There are two things that are being assumed here that shouldn't be.
1. The data that possibly could be gathered by Vger at the Interstellar Boundary is of value.
2. That Vger has enough power and high enough data rate to get that data back to Earth through the Deep Space Network given the very small amount of time that could be carved out for receiving transmissions from Vger. I'm not even sure that Vger is still capable of transmitting science data. They may be interpolating some things from the behavior of the spacecraft and the health and safety transmissions, I don't really know.
I'm not sure but I bet the answer to those two issues is "No". Well, ok, I'm sure about the second one. The DSN runs on a pretty tight schedule as, believe it or not, we have a whole of lot of deep space missions up there right now. And they are all of greater scientific value than Vger at this point.
Oh yeah, if you're worried about getting Interstellar Boundary data, there's this new mission called Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX). Check it out.
On a mission like this, software testing budgets can easily get larger than software development budgets. If things really get out of hand testing can double development. But it has to be done cause it's hard to fix some things. Although a lot of times patches can be uploaded enroute when a problem is detected. But sometimes we only detect them after it's too late. As in the standard units v. metric units issue and the lander that when kerplunk. Both good lessons in engineering for quality. For this business "quality assurance" really means "stupidity minimization". It's amazing how many dumb things engineers with advanced degrees can do when it's late at night and they've had too much coffee.
The instrumentation on the Voyagers is probably inappropriate for the purpose. They probably can tell more from the behavior of the spacecraft and it's transmissions than from the instruments. I'm speculating of course. Furthermore, the fact that they are "there" doesn't mean very much. They occupy a volume of space that is probably 1 zillionth of 1% of the volume of space that makes up the boundary. It's just not reasonable to think that physically being at that distance from the sun is of any significant value as compared to observing the boundary effects in spectra or the like. It's always better to look there than to be there.
Think of it this way. Even if we could travel to other star systems to look for planets, we wouldn't. We would still look with telescopes either on Earth or in orbit. We just wouldn't go there due to cost and risk constraints.
It's usually better to "look" there than to "be" there in space science matters. Especially if "there" happens to be a supernova or blackhole.
We have other space telescopes. How do you think they feel with all this attention being placed on Hubble?
All spacecraft have a limited lifespan. The cost/benefit analysis must be done for each once they are past their EOL. The numbers just aren't there for Hubble. $2 billion is just to much to fix one out of many science satellites. Hubble has been way too expensive from the start. It was over budget before it even launched. Then it was useless until the shuttle could fly up and the astronauts could make an optical correction. The whole idea of repairing spacecraft in orbit is just ridiculous when comparing to the cost of launching another spacecraft. Hubble needs to be REPLACED. Not repaired. Check out the NGST. They should accelerate this program and get it up there.
The program was almost cut. My company had to give JPL a pretty sweet deal to convince them to do it. We did just have another mission cut. I'm holding out hope that NASA or congress step up and save it. But as some programs get cut, others arise to take their place. I'm glad we are still on track. This will be a fun mission. We are scheduled to launch in the middle of 2006 but you have to convert to NASA time for that which means some time after 2006 most likely.
I was just expressing my general frustration with the misinformation that floats around concerning space science. I am glad to see folks paying attention and caring. And I'm glad that we have this forum to discuss such things.
Yes, 13 light hours out is amazing but isn't relevant to observing boundary effects. None of the instruments on Voyager will give very much at that distance from the observables that were it's primary mission. There is also the issue of data rates. At that distance Voyager must use lot's of power to pump out science data at a very slow rate. Like less than 10 bits per sec. You just can't use the Deep Space Network resources like that. There are better ways to get the desired data.
Plus there isn't really any reason to overtake Voyager except just for the sake of putting something that far out. Which would be a very fun project to work on--Prometheus, maybe?
The program that I'm working on and the other deep space programs in the hopper will do far more for much less money. I can't remember the cost of Voyager but I do know the cost of Cassini was something like $3 Billion. Cassini is a Cadillac spacecraft btw. My program is going to the Asteroid Belt for somewhere on the order of $100 - 300 million.
So there are plenty of good alternatives either already on orbit or in line to launch. There really isn't any science lost here, I don't think. Not that I've spent the time researching it.
As far as Hubble goes: a Shuttle repair mission would cost $1 - 2 billion. We could build a series of spacecraft that do far more than Hubble for that kind of money using Fresnel lenses other such fancy things. The progress we've made since the '70's is amazing and we should continue to leverage it. It's hard think dispassionately about the spacecraft that we all have admired and cherished through the years but they are just machines that give us data. I love them dearly but we must move on and take our limited resources with us to find new and amazing things.
Does anybody on this site actually know anything about space science?! Does anybody have any idea what sort of science payload the Voyagers are carrying? Deep breath... Voyager 1 and 2 are in an area called the Interstellar Boundary. There is interesting stuff happening there. That's why NASA is funding the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) program to get some actual data on the phenomenae that are happening out there. The Voyager birds don't have the payload or the data rates to support any valuable science out there. Any far as solar science, there are at least a few spacecraft on orbit that are observing the sun in just about every spectrum of value.
Voyager 1 and 2 were pretty well built and have nuclear powered EPS's. They have enough fuel for a very long time. How long should we support these missions which have such diminished value? That money can do a lot of good in the space science community. I know the mission I'm working on (also a deep space bird) could use that money for some extra QA and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
This is old hat for us but congrats to India for joining the new space race.
There are two things that are being assumed here that shouldn't be. 1. The data that possibly could be gathered by Vger at the Interstellar Boundary is of value. 2. That Vger has enough power and high enough data rate to get that data back to Earth through the Deep Space Network given the very small amount of time that could be carved out for receiving transmissions from Vger. I'm not even sure that Vger is still capable of transmitting science data. They may be interpolating some things from the behavior of the spacecraft and the health and safety transmissions, I don't really know. I'm not sure but I bet the answer to those two issues is "No". Well, ok, I'm sure about the second one. The DSN runs on a pretty tight schedule as, believe it or not, we have a whole of lot of deep space missions up there right now. And they are all of greater scientific value than Vger at this point. Oh yeah, if you're worried about getting Interstellar Boundary data, there's this new mission called Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX). Check it out.
On a mission like this, software testing budgets can easily get larger than software development budgets. If things really get out of hand testing can double development. But it has to be done cause it's hard to fix some things. Although a lot of times patches can be uploaded enroute when a problem is detected. But sometimes we only detect them after it's too late. As in the standard units v. metric units issue and the lander that when kerplunk. Both good lessons in engineering for quality. For this business "quality assurance" really means "stupidity minimization". It's amazing how many dumb things engineers with advanced degrees can do when it's late at night and they've had too much coffee.
The instrumentation on the Voyagers is probably inappropriate for the purpose. They probably can tell more from the behavior of the spacecraft and it's transmissions than from the instruments. I'm speculating of course. Furthermore, the fact that they are "there" doesn't mean very much. They occupy a volume of space that is probably 1 zillionth of 1% of the volume of space that makes up the boundary. It's just not reasonable to think that physically being at that distance from the sun is of any significant value as compared to observing the boundary effects in spectra or the like. It's always better to look there than to be there. Think of it this way. Even if we could travel to other star systems to look for planets, we wouldn't. We would still look with telescopes either on Earth or in orbit. We just wouldn't go there due to cost and risk constraints. It's usually better to "look" there than to "be" there in space science matters. Especially if "there" happens to be a supernova or blackhole.
We have other space telescopes. How do you think they feel with all this attention being placed on Hubble? All spacecraft have a limited lifespan. The cost/benefit analysis must be done for each once they are past their EOL. The numbers just aren't there for Hubble. $2 billion is just to much to fix one out of many science satellites. Hubble has been way too expensive from the start. It was over budget before it even launched. Then it was useless until the shuttle could fly up and the astronauts could make an optical correction. The whole idea of repairing spacecraft in orbit is just ridiculous when comparing to the cost of launching another spacecraft. Hubble needs to be REPLACED. Not repaired. Check out the NGST. They should accelerate this program and get it up there.
The program was almost cut. My company had to give JPL a pretty sweet deal to convince them to do it. We did just have another mission cut. I'm holding out hope that NASA or congress step up and save it. But as some programs get cut, others arise to take their place. I'm glad we are still on track. This will be a fun mission. We are scheduled to launch in the middle of 2006 but you have to convert to NASA time for that which means some time after 2006 most likely.
I was just expressing my general frustration with the misinformation that floats around concerning space science. I am glad to see folks paying attention and caring. And I'm glad that we have this forum to discuss such things. Yes, 13 light hours out is amazing but isn't relevant to observing boundary effects. None of the instruments on Voyager will give very much at that distance from the observables that were it's primary mission. There is also the issue of data rates. At that distance Voyager must use lot's of power to pump out science data at a very slow rate. Like less than 10 bits per sec. You just can't use the Deep Space Network resources like that. There are better ways to get the desired data. Plus there isn't really any reason to overtake Voyager except just for the sake of putting something that far out. Which would be a very fun project to work on--Prometheus, maybe? The program that I'm working on and the other deep space programs in the hopper will do far more for much less money. I can't remember the cost of Voyager but I do know the cost of Cassini was something like $3 Billion. Cassini is a Cadillac spacecraft btw. My program is going to the Asteroid Belt for somewhere on the order of $100 - 300 million. So there are plenty of good alternatives either already on orbit or in line to launch. There really isn't any science lost here, I don't think. Not that I've spent the time researching it. As far as Hubble goes: a Shuttle repair mission would cost $1 - 2 billion. We could build a series of spacecraft that do far more than Hubble for that kind of money using Fresnel lenses other such fancy things. The progress we've made since the '70's is amazing and we should continue to leverage it. It's hard think dispassionately about the spacecraft that we all have admired and cherished through the years but they are just machines that give us data. I love them dearly but we must move on and take our limited resources with us to find new and amazing things.
Does anybody on this site actually know anything about space science?! Does anybody have any idea what sort of science payload the Voyagers are carrying? Deep breath... Voyager 1 and 2 are in an area called the Interstellar Boundary. There is interesting stuff happening there. That's why NASA is funding the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) program to get some actual data on the phenomenae that are happening out there. The Voyager birds don't have the payload or the data rates to support any valuable science out there. Any far as solar science, there are at least a few spacecraft on orbit that are observing the sun in just about every spectrum of value. Voyager 1 and 2 were pretty well built and have nuclear powered EPS's. They have enough fuel for a very long time. How long should we support these missions which have such diminished value? That money can do a lot of good in the space science community. I know the mission I'm working on (also a deep space bird) could use that money for some extra QA and the like.