It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alert -- Pluto Science Data/Image Return to be Slow

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Check how long it took to get there, look at when it was built then YOU might stop making STUPID comments about the technology

It was launched in Jan 2006 !

Remember it's all about available power to run everything something I thought with your claimed expertise you might have considered.

It will be around 200 watts in total now.

edit on 28-6-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: tanka418

Check how long it took to get there, look at when it was built then YOU might stop making STUPID comments about the technology

It was launched in Jan 2006 !

Remember it's all about available power to run everything something I thought with your claimed expertise you might have considered.

It will be around 200 watts in total now.


Name calling?!?Wow.

Yes I know it was built around 2005 and takes 230 watts to run. Perhaps you don't understand that the technology to give this system a better CPU, and radio set existed then.

I looked up the machine's technology, and frankly, I'm amazed they managed any of it. The processors are from the late 80's, and so is the CCD.

The processor choice says quite a lot about the engineering team...likely young, recent grads trying to design something "impressive". Hence the selection of RISC processors. RISC processors were more of a fad back in the day, they never quite panned out, and today all serious processing is done with CISC architecture. The use of the CMOS, even back in 2005 was virtually common place, and existed in every mobile device, as it does today. Even in 2005 the processors were very low power, and operated at gigahertz (as opposed to 12 MHz), there were multiple core devices available as well...all of these older Pentium architecture devices were 32 bit, many had 64 bit extensions.

In 2005 I purchased a Fujifilm DSLR...it is 6MP. New Horizons appears to be 1MP...everything is bolted to the chassis and can not be positioned without turning the entire spacecraft...there's some engineering eh?

I'll give you that the machine is old, as old as I was making it out to be...but the architecture, the engineering? whoa!



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

You do realize that they don't just slap the newest hardware on it on launch day, right? It launched in 2005, but I'm sure there were several years of design and testing that went into it prior to 2005, and you can't just change components in the middle because something newer and better came out. If that were the case, nothing would ever get off the ground.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: tanka418

You do realize that they don't just slap the newest hardware on it on launch day, right? It launched in 2005, but I'm sure there were several years of design and testing that went into it prior to 2005, and you can't just change components in the middle because something newer and better came out. If that were the case, nothing would ever get off the ground.


I believe it was launched in early 2006...but..

Engineering on something like that...actually not much different than my project, only has the addition of a spacecraft to transport the robot. And much of the spacecraft was likely built by company that builds spacecraft...or, the whole propulsion was a one off system built out of engineering models, like many projects of that nature.

Either way the spacecraft is probably rather "stock"...inexpensive...quick and relatively easy...except for the maneuver to allow sensing or communication...that was actually very stupid, and one of the more serious errors in the system. Though it does save an insignificant amount of power...

As for the "business" parts. Once they had hardware (probably weeks), it likely wasn't more than 6 - 9 months to completion. That is a rather simple system, so, quite frankly, I'm surprised NASA accepted such a primitive system.

In 2005 low power 32bit, multi-core CISC processors had existed for some years. Intel was proud of them and AMD copied them...so sorry, that argument don't wash. Their choice of CPU was wholly inappropriate.

Further, the design will be primarily responsible for the dramatically reduced amount of data that could have been acquired. That said; all the data gathered will be GOLD. Lets hope they actually put it in a proper database...



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

In 2005 I purchased a Fujifilm DSLR...it is 6MP. New Horizons appears to be 1MP...everything is bolted to the chassis and can not be positioned without turning the entire spacecraft...there's some engineering eh?



engineering also involves consideration of reliability.. bolting it to the chassis is the smart choice.

the more moving parts the more that can go wrong, im sure you know this.
and we are talking about moving parts that would have been exposed to extreme cold temperatures for many years.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

In 2005 I purchased a Fujifilm DSLR...it is 6MP. New Horizons appears to be 1MP...everything is bolted to the chassis and can not be positioned without turning the entire spacecraft...there's some engineering eh?



engineering also involves consideration of reliability.. bolting it to the chassis is the smart choice.

the more moving parts the more that can go wrong, im sure you know this.
and we are talking about moving parts that would have been exposed to extreme cold temperatures for many years.


Yes it does; position an antenna vs. position a spacecraft. Which do you suppose is the easiest. most reliable?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

In 2005 I purchased a Fujifilm DSLR...it is 6MP. New Horizons appears to be 1MP...everything is bolted to the chassis and can not be positioned without turning the entire spacecraft...there's some engineering eh?



engineering also involves consideration of reliability.. bolting it to the chassis is the smart choice.

the more moving parts the more that can go wrong, im sure you know this.
and we are talking about moving parts that would have been exposed to extreme cold temperatures for many years.


Yes it does; position an antenna vs. position a spacecraft. Which do you suppose is the easiest. most reliable?


positioning an antenna would involve mechanical movement..
maneuvering a spacecraft involves firing thrusters..

which would you consider more reliable?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

In 2005 I purchased a Fujifilm DSLR...it is 6MP. New Horizons appears to be 1MP...everything is bolted to the chassis and can not be positioned without turning the entire spacecraft...there's some engineering eh?



engineering also involves consideration of reliability.. bolting it to the chassis is the smart choice.

the more moving parts the more that can go wrong, im sure you know this.
and we are talking about moving parts that would have been exposed to extreme cold temperatures for many years.


Yes it does; position an antenna vs. position a spacecraft. Which do you suppose is the easiest. most reliable?


positioning an antenna would involve mechanical movement..
maneuvering a spacecraft involves firing thrusters..

which would you consider more reliable?


Actually, spacecraft like New Horizons doesn't use thrusters for positioning...they use inertia wheels...a mechanical system. And, I know it seems a bit counter-intuitive at first, but...reduces weight (no fuel), and is more reliable than a chemical thruster (it doesn't "run out" of fuel).

Oh, and the mechanical movement, by the way...it is way easier to get the kind of precision needed...

edit on 28-6-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

In 2005 I purchased a Fujifilm DSLR...it is 6MP. New Horizons appears to be 1MP...everything is bolted to the chassis and can not be positioned without turning the entire spacecraft...there's some engineering eh?



engineering also involves consideration of reliability.. bolting it to the chassis is the smart choice.

the more moving parts the more that can go wrong, im sure you know this.
and we are talking about moving parts that would have been exposed to extreme cold temperatures for many years.


Yes it does; position an antenna vs. position a spacecraft. Which do you suppose is the easiest. most reliable?


positioning an antenna would involve mechanical movement..
maneuvering a spacecraft involves firing thrusters..

which would you consider more reliable?


Actually, spacecraft like New Horizons doesn't use thrusters for positioning...they use inertia wheels...a mechanical system. And, I know it seems a bit counter-intuitive at first, but...reduces weight (no fuel), and is more reliable than a chemical thruster (it doesn't "run out" of fuel).

Oh, and the mechanical movement, by the way...it is way easier to get the kind of precision needed...


you might be mistaken, inertia wheels would be used for guidance computers as information not to maneuver the spacecraft..

new horizons uses thrusters for maneuvring

chemical thrusters are very very reliable.. they were designed that way, there is no need to worry about running out of fuel as that would have been in the calculations of the designed life..



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

In 2005 I purchased a Fujifilm DSLR...it is 6MP. New Horizons appears to be 1MP...everything is bolted to the chassis and can not be positioned without turning the entire spacecraft...there's some engineering eh?



engineering also involves consideration of reliability.. bolting it to the chassis is the smart choice.

the more moving parts the more that can go wrong, im sure you know this.
and we are talking about moving parts that would have been exposed to extreme cold temperatures for many years.


Yes it does; position an antenna vs. position a spacecraft. Which do you suppose is the easiest. most reliable?


positioning an antenna would involve mechanical movement..
maneuvering a spacecraft involves firing thrusters..

which would you consider more reliable?


Actually, spacecraft like New Horizons doesn't use thrusters for positioning...they use inertia wheels...a mechanical system. And, I know it seems a bit counter-intuitive at first, but...reduces weight (no fuel), and is more reliable than a chemical thruster (it doesn't "run out" of fuel).

Oh, and the mechanical movement, by the way...it is way easier to get the kind of precision needed...


you might be mistaken, inertia wheels would be used for guidance computers as information not to maneuver the spacecraft..

new horizons uses thrusters for maneuvring

chemical thrusters are very very reliable.. they were designed that way, there is no need to worry about running out of fuel as that would have been in the calculations of the designed life..



I'm sorry "reaction wheel" is perhaps a better name...


A reaction wheel (RW) is a type of flywheel used primarily by spacecraft for attitude control without using fuel for rockets or other reaction devices. They are particularly useful when the spacecraft must be rotated by very small amounts, such as keeping a telescope pointed at a star. They may also reduce the mass fraction needed for fuel. This is accomplished by equipping the spacecraft with an electric motor attached to a flywheel which, when its rotation speed is changed, causes the spacecraft to begin to counter-rotate proportionately through conservation of angular momentum. Reaction wheels can only rotate a spacecraft around its center of mass (see torque); they are not capable of moving the spacecraft from one place to another (see translational force). Reaction wheels work around a nominal zero rotation speed. However, external torques on the spacecraft may require a gradual buildup of reaction wheel rotation speed to maintain the spacecraft in a fixed orientation.
-- en.wikipedia.org...

It is these Reaction (Inertia) wheels that are primarily responsible for positioning on almost all spacecraft. They don't require any fuel, and, again, are much more precise...this precise alignment is something that is required for the antenna, especially at those distances (Earth to Pluto)...

ETA: Okay, I guess you're right it uses 16 thrusters burning hydrazine monopropellant...even more poor engineering decisions...


edit on 28-6-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

hard to say if its a poor engineering decision..

how reliable are these wheels as compared with thrusters??

seems thrusters are the backup for these reaction wheels.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Imaging EXPERT to MISSIONS EXPERT in just 2 threads and a few posts well done YOU.

You seem to be like many on here that think they can do a better job so I will ask the question why aren't YOU


A few quick points.

The mission was proposed in 2001 after a previous mission was cancelled.

The power source being a radioisotope thermoelectric generator reduces in power during the mission starting at 250w and being around 200 w now.

When trying for a long term objective ie 3 billion miles & ten years of travel it's better to have proven technology that WORKS and has PROVED that on previous missions, better some data than NO data.

Here for example


On March 19, 2007 the Command and Data Handling computer experienced an uncorrectable memory error and rebooted itself, causing the spacecraft to go into safe mode. The craft fully recovered within two days, with some data loss on Jupiter's magnetotail. No impact on the subsequent mission is expected.




Now just imagine they did as YOU said and it went phut during the journey for a start they would get lynched on here they would be out with the pitchforks saying why use newer tech the old stuff worked but when they are not happy with what they see (most on here don't understand digital imaging !!!!) they would then say that's old tech my camera phone could do better.

At the time the mission was proposed CCD chips STILL had advantages over CMOS chips and they STILL have a couple of advantages NOW !

Here a PDF about it from an article from 2001

It's not as straight forward as YOU think.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Regarding reaction wheels so each one is POWERED by and electric motor on a craft that has MINIMAL electric power to start with YES it was a poor engineering decision not to have them


Also


The failure of one or more reaction wheels can cause a spacecraft to lose its ability to maintain position and thus potentially cause a mission failure.

In 2002, a crew of astronauts from the space shuttle Columbia replaced one of the five reaction wheels on the Hubble space telescope.

In 2004, during the mission of the Hayabusa spacecraft, an X-axis reaction wheel failed.The Y-axis wheel failed in 2005 causing the craft to rely on chemical thrusters to maintain attitude control


None of the above would be a problem on the way to Pluto all we do is send a repair team ......OH

edit on 29-6-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: tanka418

Imaging EXPERT to MISSIONS EXPERT in just 2 threads and a few posts well done YOU.

You seem to be like many on here that think they can do a better job so I will ask the question why aren't YOU




Lets see here...in 2005 I was writing a data acquisition, management and analysis system, still in use today in the insurance industry. I retired in 2009 after more than 40 years as a hardware/software engineer...I was "called" a senior architect at the time.




A few quick points.

The mission was proposed in 2001 after a previous mission was cancelled.

The power source being a radioisotope thermoelectric generator reduces in power during the mission starting at 250w and being around 200 w now.



I didn't think, course I didn't check either, that Plutonium had such a short half life...Did you know that lithium ion batteries have a far superior discharge curve, and a 10+ year shelf life? You can literally charge your cell phone battery, remove it from your phone; and in 10 years it will still be fully charged.

Course this mission is a bit longer than 10 years...so...it is still the nuclear battery for long duration space missions.



When trying for a long term objective ie 3 billion miles & ten years of travel it's better to have proven technology that WORKS and has PROVED that on previous missions, better some data than NO data.

Here for example


On March 19, 2007 the Command and Data Handling computer experienced an uncorrectable memory error and rebooted itself, causing the spacecraft to go into safe mode. The craft fully recovered within two days, with some data loss on Jupiter's magnetotail. No impact on the subsequent mission is expected.




I think you were trying to make a point here, but...it appears you aren't an engineer...if you were you would know that just this sort of issue would have been planned for...and already handled...just like the original team.

My issue is: why did it take two days? My development system can recycle in just a few minutes...so can your PC. Both are equally as complex as that space craft.

The technology I have been talking about here, and would have used in a design like that, has been well proven over the past 40 years...The use of RISC based processor architecture, had prove itself to be rather less than desirable by 2005, yet the went with that inferior technology anyway.

I remember when RISC was trying to become popular; me and many friends at places like Intel just shook our heads into a face palm over it...we were all proven right long before 2005.




At the time the mission was proposed CCD chips STILL had advantages over CMOS chips and they STILL have a couple of advantages NOW !



Just had to hang your lack of knowledge out there didn't you? Sigh!!! Don't really know the difference between CCD and CMOS...

CCD chips are a CMOS device that contain many photo transistors (detectors) and allow is to construct images from ambient light.

CMOS is a technology that dates back to the 1970's and is a method of build circuits that require little power...typically they use "Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductors" (CMOS)

CMOS imaging sensors that aren't CCD are simply a method at producing the same sort of effect...the capturing of an image. Personally, I would prefer CCD.



It's not as straight forward as YOU think.


Actually...its not a straight forward as YOU think, it is a rather simple exercise for me...

Spacecraft and robot design is something that should be done by experienced engineers, as opposed to "junior" engineers (even IF they have a PhD)...this is a case where experience would payoff very well.

Oh, and by the way; Yes, I could have done a better job.


edit on 29-6-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: tanka418

Regarding reaction wheels so each one is POWERED by and electric motor on a craft that has MINIMAL electric power to start with YES it was a poor engineering decision not to have them


Also


The failure of one or more reaction wheels can cause a spacecraft to lose its ability to maintain position and thus potentially cause a mission failure.

In 2002, a crew of astronauts from the space shuttle Columbia replaced one of the five reaction wheels on the Hubble space telescope.

In 2004, during the mission of the Hayabusa spacecraft, an X-axis reaction wheel failed.The Y-axis wheel failed in 2005 causing the craft to rely on chemical thrusters to maintain attitude control


None of the above would be a problem on the way to Pluto all we do is send a repair team ......OH


Minimal electrical power...I have deployed Internet servers that use little more than 230 watts...and I wasn't trying to conserve power.

Your entire argument applies equally to the chemical thrusters. Though, what do you think will happen, IF for any reason they loose fuel pressure in their thruster system...you know some or all of the helium leaks out?

I do believe that would result in an equally dead spacecraft! Better resurrect an old shuttle, fly out there and repair it...


edit on 29-6-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: tanka418

Regarding reaction wheels so each one is POWERED by and electric motor on a craft that has MINIMAL electric power to start with YES it was a poor engineering decision not to have them


Also


The failure of one or more reaction wheels can cause a spacecraft to lose its ability to maintain position and thus potentially cause a mission failure.

In 2002, a crew of astronauts from the space shuttle Columbia replaced one of the five reaction wheels on the Hubble space telescope.

In 2004, during the mission of the Hayabusa spacecraft, an X-axis reaction wheel failed.The Y-axis wheel failed in 2005 causing the craft to rely on chemical thrusters to maintain attitude control


None of the above would be a problem on the way to Pluto all we do is send a repair team ......OH


Your entire argument applies equally to the chemical thrusters. Though, what do you think will happen, IF for any reason they loose fuel pressure in their thruster system...you know some or all of the helium leaks out?

I do believe that would result in an equally dead spacecraft! Better resurrect an old shuttle, fly out there and repair it...



if thats the case then most likely there may be more than one tank, both with the ability to operate independently of each other and in conjunction with each other.

it will shorten the life span of the spacecraft but its still usable..

Reaction wheels will have alot more moving parts than simple thrusters.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: tanka418

Regarding reaction wheels so each one is POWERED by and electric motor on a craft that has MINIMAL electric power to start with YES it was a poor engineering decision not to have them


Also


The failure of one or more reaction wheels can cause a spacecraft to lose its ability to maintain position and thus potentially cause a mission failure.

In 2002, a crew of astronauts from the space shuttle Columbia replaced one of the five reaction wheels on the Hubble space telescope.

In 2004, during the mission of the Hayabusa spacecraft, an X-axis reaction wheel failed.The Y-axis wheel failed in 2005 causing the craft to rely on chemical thrusters to maintain attitude control


None of the above would be a problem on the way to Pluto all we do is send a repair team ......OH


Your entire argument applies equally to the chemical thrusters. Though, what do you think will happen, IF for any reason they loose fuel pressure in their thruster system...you know some or all of the helium leaks out?

I do believe that would result in an equally dead spacecraft! Better resurrect an old shuttle, fly out there and repair it...



if thats the case then most likely there may be more than one tank, both with the ability to operate independently of each other and in conjunction with each other.

it will shorten the life span of the spacecraft but its still usable..

Reaction wheels will have alot more moving parts than simple thrusters.


Actually it appears that New Horizons has a single fuel tank...I think it said it contained 17KG of fuel....

Thrusters have valves, a pressurization method, fuel lines...valves can fail, the system can loose pressurization, micro-meteors can penetrate fuel lines.

Reaction wheels have an electric motor...

Do y'all think you can actually think through your responses before you post?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: tanka418

Regarding reaction wheels so each one is POWERED by and electric motor on a craft that has MINIMAL electric power to start with YES it was a poor engineering decision not to have them


Also


The failure of one or more reaction wheels can cause a spacecraft to lose its ability to maintain position and thus potentially cause a mission failure.

In 2002, a crew of astronauts from the space shuttle Columbia replaced one of the five reaction wheels on the Hubble space telescope.

In 2004, during the mission of the Hayabusa spacecraft, an X-axis reaction wheel failed.The Y-axis wheel failed in 2005 causing the craft to rely on chemical thrusters to maintain attitude control


None of the above would be a problem on the way to Pluto all we do is send a repair team ......OH


Your entire argument applies equally to the chemical thrusters. Though, what do you think will happen, IF for any reason they loose fuel pressure in their thruster system...you know some or all of the helium leaks out?

I do believe that would result in an equally dead spacecraft! Better resurrect an old shuttle, fly out there and repair it...



if thats the case then most likely there may be more than one tank, both with the ability to operate independently of each other and in conjunction with each other.

it will shorten the life span of the spacecraft but its still usable..

Reaction wheels will have alot more moving parts than simple thrusters.


Actually it appears that New Horizons has a single fuel tank...I think it said it contained 17KG of fuel....

Thrusters have valves, a pressurization method, fuel lines...valves can fail, the system can loose pressurization, micro-meteors can penetrate fuel lines.

Reaction wheels have an electric motor...

Do y'all think you can actually think through your responses before you post?



electric motor will be spinning right? so wear and tear?? would it be required to run constantly for 10+ years straight with no failure and no maintenance?? when its switched off will it require more power to heat it up again and restart it for attitude corrections?? how long will the restart take and what guarantee will we have that it will restart??

vernier thrusters have alot more reliability than electric machines.. rarely will thrusters fail, often we hear rovers not restarting, we hear about mechanical failures.. but rarely ever thruster failure..

micrometeorites can affect an electric motor just as much as fuel lines, or tanks.. if you think they cant be protected then neither can an electric motor..

but an electric motor also needs to deal with constant GCR's..

but anyway.. this is sidetracking the topic.. it doesnt matter how smart you are and how much more technologically advanced you would have made it.. its been made with what it has.

its download is slow given the huge distances and the hardware it has.. you are a computer guy you should know.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Yes both chips were developed at roughly the same time but CCD chips in cameras have one distinct advatage over cmos NO rolling shutter effect (all pixels exposed at once) and cheaper to mass produce.


Lithium ion batteries HATE a cold day on Earth never mind deep space but then I suppose they could keep them warm with their power system on continuously for 10 years doh!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Reaction wheels...but they only change the attitude of a vehicle right? I mean in no way can they actually change trajectory, they can only spin about the centre axis, as in left /right, up /down, tilt left/ right correct?

Plus, have you guys ever seen the shake down tests they do for space launches? They are crazy and extremely violent. That was, I am sure, a restriction on what could be utilized on the probe.

And no, I did NOT listen to N-Sync Jadestar!!!


edit on 29-6-2015 by Jonjonj because: addition




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join