NASA Forgets How To Talk To ICE/ISEE-3 Spacecraft

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Randall Munroe's XKCD cartoon on the ICE/ISEE-3 spacecraft inspired me to do a little research on why Nasa can no long communicate with the International Cometary Explorer. Launched in 1978 ISEE-3 was the first spacecraft to be placed in a halo orbit at one of Earth-Sun Lagrangian points (L1). It was later (as ICE) sent to visit Comet Giacobini-Zinner and became the first spacecraft to do so by flying through a comet's tail passing the nucleus at a distance of approximately 7800 km. ICE has been in a heliocentric orbit since then, traveling just slightly faster than Earth and it's finally catching up to us from behind, and will return to Earth in August. According to Emily Lakdawalla, it's still functioning, broadcasting a carrier signal that the Deep Space Network successfully detected in 2008 and twelve of its 13 instruments were working when we last checked on its condition, sometime prior to 1999.

Can we tell the spacecraft to turn back on its thrusters and science instruments after decades of silence and perform the intricate ballet needed to send it back to where it can again monitor the Sun? Unfortunately the answer to that question appears to be no. 'The transmitters of the Deep Space Network, the hardware to send signals out to the fleet of NASA spacecraft in deep space, no longer includes the equipment needed to talk to ISEE-3. These old-fashioned transmitters were removed in 1999.' Could new transmitters be built? Yes, but it would be at a price no one is willing to spend. 'So ISEE-3 will pass by us, ready to talk with us, but in the 30 years since it departed Earth we've lost the ability to speak its language,' concludes Lakdawalla. 'I wonder if ham radio operators will be able to pick up its carrier signal — it's meaningless, I guess, but it feels like an honorable thing to do, a kind of salute to the venerable ship as it passes by.'"

Comments

Why so expensive?

[X0563511]

SDR is a thing, and it's not that expensive these days.

The expensive part would be the amplifiers and antennas, and those just spew the signal you feed to them. Generating the signal is cheap.

Re:Why so expensive?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This is a government agency, they don't do cheap, they don't know how.

Yes; but it's also a government agency that probably has a few geeks on payroll. As an official project, there probably isn't even time to circulate the RFPs and cut the POs. As a hobby project, it's much more likely that somebody just needs to look the other way as whatever signalling gear can hit the right frequency sees a little after-hours misuse.

Re:Why so expensive?

[rmdingler]

Yes. And.

This is a systemic problem perpetuated by the companies who bid for government contracts.

Jobs bid and completed outside the influence of government (and perhaps organized crime... but I repeat myself) are not associated with cost overruns on every single project.

Re:Why so expensive?

[geogob]

Of course they know how. But they are not allowed to... or more accurately they do not allow themselves to do cheap.

But that is the first part of the price equation... equally strong is the polical part. A lot of decision are based on politcal decision rather than engineering choices or, even, common sense. Those decision often drive the prices to new hights.

Re:Why so expensive?

[Joce640k]

I suspect the point of the cartoon was a thing called "crowdfunding"

(And to draw attention to the approaching window for actually doing something...)

Re:Why so expensive?

[TrentTheThief]

Since when is NASA a big daddy defense contractor? This is a task they could manage in-house with the resources they already have on hand.

The original hardware is missing, sure. But that's no big deal. RF is RF. They can use a Software Defined Radio (SDR) and throw together a program to parse the telemetry into something meaningful. After all, the only thing disposed of was the hardware. The specifications for everything else is on file.

All they need is some support instead of more snarky remarks. Sure, NASA kinda fucked up when the hardware was trashed, but hardware that's been idle for 15-20 years looks like it's only collecting dust (which it was). But who actually knew it was still needed? That is plenty long enough for the engineers who once used it to move on to other employers or to simply grow old enough to reach retirement and leave.

Re:Why so expensive?

[Noryungi]

The HAM are already on it, bless their souls:

http://ww2.amsat.org/amsat/arc...

If they can make it (meaning: at the very least being able to get the carrier), it will be a hack of historic proportions.

Re:Why so expensive?

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Here's how it works.

In the NASA system, the first thing any project needs is a cost estimate from the bean counters. They employ a vast amount of historical data to estimate costs. To get project approval, you must promise to spend that much money: if you don't, NASA management will assume you don't understand the difficulty, and will fail. Then, of course, you must actually build a project organization with a staff capable of spending the money.

This can go wrong rather badly. If the project is actually a lot easier than the bean counters assumed, you have now set yourself up for a massive overrun. Squander is harder to manage than lean development. But when you overrun, the data is duly entered in the bean counters' database, and the next similar project has to come up with even more money.

Communications may be the area where costing is the farthest from the real state of the art.

Re:Why so expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is a purchasing organization run by scientists whose first priority is satiating scientific interest, even if the interest is only tangentially related to the overarching mission. They are not very worried about schedule or cost; that's the thing about a purchasing orgainzation. NASA goes to a company like ATK* and says, "We need rockets, and we like this design and want you to incorporate this stuff in your design. Then we want to know everything about how you make it and why you make the design choices you do."

Then, ATK makes some rockets and incorporating the new materials is difficult. NASA has a bunch of questions about new corrosion problems or rubber chemistry and since NASA is a sciency purchasing orgainzation and ATK wants to be a production organization there is some mismatch in mission. NASA as the customer requires their tangential questions to be answered, and ATK acquesces. Both organizations learn a lot about the systems. From a Science perspective, vast sums about chemistry and materials compatibility have been added to the human knowledge base. From a Production standpoint, a lot of engineers were sidetracked on tangent projects, causing schedule slips when a change to a known material might have been more expedient or less expensive. At the same time, the ATK engineers learn a lot about the tertiary effects of making primary design choices, and the quality of the products improves.

It is the difference in missions (science vs production) between NASA and the parts supplier that cause the high price of fancy rockets, not that someone at NASA spends too much or that the contractor charges too much. People who assert otherwise don't understand the complex customer relations and product requirements between government (or private) agencies on REALLY BIG projects and purchasing contracts.

*can substitute ATK for any big contractor

Re:Why so expensive?

[Mitchell314]

They do know cheap. And they know cheap gets you Apollo 1 do-overs.

Re:Why so expensive?

[bigpat]

Yes; but it's also a government agency that probably has a few geeks on payroll. As an official project, there probably isn't even time to circulate the RFPs and cut the POs. As a hobby project, it's much more likely that somebody just needs to look the other way as whatever signalling gear can hit the right frequency sees a little after-hours misuse.

Just exactly what I was thinking. If there are still some useful instruments on this spacecraft, then could a bunch of volunteers come together under a University or non-profit to put together a transmitter and mission plan by August?

Most people in the space exploration business get one or two shots at a mission like this in their lives, so I think some mix of people that worked on this originally, some university students and some geekend warriors might be willing to pull it together.

Seems that NASA would just have to designate someone to be in charge and hand over the documentation to increase the odds of success over someone just making this a hobby project on the DL, but then it would be a matter of getting a relatively small team of expert volunteers together and matching them up with some time on a big enough transmitter to actually get a signal to the spacecraft.

Re:Why so expensive?

[Baloroth]

SDR is a thing, and it's not that expensive these days.

The expensive part would be the amplifiers and antennas, and those just spew the signal you feed to them. Generating the signal is cheap.

I suspect the issue is more "why?" Why would they bother spending even a few thousand dollars on a satellite that was supposed to have been shut down 15 years ago and for which they (quite clearly) have no more use? And it would cost money, if only the time they spend using the amplifiers/antennas. Considering that the DSN communications system already has to support multiple missions, adding one extra that serves no useful function is a complete waste of resources.

Re:Why so expensive?

[bigpat]

There are also procedures for surplussing government property. And other ways that someone at NASA could spend a few hours, put together an RFP for some University, non-profit or other outside entity to put together a mission plan to reestablish communications, control and make some use of the space craft. Maybe it is really just redundant given much better instruments on other probes, but there is still likely some value that some University researchers could utilize. Heck sounds like it could be a pretty cool project to unleash team of University students and mostly volunteers on.

Re:Why so expensive?

[porcinist]

I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I'll put in 5k if someone can come up with a reasonable plan to talk with this spacecraft. You can find my contact info on my website http://ww.vxmdesign.com/contac... Email me if you have a detailed (hardware, software work) plan, or you want to up the bounty...

Re:Why so expensive?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd think that, especially if there isn't anything too esoteric about the original communication mechanism, suitably motivated people could probably bang out (especially if some documentation still exists) an SDR implementation (at negligible power, obviously) for a few tens of thousands, tops, worth of hardware. The component you'd probably have to beg, borrow, or steal would be a suitably punchy transmitter and a suitably capable receiver to plug that into.

1337 issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else notice the XKCD issue's number is 1337?

Re: 1337 issue

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the point.

Re:1337 issue

[geogob]

wooooosh, makes the shooting star.

It's The Same Old Story

[avgjoe62]

Like in any relationship, thing are always changing. One partner moves a little further away, the other becomes disinterested and soon one of them just doesn't understand the other.

I would suggest couple's therapy.

Disturbing, heartwrenching and yet exhilarating.

[Anonymous Coward]

It invokes in me a strange emotion to ponder the fact that there are now potential targets of archaeology in "deep space" and that those archaeological artifacts are older than I am.

Re:Voyager 6

[SJHillman]

How about we just call it "The V'Ger formerly known as Voyager 6"?

Re:HAM

[Megane]

Reading some threads about it yesterday, I found that some hams in Germany have priority access to a 20m dish. Woah.

Re:Open Source it

[JoeMerchant]

If there's any kind of "little black box" on that vehicle that uses any kind of "secure" communication protocols, even from 30 years ago, the time and effort required to publish a functional, redacted communication protocol will cost far more than the balance of the mission calculations, communication hardware, etc.

Re:They would have to take budget from somewhere e

[armanox]

The amount of the budget that NASA takes up our taxes wouldn't notice if they disappeared..

What, exactly, is missing?

[dtmos]

Is it the entire 2 GHz transmitter that is missing? Just the power amplifier? Just the PCM modulator? The feed for the 70m dish?

What, exactly, is missing?

Re:What, exactly, is missing?

[hackertourist]

What's missing is a filter in the receiver circuits.
You've got a transmitter and a receiver connected to the same antenna. When you're using the (powerful) transmitter, you need to make sure its signals don't end up in the (very sensitive) receiver and fry it.
This filter has to provide something like 150 dB of isolation.

Obligatory xkcd

[troon]

http://xkcd.com/1337/

Oh, wait...

just wait

[slashmydots]

Just wait until the prove discovers that not only did communication stop for no reason but the planet was taken over my talking apes!

Makes Seti Seem Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can't communicate with our own spacecraft, but we think we'll be able to talk to aliens?

Re:WOW

[bobbied]

Who built that thing? Its been puttering about in space, outside of our planets protective magnetic field for 36 years and its still almost fully functional?

Problem is we really *don't* know how much is functional beyond the beacon used to track it. As I understand it there is very little (if any) telemetry data coming from the thing. Because we cannot talk to it, we cannot ask it any questions or reprogram it. My guess is that there is very little chance that much of value works, or NASA would have kept the equipment needed to communicate with it.

Re: They would have to take budget from somewhere

[Curunir_wolf]

Typically liberal fallacy. You claim, because I want lower taxes, that I want NO taxes. Wrong. I want necessary taxes, minimum waste, minimum government intrusion where it should not intrude.

Excellent, so you agree then we should pull all our troops out of Afghanistan, ASAP, as well as getting our mitts out of Somalia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, etc? We shouldn't be intruding in other people's business, should we? We could easily close 500+ military bases and just, well... stop intruding in other people's business around the world, let them figure it out for themselves.

Sounds like a good start to me. But that's not what the elitist pricks in Washington typically do. Defense contractors are their wealthy friends, while soldiers and sailors are powerless fodder. So they would just shift the money around, cut the VA first, military pensions and salaries next (oh, wait .. they've already started that), make sure that Lockeed and Boeing keep making jets and Northrop Grumman keeps making ships, and continue racking up as much debt as they do now.

What would NASA say to it?

[tomhath]

It's nice that the spacecraft is still functioning after all these years. But given the orbit it's in and the antiquated instruments it has on board, is there really any reason to establish communication with it? NASA seems to consider it another piece of space junk.

Re:What would NASA say to it?

[pz]

The cost of launching anything is staggering, and it gets more stupendously staggering with the size of the orbit. Each probe is important. We are nowhere near having so much data about our solar system -- forget the universe as a whole -- that any single operating probe should be considered junk.

Re:They would have to take budget from somewhere e

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Agreed. In 2013, NASA's budget of 17.8 billion dollars made up one half of one percent of the total US budget of about 3.8 trillion dollars. Rounding to the nearest integer, the largest chunk of the budget pie (the Department of Health and Human Services) had a budget 53 times as large as NASA. The Social Security Administration? 50 times. The Department of Defense? 38 times.

To put it another way, we pay 14 NASAs in interest on the national debt!

Re:They didn't "forget"

[redneckmother]

Nope. It's more like they lost the punchcards.

Nah, it's just in a Word 95 .doc file.

Re:They didn't "forget" how to talk to it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they did "forget". In much the same way you've forgotten 90% of the things you "learned" in high school.

I work in an institute for particle physics and we only recently shut down one of our old accelerators from the 70s. We cannot turn it back on again. Even if we wanted to. As all the engineers, physicists, and operators who designed, built and maintained that machine are either dead or retired. The plans are in storage, but God help the poor soul who has to try and find the most relevant schematics, which will, in turn, omit any small modifications made to the machine since its inception. Not to mention the antiquated source code, hardware requirements, etc.

It is easier to gut the machine and rebuild it from scratch than turn it on again.

Re:Open Source it

[BigT]

Why not have multiple groups controlling? It eventually worked out for Twitch Plays Pokemon.

Re:They would have to take budget from somewhere e

[TangoMargarine]

I don't mind paying taxes, I just wish they wouldn't be spent idiotically on unnecessary military bloat and partisan posturing.

Misleading Post title.

[Shadowmist]

The post styling seems to intimate an act of negligence or mistake by NASA on the order which doomed the Martian mission which crashed into the Red Planet because of a miscommunication measuring units. Fact of the matter is that the spacecraft's mission ended decades ago, and it's apparant life is in the form of a failure in the shutdown protocol. To think of a new mission, and program the spacecraft requires time in planning and expense in recreating technology long declared obsolete, and dedication of man-hours to operation and implementation. These are not trivial considerations. Fact of the matter is that there are quite a few active missions involving craft and rovers that have exceeded their design lifetimes and are in extended mission phase. Some, maybe many of these are going to be shutdown because NASA's budget can not accommodate the expense of keeping them running along with active programs. I would not want a cent spent on this over-romanticised anomaly.