This information from Emily is amazing.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001673/

ICE is alive and may perhaps be assigned to a new mission.

Full inline quote removed - you know should know better Climber! - Mod

Hi Rakhir! Such a long time you've posted here...

Not so much. Last one was mid-September
However, I agree that last months, it was difficult to find the time to follow all the updates.

I actually said outloud when reading that entry

"Bloody hell!'

"What?" Says Helen

"A spacecraft 4 months older than me that they've not spoken to for 10 years just started working!"

Remarkable.

That is indeed most remarkable. I reckon the spacecraft must have flown something like 25 billion km (a very rough estimate) since launch ... compares to the 18 billion Voyager 2 has done. ISEE-3/ICE was also the US contribution to the Halley comet in 1986. I have the following events on my website (the part that is not maintained):

That's really, really incredible. Was this a JPL thing, like the MERs?

I never heard of this spacecraft before (of course, its main mission at the comets was before I was born!)

I sometimes forget how to use the proper answer button here , but I've never forget ISEE-3.
It was a time of "vaches maigres" for interplanetary spacecraft so, it was remarkable (even before been sent to a comet) because of its "out of the Earth" trajectory... that eventualy became interplanetary. It came a year after the Voyager's launched, 2 years after the Vikings landed, 3 years after Mariner 5 Mercury fly by (hot topic these days)...
Souvenirs are diffuse (you know, no camera...) but I think it was the first to collect data of Halley's comet before Giotto and the Vega's even get there.
Welcome back home little one.
I must also say that, even if we're living now in the golden age of space exploration because of the Internet, it was also good to live at those not so remote times. I was personaly very exited by launches, en route and fly bys, but the infos you had "live" were very limited. You had basicaly to wait one more month to buy a "scientific" monthly issue. This was before I discovered AW & ST and Air & Cosmos which improved the speed (and the interest) by 4 folds.

I'm curious to know who left the radio transmitters on. I suppose a reprimand wouldn't be in order in this case?

An ignorant question here, but why would you instruct a still-functioning spacecraft to turn off it's radio transmitter? Wouldn't that almost guarantee to kill the spacecraft (or at least make it harder to find?)

I can't imagine the radio output would be powerful enough to interfere with any radio studies (and long-term tracking info might be kinda fun anyway - to measure all those funky solar pressure effects and so on....)

-Mike

That's sort of the point

Doug

Yes, but what's the harm in leaving the spacecraft alive? If you neglect possible radio interference with a DSN station while it's trying to communicate with another s/c on the same frequency and in the same part of the sky, but really, what are the odds of that happening?

Has anyone looked over where ICE has been hanging out for the last 10 years?? Some seedy bar in the asteroid belt, or soaking up some rays around Venus ??

I smell a story !

Speaking of turning off spacecraft, I recall rumors that VL-2 (Viking) that functioned for about 4 years had been turned off by mistake, thus ending its mission. I see though in Wikipedia that it was turned off "when its batteries failed".

Thats genuinely cool! I bet it's been playing tourist for a bit, sunbathing at mercury, cloud surfing venus, and meeting 'characters ' in dimly lit asteroid belt bars... It's enough to make a planet bound buggalo jealous!

Edit: Tasp, sorry for the plagarism, the idea of 'seedy asteroid belt bars' caught my imagination. Makes me think of some of some of the bars in salford where you need the confidence of a veteran space explorer to set foot!

I think you are thinking of Viking 1.

Funding.

Funding doesn't run the spacecraft radio transmitter. It does not do so whether we're listening or not.

Oh. I thought one needed to continue funding a mission for it to remain active/operational, like with Voyager. Is the funding to pay the people who work with the spacecraft?

Thanks for the correction Ted. Here's more clarification from Wikipedia:

The Viking 1 Lander was named the Thomas Mutch Memorial Station in January 1982 in honor of the leader of the Viking imaging team. The lander operated for 2245 sols (about 2306 earth days or 6 years) until November 11, 1982, when a faulty command sent by ground control resulted in loss of contact. The command was intended to uplink new battery charging software to improve the lander's deteriorating battery capacity, but it inadvertently overwrote data used by the antenna pointing software. Attempts to contact the lander during the next four months, based on the presumed antenna position, were unsuccessful.

Polluting the solar system with radio waves could be a serious issue as we develop more sensitive instruments for listening to the cosmos.

I don't see how this can worsen the situation when we've already crowded the Earth orbit with all kinds of radio-active stuff. As along as it's tracked and catalogued, no confusion should arise. We might as well turn the Voyagers off then - or do missions that radiate, but continue to be funded not classify as "pollution"?

OK -- there are a few reasons why, at the end of a spacecraft's mission, you would want to shut it down and turn off its systems, including its radio transmitter/receiver.

It's true that funding only really pays for the ground support of a mission. Extended missions are funded to pay for the DSN time it takes to communicate with the spacecraft, and to pay the people tending the spacecraft, both in an engineering and in a scientific sense.

Turning off the spacecraft may just be a formality on a vehicle that is nearly out of RCS fuel, for example, or a vehicle that is about to go into a power-negative state for longer than it can ever be expected to recover from. Each of these things happens with fair frequency.

Another reason to turn off a spacecraft is to shut down any further requests for an extended mission. On a political level, someone in management somewhere may be sick to death of seeing extension after extension to a given mission drain funds off from projects that manager is more interested (or invested) in. A final directive to a final mission extension is often "shut down the spacecraft in such a way that it cannot be revived," or words to that effect. It's a way of stating with certainty that *no* further extensions will be allowed.

And, if you have no further interest in using the spacecraft, there is a legal principle that suggests you want to deny that resource to anyone who might want to use it for purposes of which our country may not approve. Now, I grant you, there is very little one could do with a 30-year-old probe that would violate America's interests... but, as with a lot of legal principles, it looks at low-likelihood events with very large consequences and decides what actual preventive measures are warranted. In some cases, you want to shut down your spacecraft at the end of their missions just to make sure no one else tries to use them.

-the other Doug

Given that reasoning and assuming the same was the case with ICE, if I were to be sarcastic I'd say the next command transmitted to ICE should then be "power down"...

The Voyagers are providing very valuable information, and they will continue to do so for decades to come, but one day they could be considered our first pieces of interstellar refuse. Near-earth debris is of much more concern!

On this topic, I raise the issue of radio pollution only as a possible reason why they wanted to turn it off in 1999. When we tried to contact it, it was right where we thought it would be, but what if it wasn't?

Location of the source could be a big issue. If post-mission ICE is in an earth-type orbit around the sun, still sending signals, but we can't control it, or can't locate it, then we have created a piece of interplanetary radio debris that follows us around, pointed at earth. While similar to no-longer-useful near-earth radio transmissions, we do have precise tracking of earth-orbiting radio satellites, both active and inactive. As we refine our space-based radio observations, we're getting more sensitive cosmic ears. A forgotten spacecraft floating in interplanetary space that should have had its transmitter turned off would create unnecessary work for a mission team.

It's a bit like the space debris problem -- if ICE were transmitting and nobody remembered leaving it on, it might create an unnecessary crisis.

I guess dmuller would have to add ICE there: http://www.dmuller.net/space/

I seem to remember that calculations around the time of its end of mission already showed that it would return to the vicinity of earth somewhere around 2008-2009 and might even be captured once again into earth orbit (more or less similar to what happened to the Apollo 12 SIV-b stage). Did a quick check to find this source but couldn't find it so I might be wrong or mistake it with Giotto...

Two extracts from "Robotic Exploration of the Solar System - vol 2"

On 5 May 1997 NASA terminated ICE operations and support, but the transmitter was purposefully left on in order to allow further tracking, as was done in 1999 when it traveled behind the Sun and the radio signal was used to probe the corona.

three options have been identified for further extending the ICE mission after its August 2014 lunar flyby, providing it is still working. The simplest option would be to return the spacecraft to its station in the L1 halo orbit, 32 years after it left it. Another option would be to place it into a highly elliptical Earth orbit whose apogee could be lowered by aerobraking passes through the upper atmosphere until it could be retrieved so that its coating of cometary material could be analyzed and the spacecraft finally donated to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Finally, ICE could be targeted to make a second flyby of Giacobini–Zinner on 19 September 2018. The original rationale for this option was that it would encounter Giacobini–Zinner a fortnight before NASA’s CONTOUR could do so if that mission were to be extended.

Yes I should update that part of my website, and not just for ISEE-3/ICE ... the days (here on Earth) are just too short

I have already pre-ordered as soon as that was possible, vol 1 was very good and looking forward to vol 2, hopefully I receive my copy soon, off course you beat me to it ;-). But my memory was right then, the transmitter was purposefully left on and not accidentally forgotten or something.



How about the engines and the fuel? I suppose all these options require some (minor) course corrections, would we still be able to successfully complete these? Returning it to earth would be the most spectacular however no chance to get a budget for this I suppose unless a really wealthy sponsor jumps in (Google?). Finding cometary material after aerobreaking? I doubt it. Returning it to its home base at L1 would be nice too, just for the fun of completing the 'roundtrip', and if we would be able to get its science payload back to life it might still be useful there.

I registered on the forums to let you all know.

My girlfriends father actually worked on and was one of the main engineers for this satellite. NASA is very close by in Goddard. Anyway they brought him back on payroll recently and they turned the satellite back on.

If you all have any questions I am sure I can get them answered by talking with her dad. He lives right down the street and they are trying to get the satellite back to do more missions and then finally put it in the Smithsonian.

Fantastic! If he has access to any info on the spacecraft itself such as diagrams, photos, or 3-view drawings those would be awesome to see. Tell him I'm glad the little spaceprobe that could is still active! :-)

Rob

There's a good question inherent in here... if they do manage to arrange another comet rendezvous, does ICE return to earth again?

They have two missions planned and are discussing funding for them currently to send it to two more coments. Originally they were just going to capture it and place it in the Smithsonian.

John, my girlfriends father, he actually let me read the engineer manual / information book for ICE. And he let me look at like, 7 to 8, big old style photographs, you know the kind, 70s film picture looking.

What is the best way you think after I get them back from him, scan them just like a normal picture?

I'd like to know more about any putative retrieval plan. Aerobraking would seem to defeat the entire stated purpose, since it would presumably erode (and contaminate) any accreted cometary material, even assuming that the final orbit would be accessible (altitude, inclination, eccentricity, etc.) Plus, how would we get it? I can't see NASA signing off on an add-on Shuttle mission for this purpose, and nothing in the Constellation architecture seems capable of doing so.

ICE was donated to the Smithsonian during the heydey of grandiose plans for the Shuttle... I'm sure there will be no retrieval in the next couple decades. I was just curious how many decades, if it indeed flies by earth again then.

I was wondering about the capture itself. Would a delta-v of 150m/s be enough to recapture ICE into Earth orbit (possibly with a Galileo-style Moon flyby)? I dont think the craft was designed for aerocapture, and aerobraking it from a highly elliptical orbit into a more normal orbit may get rid of any cometary evidence on the craft. And then the bigger question: what is going to actually capture the craft? The Shuttles supposedly stop flying 4 years before ICE returns to Earth.

Note to self: keep 2014/2015/2016 free of appointments. Will be a busy time: Dawn, Rosetta, New Horizons, possibly MSL, ExoMars, Juno ... EDIT and of course: ICE!

For a moment, it sounded like you were citing an EDIT spacecraft. I figured it out quickly, but... the concept of an EDIT spacecraft is interesting. Here's a potential mission description:

"The EDIT spacecraft will be sent to a variety of celestial targets that have already been visited by other space probes. EDIT's mission is to adjust the data returned by these earlier missions to make them conform with our own theories."



-the other Doug

Your scanner may be able to "interpret" the photo and suggest how to best scan them. Let your scanner take a shot at the suggested settings and see how they look. Really like to see some of the spacecraft!

Rob

My girlfriend scanned me some, 15 to 20 pictures from the original photos taken back way back when, before I was born! lol.

They are in my email now and I will post them up when I get time later.

Hmm, most of them are old files about ICE details, like scans of the original documents from NASA.

They are in adobe format so I will have to find a file sharing site or program, as now currently I only have photobucket.

Weasle sent me the files and I zipped 'em up and am hosting them here:
http://planetary.org/emily/ISEE.zip

I won't actually have time to read them until next week, most likely...

--Emily

Thanks to Emily (for hosting the files), and to 'weasle' and to his gilrfriend's dad for allowing us to see these documents. Nice photo of the little space ship that could (and probably still can)!

Rob

people turn off spacecraft for funding reasons......................................look at what we know now, that you can redirect existing space craft for new missions so I think a mission team can walk away from a spacecraft but please put her in powerd down mode but with transmiteer squaking or able to recieve a command.

ICE was one of the first redirecting a space craft to a whole new mission.NASA's halley comet mission had just been killed( death of Mariner mark II ?)


So..........................how much fuel is onboard?
and what is her future trajectory?
what instruments still work
sorry ICE had no imaging

I believe one of those papers that are hosted details how much fuel is left. I believe her trajectory is covered in one of the articles some where on this site as well. All of the intruments work except main battery for storing solar energy, and one of her antennas are not responding. Not sure of which one, it isnt the main one though, the one on top.

Correct, ICE had no cameras.

My name is Carlos by the way, and thank you very much Emily for hosting.

I should be able to send more scans of information next week.

Here is a tiny URL link - http://tinyurl.com/6quhfd - to an October 1977 NASA document with the ISEE A, B, and C press kit on pages 18 to 48.

Rob

A couple of ICE (ISEE-3) diagrams here... Rob

Hi Rob!

The link is: ADDRESS BY NASA ADMINISTRATOR DAN GOLDIN TO KENNEDY SPACE CENTER EMPLOYEES - JANUARY 27,1995

Wow! How did that happen? A TinyURL error? I'll check my source data on my home computer and post the correct link, I hope.

Rob

The original is "NASA-NEWS-RELEASE-77-213; P77-10213" It appears that the IT mavens at NASA have switched file numbers. I have the edited file downloaded and in hand, so if someone could "host" the ISEE Press Kit, I'd appreciate it. Left me know!

I broke the ISEE 1977 Press Kit into two parts to post them here.

Rob

And here is part 2.