Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Planet-Hunting Kepler Space Telescope Is Running Out of Fuel (mashable.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the end-of-the-road dept.

Charlie Sobeck, the system engineer for the Kepler space telescope mission, said in a NASA statement that Kepler is running low on gas. According to Sobekc, it only has "several months" before it reaches the end of the its life. Mashable reports: NASA's Kepler spacecraft has been peering deep into the Milky Way galaxy for nearly a decade. It has spotted over 2,500 confirmed planets orbiting distant stars, and over 2,500 more possible worlds are waiting to be confirmed. Thirty of these confirmed planets live inside their host stars' habitable zones, places where liquid water could exist like it does on Earth. NASA placed the Kepler telescope 94 million miles away from Earth, in an orbit around the sun. This way, Earth's gravity and reflected light don't interfere with Kepler's precise measurements of distant planets. Out there, in the void, it's extremely unlikely that Kepler will become a threatening piece of space junk that could pose collision hazards to other satellites. Although Kepler will soon be spent and left to its long, lonely orbit in space, the spacecraft will soon be replaced by another exoplanet-hunting space telescope, NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). TESS is set to launch into space on April 16.

84 comments

  1. Send up COAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Clean, beautiful COAL!

    1. Re:Send up COAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Donald TRUMP is a RUSSIAN
      Donald trum * s a russian
      Donald tru* x * a Russian
      Donald tr* KGB *a RUSSIAN
      Dona **** USSR! **** SIAN
      Donald * KGB spy * ussian
      Donald* xx ** KGB * ssian
      Donal* ** mp is ** ssian
      Don ** TRUMP IS a ** sian
      Donald Trump Is a RUSSIAN

    2. Re:Send up COAL by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      Worse, he's SCOTTISH!

    3. Re:Send up COAL by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

      Obama was Irish

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    4. Re:Send up COAL by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      And Dutch

    5. Re:Send up COAL by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      I think you mistake him for his brother Cornelis. Understandable, as Cornelis seemed to have had the same temper as Donald.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  2. Replace it by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Design the next version with the ability to accept fuel while up in space?
    Fund up on some type of robotic refueling mission? Some way of getting rocket propellant transferred in space. With a robot. In space.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      NASA has a page with frequently asked questions about Kepler's fuel status. From that page:

      Why wasn’t Kepler designed to be refueled?
      NASA decided to put Kepler in an orbit around the Sun that is well beyond the influence of the Earth and Moon to simplify operations and ensure an extremely quiet, stable environment for scientific observations. Well beyond our reach, Kepler compensated by flying considerably more fuel than was necessary to meet the mission objectives.

      To summarize, the location of the spacecraft makes a refueling mission impractical and expensive.

    2. Re: Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      With a shitty smelly H1B hindu-chimp. Obama imported billions of those parasites.

    3. Re: Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our problem with everything in space is it is impractical and expensive. Most R&D is like that, until the science being done bears fruit and the knowledge learned makes it worth it. What is the value of learning our place in the universe? Both immeasurable and negligible.

      The frontier is difficult and the cost of entry is high. Add that most space projects are crony slush funds for political purposes, and thereâ(TM)s little incentive to decrease costs. Those funds could be used for dozens of other greater purposes for social good, like healthcare or infrastructure. The gov frankly has a lot more problems now than dabbling in new ways to create more debt.

        So then we need to look at commercialization and capitalism to get us in space. Privatization leads to risks, then to rewards. Raise your hand if you would take a vacation of a lifetime for a week at a resort on the moon? Whatâ(TM)s that worth? $100k today is $25k in a few decades as costs are managed, logistics optimized. The cost isnâ(TM)t the destination or duration, itâ(TM)s the transit. But accidents will happen, people will die, liabilities will be assumed, insurance will be created, risks will be hedged, derivatives will be traded.... letâ(TM)s get gov out of the way and get this ball rolling so it can happen in our lifetimes.

    4. Re:Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like, almost a 100 million miles away you fool.

    5. Re: Replace it by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Or send Jebediah Kerman. He does this all the time when my space missions get stranded somewhere.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    6. Re:Replace it by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately real life doesn't always match with science fiction.
      While we can probably do this, technically economically it is just more expensive to fill the "gas tank" with robots on an aging equipment. Then it is to build an other one and launch it into space.
      Science fiction like making traveling into orbit or the moon or a planet in our solar system seems like a Sunday drive, or at taking an airplane across the ocean. However the amount of energy involved (leaving earths influence) is massive, dangerous and very complex. If you are going to put in such expense you might as well go for the whole upgrade. Having robots fill it up in space, is like you needing to travel from the United States to Europe just to get some cheese and go back to the US just so you can make your dinner that night taste just right (And to have your kids pick it off as it looks funny). If you are going to do such a trip, you will doing more then just getting cheese, you will make an event out of it, go on vacation/holiday while you may come back with cheese, you will have much more out of it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re: Replace it by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Being that most of our debt is paying for the military to find new ways of killing people, in hopes that other countries will see this and not attack us or our interests so we don't have to use them, and other countries are driving themselves into poverty trying to do the same thing, because they are afraid of Us.

      If we were to put more thought and a little less fear into our economy we could easily have a surplus that we could put toward science, welfare, space exploration, education...

      But the problem is everyone on this planet is afraid of everyone else. So we are stocking up arms in case the other scary guy does something. I am not meaning to belittle the dangers of foreign entities. As it can usually take any action that strikes a nerve to start up a full war, and every country wants to be the winner not the looser.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Replace it by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Understood, but what's not on that page is: "Would it cost more to refuel Kepler than to build a new telescope?"

      It's likely a new one would be an upgrade too, so then there's a cost/benefit to the upgrade to consider, but could (say) the ESA 'take ownership' of Kepler by refuelling it? It would mean the ESA would have a space telescope (and a pretty good one, at that), but "only" for the cost of the refuelling mission.

      This is probably all a moot point because I doubt Kepler has a little door on the side marked with "Unleaded only", but I'm sure you get where I'm going with this.

    9. Re:Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WRONG!

      It is because the reaction wheels broke thus causing it to use a lot more fuel to position itself.

    10. Re:Replace it by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Design the next version with the ability to accept fuel while up in space?

      Fund up on some type of robotic refueling mission?
      Some way of getting rocket propellant transferred in space. With a robot. In space.

      Hey, I've got an idea: It's in orbit around the SUN, FFS!

      How about, um, SOLAR POWER?!?

    11. Re: Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It costs as much to carry fuel up there as it would to just send a new mission.

    12. Re: Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really, the problem is that there is a LOT of money to be made building the war machine.
      Companies that are making this money do not want to lose the income, so they fund multi-national fear and loathing campaigns to ... keep the money coming in.
      Period, end of story
      FYI, Russia is the largest munitions company on the planet and they pro-fear propaganda is obvious

    13. Re:Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey, I've got an idea: It's in orbit around the SUN, FFS!

      How about, um, SOLAR POWER?!?

      It's got lots of solar power ... it uses it to run the instrumentation.

      But the fuel is for the thrusters to maintain its orbit and keep it aimed. At present, there is no technology to turn solar power into thrust in a spacecraft.

      Jesus fuck but there's some clueless fucking people on Slashdot these days.

    14. Re:Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kepler hasn't been operating nominally for quite some time due to too many reaction wheels failing. They designed another operation mode that can handle only having two reaction wheels and have been using that for a while. Refueling a craft that isn't operating nominally isn't a good bang for the buck.

    15. Re: Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is, in fact, a technology for that. They're called solar sails. The technology may not be practical in this case, so your general point stands. The fact is thiugh, the technology does exist.

    16. Re:Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A more important question is why it has traditional fuel systems for its station keeping to begin with, various Ion thrusters have been available for decades and effectively use so little fuel that they will outlive their spacecraft. I believe there are even a few (of course less efficient) ones which use solid fuel and can replace attitude control thrusters. There is a demo flight coming up where the thrusters are placed on small robotic arms so they can be re-positioned for for a variety of maneuvering.

    17. Re:Replace it by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      To summarize, the location of the spacecraft makes a refueling mission impractical and expensive.

      If only there was a large reusable rocket that could that could reach it inexpensively.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    18. Re:Replace it by slew · · Score: 1

      Hey, I've got an idea: It's in orbit around the SUN, FFS!

      How about, um, SOLAR POWER?!?

      It's got lots of solar power ... it uses it to run the instrumentation.

      But the fuel is for the thrusters to maintain its orbit and keep it aimed. At present, there is no technology to turn solar power into thrust in a spacecraft.

      Jesus fuck but there's some clueless fucking people on Slashdot these days.

      Depends on if you believe in the plausibility of EM drive technology or not ;^)
      Maybe some day (although certainly not today)...

    19. Re:Replace it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there is, emitting photons. They have energy and momentum, energy comes from solar panels, conservation of momentum implies that you'll get thrust in the opposite direction of the emission of photons. Trouble is, photons have the worst momentum to energy ratio, so you need a lot of energy for a small thrust.
      But the real problem is that reaction wheels, which can control the orientation of Kepler by simple conservation of angular momentum, and need rather little power from electric motors, have been failing earlier than predicted, and therefore thrusters have been used for this task. Normally thrusters are only used very sparingly.

    20. Re:Replace it by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      There's really no sense in designing a refuelable planet-hunting space telescope, because by the end of the primary mission the technology has moved on to better readings on smaller planets.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    21. Re:Replace it by mmdurrant · · Score: 1

      I thought they used nuclear power for these things? If they don't they should.

      --
      I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
    22. Re:Replace it by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Design the next version with the ability to accept fuel while up in space? Fund up on some type of robotic refueling mission? Some way of getting rocket propellant transferred in space. With a robot. In space.

      Probably a ways yet to come, if it ever does. It runs into the same issues as why you can't change the batteries in some phones or for that matter, can't get a modular phone to switch out the modules for the services you need. Currently, not only does building in the ability to be refueled require expensive space and weight, but there is no standard, so building a refueling satellite and sending it up would cost as much as building a newer, better satellite to replace the one that could be refueled. Then you have the sticky issue of orbital mechanics which in this case prevents even building a new satellite to be sent out to refuel with even more effort being required.

      Eventually, if it ever becomes worth it, I would see satellites and space stations being mainly modular with standardized fixtures because nobody really wants to have to screw, and unsrew things in space, especially where losing a screw could mean destroying somebody else's space station. That's going to require standardized modules that can be replaced and fixtures for refueling, so hopefully reusable space robots can be used, then it will also probably deal greatly with sticking things in similar orbits so many things can be worked on by said robot. Even then, tech will have to slow down so that the cost of refueling is no longer close to a new, better satellite, and that the current ones aren't so far behind as to be of unsure use.

    23. Re:Replace it by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      The fuel is for PROPULSION, genius.

      Here's an idea, next time you think you've come up with a (beyond obvious) solution that NASA hasn't thought of, figure out what YOU are missing instead.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    24. Re:Replace it by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Energy is plentiful. They need propellant.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    25. Re:Replace it by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      The fuel is for PROPULSION, genius.

      Here's an idea, next time you think you've come up with a (beyond obvious) solution that NASA hasn't thought of, figure out what YOU are missing instead.

      True enough.

      I realized my error about 3 seconds after I posed it... Duh!

  3. Use Nuclear power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Satellites used to last so much longer back when we equipped them with nuclear power.

    But the Left hates nuclear power and thinks these satellites pollute space. So instead we keep sending highly disposable satellites that aren't built to last.

    1. Re:Use Nuclear power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, there have been concerns raised about spacecraft that contain plutonium power sources, but it's not about polluting space. The issue that's raised is if there's a problem during the launch, the casing for the nuclear power source ruptures, and radioactive materials are dispersed in the atmosphere. The worst case scenarios have very low probabilities, and the impacts would actually be fairly low, but it's enough to alarm people. I'm not aware that anyone has complained about the risk of these spacecraft polluting space, so that's simply incorrect.

      By the way, lots of other spacecraft that contain plutonium for nuclear power also contain other fuel. Spacecraft with nuclear power sources are generally those with missions to the outer solar system, where solar power would be insufficient to power the instruments. Kepler doesn't contain plutonium for nuclear power because it's close to the sun where solar power is sufficient to provide enough power for the instruments. However, all of these spacecraft do contain other fuel for the purpose of providing thrust. Even spacecraft like Cassini-Huygens and New Horizons need a source of fuel for providing thrust in addition to their nuclear power source. Voyager 1 and 2 have nuclear power sources to power their instruments, but also used hydrazine for their thrusters. Kepler is no different in the need to have fuel for its thrusters, and that's what's in short supply. However, it doesn't contain a nuclear power source because it's close enough to the sun that solar power can keep the instruments running.

      And Kepler was equipped with extra fuel for its thrusters, as a contingency. This has actually enabled Kepler to continue operating well beyond its original mission.

      I actually hope you're trolling, because your post is incorrect in many ways.

    2. Re:Use Nuclear power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea of polluting space with radiation is kind of hilarious in its own right when you think about it.

    3. Re: Use Nuclear power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isnt out of power. Its solar panels are working just fine. It is out of thruster fuel which is used to help keep it pointing at targets.

    4. Re:Use Nuclear power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't call a radioisotope thermoelectric generator a nuclear power source. Sure, radioactive decay technically is related to the weak force (a nuclear force), but nuclear power as most people know it refers to fission reactions (and the always-thirty-years-away fusion power).

    5. Re:Use Nuclear power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some (usually IR), have coolant for the instruments.

  4. Re: sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a robot. In space.

    Can I subscribe to your newsletter? :)

  5. Re: sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can subscribe to mine but it’s all about robots. In space. On a plane.

  6. Car analogy by stooo · · Score: 1

    My car runs out of fuel in 10 km, I should buy another one.

    --
    aaaaaaa
    1. Re:Car analogy by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you need to build, use and scrap a truck just to fuel up that car, springing for a newer better model instead might be indeed the better course of action.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My car runs out of fuel in 10 km, I should buy another one.

      Now imagine your car is 137 million km away from you.

      Sorry, but this thing has been up in space since 2009 with a planned lifespan of 3.5 years, and some of the pieces which keep it up and running are starting to break. They already extended its lifetime to work around other issues they initially had, and it's been up there for 9 years already.

      Oh, and by the way, NASA has never had the capability to refuel anything that far away.

      So, enlighten us there genius, how the fuck would you go about walking to the corner gas station to get some more gas in this scenario? Do you even grasp the scale of the problem?

      I think not.

      NASA does cool and interesting stuff, and Earth-bound idiots think this is as simple as a fucking car analogy.

    3. Re:Car analogy by belthize1072 · · Score: 2

      If your car is worth $5K, you're somewhere in the US and it runs out of gas somewhere in the Gobi desert then yes, you probably should just buy another one.

    4. Re:Car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better analogy would be that in the 10 years you've owned your car this is the first time you've had to refuel it. However to do so you will have to buy a flat-bed car-transporting truck and a smaller refueling car and then pay to have them perform the refueling operation.

      In that context, instead buying a new car and having the ruck deliver it to you is a viable alternative as it's not going to be that much more expensive and you get a new car instead of a refueled 10 year old one.

  7. 94Mmiles per tank is pretty good economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dang I wish my 1966 beetle got anything like that

    1. Re:94Mmiles per tank is pretty good economy by slew · · Score: 1

      Dang I wish my 1966 beetle got anything like that

      Well, your if you launched your 1966 beetle aboard a Delta II rocket, it might...
      Heck, I suspect that Elon's Tesla roadster will eventually beat that...

    2. Re:94Mmiles per tank is pretty good economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been orbiting the sun for the last 9 years, so it's traveled something closer to 2,600 million miles.

    3. Re:94Mmiles per tank is pretty good economy by clovis · · Score: 1

      This guy who says "I'm just this guy" is doing the work for us: http://www.whereisroadster.com...

      As of 16 March 2018 at 7:32 EDT, the roadster has gone this far relative to the sun.
      "The car exceeded its 36,000 mile warranty 1,895.6 times while driving around the Sun, (68,240,857 miles, 109,823,048 km, 0.73 AU) moving at a speed of 70,832 mi/h (113,993 km/h, 31.66 km/s). The orbital period is about 557 days."

    4. Re:94Mmiles per tank is pretty good economy by clovis · · Score: 1

      I suppose you could also do these calculations against our motion relative to the cosmic background radiation, that being we move about 390 kilometers/second in the general direction of Regulus, presently.

  8. Refueling system? by vix86 · · Score: 2

    With our launch systems likely to continue to get cheaper and cheaper per kilo, maybe we should start working on a system for refueling and maintenancing some of our current sats in operation. We won't be able to get something in place quick enough for Kepler I imagine, but someone really needs to start thinking about how to address this. Sure we can put up more advanced and brand spanking new sats but the process of fixing something would probably be cheaper in the long run compared to building something new which takes funding, planning, and building; instead, you could launch the equivalent of a space tow-truck to go out and fix it. Send up parts, fuel, and appropriate boost assist to get the "tow-truck" out there and patch it up and then boost back to the "truck garage."

    1. Re:Refueling system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof of concepts already exist:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It's just a matter of it being economically viable to actually implement in a real system. The most significant commercial endeavor has stalled/been cancelled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Refueling system? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      With our launch systems likely to continue to get cheaper and cheaper per kilo, maybe we should start working on a system for refueling and maintenancing some of our current sats in operation.

      This would be a good idea if we were sending up the same types of satellites each time. However, our instrumentation has become significantly more advanced with each new mission. It's like trying to repair a PC with a Pentium II after getting a PC with an AMD EPYC which has over 1000x the computing power. It's not worth going through the effort of fixing these things.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Refueling system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Couldn't we just send up the space shuttle to repair/refuel . . . Oops!

    4. Re:Refueling system? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Send up parts, fuel, and appropriate boost assist to get the "tow-truck" out there and patch it up and then boost back to the "truck garage."

      Unfortunately any real change of orbit is ridiculously expensive. It may be feasible to have a GEO repair satellite fix other GEO satellites by slightly speeding up or slowing down in the same circular plane, but if you're oribiting at different altitude or inclination it'll almost always be cheaper to send a resupply/repair mission directly to the destination orbit. If operating on the satellite is even feasible, I mean unless you actually have repair hatches and refill connectors you'd have to cut it open and weld it back together again. I mean if there was never any reason to suspect anyone would come repair it I'd probably just seal it up good to be sure.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Refueling system? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what NASA and at least one commercial space company are doing at the moment.

    6. Re:Refueling system? by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      Ion drives (or possibly electrodynamic tethers) kind of solve the problem of changing orbits cheaply, if you're not in a hurry.

    7. Re:Refueling system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why are people so fucking stupid with this.? Kepler is almost 100 million miles away. Idiots here talking about refueling, the fucking space shuttle only goes 400 miles, humans really only go 400 miles, outside of a whole bunch of moon missions that supposedly went off w/o a hitch, but now it's too hard. It's too hard. Too expensive. The moon is 250,000 miles away. Kepler is 95,000,000 miles away. Can you spot the problem?

    8. Re: Refueling system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here is your math. Kepler orbits the L2 point *one* million miles from Earth.

    9. Re:Refueling system? by Strider- · · Score: 3, Informative

      Kepler is pretty much worn out at this point. Aside from its lack of fuel, it's reaction wheels are long dead (this is why it's running out of fuel). The reaction wheels are what allowed it to keep itself oriented precisely. Also, it's electronics are pretty much worn out from being bombarded by cosmic radiation, its solar panels are going to be wearing out. Lastly, while it's been an incredibly valuable instrument, it's instruments have done pretty much all they can at this point.

      In short, it's time to retire her and replace it with the next generation.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    10. Re: Refueling system? by slew · · Score: 1

      The problem here is your math. Kepler orbits the L2 point *one* million miles from Earth.

      Actually, Kepler isn't in an L2 orbit, I believe it is in a Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit...

      This orbit is a little wider and slower than our own orbit, taking about 372 days. Each day Kepler falls a little farther behind Earth which orbits in 365 days. Every year it gets about 15 million miles farther away from Earth. After 9 years of operation, the gap will open to the current large distance (near 95M miles away)...

      The reason a Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit was chosen for Kepler is that it takes less energy to reach that orbit than an L2 orbit allowing the Kepler mission to use a smaller (and cheaper) booster for the mission.

    11. Re:Refueling system? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The difference between 250,000 miles up and 95,000,000 miles actually isn't much at all. In fact you'll need considerably less fuel to reach Kepler at 95M than to land on the moon.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    12. Re:Refueling system? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Space Truckin'!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    13. Re:Refueling system? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Sure we can put up more advanced and brand spanking new sats but the process of fixing something would probably be cheaper in the long run compared to building something new which takes funding, planning, and building

      0.o And you think the replacement parts won't need funding, planning, and building - and the replacement process itself won't need funding and planning? And that's setting aside the procurement and operational costs of the "space tow truck".

      Launch costs are only a small piece of the puzzle.

  9. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED PUTTING A COAL BURNER IN IT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Clean, beautiful COAL! It's the FUTURE! THX113...9!

  10. Must've been built by a man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical. Driving around looking for a gas station and never stopping to ASK someone.

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

    Do you mean menacing or maintaining?

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

      Both! Turn softly and carry a big titanium wrench.

  12. Not unexpected. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, it's running out of fuel but it's also been operating for about a decade. "In 2013, Kepler’s primary mission ended when a second reaction wheel broke" which means this won't really be a big loss since it's been minimally functional for good while. The good news is that the James Webb Space Telescope is on track to be operational in about 18 months.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  13. Re: sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I'm tired of these mother fucking robots in mother fucking space on this mother fucking plane.

  14. Summary wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kepler is heliocentric at a distance of 94 million miles. That doesn't really say how far it is from Earth. I doubt it's eightish light minutes away though.

    1. Re:Summary wrong by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      NASA has characterized Kepler's orbit as "Earth-trailing".[53] With an orbital period of 372.5 days, Kepler slowly falls farther behind Earth (about 16 million miles per annum). As of 1 June 2017, the distance to Kepler from Earth was about 0.917 AU (137 million km).[3]

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  15. You can blame the reactions wheel failure for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    A single company (Ithaco Systems?) built the reaction wheels that broke down on this and other missions. This is the reason Kepler had use so much fuel.

    NASA is so obsessed with its manned mission pork-heavy, pointless missions such as the ISS, SLS and Orion that they have dragger their feet on a replacement missions....

  16. It's orbiting the sun.... by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 1

    If only there was a technology to use light from the sun to generate power....  Maybe some sort of panel...solar panel....

    Maybe we can invent something like that for it's replacement.  Nah,that's just science fiction.

    1. Re:It's orbiting the sun.... by stevelinton · · Score: 2

      It's out of fuel, not power.

    2. Re:It's orbiting the sun.... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rockets need a mass to provide force. Doesn't matter if it has power if it is out of reaction mass.

  17. Okay how about a better retirement program then by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

    There has to be a better way to decommission and retire these spacecraft. Letting them hang in orbit until they burn up in atmo seems like a waste. Not only in gross terms of material but in the ability to celebrate their discoveries. Why are we trying to find a way to bring them back to earth so we can study what space did to them (and thus make the next one better) but so that we can put them somewhere the public can have a better understanding of what we learned?

    1. Re:Okay how about a better retirement program then by nasch · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking adding heat shields for reentry would make it much bigger and heavier, and therefore a great deal more expensive to launch.

    2. Re:Okay how about a better retirement program then by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Kepler is in solar orbit at the L2 lagrange point. There is no way it would ever be practical to bring back to earth. Instead, it will just drift out into solar orbit, and forever wander the solar system. To quote Douglas Adams, "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

      In practical terms, moving an object in space, or putting it into orbit, takes propellant. Propellant has mass. Because of this, and the tyranny of the rocket equation, every spacecraft has a limited ability to change its velocity, aka delta-v. The delta-V required to de-orbit from high earth orbit, or solar orbit, is significant. The safest and most reasonable solution is that at the end of life, vent all remaining propellant and pressurant. This protects the craft from exploding, then finally blow the fuses, which prevents the craft form causing interference or causing its batteries to explode.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    3. Re:Okay how about a better retirement program then by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      find a way to bring them back to earth so we can study what space did to them (and thus make the next one better)

      We actually have already had missions that were to specifically test materials in space. Further study is executed on the ISS. Leave the science to the scientists.

      so that we can put them somewhere the public can have a better understanding of what we learned?

      We always build more than just one. We have plenty of duplicates to put on display.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Okay how about a better retirement program then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has to be a better way to decommission and retire these spacecraft. Letting them hang in orbit until they burn up in atmo seems like a waste.

      The resources to bring them back would be an even bigger waste. Better used on sending up newer, better tech to replace them.

  18. Re: Better Car analogy by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My car runs out of fuel in 10 km, I should buy another one.

    Better car analogy: Your 10 year old electric car with 300k miles on it, torn seats, and a shot suspension, has a shot battery that won't hold a charge anymore. Do you spend $50k on getting the battery replaced, or spend $40k on a brand new electric car with newer tech?

  19. Re: Better Car analogy by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> Better car analogy: Your 10 year old electric car with 300k miles on it, torn seats, and a shot suspension, has a shot battery that won't hold a charge anymore.
    How do you treat your car ?

    --
    aaaaaaa
  20. The Hubble is in TROUBLE! by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    When the guy says, "uh oh, honey, looks like we're about to run out of gas," out in the middle of nowhere, (like in Earth orbit,) it is often really a pretense for some foolin' around.

    I think ol' Kep is about to try to put 'the moves' on Hubble! Hehehe

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.