A new "power strategy" will keep NASA's Voyager 2 instruments working for longer in outer...

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 968   +293
Staff
Why it matters: After spending 45 years in space, the Voyager 2 mission is still going strong. Energy supply isn't what it used to be, though, so NASA is working on new "tricks" that can extend the mission of the everlasting space probe even further.

Launched on August 20, 1977, just 16 days before its twin Voyager 1, the Voyager 2 space probe is now cruising outside the protective bubble of the Solar System in a region known as the heliosphere. The exploration mission lasted way longer than NASA planned, and it could even continue for many more years to come if a new "power strategy" implemented by the space agency turns out to be successful.

Right now, Voyager 2 is employing five different science instruments to study the interstellar space outside the heliosphere's magnetic bubble. The probe is powered by a set of three radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG), which are essentially nuclear generators that convert heat from decaying plutonium-238 atoms into electricity.

After 45 years, the nuclear generators of Voyager 2 cannot possibly produce the same amount of energy as before. NASA was considering shutting down one of the instruments to keep the other four in working order, but the agency ultimately decided to try an alternative solution that could keep all the five instruments running until at least 2026.

NASA engineers have already turned off heaters and other "non-essential" components of the Voyager 2 mission. Now, to avoid shutting one of the probe's science instruments down, the agency has decided to use a small amount of backup power from the RTG reserved to avoid potentially dangerous voltage fluctuations.

Voyager 2 is equipped with a voltage regulator which triggers the backup circuit if a fluctuation in voltage is detected, NASA explains, protecting the instruments from damage. Even after more than 45 years of flight, the electrical systems on both Voyager probes have remained relatively stable, so NASA thinks that a tighter voltage regulation is not essential anymore.

"Variable voltages pose a risk to the instruments," Voyager's project manager at JPL Suzanne Dodd explains, but NASA has determined that it's a small risk worth taking with the big reward of "being able to keep the science instruments turned on longer." JPL has been monitoring the spacecraft flight for a few weeks, and the new approach to power consumption seems to be working as expected. The team will keep monitoring electric voltage to eventually respond if it fluctuates too much.

The Voyager mission was originally designed to last only four years, sending the twin probes beyond gas giants Saturn and Jupiter. NASA extended the mission to make Voyager 2 visit Neptune and Uranus, then extended the mission a second time in 1990 to send the probes outside the heliosphere. Voyager 1 reached the outermost border of our Solar System's magnetic influence in 2012, while Voyager 2 got there (traveling in a different direction with a lower cruising speed) six years later in 2018.

Permalink to story.

 
Two of the most impressive pieces of science / engineering ever devised. Truly incredible and an inspiration to us all.

It still blows my mind just how far away they are now and somehow they're still working.
 
Say what you want about the US Government, but NASA is, IMO, a model of efficiency. Many space probes, in recent years - if you want to call the 1970's recent :laughing: - have far out-lived their design lifetimes. If only companies were on board with that kind of engineering instead of being on board with profit.

I know - dream on.
 
Two of the most impressive pieces of science / engineering ever devised. Truly incredible and an inspiration to us all.

It still blows my mind just how far away they are now and somehow they're still working.

I agree. Having written flash boot loaders and embedded firmware, there are many things that can go wrong ON EARTH. These probes are running on 1970’s hardware millions of miles in space and still are running 45 years later. Truly impressive!
 
Say what you want about the US Government, but NASA is, IMO, a model of efficiency.

I can’t say I agree with this particular statement. Since the Apollo program, NASA has largely dropped the ball. Among other things, the shuttle program failed to meet the goals of a low cost, reusable orbiter, they didn’t have a solution ready after retiring the shuttle for ISS flights (other than renting crew space in Soyuz capsules atop Russian rockets) and the SLS is an absolute boondoggle (see below for a few examples from various sources.

https://www.eclipseaviation.com/nasa-wasteful-inefficient-and-secretive/

https://mashable.com/article/nasa-rocket-cost-sls-artemis-space

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/08/28/nasas-newest-rocket-is-a-colossal-waste-of-money

I loved NASA growing up, but my hopes these days are with SpaceX. When you compare the progress and innovation by SpaceX to what NASA has done recently (and how much longer NASA has been doing this) the difference is striking.
 
I can’t say I agree with this particular statement. Since the Apollo program, NASA has largely dropped the ball. Among other things, the shuttle program failed to meet the goals of a low cost, reusable orbiter, they didn’t have a solution ready after retiring the shuttle for ISS flights (other than renting crew space in Soyuz capsules atop Russian rockets) and the SLS is an absolute boondoggle (see below for a few examples from various sources.

https://www.eclipseaviation.com/nasa-wasteful-inefficient-and-secretive/

https://mashable.com/article/nasa-rocket-cost-sls-artemis-space

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/08/28/nasas-newest-rocket-is-a-colossal-waste-of-money

I loved NASA growing up, but my hopes these days are with SpaceX. When you compare the progress and innovation by SpaceX to what NASA has done recently (and how much longer NASA has been doing this) the difference is striking.
Their missions, SpaceX, and NASA, are entirely different. NASA wants to get private industry involved for things like sending stuff to Earth orbit, and they have enlisted SpaceX to provide some of the vehicles for the Artemis program, while NASA continues to do things that involve Space Probes, telescopes, etc.

Personally, I'm not so sure that SpaceX has what it takes to deliver in the timeline expected by NASA even though they, and other companies like Blue Origin, have royalty-free access to NASA's entire IP library.

While the Shuttle was an obvious example of a program that did not meet its goals, I think it is one of the few, if there are more than one, programs that have not exceeded the goals of the program. OTOH, almost all of the space probes including things like the Hubble Telescope (aside from the glitch with the mirror which was resolved by fixing it in space - made possible only through the Shuttle program), virtually all, except for one, Mars probe, both of the Voyager craft, the JWST, to name just a few, either have, or are exceeding expectations.

People tend to focus on the bad things that have happened - not unlike hearing about a high murder rate in any particular city and then experiencing no violence at all when traveling to that city. Bad things make for good news ratings, clicks, etc.

But NASA perseveres. If NASA just gave up, it never would have gotten to the Moon after Apollo 1 burned up on the launch pad killing three astronauts - and all of the innovation that has happened as a result of the exploration of space would not be available for SpaceX, and others, to draw on. SpaceX would not exist without NASA and its IP.

If you want a good exposition on just what went into the Moon program, see if your local library has a copy of this series It was far from an easy endeavor.

I'll also remind you that in 2011 Musk said he would put a man on Mars in the, at that time, next 10-years. Where is he with that? 10-years passed, still SpaceX (Musk) has not met that goal. Musk talking big makes also for ratings and clicks. Most of the time, as I see it, Musk has not delievered.
 
Their missions, SpaceX, and NASA, are entirely different. NASA wants to get private industry involved for things like sending stuff to Earth orbit, and they have enlisted SpaceX to provide some of the vehicles for the Artemis program, while NASA continues to do things that involve Space Probes, telescopes, etc.

Personally, I'm not so sure that SpaceX has what it takes to deliver in the timeline expected by NASA even though they, and other companies like Blue Origin, have royalty-free access to NASA's entire IP library.

While the Shuttle was an obvious example of a program that did not meet its goals, I think it is one of the few, if there are more than one, programs that have not exceeded the goals of the program. OTOH, almost all of the space probes including things like the Hubble Telescope (aside from the glitch with the mirror which was resolved by fixing it in space - made possible only through the Shuttle program), virtually all, except for one, Mars probe, both of the Voyager craft, the JWST, to name just a few, either have, or are exceeding expectations.

People tend to focus on the bad things that have happened - not unlike hearing about a high murder rate in any particular city and then experiencing no violence at all when traveling to that city. Bad things make for good news ratings, clicks, etc.

But NASA perseveres. If NASA just gave up, it never would have gotten to the Moon after Apollo 1 burned up on the launch pad killing three astronauts - and all of the innovation that has happened as a result of the exploration of space would not be available for SpaceX, and others, to draw on. SpaceX would not exist without NASA and its IP.

If you want a good exposition on just what went into the Moon program, see if your local library has a copy of this series It was far from an easy endeavor.

I'll also remind you that in 2011 Musk said he would put a man on Mars in the, at that time, next 10-years. Where is he with that? 10-years passed, still SpaceX (Musk) has not met that goal. Musk talking big makes also for ratings and clicks. Most of the time, as I see it, Musk has not delievered.
I think you may have missed my point. There is no question that NASA has achieved many impressive and difficult engineering feats over the years. As I mentioned in an earlier post on this same article, the Voyager probes have been amazing for their longevity and useful data (not to mention the engineering complexity).

The issue I am taking was with your comment that
NASA is, IMO, a model of efficiency.”

Yes, NASA has achieved great things, and I am in no way a “hater” or just throwing shade. (As an aside, I had wanted to become an astronaut as a child until the Challenger disaster, but remain fascinated by space exploration - I settled on an engineering career instead 😉).

That said, NASA is far from efficient and is a classic government bureaucracy, often driven by political decisions and congressional paybacks (as noted in the articles I linked to previously).

Also, regarding the comparisons between NASA and SpaceX, consider the following case study done by the University of Oxford in 2022 comparing the two from an efficiency standpoint:


From the abstract:
We compare evidence from 203 space missions at NASA and SpaceX, on cost, speed-to-market, schedule, and scalability. We find that SpaceX’s platform strategy was 10X cheaper and 2X faster than NASA’s bespoke strategy. Moreover, SpaceX’s platform strategy was financially less risky, virtually eliminating cost overruns.

Again, I am all for space exploration, but I simply cannot agree with calling NASA a model of efficiency when there is massive wasteful spending and a clear need for them to reimagine themselves.

Thanks for the reply.
 
Back