Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

13 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Why so expensive? by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:Why so expensive? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Why so expensive? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Why so expensive? by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    4. Re:Why so expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    5. Re:Why so expensive? by bigpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Why so expensive? by porcinist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

  2. 1337 issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  3. It's The Same Old Story by avgjoe62 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  4. Re:HAM by Megane · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  5. Obligatory xkcd by troon · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
  6. Re: They would have to take budget from somewhere by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  7. Re:They would have to take budget from somewhere e by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!