Slashdot Mirror


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.

58 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Hard to define by Looker_Device · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
    1. Re:Hard to define by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Hard to define by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    3. Re:Hard to define by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Informative
      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

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    4. Re:Hard to define by RichardtheSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Hard to define by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Hard to define by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Hard to define by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:Hard to define by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Hard to define by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    10. Re:Hard to define by PhotoJim · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:Hard to define by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      u folks realize the Oort Cloud is a hypothesis right?

    12. Re:Hard to define by butalearner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:Hard to define by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. I for one welcome our new by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Funny

    V'ger overlord!

    1. Re:I for one welcome our new by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. Take care out there Voyager by ravenswood1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You did really well.

    1. Re:Take care out there Voyager by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    2. Re:Take care out there Voyager by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Take care out there Voyager by White+Flame · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Take care out there Voyager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Take care out there Voyager by Pope · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    6. Re:Take care out there Voyager by cusco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    7. Re:Take care out there Voyager by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Cue the Star Trek jokes in 3... 2... 1... by sconeu · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  5. Not so fast by sighted · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    Saddle up: Riding with Robots
    1. Re:Not so fast by Grayhand · · Score: 2

      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?

    2. Re:Not so fast by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      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?

  6. Must be Wednesday by justthinkit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Must be Wednesday by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Must be Wednesday by darkshot117 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

    3. Re:Must be Wednesday by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 2

      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"

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
  7. What's the definition of "leaving the system"? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"? by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:What's the definition of "leaving the system"? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  8. Re:For real this time by bobbied · · Score: 2

    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...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  9. And Thus, a Mighty Schism Borne Out Two Sects ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!!!"

    --
    My work here is dung.
  10. Longevity. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Longevity. by toygeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

    2. Re:Longevity. by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Longevity. by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

      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
    4. Re:Longevity. by RoccamOccam · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    5. Re:Longevity. by dywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:Longevity. by egcagrac0 · · Score: 2

      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.

  11. Heliopause by Curate · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Heliopause by mu51c10rd · · Score: 2

      Just wait until the moodiness starts...

  12. Re:so.. by SternisheFan · · Score: 2
    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

  13. Newton by stoploss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Newton by arth1 · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Newton by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
  14. Voyagers onboard computer by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Voyagers onboard computer by slew · · Score: 2

      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).

  15. Re:Scale model of its path and location? by sighted · · Score: 2
    --
    Saddle up: Riding with Robots
  16. I could learn via Google, but by jitterman · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  17. Message from the "new realm" by Tablizer · · Score: 2

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

  18. Voyager 1 has already escaped solar system by Morgaine · · Score: 4, Informative

    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. :-)

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  19. Wrong site by joh · · Score: 2

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

  20. Re: Oort Cloud by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

    > 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.