correct errors.

      Also, there will _always_ be some part that, when it breaks, will make the resulting signals useless (other than for triangulation once we have a listening station somewhere else or other indirect measurements). No idea if that is what happened here, mind.

    19. Re:Garbled how? by RichiH · · Score: 1

      More than that they also knew the formats of the messages so they would have a good idea of this bit is probably going to be a 1 or a 0 in particular spots.

      That's how WiFi works. The signals are weak by design due to interference with other use etc. I would be amazing if the already did this on purpose, back then. But then, every time I read about early space exploration, I am like "whooooaaahh", anyway :)

      It is absolutely amazing they have been able to keep in contact as long as they have.

      No shit. That is some serious engineering. And proof that atomic decay batteries have their very very valid uses.

    20. Re:Garbled how? by RichiH · · Score: 1

      I should have added that WiFi overlays specific patterns so detection in (almost) white noise is easier. GPS and others do this, as well.

  14. Ice Giants by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "It has already given us remarkable views of Uranus and Neptune, planets we had never seen close-up before."

    And, sadly, we haven't been back since. I can't quite bring myself to call this a travesty, but it does seem like a wasted chance to explore some still-mysterious planets. (Granted, it's expensive to send orbiters out there.)

    1. Re:Ice Giants by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Sorry, we need those resources to send heavy bags of water to Mars!

    2. Re:Ice Giants by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. The "ugly bags of mostly water". How I loathe them.

    3. Re:Ice Giants by Stormin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember seeing on a TV program about the Voyager project how serendipitous the timing of the launch was - where you could hop from planet to planet to planet using the gravity well of each planet to jump to the next one. Basically the alignment of the planets when Voyager launched made this possible, and such an alignment isn't going to come around again in our lifetime. So you'd need to build seperate probes to go to each planet, instead of being able to send one probe to many of them.

    4. Re:Ice Giants by Anomalyst · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you'd need to build separate probes to go to each planet, instead of being able to send one probe to many of them.

      Well, no. The outer planet approximate syzygy provided the most efficient profile, mission timewise. You can always gravity sling from one sufficiently massive planetary body to another, using the correct entry and exit vector for the current velocity, it would just take longer to visit them all at this point in time, as you might have to go all the way across solar system to reach the "next" body and then back across again for the next hop.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    5. Re:Ice Giants by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      we prefer "bags of meat"

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    6. Re:Ice Giants by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > You can always gravity sling from one sufficiently massive planetary body to another, using the correct entry and exit vector for the current velocity

      But how do you steer the vehicle? Can you even?

    7. Re:Ice Giants by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Same way you change speeds: use the main engine to create an acceleration.

    8. Re:Ice Giants by jjgagnon · · Score: 1

      JPL is in the process of trying to decide where to send probes next. Both Uranus and Neptune are on the table:

      http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2009/05/minimalistic-uranus-orbiter.html
      http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2009/08/white-paper-argo-mission-to-neptune.html

      Realistically, neither of these will occur. Not enough money to persue these along with all the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Titan probes that have priority.

    9. Re:Ice Giants by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Well you can always do minor course corrections with bang-bang thrusters. But you have to understand, just about every mode of travel (actually, I think literally every mode of travel), for a probe, deep space or otherwise, is just some sort of fancy orbit or another. Essentially, a gravity sling maneuver is just using a very particular orbit to gain velocity in the desired direction. Then, using an on board propulsion of some sort, you thrust either in the direction of the velocity vector, or opposite the velocity vector to gain the energy you need to insert into whatever orbit you want. This orbit can be a transfer orbit to a distant planet, or it can just put you in a different orbit around the sun like a comet. You adjust the attitude of your spacecraft throughout, before, and after such maneuvers using on board reaction wheels, smg's, bang bang thrusters, or some combination of those things. Really, navigation in space is nothing more than jumping from one orbit around one object to some other orbit around some other object. This is a very simplified explanation, but hopefully it sheds some light on what you are asking about.

    10. Re:Ice Giants by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      The next mission is going to Jupiter, actually, to visiting the icy moons. That's been determined. Uranus and Neptune were never very seriously on the table, sadly. (The candidates this round were Jupiter system, Icy sats of Jupiter, Titan, and Enceladus. And Enceladus wasn't even given much of a chance, in truth.)

    11. Re:Ice Giants by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

      But you have to understand, just about every mode of travel (actually, I think literally every mode of travel), for a probe, deep space or otherwise, is just some sort of fancy orbit or another.

      I'm pretty sure the Voyager probes are the exception to that, since they're aimed to actually exit the solar system rather than eventually returning.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:Ice Giants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe the term hyperbolic orbit applies in this case.

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

    13. Re:Ice Giants by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Funny, seems to me like we haven't been doing either...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    14. Re:Ice Giants by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      I just bet you do.

    15. Re:Ice Giants by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Who's wasting chances? Cassini just returned to Jupiter and Saturn recently and we've currently got a probe on the way to Pluto for the first time. Just because NASA hasn't returned to Uranus and Neptune yet doesn't mean they're just sitting around doing nothing.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    16. Re:Ice Giants by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      NASA is, in fact, wasting chances.

      Let's look at Cassini, shall we? It started planning around 1989, was launched in 1997, arrived in 2004, and will die no later than 2017. That's nearly 10 years from conception to launch, and 15 to orbital insertion. For Uranus and Neptune, the time to orbital insertion is even longer, so probably nearer 20 years. In other words, we should have started planning this mission about 10 years ago. That would have also been consistent with NASA's earlier pace, launching a flagship per decade or so. That was dropped during the 1990s thanks to Goldin, sadly.

      Meanwhile, yes, NASA has been exploring Mars and launched a quick Pluto flyby since then, but those missions aren't in the same class as Cassini or Voyager. They're small, quick missions which fill one scientific niche, but flagships, long missing from the drawing board, fill another.

    17. Re:Ice Giants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, no. Parabolic orbits never return.

    18. Re:Ice Giants by Nimey · · Score: 1

      They're going into orbit around the galaxy. :P

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    19. Re:Ice Giants by RichiH · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Voyager probes are the exception to that, since they're aimed to actually exit the solar system rather than eventually returning.

      Our solar system still the center of our galaxy. Which, in turn, might or might not orbit something else; etc pp.

      Google puts the velocity of Voyager I & II at around 14-16 km/s relative to us (no idea if that is along their paths or away from us, at that distance, this would make quite some difference. I assume it's along their trajectories). The Sun apparently has a radial velocity of 220 km/s around the center of our galaxy.

      This all depends on starting point and angle(drag by clouds, chance of hitting crap) relative to the center and galaxy's disk, respectively. I found the figure of 319 km/s, and assume they mean "from earth, on the galactic disk", but I don't know. As it's more than 220 km/s, this makes sense.

  15. Translator by stms · · Score: 1, Funny

    They invented a translator unfortunately it only translates into an incomparable dead language. Hello (Speaks into the translator) Bonjour (Translator Replies) see bloody gibberish.

    1. Re:Translator by captain_dope_pants · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NASA guy: "So, you've got the tranlator working?" Scientist: "Yes sir, it says 'My hovercraft is full of eels'"

      --
      while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
    2. Re:Translator by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it's trying to speak to the dolphins but got the language wrong?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  16. event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    D.J.: I thought it said "liberate me" - "save me." But it's not "me." It's "liberate tutame" - "save yourself." And it gets worse.
    [Plays the distress signal again]
    D.J.: There - I think that says "ex inferis." "Save yourself... from hell." Look, if what Doctor Weir tells us is true, this ship has been beyond the boundaries of our universe, of known scientific reality. Who knows where it's been, what it's seen. Or what it's brought back with it.
    Miller: From hell.

    1. Re:event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The first thing it brought back was that stinking movie.

    2. Re:event horizon? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered about that movie...

      Obstentionally a computer gone sentient would learn language from the programming and documentation stored on said computer. So WTF did the Latin come from?

      That or the computer was programmed by a nerd like me who writes comments in Latin when they are observational comments rather than illustrative ones.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucifer only speaks in latin?

    4. Re:event horizon? by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      It was the captain that spoke Latin, not the computer

    5. Re:event horizon? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Don’t worry. I just needed a ride back, after Satan dumped me.

      Your friend Saddam

      P.S.: On second though: Do worry. Do worry very much! MUHAHAHAHAAA

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, especially with that orbital sander for a door latch.

  17. It had a collision if NOMAD. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    After the collision they repaired each other. That is where the confusion came from.

    1. re:It had a collision if NOMAD. by Labarna · · Score: 1

      www.sorehands.com (142825) writes: Alter Relationship After the collision they repaired each other. That is where the confusion came from. ------------------- Our Roomba at home is called Tan-Ru (sp?) because it too was a robotic probe whose mission was to sterilize.

  18. More Like it? by coofercat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have no idea what I'm talking about here, but...

    We now have much better technology, both for getting to space, and for science aboard a probe. For example, even something like the British Beagle 2 Mars mission cost a few million to make, and although it didn't end up returning much of use, it demonstrates how 'easy' such things are (or how hard things are, depending on your point of view, I suppose).

    So I'm wondering, isn't it worth mankind's time to build a (say) £25M long-range probe, like the Voyagers, only designed for the purpose, and shoved into space in some get-there-fast manner?

    I'm sure we can argue about the best use of a limited budget, and what constitutes the best science returned for the spend, for the rest of our lives, but a "cheap" probe sent out every few years to do something a bit random might well do wonders for us and our understanding of the Solar system, let alone the Universe as a whole. I wouldn't presume to say we should do such things at the expense of anything more major, but more to foster some 'experimentation' in space.

    Just a thought... TFI Friday :-)

    1. Re:More Like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is "TFI"? Unless you meant "TGI" which is a lot less interesting...

    2. Re:More Like it? by qc_dk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's probably relatively cheap to build such a probe, and probably also relatively easy to get the funding for a short project like that, but the problem comes when we have to listen to the probe. That's probably expensive and a very long-term project, which are very difficult to get funded(plus they are the prime victims of budget cuts, because such long-term projects are often funded directly outside the normal proposal calls.)

    3. Re:More Like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye, my first thought was "you would think they could build something more sophisticated AND faster..." by now, i mean... we've had 30 years right? If we don't have a probe exiting the solar system in 20 years capable of of recording 3D-1080p, i'll be super pissed.

      sure, by that time 3D-1080P won't be as impressive as it today but we still think those shots of URANUS are impressive today so who cares, do it anyway.

      my second thought is, this would make a really fun simulation/management game. Space Probe Tycoon.

    4. Re:More Like it? by Burdell · · Score: 5, Informative

      It would probably cost a good bit more than that to build a long-range probe that has to work for many years before reaching its target. Also, you have to pay for ground stations and personnel to monitor it for the years it takes to get somewhere. We have no magic "get-there-fast manner" today; in fact, the Voyagers were able to do so much because of a once-in-our-lifetime planetary alignment (the Grand Tour). The NASA New Horizons probe is going to Pluto (and beyond), and it will take 9.5 years to get there (and if the launch had been delayed by another few weeks, it would have taken several years longer because there wouldn't have been a Jupiter slingshot fly-by).

    5. Re:More Like it? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      If they can make ion drives cheap, you might be onto something. Thing is that to get out of the solar system, you've got to pull some orbital mechanics that involve you paying the outer planets a visit, so you might as well make exploration of that part of the solar system part of the main mission.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:More Like it? by Eevee · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean like the New Horizons probe currently heading towards Pluto? It's a bit more expensive ($650 million for the lifetime of the program) than your goal. But that not too surprising. In a Space Review article from 2004, it discusses costing $5 million launch costs just to put a small payload in Earth orbit. Since we're talking about escaping Earth orbit, it's going to take a larger (and more expensive) launch vehicle. Ariane 5 launches are up around $100 million, while shuttle launches average out to $450.

    7. Re:More Like it? by Rhodnius · · Score: 1, Troll

      Well, the problem with cheap probes is that NASA doesn't want cheap. NASA wants a mission to be expensive, as high as they can get "without going over" to the point where Congress will cancel it.

      NASA's purpose is to hire and pay themselves and their contractors. Actually exploring space is a distant second priority. This has been true pretty much since the first Shuttle started development.

      Somebody besides NASA could certainly do cheap space probes, but it won't be American.

    8. Re:More Like it? by compro01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Recording is no problem, it's sending it back. New Horizons will only be able to send back about 8GB of data. Even with the big dish it has and a 70 metre dish on the ground here, you only get about 1 kilobit per second of transfer out at Pluto.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    9. Re:More Like it? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      "Thank F**k It's" Friday.

    10. Re:More Like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because working for NASA is an excellent way to become rich.

      I can assure you, most of us at NASA are here for the science and engineering discoveries, not the paltry paycheck.

    11. Re:More Like it? by sexconker · · Score: 0

      The problem now is that they simply don't build them like they used to.

      Anything you get today would comes out of a shop in China with no documentation and lead-free solder.

    12. Re:More Like it? by tirerim · · Score: 1

      There isn't really any such thing as a "get-there-fast manner" in space. The distances involved are literally astronomical, and the faster you want to go, the more reaction mass you have to carry, which in turn makes it more difficult to accelerate. (Ion drives don't have this problem, but also accelerate really, really slowly; their main advantage is that they're cheaper to get into orbit in the first place, not that they'll get where they're going any faster.) No matter what, you need to be able to operate a mission for years, and that requires building things incredibly robustly. NASA has been building many things for only a few hundred million dollars lately, which is a big improvement over the billions that older missions cost, but it's still a lot compared to £25m -- for that, it's unlikely that it would make it to the point where it could actually do any science before dying.

    13. Re:More Like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.. NASA doesn't like failures, because they're hard to explain, and cheap = higher probability of failure. Much better to spend $200M and have it be redundant and work reliably, than to explain why your $100M spacecraft just failed, and there's no backup. NASA tried the faster, better, cheaper approach in the 90s, and wound up losing two Mars probes (hey, a deal.. we can get two probes for just a bit more than one, if we don't ask for as high reliability.. darned bad luck that BOTH failed)

    14. Re:More Like it? by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The advances (and readily available advances) in ion engine technology could be used to drive a spacecraft that will accelerate for years out into deep space after chemical boosting ends. Advances in miniaturization and materials science mean that it can be made lighter and carry more instrumentation with better functionality and reliability than those found on Voyager. If we wanted to do it, we can make a new probe that is lighter, has more capabilities, and is sturdier so it can flier faster and stay alive longer than Voyager. Of course, not sure if we still have the desire to be explorers of the universe.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    15. Re:More Like it? by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      you only get about 1 kilobit per second of transfer out at Pluto.

      Sounds like DSL speed in the United States...

    16. Re:More Like it? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can type "fuck" on slashdot.

    17. Re:More Like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like tethering over EDGE... Why my ISP decided May ends on the 4th I'll never understand. Two more weeks in this damned apartment.

    18. Re:More Like it? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      They learned it from the military. Why do you think the shuttle was so expensive? :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:More Like it? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem with cheap probes is that NASA doesn't want cheap. NASA wants a mission to be expensive, as high as they can get "without going over" to the point where Congress will cancel it.

      Well, no. NASA (at least the guys in charge of planetary science, to which the rest of this reply largely refers to) wants cheap because cheap increases the chances of Congress approving it in the first place and increases the number of probes they can fly.
       
      The real problem is that probes with a high chance of surviving and returning useful science don't come cheap. NASA could build cheap probes, and has toyed with it in the past, but Congress, the media, and the ignorant man in the street/taxpayers (which includes virtually all American Slashdotters) are viciously intolerant of mistakes and failure. The loss of a cheap probe isn't treated any differently from the loss of an expensive probe. NASA is simply (in the public mind) not allowed to fail.
       
      So NASA has been repeatedly conditioned to set their bar low and spare no expense to ensure that the mission will not only be spectacular but it will be almost certain to be a success.
       

      Somebody besides NASA could certainly do cheap space probes, but it won't be American.

      There's several countries quite capable of doing so. That there have been few attempts should tell you something if you lay off the kneejerk bias and actually think about it for a few minutes.

    20. Re:More Like it? by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      Posting "TGI Friday" would violate trademarking laws. Seriously, you don't know how litigious that restaurant can be.

    21. Re:More Like it? by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Not just Earth's orbit, New Horizons also needed to escape the Sun - a much deeper gravity well.

    22. Re:More Like it? by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Maybe his "U" and "C" keys are broken.

    23. Re:More Like it? by dtmos · · Score: 1

      Recording is no problem, it's sending it back. [...] Even with the big dish it has and a 70 metre dish on the ground here, you only get about 1 kilobit per second of transfer out at Pluto.

      Exactly right. "The 2.1m HGA [High-Gain Antenna] was designed to meet a requirement for a minimum of 600 bits/s downlink telemetry rate at 36 AU to return the Pluto data set" (page 19); further, "The downlink system will guarantee that the entire Pluto data set (estimated to be 5 Gbits after compression) in 172 days with one 8-hour pass per day using the DSN [Deep Space Network] 70m antennas. If there is sufficient power, such that both TWTAs [Traveling-Wave-Tube Amplifiers] can be used, the time to downlink the data set can be reduced to less than 88 days" (page 21).

    24. Re:More Like it? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Obviously, his transmission is distorted because of his distance from Earth.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    25. Re:More Like it? by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      So true. You wouldn't spend $300 to rush deliver a $6 cable adaptor (well, usually). Similarly, if you're going to be spending some serious cash to put a payload into space, you better make sure it is worth it. If launching probes became cheap, then you'd open up an avenue for "amateur" people to put them into space (students, etc.), or for bigger companies to send out "MOAR AND CHEEPAR" probes. This is actually a quite interesting notion (but not realistic at the moment).

    26. Re:More Like it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, but then some poor fuckers get the entire article blocked by a content filter.
      That's why it's a fucking bad idea to type fuck on slashdot.

    27. Re:More Like it? by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Assuming they had 32 GiB of storage (very much, agreed) couldn't they just send out the data while flying to some Kuiper belt object? Which brings us to an interesting question... How much storage _do_ they have on board?

    28. Re:More Like it? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      2 8GB solid state disks. One primary, one redundant.

      They'll already be sending data while on their way to a KBO. They have about 5 years to work with from when it passes Pluto to when the signal is too weak to send back data at a useful rate.

      Also, the probe can't transmit data and take imagery at the same time.

      Regardless of how much storage they have on board, they're still limited by the the transmission rate. Assuming they were able to maintain a 500bps average over the entire 5 years after pluto, they would only be able to send about 9.2GB total.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    29. Re:More Like it? by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot. :)

      Got a source with more details?

    30. Re:More Like it? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Sibling post has a link to a PDF with tons of info.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1644504&cid=32132182

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  19. It has already given us remarkable views of Uranus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just go to Goatse.

    (Yes, oldjoke is old.)

  20. Troll Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    33 years and still sending back signals!? Remarkable!

    Don't you wish they made everything to work past 33 years?

    1. Re:Troll Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like my Tektronix 547 oscilloscope and my 1S2 4GHz plugin for it?

  21. evolving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it has been bombarded by gamma radiation for so long that it has mutated into a self aware being. i predict that in 150 years or so, the mechs will invade and drive us toward the center of the galaxy.

    1. Re:evolving by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      "HULK SMASH" ?

  22. Faster better cheaper Re:More Like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what FBC was all about. The problem is that even at a piddly $10M, that's enough money that nobody wants to see a failure, so the grand scheme of launch 10 to have 5 work faces huge political problems, when the #2 unit in the sequence fails.

    BTW, just the launch costs for interplanetary missions probably start around $50-100M. It takes a lot of energy to fling something toward the stars out of Earth's gravity well.

    1. Re:Faster better cheaper Re:More Like it? by Totenglocke · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      BTW, just the launch costs for interplanetary missions probably start around $50-100M. It takes a lot of energy to fling something toward the stars out of Earth's gravity well.

      Well then, I think it's time we invest a few billion dollars in making a giant slingshot that can launch probes at virtually no cost! Though that would be one hell of a rubber band......

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  23. Wait... wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA did the SIIHPAPP?

  24. maybe... by DragonTHC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps the data has been altered by intelligent beings in order to communicate with us.

    Or maybe they did it as a joke.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:maybe... by Samalie · · Score: 1

      The thing is, this is probably more a more likely scenario for finding intelligent life than SETI could hope to accomplish.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:maybe... by dandart · · Score: 1

      Maybe we did it for a joke.

    3. Re:maybe... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      They probably did it to keep us ignorant of what lies beyond this solar system.

      The man (or alien) is keeping the whole population of this planet down!

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:maybe... by holmstar · · Score: 1

      If we discover that it has switched to broadcasting a series of prime numbers, then I would promptly crap my pants.

    5. Re:maybe... by TimothyDavis · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it downloaded an update from Windows Update, which wasn't tested for space probes.

  25. This.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is not how tongues works. If the satellite really was broadcasting in tongues then everyone on the planet would be able to understand the transmissions.

    1. Re:This.. by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 2, Funny

      is not how tongues works. If the satellite really was broadcasting in tongues then everyone on the planet would be able to understand the transmissions.

      I don't know about that. I, for one, can never figure out what those fucking Pentecostalists are trying to say.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
  26. This cannot be that hard... by rickb928 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just include some of the data in a game DRM key, and it will be cracked in a few hours. Problem solved.

    Or announce a contest. Most anything as a prize, maybe a spacesuit glove or spare antenna? We crack encryption readily in many cases, so I suspect someone can figure out what rolled over or got zapped by a cosmic ray, and this is fixed for another 33 years or so.

    -ps: is Voyager 2 running better than a 1977 Cadillac? Probably. Probably better than a 1977 Mercedes.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:This cannot be that hard... by craighansen · · Score: 1

      Not many Caddies with 12,935,000,000 miles on the odometer. Plus traveling at 55,730 MpH really pegs the speedometer.

    2. Re:This cannot be that hard... by silverglade00 · · Score: 1

      I already cracked it in my secret lair with my trusty decoder ring. "Don't forget... to drink... your Ovaltine." It's a crummy commercial.

    3. Re:This cannot be that hard... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the ride would be smooth. And pedestrians nonexistent. Just the occasional micrometeorite, and hell, a Caddy should be able to take a few hits before it springs a bad leak.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  27. To infinity... and beyond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe a stupid question, but now that Voyager 2 has passed the heliosphere itself, isn't it entering the heliopause sight-unseen? Since this is really an unknown area of space, aren't there many new dangers there? My mind is drawn especially to things like foreign solar winds and forms of radiation that the probe wouldn't have dealt with inside the protective heliosphere.

    Does this seem at all likely? I wonder if there is any data on this, or more importantly if any of the results leading up to the probe's failure might indicate extra-solar forces at work...

  28. Voyager 2 Speaking In Tongues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because it is getting closer to God?

  29. What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by antirelic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Being that I am not a physicist (though I am a big fan), I am asking any physicists out there if they have figured out how much time has passed for the Voyager satellites according to the laws of relativity compared to Earth. From what I understand, they are traveling around 17km/s. How does that work out over a span of 30-50 years from earthling perspective.

    Thanx in advance.

    --
    20th century Marxism is not progress...
    1. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For those kinds of speeds it wouldn't matter. Relativistic time dialation doesn't really get going until you are a good % of the speed of light.

    2. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Myji+Humoz · · Score: 1

      The speed of light is about 300,000,000 m/s, or 300,000 km/s. 17km/s is such a minuscule fraction of that speed that relativity doesn't come into play.

      --
      Signatures are the new names.
    3. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Meumeu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming a constant speed of 17km/s, 30 years for Voyager is 30 years and 1.5s on Earth.

    4. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by profBill · · Score: 5, Informative
      The relativity calculator at http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm gives a relativity factor of 1.0000000016077795 for a speed of 17km/sec. If you multiply that all out for the approximate 33 years of travel (back of the envelope style, 33*525600*60), you get about a 1.67 second difference.

      Of course, with the aliens towing in the spaceship, that might be off a bit :-)

      >>>bill

    5. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by barjam · · Score: 1

      Lets say it has been gone for exactly 33 years from it's point of view. 33.00000005947923 years has passed from our point of view.

    6. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Malc · · Score: 1

      What year is it for us? We're travelling away from Voyager at 17 km/s.

    7. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Interl0per · · Score: 1
      Time dilation effects only become observable a *lot* closer to c than anything man-made has remotely been.
      Relevant link:http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm

      Velocities in ordinary life which to us might seem incredibly fast have only a miniscule relativistic effect. For example, orbital velocity (5 miles per second) produces a relativistic factor of change of only 1.000000000360219. Travelling at 93,141.1985 miles per second (half the speed of light) produces a factor of 1.1547005383792517. Here the velocity is incredibly fast and yet the change is still quite small. At .9 times the speed of light, the factor becomes 2.294157338705618. Finally, the effects of relativity become significant.

      I think the term is tau factor, which, according to the above site's calculator, is 1.0000000016077795, or a difference of about 1 second subjective time over the last 33 years.

    8. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, calculating time dilation (which is what you're talking about) isn't as difficult as you might think. It's actually a very simple equation:

      t' = (t/sqrt(1 - (v/c)))

      (where t is time, v is velocity, and c is the speed of light)

      Try it out for yourself. You can run all sorts of cool calculations for (v != c)

    9. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Speaking of orbital velocity: time dilation had to be taken into account when designing the GPS. The oscillator frequency of the satelites was ever-so-slightly lowered to compensate for it.

      The difference is a few tens of microseconds per day. Just goes to show how incredibly accurate it needs to be. Quite a piece of work.

    10. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the speed that does it, it's the accelerating inertial reference frame :p

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity

    11. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Voyager's perspective, 30 years for Earth has been 30 years and 1.5 seconds for Voyager, neglecting gravitational influences.

      Relativity, baby! It's the weirdest game in town.

    12. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by profBill · · Score: 1
      And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why they call it the theory of *relativity*

      >>bill

    13. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Actually, to be completely honest, we are both travelling away from and toward Voyager (has anyone else been tempted to just call it V'ger?). Damn Doppler Effect. :-)

    14. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      That's the part of relativity that makes my head hurt. I must be missing something, but how do we know the the probe has a higher velocity than the solar system? Couldn't it be that we sent it exactly backward, meaning that the probe has experienced 1.67 seconds more than the earth?

    15. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to be a physicist to figure it out although wikipedia and its fricking figures always look scary even when their not.

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

      From my math your looking at about roughly 1.5 seconds less time experienced by voyager than earthlings over the past 30 years.

      Seconds in 30 years ~ 946080000
      Gamma ~ 1.0000000016077794:1

    16. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Yes, head hurt.
      Throw away your prejudice about causality and simultaneity and think of this this:
      From the Earth's point of view, the probe has experienced 1.67 seconds less than the Earth.
      From the probe's point of view, the Earth has experienced 1.67 seconds less than the probe.
      (Actual numbers probably differ, because of gravity, varying motions, and uncertainties)

    17. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by makomk · · Score: 1

      . I must be missing something, but how do we know the the probe has a higher velocity than the solar system? Couldn't it be that we sent it exactly backward, meaning that the probe has experienced 1.67 seconds more than the earth?

      Nope, because it's relative velocity that matters. A more accurate statement is that, from our perspective, we've experienced 1.67 seconds more time than it has. From the perspective of the probe, 1.67 seconds more time have passed for it than for us. This all works out because, as long as the probe and the Earth are traveling away from each other, there's no direct way to compare the two clocks. If the probe were to return, its frame of reference is no longer a stationary one indistinguishable from that of the Earth and everything works out nicely.

    18. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by tap · · Score: 1

      You've taken into account special relativity, but there is also general relativity to take into account. Gravity slows time. Near the Earth's gravity time is slowed. For GPS satellites, their 3.9 km/sec speed slows their clocks by 7 us/day, but the reduced gravity at 20,000 km speeds their clocks relative the earthbound clocks by 45 us/day. So in that case the effect of gravity is greater than that of speed, and they gain time relative to us. Voyager 2 is going about 139 us/day slower than us due to it's speed. Once gravity is taken into account, I'd guess the result is somewhere around 82 us/day slower. Of course it's speed and the gravity it's experienced hasn't remained constant.

    19. Re:What year is it for Voyager 1 & 2? by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      And maybe less, because it is so much higher in the gravity well (which speeds clocks up).

      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  30. First messages arriving by Bugamn · · Score: 1

    Ack! Ack! Ack!

    Translated to:

    Don't run! We are your friends!

    We come in peace! We come in peace!

  31. "Oh My God.. by h.ross.perot · · Score: 1

    "... it's full of stars"

    --
    ... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg ...
  32. Most likely by flatcat · · Score: 1

    Hijacked by alien pirates. Now transmitting ransom demands.

  33. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by pbhj · · Score: 1

    I'd have thought a cosmic ray flipped an important bit.

  34. just getting an upgrade and exiting the Slow Zone by Locutus · · Score: 1

    and we, still in the Slow Zone, can't understand it. But what gave it the upgrade?

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  35. hope it makes it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't this posted yesterday?

    Anyway it would be sad if the thing broke down, considering how far out there it's getting.

  36. same age as Apple and MicroSoft by peter303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine if you were still using version 1.0 of their hardware and softwares.

    1. Re:same age as Apple and MicroSoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ARE aware that MicRosoft isn't a comPany name with a capiTal letTer in the midDle of it, right?

      ApPle is, though.

    2. Re:same age as Apple and MicroSoft by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      A: I wouldn't be on Slashdot wasting time.
      B: I'd probably get more done. Multitasking hasn't turned out to be all it's cracked up to be. I sure don't *FEEL* more productive.

  37. Most important implication by crerwin · · Score: 1

    Will Voyager 2 be able to keep up with its Twitter account? http://twitter.com/Voyager2

  38. Typical science reporting by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    WTF is a "data pattern change"?

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    1. Re:Typical science reporting by Huntr · · Score: 1

      The signals it sends back to Earth are data. Those data usually occur in a certain decodable pattern. That pattern changed and is not decodable at this time.

      Glad I could help.

    2. Re:Typical science reporting by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      The signals it sends back to Earth are data. Those data usually occur in a certain decodable pattern. That pattern changed and is not decodable at this time.

      Yes... but we call that a PROTOCOL... fscking journalists.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:Typical science reporting by DougF · · Score: 1

      It's a feature!...from V'ger!

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
  39. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by Tryle · · Score: 1

    Since Voyager isn't as close to a large gravitational field like the Earth, isn't its frame of reference in time different? It's been 33 years for us, but maybe its only been a few years for it?

  40. Message Reads... by ae1294 · · Score: 2, Funny

    AM I Fucking TH3RE YeT???

    1. Re:Message Reads... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That message qwas of no concern,. When it start broadcasting "Are we Fucking Th3r3 YeT?" we became concerned.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Message Reads... by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      That message qwas of no concern,. When it start broadcasting "Are we Fucking Th3r3 YeT?" we became concerned.

      I heard it was the "ThAt's iT, i'M c0m1ng back NOW to K1cK a11 YoUr Asses cause there aint n0 damb White Castle out here!"

    3. Re:Message Reads... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      "No TV and No Beer Make Voyager" something something...

  41. It's science, Jim by Stachel · · Score: 1

    "It's science, Jim, but not as we know it."

    --
    Stachel
  42. Lovebug Virus? by leoaloha · · Score: 1

    Love bug virus?

  43. Just a reflection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously it's simply passed through the major portion of the heliosphere, and the signal is simply being distorted. Like looking through a glass full of water.

    Alternately it finally reached the edge of Job's reality distortion field, and we're just now getting the real data in.

  44. Re:just getting an upgrade and exiting the Slow Zo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And V'GER is a bit like a short bus?

  45. Vogon Poetry anyone by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    Signal Fade Away
    Voyager still on its way
    with Vogon Haiku

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
    1. Re:Vogon Poetry anyone by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      Ode to a lump of green putty I found under the transistors down my left side one morning.

  46. Re:just getting an upgrade and exiting the Slow Zo by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    Well, we all know that even simple machinery can become self aware when going far enough into the beyond...

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  47. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

    The short answer is no, Voyager's frame isn't different enough to the Earth's for that huge a time dilation to have occurred purely because of that.

    The long answer requires recourse to general relativity, which I'm far too tired for I'm afraid.

  48. Henry Ford where are you? by Abraxas26 · · Score: 1

    The space industry today reminds me a great deal of the early automobile industry. When the auto industry was in its infancy each vehicle was essentially a custom designed and hand built object. The vehicles may have been beautiful works of art and craftsmanship but they were out of reach for all but the very wealthy. Ford revolutionized the industry by making a vehicle that worked well(enough), could be made at low cost and had interchangeable pats. The Model-T was not as fancy and perhaps not as reliable as the bespoke autos of the time but it was functional.

    The rigors of space are known conditions at this point and there are many proven systems that have already been developed. What we need are standardized hardware and communication protocols based on what we already know. If mass production could be applied to space exploration we could have hundreds or thousands of probes throughout our solar system.

    Just think! We could have something like a game console...IN SPACE!

  49. Astounding revelation! by skywire · · Score: 1

    which formats information before beaming it back to Earth

    And the alternative was...?

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  50. It says "To Serve Man..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rod Serling, you are missed.

    1. Re:It says "To Serve Man..." by DougF · · Score: 1

      Mod up, please.

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
  51. Are we recording? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    Hopefully someone is recording all of this. Even if we can't decode it NOW, chances are that we can at some point -- assuming it's real but mistranslated data and not just random garbage. Why not let BOINC clients chew on some of it and see what they come up with, or divert a small fraction of SETI clients. At least in this case, we KNOW it's trying to communicate with us. This should be a good opportunity to see if we have the capabilities to decipher it.

    I know I'd be willing to let my machine ruminate on Voyager 2 data packets when it's running and I don't need the CPU time myself.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:Are we recording? by maugle · · Score: 1

      Data, garbled or not, is coming in from a satellite 8 billion miles away. Do you really think the people involved in the mission are going to just throw it away?

    2. Re:Are we recording? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Data, garbled or not, is coming in from a satellite 8 billion miles away. Do you really think the people involved in the mission are going to just throw it away?

      Coming from the same organisation that has almost certainly lost forever the original, highest-quality copy of the moon landing TV transmissions, leaving us with a significantly inferior converted-on-the-fly-by-pointing-a-camera-at-a-monitor copy... I can quite believe that.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:Are we recording? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      No, but they may be making fundamental assumptions about the data being received that are no longer valid. As such, some details may be getting ignored (not even noted in the first place) so maybe it's time to break out the old timey analog recorders. There may be stuff in this signal that cannot be recovered later if it's digitized on the fly.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  52. Dispatch a speech therapist by Kazymyr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will Voyager 2 be home next Tuesday between 10 and 2? That's when we have someone available.

    --
    I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
  53. futurama did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BENDER - But why would God think in binary? Unless...you're not God, but the remains of a computerised space probe that collided with God.

    GOD - That seems probable.

  54. Star Trek 1.5 by Bysshe · · Score: 0

    Forget Aliens vs Predator... We now have...

    Vger vs Vger2

    The epic battle begins

    --
    Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
  55. Now THAT'S uptime!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Launch date: August 20, 1977

  56. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    The long answer requires recourse to general relativity, which I'm far too tired for I'm afraid.

    Which is another prediction of general relativity!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  57. But Seriously... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How can they possibly hope to decode alien language if they can't decode their own technology?

    1. Re:But Seriously... by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      You need to calm down, and then take off every zig.

  58. Hacked! by woboyle · · Score: 1

    I think some little green persons from another planet/galaxy/universe found our toy and reprogrammed it to respond in their own language. Now, we just need to decode it in order to learn the secrets of FTL and inter-dimensional travel, as well as the question to the answer "42"!

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  59. It's the Bobs by albeit+unknown · · Score: 1

    Bob 1: We did some digging and found out Voyager was actually canceled five years ago, but due to a glitch in the payroll system, it was still getting paid and transmitting data. Bob 2: So we just fixed the glitch

  60. V'ger Engineers Big Mistake by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

    Voyager 2's flight data system [...] formats information before beaming it back to Earth

    "Damn it, we should have used XML!"

    (ducks)

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  61. Speaking in tongues eh? by Commander+South · · Score: 0

    Well that isn't offensive to anyone (Used to be Pentecostal)... That being said, it's still pretty witty.

  62. FLASH: JPL has corrected the problem by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 1

    Scientists now report Voyager is communicating once again with a clear, repeating message. Attempts to decipher the meaning of the message have proved unsuccessful so far. Message reads "All your base are belong to us".

  63. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The short answer is no, Voyager's frame isn't different enough to the Earth's for that huge a time dilation to have occurred purely because of that.

    The long answer requires recourse to general relativity, which the margin of this post is too narrow to contain, I'm afraid.

    There, fixed it.

  64. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by budgenator · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pissaw, young'uns don't know anything anymore; more likely a fried 1452 core sense amplifier. That bad-boy left Earth back when a 1024 Bit, 500 mS static ram was exotic, and yes that is bits not bytes and milliseconds not nanoseconds. Ferrite Core memory was the state of the art back in 1977, when hard-disk drives were the size of washing machines and I was a young'un myself punching Fortran code on to cards.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  65. Dark Matter on Uranus by 7bit · · Score: 1

    Uranus isn't an element.

    Maybe he was referring to the dark matter on Uranus?

  66. micrometeorite damage by cstacy · · Score: 1

    Micrometeorites have pitted the nameplate on the probe, and the "2" now looks more like a "6". Perhaps related to that kind of damage, the onboard communications seems to be glitching: it's dropping some bytes from the data stream and the headers are coming out "Vger" instead of "Voyager". And the most recent transmission consisted of garbage: just the string "TanruTanruTanru" repeated over and over!

  67. Alien contact intelligence test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STAR TREK defined it as as "WARP travel". I wonder if you can get partial credit for putting something outside your solar system? Typical humans, if there is standard, we find a way to just slip in under it. That should prepare the universe for what they can expect from us as a race though.

  68. Aliens use voyager 2 signal to send data. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if some other alien race appropriated our equipment and is sending us a message in a different format, sort of like "Contact" and we just don't know how to read it.

  69. I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA (Which stands for Never A Straight Answer) knows damn well what exactly voyager 2 is sending back. However, they do not want to release this information in fear that the standard notion of scientific understanding might be completely altered.

    Fuck NASA and their corrupt overlords. I wish I could shit in a launch manager's mouth.

  70. yo, magic is up everywhere in this bitch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuckin' magnets, how do they work?!

  71. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    I have a fair bit of experience with spacecraft of this era, and they tended to have pretty similar architecture. This is speculation of course since I haven't seen the data, but typically, the telemetry from the bus (everything but the intruments) is formed by the main telemetry unit. Data from user systems (like the intruments) is generally collected and put into a data stream by a secondary encoder. Periodically, the main telemetry unit sends a sync pulse to the payload encoder to trigger it to spew out the stream, conveniently timed to align itself with the rest of the downlink, Given thereport the bus telemetry seems OK, so there's probably something wrong with the payload encoder, or the generation of the sync pulse. I have seen anomalies where the sync pulse was generated at the wrong time, generated at random, or generated more-or-less continuosly. Of course a simple failure of a multiplexer in the encoder, or the serial data interface to the encoder in the main TLM unit would cause similar problems. It might be possible to recover from the spurious sync pulse issue if some of the data is sufficiently repeatable to use an an alternate way of determining where in the encoder stream the data got to when the window in the downlink frame came around. You might lose some of it but might be able to retrieve the rest. That should be pretty easy since a lot of the instruments are turned off (which they are) - that will create a very distinct pattern of valid data an all zeros that would let you know where in the encoder stream you are. If there's off-time sync pulse what will happen is that you will get all the data but it will be rolled around so that what you thought was the "bus voltage" is actually showing up in the downlink as the "tank pressure" or something like that. That would probably work for a "continuously rolling" encoder stream as well, where it never receives any sync pulses.

        Of course they probably figured it out themselves, but I have had a lot of luck working these sorts of issues so if anyone from JPL thinks they need a hand, I will happy to consult. Given that I use my REAL NAME it shouldn't be difficult to contact me.

  72. Coasting for 33 years by Fuji+Kitakyusho · · Score: 1

    If I understand correctly, the Voyager probes have been coasting through space at constant speed since their last respective gravity assist manouvers. I am curious as to how fast they would be travelling now had they been equipped with VASIMR or similar engines thrusting away over that time? It is conceivable that we could engineer a repair vehicle to catch up to Voyager 2 and fix the glitch.

    1. Re:Coasting for 33 years by danlip · · Score: 1

      Yes but why would we? Instead of a repair vehicle we would just send a new, faster, better probe.

    2. Re:Coasting for 33 years by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      Yes but why would we? Instead of a repair vehicle we would just send a new, faster, better probe.

      One that can shoot the old one with a laser. We'll skip 3, 4, and 5,; calling it Voyager 6 to make everyone's jokes directly applicable.

  73. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes me wonder if there is a greater amount of cosmic rays in the heliosheath..

  74. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microseconds, more likely. 500 milliseconsd is half a second, come on, be realistic.

  75. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone mod parent up

  76. Re:33 years old = bit rot and other SS parts going by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

    The longer answer, of course, is;

    NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Now I have to type in a nice long sentence all in lower case so the filter doesn't get all upset about all those capital letters up there. So I'll just say that the filter would complain "don't use so many caps, it's like yelling", well what if I'm feeling the need to do some yelling, such as the way I felt just now when I read the GP's question. Time dilation, furrf...

  77. relativity calculator by wolf1728 · · Score: 1

    Hi,
    It's good my relativity calculator came in handy.
    Yes, I run the website at www.1728.com
    wolf