Slashdot Mirror


NASA Reconnects With 'Lost' STEREO-B Satellite (businessinsider.com)

NASA lost contact with its STEREO-B spacecraft twenty-two months ago during a routine 72-hour test. On Sunday, the spacecraft reconnected with NASA roughly 189 million miles away from Earth. While that would seem like a cause for celebration, "the very hard and scary work is just the beginning, says Stereo project scientist Joe Gurman, as the agency has to turn on the computer to learn more about the current state of the spacecraft -- a process that may make the craft lose contact with them again. Slashdot user bongey writes: NASA may have only two minutes or less to fix a STEREO-B satellite before the computer causes it to lose contact again. NASA lost contact with their STEREO-B satellite nearly twenty-two months ago when performing a routine test. NASA scientists are afraid to turn on the computer at this point because it may cause them to lose contact again. A more detailed technical summary can be found here. "We have something like two minutes between when STEREO-B receives the command to boot up one of its computers and when it starts doing what we don't want it to do," Gurman said. Business Insider writes, "Making matters worse, it takes about 20 seconds to send commands to the spacecraft -- a data rate that makes a dial-up modem seem lightning fast."

107 comments

  1. Safe mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't they boot it up in safe mode? I'm serious.

    1. Re: Safe mode? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Funny

      They couldn't find the goddam recovery CD.

    2. Re: Safe mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuckety McFuckface is that you?

    3. Re: Safe mode? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      I blame systemd.

    4. Re: Safe mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're fucking right it's me! Fuck yeah!

    5. Re: Safe mode? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      But how do you really feel?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    6. Re: Safe mode? by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Funny

      They couldn't find the goddam recovery CD.

      Isn't the recovery disc on voyager?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    7. Re: Safe mode? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      This is a definite improvement on the cows moo shit and the appy apps shit. Well done you.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    8. Re: Safe mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Linux again! Fuck all of you! I can't take this fucking shit! Fuck everything! Fuck it all! Fuck me! Fuck you! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck...

      Christ, man, take your meds! Smoke a bowl! Smoke two, put on some Spongebob, and ease the chill! I know it's been 700+ days since you got laid, but first you gotta turn that frown around!

    9. Re: Safe mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, its on Stereo A.

    10. Re: Safe mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be funny, but you don't need the recovery CD to boot into safe mode.

      How about "They can, but they need to press F8 on the keyboard attached to Stereo B."

    11. Re: Safe mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's closer to 3000+ days, but who's counting?

  2. Old, 70s' tech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    22.2 is where it's at!

  3. Data rate or transmission delay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It might get 50MB/s you just ahve to deal with a 20 second delay. I could live with that over a modem for downloading media. Just not a FPS.

    1. Re:Data rate or transmission delay? by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that the throughput is slow enough that sending a command to the spacecraft takes 20 seconds of tx time - e.g. it might take 10 bytes to send a command and are getting a data rate of 4 bits per second.

      Latency isn't as much of an issue in this case, as once they send the wake up command, they can have the other commands in flight on their way to the satellite, but it's going to stop listening and do something they don't want it to do ~2 minutes after it gets the wakeup command - likely due to a fault with a sleep timer or similar.

    2. Re:Data rate or transmission delay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transmission delay would be roughly 16 minutes (corresponding to the roughly 2AU that separates us). But as the other poster said, things would be coreographed in advance anyway, so delay is only there to grate on engineer's nerves :-)

    3. Re:Data rate or transmission delay? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      More likely, it takes about 20 seconds to boot up, at which point it runs the same routine that caused the problem in the first place.

    4. Re:Data rate or transmission delay? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      First bandwidth. It's probably decreased with distance, signal strength, etc. Even Barker code fails at some point.
      Then distance, my friend. Unavoidable latency. Not going to be able to respond before the darned thing has gone awry.

      And there was probably a failsafe startup, but *it* failed...

      I feel sorry for them, but it's a teaching moment also.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    5. Re:Data rate or transmission delay? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      You are correct. 189 million miles (from TFA) is 17 light minutes. The STEREO satellites are positioned opposite Earth from the Sun http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa....

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    6. Re:Data rate or transmission delay? by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

      No, the article specifically says that after it boots they have approximately 2 minutes before it goes into a fault condition

    7. Re:Data rate or transmission delay? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I am impressed we can communicate with those sats so close in angle to the Sun. I would think the Sun would drown out the carrier frequencies and make locking onto the spacecraft's signals damn hard.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. F8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just boot it up in Safe mode

    Related:
    Start Wandows Ngrmadly

  5. Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After a silence of 22 months, contact was regained at 10:27 UTC on August 21, 2016, when the NASA Deep Space Network established a lock on STEREO-B.[4] The following day, additional telemetry received confirmed the spacecraft is in an uncontrolled spin of about 3 deg/sec, which cannot be corrected at current power levels. Stabilization may not be achieved for another year due to insufficient power reserves.

    STEREO

  6. What a read. by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the kind of stuff that is truly exciting to an engineer interested in space. A satellite in an uncontrolled spin due to a bad inertial unit, without enough power in its batteries to transmit at full power, a network of deep space communications satellites colliding signals to create constructive interference to boost communications, a plan to point several radio telescopes towards it in the hope to hear something, sweeping the sky with different frequencies and if all else fails point the Hubble at it.

    Combined with the short time window to make things work the only thing missing here is Matt Damon and you got yourself a summer blockbuster.

    1. Re:What a read. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tractor beam? Let's just get back to spending our funds on calling in wizards to do magic incantations.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:What a read. by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      why are you slacking?, go on and create one

    3. Re:What a read. by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 2

      Don't give Trump these ideas.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    4. Re:What a read. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Any sufficiently advanced technology... you get the idea.

      Given how we've already demonstrated the ability to manipulate an object in a controlled manner with a carefully formed sonic wave, combined with the fact that light is actually a particle that exerts force on things, is it truly inconceivable that we will one day we can figure out how to manipulate something from a distance?

    5. Re: What a read. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're excited by this, it means you're a loser and need to get out more.

      Says someone who spends his spare time anonymously insulting people on the internet?

    6. Re:What a read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with Denise Richards telling a reluctant Jodie Foster that the radio telescopes have to point that way to make the whole plan work, we're talkin mega blockbuster that'll make you cream even Joel Silver's pants!

    7. Re:What a read. by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      A satellite in an uncontrolled spin due to a bad inertial unit, without enough power in its batteries to transmit at full power, a network of deep space communications satellites colliding signals to create constructive interference to boost communications, a plan to point several radio telescopes towards it in the hope to hear something, sweeping the sky with different frequencies and if all else fails point the Hubble at it.

      Still not as difficult of a process as preventing the Windows 10 upgrade from automatically happening.

    8. Re:What a read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's what happened to the satellite in the first place. -PCP

    9. Re: What a read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a car chase! With motorboats! On the 5th avenue! ON LAVA!!!

    10. Re:What a read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are going to have the best tractor beams! With the best tractors, and amazing magnets!

    11. Re: What a read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's my twin brother doing the insulting. It was cruel of our parents to give us the same first names.

    12. Re:What a read. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is inconceivable to anyone who knows basic Physics. Just because X is possible doesn't make Y possible.

    13. Re: What a read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign me up for motorboating with a large breasted woman.

    14. Re:What a read. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall they've been demonstrated in principle. No idea how practical or useful they are yet though.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    15. Re: What a read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We've already demonstrated manipulating things with beams of light, called optical tweezers. But small things, with strong sources of light in a specially shaped beam. And there are fundamental limits to how far the beams can go for a given source size that is rather incomparable with something AUs away and our sources being smaller than Earth.

    16. Re:What a read. by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

      a network of deep space communications satellites colliding signals to create constructive interference to boost communications

      After reading the article, I don't think they were using spaceborne emitters to build the constructive interference around the satellite location, but only ground based stations.
      The amount of timing precision required to trigger long-distance emitters and get this coherence would have been amazing. Doing so on the ground is still great but nowhere as difficult.

    17. Re:What a read. by ventsyv · · Score: 1

      And made right here in 'Merica! By John Deere!

    18. Re:What a read. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Yes, it is inconceivable to anyone who knows basic Physics. Just because X is possible doesn't make Y possible.

      Said by every physicist ever. Don't you know physics? Light is a particle not a wave! Gravity waves exist, wait no they are impossible, woopse turns out someone discovered them and I was right in the first place (though Einstein didn't live to change his mind a second time).

      I know basic physics, that's why I don't discount anything as being physically impossible.

    19. Re:What a read. by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2
      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    20. Re:What a read. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're right. Did a bit more reading beyond the initial scan of the article. I think the project title threw me :-) But their JPL site has some awesome pictures of ground based radio antennas.

    21. Re:What a read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need... really big... energy source! Like... a LOT of energy!

    22. Re:What a read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is inconceivable to anyone who knows basic Physics. Just because X is possible doesn't make Y possible.

      Said by every physicist ever. Don't you know physics? Light is a particle not a wave! Gravity waves exist, wait no they are impossible, woopse turns out someone discovered them and I was right in the first place (though Einstein didn't live to change his mind a second time).

      I know basic physics, that's why I don't discount anything as being physically impossible.

      So in your mind, 1kg and 2kg of mass can be the same, gravity and friction could just stop existing near Earth, but only for rockets we want going up and that kind of stuff. Hello perpetual motion and free energy, good bye laws of thermodynamics! Cool. We call that faith and religion around here, not science.

      Nice ad lib of how "you" were right in the first place, not that duffer Einstein. Go back to your holodeck Barkly.

    23. Re:What a read. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't Sandra Bullock make more sense for the specific environment? Though I have to say George Clooney was a far more likable character in that movie.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    24. Re:What a read. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sandra bullock saved herself with little to no help from NASA. It takes a Matt Damon to kick off a ground based attempt at rescue, and frankly we're much more like to spend money on him

      Sandra Bullock would get killed by the next presidential funding cuts. Matt Damon is priceless.

    25. Re:What a read. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That article was awesome. The Interstellar description needs some kind of damages line though...for all the damage he caused to the ship by being an idiot. :)

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  7. Man up, NASA. by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    NASA lost contact with their STEREO-B satellite nearly twenty-two months ago when performing a routine test. NASA scientists are afraid to turn on the computer at this point because it may cause them to lose contact again.

    What's the point of being able to talk to it if they can't turn it on and actually do stuff with it?
    If they thought they lost it 22 months ago, they have nothing further to lose if it goes away again now.

    1. Re:Man up, NASA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, "hope".

      captcha: anxiety

    2. Re:Man up, NASA. by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 2

      So that $50 you found down the back of the couch, you're going to give to me right? Since you already lost it anyway, you have nothing to lose...

    3. Re:Man up, NASA. by jittles · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's the point of being able to talk to it if they can't turn it on and actually do stuff with it?

      Hmmm. Are you talking about the satellite at this point, or the inability for Slashdotters to seal the deal with women?

    4. Re:Man up, NASA. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      You really don't have to turn them on. Common mistake. Satellites work as designed.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    5. Re:Man up, NASA. by bigpat · · Score: 4, Informative

      NASA lost contact with their STEREO-B satellite nearly twenty-two months ago when performing a routine test. NASA scientists are afraid to turn on the computer at this point because it may cause them to lose contact again.

      What's the point of being able to talk to it if they can't turn it on and actually do stuff with it?
      If they thought they lost it 22 months ago, they have nothing further to lose if it goes away again now.

      Reading the article helps determine what the point is...

      Seems the point is that they want to try to see if there is something they can do to point the satellite at the Sun in the 1 to 2 minutes they think they might have before the startup of the computer drains the battery and they have to wait another 6 months until the battery randomly charges up as it gets sunlight on its solar panels at the wrong angles. The sensor that keeps the satellite pointed at the sun failed, but maybe they can keep it pointed at the sun by sending commands from Earth and then they can better assess the health of the systems with more time.

      Based on the article its seems they might have just enough time to give it some commands to point toward the sun and then hopefully the battery starts charging up again so they have more time to work with before it powers down.

    6. Re:Man up, NASA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA lost contact with their STEREO-B satellite nearly twenty-two months ago when performing a routine test. NASA scientists are afraid to turn on the computer at this point because it may cause them to lose contact again.

      What's the point of being able to talk to it if they can't turn it on and actually do stuff with it?
      If they thought they lost it 22 months ago, they have nothing further to lose if it goes away again now.

      I would imagine the plan is to take some time and figure out the best way to attempt to regain the use of it, since they might only get once chance to send it commands to circumvent the malfunction. You're right that failure in this case is no worse than the situation they were in before re-establishing contact, but just making a half-assed attempt at fixing it immediately would be a waste of all the resources that went into these attempts to re-establish contact.

    7. Re:Man up, NASA. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What's the point of being able to talk to it if they can't turn it on and actually do stuff with it?

      What's the point of being able to boot your computer to Safemode? Think of this as the scenario they are in at the moment. Everytime they boot windows once the bootup process finishes some process starts and goes horribly wrong. They are currently in safe mode so they can do a bit of digging, and they know the computer is still working. They key now is to understand how to boot it up in a way that they regain control.

      If they thought they lost it 22 months ago, they have nothing further to lose if it goes away again now.

      That's not how scientific instruments work. They lose repeatedly for every moment that something is unavailable. If they turn it on now they may make matters much worse, hence it's important to understand the issue before attempting to power on something.

      Think of it like your car that suddenly made a horrible grinding noise so you pulled over on the side of the road. You can't figure out what's wrong but you rely on that car on a daily basis. Do you a) call a mechanic / tow truck, or b) consider that you have nothing to lose because it's already making the grinding noise and you've already pulled over and just drive home even though whatever is making that noise has the potential to critically damage your car and leave you without it for good?

    8. Re:Man up, NASA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They are currently in safe mode

      Bad analogy, since they've said they haven't booted it yet. So, they're in the BIOS settings screen.

    9. Re:Man up, NASA. by bigpat · · Score: 2

      To be fair the article summary above makes it sound like a computer glitch, so if you just went with the slashdot summary and quote I can understand the confusion. From the article it indicated that there was a sensor malfunction (not necessarily a computer malfunction) which means it couldn't autonomously point itself at the sun anymore. Leading to the solar panels not getting enough direct sunlight and thus draining the battery. The computer startup just means it will then consume power more quickly than the solar panels can produce it at the wrong angle to the sun and the battery will drain in a couple minutes again and the computer will automatically shutdown.

      Really all we are talking about is whether the computer can boot up quickly enough and whether they can send something like:

      1010 Fire thruster X for 23 milliseconds
      1020 wait 500 milliseconds
      1030 Fire thruster y for 22 milliseconds

      (My BASIC is a little rusty though ;)

      Assuming they know a precise orientation of the craft when they send the commands they should be able to at least point the craft more towards the sun. Maybe not 100% optimally, but enough to get net power to the computer and maybe begin to charge up the battery. Of course without more information from the computer they probably don't know much about the state of the systems. It could just not work if there are more malfunctions, so there is substantial unknown risk mitigated by the fact that they have already lost the use of the probe so they have everything to gain from the success of a best attempt.

      This is all about observation, timing, communication, making some educated guesses, keeping the execution simple to keep it within the estimated window of opportunity and a lot of triple checked math to come up with the correct numbers to send based on all the available information.

    10. Re:Man up, NASA. by martinfb · · Score: 1

      What is the point of making negative comments like this?!

      PLEASE at least TRY to understand something before you offer negative comments.
      Any possibility of recovering a valuable satellite is totally valid with me; and NASA too.

      Yet, to satisfy your ire, you can be sure there will no attempt to salvage you when you stop communicating. BTW: When can we expect that?

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    11. Re:Man up, NASA. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      So that $50 you found down the back of the couch, you're going to give to me right? Since you already lost it anyway, you have nothing to lose...

      False comparison.
      This is like NASA found the $50 but is scared that if they leave the house to go shopping the money might fall out of their pocket and be gone again.
      If they don't leave the house they can't spend it -- so it's worthless, except to say "look, I have a $50 bill here at the house".
      If they leave the house, they might get $50 in goods -- or they might lose the money like they think. But they at least have a chance to use the money.

    12. Re:Man up, NASA. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      so if you just went with the slashdot summary and quote

      Haven't people learned to not fucking well do that by now? I mean the site has been going for what - nearly 20 years. There are account holders out there who're legally able to buy booze - drugs in some countries - and who were born after the site was set up. And still there are people fucking stupid enough to only read half TFS and none of TFA.

      People wonder why many western nations have problems getting appropriate technical staff, and then they behave in such a stupid mannner. And don't see the connection?

      As for the recovery procedures - well with a low-6-digit UID, you were probably around when they recovered SOHO from a similar orientation-power problem. Which doesn't make it any easier (space craft are different; locations are different ; latencies are different ; command sets are different), but it is a task that has been done before. And we've seen it (as have the mission managers at NASA).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    13. Re:Man up, NASA. by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Actually one of the first command sequences could be

      SET IMU_A_INPUT_MASK #IGNORE
      SET MAIN_CPU_STATUS #HALT // before the main cpu causes the shutdown timer to
      EXECUTE SYSTEM STATUS DUMP
      SET SYSTEM_MODE #STANDBY

  8. NASA's web "programmer" needs to be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With no javascript the page is black-on-black. Congrats for leading edge tech.

    1. Re:NASA's web "programmer" needs to be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash: NoScript isn't hip. NoScript isn't trendy. You want to be unpopular, now you live with it.

    2. Re:NASA's web "programmer" needs to be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Still, they could have used sensible defaults. Stupid web designers are not trendy either. GP's point is valid.

    3. Re:NASA's web "programmer" needs to be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      File an ADA complaint.

    4. Re:NASA's web "programmer" needs to be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > NoScript isn't hip.

      It ain't NoScript. It's much bloodier than that: disabling Javascript execution (in spite of the browser kicking and screaming).

      Now hate me. I don't care.

  9. Solar studies essential, for Climate and more. by robbak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have to be trolling.

    Knowledge of what the Sun is doing is essential for anything we do in space, including studying the weather and climate, because solar radiation is dangerous to equipment as well as people. And down here on earth - someday there is going to be a solar storm such as happened in 1859, which set telegraph cables sparking across the planet. Today, such a thing would fry our phone and electric systems if we can't predict it with the certainty needed to, literally, shut down and disconnect our electricity and copper communication networks while it passes by.

    And of course, while it is CO and methane that are driving climate change, the heat it traps comes from the Sun, so good knowledge of what the Sun is doing is needed to understand our measurements of temperature.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    1. Re:Solar studies essential, for Climate and more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowledge of what the Sun is doing is essential for anything we do in space

      Let me help you out with that. I predict increasing lightness towards morning, with a 100% chance of dark later in the day.

      It's also doing other important things like burning and spinning and shit.

    2. Re:Solar studies essential, for Climate and more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happened in 1989 as well. In Scotland, we started receiving Norwegian radio stations in Aberdeen around 2pm. NorthSound Radio informed their listeners that there was interference due to meteorological conditions. Then there were power cuts in the USA

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm

    3. Re:Solar studies essential, for Climate and more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be trolling.

      Here, have some food.

      You must be one of those extremely rare Slashdotters that isn't smarter than average.

      **rolls eyes**

    4. Re:Solar studies essential, for Climate and more. by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      The quality of the trolls has decreased precipitiously. The classic trolls of yesteryear have devolved to puerile memes flung about as a chimp with their feces.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    5. Re:Solar studies essential, for Climate and more. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      There is no burning on the sun, you kind of need Oxygen for that.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  10. Commands turning satellite computer on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2

    Dammit!

    1. Re:Commands turning satellite computer on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F2 DEL F2 DEL F2 DEL F2 DEL F2 DEL F2 DEL F2 DEL

      FTFY

    2. Re:Commands turning satellite computer on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F2 DEL F2 DEL F2 Google MB manual on different but working computer. FTFTFY

  11. Need to turn it on to find out what's going on by raymorris · · Score: 1

    TFA quoted one of the NASA engineers "If we turn on the computer, which is the only way we can get insight into the current state of the spacecraft ... what got us into this mess in the first place could turn back on again."

    It seems that in order to really know what commands to send, they first need to query some data from the computer. So something like:

    Query the most interesting parameter. 20 seconds to rx the reply. (1:40 remaining)
    Decide what to query at next. 10 seconds to think and decide. (1:30 remaining).
    Decide on a fix and get it sent off, 1 minute. (30 seconds remaining).
    Commands take 20 seconds to reach the spacecraft (10 seconds remaining).
    Craft executes the instructions, changing its orientation or whatever is required.
    Unpucker.

    1. Re:Need to turn it on to find out what's going on by Ivoch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Considering it's over 300 million kilometers away from earth, I doubt the scenario you and the GPs are describing can happen, considering it takes over 16 minutes for a signal to reach it ;)

      The 20 seconds cited in TFS/TFA are most likely the result of the small bandwidth they can work with due to the computer not being booted up or something - because for example the "BIOS" can only receiver commands at 1kb/s or something.

    2. Re:Need to turn it on to find out what's going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably if the computer has to be turned on (or woke up) then you can command it to shut off (or sleep) again, no? So why not just fire off wake, dump log, and sleep commands one after another, giving the craft enough time they expect each command to take? That way you get your diagnostics but the computer is taken offline before it can halt and catch fire again. Now you have all the time in the world to figure out the right fix and how to do it in under 2 minutes.

      So, NASA, when can I expect my cheque?

    3. Re:Need to turn it on to find out what's going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, no commands to toggle it into engineering modes?
      These new kids never had an HP RPL Calculators when they grew up. Register based noobs!

      command 1 PUSH
      command 2 PUSH
      command n PUSH
      TRANSMIT stack
      WAIT 120
      LISTEN MESSAGE
      PUSH MESSAGE
      EXECUTE

    4. Re:Need to turn it on to find out what's going on by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I suspect they know that the command(s) they want to send to avoid the problem take longer to receive (due to bandwidth limitations) than it will take for the problem to recur.

      Darn.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    5. Re:Need to turn it on to find out what's going on by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Oh, how I miss RPN. balancing your checkbook was simplicity. Oh, wait...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Need to turn it on to find out what's going on by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So, NASA, when can I expect my cheque?

      Their cheque book is completely empty, will you take a check instead?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  12. NASA's STALKING web "programmer" needs to be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    View the page source. It seems that stalking analytics code from iPerceptions and Google is the reason their forcing Javascript use.

    https://www.google.com/analyti...

  13. Re:NASA's STALKING web "programmer" needs to be fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > It seems that stalking analytics [...] is the reason their forcing Javascript use.

    Yeah. I imagined that much. Sometimes I got the time to read the page source, even to find out how to get to the "content". Other times I just think "too bad".

    But this reinforces me in what I'm doing: by default, no Javascript (no: not NoScript, no AdBlocker*. Simply disable Javascript execution).

    Advertisers: *I* fucking decide what code is run on my machine. And yours isn't most of the time allowed to. Cry me a river.

  14. The fools! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    When are they ever going to implement the AE-36 units??

    1. Re:The fools! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

  15. North Korea is laughing at us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The great and powerful United States can't even communicate with one of their new satellites, HA HA HA, sooo funny. Maybe we ought to cut them some slack when their launches fail.

    1. Re:North Korea is laughing at us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kimmee? Is that you? Call me, you pudgey little panda bear, you.

  16. slashdot is fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mother fucker please. what carrier tech do you think can be used to signal that far? aint no stereo up there. slashdot is fraud

  17. News For Nerds? by jittles · · Score: 2

    Why is this even on Slashdot? It sounds like it belongs on the Missed Connections page of Craigslist or something like that?

    1. Re:News For Nerds? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Turn in your nerd card. Thanks for playing.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:News For Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this even on Slashdot? It sounds like it belongs on the Missed Connections page of Craigslist or something like that?

      You think talking to a space probe is like talking to a women and yet you don't seem to be a nerd? I'm entirely confused.

  18. Yeah, I interpreted it wrong by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You're right. I interpreted that "20 seconds" as meaning 20 seconds delay. That would indicate a distance about 12-13 times as far as the moon. As you mentioned, the craft is actually roughly on the opposite side of earth's orbit, near where the earth will be in 5-6 months. That's a much further distance, about 16 minutes at the speed of light.

    1. Re:Yeah, I interpreted it wrong by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      You're right. I interpreted that "20 seconds" as meaning 20 seconds delay. That would indicate a distance about 12-13 times as far as the moon. As you mentioned, the craft is actually roughly on the opposite side of earth's orbit, near where the earth will be in 5-6 months. That's a much further distance, about 16 minutes at the speed of light.

      So let's just wait 5-6 months, when we'll be right up next to the satellite.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Yeah, I interpreted it wrong by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      But then it would collide with Earth, it will be too late. ;)

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Yeah, I interpreted it wrong by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      WAIT MONTHS 4.9
      MESSAGE PREPARE "Get out of the way!!"
      TRANSMIT

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  19. 427 Kbps max theoretical, but ILO at low power ... by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > most likely the result of the small bandwidth they can work with due to the computer not being booted up or something - because for example the "BIOS" can only receiver commands at 1kb/s or something

    That, or since it's low on power, the data rate is much lower than max. (That's to be expected, over long distances, lower power signals need to be slower.)

    The transceiver is capable of up to 427 Kbps or 720 Kbps, depending on the source you read.
    http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/im...
    http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/sp...

    As you said, it's entirely possible that the main computer can do that data rate, but the IPMI/DRAC/ILO is far slower, or the lack of available power dictates a slow rate.

  20. Confused. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Can't they just switch it to "Stereo A"? I mean even my A/V receiver at home has that switch.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  21. Time IS ticking, but space is fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space is made in a Hollywood basement.

  22. I don't know anything about there systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know anything about there systems, but I am pretty sure I know what will happen when you turn on the "spacecraft’s command loss timer". And I'm guessing that the timer is set to 22 months. I'm just trying to work out how many parsecs that is.

  23. Re:427 Kbps max theoretical, but ILO at low power by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I wonder what it would be like running a CD mount on that IPMI...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?