Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iconic Planet-Hunting Kepler Telescope Wakes Up, Phones Home (space.com)

Posted by msmash on from the never-gonna-give-you-up dept.

Kepler, which has discovered about 70 percent of the 3,800 known exoplanets to date, woke up from a four-week hibernation yesterday and has begun beaming data home, just as planned, NASA officials announced today. From a report: Kepler had been sleeping in an attempt to save thruster fuel, which is running very low. Mission team members wanted to make sure the spacecraft had enough propellant left to orient its antenna toward Earth for yesterday's data dump. Far-flung NASA spacecraft send information back to mission controllers via the agency's Deep Space Network (DSN), a system of radio dishes around the globe. The sun-orbiting Kepler's latest allotted DSN window opened yesterday, agency officials have said.

29 comments

  1. Plot twist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Due to Verizon's new data plan, Keplers transmission rate was throttled and then capped for going over the 8gb limit.

    1. Re:Plot twist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planet hunting results were also de-prioritized and filtered as a potentially blasphemous content specified in the religious/political clause of the ToS. Now only 1% of the 1% of the potentially existing planets can be communicated to the science team.

    2. Re:Plot twist. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Planet hunting results were also de-prioritized and filtered as a potentially blasphemous content...

      The filter removes all planets which are white, or which are spherical.

  2. eyeconyuk badtoll continues.... never ends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like the aliens are launching cruise ships full of gargoyles towards us your kingship... egads call my lawyer, my doctor, & my speech therapist.. have them charged with cruelty to animals.. get it out on the goophone post haste... raise the gargoyles on the dragon channel.. all hands in our pants.. (cut off)..

    cease fire stand down.. conspire to share the truth..

    1. Re:eyeconyuk badtoll continues.... never ends? by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Uh... the article says it was the Kepler telescope that phoned home, not the ghost of Hunter S Thompson after huffing ether.

  3. Non-propellent based space travel by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is too bad that for space travel there isn't much alternatives to propellant to alter and correct course.
    The mars rovers for the most part have well exceeded their design life cycle mostly due to the fact that it is solar powered and uses electric motors for its transpiration. If needed an expendable fuel it would had only lasted its prescribed life cycle.
    However good old physics shows that an electric motor may be able to spin and rotate a space craft there isn't much it can do for course, and prevent it from leaving an orbit.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Non-propellent based space travel by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      However good old physics shows that an electric motor may be able to spin and rotate a space craft

      What do you mean "may"? Doesn't physics tell you things like that for sure?

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Non-propellent based space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about PUSHING a spacecraft? You can spin all you want, you're still slowly falling towards the thing you're orbiting. HST has no propellant to maintain its altitude, so the last part of every servicing mission was to use available propellant on the shuttle to throw it a few more Km back up.

    3. Re: Non-propellent based space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Control Moment Gyroscopes are great. But they can become saturated (eg, reach maximum spinning speed) at which point angular momentum must be âoedumpedâ using reaction jets â" which require fuel.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope

    4. Re: Non-propellent based space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A satellite can dump angular momentum against either the earth magnetic field or gravity, but it needs to be done slowly.

    5. Re:Non-propellent based space travel by DRJlaw · · Score: 3, Funny

      However good old physics shows that an electric motor may be able to spin and rotate a space craft [but] there isn't much it can do for course, and prevent it from leaving an orbit.

      'However good old physics shows that an electric motor may be able to spin and rotate a space craft..."

      What do you mean "may"? Doesn't physics tell you things like that for sure?

      What about PUSHING a spacecraft? You can spin all you want, you're still slowly falling towards the thing you're orbiting. HST has no propellant to maintain its altitude, so the last part of every servicing mission was to use available propellant on the shuttle to throw it a few more Km back up.

      Good old physics also shows that nothing in the universe is able to force a Slashdot reader to read and comprehend the comments that they are replying to.

      --

    6. Re:Non-propellent based space travel by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OY VEY! Kepler has reaction wheels that do exactly as you suggest, as have all similar spacecraft for many decades.

            The problem with Kepler is that the reaction wheel bearings failed on multiple wheels, so they had to use the thrusters exclusively, which it did for a long time now, and now, finally, they are running out.

              Despite that, it was designed for a 3 and a half year mission and it is still functioning after more than 9 years.

              It's really hard to see this as any sort of failure.

    7. Re: Non-propellent based space travel by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      I bet none of these change the CG of the object (space craft, cg center of gravity); To move the CG, you need to push some mass in the opposite side as required by the law of conservation of momentum; and this mass is some fuel burnt and the resulting hot exhaust gases (mass x velocity). motors etc can make some some internal part of the craft spin and likely cause other parts to compensate for (conservation of angular momentum).

    8. Re: Non-propellent based space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Against gravity? By definition it doesn't feel gravity in "orbit".

    9. Re: Non-propellent based space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have unlimited electricity you can use EMDrive (possibly offset for rotations) for small propulsion and RCS like tasks; extending the potential expected life of a satellite indefinitely.

    10. Re:Non-propellent based space travel by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Also the reaction wheels sometimes have to be reset due to losses and gimbal lock.

    11. Re: Non-propellent based space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a solar sail, it could be unfurled on one side to unwind the gyros (instead of using the limited and precious RCS).

    12. Re: Non-propellent based space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iâ(TM)ll rephrase: Currently the most practical way to dump angular momentum is using reaction jets :-)

  4. fillerup? by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 2

    Spacex has made getting to orbit cheaper, and it takes a decade to get a satellite in the air. why not schedule a fuel run? https://www.space.com/25259-ro...

    1. Re:fillerup? by mmmVenison · · Score: 0

      This is an awesome idea. Design satellites with a refueling port, design/build an autonomous fuel delivery vehicle, preferably reusable.

      --
      Offended? Find a safe space and cry yourself to sleep.
    2. Re:fillerup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that unlike the Hubble telescope which orbits around the Earth that the Kepler telescope is in an Earth trailing orbit around the sun?

      https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/keplers-unusual-orbit-54411507/

    3. Re:fillerup? by Strider- · · Score: 2

      Well, first the probe isn’t designed for refuelling, so actually doing that would be hard.

      Secondly, the probe is in deep space, in orbit around the sun, rather than about the earth. At the moment, it’s just a little less than 1AU (the distance between the sun and earth) away from the earth.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    4. Re:fillerup? by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1

      OK, but a tesla roadster has been sent to orbit between us and Mars, with a falcon heavy... or worst case, for 2x the price a ULA Atlas.

    5. Re:fillerup? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You do realize that unlike the Hubble telescope which orbits around the Earth that the Kepler telescope is in an Earth trailing orbit around the sun?

      Ask Elon Musk and SpaceX to refuel it.

      If there is anyone on the planet that could conceivably accomplish such a feat in a timely manner and on a budget, it would be Musk and SpaceX.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:fillerup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just requires a longer hose-line from the gas pump.

  5. Yes it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Slashdot is pretty uneducated these days.

  6. Can anything be done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it economical or interesting (for other reasons) to refuel it (if at all possible)?

    I remember long ago there being a technique (which I unfortunately do not understand fully) to use several telescopes to compose images in a way get a higher resolution.

    Even though we might have better tools now, it would be nice to keep what we have working; AFAIU there are cheaper ways now to do such refueling. Also, such operation could be done as a proof-of-concept with Marketing value for some space company.

    As a disclaimer, I'm not a "space fanatic" and I think there's a lot of problems for which there might be no solution (like how to fight the effects of less gravity on Mars -- to cite a single one).

  7. How much would it cost... by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    ... to pay Space-X to refuel it?

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.