Voyager 1 Officially Exits Our Solar System

An anonymous reader writes "A new study released today (abstract) indicates that the Voyager 1 spacecraft has become the first man-made object to exit our solar system. Instrumentation data sent back to NASA indicate the historic event likely occurred on August 25, 2012, evidenced by drastic changes in radiation levels as the craft ventured past the heliopause. What remains to be seen, however, is whether Voyager 1 has actually made it to true interstellar space, or whether it has entered a separate, undefined region beyond our solar system. Either way, the achievement is truly monumental. 'It's outside the normal heliosphere, I would say that. We're in a new region,' said Bill Webber, professor emeritus of astronomy at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. 'And everything we're measuring is different and exciting.'" Update: 03/20 20:44 GMT by S : Reader skade88 points out that the JPL Voyager team is not so sure: "It is the consensus of the Voyager science team that Voyager 1 has not yet left the solar system or reached interstellar space. In December 2012, the Voyager science team reported that Voyager 1 is within a new region called 'the magnetic highway' where energetic particles changed dramatically. A change in the direction of the magnetic field is the last critical indicator of reaching interstellar space and that change of direction has not yet been observed." So we'll probably be hearing about this again in a couple years.

Comments

Hard to define

[Looker_Device]

I would say that "true interstellar space" was "outside the gravitational effect of our sun" but, technically, that's nowhere in the universe.

Re:Hard to define

[war4peace]

Well, if you really want to get THAT far... :)

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

The edge of the solar system is considered by many to be the Oort cloud. That's about 1 light year from the Sun, and Voyager is not even remotely close.

Re:Hard to define

[tragedy]

Well, unless the universe does collapse someday, there should be parts of the universe that are being expanded away from us faster than the speed of light, which is also supposed to be the speed of gravity. We will never be able to observe those parts of the universe though.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

Its already pasted the ort cloud

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad NASA has a better definition of "true interstellar space."

Re:Hard to define

[AK Marc]

He said "not even remotely close" not which side of it it was not close to.

Though:
Voyager 1 is in the process of escaping the solar system at a speed of about 523.6 million km per year, or about 1.4 million km per day. Even at this tremendous speed, Voyager 1 will take at least 14,000 years (and maybe twice that or even longer) to emerge from the Oort cloud. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?MCode=Voyager_1&Target=Beyond

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

What did it paste it with?

Re:Hard to define

[Feyshtey]

From the NASA site :

If we define the solar system as the sun and everything that primarily orbits the sun, however, Voyager 1 will remain within the confines of the solar system until it emerges from the Oort cloud in another 14,000 to 28,000 years

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?MCode=Voyager_1&Target=Beyond

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that "true interstellar space" was "outside the gravitational effect of our sun" but, technically, that's nowhere in the observable universe.

FTFY.

Re:Hard to define

[Walking The Walk]

Its already pasted the ort cloud

No, according to NASA's Voyager project page, Voyager 1 won't escape the Oort cloud (really the outer Oort cloud) for another 14,000 - 28,000 years. (Probably due to running out of power in the next 10 to 15 years.)

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

The Universe beyond 4.6 billion light years away from the Sun would disagree.

Re:Hard to define

[X0563511]

I'd say if it was outside of our star's sphere of influence, then it would be in interstellar space (assuming it was not in another star's sphere of influence)

Re:Hard to define

[M0j0_j0j0]

Ouch!

Re:Hard to define

[Archangel Michael]

Speed of light is relative, and cannot be broken. Space warps as one approaches the speed of light (relative), which is why anything that approaches the speed of light, doesn't ever reach it (relatively). It is mind bending concept, but in reality, you're essentially not accurate when you say "parts of the universe that are being expanded away from us faster than the speed of light".

Once you get to the point where you're looking at things being at or near the speed of light, our linear/3D view of the universe breaks. What if I told you, there is no "edge" of the universe ;)

Re:Hard to define

[RichardtheSmith]

Carl Sagan wrote a lot about the Oort cloud. It would be nice if we could get first-hand evidence of it. Unfortunately the nuclear power supply on Voyager will run out long before anything like that would be remotely possible.

I think the interesting question is, what would constitute evidence of the Oort cloud's actual existence? Every textbook and Wikipedia article I've read still describes it as a theoretical construct.

But yeah, it took us 40 years to get out to 130 AU, and astronomer's talk about comet dust being out as far as 50,000 AU. A humbling thought to be sure.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually, the Voyagers will pass other stars. In about 40,000 years, Voyager 1 will drift within 1.6 light years (9.3 trillion miles) of AC+79 3888, a star in the constellation of Camelopardalis. In some 296,000 years, Voyager 2 will pass 4.3 light years (25 trillion miles) from Sirius, the brightest star in the sky . The Voyagers are destined—perhaps eternally—to wander the Milky Way.

until it crashes on a nascent planet in some distant star system and the earth bacteria aboard it start to spread.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

And technically "your" bad at english.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is the definition then it probably broke this around launch. You simply would have to apply more thrust than the escape velocity to get to the point where gravity of the sun will not bring the vehicle back. I see what you mean, but I think the fact that you can escape an always present force is more mind boggling.

Re:Hard to define

[Rockoon]

It is mind bending concept, but in reality, you're essentially not accurate when you say "parts of the universe that are being expanded away from us faster than the speed of light".

Wrong.

In fact, some of the galaxies that we can see today are now expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. The light we see is from billions of years ago when they were not.

Re:Hard to define

[pwizard2]

Would bacteria even be viable after 200K+ years of hibernation (that's assuming the hypothetical planet is capable of supporting them in the first place)?

Re:Hard to define

[Charliemopps]

The galaxies are not moving relative to us, faster than the speed of light away from us. The space between us and those galaxies is growing, cumulatively, faster than the amount of time it would take light to cross that space. The Galaxies themselves may actually even be moving towards us. This is the cumulative effect of the very tiny expansion of the universe compounded by vast... nearly unfathomable distances. Eventually if the expansion continues, we'll not even be able to see nearby stars. But, of course, we'll all be dead long before that happens.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

Who fed you this crap? It's not a mind bending concept. Parts of the universe are being expanded away from us at faster than the speed of light. This is known as a Hubble Length, 13.8 billion lightyears. It's not that the matter is travelling at the speed but the space is actually expanding so fast that bodies that aren't gravitationally held together (which nothing at a Hubble Length is known to be gravitationally held together) are being pushed apart faster than light can travel between them. It in no way breaks the laws of relativity. It doesn't warp space in the relativistic fashion either.
 
  What if I told you, there is no "edge" of the universe ;)
 
Whoa!!!!1111!!! Are you going to make us decide on the red pill or the blue pill next? ZoMG!!!! This is heavy, man.
 
Get a clue and learn the science before you speak again.

Re:Hard to define

[interkin3tic]

Would it be possible today to build a spacecraft capable of exiting the solar system with enough fuel to send back information from outside the oort cloud? The 14,000 years, could we build a nuclear reactor with enough fuel to be working at that point? Alternatively, would it be possible to slingshot a spacecraft around planets until it was going fast enough that it would exit the cloud in a timeframe that was within the limits of our ability to power it?

I realize it would still take way beyond my lifetime and would cost more than anyone would be willing to spend on science that won't pay off for thousands of years, just curious.

Re:Hard to define

[tnk1]

Well, we'd have a much better chance with a vehicle up-close, but the Oort Cloud is still extremely diffuse, even compared to the Kupier Belt. It's possible that Voyager could speed right through it and never so much as spot a single pre-comet ice object.

On the other hand, if we actually designed a vehicle for Oort Cloud exploration, we could probably get it out there a lot sooner than 14,000 years. Still a very long time, but faster anyway. The Voyagers were set up for fast approaches to Saturn and Jupiter, and no further. The fact that this imparted a significant velocity to them is why they are this far, but a more targeted trajectory and gravity boosts would get our craft there sooner, for instance how New Horizons is scheduled to fly by Pluto and through the Kupier Belt after only 9 years in space in 2015. It's trajectory will also not overtake the Voyagers, but it is easy to see how we could design a mission that could.

Re:Hard to define

[Jarik C-Bol]

Your probably thinking of the kuiper belt, which it is past. Voyager 1 is like 14,000 years from the inside edge of the Oort cloud.

Re:Hard to define

[tnk1]

Yes. The galaxies and stars will still be there, at least for a long time afterward, but the light from them will eventually redshift to the point where it ends up so deep in the far infrared that they become, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to us.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

the light from them will eventually redshift to the point where it ends up so deep in the far infrared that they become, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to us.
 
Not of stars that are gravitationally bound to us. Basically anything in the local group of galaxies will remain with us forever. Universal expansion only works with objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What it really comes down to is that if the gravitational pull of the bodies is greater than the rate of expansion the bodies will stay together.

Re:Hard to define

[PhotoJim]

Space is awfully empty. The odds of it actually striking anything in interstellar space are barely higher than zero.

Consider this: the Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are expected to collide in a few hundred million years. Even though there is a good chance that the collision will be a direct hit as opposed to a glancing blow, it is probable that not a single star from one galaxy will hit a star from the other galaxy (or be disrupted to hit one from its own). Space, even in densely-populated galaxies, is a very empty place.

Re:Hard to define

[PhotoJim]

I think an argument could be made that true interstellar space is where the Sun's dominance over the environment fades to the point where other stars have similar or greater influence. This point might be inside the Oort cloud by a significant margin.

The metric being used today is cosmic radiation. The sun emits its own, which dominates the parts of the solar system we occupy - but it seems, where Voyager is now, that interstallar cosmic radiation now dominates.

Re:Hard to define

[dywolf]

3rd article in past half year with same subject.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

better to use Gorilla Glue, rather than paste...

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just unfeasible. Because of the distances and time scales it would just be more feasible to wait until we have faster ships. Why launch a 14,000 year mission now when in 50 years or 100 years we potentially launch a 14 year mission (or a mission that would take much less time). Certainly, barring catastrophe, in 14,000 years we'll be able to get around local space a bit faster than now.

Re:Hard to define

[Looker_Device]

But Voyager could never gain on that, so it could travel almost indefinitely out into the universe and the Sun would still have at least SOME effect.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if, in the mind bogglingly vast future, there will be civilizations spanning the galaxy, or the universe.

Will they be worried about the expansion and the heat death of the universe?
Will they try to deny it or ignore it at first, like we do climate change on Earth?
Will they fight wars among themselves to conquer the last livable places for themselves, so that the lucky can survive a few million years longer?
Will they escape into a parallel universe or one they themselves created by recreating the big bang?
Will they change the laws of nature and put a stop to it.

Yes, I do have a lively fantasy. Chances are we humans will be long extinct by then. Oh, to be a time traveler.

Re:Hard to define

[Immerman]

Are you certain that's how it works? It seem to me that spatial expansion will eventually overwhelm all gravitational bindings, as an enormously crude discrete-time example:

Earth is currently 1AU from the sun - assuming it's in a perfectly stable orbit then in some insanely huge number of years from now the space between it and the sun will have expanded to it will be 1.1AU away, so the force of solar gravity will have decreased to 90% of current, while velocity will remain unchanged, which by a=v^2/r implies the actual orbit should be 1.111...AU - so unless I'm overlooking something it would seem that spatial expansion should gradually degrade all "stable" gravitational bindings at a rate even faster than one might naively expect.

Re:Hard to define

[Charliemopps]

Your both wrong. This has nothing to do with red shift. Also, eventually the space between us and the nearest stars will be expanding faster than the rate of gravity... granted that's a LONG way off... and we don't even know if the expansion will continue forever. If it does however, we will eventually have a starless sky.

Re:Hard to define

[Synerg1y]

u folks realize the Oort Cloud is a hypothesis right?

Re:Hard to define

[tnk1]

A Big Rip, where the expansion eventually tears up everything, down to atomic bonds, is believed to be a possible scenario for future expansion, but it is by no means the top candidate for the endgame at this time.

I admit, I was thinking more of distant galaxies when I was discussing redshift, but there definitely are situations where it is considered possible that even galactic clusters and even galaxies are disrupted. Galaxies are probably a lot tougher because instead of loose association, galaxies usually have megascale black holes in the center that keep the stars and dust in line.

There are structures larger than superclusters that appear to make up the universe, one of which that has been noted is called the Sloan Great Wall, where it is clear that there is structure to the universe, even at an absolutely titanic scale. The question is just how much stronger "dark energy" is against gravitation and what its characteristics are. It may be that it is destined to eventually rip everything apart, or it may be that it is not even strong enough to overcome attraction between galaxies in a cluster. At whatever point this comes to pass, and in whatever manner, the sky is going to be a much emptier place than in the past.

Re:Hard to define

[Immerman]

A rough approximation of "local space" would probably be the Sun's Hill Sphere with respect to the galactic core (the Hill Sphere is the volume of space at which a satellite will tend to orbit a planet rather than it's primary, the L1 and L2 points lie roughly on it's surface). Of course something bizarre is happening with gravity at intra-galactic distances, so whether it's dark matter, general relativity, or something else entirely we can be fairly certain that Newtonian gravity based estimates will be flawed, but it's a starting place:
Hill Radius ~= r (m/3M)^(1/3)
r = Sun's orbital distance around galactic core = 27,000ly +/- 1,000ly
M = galaxy mass = 1.0 - 1.5 *10^12 solar masses

So the Hill Radius is about 1.7ly. Of course things orbits tend to become unstable as they approach the HR, and other nearby stars are also destabilizing things, so the actual "local space" is likely considerably smaller, which is probably where the estimate of 1ly for the outer edge of the Oort cloud comes from.

Still, the Oort cloud would most definitely be orbiting the sun - there's after all only three options: orbit it, plunge directly into it, or pass on by. Of course at that distance the orbital period would be roughly 63,000au ^ (3/2) = 16 million years, so you might not notice them moving in your lifetime.

Re:Hard to define

[Synerg1y]

Touche, nice analogy to how we got here.

Re:Hard to define

[Kjella]

Would it be possible today to build a spacecraft capable of exiting the solar system with enough fuel to send back information from outside the oort cloud? The 14,000 years, could we build a nuclear reactor with enough fuel to be working at that point? Alternatively, would it be possible to slingshot a spacecraft around planets until it was going fast enough that it would exit the cloud in a timeframe that was within the limits of our ability to power it?

Maintaining a system that'll have to work far longer than the pyramids have stood has never taken any serious traction outside sci-fi since we wouldn't get any results for many thousands of years, most effort looks at making the mission much shorter. Voyager was launched at an almost optimal time for gravitational slingshots, so that resource is already tapped out. If I recall correctly the planets won't align like that again until sometime next century and it still wouldn't go faster. In fact that was what gave it most of the speed so we need a lot better propulsion go get anywhere. In rough order of increasing power and decreasing realism the alternatives seem to be fission, fusion, anti-matter and warping space. And even on the drawing board most of these seem to be insane efforts that take a century, which is a long time considering where we were in 1913.

If you ask me "How unfeasible?" I'd say that we'll almost certainly will have sent a probe to a different solar system before year 3000 unless we wipe ourselves out or some such silliness but I think we can already say with certainty it won't be this century. In our life time we'll have to settle for huge telescopes and radio arrays I think, but in all honesty I think there will be many interesting finds there in the years to come. When I was born exoplanets were just conjecture, today we're closing in on earth-sized planets in the Goldilocks Zone. Of course the search for "twin Earths" is an ongoing process the more variables you take into account, but even if we can't find life another planet where we might live is just huge. Of course I'd rather take immortality but it seems medicine is further from that than interstellar flight is from the warp drive.

Re:Hard to define

[butalearner]

Voyager was launched at an almost optimal time for gravitational slingshots, so that resource is already tapped out. If I recall correctly the planets won't align like that again until sometime next century and it still wouldn't go faster. In fact that was what gave it most of the speed so we need a lot better propulsion go get anywhere.

I hadn't heard of this so I looked it up. It turns out that the "Grand Tour" was for Voyager 2, which received gravity assists from Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. It's true that those four won't be in a similar alignment until the next century, but Voyager 1 only received gravity assists from Jupiter and Saturn (and Titan). I haven't done the math or anything, but those two should line up at least a couple times each century (see the Cassini trajectory).

Some dumb, back-of-the-envelope calcs with existing tech: assuming a 50 mN Xenon ion thruster that can run continuously for 3.5 years (NASA's NSTAR did this) spacecraft, right now we can add about 11 km/s to a 500 kg spacecraft per thruster. New Horizons is 478 kg, so I figure 500 kg is a decent guesstimate (it would need a much bigger RTG to run even a single ion thruster for that long, though). Also, New Horizons will be traveling 13 km/s when it reaches the same distance as Voyager 1 with only a Jupiter gravity assist, so even with a less-than-optimal gravity assist I think we can easily beat Voyager 1's speed (turning on the thrusters after the last gravity assist, of course). It would still take us decades to pass it, but we could.

Still, that wouldn't take us to the Oort cloud in any decent amount of time. If we used a different nuclear fuel with a longer half-life we could stretch our ability to power it, but probably at the cost of peak power.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use Chinese capacitors..

Re:Hard to define

[DanielRavenNest]

Not any more.

In the last decade computer modeling has confirmed that long period comets are Oort Cloud objects which have had their orbit modified by passing stars, molecular clouds, or galactic tides so that they come close to the Sun. We have also discovered three "Scattered Disk" objects in the last year whose orbits take them more than 2000 AU from the Sun, the inner boundary of the Oort Cloud. The Scattered Disk and Oort Cloud have the same origin - scattering from the Solar nebula by the larger planets. The only difference is how far they got scattered. There really isn't a physical distinction between them, the 2000 AU line is a convention adopted by astronomers.

Re:Hard to define

[Visserau]

I thought something like this too, but it doesn't seem to be correct. It was explained to me in terms of atomic particles but I'm assuming the same principle applies to gravity.

Basically, even thought the distance between particles may expand, the forces binding them are unchanged. Since their distance is based on the strength of the forces involved, the distance is fixed. Therefore the particles are kept at a fixed distance apart whilst space expands around them.

This makes sense when applied to forces with a limited range but seems a bit problematic when considering an infinite range force like gravity. I suppose that since the binding force of gravity acts proportionatly to range, the solar system will remain bound together at fairly fixed range (possibly increasing, but much slower than your calculations) whilst larger objects like galaxy clusters drift further apart.

I think GP is incorrect when he says clusters aren't gravitationally bound. They are, just weakly enough that the effect is negligable and it is possible that they can accelerate away from each other, since not enough gravitational breaking is applied.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

so unless I'm overlooking

That would be the part with "perfectly stable orbit".
In the first part of you text you assume a perfectly stable orbit under non-changing conditions. In the second part you assume changing conditions.
If you take the stable orbit from your first part and replace it with path that causes the orbiting object to slowly spiral down. Then the expansion will cause the object to remain in a stable orbit.
Note that even Newtonian observations are done under these changing conditions so the gravitational constant when measured with enough precision will already have that compensation built in.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

right now we can add about 11 km/s to a 500 kg spacecraft per thruster.

Sounds extremely fishy to me. Even if your energy source stays on board for the entire journey, you're still emitting propellant. Without seeing some good reason for delta V adding linearly (rather than logarithmically like almost all other propulsion technologies) per thruster it raises a red flag for the rest of your post.

Re:Hard to define

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we'd have a much better chance with a vehicle up-close, but the Oort Cloud is still extremely diffuse, even compared to the Kupier Belt. It's possible that Voyager could speed right through it and never so much as spot a single pre-comet ice object.

Damn the incredible vastness of space in this universe!!!

I'm moving to the universe next door, where an Oort cloud is so dense I can practically walk from ice-cube to ice-cube, like in sci-fi novels.

Re:Hard to define

[tragedy]

They're not moving away from us faster than the speed of light exactly, rather, space is expanding in such a way that the light from some points will never reach other points unless space stops expanding.

Re:Hard to define

[lems1]

Neil is that you? I didn't know you were a slashdotter :)

Re:Hard to define

[RockDoctor]

I think the interesting question is, what would constitute evidence of the Oort cloud's actual existence?

Well, how about the range of aphelion distances of the orbits of sporadic comets? OK, it's exactly the evidence that Oort used back in ... when was it, about 1940? ... but that doesn't stop it from being true. As far as it goes. (We've also acquired a lot more orbital data on Kuiper belt objects, and done a huge amount of modelling of how you can put things there, from here or here, without also putting things into what fit's Oort's description.

Every textbook and Wikipedia article I've read still describes it as a theoretical construct.

Yes. And? The nuclear reactions inside a detonating hydrogen bomb are theoretical constructs too. You are within 40km of a theoretical construct which it is quite unlikely that anyone is ever going to see without landing a 5km+ meteorite into the Earth at an orbital velocity. what is going on inside your head while you read and think are more disputed theoretical concepts then the Oort cloud.

Re:Hard to define

[Sigg3.net]

What you're saying is God is playing Frogger?

Re:Hard to define

[Immerman]

Most macroscopic forces fall off with the inverse square, so will become smaller as distance increases. Subatomic forces are different, I believe the strong force at least doesn't fall off with distance, which does change things a bit on that scale. Moreover the distances of most atomic structures are based on the resonance nodes of their quantum wavefunctions, which would indeed seem to keep distances constant regardless of the expansion of space.

I for one welcome our new

[Spy Handler]

V'ger overlord!

Re:I for one welcome our new

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

That was actually Voyager 6, launched in the late 20th century, around the time of the Crazy Years. Or is that another future history...can't think straight with all these images of hot bald chicks running through my mind.

Re:I for one welcome our new

[OakDragon]

I hope it escapes the fate that befell Pioneer 10.

Second!

[Kurast]

I would say first, but Voyager came in front of me.

Re:Second!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say first, but Voyager came in front of me.

Rule 34 on Voyager 1.

V'ger joke queue starts here.

[Anonymous Coward]

HERE!

Re:V'ger joke queue starts here.

[TheTerseOne]

We actually have a data collection script we use called 'vger'. It scans every directory on the *nix boxes we sell and grabs every config file, every setting, every customization made to the system and archives it in a big database, so that if we ever need to build a loaner we can just clone their most recent config. It seemed like an appropriate name.

Take care out there Voyager

[ravenswood1000]

You did really well.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[TheDarkMaster]

And good luck in the new frontier

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[pixelpusher220]

Lets all remember George Bush and the GOP proposed cutting this truly amazing program to save a paltry $4 million per year...

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[X0563511]

Wait, why does it cost $4 million a year to listen for and interpret the radio signal coming back?

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[ArcadeMan]

And watch out for those Kazons, Hirogens and Borgs.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[ArcadeMan]

It costs around 500 thousands for a dozen or so engineers and 3.5 millions for the RIAA broadcasting license.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[jez9999]

This is nothing. Voyager is going to be pulled into the Delta quadrant soon.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[DerekLyons]

Actually - if you read the article, it was NASA management that proposed the cuts... but go ahead, blame Bush. Bias and ignorance is ever so much easier than reading and comprehending.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[White Flame]

Salaries of experts? Facilities with dedicated antennas and support personnel? Things add up quickly.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Anonymous Coward]

People are expensive.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA's Earth-Sun System division, which runs the program, amongst others, has had to cut its budget for next year from 74 million to 53 million dollars, calling for some project abandonments. The cuts for Voyager and other missions are planned to help fund President George W. Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration", his plan to return to the moon and a manned mission to Mars.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[nanospook]

So long and thanks for all the fish!

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Anonymous Coward]

I would guess that most of it goes towards maintaining legacy hardware. Maintaining 35 y/o computer systems and software isn't easy or cheap (think, if there is a problem with a power supply or chip then you have to usually get these sorts of things custom-made - installation is another problem). The rest probably goes towards salaries with a paltry amount dedicated for electricity and other utilities and employee consumables.

4,000,000 isn't much of a stretch when you consider a department of 10 in my company has a budget of that.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Pope]

Damnit, I knew putting that golden record on that thing would bring no good!

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Grizzley9]

Wait, why does it cost $4 million a year to listen for and interpret the radio signal coming back?

Won't someone please think of the scientists!

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[cusco]

Well, the management team formed by the former Pentagon bean-counter that Shrub foisted on NASA. IMOHO it's a mistake to think of NASA as the 'leadership' imposed by the pols in DC, I always envision the organization as being the engineers, programmers, and astronauts who do the actual work there.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Anonymous Coward]

to save a paltry $4 million per year...

But that $4 million would help fund invading another country not threatening us.

You have to have priorities here.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't someone please think of the scientists!

No! No! Not in that way!

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[egcagrac0]

Won't someone please think of the scientists!

No! No! Not in that way!

I'm sure that really isn't a problem once you've seen a photo of the department team.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[TheTerseOne]

Hey - Let's be careful out there.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Archangel Michael]

Ah yes, the liberal "Bush Bash" party. Get over it already.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't say goodbye yet, little guy. Keep in touch with us as long as you can.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[DerekLyons]

Well, the management team formed by the former Pentagon bean-counter that Shrub foisted on NASA.

Translation: To preserve my bias, I'll spin and twist and handwave... whatever it takes.
 

IMOHO it's a mistake to think of NASA as the 'leadership' imposed by the pols in DC, I always envision the organization as being the engineers, programmers, and astronauts who do the actual work there.

Anyone who thinks that programs as large and as long as those NASA undertakes can be done without management... and that those managers don't do 'actual work'... is an ignorant fool.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[cusco]

Yep, and when politicians appoint managers who are either incompetent or (in this case) who have vested interests inimical to the larger goals of the organization you end up with proposals like these. Why spend $4 million/year internally when that money could be reallocated to a budget item that aids the Pentagon, or which could be funneled to Lockheed or Boeing, who is going to hire them as lobbyists after they leave "public service"?

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[geekoid]

Maybe you should learn the the impacts of a president can last longer then his presidency?

Get over it is code for "Please stopping pointing out what en inept president Bush was and how he destroyed our economy, and lied to get us into a war the cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives"

Our current economic problem are a direct result of that mans actions and the republican party.

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[pixelpusher220]

Happy to get over it, right after he submits to a UN trial for war crimes...

And the GOP admits that the policies favored during his Administration caused the financial collapse.

But I won't hold my breath...

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[netsentry]

And watch out for those Kazons, Hirogens and Borgs.

We're going to need a ruling on the proper plural of these races... Any Delta Quadrant sociologists on slashdot?

Re:Take care out there Voyager

[Archangel Michael]

Not really. It is the fault of both the DNC and RNC parties muddling in for their cronies. You're just blind to the actions of the (D) party. Obama can do no wrong, has done no wrong, etc. When his eight years are over, and we're still at 8-9 % unemployment and Wall Street is hitting new highs, who will the DNC blame for the economy? When we're another 8 Trillion in debt, because both the DNC and RNC can't actually cut spending, raise taxes enough and have confiscated all the wealth they can get their hands on, who will you blame?

You can blame Bush all you want, but Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are just as much to blame for the mess we're in. AND if it was solely Bush to blame, then Obama is going down the same road, he has done NOTHING for the economy other than campaign about all the wonderful things he is going to do (but never actually does).

Cue the Star Trek jokes in 3... 2... 1...

[sconeu]

Of course, neither probe in the ST movies was Voyager 1.

ST:TMP was Voyager 6
STV:TFF was either Pioneer 10 or Pioneer 11.

Re:Cue the Star Trek jokes in 3... 2... 1...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back in the queue! It's above!

Good grief! Some people!

Re:Cue the Star Trek jokes in 3... 2... 1...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, cue. It helps to be correct when you're correcting people.

Re:Cue the Star Trek jokes in 3... 2... 1...

[mrchaotica]

It helps to be correct when you're correcting people.

Indeed it does; you should take your own advice. (In other words, "get back in the queue [i.e. line]" was correct.)

Now, cue the horde of grammar NAZIs queuing up to complain about my post in turn...

Re:Cue the Star Trek jokes in 3... 2... 1...

[Mr. Slippery]

(In other words, "get back in the queue [i.e. line]" was correct.)

No. It wasn't. You queue a Star Trek joke if maybe you're sending a bunch of rec.humor posts about Kirk v. Picard to the printer via lpr; you cue a Star Trek joke when you say "it is now time for a Star Trek joke."

Re:Cue the Star Trek jokes in 3... 2... 1...

[TheTerseOne]

The first time someone told me to cue the horde of grammar Nazi's queuing up for something, I think it was Q.

Re:Cue the Star Trek jokes in 3... 2... 1...

[mrchaotica]

You also queue a Star Trek joke when you insert it after a post earlier in the thread, which is what the "Get back in the queue! It's above!" post I was talking about referred to.

(Interestingly, the post in my former link attempted to both queue and cue the Star Trek jokes! It was a "cue to queue," so to speak.)

Get the hell outta here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Not so fast

[sighted]

The Voyager project's chief scientist says not just yet: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-107 Also, here's a fairly recent video lecture he gave on the topic that gives some good details: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/events/lectures_archive.cfm?year=2012&month=9

Re:Not so fast

[Grayhand]

The Voyager project's chief scientist says not just yet: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-107 Also, here's a fairly recent video lecture he gave on the topic that gives some good details: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/events/lectures_archive.cfm?year=2012&month=9

What is this the third time we had a story about it leaving the solar system? Some include the Oort Cloud in the solar system so are we facing hundreds of years of these announcements?

Re:Not so fast

[schneidafunk]

"We are in a magnetic region unlike any we've been in before -- about 10 times more intense than before the termination shock -- but the magnetic field data show no indication we're in interstellar space," said Leonard Burlaga, a Voyager magnetometer team member based at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "The magnetic field data turned out to be the key to pinpointing when we crossed the termination shock. And we expect these data will tell us when we first reach interstellar space."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-381

Re:Not so fast

[pixelpusher220]

Use an Outlook email rule to move the notices to your Trash. Cuz Outlook will likely outlast Voyager... ;-)

Re:Not so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

The solar system ends where the sun's influence ends. That's the definition of a solar system. Oort cloud be damned.

Re:Not so fast

[dgatwood]

What is this the third time we had a story about it leaving the solar system? Some include the Oort Cloud in the solar system so are we facing hundreds of years of these announcements?

No. We'd be facing thousands of years of these announcements. From NASA:

Sometime before the year 2020, Voyager 1 will become the first spacecraft to cross the heliopause-the outer boundary of the vast region of space dominated by the solar wind and the sun's magnetic field-and reach interstellar space. In that sense, it can be said that the spacecraft will be able to sample what space is like beyond our solar system. (If we define the solar system as the sun and everything that primarily orbits the sun, however, Voyager 1 will remain within the confines of the solar system until it emerges from the Oort cloud in another 14,000 to 28,000 years).

Fortunately, in 28,000 years, its plutonium power supply will only be producing somewhere around 4 * 10^-94 watts, so I'm pretty sure we won't be talking to it by then. :-)

Re:Not so fast

[SJHillman]

Which influence? Heat? Light? Gravity? Magnetic? And at what point do we consider the influence ended? When there's no effect? Negligible effect? Very little effect?

Must be Wednesday

[justthinkit]

Seems like every week we are celebrating Voyageur's exit from the Solar System.
.

What I don't understand is why the linked stories don't mention how big a change in radiation was experienced. Are we talking 10%, or a factor of 10? How about a curve while we are at it -- could be it is gradual, could be sharp, could be a hockey stick -- curve us please.

Re:Must be Wednesday

[bobbied]

Looks like two orders of magnitude change in measurements (100 times). At least that's what the article I found here says: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/20/voyager-1-leaves-solar-system/?intcmp=features

Re:Must be Wednesday

[darkshot117]

"Anomalous cosmic rays, which are cosmic rays trapped in the outer heliosphere, all but vanished, dropping to less than 1 percent of previous amounts. At the same time, galactic cosmic rays – cosmic radiation from outside of the solar system – spiked to levels not seen since Voyager's launch, with intensities as much as twice previous levels."

You're welcome.

Re:Must be Wednesday

[Walking The Walk]

the linked stories don't mention how big a change in radiation was experienced. Are we talking 10%, or a factor of 10?

Yes they did, from TFA:

"Anomalous cosmic rays, which are cosmic rays trapped in the outer heliosphere, all but vanished, dropping to less than 1 percent of previous amounts."

and also

"galactic cosmic rays – cosmic radiation from outside of the solar system – spiked to levels not seen since Voyager's launch, with intensities as much as twice previous levels"

Re:Must be Wednesday

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox news? Well shit, they're NEVER wrong!

Re:Must be Wednesday

[Anonymous Coward]

Well slap me silly... Fox News used to QFT right here on /.

For real this time

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like I see a story like this every few years. Are they really, *really* sure this is it?

Re:For real this time

[bobbied]

No, they are really really really sure that something is really really different now. They have noted two orders of magnitude changes in their measurements so they are in a different, rather well delineated region, that doesn't match their expectations but is clearly not the same as what they saw when they where clearly inside the solar system.

Of course... It could just be the space craft starting to malfunction... Or some alien life form has taken it over and has decided to mess with our minds... I'm sure there will be conspiracy theories abounding on this... But it seems pretty clear to me, YES Voyager 1 has passed into some new region of space...

Seti can now stop

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA has confirmed intelligent signals from outside our solar system.

Re:Seti can now stop

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure they aren't our signals bouncing back years later modified by background radiation, reflection, interference, {take your pick from long list of factors affecting signal}?

I'm not. So much that we "understand" about our universe amounts to supposition, assumption, and (often false) conclusion. Not to say we wouldn't want to keep trying, but I think we need to take all discovery with a grain of salt. It's largely conjecture based on little hard science.

Re:Seti can now stop

[m.ducharme]

Psst. They're our signals coming back to us from Voyager. Source of the signal is human technology and thus (ostensibly, but I'm starting to wonder) intelligent.

tl;dr:
Whoosh.

Re:Seti can now stop

[cusco]

The data that a magnetometer or cosmic ray detector sends is a wee bit different than "our signals bouncing back years later modified". The former is a definite set of data in a specified format, the latter is random noise. They're talking about reading data from the instruments.

so..

[Anonymous Coward]

How long is it until the sexy bald woman shows up??

Re:so..

[SternisheFan]

Persis Khambatta (saying her name with reverence) died of a heart attack at age 49, such a beautiful lady...

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

http://www.google.com/search?q=persis+khambatta&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&gl=US&tbm=isch&nomo=1&biw=480&bih=295

Re:so..

[Pope]

I'd always hoped she'd marry Afrika Bambaataa.

Re:so..

[Anonymous Coward]

Persis Khambatta-Bambaataa?

What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Opportunist]

Sorry if this sounds dumb to some of the astronomy cracks, but from what I gathered so far from astrophysics is that there are different speeds for leaving the "area" of a body. IIRC it is called the sphere of influence, where a certain celestial body is the one that affects me the most. Like here on Earth, obviously, it's that planet, despite the Sun being a LOT bigger and hence having a lot more gravity, but since I'm sitting on that rock, Earth is it for me. Now, when thrusting away from Earth, at some point I leave its SOI and the Sun will take over as the main body defining my "main body" towards I move relatively. And provided I do not end up in the SOI of any of the planets or moons in our solar system, that's how it's going to stay until I am so far away from the sun that something else will be my frame of reference.

So wouldn't "leaving the system" technically require exactly that? That I enter another body (or bodies) sphere of influence? And, another thing, does Voyager actually have enough push to leave the system for good? As far as I know it does take quite a bit more oumph to leave the Sun's SOI than Earth's.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[newcastlejon]

I'm no astronomer, but I think what you call the "sphere of influence" is properly termed the "Hill sphere". It does raise an interesting question all the same: which star will be the next one that Voyager ends up being attracted to?

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[X0563511]

Couldn't the galaxy itself be a SOI?

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[pixelpusher220]

Gravity works over practically infinite distance. It just gets so small as to be negligible. There's a point where the gravity from the Sun is no longer as powerful as the gravity from the rest of the universe and I'd say that's the point at which it's SOI realistically ends.

Voyager is moving *much* faster than it did when it left Earth. Using gravitational slingshots around the various gas giants allows it to add significant speed. I believe it's something like 10 miles per second currently.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[X0563511]

As well, the SOI is a discrete thing, similar to the Hill Sphere. I suppose they are just different ways of looking at the same thing.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Zalbik]

Gravity works over practically infinite distance. It just gets so small as to be negligible. There's a point where the gravity from the Sun is no longer as powerful as the gravity from the rest of the universe and I'd say that's the point at which it's SOI realistically ends.

Somewhat incorrect (probably). As gravity (most likely) propagates at the speed of light, there is a limit to the distance at which it has any effect.

As the Sun is only 4.6 billion years old, any point in the universe more than 4.6 billion light years away feels no gravitational effect from the Sun whatsoever.

Of course, Voyager will never reach a point of "zero influence" (nor will anything from our solar system), and in fact will eventually be pulled back into the Sun.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Anonymous Coward]

None. If you work the math, its current estimated speed has it slowing down and falling back in to Sol rather than actually being caught in some other gravity well, as far as known gravity wells go. A perhaps unknown one of course could change everything.

It would be pretty amazing if that occurred, considering Voyager 1 is on a hyperbolic escape trajectory.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[pixelpusher220]

there is a limit to the distance at which it has any effect.

Voyager will never reach a point of "zero influence"

Pick one, it can't be both. You could perhaps argue that Voyager doesn't have the velocity to escape the Sun, but I believe simple physics proves that it does have the necessary velocity.

As the Sun is only 4.6 billion years old, any point in the universe more than 4.6 billion light years away feels no gravitational effect from the Sun whatsoever.

Not true. The mass of the solar system was already here 4.7 billion years ago and is now just a bit more concentrated, but it didn't substantially change. So it was having the same effect before and the same effect after. Just a very very very small effect at a 4.6 billion light year distance. So small as to not be noticeable compared to other much closer sources of gravitational force.

Likewise, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate when simple gravity would state it should be slowing down. This over distances much greater than 4.6 billion light years. If gravity has a limited distance effect, this would not be the case.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Anonymous Coward]

At a distance of ~70 AU, the escape velocity is about 5 km/s, and Voyager I is going about 17 km/s. It is probably never coming back, and even if flung back at us, will probably be going to faster to stick around short of a very lucky close encounter with a planet in the solar system to reduce its velocity relative to the Sun.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patched conics are an approximation and gravity doesn't really work that way.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[SleazyRidr]

a) The speed at which gravity propagates really is a mystery....

b) The Sun didn't spring into existence from nothingness, matter came together and started fusion-ing itself 4.6 billion years ago, but the matter existed (and had gravitational pull) before that happened, so even if gravity does propagate at the speed of light, and you somehow managed to get 4.7 billion light-years away from the sun (in less than 100 million years) you'd still be feeling the gravity of the stuff that made up the sun.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a limit to the distance at which it has any effect.

Voyager will never reach a point of "zero influence"

Pick one, it can't be both.

He means that since the sun's gravitational influence is expanding outward at the speed of light and Voyager is moving outward at less than the speed of light, then Voyager will never get outside of the sun's influence.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Immerman]

Before 4.6 billion years ago it wasn't "our sun", a while before that what became our sun was part of other suns, so yeah, 4.6bya is as good a starting point as any, maybe push it back a just little if you want to count the proto-stellar disc as well.

As for ever completely escaping the sun's influence you're totally wrong - the sphere of the sun's influence is expanding at the speed of light. Voyager is currently under the sun's influence. Therefor to ever completely escape the sun's influence voyager would have to travel faster than light. If our sun were to one day explode as it's predecessors did then its "end of influence" would likewise propagate out at the speed of light and eventually pass voyager; however, I believe our sun is predicted to eventually collapse into a stable white dwarf (after the red giant stage), which is effectively immortal. So voyager won't escape it's influence until the expansion of space itself carries it away at FTL speeds.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[pixelpusher220]

Agreed. He also said there was a limit to the Sun's influence. It simply can't be that it never leaves the Sun's influence and also that the gravitational effect of the Sun is limited.

sun's gravitational influence is expanding outward at the speed of light and Voyager is moving outward at less than the speed of light

Gravity doesn't 'move' at any speed. It exerts it's effect over distance but it doesn't 'move'. And yes if going fast enough you can escape the influence of a star or a planet. It means you get out of the gravity well of the object.

Just like it takes a certain amount of energy to get a satellite out of earths influence, it takes a certain amount of energy to get it out of the Sun's influence. There is a point where the effects of the mass of the rest of the universe are greater than the effect of the sun's mass. That's the extent of the Sun's realistic influence; yes it technically exerts effect at any distance but as I originally said, it is so small as to be negligible.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[pixelpusher220]

As for ever completely escaping the sun's influence you're totally wrong - the sphere of the sun's influence is expanding at the speed of light.

You're the second poster here to imply that and I'm curious what you mean. It really flies in the face of known science.

There's the 'heliosphere' the point at which the solar wind stops flowing because the pressure from the interstellar region matches the outward pressure of the solar wind.

The only thing leaving the sun at the speed of light is the light itself. It doesn't exert a significant force on Voyager, and anyway is moving 'out' not in.

The gravity of the Sun exerts effect but it isn't 'expanding' at any speed. It simply exists and exerts effect over an area known as it's gravity well. The edge of this gravity well is the point at which the effects of the Sun are no longer the dominant force on the object.

You wouldn't argue that Voyager is still under the Earth's influence would you? i.e. Voyager left Earth's gravity well. It will eventually do the same thing to the Sun and as this article says that time may be now. Obviously if it didn't have enough velocity it would fall back towards the Sun but at 10 miles per second I believe it's got enough velocity to escape the Sun's gravity.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Immerman]

Voyager is most certainly is still under Earth's influence - it's a tiny minority influence, but it's still there and will continue to be for so long as the Earth exists. As for the article all it's discussing is that Voyager has recently entered a distinctly new zone that's probably beyond the heliopause (the point where the solar wind is stopped by the interstellar medium), but probably not yet in the interstellar medium itself. And yes, Voyager is on a hyperbolic trajectory, so barring some outside force it will escape the Sun's gravity well, or more accurately it will never fall back, and will eventually travel far enough that the sun's influence becomes overwhelmed by other factors.

As for the propagation of gravitational force, it may be true that it doesn't propagate "through" space in quite the same way as the other forces, however it still presumably has a propagation speed. Voyager is currently about 17 light-hours from the sun - if some demigod were to grab the sun and shake it vigorously we would expect the resulting gravitational waves* to take at least 17 hours to cross the intervening gulf and jostle Voyager about. Likewise if the demigod were to suddenly pinch the sun out of existence the Earth, at 8.32 light-minutes away would continue to follow it's curved orbit until the change reached it, at which point its path would straighten like a rock released from a sling. Were this not the case the implication would be that a sufficiently advanced race could artificially create gravitational waves and use them for instantaneous communication across arbitrary distances, with severe implications for Special Relativity.

*predicted to exist by Einstein in 1916 on the basis of General Relativity, such waves have yet to be directly detected, though we do have indirect evidence of them in that the Hulse-Taylor binary system is losing energy in precise accordance with the rate predicted by his theory, suggesting that such waves do exist and propagate at the speed of light. An alternate theory of gravity might suggest a different propagation speed, but that gravitational dampening exists at all implies a non-instantaneous speed. Or at least so sayeth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity, I'm still trying to wrap my head around a lot of the subtleties of GR and SR.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[pixelpusher220]

Interesting :) I suppose I thought of gravitational waves as something moving through the medium that is gravity rather than gravity itself flowing.

I agree that the influence of gravity extends almost to infinity...the OP stated that it didn't have any effect. I was saying that yes it's infinite, but as you say, at some point becomes so negligible as to be meaningless compared to the rest of the universe's exertion on the object.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Zalbik]

Gravity doesn't 'move' at any speed.

Sorry, but you are quite simply wrong here.

Gravitational fields propagate at the speed of light.

And yes, they move.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Zalbik]

but at 10 miles per second I believe it's got enough velocity to escape the Sun's gravity.

Oops...my bad....bad napkin calculation.....correct, at 10 miles/sec, it will escape the Sun's gravity

You wouldn't argue that Voyager is still under the Earth's influence would you? i.e. Voyager left Earth's gravity well

No, it hasn't. You are conflating the terms sphere of influence and gravity well. If the Earth were to suddenly disappear, there would be a small but measurable effect on Voyager.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Zalbik]

The mass of the solar system was already here 4.7 billion years ago and is now just a bit more concentrated,

Well that's being pretty pedantic. I would argue that the mass of the solar system is different than "the Sun".

Likewise, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate when simple gravity would state it should be slowing down.

The universe is expanding an increasing rate due to dark energy & the expansion of space. There are galaxies the universe whose light (and gravity) have not yet reached earth, but potentially will in the future.

Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"?

[Sigg3.net]

From my personal experience, I'd say it's when Voyager 1 starts dating another solar system.

A little over 36 years later...

[sudden.zero]

...and we are still standing on the shoulders of our past Geniuses. Oh how far we have fallen.

Re:A little over 36 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the guys who launched Voyager are standing on the backs of the geniuses that came before them, oh how much we sucked since forever.

Re:A little over 36 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

Relax, human. If we launched one now, it wouldn't even get as far as Voyager before being passed by one we launched subsequently. Let's cool our heels.

Re:A little over 36 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... Citation definitely needed. Are we due some extraordinary, paradigm-shattering revolution in deep space propulsion within the next 5 years?

Re:A little over 36 years later...

[fahrbot-bot]

...and we are still standing on the shoulders of our past Geniuses. Oh how far we have fallen.

Technically, it's a little *under* 36 years later, as Voyager was launched on September 5, 1977, so be careful about lamenting the fallen, Grasshopper, until your simple Math skills improve. :-)

Re:A little over 36 years later...

[Anonymous Coward]

The robots on mars and the orbiters around it disagree. The space telescopes we've built and all the data they've gathered disagree.

And Thus, a Mighty Schism Borne Out Two Sects ...

[eldavojohn]

Latter Day Voyager One-ist: "I respect your beliefs but I must disagree. Two thousand years ago, Voyager One did not exit the solar system on the 35th year of our Lord 12,980 days after His Holy Launch. It would not be until ..."
Reformed Good Gamma Rays Church of the Accurate Voyager One-ist: "HERESY! Where I come from, we have reserved black holes for the likes of your foul and vile lie spreading mouth. Prepare for battle and death ..."
Latter Day Voyager One-ist: "But I am merely repeating the preachings of Voyager One's one true manager, Edward Stone, who is one and the same with Voyager One!"
Reformed Good Gamma Rays Church of the Accurate Voyager One-ist: "Your Edward Stone was a false prophet and copycat of the original true manager that is lost to the ages!"
Latter Day Voyager One-ist: "Impossible, it was written that the oracle confirmed His information before being unplugged."
Reformed Good Gamma Rays Church of the Accurate Voyager One-ist: "How dare you bear false witness against the Wayback Machine (Voyager rest its all knowing soul)?!"
Latter Day Voyager One-ist: "Ask any Unified Voyager Two-ist, they agree with our views ..."
Unified Voyager Two-ist: "Okay, everybody, drink your kool-aid now ... the ghost of Voyager Two should be passing by this space station in the next few minutes. We will ride it all to that great ground control center in deep space!!!"

Longevity.

[fahrbot-bot]

The fact that this was launched in 1977 and is still operating 36 years later -- 33 years after its primary mission (Jupiter, Saturn encounter) ended in 1980 -- is an achievement in itself and testament to its design and build quality. According to Voyager 1 the 3 RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators) on Voyager 1 will continue to provide sufficient power for some operations until around 2025.

Re:Longevity.

[sudden.zero]

That was kind of my point! If we were to launch one today it would break before even getting to Jupiter, and most of it's components would be made in some foreign sweat shop instead of in the US. Which is why I said oh how far we have fallen!

Re:Longevity.

[toygeek]

Yes its like those Mars Rovers that only lasted days instead of weeks and months and years- their primary mission wasn't even accomplished! What poor workmanship and slave labor have wrought!

Re:Longevity.

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Largely its travelling through a vacuum, given the thing didn't explode seconds after it was released from the rocket, I'd say 36 years of travelling through a vacuum to be on par with expectations.

This is not like slamming a rover onto another planet with harsh temperature, wind and dust conditions and having it work 10 times longer then its original mission specs.

Re:Longevity.

[antdude]

So it was supposed to fail in the 1980s/80s? :O

Re:Longevity.

[BitZtream]

No, if we built one today it would likely out live its mission plan as well. The difference is, it would not out last its mission plan ridiculously long periods like Voyeger. Thats a good thing, it means the design is closer to the intended design rather than being more than it needs to be.

When dealing with space, overbuilding is a tricky situation. Yes, you want to over build it so you KNOW it going to work in every possible situation (which of course is impossible ;), but you have to constraint that if you actually want it to get off the ground.

Over shooting your mission goals means you probably spent a lot more money than needed to get it into space int he first place.

Voyager was meant to be overbuilt as a testbed for 'how long can we keep talking to this thing and how long can we make it work?!' Probes like Curiosity and Spirit on the other hand were not, and so while overshooting their goals is good in one aspect, it indicates possible flaws with the designers not fitting the specs and wasting things they weren't supposed to.

Sometimes this sort of overshoot happens due to a discovery that makes the new spacecraft suddenly far more reliable than ever expected, and thats a good thing. But just designing something that lasts longer than its mission goals is, when taken alone, an epic failure when you're talking about thousands of dollars per kilo to launch.

Re:Longevity.

[fahrbot-bot]

Yes its like those Mars Rovers that only lasted days instead of weeks and months and years- their primary mission wasn't even accomplished! What poor workmanship and slave labor have wrought!

Or don't even last that long. For example:

• The Mars Climate Orbiter disintegrated in the upper atmosphere because of a miscommunication of pound-seconds instead of newton-seconds - okay, that was a ground-initiated software fault, but still.
• The Beagle 2 that died for some unknown reason en-route and crashed.

I'm sure some Google time could provide a long list of failed Mars attempts...

Re:Longevity.

[toygeek]

I was being sacrastic. Those two little rovers far outlasted their mission goals.

Re:Longevity.

[Anne_Nonymous]

Little known facts about Voyager:

• Carl Segan formed Voyager purely out of his own mental energy
• The gold record carried by Voyager was designed and recorded by John Denver while on the set of the Muppet Show
• Jimmy Carter hurled Voyager off Earth with his own bare hands

Re:Longevity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously. He was saying your sarcasm was unwarranted, considering all the failures.

Re:Longevity.

[Spy Handler]

you're confusing Carter with Chuck Norris

Re:Longevity.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Jimmy Carter hurled Voyager off Earth with his own bare hands

No, right timeframe, wrong guy: it was Chuck Norris in his prime who hurled it...

Re:Longevity.

[RoccamOccam]

Precisely. Nothing that we've built in the last 5 years has lasted 10 years, much less 36!

Re:Longevity.

[Anne_Nonymous]

I think Norris is a big pu....sedgfsewtrgawedrtvAQ 45gy135454 yh dgv

Re:Longevity.

[dywolf]

cosmic radiation. gravitational pulls. micrometeorites. for being essentially an uncontrolled hunk of metal on a purely inertia/tidal trajectory, it's pretty amazing.

Re:Longevity.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was kind of my point! If we were to launch one today it would break before even getting to Jupiter, and most of it's components would be made in some foreign sweat shop instead of in the US. Which is why I said oh how far we have fallen!

Your conclusion has no apparent relation to the evidence. Every US probe sent beyond the asteroid belt has worked far beyond its requirements, whether launched in the 1970s (Pioneer and Voyager) or the 2000s (New Horizons and Juno). And no sweatshops have been involved in procurement, then or now.

Re:Longevity.

[The Grim Reefer]

Yes its like those Mars Rovers that only lasted days instead of weeks and months and years- their primary mission wasn't even accomplished! What poor workmanship and slave labor have wrought!

Or don't even last that long. For example:

• The Mars Climate Orbiter disintegrated in the upper atmosphere because of a miscommunication of pound-seconds instead of newton-seconds - okay, that was a ground-initiated software fault, but still.
• The Beagle 2 that died for some unknown reason en-route and crashed.

I'm sure some Google time could provide a long list of failed Mars attempts...

Space travel if fucking hard to do. Even with all of the failures, NASA has done some pretty impressive things. Russia has one hell of a track record with space stations. But not so much luck with Mars. Russia/USSR has been able to land one probe on Mars and recently one on Phobos (very cool by the way). Japan and the ESA have a 100% failure rate with Mars landings. Here's a list of Mars missions.

Re:Longevity.

[egcagrac0]

just designing something that lasts longer than its mission goals is, when taken alone, an epic failure when you're talking about thousands of dollars per kilo to launch.

I disagree, for the simple reason that if we can spend slightly more incrementally and increase the service life significantly, we can keep getting data without having to design and launch a brand new system (for many more kilos of launch cost).

If we can spend one extra kilo and get 10 extra years of service, that's probably a good tradeoff. If we spend one extra kilo and get 100 extra years, that's a great tradeoff.

Re:Longevity.

[egcagrac0]

Chuck Norris always has been, and always will be, "in his prime".

Re:Longevity.

[Immerman]

Or, it could be that they were designed to last as long as possible and it was the "official" mission that was designed to be extremely conservative . After all it looks *much* better come funding time to have your last probe accomplish its mission with flying colors and then continue doing useful science for years afterwards than it does to have it fail before an extended official mission is over. It's not like the scientists are going to ever say "oh, we're bored with this mobile Martian science platform, let's throw it away", not unless they've got something far better already in place.

Re:Longevity.

[geekoid]

Thatw as a result of the 'make more but cheaper probes initiative. In that scenario higher risk was expected.

Re:Longevity.

[geekoid]

well said, and hilarious.

Re:Longevity.

[newcastlejon]

Many people confuse Chuck Norris with Vin Diesel.

Re:Longevity.

[EvanED]

Obviously. He was saying your sarcasm was unwarranted, considering all the failures.

And of course, early NASA never had any failures. None of their test rockets exploded, no spacecraft sunk after splashdown, no one died, no one was put in great peril, no unmanned missions were lost, and no missions led to in-flight repairs. NASA has historically had a spotless record, and it's only recently that there have been losses to missions.

I think you're right in that is what the parent was arguing, but that doesn't stop it from being an incredibly stupid argument.

I could have sworn this is the 3rd or 4th time

[Anonymous Coward]

in the last decade that I've heard Voyager has exited the solar system.

Re:I could have sworn this is the 3rd or 4th time

[Tablizer]

It appears the boundary keeps moving such that it kept crossing the boundary. This time they think it's well past the boundary for good.

(At least the first boundary, for it may be in a kind of middle-ville between the solar system and interstellar space. I'd personally count Middle-ville as part of the solar system even though it's different than inside-ville. It's kind of like being inside of the egg shell but outside the yoke area.)

Heliopause

[Curate]

I hadn't realized our sun was in heliopause. That explains the hot flashes.

Re:Heliopause

[mu51c10rd]

Just wait until the moodiness starts...

First Post!...

[Anonymous Coward]

... from beyond the solar system.

-- Voyager 1.

Last transmission

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

F**k, there's nothing out here! They lied to meeeeeeeeeeee...

Newton

[stoploss]

Voyager 1 won't escape the Oort cloud (really the outer Oort cloud) for another 14,000 - 28,000 years. (Probably due to running out of power in the next 10 to 15 years.)

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your statement, but are you aware of Newton's First Law of Motion? Voyager has no need for power to continue its journey; running out of power will have no effect on its velocity.

My guess is that, aside from attitude adjustment, Voyager hasn't fired its thrusters since its encounter with Titan in 1980.

Re:Newton

[click2005]

I would think given it's distance to target an LED being lit (if it had any) might be enough for slight attitude adjustment.

Either way if it's forward velocity reduces to 0 we'll know we found the Oort cloud. :)

Re:Newton

[arth1]

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your statement, but are you aware of Newton's First Law of Motion [wikipedia.org]? Voyager has no need for power to continue its journey; running out of power will have no effect on its velocity.

My guess is that, aside from attitude adjustment, Voyager hasn't fired its thrusters since its encounter with Titan in 1980.

Newton's first only applies if the sum of forces acting on an object is zero. The pull from the solar system is non-zero, which is why V'ger has slowed down since then.
While it has enough speed to leave our solar system, it will slow down while doing so. And it doesn't have enough speed to leave our galaxy, but will, baring near encounters, eventually stop and be sucked back in relative to the Milky Way.

Re:Newton

[mark-t]

Either way if it's forward velocity reduces to 0 we'll know we found the Oort cloud. :)

No... we won't know. Because its power will have been exhuasted and we won't be able to tell that it has actually stopped in the first place.

Re:Newton

[tnk1]

Either way if it's forward velocity reduces to 0 we'll know we found the Oort cloud. :)

Or aliens.

Actually, given the assumed density of the Oort Cloud, aliens might be more likely.

So, I'm not saying that it will necessarily be aliens... but it will be aliens.

Re:Newton

[stoploss]

Certainly.

However, the most obvious reading of the poster's comment seemed to insinuate a belief that Voyager's present velocity is being maintained by its power source.

I didn't want to obfuscate the very basic physics point—that Voyager running out of power has nothing to do with its velocity. I briefly considered adding the provisos you listed but decided it wasn't indicated in that context.

Anyway, like I said, perhaps the poster meant something else.

Re:Newton

[dpidcoe]

Anyway, like I said, perhaps the poster meant something else.

Rather than assume the poster was a total moron, I interpreted it as "once it runs of power, voyager turns into a tiny piece of impossible to track space junk, so doesn't matter if it escapes the oort cloud or not past that point".

Re:Newton

[Golddess]

Depends what methods we can use to determine its distance over time. We can measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon by bouncing a laser off of retroreflectors left on the moon, with no power source needed on the moon.

Now granted, I don't think we can actually do something like that with the voyager spacecraft...

Re:Newton

[Walking The Walk]

Voyager has no need for power to continue its journey; running out of power will have no effect on its velocity.

You're forgetting drag. Just like flying through air, flying through parts of the solar system results in drag from dust. The dust density is expected to increase when the probe reaches the inner Oort cloud, unless Voyager 1's path has angled enough above the ecliptic that it manages to miss it (I thought 35 degrees was high enough, my colleague disagrees.) If dust density increases, the drag will provide a small but continuous slowing effect. Once past the inner Oort cloud dust density will likely decrease, though no one I've worked with has a great guess of the dust density in the outer Oort cloud. It will still be non-zero though, and Voyager can't avoid the outer Oort. Added to the small but still present force of gravity from the sun (which is what keeps the Oort objects from drifting away), you have continuous drag on the craft.

We can't calculate the effect of that drag without knowing the dust density, and our estimates of the size of the Oort clouds are still rough (on the order of +-100AU last paper I read), which is why that NASA paper estimated crossing the outer edge of the Oort cloud in a range from 14K to 28K years. 14K if the Oort cloud is small and fairly dust-free, twice that long if our worst-case estimates of the density and size are correct.

Re:Newton

[stoploss]

What does Voyager's impending power failure have to do with any of this? Unfortunately, your reply did nothing to elucidate your original statement.

I mean, even if you were alleging some sort of thermal radiation pressure acceleration due to the RTG, that's really esoteric and is a complete non-sequitur to your comment about the 10 to 15 year remaining lifespan of the power supply. Not to mention I imagine you would have explained that if if this were what you were claiming.

Running out of power will have no effect on Voyager's velocity.

Re:Newton

[Visserau]

It has a huge effect on our ability to communicate with Voyager...

Re:Newton

[WGFCrafty]

Voyager 1 won't escape the Oort cloud (really the outer Oort cloud) for another 14,000 - 28,000 years. (Probably due to running out of power in the next 10 to 15 years.)

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your statement, but are you aware of Newton's First Law of Motion? Voyager has no need for power to continue its journey; running out of power will have no effect on its velocity.

My guess is that, aside from attitude adjustment, Voyager hasn't fired its thrusters since its encounter with Titan in 1980.

And I hear they have replaced the thrusters with the mafia for attitude adjustments of greater scale.

Re:Newton

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's unimportant. Without power, it can't communicate any of it's findings back to observers, so once it goes radio silent it doesn't matter where it is.

Re:Newton

[Anonymous Coward]

If the remaining journey is truely going to take another 14,000 to 28,000 years, then it is possible that Voyager 1 will need more power!

The "space" that Voyager 1 is travelling through is not perfectly "empty" (Oort cloud being a "dusty" space)... each dust partical Voyager 1 "hits" will have an effect on it's current speed, slowly it down and eventually stopping it completely... who know, maybe in 14,000 years time it'll crash back down here on Earth - you never know!

Voyagers onboard computer

[sl4shd0rk]

No, it wasn't the Eniac.

"There are three different computer types on the Voyager spacecraft and there are two of each kind. Total number of words among the six computers is about 32K."*

[*] - http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html

Re:Voyagers onboard computer

[slew]

A bit more info for history buffs...

Originially, there was some thought given to the tradeoff between a single centralized computer, and a distributed computing architecture. After much analysis, the 3 dual-computer configuration was selected.

The CCS (computer command system) is essentially identical to the computer used in viking.
The AACS (attitude and articulation control system) is sort of a souped up version of the CCS (higher clockrate, added "index" registers + a few opcodes)
The FDS (flight-data sub-system) was a new design that had DMA and CMOS memories.

The 18-bit words of the CCS and AACS were either data (2's complement numbers), or instructions (6-bit opcode, 12-bit address). The processor has 13 special purpose ("cisc-y") registers. The processors effectively have 32-interrupt levels to run various tasks.

The FDS is a bit different beast as it is a 4-bit/byte-serial 16-bit machine with 128 registers.

The each dual-computer configuration had 3 operating modes: individual (separate tasks), parallel (cooperate on same task for high performance), and tandem (do the same thing and compare for fault tolerance).

Scale model of its path and location?

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'd like to see a good diagram of what its general path was and where it is now in relation to other planet orbits if anyone knows where I can find one.

Re:Scale model of its path and location?

[sighted]

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/index.html http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar.html http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/voy_traj.jpg And you can simulate the entire flight and its current position in 3D at http://eyes.nasa.gov/

Alright...

[Tactical Bacon]

Now get it back...

Re:Alright...

[Immerman]

I believe you're thinking of the FIDO mission, which will be dispatched to fetch this historically significant but potentially dangerous artifact shortly after we detect a powerful long range transmission warning of a spreading plague of sentient interstellar space-weevils in 2439.

I had 125 AU in the office pool

[GodfatherofSoul]

You know, when Voyager clangs off a giant glass shell with star lightbulbs screwed into it. NASA's going to be pissed, but I bet I'll get $80 out of it!

I could learn via Google, but

[jitterman]

I've wondered, would it benefit us in any way to send something out perpendicular to the orbital plane? I realize you don't get to swing by points of interest, and you don't get the slingshot effect of doing so either, but still, just curious. Thoughts?

Re:I could learn via Google, but

[PhotoJim]

The sun's effects might be different in polar directions versus equatorially - it might be interesting to learn. However, only captured objects would orbit the sun in such directions so until we can get into interstellar space quickly, there's likely little benefit in going in such directions.

Re:I could learn via Google, but

[Immerman]

It could indeed be an interesting mission since the sun's effects would certainly be very different along its magnetic axis, and could reasonably be expected to capture and concentrate a great deal of interstellar charged particles, much as the "northern lights" evidence Earth doing with the solar wind. However it would be a far more energy intensive mission since those gravitational slingshots provide a *lot* of acceleration. Moreover there's not really any *other* reason to launch such a mission, unlike Voyager which is now in it's "free science" phase, having completed it's primary planetary flyby missions long ago. I suspect we won't see such a dedicated mission until ion drives become considerably more efficient and we have a better idea what we're looking at. In other words after several more higher-velocity in-plane probes have left the system to study the interstellar medium free from the tumultuous effects near the magnetic poles.

Re:I could learn via Google, but

[Anonymous Coward]

We already did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_probe

Re:I could learn via Google, but

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reasons I can think of off hand are to visit something in orbit (or maybe on a flyby trajectory) around the sun, or possibly a still-somewhat-theoretical project called a gravitational telescope. Basically you use the sun's gravitational field (which bends light) as the objective lens (the big one) in your telescope. Due to some peculiarities about the difference between a gravitational field and a lens -- and due to the fact that there's a giant ball of plasma in the middle of the lens -- this works better the further away you are (and you only really get to look at one thing). Short of the long, you want to be really far away and in a specific direction (away from what you want to look at).

Re:I could learn via Google, but

[Anonymous Coward]

That's been done with the Ulysses probe, mission to observe the poles of the sun (in a six year polar orbit). Did it with a flyby of Jupiter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_probe#Jupiter_swing-by

- not leaving the solar system but it is travelling in a plane perpendicular to the ecliptic and travels quite a bit away from the sun.

I imagine if you wanted to leave the solar system perpendicularly you would prob. do something similar, - build up speed through flyby's of other planets, then go close to Jupiter at just the right angle to leave the solar system at right angles to the ecliptic.

what modulation goes that far??

[cellurl]

will someone tell me what communication/modulation/band/neutrino/bugaboo they use?
I will never comprehend how they communicate that far??

Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets

Re:what modulation goes that far??

[jitterman]

They do so via radio waves utilizing the "Deep Space Network" (no, really!). You can find a NASA PDF as well as Wiki page, etc.

Re:what modulation goes that far??

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks

Re:what modulation goes that far??

[Immerman]

Distance doesn't really complicate things overmuch - imagine communicating with a friend by flashing morse code to each other with flashlights. As you get further apart you eventually need to either use binoculars or more powerful flashlights, but as long as there isn't a brighter light the same color coming from the same direction nothing fundamentally changes. In the case of Voyager we're essentially watching it with massive radio telescopes to see its dim "flashing light", while broadcasting at much higher levels so that it's comparatively tiny antenna can hear us.

Message from the "new realm"

[Tablizer]

"My God, it's full of stars!"

Has it reached Sidon yet?

[wolverine1999]

Obligatory Space:1999 joke...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager's_Return

Is it powered by Interstellar Overdrive?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq5t7Y_BYIM

Might be time to outdo it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe launch a much better probe that could maybe reach Proxima before the Rise and Fall of the Imperium of Man.

Exit Interview

[Tablizer]

In its exit interview, Voyager stated, "I generally like those Earthlings that built me, but they smell and are greasy. They smudged my camera lenses like 50 times before the final pre-launch wipe; and kept farting into my ion spectrograph. Oh those methane spikes!"

Re:Exit Interview

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever talked to a woman without using a credit card?

Re:Exit Interview

[Tablizer]

this is slashdot, you should know better than to ask questions like that

Not in Kansas Anymore

[Shoug]

Toto, I have a feeling we're not in our heliosphere anymore...

And it runs what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course it runs NetBSD"

Re:And Thus, a Mighty Schism Borne Out Two Sects .

[heteromonomer]

Laughed my ass out. Truly good one!

Alien DJ finds Golden LP...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Golden Record has been criticized for only containing things that humans are proud of. Of course, most of our nearest neighbors can get our radio and TV transmissions, so it's not really like were hiding anything from anybody..

Wouldn't it be funny if we found out sometime in the far future that those happy happy joy joy recordings were what *kept* the extraterrestrials from contacting us..

Voyager 1 has already escaped solar system

[Morgaine]

To clear up any possible confusion, Voyager 1 doesn't need to enter the "sphere of influence" of another body to avoid falling back to the Sun. It has already escaped the Sun's gravitational field, long ago and by a large factor.

On September 9, 2012, Voyager 1 was measured to be 121.798 AU from the Sun and traveling at 17.043 km/s. At that distance, the escape velocity from the Sun is only 3.817 km/s, which Voyager 1's speed exceeds handsomely.

The dear thing isn't coming back, at least not without help. :-)

Re:Voyager 1 has already escaped solar system

[Razgorov Prikazka]

What I was wondering about... if that thing goes as fast as 17.043 km/s, then what time is it on the voyager right now?
Time should go slower there then here, but by how much? Years? Seconds?
To put it in a more informal way: Do we have to worry that the voyager get the Y2K bug in a couple of weeks or is it more like the mayan calender type of disaster we are talking about?

Re:Voyager 1 has already escaped solar system

[Gavagai80]

Relativistic effects would be negligible considering the speed of light is ~300,000 km/s. That's four orders of magnitude difference.

Wrong site

[joh]

There's a good detailed article at Ars about that which is a better read than what /. offers (as so often, sadly)

And so it begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

in his house in Rlyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming...

I would like to ask........

[Crookdotter]

Do you think we will ever create another probe that would overtake Voyager 1 for distance from the sun?

Re:I would like to ask........

[DanielRavenNest]

Yes, now that we have ion thrusters, we can go much faster.

Re:And Thus, a Mighty Schism Borne Out Two Sects .

[geekoid]

No it isn't. What it is doing is pointing out facts people don't like. So those people call it dogmatic and religious. In fact, science changes when new facts appear. Of course, they need to be provable facts or backed up data. Not just a bunch of ignorant savages that don't like what the science says.

Who will discover it first....

[Cloud K]

Kirk, or the Caretaker?

Re: Oort Cloud

[DanielRavenNest]

> Carl Sagan wrote a lot about the Oort cloud. It would be nice if we could get first-hand evidence of it

We have two types of first hand evidence. The first are long period comets, which spend at least 90% of their life at Oort Cloud distances. They are Oort cloud objects that just happened to have their orbit perigee shifted by passing stars, molecular clouds, or galactic tides. They get close enough to the Sun to boil off their ice content, which makes them easy to find, but otherwise they are still members of the Oort cloud, because that is where they spend most of their time.

The other are "Scattered Disk Objects" ( http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/t_centaurs.html ), which if you sort on "Q" (max distance from the Sun) you will see there are three that go beyond 2000 AU, the nominal inner edge of the Oort cloud. All were discovered in the past year or so, so they haven't made it to the textbooks yet.

There isn't an actual dividing line between the Scattered Disk and the Oort cloud, the nominal distance of 2000 AU is just a convention. How the Oort cloud objects got out there is by scattering of Solar nebula planetesimals by the larger planets. The Scattered disk is just objects that didn't get scattered quite as far.

Awesome! Again...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we did this a few months ago, yes?

See you in 6 - 9 months.
(No, Bill and/or Ted, I didn't say 69)
*sigh*

Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

These science geeks just can't seem to agree.

I think what's REALLY happened is that V1 has crashed in to the wall at the edge of the solar system that the stars are painted on and nobody wants to admit they were wrong. :-)

How many voyagers

[MultiPak]

How many dead voyagers are in our interstellar space neighbourhood, or even our own heliosphere. Tens of thousands of years travel time is trivial to the next star system on the cosmic clock. Perhaps space has had a litter problem in other neighbourhoods for billions of years too. Can we only find them by running into them.

still running after 36 years

[Billgatez]

The Computer in Voyager is still running after 36 years. Well most modern computers wont work after 10.