Voyager 1 still going..
Discussion
Plenty of other links if you google, but they are all an interesting read..
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/science/space/go...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/science/space/go...
Slink said:
that article says its power source is nuclear, why not have a solar backup for when that depletes?
surely that would have made sense as there is alwasy light in space from the uncountable amount of stars around.
I think the distance from it's nearest star (our sun) means that any solar backup would be useless by now.surely that would have made sense as there is alwasy light in space from the uncountable amount of stars around.
Slink said:
I did think that, but what about the countless starts around, countless billions of a 1 watt bulb quite far away will be quite powerful wont it?
Nope, its no closer to any other star than we are on earth in meaningful terms.Because of the inverse square rule solar wouldnt to squat out in interstellar space.
As has been said, with the solar panel technology as it existed when Voyager was being designed (1968-72 period), there was no way that solar panels would have generated enough power at its primary target, the planet Jupiter.
It's secondary targets, the other outer planets, were even more remote. It was decided early on to use a nuclear isotope power source.
Nuclear isotope power sources have been used on quite a few space missions - the two Voyagers, Pioneers 10 and 11, the Viking Landers, the Apollo lunar surface experimental packages and a couple of more recent missions.
Since 1972, the capability of solar panels has improved a great deal. The current NASA Juno mission to Jupiter does indeed use solar panels - but they are some of the largest panels ever used on a space mission.
It's secondary targets, the other outer planets, were even more remote. It was decided early on to use a nuclear isotope power source.
Nuclear isotope power sources have been used on quite a few space missions - the two Voyagers, Pioneers 10 and 11, the Viking Landers, the Apollo lunar surface experimental packages and a couple of more recent missions.
Since 1972, the capability of solar panels has improved a great deal. The current NASA Juno mission to Jupiter does indeed use solar panels - but they are some of the largest panels ever used on a space mission.
Slink said:
I did think that, but what about the countless starts around, countless billions of a 1 watt bulb quite far away will be quite powerful wont it?
It's no closer to any stars than we are - and there's no way you could power anything with a solar panel at night time from starlight is there. Even energy from the sun is way too low to power anything at the distance Voyager is at - remember the inverse square law - double the distance means 1/4 the power, it is REALLY dark out there !Slink said:
I did think that, but what about the countless starts around, countless billions of a 1 watt bulb quite far away will be quite powerful wont it?
Have you never noticed that it gets rather dark at night, despite the approximately 1 billion stars that we have discovered? (and many billions more that we haven't).
You could almost argue that the encounter with Jupiter was the primary mission of the Voyagers. It was hoped that the craft would survive the encounter and then go on to fly-by all the remaining planets of the Solar System.
NASA had envisaged a "Grand Tour" of the Solar System when it was realised that the plants would be lined up nicely in the late 70s/early 80s. However, after severe budget cuts in 1970, the Grand Tour mission was scrapped.
Instead, a more modest "budget" mission to Jupiter was planned. However, NASA cleverly ensured that the planning for the original Grand Tour mission could be incorporated into Voyager which, in the end, was able to carry out virtually all the goals of the Grand Tour.
NASA had envisaged a "Grand Tour" of the Solar System when it was realised that the plants would be lined up nicely in the late 70s/early 80s. However, after severe budget cuts in 1970, the Grand Tour mission was scrapped.
Instead, a more modest "budget" mission to Jupiter was planned. However, NASA cleverly ensured that the planning for the original Grand Tour mission could be incorporated into Voyager which, in the end, was able to carry out virtually all the goals of the Grand Tour.
And much of the "heavy usage" aspects of Voyager's instruments have been disabled and shut down to stretch out the power supply. In fact, the main instrument, the scanning camera, has been out of action for over 20 years.
I thought Kepler was also cooled using liquid nitrogen - so its mission would always be limited by the supply of liquid nitrogen on board.
I thought Kepler was also cooled using liquid nitrogen - so its mission would always be limited by the supply of liquid nitrogen on board.
Simpo Two said:
Why does something in the virutally absolute zero of space need cooling?
Space isn't at absolute zero - a vacuum doesn't have a temperature.A satellite in Earth orbit like Kepler is nowhere near absolute zero - far from it. Thanks to solar heating it will be at quite a high temperature, never mind the heat generated internally by its electronics. However for its very sensitive detector to work properly it needs to be cooled, though for the type of detector onboard Kepler passive radiative cooling is sufficient ( unlike WMAP which carried an infrared detector cooled to 90K ). However the main issue with Kepler was its attitude control system - its mission required very precise pointing of the spacecraft, and the failed reaction wheels prevented this.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff