Voyager Status, What is it? |
Voyager Status, What is it? |
Guest_Myran_* |
Dec 10 2006, 07:04 PM
Post
#16
|
Guests |
"......and dont dare play that record one more time!"
|
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 09:12 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 599 Joined: 26-August 05 Member No.: 476 |
It's not merely a song about Benson, AZ. It's the somewhat improbable theme song of the John Carpenter student film-cum-cult-classic, Dark Star. It's a country-and-western song in format, but the lyric is about a lonely guy, flying through interstellar space at relativistic speeds, and thinking of everything -- and one special person -- he left behind. If I can recall the words... Thanks for posting the lyrics. Your memory is much better than mine. I could only recall the chorus and even missed some of the words there, but remembered the feeling of flying thru space alone and leaving someone behind. Over-anthromorphising Voyager here. Crikey, maybe that's where ST:TMP came from. |
|
|
Dec 11 2006, 05:43 PM
Post
#18
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8785 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
We have to be careful not to teach the Voyagers phenomenology...
-------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Dec 12 2006, 10:17 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1870 Joined: 20-February 05 Member No.: 174 |
"How could it be alive it was just a bag of gas?"
Yeah.. but I'm still convinced it was smarter than the entire crew put together. |
|
|
Jan 1 2007, 07:19 PM
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 234 Joined: 8-May 05 Member No.: 381 |
Anyone know the latest Voyager status? I've hear rumors, but I'm wondering if anyone has anything more concrete (I won't share the rumors, as I really don't know much about it, so...) Tuvas, this is probably what you're referring to, and it's not a rumor. There hasn't any press on this to my knowledge, but the JPL JURAP site describes a problem with Voyager 2 in its November meeting minutes. There is a problem with a part of the AACS (attitude and articulation control system) called HYBIC, which has something to do with an analog-to-digital converter not working properly some of the time. This apparently has affected the sun sensor and star tracker on the spacecraft. The part that grabbed my attention was where it said "Impact: Possible loss of spacecraft". This is not a trivial problem, but the minutes described a swap procedure to a backup HYBIC. The process runs from November, 2006, through February, 2007, but it should result in a healthy spacecraft again. I'm sure the Voyager folks didn't want to make this too public until they know more of how well the swap is succeeding (although JURAP is a publicly-accessible website). The whole Voyager presentation runs 13 pages, and I'm sure many of you will understand the technical details better than I. It's a complicated web address, so I'll break it down a bit: (1) go to: rapweb.jpl.nasa.gov (2) in the right-hand column, click on "Joint Users Allocation and Planning Committee (JURAP) Minutes (3) click on "Voyager 2 November 2006" (probably in Acrobat format) This reminds us that the Voyager spacecraft are slowly degrading and unfortunately won't last forever (though it sometimes seemed that they would). |
|
|
Guest_Analyst_* |
Jan 5 2007, 07:54 AM
Post
#21
|
Guests |
This is the same switch they did on Voyager 1 in early 2002. Switching HYBIC means you have to use the redundant star tracker (roll) and sun sensor (pitch and yaw) as well, even if the current used ones are just fine. On the other hand, the scan platform pointing information (azimuth and elevation) is no longer needed. So there is some risk because you use other sensors with different and not completely known biases. And there is the possibility HYBIC 1 is not working and you have to switch back to the dedraded HYBIC 2. The AACS computer in charge remains the same, there is no switch planned.
Interesting note: One branch of attitude control trusters for pitch and yaw failed in 1999. But they are not critical on that because they can use the (larger) TCM trusters if the second branch fails. Analyst |
|
|
Jan 5 2007, 10:06 AM
Post
#22
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1870 Joined: 20-February 05 Member No.: 174 |
"...because they can use the (larger) TCM trusters if the second branch fails."
Might mean a much higher rate of use of attitude control propellant, leading to eventual end-of-mission before other expected problems <like low voltage or inadequate suntracker sensitivity> ends mission. |
|
|
Jan 5 2007, 02:57 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 |
Since the main receiver failed on Voyager 2 shortly after launch back in 1977,
and they had to rely on the backup receiver which is apparently tone deaf, for lack of a better technical phrase, how is that rather critical piece of equipment holding up? And how are they keeping it so finely in tune after all this time? -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
Jan 5 2007, 03:45 PM
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 428 Joined: 21-August 06 From: Northern Virginia Member No.: 1062 |
Thanks for the info. The only thing I knew was that we lost one of our 70m passes due to some kind of emergancy with one of the Voyagers. This seems to fit quite well with the details included here, so... Thanks for your help!
|
|
|
Guest_Analyst_* |
Jan 5 2007, 05:11 PM
Post
#25
|
Guests |
Since the main receiver failed on Voyager 2 shortly after launch back in 1977, and they had to rely on the backup receiver which is apparently tone deaf, for lack of a better technical phrase, how is that rather critical piece of equipment holding up? And how are they keeping it so finely in tune after all this time? The only working receiver (there are two) is unable to change its receiving frequency, so it can only listen in a very, very narrow frequency spectrum. It can't stay in lock if the incomming frequency shifts. There are at least two problems resulting: - The receiving frequency can't be changed by the spacecraft to stay in lock, but it can change because of temperture variations. A one degree temperature change means a frequency shift of x Hz. So you have to look very carefully at the receiver temperature when the signal arrives (Ten hours or so after being sent). If there is an attitude change (MAGROL etc.) of the spacecraft, the temperature and therefore the frequency can't be predicted good enough. Then they declare a command moratorium and no commands are sent for some days. - But even if you know the receiving frequency you have to take into acount the doppler effect: Voyager is moving away from the sun, but the earth moves arround the sun and so the distance between earth and spacecraft sometimes rises, sometimes falls. Earth itself rotates, this complicates things too. And the atmosphere changes the signal too. So you must predict the receiver frequency and then sent a command at a frequency, that adjusted for the doppler effect and atmospheric changes matches this predicted frequency within a few Hz. Because of the uncertainty commands are sent more than once at different frequencies nearby (brackated) so that at least some get through. They do since 1978! If this last receiver fails, the Voyager 2 command loss routine will configure the spacecraft for longterm science return even without further commanding from earth. Of course you lose the capability to react to science events and failures of other subsystem components, but you get (limited) science as long as nothing happens the spacecraft can't handle by itself (by switching to redundant subsystems etc.). Analyst |
|
|
Guest_Analyst_* |
Jan 7 2007, 05:06 PM
Post
#26
|
Guests |
|
|
|
Feb 11 2007, 08:48 PM
Post
#27
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
This is not a trivial problem, but the minutes described a swap procedure to a backup HYBIC. The process runs from November, 2006, through February, 2007, but it should result in a healthy spacecraft again. I'm sure the Voyager folks didn't want to make this too public until they know more of how well the swap is succeeding (although JURAP is a publicly-accessible website). Any update on this? |
|
|
Feb 12 2007, 01:37 PM
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 234 Joined: 8-May 05 Member No.: 381 |
The January JURAP meeting did discuss the status of the HYBIC swap, but the report of that meeting hasn't been released yet. JURAP minutes are released on a somewhat irregular basis, so it's hard to say when we ordinary people will get to see them.
|
|
|
Guest_PhilCo126_* |
Feb 12 2007, 06:44 PM
Post
#29
|
Guests |
Last things I've read on the Grand Tour spacecraft:
Voyager 1 crossed the termination shock at 94 AU in December 2004, 100 AU in December 2006 and estimates show it will pass the Heliopause by 2015. Voyager 2 is now at ~82 AU and is likely to cross the shock sometime this year. Fingers crossed both will still have some electrical power to keep operating. By The Way: this year is the 30th anniversary of the summer 1977 launches! |
|
|
Feb 14 2007, 07:53 PM
Post
#30
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 72 Joined: 22-December 05 Member No.: 616 |
That's 3 AU per year. Will these overtake the Pioneers?
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd September 2024 - 04:49 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |