That's far out!
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
871 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68772 readers
5677 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It is just incredible to me that we have the ability and knowhow to send instructions to a 40 year old transistor computer to reprogram itself and get it working again with just radio signals.
What they did was close to wizardry.
With no way to fix the chip, the team instead split the code up so it could be stored elsewhere. Initially they focused on reacquiring the engineering data, sending an update to Voyager 1 on 18 April 2024.
It takes 22.5 hours for a radio signal to travel the 24 billion kilometres (15 billion miles) out to Voyager 1, and the same back, meaning the spacecraft’s operations team didn’t receive a message back until 20 April.
But when it arrived, they had usable data from Voyager 1 for the first time in five months.
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-missions/how-fixed-voyager-1
Here's a fun fact that I think of every time I read about light delay.
We assume the speed of light is the same in all directions but there's no way to prove that it is.
It could be light speed is instantaneous in one direction, and half the speed we think it is in the reverse. Any test we could devise depends on information traveling in two directions, nullifying any discrepancies in light speed.
... but there is a way, and it has been proven.
One of the more memorable physics classes I've had went into the history of discoveries that led to our understanding of relativity. The relevant story here, starts with how sound travels though air.
Let's say you're standing at the bottom of a building shouting to your friend peeking out a window on the 5th floor. On a calm day, that friend will hear you at pretty much the same time as someone standing the same distance away, but on the street. However, if it's windy, the wind pushes around the air through which the sound of your voice is traveling, the friend up in the window will have a slight delay in receiving that sound. This can of course be verified with more scientific rigor, like a sound sent in two perpendicular directions activating a light.
Scientist at the time thought that light, like sound, must travel though some medium, and they called this theoretical medium the Aether. Since this medium is not locked to Earth, they figured they must be capable of detecting movement of this medium, an Aether wind, if you will. If somehow the movement of this medium caused the speed of light in one direction to be faster than another due to the movement of this medium, measuring the speed in two directions perpendicular to each other would reveal that difference. After a series of experiments of increasing distances and measurement sensitivities (think mirrors on mountain tops to measure the time for a laser beam to reflect), no change in the speed of light based on direction was found.
Please enjoy this wikipedia hole: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment , and please consider a bit of caution before you refer to things as facts in the future!
load more comments
(2 replies)
The speed of light in a vacuum unaffected by external forces such as gravity should be the same no matter what direction it is in. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be. That's like saying a kilometer is longer if you go East than if you go West.
However, it's actually far more complicated than that, and much of it beyond my understanding.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
That said, direction should not matter.
There's no reason it wouldn't be. The point is that it's impossible to prove that it is. There is no conceivable experiment that can be performed to prove the two-way speed of light is symmetric.
That's not how anything works. It's impossible to prove that the universe wasn't created last Thursday with everything in place as it is now. There's no point in assuming anything that can't be proven has validity.
...but that's exactly what you're doing. The fact that light travels at the same speed in all directions cannot be proven. You're the one insisting that it does.
I'm not insisting anything. I'm saying that, based on everything we know, the direction of light has no bearing on its speed.
Suggesting that it does just because we don't have evidence that it doesn't is no different, as I said, as claiming the universe was created last Thursday.
Maybe the speed of light doubles when it goes through the exact right type of orange. You can't prove it doesn't.
This is slighlty different though, we only know the two-way speed of light, not the one way speed of light.
We only know that this trip, to and back, takes x seconds. We cannot prove that the trip to the mirror takes the same length of time as the way back.
The special theory of relativity for example does not depend on the one way speed of light to be the same as the two way speed of light.
With a detector and very accurate clocks, it would be easy to say "I'm going to send a pulse at 2pm, record when you receive it" that's measuring it in one direction
load more comments
(6 replies)
Why would the one-way speed be different? For what reason? Just because you think it's possible?
For no reason. No one is saying that it is different, only that it's impossible to prove one way or the other. Light traveling the same speed in all directions, and light traveling at 2x c away from an observer and instantaneously on the return, and every other alternative that averages out to c for the round trip, are indistinguishable to any experiment we can conduct.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
...from 15.2 BILLION miles away.
And it can reply by basically shining a (very high-frequency) flashlight back at us.
Incredible is the right word, how does this still work after more than 47 years? How do they even still have energy to send and receive signals? That's one heck of a durable power source. How do the computers and sensors still work? The reliability and durability of these probes is amazing. NASA truly had some reality wizards doing what seems like magic to accomplish this.
Either that or, aliens have been helping out and repaired it from time to time.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Same. That was incredible.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm constantly amazed at the longevity of this probe, so awesome!
it's too bad they don't make cellphones like this
Kinda goes against capitalism. Planned obsolescence has been around for a long time and if somebody goes against it, they will be removed by the big players.
I'm not saying planned obsolescence isn't a thing (because it is), but that's not the only reason. Making phones smaller, lighter, faster, and more feature-dense all mean that the phone has to be built with tighter manufacturing and operating tolerances. Faster chips are more prone to heat and vibration damage. Higher power requirements means the battery has a larger charge/discharge cycle. And unfortunately, tighter operating tolerances mean that they can fall out of those tolerances much more easily.
They get dropped, shaken, exposed to large environmental temperature swings, charged in wonky ways, exposed to hand oils and other kinds of dirt, and a slew of other evils. Older phones that didn't have such tight tolerances could handle all that better. Old Nokia phones weren't built to be indestructible, they are just such simple phones that there isn't much to break; but there's a reason people don't use them much anymore. You can still get simple feature phones, but the fact remains that they don't sell well, so not many are made, and the ones that are made don't have a lot of time and money invested in them.
Now Voyager is an extremely simple computer, made with technology that has huge tolerances, in an environment that is mostly consistent and known ahead of time so the design can deliberately account for it, had lots of testing, didn't have to take mass production into its design consideration, didn't have to make cost trade-offs, and has a dedicated engineering team to keep it going. It is still impressive that it has lasted this long, but that is more a testament to the incredible work that was and is being put into it than to the technology behind it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yeah. I'd totally buy an $800 million phone.
Realistically you can buy something like a Fairphone that lets you replace most parts that wear out or get damaged, which definitely increases the overall longevity of your phone. Or that CAT phone that's supposed to be super durable if you're prone to breaking your phone. Or if smart phones aren't your deal you can maybe find the old reliable Nokia 3210, that phone does not break and the battery can be replaced.
If you have phone longevity issues then stop buying phones that are not designed to be used for a long time.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
It's like the Jason Vorhees of spacecraft
That's just Jason X.
I'd pay to see Voyager beat a teenager to death with another one in a sleeping bag. Sounds compelling.
Anyone ever sometimes think, that there's an alien species that kinda feels a little paternal towards us and keeps fixing out Tonka Toys because it makes us happy?
Screw thanking aliens, it's an incredible team of engineers that have the skills and dedication to do what seems impossible. This was 100% humanity at its best.
They rebuilt the most critical core code on a near antique spacecraft that has effectively left the solar system over an equally ancient radio link. They had 1 shot, and nailed it.
Exactly. If there's anything that we can point to and say "humanity, fuck yeah" this is it. Giving thanks to aliens or to gods is an insult to the hard work of the HUMANS that accomplished this.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
This is disrespectful towards the achievements of the human race. My father kept attributing all of our recent technology to "the findings at roswell" and i have very strong feelings towards this position.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Provided we engineer them well, this is good news for truly deep space operations. Cosmic radiation and interplanetary gasses could (and probably do) wreak havoc on various materials, but apparently technology from the 70s is capable of handling it very long term.
Now if we could just get out of these squishy meat suits we'd be in business.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I try to diagnose the carburetor in my 50 year old Jeep sitting right in front of me, and I still can't get it running right.
These people are amazing, and the people that built that so it can still be fixed out in the Oort Cloud were even better.
What's the baud rate and have they needed to adjust it over time?
Absolute Chad.
Just curious: is the data of value for research or is it more like "look at us, we can repair from a distance"?
There are currently five science investigation teams participating in the VIM. The science teams for these investigations are currently collecting and evaluating data on the strength and orientation of the Sun's magnetic field; the composition, direction and energy spectra of the solar wind particles and interstellar cosmic rays; the strength of radio emissions that are thought to be originating at the heliopause, beyond which is interstellar space; and the distribution of hydrogen within the outer heliosphere.
There are 4 operating instruments on-board the Voyager 1 spacecraft. These instruments directly support the five science investigations teams. The Planetary Radio Astronomy Investigation (PRA) is no longer working on the Voyager 1 spacecraft and the Ultraviolet Spectrometer Subsystem (UVS) is no longer working on Voyager 1 or Voyager 2.
Yes the data is valuable for research. You and I may not understand any of it, but its useful to someone. As for repairing from a distance, that thing has been traveling for 46 years and gone far. For reference, it passed Neptune back in 1989.
It would take many years for a new probe to reach those distances, so if it can be repaired, it shall.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_2
Hypothetically, lets say it only takes 30 years for a new probe with updated tech to reach where Voyager 2 is now. If V2 died today, thats half of someone's career spent waiting for the new probe to arrive. Multiply that by everyone using the probe for research and you have a ton of wasted potential.
I'm aware that sending something to do the repairs isn't an option, my question was whether it's worth it (and apparently it is) or if it's more an experiment about long distance repairs which by itself is very expressive already.
I'm not sure why I'm downvoted. Maybe I worded my question badly or it's because it was a question I could have googled on my own. I don't know and neither do I care. I don't think you downvoted me, if it sounded that way. Just now saw it and wondered why
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Considering that's one of the two objects humanity ever have on direct contact with the medium outside the limits of our solar system, and the only tool we'll have there for at least four decades, I'd argue that yes, it is pretty valuable.
The repair from distance part is nothing to be shy about, too.
It's the only instrumentation we have at that distance that can measure things like solar irradiance.
Interesting question though, which sent me down a rabbit hole to see the capabilities of the instrumentation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
🫡
o7
view more: next ›