Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japanese Space Probe Akatsuki Enters Orbit Around Venus Five Years Late (space.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the better-late-than-never dept.

MarkWhittington writes: On May 17, 2010, the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency Venus Climate Orbiter probe or as it is now called Akatsuki lifted off from the Tanegashima Space Center. It was supposed to enter orbit around Venus on December 6, 2010. However, due to a failure in the probe's orbital maneuvering thruster, Akatsuki did not enter Venus orbit and went into orbit around the sun instead. According to a story on Space.com, just about five years to the day of the failure, Akatsuki assumed an orbit around the second planet from the sun. Japanese scientists will determine what sort of orbit that is in a couple of days and, hopefully, begin the probe's science mission.

51 comments

  1. Wow! by NMBob · · Score: 1

    Good job. Too bad about the thruster, but nice recovery. Hope it works out.

    1. Re: Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally they can hunt the rare Venusian Minje Whale to death for scientific study (yum)

  2. I'm actually a bit jealous ... by scunc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Must be nice to be able to show up five years late and still have a job.

    1. Re:I'm actually a bit jealous ... by BancBoy · · Score: 0

      Vince Lombardi would disapprove of your current mod of -1...

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
    2. Re:I'm actually a bit jealous ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Must be nice to be able to show up five years late and still have a job.

      Only because it's hard to find H1B's on Venus.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:I'm actually a bit jealous ... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      I imagine that the situation probably actually extended at least a few people's jobs by 5 years. Hmmm.... accident?

    4. Re:I'm actually a bit jealous ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find this actually quite true, to be honest. Been in Japan for some time, this is very dominant behavior at any workplace.

  3. Why are there so few? by mi · · Score: 1

    My understanding of the costs of a space-exploring mission are: design of the unique apparatus. However, the designs are intellectual property — duplication is trivial. So, why aren't we, the Earthlings, sending 2, 3, or 5 identical sibling-apparatuses on each mission?

    Sure, the hardware itself is expensive too, but the space-faring nations are not poor. Moreover, the national prestige is "priceless" for a country like Japan, which sent its first interplanetary device out. Also, with multiple devices, each one can be made cheaper by being less reliable — following the philosophy exemplified by RAID.

    So, if everything works, we'd have multiple identical devices crawling, orbiting, and photographing interesting space objects and phenomena — surely, the astronomers and other scientists would only be happier for it. And if some aspects of some of the units fail — no big deal...

    Why have we not been doing it this way since the time of the Voyagers?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Why are there so few? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Essentially because each mission is designed around its mission profile. The physics involved with landing on the moon vs. landing on Mars are worlds apart. Even landing on one moon instead of a different one would require radically different approaches and loadouts.

      If we had the level of infrastructure to the point where there'd be a sizable benefit to doubling up on craft, we would do so. In fact, this is routinely done with craft that enter low earth orbit. There are absolutely rocket boosters that are reused on countless projects, and spacecraft that are used in a variety of configurations. It's just that Space is monumentally big. Everything on earth fits in exactly 1 speck of space. So common sense about differing requirements between different projects on earth does not apply in space.

    2. Re:Why are there so few? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why have we not been doing it this way since the time of the Voyagers?

      I dunno. Power grids have been suffering power failures since power grids were created. Why is it that you don't have both a backup generator and a UPS at your house?

      Here's a "little" hint in two words: cost justification.

    3. Re:Why are there so few? by kwiecmmm · · Score: 2

      The designs of these devices are not that trivial. They require a power source with most space craft it is either solar or nuclear powered. The solar cells are expensive and the nuclear devices are more even expensive. The cameras and sensors are expensive as well. Also these devices require rad-hardened materials which are not easy to come by as well.

      And all of this is forgetting about the cost of actually getting the devices into space to begin with.

      Duplication isn't trivial for most devices, but if you are going to make a billion of them. It makes sense to set up a system that produces these rapidly and then duplication becomes trivial after setting up the system. Sending 2-5 items into space isn't worth setting up the type of system which makes these thing trivial as well.

    4. Re:Why are there so few? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you missed his point.

      He's asking why we don't send three identical probes on the same mission, for greater reliability. Once the designs are complete, it should be less costly to duplicate.

    5. Re:Why are there so few? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason is that it costs money to build two, make that three, identical vehicles. Yea, the second and third copies are cheaper builds because a lot of the NRE (Non-recurring Engineering) costs only happen once, but this just means for a fixed budget, you will do less science. You will spend more on hardware and assembly, so you take money out of the science budget to make up for it. Then, once you've successfully flown one vehicle, the additional science you can get out of a second or third launch starts to fall off rapidly. However, for MOST programs, this is exactly what we have been doing for a lot of missions. Build three, launch two. Voyager, Mars Rover (the first ones) etc. I'm sure there are other examples.

      But, I think the *real* area where we could make the most use of NRE is to design a multiple sensor platform vehicle where the bulk of the systems get reused each mission. So design building block power, guidance, propulsion, landing and other common systems and start with that as a base to which you add your science payloads. Then plan multiple missions of the same basic vehicle with different science packages that share a common interface point.

      What should be a think of the past is going though all the NRE for common elements of every mission..

    6. Re:Why are there so few? by mi · · Score: 1

      Why is it that you don't have both a backup generator and a UPS at your house?

      I do, actually.

      cost justification

      Sure. It is all about costs — and the justification is simple: increased reliability of the mission.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Why are there so few? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      duplication is [relatively] trivial. So, why aren't we, the Earthlings, sending 2, 3, or 5 identical sibling-apparatuses on each mission?...Why have we not been doing it this way since the time of the Voyagers?

      US probes got much more reliable over time.

      A big part of the cost is the still the launch vehicle and fuel. It may be that probes are now considered reliable enough that the cost of a duplicate launch is not worth it.

      Since the 80's, US probes are roughly 90% successful (excluding annoying non-show-stopper glitches) such that a duplicate launch may not be economical.

      Japan may be in a different boat, though. They are still in the learning stage similar to the US in the 60's. Plus, if you duplicate probes, you also duplicate design flaws.

      One of the lessons Japan should be learning is to design the probe flexible and with enough spare fuel for contingencies. Their missions seem to not work right on the first try such that being able to try again during the mission could be really helpful. For example, if you design an asteroid sampling mission, allow it to be able to try to grab a sample multiple times, and with feedback sensors to learn from each try.

      It seems nations get overzealous with their early missions. For example, one of Russia's early 70's Mars landers had little rover. If they had instead focused on reliability, they may have had the first (undisputed) successful Mars landing. They put in too many bells and whistles.

      The US also did such with the Ranger program of the early 60's. They kept failing, and they eventually simplified and stripped every scientific instrument off of the probes except the camera systems. Until you perfect the art, K.I.S.S.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    8. Re:Why are there so few? by mi · · Score: 1

      The solar cells are expensive and the nuclear devices are more even expensive.

      Of course, they are — in absolute terms. But in relation to the rest of the mission, how much is the cost of hardware itself?

      Sending 2-5 items into space isn't worth setting up the type of system which makes these thing trivial as well.

      Well, lots of parts are reusable regardless of the mission's destination — the solar cells and the nuclear "batteries" in particular would be the same whether the flight is to Venus, or Mars, or Neptune, or even "simply" around the Earth, right?

      Do you have any actual figures, or are you just speculating — as do I?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Why are there so few? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Actually, the Phoenix Mars Lander was built in part from duplicate spare parts from the failed Mars Polar Lander, plus parts from a cancelled mission called "Mars 2001 Surveyor". NASA does reuse stuff.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    10. Re:Why are there so few? by hendric · · Score: 1

      Have you even played Kerbal Space Program? Get to Moho and then talk about how duplication is trivial.

      --
      "Though it may take a thousand years, we shall be FREE."
    11. Re:Why are there so few? by mi · · Score: 2

      Have you even played Kerbal Space Program?

      Seriously? Your explanation for why something is difficult in real life is that it is difficult in some obscure game?

      Does this logic work in the other direction? Would it be as easy to fly, reload weapons, encounter aliens, kill people, steal cars, etc. as some other games make it appear?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Why are there so few? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um, actually in the vehicle bay you can click Save and then launch a thousand versions of the same ship as long as you've got funds. You only have to build it once thanks to the wonders of digital computers.

    13. Re:Why are there so few? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      some obscure game

      Maybe you should worry more about your continued possession of a nerd card, rather than community organization in Chicago (your sig). This is a Slashdot space article FFS!

    14. Re:Why are there so few? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I do as well, and they are not expensive at all, total spent was less than 1/5th the cost of the stupid countertops the wife had to have in the kitchen. Bought the generator at costco, hired and electrician to wire it and the auto transfer switch, did the concrete pad myself. dirt cheap and awesome. the seperate UPS's on the computers and devices that need them were dirt cheap as well.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    15. Re:Why are there so few? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cost of the hardware also needs to factor in testing and certification. Much of the processing needs to be done in a clean-room. Beyond that, there's also the actual rocket launch ($200M+ per launch currently for deep space) and having a mission control crew to monitor the spacecraft. It's still less than non-recurring design costs, but launching and monitoring the actual hardware is probably still a significant double-digit percentage of the overall budget (would be nice to have numbers, but that's a little too much research to bother for a Slashdot post).

    16. Re:Why are there so few? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Historically, they do build multiples - they just don't launch them unless they have to. You can see some of these extras when you visit the Air and Space museum, or some science museums. I suppose if a mission absolutely, positively could not fail you might try to launch them simultaneously - but most of the time, Venus ain't goin' anywhere.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:Why are there so few? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      US probes got much more reliable over time.

      And our missions changed to.

      Old mission style: Flyby. Better build two, because after the few hours of the encounter, you're not going to be back for decades. Take some pictures with the first one and figure out what you want to look really closely at with the second one.

      New mission style: Orbiter/lander. Building two doesn't help you much here; you get twice the data back twice as fast, but you only have the same amount of antenna time/bandwidth from the Deep Space Network to receive it.

    18. Re:Why are there so few? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Mariner 8 (failed) was a duplicate orbiter companion to Mariner 9.

      Volume of returned data may also be a factor. The Earth antennas may have difficulty absorbing data from two probes at the same time.

      I suppose you can put them in opposite orbits to spread out rely times, but it's hard to keep them opposite if you want to orbit at different or changing angles, which is often desired for surveys.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    19. Re:Why are there so few? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      For interplanetary missions, launch weight is a big limiting factor. Sending 2 probes would have meant 2 launches, making the mission much more expensive.

    20. Re:Why are there so few? by matfud · · Score: 1

      They do. Its called a common systems bus. They are available from many manufactures with a variety of capabilities and masses. Then you bolt on you mission specific bits. But they are mostly used for earth orbit missions

    21. Re:Why are there so few? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I live in NW Maine and, even though I'm not there at the moment, I enjoy the luxury of reliable power. I really dislike power outages and have taken steps to avoid them. I'm kind of surprised that more people don't have a UPS and generator. I also have both solar and wind though those are not truly cost effective. (I'll almost certainly need to replace them before they've paid for themselves.)

      Anyhow, the date of this is kind of amusing. It was posted on the 7th which is Pearl Harbor Day.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:Why are there so few? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Two things... Yes, you can see them. They are awesome. I just recently spent a couple of days at the National Air and Space Museum and one day at the second on in Virginia. The second thing, well... Yeah, sort of? Venus is going *somewhere* at various rates of speed. "...Ain't goin' anywhere" seems a bit excessive. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    23. Re:Why are there so few? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obscure? I protest!

  4. Now we'll see how Venusians feel about tentacle... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Great! With the Japanese orbiter in place and broadcasting, we'll finally get to see how Venusians feel about tentacle-based entertainment.

  5. More than just another attempt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The impressive thing here is that the thruster is still non-operational, so it wasn't just a matter of waiting 5 years to try again. Instead they're using the RCS system, a low-efficiency thruster which was only meant for steering, to perform orbital injection. Reportedly, this is the first time that's been done for a planetary transfer, and should hopefully let them salvage the science mission which was initially thought to be lost (remains to be seen if the science equipment is still working).

    1. Re:More than just another attempt by JanneM · · Score: 2

      Instead they're using the RCS system, a low-efficiency thruster which was only meant for steering, to perform orbital injection. Reportedly, this is the first time that's been done for a planetary transfer,

      In real life, yes. Meanwhile, in Kerbal Space Program...

      I think KSP is, in a way, ruining real space exploration for me much the same way science fiction ruins the expectations for real robots. Out of fuel? Use your RCS. RCS also out of fuel? Get out and push! Lander strut broken? Use RCS to balance the lander until time to take off.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:More than just another attempt by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

      At least it wasnt a manned mission requiring the kerbels to go eva to use their maneuvering jets to keep from missing kerbel reentry. Thats an annoying occurrence.

    3. Re:More than just another attempt by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      you can just imagine houston going "now jeb, here's what we're going to need you to do. We're going to tell you when, and you're going to get out of the capsule. line up with the hatch... and push it with your face."

      your lander on it's side? easy solve, just power up main thrusts a little, spin and hope for the best.

  6. Most of the good stuff is probably gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But there still might be some potato chips.

  7. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the jews claim all spokes, so is spoke claiming no longer a thing?
    Because fundamentals.

  8. Should have taken the train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They should have taken the train. Japanese trains are seldom late, and if so never by very much.

  9. Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huzzah, huzzah. A difficult feat well managed.

  10. He had a Japanese brother?? Never knew. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    I never knew Mark Watney had a Japanese brother on the Venus mission at the same time!

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japanese space probe enters Venus.

  12. Re:Now we'll see how Venusians feel about tentacle by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Given their anatomy, ALL Venusian entertainment is tentacle-based.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  13. hsr is expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HSR is expensive to build. There's a reason America doesn't have any. We'll stick to jet engines, and ion thrusters.

  14. pop culture space trivia by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Akatsuki carries 68 fan-made images of Japanese crowdsourced digital pop star Hatsune Miku, etched onto three aluminium plates. I suppose this makes Miku the solar system's first interplanetary celebrity. (Also last year, a Miku music video was beamed into deep space by the European Space Agency as part of its "Wake up, Rosetta!" campaign).

    I believe the only other pop music purposefully represented in deep space, is the Chuck Berry song Johnny B. Goode, which is on NASA's Golden Records carried by the two Voyager probes.

  15. Luck or wisdom? by hackertourist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They can do this attempt because when the original orbit insertion failed, Akatsuki entered a heliocentric orbit in an 8:9 orbital resonance with Venus, making sure it'd meet up with Venus eventually. I haven't been able to find if that was a happy coincidence or if the initial approach to Venus was designed for this contingency.

  16. I love stuff like this by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    Space and Orbital mechanics fascinate me. They are, in essence, just Maths and Physics. There's nothing _overly_ difficult... in theory. Except that, of course, it is really really difficult.

    I have great admiration for the minds that are able to come up with solutions to seemingly impossible problems, and fixing them using these simple tools of Maths and Physics. I know I would probably have thrown in the towel, pointed the instruments at the sun, and gotten whatever readings they may have given during their long spiral downwards. Who knows, there might be some data worth using...

    But these guys... they salvaged it! They worked it all out and calculated that using a small manoeuvring thruster, they could achieve orbital insertion. And then went and actually did it.

    This is Kerbal Space Program in real life. It's brilliant.

  17. Many US Mars missions in pairs by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Spirit and Opportunity used the same base. Curiosity and MER-2020 use the same tech. Phoenix and Insight-2016 ditto. Some cost savings in make 3 or 4 copies of the same vehicle. The extras are for laboratory backup studies.