Voyager 1 Roll Thruster Heater Fails

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

backspace

Guest
<br />Old data, these reports tend to get posted a week or two behind. But, now that I got your attention, please note Voyager is alive and well... they switched to the backup thruster branch.<br /><br /><br /><br />Voyager Mission Operations Status Report # 2004-05-07, Week Ending May 7, 2004<br /><br />Command Transmission & Verification Operations<br /><br />Voyager 1 command operations consisted of the uplink of a command loss timer reset on 05/03 [DOY 124/2325z] and a Plumbing swap to Roll Thruster Branch 2 on 05/04 [DOY 125]. The spacecraft received all command sent and the swap to the backup thruster branch was successful.<br /><br />Voyager 2 command operations consisted of the uplink of seven bracketed command loss timer resets sent on five-minute centers using 0.5 Hz steps on 05/06 [DOY 127/1752z]. The spacecraft received four of the seven commands sent<br /><br />Sequence Generation Operations<br /><br />Continue sequence development of CCSL B124.<br /><br />Data Return Operations<br /><br />Voyager 1 Data Processing and Operations:<br /><br />There were 109.9 hours of DSN scheduled support for Voyager 1 of which 45.3 hours were large aperture coverage. There was one schedule change made on 05/05 [DOY 126] when 5.6 hours of DSS-45 support was added from DSN maintenance to support the confirmation of the spacecraft swap to Roll Thruster Branch 2. The total actual support for the period was 115.5 hours of which 45.3 hours were large aperture coverage<br /><br />There were two significant outages. The first outage of 3.1 hours duration occurred on 05/02 [DOY 123] and was caused by rain at DSS-65 [DR M102459]. The second outage of 0.8 hours occurred on 05/04 [DOY 125]and resulted from bringing the DSS-14 antenna to stow for repair of the uplink transmitter [DR G104359].<br /><br />Science instrument performance was nominal for all activities during this period. One frame of GS-4 data was recorded this week. A second frame of GS-4 data was recorded on day 122. The EDR ba
 
B

blacknebula

Guest
Is this a result of the CME that is supposed to hit Voyager any time soon? You say it is a week or two behind, so I doubt it.
 
B

backspace

Guest
Actually, this on the CME from science@ NASA:<br /><br /><br />"The shock wave hit Voyager 2 traveling 600 km/s, or 1.3 million mph. (For comparison, CMEs left the sun last October going 1500 to 2000 km/s, "so there has been substantial deceleration," notes Stone.) The physical force was slight, less than the touch of a feather--the spacecraft didn't go tumbling. Neither did radiation cause problems. The storm had diffused over such a great volume by the time it reached Voyager 2, that "no damage was done," says Stone.<br /><br />In fact, the encounter was good. Voyager 2 measured (indirectly) the speed of the shock, as well as its composition, temperature and magnetism. These data are invaluable, says Stone. Combined with measurements from Mars Odyssey, Ulysses, Cassini and other spacecraft, they show how far-ranging CMEs evolve and dissipate. One day human astronauts will be "out there," and mission planners need to know what to expect.<br /><br />All that remains is Voyager 1.<br /><br />Based on the velocity of the blast wave when it hit Voyager 2, "we expected the shock to reach Voyager 1 on June 26th," says Stone. "We're still waiting." It's possible the wave, irregular in structure, will simply miss Voyager 1. <br />
 
N

najab

Guest
Well, that's typical of NASA isn't it. Billion dollar mission and they can't even spend the money to buy a good, high-quality heater! Instead, they go and buy a shoddy system that gives out after only 27 years of use. Sigh. Now they've gone a switched to the backup system, so that means what, we should expect it to fail completely somewhere around 2031 or so?!<p>Voyager is dead. Long live Voyager!</p>
 
H

halman

Guest
najaB,<br /><br />Well, we have to keep in mind that the manufacturer's guidelines have probably been exceded. I mean, doesn't it get kind of chilly out the Ort cloud way? Or has Voyager 1 gotten that far yet? I thought that funding for that mission had been terminated years ago!<br /><br />And we are still recieving telemetrey! That is like hearing a whisper from Chicago in New York! And what can it possibly be saying? Brr!? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Speaking of Oort cloud....I made it to comet....wohoo, I finally have a nice tail!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
I think we knew that.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
O

omegamogo

Guest
*sigh* next thing you know all NASA missions will be failing after just 30 or 40 years! what's with the cheap construction? just a few decades in freezing cold and it starts to fail...
 
R

remcook

Guest
I think halman was rather serious. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I thought that funding for that mission had been terminated years ago! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Nope, the Voyager Interstellar Mission (while much smaller than the original Voyager project) is still adequately funded, and there are regular communications sessions with both Voyager spacecraft over the DSN. I love those two spacecraft. They take a lickin' and keep on tickin'! It was Voyager that first really grabbed my interest in space, and I'll always have a special place in my heart for them.<br /><br />I'm still in awe that it took this long for the heater to fail. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
Are either Voyager spacecraft capable of taking pictures? Not that there's anything to take a picure of. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>Not that there's anything to take a picure of. </i><p>On the contrary, 12 years or so ago, Voyager 1 took a very significant picture: Link.</p>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Not that there's anything to take a picure of. "</font><br /><br />This is one of two main problems. Whatever they photograph will be of little value. The second is that to communicate with any of these probes requires that the deep space network concentrate solely on receiving their signal. The DSN is pretty well booked already with projects returning data of a much more useful nature (little-known probes like Cassini, MER, Odyssey, Mars Express, etc.). <br /><br />Quick communiques like "Yep -- I'm still here" or 'Dangit -- the heater broke. Did you save the receipt?" are one thing, but sending back a photo of little value a few bits at a time isn't a reasonable activity.<br />
 
M

mikejz

Guest
I believe that the heater for the scan platform is now turned off and the instuments are in all odds not working anymore
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
Thanks, I've been wondering about that for a while <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...the instuments are in all odds not working anymore "</font><br /><br />Entirely possible. Note that I didn't state whether or not the cameras were functional but instead pointed out that they have - at best - minor functionality at a significant cost. Even if the equipment were working better-than-new, and probe power levels were unlimited, it still wouldn't make sense to have either of the Voyager probes sending home lots of vacation photos.
 
P

propforce

Guest
This thread got me thinking (... and that's a good thing...)<br /><br />Why do we still need exploratory satellites while the Hubble can 'see' things from millions of light years away?<br /><br />Why don't we turn the hubble to see Jupiter, Saturn, and zoom in to the individual molecules on the planet instead?<br /><br />Someone more knowledgeable please respond <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

spacechump

Guest
<i>Why don't we turn the hubble to see Jupiter, Saturn, and zoom in to the individual molecules on the planet instead?</i><br /><br />Because the hubble can't do that. Nothing that far from earth can see that type of resolution that allows for individual molecules even if those molecules were thirty feet in front of it. Heck, most microscopes can't even do that..<br /><br />Probes let us get up close and personal to an object. Telescopes let us "visit" sites that we can't technically or feasibly get to within a lifetime.
 
N

najab

Guest
Because probes can use <i>active</i> sensing: example Magellan (and hopefully soon Mars Express) use radar to map the topography of Venus (Mars) in great detail. There's no way you could design a radar with enough power to reach Venus and enough aperture to pick out fine detail.<p>Which brings up the second point: resolution is a function of distance. The closer you are to something, the more detail you can see.<p>Finally, Earth (or Earth orbit) based instruments can only 'see' what's facing the Earth. An Earth-bound observer couldn't make observations of the poles of Saturn, nor the equator of Neptune. A probe in orbit around a planet can observe things we never could. A prime example: the far side of the Moon would still be hidden if we hadn't sent probes to map it.</p></p>
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>An Earth-bound observer couldn't make observations of the poles of Saturn, nor the equator of Neptune<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Don't you mean Uranus? (pronounced "yer-eh-nus") <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

propforce

Guest
OK... active sensing makes sense. That's a lot of money on each probe just to map the surface of any planets though. I would think Hubble can do a lot if only face planets within the solar system.<br /><br />BTW, when I mention molecules I meant it figuratively, meaning zooming in on very small objects on the planets. IEven know a telescope can not see molecules. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
Right, sorry. It <b>would</b> take a probe to see the middle of Uranus. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Or a Proctologist. Sorry, just trying to get my message count up! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts