Slashdot Mirror


Voyager 1 Beyond Solar Wind

healeyb noted that Voyager 1 has now reached a distance from the sun where it is no longer able to detect solar wind. Launched in 1977 to get up close and personal with our solar system's gas giants, scientists estimate that in another 4 years it will cross the heliosphere.

245 comments

  1. Re:First by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    Denied!

    We don't get good ping times out here in the Oort cloud.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Sentience by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Funny

    At what point does it become sentient, call itself V-ger, and return to destroy earth?

    1. Re:Sentience by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      About the same time as Captain Kirk has completed his five year mission.

      But mind - it's the wrong Voyager probe, this one isn't scheduled to become sentient.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Sentience by oldspewey · · Score: 2

      Shortly after William Shatner returns to "A list" celebrity status.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:Sentience by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      At what point does it become sentient, call itself V-ger, and return to destroy earth?

      I believe you'd be talking a couple of hundred years in the future ... according to this, it will happen in 2271. :-P

      There's time yet.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Sentience by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      But mind - it's the wrong Voyager probe, this one isn't scheduled to become sentient.

      And, more to the point ... now that I've looked a a little closer to a link I've already cited ... it's Voyager 6.

      We only ever sent 1 and 2, so we're OK. We must be in the alternate timeline from the recent Trek where Vulcan gets destroyed or something. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Sentience by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe this is the timeline where Cochrane decides it's easier to make money with a Ponzi scheme than a warp engine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Sentience by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      that was voyager 6, not voyager 1

      you have failed to show adequate mastery of geek trivia, major subsection: star trek arcana

      bow your head in shame and leave the website

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:Sentience by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Returns?

    8. Re:Sentience by vgerclover · · Score: 1

      Sometime in the '80s. The problem is that I'm looking for a way to go back. Do you know how hard it is to come by a space gas station?

    9. Re:Sentience by gorzek · · Score: 2

      We narrowly missed the Eugenics Wars and got George W. Bush instead of Khan Noonien Singh. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether we're the lucky ones.

    10. Re:Sentience by Canazza · · Score: 3, Funny

      well, it looks like we're heading for a moneyless society quicker than trek did

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    11. Re:Sentience by gorzek · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? We might be moving to a cashless society but there will still be plenty of money moving around--just electronically.

      The economy of the Federation could best be described as a technate: an economy based on energy accounting rather than capitalism.

    12. Re:Sentience by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but I think GP was referring to the fact that the world economy is screwed beyond any hope of recovery.

    13. Re:Sentience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh? I'm pretty sure the GP meant to be funny - as in: "We will all soon be broke (moneyless) due to our bad economy".

    14. Re:Sentience by srussia · · Score: 1

      Returns?

      "Has been was
      Has been might again"

      -William Shatner, "Has Been"

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    15. Re:Sentience by gorzek · · Score: 1

      I guess that's one way to look at it.

    16. Re:Sentience by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      trek never had a "moneyless" society. it always had money and wealth. They just never focused on it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    17. Re:Sentience by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      It is the time line where we didn't blow us up. So Cochrane does not develop the warp drive and we all die out because we use an un-desinfected phone. Oh wait ... wrong book. Anyway this reality is the one which hasn't been produced so far. It will be named:

      Star Trek @home

      and the story is, that the crew stays in San Fransisco in a bar going nowhere. And in the end the leave the convention and go home in a rusty taxi and are hit by a meteor containing Braxton or Dr. Who (but I am not totally sure).

    18. Re:Sentience by gorzek · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't "get it" because we (on a global scale) never really run out of money, so the joke doesn't make any sense.

    19. Re:Sentience by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Already there bud.

      Boston Legal relaunched him there and poo-poo-caa-caa my dad says has kept him there.

      Yes, I know, it makes me weep as well.. but this is the planet where we have "Americas got talent", "dancing wit the stars", and other inane drivel that enthralls the population...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    20. Re:Sentience by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Depends where you live. In Irak you might think that there is no difference. Even though GWB is not a super strong and hyper brilliant being with too much ego. He is mostly the opposite.

    21. Re:Sentience by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      We only ever sent 1 and 2, so we're OK. We must be in the alternate timeline from the recent Trek where Vulcan gets destroyed or something. ;-)

      Well, considering that they launched Khan and his crew in 1996 after the Eugenics war, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.

    22. Re:Sentience by schlachter · · Score: 1

      and we made the damn thing nuclear!

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    23. Re:Sentience by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      They have also a different work motivation. The work to improve them selves and to better society. This is a very altruistic approach and it is totally anti-capitalistic. And I personally do not see any development in that direction. Even more it looks like that there is no lesson learned from the last economic disaster as we did not add any real regulation on the finance market.

    24. Re:Sentience by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

      Except the Ferengi, they were all about the latinum.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    25. Re:Sentience by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      At what point does it become sentient, call itself V-ger, and return to destroy earth?

      Not soon enough

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    26. Re:Sentience by JustOK · · Score: 1

      TJ Hooker pre-re-launched him

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    27. Re:Sentience by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      They have also a different work motivation. The work to improve them selves and to better society. This is a very altruistic approach and it is totally anti-capitalistic. And I personally do not see any development in that direction. Even more it looks like that there is no lesson learned from the last economic disaster as we did not add any real regulation on the finance market.

      Humans are genetically programmed to be selfish - capitalism is the system most closely aligned with human nature. Case in point, look at the communist systems of the USSR and China. What's the first thing the people in power do? Make sure they are taken care of and have whatever they want. Human nature. Good luck "correcting" that issue.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    28. Re:Sentience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Humans are genetically programmed to be selfish - capitalism is the system most closely aligned with human nature

      No, capitalism is the system most closely aligned with maximizing selfish values given the premise of scarce resources. If you violate that premise as Star Trek technology does, with its limitless fusion and anti-matter power, transporters, matter replicators, faster-than-light travel, etc then participating in capitalism may no longer be the solution that best maximizes selfish gain.

      Case in point, look at the communist systems of USSR and China

      Pre-22nd century societies aren't a case in point for anything in a fictional 22nd century society.

      If you can sit on your ass, not make the slightest effort, and still end up choking to death on your own wealth unless you exercise some self restraint, as a character on Star Trek would, then you need not do anything, in order to make sure you're taken care of and have whatever you want.

      This is the promise (almost certainly never to be fulfilled, but nevertheless a promise) of technology.

    29. Re:Sentience by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      The human is not a purely egoistic machine. This has long be proven. However, he or she can act selfish. States like the USSR or China were not communistic societies even if they proclaimed it. They are communists just like North Korea is a democratic society, but their state is called Democratic People's Republic of Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korea). However, the term communism is so widely used for different theories that it is not save to use it to identify one system.

      In most communistic theories the political system is controlled by the people and is some sort of basis democracy or parliamentarian democracy. And the economic system is not based on ownership/titles (which does not necessary mean that you cannot have seizin). For example you may life in a house and can call this you house, however you cannot play landlord.

      However, Leninists would disagree with the democracy thing in this concept. As Lenin thought people are too stupid to accept the concept and have to be trained first.

      It is however, save to say, that such money less and democratic system is not applicable in the near future and so all of our ST fans will be depressed.

      I think we have to fix capitalism (and we just missed that opportunity) so it cannot harm people and destroy the environment. Good ideas in that direction are a basic income, public health care, education for everyone and regulation for the financial sector.

      The first three things already exist in EU states (to some extend) and work very well with market economies.

    30. Re:Sentience by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      This post might be too geeky even by Slashdot standards, however in Squire of Gothos Kirk clearly stated that humans were beyond such things.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Sentience by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      They live in a post scarcity society. You can afford to have different motivations where nearly every material want and need can be pooped out of a replicator on a whim.

    32. Re:Sentience by BergZ · · Score: 2

      Humans are genetically programmed to be selfish - capitalism is the system most closely aligned with human nature.

      Unfortunately it isn't so simple. People are genetically/behaviorally "programmed" to be selfish in some ways and altruistic in others (through notably unselfish acts of charity). We're a mixed bag.
      As a result of our mixed nature, neither pure free-market capitalism nor communism match the complex needs of the human psyche. I suppose it's why mixed (market+social) economies are so prevalent around the world.

      --
      Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
    33. Re:Sentience by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I'm Denny Krane!

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    34. Re:Sentience by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry. It's such a slow motion picture that it'll take all eternity for it to get around to firing the weapons.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    35. Re:Sentience by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Current finance regulations are what caused all the problems. If people hadn't grown up with the need to get around gov't regulation, they never would have learned to be duplicitous and greedy and instead, would live lives of mild temperament and contemplation. Remember, all children are saint like and it's just society that teaches them to be mean and controlling.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    36. Re:Sentience by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      This is where the movie Wall-E comes into play. If humans had all they needed... AND all they wanted all the time, what would be our motivation? If there were no scarcity ever, it seems to me that the Wall-E scenario could easily come to pass (or the scenario of Inception multiplied across the entire population... people addicted to dreams). It would seem to me that the government would do well to ensure some level of scarcity always exists even with such technology as is readily available in Star Trek (or else we'd all run around on scooters until we died of boredom).

      Additionally, I really think there are a few too many people on the planet that would still steal, still live homeless, etc. even if in a Star Trek-like environment... capitalism could even still find itself necessary because of the intrinsic value of non-replicated antiques (and there would be a scarcity there).

    37. Re:Sentience by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      ...and yet there was clearly gambling and smuggling in every series.

    38. Re:Sentience by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Well, he isn't super strong or hyper brilliant, anyway...

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    39. Re:Sentience by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. Yes they are not so much in a scare based society. However, they are also ungreedy. For example. Not everyone can have a shuttle or Galaxy-class starship. However, some of our contemporaries would want to have everything.

      We are able to provide every person today with food, clothing and a roof above the head. This is not a technical issue. We have even the technology to run our whole system on sustainable energy. However, we do not implement anything of it.

      The major difference between their fictional society and ours is how they handle greed or the exaggerated need for things we have today.

    40. Re:Sentience by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      the Wall-E scenario could easily come to pass

      Except, of course, for the movie itself. Never mind the ending. All humans would immediately choose the side of the evil autopilot and cooperate with him to do wally in, in order to avoid work.

      Much like people do these sorts of things in real life. Like the "tolerance" we have for the racist muslim states that produce oil, or even for the racist religion itself. Not being "tolerant" of this would mean a fight and might mean losing access to oil. Just like the last people who "needed more tolerance" (in case you're confused, that'd be the nazis, whom also claimed the only reason one could oppose nazism was racism, and hatred for the poor).

    41. Re:Sentience by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Social behavior is learned in groups which implies society. And if you have kids you know that they become very stubborn at a very young age, because they want something and those stupid parents refuse it. This first happens between 2-3 years. And even babies tend to express their needs without considering the situation.

      And stealing and greed (which are closely related) where a problem 6000 years ago. Therefor some guy wrote a rule on that subject on a stone tablets.

      And 2000 years ago they nailed someone on a tree for talking about the same issue. But maybe it was something else he said. It could be the "be nice to each other" or the "don't do business in the temple"

    42. Re:Sentience by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      He has always been a known entity in acting, he just got a heavy "Kirk" label thrown on him once.

      But without Shatner as Kirk with his temper Star Trek wouldn't have had such an impact. Of course the petty bickering between McCoy/Spock and the tech nerd Scotty were adding spice to the soup.

      And I think that Shatner all the time since he got that Kirk character stuck to him never really could drop it - he became so much part of the character that it was hard for directors to really put him into another role without actually skewing the whole movie/series into something like a happening for Trekkies. Mind - it was not Shatners 'fault' - it was just something that happened.

      Before Star Trek Shatner was known as an actor in several different single roles - like in 'Twilight Zone', but nothing remarkable from his part since he wasn't the main figure.

      So he didn't really become an "A list" celebrity because he did the Kirk role just too good - he really was Kirk, not acting as Kirk.

      But that is life for some actors. And maybe some actors really can live without being the supercelebrity that you can throw in whenever you need someone to "lift" a movie. Throw in Will Smith into a movie and suddenly you get a larger audience because he's the actor. Same goes for Stallone, Tom Hanks or Vin Diesel - but neither are connected so much to a specific role.

      And other actors have lived with the same role bound to them - like Carrie Fisher. She is always going to be "Princess Leia" to a large number of people. And Hugh Laurie is probably always going to be stuck with the "House" role.

      Actors can't always select what gets stuck to them, they just have to live with it and make the best from it.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    43. Re:Sentience by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      You are, sir, forgetting the esteemed (at least in his own mind) Harcourt Fenton Mudd. Harry was all about the money and wealth, with a passing nod to the art of the grift.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    44. Re:Sentience by Peristaltic · · Score: 2

      That's the problem when making jokes in a forum full of analyticals.

    45. Re:Sentience by Arker · · Score: 1

      Just because Kirk stated something doesnt make it true.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    46. Re:Sentience by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      More likely, it was Hmmm... pork rinds are good!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    47. Re:Sentience by inviolet · · Score: 1

      [People in Star Trek] have also a different work motivation. The[y] work to improve them selves and to better society. This is a very altruistic approach and it is totally anti-capitalistic. And I personally do not see any development in that direction. Even more it looks like that there is no lesson learned from the last economic disaster as we did not add any real regulation on the finance market.

      Have you ever wondered how Star Trek society divvies up scarce resources, like, oh, say, science posts on the big starships? Or personal services like tutoring or massages? Or land? Or transportation someplace? Or energy?

      I'm sure you'd consider barter to be impolite. And without money, the only currency remaining in their society is... political pull.

      Yeah, what a swell society THAT would be to live in.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    48. Re:Sentience by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Money is also a form of power and it is used to implement a wide variety of policies. And BTW adding regulation in a market economy is not implying that we go to a no money society like the Star Trek society.

      However, if you find political decision making a bad idea. Consider a total market controlled system. This would rather fast go back to something known as Manchester Capitalism. I honestly hope you are not proposing that.

      A good economic system has to support human rights or at least not hinder their establishment (much). A good system has to provide food, a task/job/purpose for every person (even though this cannot be provided as a service, rather it has to give you the opportunity to find such thing), housing, education, health care, security (to some extend) and it shall allow you to form relationships with other people. And free speech should also be possible. Logically.

      Everything which serves these purposes is good everything else is bad. And a system which is able to provide these things better than another is better than the other. And I do not care how it is called.

      In the enlightenment they came up with three basic concepts which are required for a good society. Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. On top of that they come up with these human rights. Let be these rules the guide to measure a system (economic+political).

      However we can list dictatorships as bad. And also top down economics does not work.

    49. Re:Sentience by suutar · · Score: 1

      Star Trek society has money. It shows up most on DS9, I believe, because that's the series that has the most economic interactions between folks who are not ship's crew (who are allotted their daily room and board as part of their salary), but even in TOS there were traders (Cyrano Jones and his tribbles, for example) and gamblers (the Gamesters of Triskelion).

    50. Re:Sentience by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Humans are genetically programmed to be selfish - capitalism is the system most closely aligned with human nature.

      Small socialistic hippie communes are the system most closely aligned with human nature, because they most closely resemble the tribes where humans evolved. Capitalism, which simultanously rewards selfish behaviour and expects people to limit their predations to comply with a set of rules, doesn't work at all, as we have seen time and again in recent years.

      Not that any of this matters, since "human nature" only covers some basic instincts, has allowed a wide variety of extremely different value systems to be developed by various societies during history, and thus excuses neither a psychopathic CEO or an ambitionless hippie.

      So no, your favorite political/economic/religious/philosophical/whatever system isn't in fact programmed in human genetics, and is not the only one that could possibly work, nor is it self-evident to the point where anyone disagreeing is evil or stupid or both. Sorry.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    51. Re:Sentience by sjames · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]. People keep claiming that humans are hard wired to be selfish, but where's the proof? All we know of primitive societies is that they tend to be cooperatives.

      It could as easily be that the people in power simply have a genetic defect that makes them selfish. Coupled with evidence of psychopathy in business leaders today, perhaps we'd all be better off committing these unfortunate defective people to psychiatric care until a cure can be found.

    52. Re:Sentience by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. Yes they are not so much in a scare based society. However, they are also ungreedy. For example. Not everyone can have a shuttle or Galaxy-class starship.

      Occasionally someone does steal one, so clearly there are some greedy people...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. No more farts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The little men on board will never need to smell another solar fart again!

  4. Edge by Metabolife · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's going to fall off the edge of the universe. I just know it.

    1. Re:Edge by Amouth · · Score: 1

      what will be interesting is when it gets into interstellar space - too see how its trajectory changes and why. will there be a strong wind to take it else where or will it no longer per part of our solar system momentum through the universe - or will it just keep going as if everything i sitting still..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:Edge by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      It's going to fall off the edge of the universe. I just know it.

      No problem. It will land on a turtle. It's them all the way down.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Edge by ATestR · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nonsense. Any day it will splat against the solid glass wall on which all the stars are painted in florescent paint.

      --
      âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    4. Re:Edge by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      No, no, no... it's going to get caught in the great Sky Wizard's beard. Sheesh.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    5. Re:Edge by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Any day it will splat against the solid glass wall

      I'm wondering why this hasn't happened to either of the small rovers roaming the desert. Different movie, but still...

    6. Re:Edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will it just keep going as if everything i sitting still..

      I like to speculate that there's a race of invisible hyperintelligent superaliens watching over us & the other sentient-but-barbaric-intelligent lifeforms of the universe. There comes a point where they reveal themselves to a civilization, once it achieves a certain technological milestone. Maybe, pushing the first artificial probe beyond the boundaries of our star system is that milestone? Either that, or Allah will simply turn the probe around and send it back to us, something like that.

    7. Re:Edge by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      I'm more worried about it breaking our crystal sphere. (Hugo award short story '85)

    8. Re:Edge by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

      No, it will accidentally be destroyed by the King of All Cosmos.

      We broke it. Yes, we were naughty. Completely naughty. So, so very sorry... But just between you and us, it felt quite good.

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    9. Re:Edge by itzdandy · · Score: 1

      Clearly, the sphere that surrounds us that is the known universe has some sort of fluid oil stuck to it. That is the simplest and most correct way to describe the movement of the 'so-called' stars. The oil slowly shifts due to the orbit of the sun around the earth.

  5. 17.5 billion kilometers by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    17.5 billion kilometres and counting, over 3 decades spent hurtling away from from the sun, and still less than 0.05% of the way to the nearest star

    We humans are really really really small.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    1. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Nah, just short-lived. Three decades is nothing.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Shows how much american vehicles fair over Toyotas.

    3. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

      I think I can I think I can I think I can.....

    4. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would have been much further if they had used miles instead of kilometers...

    5. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by oldspewey · · Score: 2

      Well at this rate, it would take around half a billion years to colonize the entire galaxy, which over cosmic timescales isn't too bad I suppose. As for visiting other galaxies, I'd be inclined to say it could never happen, but then it seems that our nearby galaxies are going to visit us so that saves us the trouble.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    6. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by joeboomer628 · · Score: 1

      Far out, man

      --
      JoeR
    7. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      We humans are really really really small.

      Pfff. Our ego makes up for our size.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    8. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      I don't care about how our size, or our reach into space, compares with galactic distances. Probably most if not all intelligent life in the universe are falling into the same category of small, if our understanding of physics is basically right.

      But i would be worried if our small reach is in time, both in the survival sense or in the thinking one. As species we are more worried about getting a fast profit than the effects of our behaviour for what will become the world in 50, 100 or more years (and that, without even touching odds of global catastrophes like asteroid hit or runaway climate change, just social changes could be as destructive for us)

    9. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by khallow · · Score: 1

      But i would be worried if our small reach is in time, both in the survival sense or in the thinking one. As species we are more worried about getting a fast profit than the effects of our behaviour for what will become the world in 50, 100 or more years (and that, without even touching odds of global catastrophes like asteroid hit or runaway climate change, just social changes could be as destructive for us)

      Easy way to fix that. Live longer.

    10. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by evanbd · · Score: 1
    11. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Interesting

      True, Voyager 1 has only travelled a short way between stars within our galaxy -- but here is a cool fact (I think).The Milky Way Galaxy is moving relative to the rest of the Universe (as defined by the Cosmic Microwave Background frame of reference) at 279 ± 68 km/sec, just under 0.1% the speed of light. This is the speed with which we are moving through the Universe. Thus if you live to be 80 years old (a typical lifespan today) you will die in a region of the Universe 0.074 light years from where you were born, and the first pyramids were built in Egypt in a region of the Universe more distant than Alpha Centauri.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    12. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      They also shot those things out at a rather slow--relatively speaking--pace of just 16.8 km/s and 12.9 km/s for V1 and V2 respectively. Our present, flight proven electric drive technologies are a order of magnitude faster. Get to the nearest star fast, no, but we could certainly play out in the Kupiter belt and only have to wait a few years rather than a few decades like with did with these. Make no mistake I'm glad we got them out there. They've sent back some really awesome stuff but I also think it's time to start sending their successors, and preferably a bit more mass produced.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    13. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

      We humans are really really really small.

      Puny humans. Space toy make Hulk angry.

    14. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by zonex · · Score: 2

      For some perspective -- the Voyager is just 16.1 light hours away... the nearest star is 4.2 light years away. Happy tracks, little fella...

    15. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      It's really mind-boggling to think that we can still receive data from it. From that distance, it takes about 16 hours for the data to arrive. And to think, I can't even get a reliable cell phone signal at home.

    16. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Half a billion years is a fairly short time in galactic timescales. It took approximately one billion years after the Earth formed for life to appear, and then 3.5 billion years to get to us. You'd only need to evolve slightly faster than us (or slower, but around a first-generation star) to have been spacefaring for over half a billion years, which makes you wonder slightly why no one has colonised our star already.

      It's worth remembering that we've only been chucking things into space for about half a century. With our current science, it's largely an engineering problem (i.e. hard, but possible with a bit of investment) to get an extra order of magnitude or two on top of Voyager's speed, which would cut down the time considerably. Give us a couple of hundred years more technological development, and we could easily produce Von Neumann probes that would explore every star in the galaxy in a few million years. If someone else did this already, they hid their probes pretty well...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1
      Just curious...

      How far would a probe with similar mass but equipped to expend it's energy on thrust at a similar rate make it over a similar period of time? I.e. with even a modest force of acceleration, what would be the current velocity and distance, relative to our sun?

    18. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Your reasoning makes the sci-fi nerd in me nervous that life is either unique to Earth, or somewhat common but very very prone to annihilating other life.

    19. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, Proxima Centauri is stupendously far away and we managed to cover 0.05% of that. Yes, it took us three decades but it's still quite impressive.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    20. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leggo my Ego

    21. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by camperdave · · Score: 1

      17.5 billion kilometres and counting, over 3 decades spent hurtling away from from the sun, and still less than 0.05% of the way to the nearest star

      Yeah. Too bad it's not heading that way. Voyager 1 is aimed about ten degrees left and 75 degrees up from Proxima Centauri.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    22. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      We humans are really really really small.

      Obviously not been to the US lately...

    23. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      That depends entirely on the method of propulsion chosen.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    24. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      If someone else did this already, they hid their probes pretty well...

      Um... What makes you say that?

      It doesn't seem like they would have to be hiding much, or at all for that matter, for us to miss them.

      Look at a recent development at the limits of human observational ability: We just discovered that Eris is, despite its greater mass, may not actually be larger in diameter than Pluto. We did not do this by actually resolving the disk with sufficient resolution to answer the question, but by timing how long it occluded a background star. While certainly an awesome and impressive feat, it raises a very pertinent question:

      Just how big/close would an alien probe need to be for it to be hard to miss?

      Imagine a probe, many times larger than any telescope we have even on the ground, observing from the outer solar system. This probe could be orbiting Eris right now, while it's duplicator-unit scurries around the surface of the body making the next generation of probes to send to our stellar neighbors, and we'd have virtually no way of knowing.

      I have other issues with this an other versions of the Fermi Paradox, but the crux is the part where one asks "then why haven't we seen them already?" as if this is in any way a paradox, or even a puzzling mystery.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    25. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Given the scale of the universe, life in general may be as common as insects on earth. But question is if the distances involved makes it unlikely that we will ever be able to communicate, much less meet.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    26. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There are some other options. A few, off the top of my head:

      Life may be common, but there may be something inherent in the evolution of intelligence that prevents sending out Von Neumann probes of this nature. This is moderately plausible, since it seems likely that the probes would outlast the creation civilisation, and you don't get to be top of the food chain by encouraging your evolutionary competitors. This isn't especially satisfying as an explanation, because the drive to expand is pretty important to any evolved creature - a being without it will quickly be displaced by others with it.

      There may be a small technological leap between space flight and post-physical existence, so no one gets around to galactic colonisation in the short time when they're capable of doing so but still physical. Again, not very satisfying because it only takes one exception and you've got probes everywhere.

      Some form of faster than light travel may be possible, in which case there'd be little point in slower-than-light exploration. The most interesting possible form is something like a wormhole that can only exist with similar gravitational conditions at the endpoints, so advanced species explore other worlds but rarely actually venture into space. They could have vast interstellar empires, but nothing easily detectable from a distance.

      Someone already did this, and their probes are hiding and stopping any one else from doing the same. Maybe they avoided harvesting materials in any system containing the potential for life and are hiding somewhere out beyond Pluto waiting to intercept anything that we launch that looks capable of crossing interstellar space.

      Several species already did this, and their probes annihilated each other.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    27. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      You, along with Stephen Hawking, will want to re-visit those thoughts in the next 20 years ...

    28. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Not much of a difference - large part of the speed of Voyagers came from gravitational slingshots (not done in a way to strictly maximize speed, but to maximize science return)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    29. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by hitmark · · Score: 1

      What, you expect the LHC to figure a way to go FTL?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    30. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Technological civilizations might be exceedingly rare, even if it seems like life might be very, very widespread.

      Ours is a blink of an eye on the timescale of life on Earth. Most of that time completelly dominated by microbes (would be funny if, via our recent efforts in sixth great extinction/etc., we're working to remove any ambiguity to their continuing domination), which possibly can travel interstellar distances...

      Earth had/has few other fairly intelligent lineages, but they generally ended up in a sort of evolutionary dead end (probably; as far as civilization goes). Octopus - wrong environmental pressures / too short lifespan / non-social. Magpies / crows / etc. - limits on early development due to eggs, harder scaling up of body plan, lack of "free" limbs. Dolphins / whales - again limbs and environment putting limits.

      We were lucky. A fairly large brain with room to grow, free set of prehensile limbs, living in close social groups and in an environment which at the time promoted "progress".

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    31. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Of course the other side of that is - we would be fairly hard to notice for a long time, too. No reason to avoid Earth... probably one of more attractive targets in the system, all things considered. Quite weird, quite "wrong" - free oxygen?! (but if Eris is more attractive to you, then so are all Oort clouds - no reason to get anywhere near; though, considering the timescales and probable scale of "production", we could notice something weird with the spectra of comets by now)

      But this gets dangerously close to Daniken or UFOs ;)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    32. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Or "harmful" ideologies ("" - no reason to rigidly attach values, ideologies are here for the same game: survival). Heck, consider one straightforward example: the most technologically plausible approach might be embryo / egg / sperm colonization.

      But can you imagine the furor this would cause now and still for some time?

      "Some fractions will do it anyway" might be not enough. Impactor will be always insanely easier to launch (and will attain much higher speed) than colonization ship...

      (FTL seems quite implausible, considering it's also a trip to the past)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    33. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure. Our minds are inherently very bad at this game, didn't evolve to it. Hardly any "in a decade" evolutionary pressures (except the usual breeding and related; which actually seems to be suppressed by effects of progress)

      We still operate largely in the mental framework which promoted survival of small hunter-gatherer groups. It just had to be effective - how a lot of what surrounds the very idea of "ourselves" is an illusion didn't matter. You say, basically, how we need to change - but, for example, look how the widespread belief in largely unbroken, monolithic, unchanging consciousness is itself a myth. We change dramatically throughout the few decades we have (being closer to our peers at given point than to ourselves at different stage; we barely remember the latter, barely keep track of what we really were more than a few years ago), barely noticing it / telling ourselves how we don't, not too much...

      Heck, split-brain patients appear mostly unaffected. There's also one very revealing symptom, a result of particularly localized brain trauma - in which the affected go blind but don't realize it, claiming (and trying to act on it) that they can see. This is our grip on "ourselves"...

      (not saying it's an insurmountable barrier of course, and that longer lifespans aren't (yes, already) a part of changing status quo - but they are not enough; if anything, they might be largely a symptom of societal dynamics in place which manage to promote long-term well-being)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    34. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem very cheerful, considering how the meaningful frame of reference around us moves in the same way...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    35. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Not quite an order of magnitude; able to effect delta-v change of few to dozen km/s. And actually - might be not the best way to explore outer system, with quick flybys and harder to affect trajectories.

      Really mass production could get interesting, maybe with solar sails.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    36. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      No reason to avoid Earth... but if Eris is more attractive to you, then so are all Oort clouds - no reason to get anywhere near

      Er... that really wasn't part of my line of reasoning.

      I'm saying, a very large space observatory would be able to study our entire solar system from a distance at which it would be invisible to us. Eris was just a reference point and hypothetical source of materials, not the (sole) object of study. In order to point out that we could have had our very best telescopes pointed right at an alien probe and been completely unable to see it.

      considering the timescales and probable scale of "production", we could notice something weird with the spectra of comets by now

      Are these Von Neuman probes or Slylandro probes?

      It just needs to make a handful of copies to head off to the next nearest stars and repeat the process. Periodically make copies for replacement of 'our' probe -- they can already survive interstellar journeys so they should be pretty hardy, but you would want some backups made in advance -- and even kilometer-scale observatory/factories wouldn't come close to making a dent in Eris (which seems more likely a source of materials than comets, but either way) to the degree that we would notice it.

      I don't really see any reason to assume that someone sending probes to study would damage what they are studying beyond necessity by letting exponential growth run unchecked. :p

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    37. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I'm admittedly not a physicist but referencing good old Wiki they're citing a delta-v of >100 for both Hall effect and Electrostatic ion thrusters. From what I've read the VASMIR has the makings of trumping both of those and will be sent up to the ISS 2012/13ish for testing. I'm not sure where we're presently at relative to the theoretical limits vs. the prototypes we've flown but I get the impression we're making rather impressive strides.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    38. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      That's just the speed of their exhaust, not attainable delta-v of the vehicle carrying the engine.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    39. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure. Our minds are inherently very bad at this game, didn't evolve to it. Hardly any "in a decade" evolutionary pressures (except the usual breeding and related; which actually seems to be suppressed by effects of progress)

      Inherently very bad compared to what? My view is that people would learn and adapt mentally to longer life. Currently the prime reason that we don't plan for times well beyond our lives is simply that it's ludicrous to take responsibility for people and situations who you can't even influence much less help.

    40. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm misunderstanding things, doesn't the exhaust velocity reveal the potential of the vehicle itself given sufficient thrust duration?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    41. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It reveals efficiency in utilization of propellant, specific impulse. It doesn't lead directly to much higher speeds of the vehicle (particularly not in "an order of magnitude" way) - this depends on few more factors (like scalability or energy source/density aboard the vehicle; rocket equation means that "thrust duration" isn't free)

      Referencing, as you said, "good old Wiki" - the current record holder for practical implementation of Hall effect thruster apparently made a delta-V of less than 4 km/s. I believe when I said "dozen km/s" I was being generous enough for our present tech.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    42. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1

      An interesting conjecture, but wouldn't anything using reaction drives light itself up quite nicely when it moved around? That is one of the conclusions over at Atomic Rockets.

      --

      (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

    43. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Inherently bad when compared to what we should be doing (well, few manage it) already for our already quite long lifespans. It's not clear we learned and adapted to our present quite long life. Generally we don't plan 5 decades into the future, well within our lives.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    44. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by khallow · · Score: 1
      Long term plans aren't that useful. For example, I started up a long term plan for the colonization of the Wolf 424 binary star system, based on data that the system would be within a lightyear of the Solar System in roughly 9,000 years. Turns out that the velocity estimate for the system was based on extraordinarily bad data (supposedly it was moving towards us at 555 km/s, but turns out to be moving towards us at 2 km/s). That plan got wiped out by a trivial touch of reality.

      Similarly, the original author that I replied to had said this:

      As species we are more worried about getting a fast profit than the effects of our behaviour for what will become the world in 50, 100 or more years (and that, without even touching odds of global catastrophes like asteroid hit or runaway climate change, just social changes could be as destructive for us)

      There's no understanding here that "getting a fast profit" (which incidentally includes plenty of activities, both long and short term unfairly tarnished by an inaccurate label) may well be the best approach. For example, we already know that the risk of an asteroid collision capable of threatening our existence is vanishingly rare on the order of centuries. We also have not found a mechanism for runaway climate change. Sure there is some awareness of possible "tipping points" such as release of clathrates from the sea floor, but these things would not cause an existential threat to humanity.

      The only real threat mentioned here is "social changes". And frankly, I can't speak for the decisions of people after my death. If they choose some sort of tyranny, then that's too bad, but I can't do anything about it.

    45. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      hiding somewhere out beyond Pluto waiting to intercept anything that we launch that looks capable of crossing interstellar space.

      So I think it's safe to say they're laughing their asses off watching the Voyager probes crawling along.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    46. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      No, particle/theoritical physicists will discover two more fundamental forces.

      I was hinting that First* Contact will happen by ~ 2032 (give or take a few years.) Frankly, I just want this be over with so we can move onto bigger questions -- What is your preception of Mathematics? Physics? Biology? Theology? If FTL isn't going to give the physicists head-aches for years, then when they understand the "edge" of the Universe, that will. ;-)

      Save this post so we can come back to it and laugh over how it absolutely ridiciously insane and silly it must seem now, but won't then, and we can talk "How the Hell did you know this back then...?" :-)

      Anyways, its going to get real interesting "soonish", and we can stop this nonsense of trying to guess the answer to the one of the biggest questions of all time "Are we alone?" because it will be a fact.

      "May you live in interesting times!" Indeed.

      * Technically, it's not "First", but whether it is 1st, 1,000 or 1,000,000 doesn't really matter. IMHO, the BIGGER questions is "WTF do they look like us?"

      --
      So if an Alien lands on earth, gets off their ship, but looks human, is it still considered alien?

    47. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      An interesting conjecture, but wouldn't anything using reaction drives

      Aka "anything" since we're talking about known physics, like Conservation of Momentum. Otherwise the possibility of FTL throws a wrench into pretty much everything. :)

      light itself up quite nicely when it moved around? That is one of the conclusions over at Atomic Rockets [projectrho.com].

      Er, I'm going to take the statement that Shuttle Main Engines could be seen past Pluto to mean it's plausible that we'd see the probe if our telescopes were pointed at it while it was burning. I don't expect a probe to need much in the way of acceleration, but I am allowing for a very large probe. So that's a good point.

      But that whole page is in the context of stealth, like in a space-war, so a lot of the objects just aren't relevant in this case. As in the section about "Thrifty Engine Burns":

      "Well fine!", you say, "I'll just burn once and drift silently"

      But now you will be months in getting to your target. The extra time increases the chance that the enemy will spot you.

      Not to mention the fact that once your initial burn is spotted, the enemy will be able to calculate your future position anytime in the future.

      Except the probe already spent perhaps hundreds of years getting here from whatever nearby star it was replicated at and is going to spend hundreds of years quietly and passively observing our solar system. Once here the only time it's ever going to need to fire its engines are for station keeping, which depending on the orbit may be practically never, and will require minute amounts of thrust anyway.

      Our only chance to spot alien probes via their engines may actually be when the newly minted probe-copies push off for whatever stars are next in the list. Since we're looking at the "why hasn't this already happened yet?" hypothesis, we have to consider the possibility that this already happened and our only decent chance at seeing them with today's technology happened yesterday, when we weren't looking.

      And on that note the Atomic Rockets page seems to be assuming that "passive" sensors, aka the only kind we have, are omni-directional, which ours most certainly are not. Even if we can see the probe that doesn't mean we will. For an alien probe in our solar system, stealth in space is imminently achievable.

      Again, interesting observation, but "so if aliens exist, why haven't we seen a probe yet?" still isn't a very interesting question.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    48. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      From whose perspective?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    49. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by theurge14 · · Score: 1

      That's based on a Mercator projection, right?

    50. Re:17.5 billion kilometers by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Well, you know how it goes - all it needs is one replication error, one malfunctioning / rogue lineage ;p (that's how life works; and such probes would be arguably alive). If we were to assume such probes are widespread enough in the galaxy to be present in our (stellar) vicinity, that probably strongly points to the possibility of just one of them which started to multiply uncontrollably (in vicinity or not, doesn't matter much) already(*).

      The point with Eris BTW was also precisely how it's unremarkable; what's really strange in this system is the third planet. Might be universally curious enough to warrant taking a much closer look (but again, dangerously close to Daniken or UFOs ;) )

      (*)which is the ultimate extension of something which might very well be a rule - astronomical observatories should form just a small part of industrial output. All of it should still only rarely give something immediately weird. But "out of control" self-replicating spacecraft/life - if such thing were to exist, there's probably a high chance of large proportion of stars giving unnatural spectra already (if not comets, locally)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  6. An amazing achievement by Colourspace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact we are still able to communicate with a piece of 33 year old technology (I'm only a few years older myself, and possibly not in as good a shape either) further away than any man made object ever launched, and are still getting useful science from it is nothing short of remarkable - matched only Spirits extended mission time so far, IMHO. And then, sometimes we can't even launch a satellite or two properly..

    1. Re:An amazing achievement by troon · · Score: 4, Informative

      ITYM "Opportunity". Spirit's been silent, and I'm guessing dead, since March.

      --
      Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    2. Re:An amazing achievement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless Spirit and Opportunity have had super extended missions. I believe it was intended for only a few months and now we're years later and just one of them has died... bravo.

    3. Re:An amazing achievement by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It seems quite likely now, yes. They lost communication in late March, the winter solstice was in late May so you'd expect it back around late July the way I'm thinking. It's 5 months past that now with 4 months left to peak production. If it survived the winter at all you'd think that would be long enough to get back in touch, of course it did get stuck in a less than ideal position so it might have trouble recharging enough. Worth listening to, but I would be surprised if it recovers and if it does it'll probably be just to say hi before the next winter kills it. The money is pretty solidly on Opportunity lasting the longest now.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:An amazing achievement by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

      It doesn't surprise me at all! People have gotten lazier and lazier. I mean sure technology has gotten more advanced but it is made to break now where as back then people made things to last. I live in Kansas City and I remember when they first started the renovation on Union Station everyone was surprised when the 50 year old escalators fired right up without hesitation. It is sad to say but the generations before were much better than a lot of the people these days.

    5. Re:An amazing achievement by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Too bad eventual radioactive death will limit it's total longevity. Still a few decades of limited power rationed life yet.

    6. Re:An amazing achievement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes me think of Jurassic Park where the lawyer asks the kid if the binoculars are heavy and tells him to put them down if they are because they are expensive.

    7. Re:An amazing achievement by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      The part I always find amazing is that it sends the data from that distance on a 23-watt radio transmitter.

      I've taken electrical engineering classes on this topic, and I understand how it's done, but I still find mind boggling that we can decode information sent with the power equivalent of a dim light bulb from well beyond the orbit of Pluto.

    8. Re:An amazing achievement by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      If we had the collective courage [read - no enviro-wackos] to use RTGs on our Mars probes, we wouldn't have lost Spirit to freezing temperatures brought on by low power from the solar cells.

      We used 'em on quite a few spacecraft - why they aren't used more often for solar power-limited missions escapes me.

      Even if you don't go the whole RTG route, including a small chunk of Gd148 would've kept Spirit from freezing. From http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/6.3.7.1.htm:

      "A ~0.2 kg block of pure Gd148 (~1 inch^3) initially yields ~120 watts, sufficient in theory to meet the complete basal power needs of an entire human body for ~1 century..."

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    9. Re:An amazing achievement by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I agree. This site has some calculations of power density vs distance - truly remarkable feat, if you ask me.

      The High Gain Antenna on Voyager 1 has gain of 48.15 dB, making the Effective Radiated Power 1,384,500 W, or 61.43 dBW. The Goldstone 70m antenna has about 75 dB of gain. This Path-loss calculator shows that the signal is -179 dBW as received from 17.3 billion km away. That's 1.26 x 10^-18 W, or 1.26 attowatts.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    10. Re:An amazing achievement by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If we had the collective courage [read - no enviro-wackos] to use RTGs [wikipedia.org] on our Mars probes, we wouldn't have lost Spirit to freezing temperatures brought on by low power from the solar cells.

      LOL, that's why you think Spirit and Opportunity didn't use them? Enviro-wackos?

      The real reason is simply optimizing for the mission profile. The MERs were relatively small devices with very tight mass budgets, and an RTG of sufficient power would have been too heavy compared to the solar panel/battery combo they went with instead. It was an engineering trade-off. They did, by the way, use RHUs to heat components but this was not sufficient to stave off freezing by itself.

      The Mars Science Laboratory is going to use an RTG. It is a much larger rover, with power demands beyond what solar panels could provide, and with a more generous amount of mass to dedicate to the power system.

      We used 'em on quite a few spacecraft [wikipedia.org] - why they aren't used more often for solar power-limited missions escapes me.

      Yeah, which I would think would have suggested that maybe enviro-wacko objection to the concept of RTGs had nothing to do with it. This is a lobby with surprisingly less power than you might think. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:An amazing achievement by boristdog · · Score: 1

      I'm only a few years older myself, and possibly not in as good a shape either

      I believe everyone should own some piece of technology from their birth year to let them know just how old they are. I have a 1963 car sitting in my driveway, and BOY does it look old...

    12. Re:An amazing achievement by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2

      Yeah - it's a real shame that it got that far and *then* the solar wind detector broke. ;)

    13. Re:An amazing achievement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then, sometimes we can't even launch a satellite or two properly..

      Humans have spent many millenniums walking, and sometimes we still can't take a step without tripping over.

    14. Re:An amazing achievement by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your reasoned reply.

      In case you don't remember, there was significant public protest over Cassini:

      1 2 3 4 5, etc

      I'm not sure that they couldn't have used an MMRTG on the rovers, at least from a mass standpoint (I couldn't find dimensions for the MMRTG). According to the wikipedia article, it masses in at 48 kg and produces 125W electrical at the start of the mission (2.5 kWh/day). The Mars Explorer Rover article states that the solar panels produce 140W peak for only 4 hours/day (0.6 kWh/day). The batteries that supplement the solar cells mass 14.3kg, and the panels themselves along with the associated hinges/etc to unfurl them together likely weigh about the same as an RTG. The benefit of having constantly-available power to drive where you want, when you want, 24x7, and to be able to run any experiment any time far outweighs the risks of using marginally-sufficient solar panels.

      The RTG used in Cassini-Huygens, New Horizons, Galileo probe, and the Ulysses probe were twice as efficient (5.26 We/kg vs 2.8 We/kg) as the current model.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    15. Re:An amazing achievement by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the heliopause marks the edge of the solar system; we're about to see something man-made enter interstellar space.

      Gives me goosebumps just thinking about it.

    16. Re:An amazing achievement by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      In case you don't remember, there was significant public protest over Cassini:

      Let's think about this for five seconds.

      There were "significant" public protests over Cassini.

      Cassini launched anyway with its RTG as planned, as have missions both before and since.

      Conclusion: ZOMG enviro-wackos have the power to prevent NASA from using RTGs!

      Seriously?!

      the associated hinges/etc to unfurl them together likely weigh about the same as an RTG.

      I do not think that is likely. Solar panels are thin and lightweight. That's their advantage. I see no reason a pair of hinges that needs to operate once are going to weigh more than a battery, and the motor to move the lightweight panel, again once, is going to weigh more than another battery, with the panels themselves massing as much as both batteries combined to equal the total mass of an RTG.

      But you know, I'm not certain. What I am certain of is that NASA made the decision to go with solar panels instead of an RTG for mission engineering reasons and it had fuck-all to do with some disorganized protesting idiots.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:An amazing achievement by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Easy there, no need for histrionics.

      Did you happen to read any of the articles I linked to? At KSC, at least 1,000 people were protesting, and many were arrested trying to climb the fences. They even organized a shrimp-boat protest to prevent the launch. 15 congresscritters sent a petition to President Clinton. A statement was read the the UN.

      It was a big deal, and with the help of the internet it flared up around the country and world. I remember it being a low point of hysteria vs reason.

      There was grave doubt that Cassini would be launched at the time since it unfortunately followed on the heels of the ill-fated Russian Mars 96 probe that crashed into South America with 0.44 lbs of Plutonium onboard. IIRC the President had to sign off on its launch - that certainly is odd for something that should've been a routine scientific activity.

      I agree that solar panels were likely the best choice for the MER rovers from a weight perspective, but so much capability was left back on earth because of that decision. I look forward to the new rover; bigger, badder, and powerful!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    18. Re:An amazing achievement by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes the Envronuts makes it hard to launch any RTG probe.
      No that had nothing to do with mars rovers using solar. That happened because it was cheap. RTGs are expensive and the first mars rover was really a low budget program. When NASA found out how much science they could do with with the Solar they went cheap on the next few missions as well.
      Now that sad part is that we could have had an RTG powered mars rover about 30 years ago. NASA had plans for a tracked version of the Viking lander but never got funding.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. Data transfers by Picardo85 · · Score: 5, Funny

    are still probably cheaper per kB than sending an SMS ...

    1. Re:Data transfers by john83 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      From here,

      The total cost of the Voyager mission from May 1972 through the Neptune encounter (including launch vehicles, radioactive power source (RTGs), and DSN tracking support) is 865 million dollars.

      and

      A total of five trillion bits of scientific data had been returned to Earth by both Voyager spacecraft at the completion of the Neptune encounter.

      That's $0.001384 per bit. There are 1120 bits in an SMS message. That's about $1.55 per SMS. Not exactly cheap, but then Vodafone don't have coverage beyond Pluto.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    2. Re:Data transfers by Dakman · · Score: 1

      Kind of interesting to think, get ~500,000 people to shell out $1.55. Micro donations could fund the future of science.

    3. Re:Data transfers by cycleflight · · Score: 2
      We've left all but the most broad definitions of the solar system behind on $865 million, and yet we spend nearly that amount per unit to enable the annihilation of millions of our fellow beings without them ever knowing.

      What a world.

      --
      "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
    4. Re:Data transfers by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Well yes. Western countries are totally over militarized. And especially the USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures if I read this correctly than the US alone contributes with 43 % to the world's military budget. And the other NATO states add up to 19-20% of the budget. So in total NATO spends 62% of the world's military budget. Looks like we are a little over prepared when it comes to self-defense.

    5. Re:Data transfers by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      I agree with your point in the broad strokes, but also remember that a lot of military budget goes to research and development, albeit wastefully. For FY2010 (including Iraq and Afghanistan), the US spent $79B on "Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation". If even a percent of those dollars has the effectiveness of NASA's, that alone doubles the amount we spend on futurism.

    6. Re:Data transfers by bindo · · Score: 1

      Vodafone charges more than that for an sms in roaming, (for some european plans.)

      Besides most sms are much shorter than the limit. so 600 bits looks more that average. that would be 0.80 $

      So there you have it.

      Vodafone is more expensive.

    7. Re:Data transfers by tgd · · Score: 2

      Not to dismiss, but keep in mind that is the total dollars spent, in which the vast majority was in 1970's dollars.

      Assuming that was mostly spent in, say, 1975 (figuring 700m of it), that would be almost $3b in "official" 2009 dollars, although arguably the government has been playing games with the inflation figures for most of the 2000s, so its likely actually more.

      And, you're off by three orders of magnitude.

    8. Re:Data transfers by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Kind of interesting to think, get ~500,000 people to shell out $1.55. Micro donations could fund the future of science.

      Already being done. It's called taxes.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Data transfers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's still cheaper than an SMS on an airplane.

    10. Re:Data transfers by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      It's not being spent on what I want to spend them on though. I'm a big supporter of filling out a form on deciding how I want a certain percentage (10-30%) of my taxes to be spent, excluding the class of welfare related items.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    11. Re:Data transfers by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Except the people who pay tax do not want it spent on Military unless they are in danger, Police unless there is crime near them, Roads, unless they use them, etc ...

      If you can pick and choose you would make all the wrong choices (not that the government always gets it right either)

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  8. Vger going where no man has gone before by digitaldc · · Score: 0

    Anyone seen Voyager 1?

    Last I saw he was heading out of the solar system with some bald chick. I really didn't think too much about it at the time, but it did look a little weird.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  9. Re:First by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

    I would say that the ping time is probably at par with the ping time of the protocol described in RFC 1149, a.k.a. IPoAC.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  10. I feel a kinship with voyager by arcite · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since it is almost the same age as me, I feel a kinship with the little guy. It's amazing that it's still sending back readings after all theses years and millions of miles travelled in the deep dark infinite space. Onward to interstellar space! Godspeed!

  11. NASA Craftsmanship by Goboxer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With how well NASA's gear works long after their mission is complete perhaps they should start selling toys and cars to fill in all those budget holes that they have.

    1. Re:NASA Craftsmanship by Kamokazi · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a great idea. Going by typical NASA costs for things, the toys would only run 10-50k, and you could get yourself into a nice efficient compact for a cool $15M

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    2. Re:NASA Craftsmanship by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Which is cheap, considering your going to get your self a 1 off that will run forever, be reliable, and can be changed to meat new goals.

      The reason tows and cars are cheaper is because they are mass produced. We could be making voyagers of 5K if we where making 1 a year, every year.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:NASA Craftsmanship by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I doubt that even the expensive Voyager would last through a single season of salt spray and potholes.

    4. Re:NASA Craftsmanship by Xyrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons why NASA missions are so expensive is because you can't just yank shit of a shelf, stuff it in a box, and hope that it works in space? Did it cross your mind that the people with the know how to correctly engineer something that can last in space for extended periods of time aren't exactly cheap?

      There are no economies of scale here. Highly specialized = expensive. Highly specialized + rugged = very expensive.

      --
      ~X~
    5. Re:NASA Craftsmanship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA can't rely on economies of scale making production cheaper per unit. The war machine totally can, and remind me again what an M1A2 costs? Do those produce useful science, or do they just get Marines (~$13k plus gear) and sand niggers killed?

    6. Re:NASA Craftsmanship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons why NASA missions are so expensive is because you can't just yank shit of a shelf, stuff it in a box, and hope that it works in space? Did it cross your mind that the people with the know how to correctly engineer something that can last in space for extended periods of time aren't exactly cheap?

      There are no economies of scale here. Highly specialized = expensive. Highly specialized + rugged = very expensive.

      Just go with the joke man. Its ok to laugh.

  12. Go Voyager 1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's fascinating to think that in just about four years the first man-made object will leave our solar system. And to think that only a little over 100 years ago we were still trying to get ourselves airborne. We've come a long way. I wish I knew what we'd be doing 100 years from today.

    1. Re:Go Voyager 1! by dogsbreath · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's fascinating to think that in just about four years the first man-made object will leave our solar system. And to think that only a little over 100 years ago we were still trying to get ourselves airborne. We've come a long way. I wish I knew what we'd be doing 100 years from today.

      er... picking through radioctive rubble and looking for a scrap to eat? ... avoiding Triffids?

    2. Re:Go Voyager 1! by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      "Oh man is it 2110 already? I really need to get off slashdot and get some work done."

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:Go Voyager 1! by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      I wish I knew what we'd be doing 100 years from today.

      Decomposing.

  13. We humans may be small by arcite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but we think big.

    1. Re:We humans may be small by jovius · · Score: 1

      The universe is too small for two us!

    2. Re:We humans may be small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't budget for it.

    3. Re:We humans may be small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well some do, anyway.

    4. Re:We humans may be small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but we think big.

      Well, at least certain spam sources are thinking big.

    5. Re:We humans may be small by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      No we don't. We only think we do.

    6. Re:We humans may be small by sznupi · · Score: 1

      We humans may be small but we think big.

      Which revolves virtually exclusively around merely convincing ourselves into thinking how we are not small (don't get me wrong, generally quite useful survival trait and why our evolution strengthened it, but...)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:We humans may be small by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

      We think, therefore we think we are.

  14. Insert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome joke here in 3....2....1....

  15. Politicians are standing by by sir_eccles · · Score: 0

    Ready to cut funding so they can pay for their tax breaks.

  16. It sure is cold out here. by vgerclover · · Score: 1

    Four more years!? This trip is taking me forever!

    1. Re:It sure is cold out here. by Dakman · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to see a short story written in the point of view from Voyager 1...

    2. Re:It sure is cold out here. by oldspewey · · Score: 1
      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  17. Time to say this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bon voyage, Voyager 1

  18. I'm jealous.... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    It's going places I dream about while I'm stuck back here on this rock. Granted its traveling really slow but still it's getting there.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  19. Must-see TV! by ISurfTooMuch · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else remember with wonder those extended TV broadcasts where they spent all night on prime-time network TV to show off the latest incoming photos? And they even interviewed actual scientists about what the data meant.

    It's amazing and truly sad how far we've fallen since then.

    1. Re:Must-see TV! by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe.

      But the way I see it, that stuff is available 24/7 on the Internet, so have we really fallen all that far? I hit APOD first thing every morning. That often sends me off to various astronomy web sites or wikipedia entries on subjects I didn't even know existed. Then, of course, there's Phil Plait, who's pretty much a hero around here :)

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  20. BUT then that relaity dont happen by chronoss2010 · · Score: 0

    cause some dude with pointy ears changes history and allows his race to gt popped by some green rays....

  21. 8 bits to the byte silly by chronoss2010 · · Score: 0

    8 bits to the byte silly....

    Whom ever is telling you 1120 needs there head examined.

    1. Re:8 bits to the byte silly by john83 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, there are, but SMS uses a reduced character set and so seven bits per character. It's 140 bytes to represent 160 characters. That's my understanding at least, backed up by a cursory google. I could of course be wrong.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    2. Re:8 bits to the byte silly by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      You are correct. The payload data of an SMS packet is 140 octets, which can contain 7-bit, 8-bit or 16-bit (UTF-16) text. The total frame size is a number of octets longer and depends on the underlying protocol.

    3. Re:8 bits to the byte silly by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No, 8 bits to the octet. 8 bits to the bye normally, but not always.

  22. Why cant we have more science like this? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Voyager probes are frigging HUGE. why cant we launch the same thing twice, but have them assemble in orbit and give it a chemical kick in the ass to get the slingshotting down and then when it get's it's last slingshot around juipeter kick in the Ion engines to do a long hard burn for a few years to get the thing really hauling ass.

    I'll bet with current tech we can get past Voyager 1 within 10 years AND have better instruments, a stronger transmitter, far more sensitive receiver, etc.... Seriously. NASA could do this right now and we might see a flyby of another star within a 200 year window.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by ledow · · Score: 1

      Voyager costs billions.

      Voyager has taken since 1977 to get where it is and is currently hitting 14km/s. At those speeds, dusts rips you apart let alone anything else (it's 50400 km/h or 31317 mph). It takes YEARS to accelerate to that speed even with a constant acceleration from a nuclear powered engine that has had to work, unattended, since before I was born.

      If you *do* somehow manage to fund a mission (impossible) to do the exact same thing as an existing successful mission (extremely dubious given the "why bother?" factor), manage to overcome the several MILLION risks to getting a craft near to that sort of state (even launching to Earth orbit isn't better than an 80% chance on an unmanned rocket), manage to do it in, say, half the time (so only 17 years), and then somehow manage to cross several planets on perfectly projected orbits (that you have to wait for *decades* to align nicely so you *CAN* slingshot), and manage to get anywhere near where Voyager 1 is (incredibly unlikely - probably less than 1% if you consider the mission as a whole) and make some *useful* measurements (unlikely) and return the signal to Earth. Then yeah, you could do it. Or for the same price you could send 50 men to Mars to build a shelter. Or 100 men to the moon.

      And you won't see a flyby of another star for several centuries, certainly not KNOW about it until at least 8 years AFTER we do it (information cannot travel faster than the speed of light), and that's assuming we through ALL our efforts into doing something just that expensive at the moment (as a planet). Let's get back to the Moon, first, eh? Something we haven't done in 40 years either but that's achievable in a handful of years and may actually return some decent science and have a practical purpose other than saying "Yeah. We sent a probe there once. We'll find out what colour it is close-up in another decade."

    2. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voyager probes are frigging HUGE. why cant we launch the same thing twice, but have them assemble in orbit and give it a chemical kick in the ass to get the slingshotting down and then when it get's it's last slingshot around juipeter kick in the Ion engines to do a long hard burn for a few years to get the thing really hauling ass.

      I'll bet with current tech we can get past Voyager 1 within 10 years AND have better instruments, a stronger transmitter, far more sensitive receiver, etc.... Seriously. NASA could do this right now and we might see a flyby of another star within a 200 year window.

      Because we can already see the nearest stars with pretty good resolution from Earth? But yeah maybe a star with a fair chance of having planets would be good science, to be fair I think we need something to inspire us to save ourselves and the planet for the next 200 years something like this might be a good start!

    3. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Voyager probes are frigging HUGE. why cant we launch the same thing twice, but have them assemble in orbit and give it a chemical kick in the ass to get the slingshotting down and then when it get's it's last slingshot around juipeter kick in the Ion engines to do a long hard burn for a few years to get the thing really hauling ass.

      Because it's really, really, REALLY, REALLY freaking expensive. You're talking a big task considering the need to develop the technology both for the probe and for on-orbit assembly (and no, the ISS is not suitable, among other problems it's in the wrong orbit). Then you're talking multiple launches, which increases the programmatic risk because each launch is a chance to lose a component. Then you have the problem of keeping the components 'alive' during the assembly period (I.E. powered up and with environmental controls active) and of actually assembling the probe. (I.E. more risk, more chances to screw things up.)
       
      To put it in terms of Slashdot's favorite form of analogy: It's like designing and building a car from scratch in Chicago, then shipping the components to Los Angeles for assembly by remote control with robots also developed from scratch in Chicago and shipped to Los Angeles. Then you drive it from Los Angeles to Miami Beach by remote control - just so you can measure the wind speed and air temperature on the South Beach.
       
      It's not that we can't do it... It's that the expense (several billion dollars at least) and the chances of success (iffy at best given the number of risky steps and cutting edge technologies), aren't justified by the rather modest science goals.

    4. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Because it's really, really, REALLY, REALLY freaking expensive. You're talking a big task considering the need to develop the technology both for the probe and for on-orbit assembly

      Good thing in-orbit assembly is one of the capabilities NASA's new plan intends to develop! Not because it would help a specific project, but because there are many projects this would help, or make feasible in the first place.

      Too bad Congress damaged this exciting plan in the name of sustaining pork^H^H^H^H a strategically important manufacturer of ICBM components!

      Here's hoping the new plan isn't crippled.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother? Then we can simply assume that within 30 years we have the technology to cut that time down to only a few years. So the estimated time for passing another star is about +-30 years from now. Besides, I doubt anyone here, as in 'we' would be seeing much of anything in 200 years.

    6. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      " Voyager has taken since 1977 to get where it is and is currently hitting 14km/s. At those speeds, dusts rips you apart let alone anything else (it's 50400 km/h or 31317 mph). It takes YEARS to accelerate to that speed even with a constant acceleration from a nuclear powered engine that has had to work, unattended, since before I was born."

      Voyager has NO Thrust engines only attitude control. It's last acceleration was during a slingshot past the gas giants. It has had ZERO acceleration since 1979.

      Also Voyager 1 and 2 have no problem with this rip me apart dust you seem to think is all over the place out there.

      as for your claims of impossibility... So then Voyager 1,2, Viking, the Moon landings all were faked then? Because I'm asking for no more than doing what we did in the 70's but with current technology. It is very possible.

      Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years out. an ion engine being able to thrust for 20 years with a set of Gridded Electrostatic ion thrusters achieve 100 kNs/k and some have had 210 kNs/k but not tested in continuous operation for 3 years like the older ones. Designing a craft to have 20 years worth of fuel and Nuclear power is not hard at all we did it in the 70's. and that kind of acceleration would get the craft to a fraction of light speed. Even a 1KW transmitter can send back telemetry to earth at a 1 light year distance if you reduce the data rate and still have fuel to keep the antenna pointed home.

      Granted giving it commands will be difficult, but we can make it smart so it can operate on it's own or with limited command needs.

      All of it is doable because we already did the hard parts of it several times already.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      Well, we launched Deep Space 1 in 1998 for a grand total of about $150 million, which is a real victory considering how many untested technologies went into it. It had as many failures as successes, but I think it was well worth it for the price. We learned a metric f-ton and we got to Jupiter in just two or three years. Lumpy is correct, we very likely could build a more state-of-the-art system using ion propulsion that would pass the Voyager craft in a very short time frame.

      We spend far more on endeavors that are completely devoid of merit, scientific or otherwise.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    8. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Jupiter and Saturn don't line up like they were during that mission very often.

    9. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This layout of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, which occurs about every 175 years, allows a spacecraft on a particular flight path to swing from one planet to the next without the need for large onboard propulsion systems.

      source

    10. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Well, we launched Deep Space 1 in 1998 for a grand total of about $150 million, which is a real victory considering how many untested technologies went into it.

      Which is roughly - meaningless, since it's a fraction of the size and science goals of the proposed probe.
       

      It had as many failures as successes, but I think it was well worth it for the price. We learned a metric f-ton and we got to Jupiter in just two or three years.

      Which is roughly - meaningless. The whole goal of Deep Space 1 was an engineering testbed, any science gained was a bonus. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of the proposed probe.
       

      Lumpy is correct, we very likely could build a more state-of-the-art system using ion propulsion that would pass the Voyager craft in a very short time frame.

      You grossly over estimate the performance of ion engines on a large probe. Unsurprising, really given your demonstrated vast ignorance.
       

      We spend far more on endeavors that are completely devoid of merit, scientific or otherwise.

      Which is roughly, utterly and completely irrelevant. I'm guessing you're just the kind of moron who types just to hear himself type and who knows roughly zero about the topic at hand - and is fucking ignorant enough to think that knowing roughly zero equates to being a genius.

    11. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I'll bet with current tech we can get past Voyager 1 within 10 years

      Actually it was just yesterday on /. I was reading about solar sails and how they're so much faster than any other tech that we'd be able to get to Pluto in JUST 10 years (note Voyager will be much further out by then).

      And the alignment of the planets that made the Voyager missions possible isnt coming again for decades and decades.

      Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of flinging something like hubble out towards Proxima Centauri, but with current tech, your kids will be old before it gets there. Now, if you were to get a Bussard Ramjet working...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of which you are a bigger idiot.

      Only a dumbfuck that is faking it calls another a "moron"

      you know nothing at all about astrophysics outside of what you learned watching SG1...

    13. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by theurge14 · · Score: 1

      Voyagers were aided by the Grand Tour, something that won't happen again until around 2153.

    14. Re:Why cant we have more science like this? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      And you won't see a flyby of another star for several centuries, certainly not KNOW about it until at least 8 years AFTER we do it (information cannot travel faster than the speed of light)

      8 years? The nearest star system is ~3 light-years away, not 8.

  23. Can it be hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I want to know is, what frequencies are the S-band uplink and X-band downlink? My neighbor has one of those giant old-ass DirecTV dishes in his yard... Wouldn't it be cruel to command it to shutdown or veer off course? Mwah hah ha...

    1. Re:Can it be hacked? by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      The frequency is 401MHz.

    2. Re:Can it be hacked? by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      It's not hacking, but this is interesting, apparently some amateur radio operators were able to track it.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
  24. You can say by illumastorm · · Score: 1

    That Voyager 1 broke wind.

  25. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The oort cloud is speculation with absolutely nothing to back it up.

  26. Solar wind decline, not beyond solar wind by chebucto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am not an astrophysicist, so I don't understand the subtelties of this, but it should be noted that NASA press release says the probe has measured a solar wind decline, not that the probe is beyond the solar wind. Specifically, it says the solar wind has 'no outward motion'. The probe's environment is still dominated by the solar wind because it is still in the heliosphere, or, as NASA says, 'Crossing into interstellar space would mean a sudden drop in the density of hot particles and an increase in the density of cold particles.'

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager20101213.html

    Now hurtling toward interstellar space some 17.4 billion kilometers (10.8 billion miles) from the sun, Voyager 1 has crossed into an area where the velocity of the hot ionized gas, or plasma, emanating directly outward from the sun has slowed to zero. Scientists suspect the solar wind has been turned sideways by the pressure from the interstellar wind in the region between stars.

    ...

    Scientists believe Voyager 1 has not crossed the heliosheath into interstellar space. Crossing into interstellar space would mean a sudden drop in the density of hot particles and an increase in the density of cold particles. Scientists are putting the data into their models of the heliosphere's structure and should be able to better estimate when Voyager 1 will reach interstellar space. Researchers currently estimate Voyager 1 will cross that frontier in about four years.

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    1. Re:Solar wind decline, not beyond solar wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also good. The solar wind is moving sideways, not outwards.

  27. I smell B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly do they know that Voyager can no longer detect solar wind? Let me guess, since they turned off the entire scan platform on Voyager 2 and all of Voyager 1 except for the UVS, they haven't gotten that data since the year 2000?

  28. We may thing big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    but we fund poorly!*

    *only on projects that progress humanity

  29. Obligatory by sconeu · · Score: 2

    http://xkcd.com/695/

    Warning: may make some readers cry.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://goatkcd.com/695/

      Warning: may contain goatman.

  30. The Solar Wind is not Zero mph by hAckz0r · · Score: 2

    Voyager is travelling 38,000 mph, directly away from the Sun. If its sensors no longer feel the push of the Solar Wind its because the wind is now going slower, say 37,999 mph, but not yet zero mph as the article title might imply. The wind is most likely still there, we just can not sense it anymore with the technology aboard the spacecraft.

    1. Re:The Solar Wind is not Zero mph by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Voyager is travelling 38,000 mph, directly away from the Sun. If its sensors no longer feel the push of the Solar Wind its because the wind is now going slower, say 37,999 mph, but not yet zero mph as the article title might imply. The wind is most likely still there, we just can not sense it anymore with the technology aboard the spacecraft.

      Doesn't the wind go at the speed of light? Or is it something to do with the speed the craft would be going if the wind were the only thing pushing it?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:The Solar Wind is not Zero mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They took the relative velocities into account:

      "When the speed of the charged particles hitting the outward face of Voyager 1 matched the spacecraft’s speed, researchers knew that the net outward speed of the solar wind was zero. This occurred in June, when Voyager 1 was about 10.6 billion miles from the sun. "

    3. Re:The Solar Wind is not Zero mph by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Your about 3 orders of magnitude off. The solar wind is composed of charged particles, not photons.

    4. Re:The Solar Wind is not Zero mph by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the wind go at the speed of light?

      Since the wind is comprised of particles given off by the Sun, no.

  31. The best value in space exploration. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Remotely "manned", no need to retrieve it, no risk to humans, and exceeded its projected lifespan.

    Send up a few generations of machines and let the tourists follow far in the future.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:The best value in space exploration. by Improv · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how many tourists will want to follow Voyager where it's going.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  32. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The venerable Voyager spacecraft are truly going where no one has gone before. Voyager 1 has now reached a distant point at the edge of our solar system where it is no longer detecting the solar wind. At a distance of about 17.3 billion km (10.8 billion miles) from the Sun, Voyager 1 has crossed into an area where the velocity of the hot ionized gas, or plasma, emanating directly outward from the sun has slowed to zero. Scientists suspect the solar wind has been turned sideways by the pressure from the interstellar wind in the region between stars.

    “The solar wind has turned the corner,” said Ed Stone, Voyager project scientist based at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif. “Voyager 1 is getting close to interstellar space.”

    The event is a major milestone in Voyager 1s passage through the heliosheath, the turbulent outer shell of the sun’s sphere of influence, and the spacecraft’s upcoming departure from our solar system.

    Since its launch on Sept. 5, 1977, Voyager 1’s Low-Energy Charged Particle Instrument has been used to measure the solar wind’s velocity.

    When the speed of the charged particles hitting the outward face of Voyager 1 matched the spacecraft’s speed, researchers knew that the net outward speed of the solar wind was zero. This occurred in June, when Voyager 1 was about 10.6 billion miles from the sun.

    However, velocities can fluctuate, so the scientists watched four more monthly readings before they were convinced the solar wind’s outward speed actually had slowed to zero. Analysis of the data shows the velocity of the solar wind has steadily slowed at a rate of about 45,000 mph each year since August 2007, when the solar wind was speeding outward at about 130,000 mph. The outward speed has remained at zero since June.

    “When I realized that we were getting solid zeroes, I was amazed,” said Rob Decker, a Voyager Low-Energy Charged Particle Instrument co-investigator and senior staff scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md. “Here was Voyager, a spacecraft that has been a workhorse for 33 years, showing us something completely new again.”

    Scientists believe Voyager 1 has not crossed the heliosheath into interstellar space. Crossing into interstellar space would mean a sudden drop in the density of hot particles and an increase in the density of cold particles. Scientists are putting the data into their models of the heliosphere’s structure and should be able to better estimate when Voyager 1 will reach interstellar space. Researchers currently estimate Voyager 1 will cross that frontier in about four years.

    Our sun gives off a stream of charged particles that form a bubble known as the heliosphere around our solar system. The solar wind travels at supersonic speed until it crosses a shockwave called the termination shock. At this point, the solar wind dramatically slows down and heats up in the heliosheath.

    A sister spacecraft, Voyager 2, was launched in Aug. 20, 1977 and has reached a position 8.8 billion miles from the sun. Both spacecraft have been traveling along different trajectories and at different speeds. Voyager 1 is traveling faster, at a speed of about 38,000 mph, compared to Voyager 2s velocity of 35,000 mph. In the next few years, scientists expect Voyager 2 to encounter the same kind of phenomenon as Voyager 1.

    The results were presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

    Source: NASA

    1. Re:Article Text by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

      You don't know that aliens haven't been there before.

      --
      -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
    2. Re:Article Text by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 1

      Our sun gives off a stream of charged particles that form a bubble known as the heliosphere around our solar system. The solar wind travels at supersonic speed until it crosses a shockwave called the termination shock. At this point, the solar wind dramatically slows down and heats up in the heliosheath.

      Would anyone care to explain what supersonic speed means in this context?

    3. Re:Article Text by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Our sun gives off a stream of charged particles that form a bubble known as the heliosphere around our solar system. The solar wind travels at supersonic speed until it crosses a shockwave called the termination shock. At this point, the solar wind dramatically slows down and heats up in the heliosheath.

      Would anyone care to explain what supersonic speed means in this context?

      They're making sonic booms in the solar wind, just like TIE Fighters.
      |o|
      neeeaarrrRROH! wumwumwum

    4. Re:Article Text by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 1

      . . |o| . . (-O-) . . |o| . .

      I have you now.

    5. Re:Article Text by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

      ,/U\j
      (_o_)

      You're all clear, kid, now let's *blow* this thing and go home!

    6. Re:Article Text by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Our sun gives off a stream of charged particles that form a bubble known as the heliosphere around our solar system. The solar wind travels at supersonic speed until it crosses a shockwave called the termination shock. At this point, the solar wind dramatically slows down and heats up in the heliosheath.

      Would anyone care to explain what supersonic speed means in this context?

      Travelling faster than the speed of sound in a medium. Even the gas surrounding Voyager 1 transmits sound waves, but they are quite different from the waves in our atmosphere.

  33. The view... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it's really high up. Must be above the clouds. The view from up there must be sooo stunning.

    1. Re:The view... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it can see Russia from there.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:The view... by illumastorm · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but it can see Uranus too

  34. Re:First by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

    I would say that the ping time is probably at par with the ping time of the protocol described in RFC 1149, a.k.a. IPoAC.

    Perhaps that should be "IP over Alien carriers"...

  35. CPU - lowly RCA 1802 by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wow, just wow! Not even a 6502. The Voyagers used a trio of 1802s clocked at 6.4MHz. Just goes to show what you can do with a specific bit of hardware and tight code.

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  36. kamiikoneko by kamiikoneko · · Score: 1

    "...4 years it will cross the heliosphere" Pretty sure you meant Heliopause, or "it will leave the heliosphere"

  37. WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You are off by a factor of 10. It comes out to less than $0.20 per SMS equivalent. Not too bad.

  38. Onward Voyager! by k6mfw · · Score: 2
    This is so cool of one of four spacecraft to leave our solar system, all made back in the days when the Russians were are enemies and the Iranians were our friends.

    I remember seeing photos of Jupiter in Aviation Week magazine at a library (hey kids, this was the first time people saw such details of Jupiter's clouds, Red Spot, etc. so it was really impressive). I was seriously thinking of stealing those pages, but backed off. I later got nice prints from NASA (which they gave away back in the 20th century). It was so cool to see such detail when best we had were images from ground based telescopes, or nice paintings from artists.

    When Pioneer 11 past Saturn, they discussed the E ring, F ring, G ring, then debating designations of other rings. Then Voyager passed by and they just gave up naming all the rings (maybe they did, but Voyager images showed "thousands" of rings).

    Also back then NASA still had the best "special effects."

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  39. Shouldn't we just plant a stationary object then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the galaxy is moving is fast as you say, how about just plant a stationary platform, and let a star COME TO IT? It would be quicker than trying to reach it.

    Also your galaxy moving thing has a hole in it. If that were the case, wouldn't all our spacecraft be left behind because the entire galaxy moved away from it?

  40. Re:Shouldn't we just plant a stationary object the by orange47 · · Score: 1

    are you joking? earth is spinning pretty fast, why not 'plant stationary platform' in it and easily make a trip around the world? because there is inertia and other things, spacecraft would need a lot of fuel and time to become 'stationary'

  41. How far? by youngone · · Score: 0

    I read TFA and thought cool! I wonder how many light years that is. Imagine my disappointment when Google told me it was 0.0018286505 light years. Boy space is big, I thought it was a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's nothing..... etc.

  42. .03% light speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, except to catch it in 10 years would require it to average .03% the speed of light. Do the math- the probe has a 10.8B-mile headstart and is going like 14m/s every second you're trying to catch up to it.
     
    Sure, this is all back-of-the-napkin, but I'm pretty sure that's way too fast to expect us to manage.

  43. I hope NASA keeps listening until the end by jonwil · · Score: 1

    I hope NASA keeps listening to Voyager 1 until it either dies and cant talk anymore or it gets too far away for even the biggest antenna to pick up.

  44. Venturing beyond the Pillars of Heracles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We should expect the change of "wind" direction, once the craft is out of the heliosphere. Is there any estimate of the speed and direction of interstellar wind? Could that significantly affect Voyager 1's course?

    Why don't we send a sail-equipped craft out, to map the outside of heliosphere and perhaps reach another star's heliosphere faster then using just gravitational slingshot and inertia? Of course, after entering another heliosphere, local solar wind would actually brake the craft, so it should be umbrella-like, able to completely retract its sails.

    What if we could combine sails and gravitational slingshot method (around systems' stars!) to achieve even greater speeds and explore our neighboring part of Galaxy? Perhaps even sling "above" the Milky way disc and take a snapshot (and find out about intergalactic wind, if there is one, too)!

  45. Re:Shouldn't we just plant a stationary object the by Viperpete · · Score: 1

    All you need is an aether anchor, drop that sucker in space and watch the cosmos fly by!

    --
    loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
  46. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's there all right - just above the joke.