[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;571962]It made it! :alien:

:bow wave:

:party:[/QUOTE]
I made it, too (along with 10,932,294 other people) :smile:

[url]https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8634/109-million-names-now-aboard-nasas-perseverance-mars-rover/[/url]

Now there are two planets with more Linux computers than Windows computers.

:davar55:

On Twitter, I"ve found a very nice "colab"
It will allow you to play with Perseverance image data
[URL]https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1SqTzhMo5NeVNZ6YTwsSpsssLH3vp5vX_[/URL]


[code]
# Perseverance Mars Rover Raw Image Playground

This notebook lets you query the raw image feed at https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/. It retrieves the image entries and places them into a dictionary so you can fetch the data, load the images, and play around with them.

Leave a comment here or send me a tweet over at https://twitter.com/robertcadena/

The first code cell below imports some libraries we'll need for fetching data from the internet and declares a couple of useful python functions and classes. Run it, but ignore the contents for now.
[/code]

Perseverance rover and helicopter have started their mission. Hooray for the whole team that made it happen. And also yahoo for the funding system.

Regards,
Matt

It seems that systems engineer Ian Clark used the pattern of red and white in the rover's parachute to [url=https://apnews.com/article/mars-rover-parachute-secret-message-75577c274ebddf8eaa4a637d57ef564d]encode a message and the location of JPL[/url].

[url=https://apnews.com/article/spacex-starship-lands-then-explodes-latest-test-9c93e49fdc17dc98dcfc82120f3f117f]SpaceX Starship lands upright, then explodes in latest test[/url][quote]The shiny bullet-shaped rocketship remained intact this time at touchdown, prompting SpaceX commentator John Insprucker to declare, "third time's a charm as the saying goes" before SpaceX ended its webcast of the test.

But then the Starship exploded and was tossed in the air, before slamming down into the ground in flames.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;572999][url=https://apnews.com/article/spacex-starship-lands-then-explodes-latest-test-9c93e49fdc17dc98dcfc82120f3f117f]SpaceX Starship lands upright, then explodes in latest test[/url][/QUOTE]
This is causing a significant issue: whether it counts as one launch or two.

AFAICT those flaps would be almost completely useless on Mars, and completely useless on the Moon. So how is the Starship intended to land in those places.

[QUOTE=retina;573006]AFAICT those flaps would be almost completely useless on Mars, and completely useless on the Moon. So how is the Starship intended to land in those places.[/QUOTE]
If you look at the renders of the Lunar variant of SS, there are no flaps. It will use 1 sea-level Raptor and 1 vac Raptor for most of the braking. Then for the last bit it will use 9-12 smaller rockets further up the rocket (so it won't blast everything). On Mars the SS will head in headshield forward (axis of the craft perpendicular to its direction of travel.). It will bleed of much speed that way, then it transition to tail first and fire up the rockets. The flaps will still provide control. And it will have (currently does) RCS, because that is needed in space. So that will add to the controllability.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;573010]So that will add to the controllability.[/QUOTE]

Yup.

Where you have even a little bit of atmosphere that can (or at least, might) be leveraged it should be considered. Multiple paths through Mars' weak atmosphere have been used in the past to circularize orbits.

I suspect that when landing on moons without atmosphere, the belly-flop maneuver won't be used.

But, perhaps, this is a two-way trip. And so the aerodynamic surfaces will be useful on their way back to terra-firma.

I could, of course, be entirely incorrect.

[QUOTE=xilman;573004]This is causing a significant issue: whether it counts as one launch or two.[/QUOTE]
I guess SpaceX counts it as one. They are calling the second event a "rapid unscheduled disassembly." [URL]https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/index.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]As if the flight test was not exciting enough, SN10 experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly shortly after landing.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;573017]...landing on moons...[/QUOTE]
In French, there's a word for that! (allunir)

Of course German: Mondlandungen

[QUOTE=Nick;573024]In French, there's a word for that! (allunir)[/QUOTE]alunir (one l only [noparse]:-)[/noparse]
Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;573045]alunir (one l only [noparse]:-)[/noparse]
Jacob[/QUOTE]
Thanks! That always confuses me
(atterrir has double t but amerrir is with a single m and alunir with a single l).

Yeah, yeah, don't talk to me about mars,venus or mercury...
amarsisage? avenussisage?

nope, for mars, at least, French académie use atterissage.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;573049]Yeah, yeah, don't talk to me about mars,venus or mercury...
amarsisage? avenussisage?

nope, for mars, at least, French académie use atterissage.[/QUOTE]
What about Phobos and Deimos? :wink:

[url]https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-56346001[/url]

Space exploration is awesome.

check out

[url]https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html[/url]

[url=https://apnews.com/article/technology-science-planets-mars-1f39e9b9c56ad3bbe3634aeabfa4abaf]NASA's Mars helicopter takes flight, 1st for another planet[/url][quote]CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - NASA's experimental helicopter Ingenuity rose into the thin air above the dusty red surface of Mars on Monday, achieving the first powered flight by an aircraft on another planet.
<snip>
Ground controllers had to wait more than three excruciating hours before learning whether the pre-programmed flight had succeeded more than 170 million miles (287 million kilometers) away. Adding to their anxiety: A software error prevented the helicopter from lifting off a week earlier and had engineers scrambling to come up with a fix.

When the news finally came, the operations center filled with applause, cheers and laughter. More followed when the first black and white photo from Ingenuity appeared on the Mission Control screens, showing the helicopter's shadow as it hovered above the surface of Mars. Next came the stunning color images of the copter descending back to the surface, taken by Perseverance, "the best host little Ingenuity could ever hope for," Aung said in thanking everyone.

The helicopter achieved its planned altitude of 10 feet (3 meters), according to the altimeter data, and hovered for a full 30 seconds, appearing stable. The touchdown looked just as clean. More details were expected in the coming hours and days.[/quote]

Surely it's more of a drone than a helicopter?

[QUOTE=Nick;576187]Surely it's more of a drone than a helicopter?[/QUOTE]It is both.

Since WP is always 100% accurate and knows everything:

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter[/url]

That's a helicopter, Sir! A [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkH6uPBPymY"]strong one[/URL]!

[url]https://playingintheworldgame.com/2020/10/24/we-knew-about-the-planet-called-earth/[/url]

[url=https://apnews.com/article/us-news-elon-musk-coronavirus-health-ap-top-news-6b00b7485aed89876791f731564de3a1]SpaceX launches 3rd crew with recycled rocket and capsule[/url][quote]CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - SpaceX launched four astronauts into orbit Friday using a recycled rocket and capsule, the third crew flight in less than a year for Elon Musk's rapidly expanding company.

The astronauts from the U.S., Japan and France should reach the International Space Station early Saturday morning, following a 23-hour ride in the same Dragon capsule used by SpaceX's debut crew last May. They'll spend six months at the orbiting lab.

It was the first time SpaceX reused a capsule and rocket to launch astronauts for NASA, after years of proving the capability on station supply runs. The rocket was used last November on the company's second astronaut flight.
<snip>[/quote]

We have seen a sequence in a random video about NASA flying a helicopter on Mars. We didn't dig into it, maybe we find some free time this weekend, but it seems to be a big deal... We came to this thread especially to see if any link to there, but it seems it escaped the guards here :razz:
We will search later. Pinky promise.

hrmmm
I found this from twitter
[url]https://mars.nasa.gov/technology/helicopter/status/295/we-are-prepping-for-ingenuitys-third-flight-test/[/url]

A small bit about ingenuity third flight and prospects
[url]https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8930/nasas-ingenuity-mars-helicopter-flies-faster-farther-on-third-flight/[/url]

[url]https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210426-how-the-space-race-changed-soviet-art[/url]

Venus day lenght and research

[url]https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/cracking-the-mysteries-of-venus[/url]

Name Lunar Gateway after Michael Collins.
 

[url]https://www.change.org/p/nasa-change-the-lunar-gateway-name-to-the-collins-lunar-gateway/f?source_location=psf_petitions[/url]

Space-X has quietly slide past the milestone of 50% of all Falcon9 flights being on reused boosters.

And then there were two...
 

[url=https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57122914]China lands its Zhurong rover on Mars[/url]

On the NASA map supplied with the story, the Zhurong landing site in Utopia Planitia appears to be roughly halfway between the landing sites of Perseverance and Viking 2.

"Rocket plane flies to edge of space"
[URL]https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57214988[/URL]

It's a pity they mean the start of space and not the end...

[QUOTE=Nick;578902]"Rocket plane flies to edge of space"
[URL]https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57214988[/URL][/QUOTE]

So 2021 might be the year that we will see all of the following:
1. Paid passenger suborbital rocket space flight. (Blue Origin)
2. Paid passenger suborbital winged space flight. (Virgin Galactic)
3. An entirely private orbital crewed/passengered space flight. (Spac-X Dragon Inspiration 4)
4. Maybe 4 different types of crewed spacecraft launch into space from a single country . (Boeing Starliner)
5. Maybe a 5th type of (planned) crewed, private spacecraft to launch into space from the same country. (Space-X StarShip)
6. Maybe the launch of a 6th type crew craft (Orion on SLS) from the same country.

The [URL="https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2021/05/04/NASAa-Dreamchaser-spaceplane-sierra-nevada/9111620054852/"]Dream Chaser won't go this year[/URL]. But that will make 7 types flying concurrently.

To get that number of different crewed spacecraft types flown in the past one needs to take the entire USSR fleet of Voshkod, Vostok, and Soyuz; the entire USA capsule fleet Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo; and then add in the X-15 winged craft. There was no single year when all of those flew into space.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;322773][LIST][*]You have ~$1billion to work with.[/LIST][/QUOTE]I don't think you could achieve much with that budget. We are building a rail line in the UK (HS2) for high speed trains (up to 224 mph). There are only a few hundred miles of track, but that is costing many tens of billions of GBP.

So I think one should start your project by robbing a bank.

[QUOTE=drkirkby;579039]I don't think you could achieve much with that budget. We are building a rail line in the UK (HS2) for high speed trains (up to 224 mph). There are only a few hundred miles of track, but that is costing many tens of billions of GBP.

So I think one should start your project by robbing a bank.[/QUOTE]Good to see someone returning to the original topic of this thread.

I happen to think that one can do rather a lot with the resources specified and have suggested several missions.

Perhaps it is time for us to return to the original premises and see what may have changed our ideas in the interim.

[QUOTE=xilman;323013]I'd like to put something useful in the solar focal sphere but although it just about might be within budget, it would take far too long to get there. Increase both constraints by a factor of a few and it would become possible.

Closer to home, it would be nice to land a technology prototype on Mars which converts atmospheric carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen. The products are used as rocket fuel for sample return to earth. Once again, budgetary constraints are likely to be the limiting factor.[/QUOTE]Scratch the second one. It has been done in the subsequent 8 years.

[url]https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8926/nasas-perseverance-mars-rover-extracts-first-oxygen-from-red-planet/[/url]

Some stats on booster performance and price
Falcon 9 (fully expended mode)
Payload to LEO 22,800 kg / 50,265 lb
Payload to GTO 8,300 kg / 18,300 lb
Payload to Mars 4,020 kg / 8,860 lb
Cost (in reused mode $62M [5500 kg to GTO])

Falcon Heavy (fully expended mode)
Payload to LEO 63,800 kg / 140,660 lb
Payload to GTO 26,700 kg / 58860 lb
Payload to Mars 16,800 kg / 37,040 lb
Cost (in reused mode $90M [8000 kg to GTO])

So, 2 launches on a FH is still within the $1billion budget.

We can open it up to a single launch on a Starship (That is likely to have an orbital flight by the end of December. I don't think the refueling will be demonstrated by the end of the year). So, that mass is 100,000 to LEO. Figure the cost at $100M for now.

[QUOTE=diep;493715]They say they got a heatshield.However the heatshield is just at 1 side of the spacecraft. We sure may hope the heat comes from just 1 direction - another thing i highly doubt.

Some missions you simply have to do in the end - but there is always too many expensive plans on the planet which have a long life and after some decades suddenly someone signs up for it, ignoring the problems with positive talk and wishful thinking.

From a distance seen this seems like that last. Let's hope i'm wrong.

It's gonna get cooked like a shrimp in a boiling pan.[/QUOTE]

Parker Solar Probe still going strong, by last check. Not a surprise, really, considering the success of previous crafts, like Helios 2.

[URL="https://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/Mass_beam_propulsion_an_overview.pdf"]Mass beam propulsion, an overview[/URL] came to my attention earlier today. It proposes a mechanism by which ships massing over a thousand tonnes could be sent to nearby stars in a reasonable timescale. All the technology has been demonstrated already, albeit in rather small scales. No reliance on fusion reactions, for example, other than those occurring within the Sun.

A crewed mission to alpha Centauri could perhaps be launched by 2110 with the first fly-by reconnaissance probe launching around 2050 and an orbitting robotic infrastructure builder around 2080. I feel these dates are optimistic by perhaps 20 - 30 years.

[url]https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-05/billionaire-space-race-the-ultimate-symbol-of-capitalisms-flawed-obsession-with-growth/[/url]

[url=https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-science-spacex-95fc4a1c9bcca7640e173ab837eda10f]Boeing astronaut capsule grounded for months by valve issue[/url][quote]CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Boeing's astronaut capsule is grounded for months and possibly even until next year because of a vexing valve problem.

Boeing and NASA officials said Friday that the Starliner capsule will be removed from the top of its rocket and returned to its Kennedy Space Center hangar for more extensive repairs.

Starliner was poised to blast off on a repeat test flight to the International Space Station last week - carrying a mannequin but no astronauts - when the trouble arose. A similar capsule was plagued by software issues in 2019 that prevented it from reaching the space station.

"We're obviously disappointed," said John Vollmer, vice president and program manager of Boeing's commercial crew program. "We will fly this test when we're ready to fly it and it's safe to do so."
<snip>
Vollmer said moisture in the air somehow infiltrated 13 valves in the capsule's propulsion system. That moisture combined with a corrosive fuel-burning chemical that had gotten past seals, preventing the valves from opening as required before the Aug. 3 launch attempt.

As of Friday, nine of the valves had been fixed. The other four require more invasive work.

Rain from a severe thunderstorm penetrated some of the capsule's thrusters at the pad, but engineers do not believe that is the same moisture that caused the valves to stick. Engineers are trying to determine how and when the moisture got there; it could have been during assembly or much later, Vollmer said.
<snip>[/quote]

Lucy, an asteroid probe , is to be launched today. (16/10/2021).
It will visit some trojan asteroid.

The trajectory is weird, passing 2 time by the earth first, then going to L4 ( lagrange point), getting back to earth then going to L5, in 2033.


[url]https://www.planetary.org/video/lucy-mission-trajectory[/url]
[url]https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/2007/nasas-lucy-mission-a-journey-to-the-young-solar-system/[/url]

More interesting to follow is the amateurteams or for example in this case a student team.
Wednesday 20 october 2021 (european time and exact time schedule follows) launch planned for the students from
technical university Delft in the Netherlands. Though the team of students is international - majority is non-dutch in fact studying rocketry there.

Launch window for now set at between 18:00 until 2:00 AM
[url]https://dare.tudelft.nl/[/url]
Though they will be pissed they couldn't try a launch in 2020 because of covid, covid did give them some more time to bugfix the students design.

A big issue with studentteams/amateurteams is when scale goes up. A very tiny rocket is really easy - but when you make it larger then all sorts of theoretic 'assumptions' on strenghts of materials and that things 'go ok anyway' no longer apply. Their previous attempt blew up regrettably. Just as i had predicted. Hopefully better bugfixed this time.

The BILLIONAIRES. Well some here might not grasp exactly their reasons to move into space.

It has a couple of reasons why billionaires went into space.

First of all they guess they can get some politicians crazy enough to waste cash on human missions and the billions of subsidy that's there to get and contracts bla bla.

Look those billionaires are good in money math. They understand that RPI (rocket fuel) has a total nuts high price right now which means that government wastes cash on all sorts of things in space missions. The price of that fuel simply makes no sense a kilo/liter whatever quantity you want to discuss.

It's basically higher quality diesel. (edit: so why would anyone want to pay 100 dollar a liter or 400 dollar a gallon for that especially if you gonna buy in the long run hundreds of thousands of kilo's from the stuff - then such price is total idiocy. If you know you're gonna use up thousands of tons of it anyway in the long run then a price like 0.50 - 1 dollar a liter is more realistic and otherwise you hire a guy to produce the stuff for you in a small workshop - billionaires understand this perfectly fine - obviously no politician will ever understand this)

This is just 1 example of prices that are total beyond any realism in space - simply because it's tax money that pays for it in the end.

All the launches we saw past few years in USA from the billionaires it's all paid directly or indirectly by tax money.
In reality all those American billionaires who try - they got billiosn of dollars of subsidy from the US government.

Billionaires understand that if companies can grab that much cash for stuff that over half of that is for themselves.

Take a cpu there. Now of course it has to get shielded from radiation. Yet if we consider that there is military equipment requiring such cpu's too we can safely assume some company has mass produced this and t hat production price is really cheap.

Typical price for such radiation shielded cpu which is from the 1990s basically in terms of computational power and power envelope (wasting a massive 10 watts for something that's similar to a 68040 kind of) - it costs 250k dollar a cpu.

Logical that billionaires understand they can grab really a lot of cash there provided they got a rocket that can do a thing or 2 without crashing down. They are good in talkign to such companies negotiating prices down and getting the job done a lot cheaper. That's how they make cash. Talking down prices. All big moneygrabbers they are. Remember Elon Musk promising launches for 10 million dollar. Well in reality he gets 0.5 billion a launch (that's 4 astronauts that get transported to ISS) and additional billions of subsidy from the US government. Far away from that 10 million dollar - which is how he talked himself into it. Shipping humans to ISS for research can make sense, especially because it's not overexpensive. Sure, 0.5 bilion dollar might seem like a lot - and that price can go down quite a lot - yet that's "affordable" to some extend.

Missions with humans alive inside, further away than ISS from earth are total nonsense of course. Waste of cash. Dudes living in the 1960s instead of in the 21th century with good autonomeous software.

More interesting is the 'amateurteams' or in this case for example student teams therefore.

Another reason billionaires are interested in space is because of the pentagon. The DoD (department of Defense) wrote down some paperwork already years ago, basically intending to build stuff like space bombers.

Well no one knows how to design those, so anyone interested in space can hop in and have a go at it.
A billionaire always can later on decide to join forces with an existing well known aviation company there (like Bezos has done).

There is no way of knowing how much subsidies DoD is awarding in secret there to different billionaires with a big mouth just for presenting some unrealistic plan for the next space bomber. They will keep showing up 'achieving targets' in space. Even if that requires to launch some cardboard replica of a Tesla car to space (saving out weight big issue of course).

[QUOTE=diep;590925]
All the launches we saw past few years in USA from the billionaires it's all paid directly or indirectly by tax money.
In reality all those American billionaires who try - they got billiosn of dollars of subsidy from the US government.
[/QUOTE]

Can you substantiate this? What form do these subsidies take?

[QUOTE=diep;590925]More interesting to follow is the amateurteams or for example in this case a student team.
Launch window for now set at between 18:00 until 2:00 AM
[URL]https://dare.tudelft.nl/[/URL]
Though they will be pissed they couldn't try a launch in 2020 because of covid, covid did give them some more time to bugfix the students design.[/QUOTE]
We followed their attempt 6 years ago, too!
[URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=412743&postcount=193[/URL]

[QUOTE=jyb;590930]Can you substantiate this? What form do these subsidies take?[/QUOTE]

That would be mainly federal subsidies yet if you google you'll find here and there also local ones.

If you google you can find some. SpaceX has gotten billions. A few years ago i saw 2 billion. Here is another nearly 1 billion: [url]https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/08/tech/spacex-starlink-subsidies-fcc-scn/index.html[/url]

It gets from all federal corners.

You'll find similar things for the other billionaires though smaller sums.

Googling for local subsidies here another 4.9 billion in total for Elon Musk.

[url]https://www.rt.com/usa/264065-musk-tesla-government-subsidies/[/url]

This was 2015 and is about local subsidies.

For the development of crew dragon, spacex has received many billions over the year. At quora you'll see someone mention a few numbers until 2016 which already lists a few billions.

Yet all this is peanuts compared to the 'launch services' Musk gets paid for. Which is about a 2-3 billion dollar a year roughly just for SpaceX. Under which nearly 0.5 billion for each launch of crew dragon.

So developing crew dragon and launching it has been at zero risk for SpaceX as all has been paid for it.

Online googling is a bad source to find all subsidies of course as the subsidies seem to work on a project base. For a project X then spaceX receives subsidies. So one would need to track down all projects first before finding all the different subsidies. Finding those would be total fulltime work and i bet the military subsidies you won't find online.

Some years ago a guy on quora posted a few he managed to find by google.

[url]https://www.quora.com/Is-SpaceX-funded-by-the-government?share=1[/url]

Also lists a 4.x billion to Boeing who partnered up with Bezos' Blue Origin by now.

[QUOTE=Nick;590940]We followed their attempt 6 years ago, too!
[URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=412743&postcount=193[/URL][/QUOTE]

In 2018 an attempt with stratos 3 - it exploded regrettably in the air.

Launch preparations for attempt number 2 of Stratos 4 are on their way as one can follow on facebook in pictures:
[url]https://www.facebook.com/events/913020652965796/?ref=newsfeed[/url]

[QUOTE=diep;590974]<snip>
Yet all this is peanuts compared to the 'launch services' Musk gets paid for. Which is about a 2-3 billion dollar a year roughly just for SpaceX. Under which nearly 0.5 billion for each launch of crew dragon.[/QUOTE]Payments for services are not "subsidies."

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;590979]Payments for services are not "subsidies."[/QUOTE]

0.5 billion to bring 4 guys to ISS?

Couple of gallons of RPI in a rocket. The same rocket gets used to bring food to ISS, which costs a fraction of that.

You and i can build such rocket if we wanted. Just no one would pay for it. Musk would arrange getting 10 billion dollar in subsidies and then so called 'launch' the rocket 'for free' to ISS to bring food. In short you cannot see the billions of subsidies as independant from launch costs.

Bezos+Boeing when the 'starliner' type hardware has been certified will of course not charge less. They all maximize those prices in space travel.

Let's hope EU doesn't intend to 'expand' its manned space. Once the accountants arrive here to increase profit of the companies for such missions then Musk will sound cheap.

[QUOTE=diep;590980]0.5 billion to bring 4 guys to ISS?

Couple of gallons of RPI in a rocket. The same rocket gets used to bring food to ISS, which costs a fraction of that.

You and i can build such rocket if we wanted.[/QUOTE]Speak for yourself.

Before [i]I[/i] apply for funding to set up [i]my[/i] production facility, could you please explain to me how the guidance and flight control systems work, and how to build them?

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;590989]Speak for yourself.

Before [i]I[/i] apply for funding to set up [i]my[/i] production facility, could you please explain to me how the guidance and flight control systems work, and how to build them?[/QUOTE]

Actually - i received some source code from a NASA guy some years ago on calculating a missile trajectory.

You do realize you speak here to a guy whose main job it is to develop robotics and navigational applications with a background in game tree search?

In 1998 the MiT team visited me here. Don Dailey especially - he had taken a PHD student with him and we visited the deltaworks - great guy. We also did do some games Diep versus cilkchess here at home. Too bad he died so young. A month later I remember how world champs 1999 the MiT team applied for a subsidy (grant or whatever you want to call it) to the US government asking for cash and funding of their Cilkchess chessprogram for the world champs 1999 in Paderborn (Germany) where Leierson wrote down that missile software, especially guidance, is exactly the same like how chessprograms function. He did get the subsidy.

Wait a minute - i remember i wrote some guidance software somewhere start this century. If i'm not mistaken that also involved GPS (something you wouldn't want to use too much in rockets but it DOES get used) and path finding trajectories.

Did you?

p.s. i also design the hardware. As we speak i'm busy fixing a TLS server - after that it's back to the CAD software. Busy releasing a 3d printer! But please do not be surprised if that launches succesfully that with that cash i go talk to setup some drone projects for different armies (for which obviously external funding would be required as well).

You have no idea how subsidies work do you?

edit2: and why do i say 'drones' getting set up instead of 'software gets set up for drones' - as designing the hardware is total peanuts compared to the software... ...very simple - no one pays for the software. They all only pay for hardware that looks cool. And there is plenty of room for new drones and rockets and missiles and what have you there as they all want to make many billions of dollars+euro's on each product so the for the average marine on his boots not much gets done in comparision as he may not cost 1 billion euro. So there is overwhelming room if you are not as greedy as the billionaires who want to become worlds richest person and therefore build stuff that makes politicians look good yet which is simply too expensive.

[QUOTE=diep;590994]Actually - i received some source code
<snip>
Wait a minute - i remember i wrote some guidance software
<snip>
Did you?
<snip>[/QUOTE][QUOTE=diep;590980]You and i can build such rocket if we wanted.[/QUOTE]Make up your mind.

[QUOTE=jyb;590930][QUOTE=diep;590925]All the launches we saw past few years in USA from the billionaires it's all paid directly or indirectly by tax money.
In reality all those American billionaires who try - they got billiosn of dollars of subsidy from the US government.
[/QUOTE]Can you substantiate this? What form do these subsidies take?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=diep;590975]Some years ago a guy on quora posted a few he managed to find by google.

[url]https://www.quora.com/Is-SpaceX-funded-by-the-government?share=1[/url]
[/QUOTE]

So far your posted links amount to:

1) Government contracts that SpaceX has won.

2) Government support for launching satellite broadband services, amounting to 900 million USD.

3) Government subsidies for Musk's ventures: 2+ billion USD for Tesla, 2+ billion USD for Solar City, and a whopping 20 million USD for SpaceX that was from local government, *not the US government*.

I don't count #1. IMO, calling a government contract a subsidy is very misleading. I.e. I agree with Dr. Sardonicus on this.

#2 is a bit more of a gray area. The way I would put it is that the government is subsidizing broadband, and by using SpaceX they are getting both the broadband service and launch services. A substantial portion of that 900 million should be looked at as money paid for the launch services rendered; i.e. more like a contract.

#3 basically amounts to no money at all for SpaceX from the US government.

And BTW, the quora article you linked pretty much consists of people agreeing that money for launch services should not be considered a subsidy.

So far, I would say that you haven't yet provided evidence to back up your claim that SpaceX gets billions of dollars in subsidies from the US government.

And the 2 B's (Branson and Bezos) might be billionaires, but they haven't gotten billions in handouts/subsidies for launches. Yes, NASA is paying for suborbital flight time (basically at the commercial rate). But, that is not a subsidy. Having a reliable customer in the government is helpful for development. Governments have done this before for other industries. Airmail helped develop the air transport industry. Telegraph and telephones also had governments as early major customers.

SpaceX pays for the use of the launch sites at the government owned facilities (just like airlines pay rent on terminals at government owned/run airports). SpaceX pays for the range for flights [range safety staff, etc.] (just like airlines pay fees at government run/owned airports for each flight, which get passed on to the ticket paying customer). For every booster that is sent overland from California to Texas for testing and then to Florida or California for launch, or from Florida to California, SpaceX pays (either directly or through their trucking contractor) fees to each state for the oversized load that the boosters are. So, for an initial use of a booster California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas collect fees for the move to the test facility, then Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida each collect fees. So places may require a police escort, which adds more fees. Every road closure in Texas to move things on the road requires the local Sheriff to close the road. Those also entail fees paid to local government. And to dock the drone ships they have to use a port, most ports are local government operations, so rental fees there. And there are fees to the FAA and FCC (for Starlink these are likely quite large for use of spectrum). And there was the recent filing for environmental revue, more fees there. There are many, many small bites at the apple. Not exactly a death by a thousand cuts, but still there is quite a bit of flow out from SpaceX to the government. Remember SpaceX has many commercial customers that pay them for their service and for each of those, the government should net money coming in.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;591045]And the 2 B's (Branson and Bezos) might be billionaires, but they haven't gotten billions in handouts/subsidies for launches. Yes, NASA is paying for suborbital flight time (basically at the commercial rate). But, that is not a subsidy. Having a reliable customer in the government is helpful for development. Governments have done this before for other industries. Airmail helped develop the air transport industry. Telegraph and telephones also had governments as early major customers.
<snip>[/QUOTE]And if you want subsidies, we got subsidies. A protective tariff for US industry aborning, and "immediate and efficient aid" to build a transcontinental railroad.

From the 1860 National Republican Platform adopted by the National Republican Convention held in Chicago, Illinois, May 17, 1860:[quote]<snip>
12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
<snip>
16. That a Railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily Overland Mail should be promptly established.
<snip>[/quote]

[QUOTE=diep;590994]Actually - i received some source code from a NASA guy some years ago on calculating a missile trajectory.[/QUOTE]

Very cool. What was the fidelity on that?

I don't really like linking off to YouTube videos, but
[YOUTUBE]txk-VO1hzBY[/YOUTUBE]
... is relevant.

Was the source code shared with you as good as this?

"There are two branches for space exploration: far missions and near-earth ones.
I believe, the technology, engineering tests, time and effort that is spent for both are intertwined.

The Moon, Mars, Venus and Mercury missions are set. James Webb Telescope is to be launched.

The are many countries and companies are participating in all processes, having main questions in front them:
- Harnessing AI more effectively for the satellites control, thus possibly reducing their number;
- Debris removal technologies for new launches;
- Making launches clean, using ecofuel;
- Making facilities more reliable and effective with 3D printing;
- Making ‘traffic rules’ on the orbit.

The global economy, society, safety and everyday life are unthinkable without all the space missions planned and on-going.
Hopefully, it will go on in a controlled way and the positive effects, making the leaps of today."

NASA wants help from the public to train their mapping AI.
[url]https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/you-can-help-train-nasas-rovers-to-better-explore-mars[/url]

Great and meaningful.
The technology rate of today is so powerful that it penetrates a person's ability to exploit it to the same levels that space missions do.
My position came recently, that for any targeted mission, all the collected data should be shared to several parallel undergoing ones. And there are so many people who are keen to participate in space missions not only through gaming platforms.

AI recognition is powerful for sure. But in order to be effective, data processing needs dedicated supercomputers, money and power consumption, hence environment pollution.
Any AI needs babysitting, not exactly for tasks like this, but the human eye can be more sharp.

It is really great to have this public opportunity and great news for astronomers.

I have encountered a similar call for exoplanets search.
But this one from NASA. Mainstream - the fact:)

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;591709]NASA wants help from the public to train their mapping AI.
[URL]https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/you-can-help-train-nasas-rovers-to-better-explore-mars[/URL][/QUOTE]


I love citizen science. I participated in this project a bit last year. I prefer the hunt for exoplanet, but I will help again.

[url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us-military-reports-debris-generating-event-outer-space-2021-11-15/]Russian anti-satellite missile test endangers space station crew - NASA[/url][quote]WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - An anti-satellite missile test Russia conducted on Monday generated a debris field in low-Earth orbit that endangered the International Space Station and will pose a hazard to space activities for years, U.S. officials said.

The seven-member space station crew - four U.S. astronauts, a German astronaut and two Russian cosmonauts - were directed to take shelter in their docked spaceship capsules for two hours after the test as a precaution to allow for a quick getaway had it been necessary, NASA said.
<snip>
The direct-ascent anti-satellite missile fired by Russia into one of its own satellites generated more than 1,500 pieces of "trackable orbital debris" and would likely spawn hundreds of thousands of smaller fragments, the U.S. Space Command said in a statement.

"Russia has demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the security, safety, stability and long-term sustainability of the space domain for all nations," space command chief U.S. Army General James Dickinson said.[/quote]

You might want to click 'reject' on the turkish website. But here it is:

[url]https://interestingengineering.com/scientists-may-have-unwittingly-spotted-planet-nine-in-our-solar-system[/url]

And:

[url]https://interestingengineering.com/planet-nine-tiny-black-hole-in-solar-system[/url]

Now i have no idea whether it's either of those 2 or just a calculation error caused by using wrong rules to calculate with.

I'd ask the question then if it's possible to ship a single rocket up with a fleet of drones, with bunch of sensors, do not make the mistake again to just rely upon 1 vague sensor to confirm data, to launch them and have answer within a year or so - that's a very cheap price for a mission i'd argue. If it's realistic this mission can work.

Why didn't they send such rocket yet to increase human knowledge, or did i miss something?

Price of 1 rocket is total peanuts compared to the importance of confirming or disproving theories and laws we calculate with.

[QUOTE=diep;593326]URL[/quote]Follow up observations will occur. However this is not the Planet None that Mike Brown has been talking about of late.
[QUOTE]Now i have no idea whether it's either of those 2 or just a calculation error caused by using wrong rules to calculate with. [/QUOTE]Then why suggest it? No, the IRAS one is not a calculation issue.
[quote]Why didn't they send such rocket yet to increase human knowledge, or did i miss something?

Price of 1 rocket is total peanuts compared to the importance of confirming or disproving theories and laws we calculate with.[/QUOTE]They who? This will not change "laws we calculate with."
Who is paying for the rocket? What sensors are you wanting to deploy? Which costs more the rocket/launch or the spacecraft? Why a bunch of small sensor drones? Have you heard of James Webb ST? Or the Nancy Grace Roman Telescope? Or the Vera Rubin survey?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;593328]Planet None[/QUOTE]
Freudian slip?

[QUOTE=axn;593334]Freudian slip?[/QUOTE]Finger slip.

Uncwilly - if you would read the reports written you'd notice that James Webb is a telescope going to a Lagrange point and it should have a goldplated mirror which therefore determines what frequencies it can function at. Unlike my own telescope which has a cheapskate aluminium mirror and which i move by hand. Whereas gold has better reflectivity at other frequencies than aluminium it still is not too far away from visible light.

Now of course we all are very happy about this project and hope it will serve science well and figure out more than Hubble - yet that's not the same as the observations and anomaly detected, regardless what it is. Whether that's a black hole or something else like a math error.

Very obviously you cannot detect a possible small blackhole with a single small telescope which works close to visible light from close to earth.

More projects on Earth is very nice for jobs on Earth and we applaude to some of them, yet we want hard evidence instead of generations of scientists who disagree and write all sorts of theories based upon the fact we do not have hard evidence what direction we need to search. Go there with different sensors and find out what's going on there and i'm sure many things will be discovered with a fleet of drones - with this as the research question. Is there a small black hole over there or is there something else going on there we don't know about?

Fleet of drones please instead of words!

You ship a bunch of small drones provided it is possible to achieve the projected goal of propulsion beyond the Oort Cloud with those drones within a few year, i'd argue even if it would take 20 years, not to mention within a year as projected.

Go find out!

[QUOTE=diep;593349]Very obviously you cannot detect a possible small blackhole with a single small telescope which works close to visible light from close to earth.[/QUOTE]Very obviously you are wrong.

Ever tried observing gravitational microlensing with your telescope? I have with mine. I can put you in contact with the BAA sub-section coordinator if you wish to give it a try.

[QUOTE=diep;593326]<snip>
I'd ask the question then if it's possible to ship a single rocket up with a fleet of drones,
<snip>[/QUOTE]
Exactly what do you mean by a "fleet of drones" in LEO?

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;593367]Exactly what do you mean by a "fleet of drones" in LEO?[/QUOTE]I took it to mean a bunch of cubesats.

Not at all clear how they would have the required optical sensitivity but perhaps an explanation may be forthcoming.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;593367]Exactly what do you mean by a "fleet of drones" in LEO?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=xilman;593370]I took it to mean a bunch of cubesats.

Not at all clear how they would have the required optical sensitivity but perhaps an explanation may be forthcoming.[/QUOTE]Not likely (the explanation coming).
[QUOTE=diep;593349]You ship a bunch of small drones provided it is possible to achieve the projected goal of propulsion [U][COLOR="DarkOrange"]beyond the Oort Cloud with those drones[/COLOR][/U] within a few year, i'd argue even if it would take 20 years, not to mention within a year as projected. [/QUOTE]Diep fails to understand several things about sending small drones beyond the Oort cloud.[LIST=1][*]Sources of power available to said craft at those distances.[*]Communcation issues with small craft beyond the orbit of Jupiter or any craft beyond Neptune.[*]The physics/propulsion to get said drones meaningfuly scattered, or to keep them in position relative to each other.[*]The actual distance to "beyond the Oort Cloud" and the speed needed to get there.
(The Parker Solar Probe just achieved a speed of 586,800 km/h [the fastest speed a human made thing in space has gotten to]. At that speed it would take about 4360 years to get to 150,000 AU which is near the edge of the Oort Cloud (I used that instead of the 200,000 AU figure just to make it nicer for Diep.[/LIST]

[QUOTE=diep;593349]You ship a bunch of small drones provided it is possible to achieve the projected goal of propulsion beyond the Oort Cloud with those drones within a few year, i'd argue even if it would take 20 years, not to mention within a year as projected.

Go find out![/QUOTE]Really? The Oort Cloud (whose existence AFAIK is supported more by statistical inference than hard evidence) is hypothesized to be between 2000 and 100000 AU from Mr. Sun.

If you know a way to get drones even to the inner edge of the Oort Cloud in a few years, or even 20 years, I'm sure a lot of folks would love to know about it.

Voyager I is projected to get 2000 AU out in 300 years or so.

[QUOTE=diep;593349]Uncwilly - if you would read the reports written you'd notice that James Webb is a telescope going to a Lagrange point[/QUOTE]And you ignored the other names I gave you. You dismiss IRAS data as being old. Do you not realise that the Palomar survey plates, which are decades older than IRAS, are still used to this day. And your assessment of HST vs JWST in results that lead to greater understanding is flawed. IRAS, ISO, and Spitzer are more closely matched to JWST in regards to where in the spectrum they look.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;593376]And you ignored the other names I gave you. You dismiss IRAS data as being old. Do you not realise that the Palomar survey plates, which are decades older than IRAS, are still used to this day. And your assessment of HST vs JWST in results that lead to greater understanding is flawed. IRAS, ISO, and Spitzer are more closely matched to JWST in regards to where in the spectrum they look.[/QUOTE]The Harvard plate collection goes back well over a century. C19 plates are still used to this day.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;593372]Not likely (the explanation coming).
Diep fails to understand several things about sending small drones beyond the Oort cloud.[LIST=1][*]Sources of power available to said craft at those distances.[*]Communcation issues with small craft beyond the orbit of Jupiter or any craft beyond Neptune.[*]The physics/propulsion to get said drones meaningfuly scattered, or to keep them in position relative to each other.[*]The actual distance to "beyond the Oort Cloud" and the speed needed to get there.
(The Parker Solar Probe just achieved a speed of 586,800 km/h [the fastest speed a human made thing in space has gotten to]. At that speed it would take about 4360 years to get to 150,000 AU which is near the edge of the Oort Cloud (I used that instead of the 200,000 AU figure just to make it nicer for Diep.[/LIST][/QUOTE]See [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot"]Breakthrough Starshot[/URL] for an analysis of all your list items.

May be possible to build such a system this century.

[QUOTE=xilman;593378]May be .... this century.[/QUOTE]But not likely before JWST, NGR, or VR come online. Nor likely before NASA's next attempt to land primates on the moon.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;593396]But not likely before JWST, NGR, or VR come online. Nor likely before NASA's next attempt to land primates on the moon.[/QUOTE]Completely agree. My guess is 2050 through 2080.

[url=https://apnews.com/article/space-launches-science-business-south-america-bill-nelson-1ff1f34affc0674b231dea8066477d10]NASA confirms next Friday for Webb Space Telescope launch[/url][quote]CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - NASA is shooting for next Friday - Christmas Eve - to launch its newest space telescope.

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson confirmed Friday that the James Webb Space Telescope will attempt to blast off on Dec. 24. A European Ariane rocket will provide the lift from South America's French Guiana.

The $10 billion Webb - considered the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope - was supposed to soar Saturday, but was jolted by a clamp during launch preparations, resulting in a four-day delay. Then a bad communication link on the rocket had to be fixed, postponing the launch another two days.

U.S. and European space officials signed off Friday on the launch date, following one last round of testing.
<snip>[/quote]

Launching James Webb telescope is indeed very exciting project. Hope it goes ok! Strictly spoken it's not a follow up of Hubble. Its mirrors work at a different frequency as they are gold plated. So it's really discovering in space into new territory i'd argue. Which makes it even more interesting.

Let's hope the complex mission to get it up and running far away from Earth works out well!

edit: as for mission cost of it - especially the NASA part - they need a new dude contracting companies there - though probably the original guy is already by now 90 years old, which might explain core of the problem :) (blindfolded putting a signature behind everything saying that pencil he signs with he still got it from Reagan)

[QUOTE=diep;595560]<snip>
edit: as for mission cost of it - especially the NASA part - they need a new dude contracting companies there - though probably the original guy is already by now 90 years old, which might explain core of the problem :) (blindfolded putting a signature behind everything saying that pencil he signs with he still got it from Reagan)[/QUOTE]Who exactly are you referring to?

The top NASA official (NASA Administrator) is appointed by the President "with the advice and consent of the Senate" (i.e. requires Senate confirmation).

The NASA Administrator who signed the JWST agreements with the ESA (18 June 2007) was Dr. Michael D. Griffin, who was NASA Administrator from April 2005 to January 2009.

There have been six NASA Administrators since Dr. Griffin, including the current one.

[url=https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-station-maneuvered-to-avoid-starlink-satellites/]China's space station maneuvered to avoid Starlink satellites[/url][quote]HELSINKI - China has informed the United Nations that its crewed space station twice maneuvered to avoid potential collisions with SpaceX Starlink satellites earlier this year.

A notification dated Dec. 6 by China under Article V of the Outer Space Treaty stated that the Tianhe space station module conducted preventive collision avoidance due to close approaches by the Starlink-1095 (2020-001BK) and Starlink-2305 (2021-024N) satellites on July 1 and Oct. 21 respectively.

Starlink satellites typically orbit at around 550 kilometers above the surface of the Earth, but the pair had lowered their altitudes, apparently as part of active deorbiting maneuvers at the end of the satellites' life.
<snip>
Satellite tracker Jonathan McDowell, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, confirmed the two close approaches and avoidance burns using data published by U.S. space tracking. The October pass appears to have been within three kilometers.
<snip>[/quote]
Jonathan McDowell's confirmatory tweet is [url=https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1475621964538650633]here[/url].

Hmm, perhaps the guy in charge of Starlink should have given a heads-up.

OTOH, China's sudden indignation about it over two months after the most recent incident - and almost [i]six months[/i] after the first incident - does IMO ring a bit hollow.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;596713]OTOH, China's sudden indignation about it over two months after the most recent incident - and almost [i]six months[/i] after the first incident - does IMO ring a bit hollow.[/QUOTE]

Seconded.

What part of the Pauli Exclusion Principle isn't clear?

Extra fun when the incoming mass has a high velocity relative to the local frame of reference...

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;596713]Hmm, perhaps the guy in charge of Starlink should have given a heads-up.[/QUOTE]Starlink publish the satellite positions publicly. So anyone can check the DB to see it their space station will be in close proximity soon. But that is still no excuse for littering LEO with rich man's toys.[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;596713]OTOH, China's sudden indignation about it over two months after the most recent incident - and almost [i]six months[/i] after the first incident - does IMO ring a bit hollow.[/QUOTE]Maybe Starlink can complain about all the debris from China's recent display of deliberate satellite destruction creating uncontrolled junk with no tracking or control.

Well we have one:
[url]https://polarisprogram.com/[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;596720]<snip>
Maybe Starlink can complain about all the debris from China's recent display of deliberate satellite destruction creating uncontrolled junk with no tracking or control.[/QUOTE]Who are they going to complain to about [url=https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-lost-geomagnetic-storm]sunspots[/url]?

[url=https://chandra.si.edu/blog/node/808]NASA's IXPE Sends First Science Image[/url][quote]NASA’s Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer, which launched into space Dec. 9, 2021, delivered its first imaging data since completing its month-long commissioning phase.

All instruments are functioning well aboard the observatory, which is on a quest to study some of the most mysterious and extreme objects in the universe.

IXPE first focused its X-ray eyes on Cassiopeia A (Cas A), an object consisting of the remains of a star that exploded in the 17th century. The shock waves from the explosion have swept up surrounding gas, heating it to high temperatures and accelerating cosmic ray particles to make a cloud that glows in X-ray light. Other telescopes, including Chandra, have studied Cas A before, but IXPE will allow researchers to examine it in a new way.[/quote]

Commercial spaceflight is awesome.
I just learned about the Polaris Dawn mission for fourth quarter 2022.
They plan to use 'lazer' communication from high altitude, for the first time.
chosen astronauts are - Isaackman, Poteet, Gillis, and Menon.
What an honor that would be.
See -[URL="https://polarisprogram.com/dawn/"] https://polarisprogram.com/dawn/[/URL]

Regards,

Matthew

[QUOTE=MattcAnderson;600487]<snip>
I just learned about the Polaris Dawn mission for fourth quarter 2022.
<snip>[/QUOTE]In [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=600079&postcount=1153]this post[/url], three posts back from yours in this thread, no doubt...

[url]https://news.mit.edu/2022/polymer-lightweight-material-2d-0202[/url]

Would this be useful for space travel?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;600693][url]https://news.mit.edu/2022/polymer-lightweight-material-2d-0202[/url]

Would this be useful for space travel?[/QUOTE]I would expect it to be useful in almost all fields - and can see no reason why space travel should be an exception.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;600693][url]https://news.mit.edu/2022/polymer-lightweight-material-2d-0202[/url]

Would this be useful for space travel?[/QUOTE]Possibly. If goodly amounts of metal in a spacecraft could be replaced by the new material, that would significantly reduce the mass that needed to be lifted.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;600693]Would this be useful for space travel?[/QUOTE]Space travel is a broad category. What part of it would you suggest it for?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;600697]Space travel is a broad category. What part of it would you suggest it for?[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking it would be useful to build rockets with this material. It would either:
[LIST=1][*]Require less fuel to launch a payload into space[*]Allow a larger payload to be launched into space for the same amount of fuel[*]Allow the rocket to reach a somewhat higher delta-[I]v[/I] for the same payload and amount of fuel due to a higher mass ratio[/LIST]

When the shuttle program ended, so did access to the Hubble. It has been up there since 1990. 32 years on something that complex is remarkable. I suppose when it dies, no effort will be made to revive it. They have James Webb now.

I'm even more impressed with the [I]Voyager[/I] probes. It's hard to believe 1970s spacecraft can work so reliably after almost 45 years.