back to article NASA's Kepler probe rouses from its slumber, up and running again

NASA’s planet-hunting spacecraft, Kepler, is back scanning the stars after an period of hibernation and repair. After the spacecraft downloaded a wad of data - codenamed Campaign 19 - in late August, it powered down for a snooze in sleep mode. Now, it’s back up and running after NASA has fixed up one of its thrusters. “The …

  1. Mark 85
    Pint

    With all the crap that can damage spacecraft and landers, NASA has done really well with equipment lasting beyond it's life expectancy. Great work the engineers have done... a toast to them.

    1. Pedigree-Pete
      Pint

      JPL

      Mark 85, I think that pint belongs to JPL. For examples of what awesome engineering they do see "The Martian". For examples of what happens when you rush them, see same. PP

  2. Joe W Silver badge

    12 kg fuel

    Depending on the density (the ones I found are above 1kg/L) it should be quite less than three gallons, given that a gallon is 4.2L.

    (yes, I know NASA likely talks about US gallons, which are only 3.8L - that's why using that unit is dangerous or at least really stupid in an international context, here: US vs. UK)

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: 12 kg fuel

      Maybe that's why they're not entirely sure how much fuel is left?

      "Was that US or Imperial gallons?"

    2. mr.K

      Re: 12 kg fuel

      Isn't the fuel usually hydrazine? Okay, it's density is 1.02 kg/L which is above 1 kg/L, but volume and kg seems interchangeable enough for that particular fuel. As for gallons, American spacecraft means American gallons. (btw, the numbers are pulled directly from NASA’s Kepler Spacecraft Fuel Status Frequently Asked Questions)

    3. Champ

      Re: 12 kg fuel

      > given that a gallon is 4.2L

      er, a Real Gallon (tm) is 4.54609 litres, not 4.2

    4. The_H

      Re: 12 kg fuel

      Now that we're close to Brexit, I hear we're brushing the dust off some of the older British weights and measures. So on that basis, I reckon it's carrying about 0.0045 Newcastle Chaldrons of the stuff.

      1. Rich 11
        Pint

        Re: 12 kg fuel

        Measure it in Newcastle Brown and it'd be 0.288 firkins.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: 12 kg fuel

          "it'd be 0.288 firkins"

          The famous unit of volumetric error. It's either two firkin big or two firkin small.

          1. Rich 11

            Re: 12 kg fuel

            On a Friday night it's certainly too firkin small.

  3. Winkypop Silver badge
    Devil

    Send NASA to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

    They'll find another great lump that's way past it's use by date and needs major updates.

    1. Rich 11

      Re: Send NASA to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

      Unfortunately some things just refuse to accept updates.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Send NASA to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

        Unfortunately some things just refuse to accept updates.

        That's OK. As any engineer knows, if you can't fix it by turning it off-and-on-again, then you check the manual for the correct procedure - but if all else fails you hit it with a big hammer.

        1. onefang

          Re: Send NASA to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

          "As any engineer knows, if you can't fix it by turning it off-and-on-again, then you check the manual for the correct procedure"

          The place I do some volunteer work at had problems with their newly installed automatic door. I checked the manual for the correct procedure, which was to turn it off, then turn it on again. Finding the power switch was the hard part.

          1. Rich 11

            Re: Send NASA to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

            Finding the power switch was the hard part.

            Sometimes there are good reasons for bringing down power lines.

            No? OK, my bad.

        2. Little Mouse

          Re: Send NASA to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

          "if all else fails, hit it with a big hammer"

          In that one particular case I'd recommend the use of Maxwell's Silver Hammer*

          (* Not to be confused with "Hammers" - A genuine medical technique for curing all sorts of ailments)

  4. Spudley

    But even if Kepler fails it does have a successor. NASA launched its TESS spacecraft in April. Science operations were kickstarted in July and it also uses the transit method to scope out other worlds.

    Does anyone know when we're going to start seeing results from TESS? Looking forward to seeing what it can do.

  5. Bronek Kozicki

    Given how expensive it is

    .... I wonder if the James Webb Telescope will get more fuel to stay active longer than originally planned. It would appear that the launch vehicle chosen for the mission might have spare capacity.

    Sorry for the slight OT, it just annoys me a lot that a multi-billion worth of hardware (and actually priceless in terms of scientific research and discovery) is only usable for short few years "because planning", and if it stays in somehow working shape for few years longer, everyone acts surprised. This should be planned for longer spans, in the first place.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Given how expensive it is

      Budgets are complicated. Remember that the hardware also has a limited life. See failed reaction wheels on the Kepler scope. Which is why they're burning their fuel faster than expected. It should normally only need its fuel for station-keeping, the reaction wheels are there for pointing purposes.

      Also fuel tank capacity is a matter of both mass and volume. Even if you're not at the mass-limit of the vehicle, you may be at the size-limit.

      And finally budgetting also has to account for the team to run the spacecraft on earth. So if you extend the length of the program, you also have to find funding for the team.

      What that all boils down to is that none of this is predictable. And you can't know what will kill your project, hardware failures, lack of fuel or lack of budget.

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Given how expensive it is

      "and if it stays in somehow working shape for few years longer, everyone acts surprised. This should be planned for longer spans, in the first place.

      It has to do with how NASA grades missions. To assign a "grade", they have to have established minimums for what constitutes a successful mission. For the MER rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, the minimum basis for a successful mission was defined partly as lasting for 90 Sols on the surface. If it turns out that Opportunity isn't going to wake up again after the last dust storm, it will have gone so far past its sell-by date that maybe it was built too well.

      Scientists can get upset if follow on missions are pushed back because the previous mission is still going and there isn't a budget to run both at the same time. I like it that hardware is run until the wheels come off, but I can see the point to getting on with a new suite of sensors that dig deeper into what missions have already found out instead of examining another rock that turns out to be the same as the last 50.

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Given how expensive it is

      ".... I wonder if the James Webb Telescope will get more fuel to stay active longer than originally planned."

      With the falling costs of launches, I wonder if anyone has considered sticking a filler cap on the fuel tank?

      1. onefang

        Re: Given how expensive it is

        "With the falling costs of launches, I wonder if anyone has considered sticking a filler cap on the fuel tank?"

        But then where would you swipe your credit card to pay for it? Probably need to add a rest room to, coz Mr Webb will need a dunny break every now and then.

  6. Mips

    Plow...

    ... or to plough.

    OK. So it is American.

  7. Pat Harkin

    "NASA has fixed up one of its thrusters"

    NASA can fix thrusters 137 million km away and my local car dealer can't fix my car even if I bring it in.

    I'd buy NASA next time if they weren't so expensive

    1. onefang

      Re: "NASA has fixed up one of its thrusters"

      "I'd buy NASA next time if they weren't so expensive"

      They are a bitch to park as well.

      1. mosw

        Re: "NASA has fixed up one of its thrusters"

        >"They are a bitch to park as well."

        That's why some prefer SpaceX.

    2. Jtom

      Re: "NASA has fixed up one of its thrusters"

      But a model like the Voyager 1 gets more than 40,000 miles to the gallon (and increasing daily). You’ll recover the initial cost in fuel savings after only a few decades.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
        Happy

        Re: "NASA has fixed up one of its thrusters"

        The only problem with that mpg figure is that you have to buy all the fuel you need in advance, and in one go. It might just exceed your credit card spending limit?

        Also, Voyager is not equipped with brakes. And the radio reception sucks. Oh, and I expect CDs in my cars, not records, Grandad!

  8. phuzz Silver badge
    Boffin

    Reaction wheel failures

    There's an interesting paper here, putting forth the idea that the cause of some reaction wheel failures is down to solar flares causing static build up, followed by arcing across the bearings. The arc causes damage to both the bearing and the bearing race, causing an increase in friction and the eventual failure of the wheel They go on to correlate reaction wheel failures in spacecraft with solar weather events.

    Interesting if true, although more modern reaction wheels use ceramic bearings, so if the paper is correct, hopefully future spacecraft will get more use out of their reaction wheels.

    Here's Scott Manley explaining it better than me.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Reaction wheel failures

      "Interesting if true, although more modern reaction wheels use ceramic bearings"

      Some ceramic materials are electrically conductive, so this may or may not help prevent this particular failure mode. If solar flares really are the problem, it might be a good idea to build composite reaction wheels, with a metallic component at the rim and reinforced plastic spokes and hub, but could that creates possible problems with outgassing from the plastic components....

      1. Julz

        Re: Reaction wheel failures

        Why don't they use magnetic bearings?

  9. onefang
    Coat

    "Science operations were kickstarted in July and it also uses the transit method to scope out other worlds."

    I know NASA is having problems with their budget, but they now have to resort to using Kickstarter?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like