Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Kepler Enters Emergency Mode 75 Million Miles From Earth (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-happening? dept.

Loren Grush, writing for The Verge: NASA engineers have declared a mission emergency for the agency's planet-hunting spacecraft Kepler, which has somehow switched into emergency mode. Now that a mission emergency has been declared, the Kepler team has priority access to NASA's deep space telecommunications system in order to try to get the spacecraft back to normal operations. Emergency mode is the lowest operational mode the spacecraft has. It also requires a lot more fuel than usual, which is why the Kepler mission team is working hard to get the spacecraft back to normal. But communication with Kepler isn't easy. The spacecraft is estimated to be 75 million miles away from Earth right now, according to NASA, so any communications signal traveling at the speed of light will take up to 13 minutes to travel to and from the spacecraft. Kepler has detected nearly 5,000 exoplanets over the years -- of which 1,000 have been confirmed.

104 comments

  1. Quick! Send the 34th Space 3D Printer Brigade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    They'll do it for the species!

  2. Did they write its software using Rust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Does anybody know if they wrote its software using the Rust programming language? I ask because as I understand it, Rust prevents segfaults. Segfaults are the number one cause of computer systems entering crash or emergency mode. If they didn't use Rust, would using Rust have prevented this incident? If they did use Rust, how could this have possibly happened?

    1. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure they wrote it all in Ruby on Rockets.

    2. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you had perfect software that was 100% bug-free, there is still a lot that can go wrong with a complex piece of machinery like a spacecraft.

    3. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it uses systemd as well.

    4. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      Typically spacecraft software is computer verified for its correctness -- the main reason it is so expensive. So using Rust would not have helped.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    5. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Its code of conduct simply forbids bugs. Awesome.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      Jokes aside, there was an interesting presentation by Mark Maimone at CppCon 14 about using C++ on the Mars rovers:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      They use a fairly restricted set of C++ features, but overloaded new and delete operators to avoid fatal memory space issues.

    7. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Then we should be all set. It will boot up even faster, now!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A "computer" can not "verify" software for correctness.
      Aka, halting problem and such.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by Cassini2 · · Score: 1

      Typically spacecraft software is hand verified for its correctness -- the main reason it is so expensive.

      On a space program, the teams are highly experienced at verifying software.

    10. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by smallfries · · Score: 2

      Correction: A "computer" can not "verify" *all* software for correctness.

      It makes quite a big difference, there is an entire field devoted to Formal Verification.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    11. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Its code of conduct simply forbids bugs. Awesome.

      When the NASA engineer stated that "failure is not an option", he was really talking to the computers.

    12. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yes, I simplified.

      Formal Verification requires a program and a specification (in a formal language like Z) and only proves that the program is conforming to the specification or not. In other words it does not prove that the program does what it is intended to do.

      So: for twice the work, once formulating the concepts in Z and then coding them in a particular language you now can run a a formal verification, either manually or with computer assistance.

      However: with double the work you have now double the options to make mistakes (which might be found by the verification process). But: no one saves you from "wrong specifications".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      You are still over-simplifying somewhat.

      The option to make a mistake program and in the specification are not exactly the same. Bugs in the code and bugs in the spec are two different kinds of mistake. One has a lower probability and is more visible than the other. Rather than doubling the number of places that a bug can be made, it remove the options for implementation errors and replaces then with fewer options to make specification errors.

      Assuming that specs are being written manually. It is far more useful to derive a spec automatically from a smaller definition of how it should behave. Again this is reducing the number of options to make mistakes and increasing their visibility. So now we are quite a long way from what you originally wrote?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    14. Re:Did they write its software using Rust? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So now we are quite a long way from what you originally wrote?
      Actually not.
      As a automated verifier only can check if a program confirms to the specification.

      With manual verifying like Hoars method etc. you can "figure" what the program is doing. And then make a rational choice if that makes sense. An algorithm can hardly do that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. Why more fuel than usual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > Emergency mode is the lowest operational mode the spacecraft has. It also requires a lot more fuel than usual

    Why?

    1. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by Yoda222 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Safe mode probably use thrusters instead of reaction wheel to control the attitude. Reaction wheel works with electricity (from solar array, so "unlimited"), thrusters use fuel.

    2. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by flargleblarg · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      What's a reaction wheel then? Some kind of gyro system?

    3. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by mbone · · Score: 2

      From the SOHO spacecraft web page:

      ESR (Emergency Sun Reacquisition) Mode

      This is the "ultimate safety net" for SOHO. In ESR, the spacecraft attitude is controlled entirely by hardware that senses the approximate position of the Sun and fires thrusters autonomously to ensure that the spacecraft is pointed towards the Sun (plus/minus 2 degrees on each axis). The spacecraft roll is not controlled by the hardware, but it can be controlled by ground intervention.

      In other words, the spacecraft goes into a mode where the only thing it does it point at the Sun, to keep the power flowing, and it does so by using fuel, not the reaction control wheels. As fuel is a limited resource, that would be bad if it continued too long.

    4. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's a reaction wheel then? Some kind of gyro system?

      What kind of internet access do you have that lets you get to Slashdot, but not Wikipedia?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

      A gyro to rotate you, not sense your rotation - here are the Kepler reaction wheels. (It has already had 2 reaction wheel failures.)

      Note: Inertial sensing gyros are generally gimbaled, so they can stay rotating in the same direction. Reaction wheels are generally fix mounted, and are spun up and down as needed to get the desired attitude (or rate of rotation). If the spacecraft is being torqued by something (say, a small gas leak), the wheels will spin faster and faster to soak up the excess angular momentum until they reach their design limit, and have to be despun. This is called a momentum dump, and requires some other system (i.e., thrusters) to finally get rid of the excess angular momentum.

    6. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by Yoda222 · · Score: 2

      Basically, it's a wheel that you can speed up or down with a motor. The axis of the wheel is fixed to the spacecraft body. When you accelerate the wheel rotation, its angular momentum increase. But as the total angular momentum of the spacecraft does not change, the rest must rotate in the other direction, by reaction. Typically you include several of them in one spacecraft because each of them only control one axis.

    7. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Particularly in this case, since two reaction wheels have previously failed.

    8. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Inertial sensing gyros, in the year 2016, *are not gimballed*. Almost every available unit for the last 30 years has been a strapdown system. where the gyros remain fixed to the body (and are controlled by a rebalance system to keep it that way), output a delta-angle, which is then integrated to determine the attitude.

    9. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Wikipedia:

      A reaction wheel (RW) is a type of flywheel used primarily by spacecraft for attitude control without using fuel for rockets or other reaction devices. They are particularly useful when the spacecraft must be rotated by very small amounts, such as keeping a telescope pointed at a star. They may also reduce the mass fraction needed for fuel. This is accomplished by equipping the spacecraft with an electric motor attached to a flywheel which, when its rotation speed is changed, causes the spacecraft to begin to counter-rotate proportionately through conservation of angular momentum. Reaction wheels can only rotate a spacecraft around its center of mass (see torque); they are not capable of moving the spacecraft from one place to another (see translational force). Reaction wheels work around a nominal zero rotation speed. However, external torques on the spacecraft may require a gradual buildup of reaction wheel rotation speed to maintain the spacecraft in a fixed orientation.

    10. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Almost every available unit for the last 30 years has been a strapdown system.

      So, there are a couple of spacecraft, if not more, still using gimballed gyros for inertial sensing?

      Also ... integration has at least one potential cause of problems. (I saw this in inertial guidance for an ROV recently, which they use to count turns on the daughtercraft umbilical. Quite an important parameter.) If the original software design didn't envisage completing 1000 revolutions (pick a number) and that code is re-used 10 years later in a spacecraft which just turns and turns and turns ... potential overflow bugs and all sorts of bad stuff.

      That sort of thing is one of the reasons that hardware and software for spaceflight is expensive. Often it's quicker to build for yourself from scratch than to get the access to the internals of COTS equipment to look for assumptions like this.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    11. Re:Why more fuel than usual? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Inertial sensing gyros, in the year 2016, *are not gimballed*.

      From the Wiki page, Kepler was initially planned to launch in 2006, so design and hardware freeze would have been 2003 if not earlier. It takes a long time to get hardware into space. IIRC, the last (as in final) servicing mission to the Hubble installed a 486-class processor to upgrade the 386-class processor that had been working for the previous 20-odd years.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. "is currently 75M miles away right now"? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Informative

    You know, if you say "is", you really don't have to say "currently" or "right now", much less both.

    1. Re:"is currently 75M miles away right now"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong: "is" by itself can often imply a continuing situation. If the distance varies (e.g. not orbiting the earth), adding the extra verbiage implies that the distance varies. The problem with the way they wrote it is that they didn't explain why the distance would be variable.

    2. Re:"is currently 75M miles away right now"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it would have been fair enough to use "currently" or "right now" in that sentence, but not both.

    3. Re:"is currently 75M miles away right now"? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Currently, I'm not saying it's aliens...

      but it is aliens.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:"is currently 75M miles away right now"? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      "Depends on what your definition of 'is' is": Bill Clinton

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    5. Re:"is currently 75M miles away right now"? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      "is currently" is the correct phrase. Kepler is in an Earth-trailing orbit with a 371 day period. So it is constantly moving further from the Earth (at least until it reaches opposition, after which it'll start to get closer). The orbit reduces interference from the Earth (RF, thermal, and gravitational) while requiring less energy than reaching the L2, L4, or L5 Lagrange points.

    6. Re:"is currently 75M miles away right now"? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Even if "currently" is not technically needed, it helps because this thing is moving away from Earth, if slowly, falling behind by 6 days or so per year.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:"is currently 75M miles away right now"? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Well, relatively speaking... Yes. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:"is currently 75M miles away right now"? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The Kepler spacecraft is on a Sun orbit that falls behind the Earth a certain amount each year, so it is a variable number, not a set number.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. Math Fail by Virtucon · · Score: -1

    13 minutes? More like 7 unless there's a lot of processing delay. Batch Jobs perhaps? Sorting cards?

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ~7 minutes for a signal to get there, and another ~7 minutes for the reply to come back. Sounds like 13 minutes to me, given a bit of rounding.

    2. Re: Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To & from is 150 million miles, which works out to 13 minutes. How did they 'fail'?

    3. Re:Math Fail by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      "to and from the spacecraft" means *two* times 75 millions miles, the signal must come back to know if your action worked, the 13 minutes mark seems correct.

    4. Re:Math Fail by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      true, but still one restart should do it. Not a whole series of back and forth single responses. I'd think the craft would be sending a stream of status information anyway assisting in pinpointing the issue.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "up to 13 minutes".

    6. Re:Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      13 minutes? More like 7 unless there's a lot of processing delay. Batch Jobs perhaps? Sorting cards?

      People like you who are so eager to show how clever you think you are, that you'll find fault where there is none instead of trying to understand how something might be possible, are what's wrong with this site. You've made it a hostile environment for anyone who actually wants to communicate, especially something non-trivial. Anyone doing so will spend more time explaining how you've twisted and misunderstood what they wrote than actually conversing.

      That you've become so common is part of the reason why so few stories have more than 30-40 comments these days. The bottom line is, insecurity is something you deal with inside yourself. You won't get rid of it for more than a second or two by trying to "prove" again and again that you're so clever you found the "obvious flaw" that "everyone missed".

    7. Re:Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've made it a hostile environment for anyone who actually wants to communicate, especially something non-trivial. Anyone doing so will spend more time explaining how you've twisted and misunderstood what they wrote than actually conversing.

      ... which will spiral downward into endless bickering back and forth, because such people are not known for their ability to say "oh, yeah I did misunderstand, thanks for clearing that up". Entire threads are based on this all the time.

    8. Re:Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never has a sig been more appropriate. What a huge failure you are!

    9. Re:Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you restart, are you sure it'll actually boot up properly again? I can only speculate, but I expect their procedure is to determine the cause of the problem before they attempt to correct it.

    10. Re: Math Fail by Amouth · · Score: 0

      Your comment just made me notice,

      Why the hell don't sigs show up on the mobile site?????

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    11. Re:Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary clearly states:

      "so any communications signal traveling at the speed of light will take up to 13 minutes to travel to and from the spacecraft."

      You done goofed. You're not clever. You're not funny.

    12. Re:Math Fail by JustOK · · Score: 1

      or NASA screwed up converting to metric time

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    13. Re: Math Fail by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why the hell don't sigs show up on the mobile site?????

      Because, sigs is short for signature, and signatures were originally on paper...aka STATIONARY. Therefore, they can't be mobile.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    14. Re: Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic is infallible.

    15. Re:Math Fail by dhaen · · Score: 1

      Would you restart a mission critical computer before testing all possible alternatives? I'm glad you don't look after my systems!

    16. Re:Math Fail by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: right after the French Revolution, there really was a decimal time standard, with a 10-hour day, a 100-minute hour, and a 100-second minute.

    17. Re: Math Fail by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      To & from is 150 million miles, which works out to 13 minutes. How did they 'fail'?

      It's actually an English failure, not one of mathematics. The statement is vague, and doesn't make it clear whether they're talking about a round trip, because it talks about "a signal" when in reality if you have a round trip, you have at least two signals.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re: Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure of you are pointing this out, but it will not take up to 13 minutes, but rather at least 13 minutes. But since we can assume they are using light speed communication, it will take 13 minutes.

    19. Re:Math Fail by mbone · · Score: 1

      true, but still one restart should do it. Not a whole series of back and forth single responses. I'd think the craft would be sending a stream of status information anyway assisting in pinpointing the issue.

      No, because you have to figure out what went wrong before you try and issue such commands. The first rule is "do not lose the spacecraft," which can (and has) happened if the wrong commands are uploaded.

      The spacecraft will send back a bunch of status info (bandwidth is limited, so that typically won't be everything), the spacecraft engineering team puzzles over that, and then send commands such as "try doing X, and then send us back the readings from sensors Y and Z." 15 minutes+ later they get the results from that back, and iterate. They probably have a spacecraft emulator here on the ground they try such things on first, which also adds to the time. This all takes time, and it really cannot be rushed much (besides having full DSN time to do these iterations, which a declared emergency will get you).

    20. Re: Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swatch time!

    21. Re:Math Fail by mbone · · Score: 1

      true, but still one restart should do it. Not a whole series of back and forth single responses. I'd think the craft would be sending a stream of status information anyway assisting in pinpointing the issue.

      I doubt the computer system is the problem here, or that it crashed. The problem is more likely an unexpected response to a command for the spacecraft to do something.

      To use a metaphor, this is not like a robot with a CPU crash, this is like a robot reporting that it stopped moving because can't tell what its leg is doing.

    22. Re:Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      75,000,000 miles / 186,282 miles per sec / 60 sec per min = 6.53 minutes each way. That's 13 minutes round trip, which is what they said.

    23. Re: Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the spacecraft is in emergency mode it means something serious went wrong. It can't even assume its radio receiver or transmitter is working right. It tries to put itself into a safe power positive orientation and then waits for instructions. It may not know if it is properly pointing its antenna toward Earth, so it switches to a low speed, low gain antenna so it doesn't need to point accurately. Several back and forth comm exchanges happen to check status and put the spacecraft back into a good configuration. They don't just reboot it.

    24. Re: Math Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. It might just work.

    25. Re:Math Fail by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Still not as bad as StackExchange dot assholes.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re: Math Fail by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Probably second best joke ever, best one still goes to phantomfive, I believe.
      To bad no one will get it :-/

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re: Math Fail by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

      I thought something seemed off as it takes 8 minutes for sunlight to reach us and the Sun is 93 Million Miles away.

      --
      Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    28. Re: Math Fail by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      and signatures were originally on paper...aka STATIONARY. Therefore, they can't be mobile.

      NASA are working on that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. Kepler has been really impressive by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if they don't get ti fixed, Kepler has had an absolutely amazing run. The initial planned mission lifetime was 3.5 years, and that was in 2009. So we've gotten almost twice as much out of it as it was planned.

    One of my favorite computer games from the 1990s was Masters of Orion II, 4X space exploration/conquering game. One thing in that game and many similar games was the idea that you couldn't find out what planets were in a star system until you had actually sent a probe there. It is absolutely amazing that shortly after those games were made, we had the technology to detect planets in other star systems while remaining in comfort here.

    1. Re:Kepler has been really impressive by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Even if they don't get ti fixed, Kepler has had an absolutely amazing run. The initial planned mission lifetime was 3.5 years, and that was in 2009. So we've gotten almost twice as much out of it as it was planned.

      That's a lie (or ignorance). It has been a mission plagued with problems that has not met expectations. I don't know if it has fulfilled it's planned mission, but if so, it was only just recently:

      The initial planned lifetime was 3.5 years, but greater-than-expected noise in the data, from both the stars and the spacecraft, meant additional time was needed to fulfill all mission goals. Initially, in 2012, the mission was expected to be extended until 2016
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Kepler has been really impressive by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It is a matter of interpretation. He is neither a liar nor ignorant. Having detected 1000 and a potential 4000 more exceeds NASA's site's stated goal of hundreds of planets.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Kepler has been really impressive by Maritz · · Score: 1

      That's a lie (or ignorance). It has been a mission plagued with problems that has not met expectations.

      Go straight in with 'lie' eh? Must be an interesting world you live in. Anyway - Kepler has confirmed over 1000 exoplanets and has four and a half thousand candidates. That's a successful mission. We didn't know that planets (particularly the small, non-hot-jupiter ones) were this prevalent until Kepler.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    4. Re:Kepler has been really impressive by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Kepler has exceeded it's mission justification by a factor of "several". It may not have exceeded your expectations - if your expectations for the mission included getting more blow jobs from green-haired aliens than William Shatner - but it has certainly far exceeded it's planned mission, to the point that NASA have been bitching (quietly) about the cost of keeping all these missions that are just running and running and running (and running and running ... ), running. "cost" not just being in dollars and cents, but more restricted resources like DSN communications time.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    5. Re:Kepler has been really impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Masters of Orion had an absolutely amazing run too. I can't imagine those developers planned we'd still be playing in 2016. :)

  7. Nothing of value would be lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, who gives a shit about exoplanets? We'll never be able to visit them. It's mostly science fiction to satisfy you dorks.

    1. Re: Nothing of value would be lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because we can't visit them today (or ever) doesn't mean it has no value. You never know what scientific research will reveal.

    2. Re:Nothing of value would be lost by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      We can't visit them but we could send messages to promising ones.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    3. Re:Nothing of value would be lost by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      who gives a shit about the Earth's moon and planets, we'll never be able to visit them.....

      -- some moron like you who doesn't know what is technically possible

    4. Re: Nothing of value would be lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Ha ha Space Nutter raging. I masturbate to Kepler failing!

    5. Re: Nothing of value would be lost by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      if you want to call those that seek scientific information about the universe nutters go ahead; if you want to jerk off at the end of life of successful monumental project go ahead, you're just being a jerk-off troll.

      kepler already did its job and from backlog of data which is still being processed we'll know percentages of what types of stars have what kinds of planets, distributions of rocky and gaseous planets, percent planets in habitable zone and also gas giants in habitable zone.

    6. Re: Nothing of value would be lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? You're not going there. Ever. Nobody is going anywhere. Your Space Age dreams are dead. There's nothing out there. Now watch me beat off to the sound of your childish dreams being crushed, Space Nutter.

    7. Re: Nothing of value would be lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space Nutter AC retard is a sad little prick who troll posts anything to do with space. Any kind of human endeavour in space makes him really angry. Use this to your advantage. Show him weather satellite pictures. Show him all the money that is being spent on things like JWST, JUICE, EXOMars etc.

      You can basically ignore him as he's a stupid cunt, in other words.

    8. Re:Nothing of value would be lost by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      who gives a shit about the Earth's moon and planets, we'll never be able to visit them.....

      -- some moron like you who doesn't know what is technically possible

      More importantly, it's the people who do give a shit, and who don't really care about what is "technically impossible," because that only encourages the invention of new technologies. Remember - even into the 1940s, people were decrying Goddard as an idiot for thinking you could reach orbit with a liquid-fuelled rocket.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    9. Re: Nothing of value would be lost by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So what? You're not going there. Ever. Nobody is going anywhere.

      Just because you haven't been able to leave your mom's basement, doesn't mean others are so restricted. The only thing slowing space exploration currently is political will, not technological progress. If the human race worked together to really make an effort at space, we could have orbiting colonies in around 20 years, it isn't that hard.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    10. Re: Nothing of value would be lost by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      You're right, no one from Earth will ever walk on another world such as the moon. Puny minded little turd, aren't you?

  8. Reaction wheel failure? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    Kepler already had 2 of its 4 reaction wheels fail. If a third is gone, it'd mean they have to use the thrusters more, reducing mission lifetime.

    1. Re:Reaction wheel failure? by mbone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Given that we know that Kepler has a bad batch of reaction wheels, that two of the four have already failed, and that this emergency mode happened while the spacecraft was being repointed to the Galactic Center for a microlensing campaign, which inevitably would mean a lot of reaction wheel use, I very much fear that this means that another reaction wheel has failed and the K2 mission is over.

  9. one more failure of "Rich Kids Playing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ... with all due respect, put some real "people" in space, not some junk science staffed by privileged children of the affluent who take no personal risks, yet make millions

    NASA = scam

  10. god awful writing, that's for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not quite sure... was it an emergency?

  11. Estimated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they have to estimate the position? I mean to some extent it will be estimated, but that's probably 1 part in a few million potential difference which is not probably worth putting the word "estimated" in there.

    Oh, are they approximating it and just used the not-best word I wonder?

    1. Re: Estimated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because some pedantic irritating fuck like Virtucon can't wait to take a piss on minor details in a vain effort to show the world how smart he is

    2. Re: Estimated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is actually hard to determine the exact position of a spacecraft in solar orbit. The only measurement you know for sure is the distance from Earth which you can determine by how long the radio signals take to go to/from the spacecraft. The other two coordinates have to be approximated based on your knowledge of what thruster burns have happened, and how the Sunlight interacts with the spacecraft iin different orientations.

  12. Some aliens ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... stuck tape over the lens.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Some aliens ... by WallyL · · Score: 1

      That makes it sound like a Borg put tape on it to watch it struggle like a cat with tape on its paws.

  13. Hey, mod this comment down, too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is fucking Slashdot, not a youtube comments section. We should not be coddling people who can't figure out how to use the internets.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Hey, mod this comment down, too by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Who is "we"? Why import Stack Exchange jackassery? Does the mod system have utility words for self-appointed board monitors to bitch at innocent questions?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Hey, mod this comment down, too by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Who is "we"? Why import Stack Exchange jackassery?

      If you are too lazy to check Wikipedia to see if your exact terms match the title of an article, then fuck you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Hey, mod this comment down, too by kyjellyfish · · Score: 1

      Whoa, time to chill... Yell upstairs to mom and ask her to send down more Hot Pockets and Mellow-Yellow. Chow down and before you know it, you'll be right as rain! Peace & Love!

  14. detected the wrong planet by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    Must have detected a planet that didn't want to be detected.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    1. Re:detected the wrong planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      flat earth

  15. Commas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are they used for?

  16. 75 million miles isn't very far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "safe mode" is probably what they are in.
    and 75 million miles isn't very far. Mars is farther, and NASA has lots of spacecraft farther than 75 million miles.
    At that kind of distance, DSN has a very good link margin, even if the spacecraft is on omnidirectional low gain antennas: and they're probably running at about 8 bit/second fallback rate.

    In fact, at this very minute, they're receiving from Kepler at Madrid at 500 bps. -149dBm is pretty low (kTB for 300K is -174 dBm/Hz, and 500 Hz puts it at -147)

    https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html

  17. UPDATE -- EM over... by martinfb · · Score: 3, Informative

    As of Sunday morning, the Emergency Mode was resolved; and the spacecraft was returned to normal mode. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/m...

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    1. Re:UPDATE -- EM over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But are strange life forms now on board? (Lifeforce)

  18. Windows 10 Upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It probably got hit by the Windows 10 Upgrade.

  19. Better now by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    Kepler is now out of Emergency Mode and responding to commands.

    The Event happened before the manuver was started and probably did not involve the reaction wheels.
    The actual cause is not known yet.