
ICE/ISEE-3 to return to an Earth no longer capable of speaking to it - rmason
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/02070836-isee-3.html
======
smoyer
I think I see the next natural progression in the open-source movement:

1) Open-Source Software

2) Open-Source Hardware

3) Open-Source Spacecraft

So ... if NASA and the other space agencies aren't willing to make use of this
spacecraft, would they be willing to cede ownership to a group of hackers
dedicated to helping the hardware continue its mission?

I've got quite a bit of ancient hardware in my basement, and while I was a
broad-band RF engineer (in the cable industry), I know the theory behind
narrow-band transmission. Anyone think we should start a Github project?

UPDATE:

It looks like the highest bit-rate that would be required would be 2048 bps:

"Tracking and telemetry support have been provided by the DSN (Deep Space
Network) since January 1984. The ISEE-3/ICE bit rate was nominally 2048 bps
during the early part of the mission, and 1024 bps during the Giacobini-Zinner
comet encounter. The bit rate then successively dropped to 512 bps (on
9/12/85), 256 bps (on 5/1/87), 128 bps (on 1/24/89) and finally to 64 bps (on
12/27/91)."

This should be pretty easy to achieve with any UART. Now to find the
frequencies used during communication.

UPDATE 2:

I'm currently working at the Pennsylvania State University and just sent an
e-mail to a friend who's the Flight Operations Team Lead of the SWIFT Mission
Operation Center here
([http://www.swift.psu.edu/](http://www.swift.psu.edu/)). More information as
I hear back from those I've contacted!

~~~
dalek_cannes
I believe this lady may be particularly helpful in this endeavour:
[http://www.windytan.com/2014/02/mystery-signal-from-
helicopt...](http://www.windytan.com/2014/02/mystery-signal-from-
helicopter.html)

~~~
smoyer
That was a great story!

------
anigbrowl
I was really annoyed to get to the end of this article and not find _any_
information about frequencies, bandwidth, power, or anything else that would
enable a practical consideration of the problem. Not only am I annoyed with
the journalist (who I presume has a science degree), I'm even more annoyed
with NASA for omitting this basic factual information from their statement in
favor of pablum that appears to be tailored to small children.

~~~
arrrg
What are you on about? All the relevant information is there. What need is
there for details? That would be interesting, sure, but it is not in any way
necessary when simply reporting on the state of this mission. Something the
linked article does.

Not everything needs to always contain all information.

~~~
dageshi
Agreed I've been sitting here trying to figure out what relevancy frequencies,
bandwidth and power have to the primary issue which is _cost_. The article
described the problem and why there isn't a solution quite clearly to me.

~~~
mindslight
So to translate: 'Don't you worry about space communications, let me worry
about blank.'

------
TerraHertz
It might be a little harder than you think. Satellites typically use some kind
of encryption on the command channel, since no one wants to find their
satellite has been hijacked. Even back in 1978 that was likely the case. So
when they say 'decommissioned the transmitters' what they probably mean is
'threw out the data encryption hardware.' If they also threw out the design
files (and remember these are the people who shredded the Saturn 5 engineering
plans), there's pretty much no chance of talking to ISEE-3. No matter how many
enthusiastic and capable hams try. Radio transmitters and antennas are easy.
Yes, hams could do that part. But the packet structure and encryption - not
easy.

It's not a case of hacking a protocol, or breaking the encryption on a given
stream of data. There's no data stream. Unless the encryption is correct in
commands sent to it, there'll be no response at all.

There might not be any encryption on the return data channel. Nothing anyone
can do with that which harms the mission, so why bother adding more circuitry
to the satellite?

Give NASA another brown star.

------
powera
Based on the article, the more accurate title would be "ICE/ISEE-3 to return
to an Earth not interested in spending money to reenable transmitter to it"

~~~
zymhan
I'm not so sure how much it's "reenable" and not "re-engineer". I can
certainly understand why it would take many millions of dollars to develop and
implement a transmitter no longer in use in 7 months.

------
drdeadringer
One day, I tacked up a quote from the "Max Headroom" TV show. The dialogue it
was from went like this:

Blank Reg: "Here, take this." Kid: "What is it?" Blank Reg: "It's a book."
Kid: "What is it?" Blank Reg: "It's a non-volatile storage medium. You should
have one." Kid: "Shove off!"

I explained this to a coworker, and after laughing he told a story about how,
decades ago, a few folks had made a computerized "repository of all human
knowledge". Semi-recently, some folks tried to read the data on this massive
storage device; technology had advanced and changed so much... they couldn't.
However, we can still read "ancient books" like the Gutenberg bible.

Note: The Gutenberg bible was just an example of a really old book; religion
was incidental at best.

~~~
kalleboo
Reminds me of the Domesday Project
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project)

~~~
drdeadringer
That may have been it, I can't quite remember.

------
ck2
It's pretty amazing we have a deep space array that is capable of finding and
listening to a signal that weak and far away.

Couldn't we please just swap the NASA and military budgets for one year? Just
one.

~~~
pliny
>Couldn't we please just swap the NASA and military budgets for one year? Just
one.

No, but we could just give DARPA to NASA, since they should both be doing
roughly the same thing anyway, and the gov't probably loses some few hundreds
of millions of dollars maintaining a superfluous bureaucracy to manage DARPA.

It would also be nice if the next revolutionary rocket technology were to be
used primarily to go to other planets and explore space, rather than to kill
peasants in Asia, but that is a secondary consideration.

~~~
mpyne
NSF might correspond to DARPA, but not NASA. DARPA's remit is far wider than
NASA's is.

For example Solar Designer's work on a password-based key derivation function
has a DARPA funding component, but would hardly make sense for NASA.

------
mschuster91
What would interest me: does the comm protocol of (interstellar) satellites
include any form of authentication or was it assumed at build time that only
government-level entities would ever be able to build transmission equipment
powerful enough to reach the probes?

~~~
acchow
They probably have some sort of crypto on the communication, you could could
probably break it on your iPhone :) 1978 was a long time ago and security
wasn't nearly as well developed as it is now.

~~~
oconnore
Even if the security protocol was "append this number to the messages you send
me", it wouldn't be very easy to break since you don't have a successful
transcript, any information about the implementation, or the ability to
cheaply try keys.

------
droopybuns
Call up Travis Goodspeed and tell him "Open Season" on ICE/ISEE-3.

I'd bet on successful bi-directional communications within 18 months.

------
ams6110
_If they had planned for it to still be functioning at this point, they would
have maintained the capability to communicate with it._

This is the key point. It completed its mission. Someone forgot to turn it
off. Nobody ever expected to do anything more with it.

~~~
richardw
Opportunity had a planned 90-sol mission duration but continues to be useful.
Maybe there isn't any useful task this bird could be used for, but I'd be
surprised if the wider scientific community can't think up anything.

~~~
marshray
This thing was built in the 1970's. It has no locomotive power. It aint no
Mars rover.

------
watersb
The NRAO has telescopes that have been used to communicate with spacecraft.
But the are out of money, too.

[http://NRAO.edu](http://NRAO.edu)

------
DarrinTaylor
I am interested in anyone with serious attempts at communicating with this
space craft. I think NASA decided they have no interest because they need to
focus the deep space network antenna at the craft during data collection due
to no local memory on the space craft.

The answer is to launch a cubesat translater to shadow the space craft.
However the cubesat translater is only of use if the space craft is headed
somewhere interesting. That involves a time window of only a few months. Also
the cubesat is only practical if the ISEE-3 still has functioning instruments
which are being broadcast.

The combination of interesting places being far enough away from earth that
only very large antennas can transmit and the logistics of launching a cubesat
mission that can escape earth's orbit which has never been done are why I
think nasa is bowing out.

I would be interested in the cubesat mission if the legal aspects of the
initial communication and trajectory change are ironed out. If there is a
serious attempt within the law I am willing to donate my time as an electrical
engineer.

darrin.taylor@gmail.com

PS I think the only way there can be a legal effort is if NASA and FCC bless
it.

------
jmnicolas
I'm mad at politicians and people in power : it seems they always find
billions to fund foreign wars or stock market shenanigans but when it comes to
great scientific projects that can help understand our universe better,
there's not a cent.

------
ericcumbee
what is the value in communicating with it? it sounds as if it has very little
propellant left. is there any meaningful science that it can do that we
otherwise could not?

~~~
celias
from
[http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1697/1](http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1697/1)

Recycling an existing spacecraft that has already completed its original
mission makes good sense for a number of reasons. The spacecraft has already
been designed, built, and launched in the course of its original mission.
These are typically the most expensive parts of any mission. For the price of
a little on-board propellant needed to nudge a craft on a new trajectory and a
modest amount of additional funding for mission operations and science, an
existing spacecraft can sometimes be sent to another target of interest. ...
On September 18, 2008, ICE, which had finally begun drifting closer to the
Earth, was located and successfully reactivated. It was found that all but one
of its 13 instruments were still functioning and enough propellant remained on
board for a velocity change of 150 meters per second (320 miles per hour).
There appeared to be enough life left in the old probe to perform more useful
science. ICE should return to the Earth-Moon system again around August 10,
2014—over three decades after it left. NASA scientists, including a team lead
by Robert Farquhar, are considering several options for the future of ICE,
including redirecting it towards additional comet encounters in 2017 or 2018.
Still other missions are possible for this robust, reused spacecraft before it
once again drifts back into interplanetary space and subsequently returns to
the vicinity of the Earth sometime in the 2040s.

------
mindstab
This seems like a good place for a kickstarter?

~~~
rmason
If only they'd reached out to the ham radio community two years ago. There has
to be some retiree out there someplace who could provide enough info to get
volunteers started. But you can't begin to pull something together like this
on the current timeline.

