NASA Space Probe Recovery
Discussion
Thought it was going to be a repeat of an earlier attempt with Genesis.They weren't relying on silly stunt-like aerial recovery techniques this time - probably because it was a night time recovery. However, they are having some difficulty at the moment positively locating exactly where it has come down.
Edited to say they have just found it and are checking it out.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 10:49
Edited to say they have just found it and are checking it out.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 10:49
Eric Mc said:
Safely recovered now and on its way to the laboratory.
Apparently, it was the fastest re-rentry of a man made object since Apollo 10 in 1969.
Is that right, wow? The big difference being Apollo 10 had people aboard! I can't imagine the G-forces involved for the Apollo crew!
All the Apollos re-entered at just under or just over 25,000 mph (the Shuttle comes in at 17,500 mph in comparison). The actual speed is not what determines the G forces but the deceleration. I think on re-entry Apollo crews experienced a maximum of about 6 to 7 Gs.
Apollo 10 was probably only marginally faster than the other missions. And if you want to see the effects of the re-entry of Apollo 10 on the spacecraft, you're in luck if you live in the UK. The capsule resides in the Space Exhibition area of the Science Museum, London.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 13:10
Apollo 10 was probably only marginally faster than the other missions. And if you want to see the effects of the re-entry of Apollo 10 on the spacecraft, you're in luck if you live in the UK. The capsule resides in the Space Exhibition area of the Science Museum, London.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 13:10
Eric Mc said:
Safely recovered now and on its way to the laboratory.
Apparently, it was the fastest re-rentry of a man made object since Apollo 10 in 1969.
Eric, any idea how they get a probe to re-enter and land like that? Is it programmed in from the start or is it like a big remote control car? Also, my curiosity is running slightly wild on this issue, iirc the probe was up for 7 years or thereabouts. Would they have to keep a bank of old computers that still speak the same language for the re-entry control? I mean, it'd be kinda hard to update the OS on a spaceship, wouldn't it?
Eric Mc said:
All the Apollos re-entered at just under or just over 25,000 mph (the Shuttle comes in at 17,500 mph in comparison). The actual speed is not what determines the G forces but the deceleration. I think on re-entry Apollo crews experienced a maximum of about 6 to 7 Gs.
Apollo 10 was probably only marginally faster than the other missions. And if you want to see the effects of the re-entry of Apollo 10 on the spacecraft, you're in luck if you live in the UK. The capsule resides in the Space Exhibition area of the Science Museum, London.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 13:10
Yes I went to the Science Museum with my kids just a few weeks ago and saw it there! Cracking day out actually. A couple of years ago I went to the "National Aeronotical and Space Museum" in Washington DC - that really was awesome!
Up-the dubs. These unmanned probes work on a combination of on board decision making capability and direct instructions from earth. The instructions from earth can be carried out immediately by the probe or, more commonly, sent to the probe in advance and carried out at a pre-determined later time by the spacecraft.
As far as the ability to re-program the onboard computer(s), NASA are experts at this. They have re-programmed the Voyager spacecraft software many, many times by inputting new code sequences etc over a time period of (now) 29 years (the two Voyager probes were launched in 1977).
Most spacecraft have life spans of at least two to three years so the mission controllers have to be able to re-schedule quite a few of the spacecraft's tasks over its mission life. Sometimes it's to counteract problems that have occurred over the life of the pscecraft (broken tape-recorders, stuck scan platforms, jammed antennae etc) and sometimes it is to allow the spacecraft to carry out activities that may not have been envisaged in the original mission plan.
I'm sure this mission's flight path over the seven years it spent in space were well understood and anticipated over that time. The precise moment that it was to re-enter the earth's atmosphere would have been known to the precise second even before the probe was launched in 1999.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 15:32
As far as the ability to re-program the onboard computer(s), NASA are experts at this. They have re-programmed the Voyager spacecraft software many, many times by inputting new code sequences etc over a time period of (now) 29 years (the two Voyager probes were launched in 1977).
Most spacecraft have life spans of at least two to three years so the mission controllers have to be able to re-schedule quite a few of the spacecraft's tasks over its mission life. Sometimes it's to counteract problems that have occurred over the life of the pscecraft (broken tape-recorders, stuck scan platforms, jammed antennae etc) and sometimes it is to allow the spacecraft to carry out activities that may not have been envisaged in the original mission plan.
I'm sure this mission's flight path over the seven years it spent in space were well understood and anticipated over that time. The precise moment that it was to re-enter the earth's atmosphere would have been known to the precise second even before the probe was launched in 1999.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 15:32
One of the reasons why direct remote control is difficult is because of the great distances involved and the appreciable time lag that can occur once a probe is a long way away. The Russians drove two remote controlled lunar rovers (Lunakhods 1 and 2) in 1971 and 1975 and they found trying to steer and direct these vehicles by direct remote control from earth very diificult. And that was from the earth to the moon where the time delay is less than a second.
The current Mars rovers (Spirit and Odyssey) are pretty autonomous in that the NASA controllers send up a list of instructions telling them where they want them to go but then the rovers make their own way to their destination - adjusting their routes where necessary to avoid obstacles etc. The time lag between earth and Mars is currently about 15 - 20 minutes.
The current Mars rovers (Spirit and Odyssey) are pretty autonomous in that the NASA controllers send up a list of instructions telling them where they want them to go but then the rovers make their own way to their destination - adjusting their routes where necessary to avoid obstacles etc. The time lag between earth and Mars is currently about 15 - 20 minutes.
Yes, both Voyages are still alive and transmitting. Obviously, they are way beyond Pluto now and do not have much to send back data about. However, in the 30ish years that they have been travelling, astronomers and space scientists have come to learn that the very far reaches of the solar system are becomming much more interesting (they are getting all excited about things like "Oort Clouds" and "Kuiper Belt Objects" ). They are therefore much keener to receive data back from these regions than they thought they would be back in 1977.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 17:13
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 17:13
srebbe64 said:
Do you mean to say that the Voyager probes are still sending back data Eric? If so, I'm guessing they're further away than Lands End?
It makes "Star Trek The Motion Picture" more believable than ever!
www.heavens-above.com/solar-escape.asp says Voyager 1 is 97 AUs (9.10465737 × 10^9 miles) away from the sun and travelling at 17km/s, and still working! That same site says the two Pioneer probes aren't working but are still travelling rather rapidly (well 11km/s) into deep space.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff