Beehaw
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
inari ( inari@piefed.zip )  to SpaceEnglish · 4 months ago

Voyager 1 is still transmitting from beyond the heliosphere on 22 watts — less power than the bulb in your hallway — and the engineers who built it in the 1970s never expected we'd still be listening

spacedaily.com

external-link
message-square
31
link
fedilink
111
external-link

Voyager 1 is still transmitting from beyond the heliosphere on 22 watts — less power than the bulb in your hallway — and the engineers who built it in the 1970s never expected we'd still be listening

spacedaily.com

inari ( inari@piefed.zip )  to SpaceEnglish · 4 months ago
message-square
31
link
fedilink
Voyager 1 is still transmitting from beyond the heliosphere on 22 watts — less power than the bulb in your hallway — and the engineers who built it in the 1970s never expected we'd still be listening half a century later.
spacedaily.com
external-link
On 17 April 2026, mission engineers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California sent commands to switch off the Low-energy Charged Particles experiment aboard Voyager 1. The instrument had been operating, almost without interruption, since the spacecraft left Cape Canaveral in September 1977. The shutdown was not a fault. It was the latest in a […]
alert-triangle
You must log in or # to comment.
  • Korhaka ( Korhaka@sopuli.xyz ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    4 months ago

    The bulb in my hallway is 3.2w. Still impressive though.

    • i_stole_ur_taco ( i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 months ago

      The bulb was probably designed and manufactured by people who weren’t even born when Voyager launched. It’s wild how long and how far it’s been calling home.

    • Dave. ( dgriffith@aussie.zone ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The beamwidth of Voyager 1’s antenna is about 0.5 degrees. In practical terms, that’s very narrow, about an 8 metre wide beam at a kilometre distance.

      At its current distance, by the time the beam reaches Earth it is 224 million kilometres wide, 1.5x the distance from the Earth to the sun.

      Now imagine the light from a car’s taillights lighting up the back wall of a garage as it reverses in. Then spread that same amount of light out over that 224 million km wide beamwidth. That’s what Voyager is putting out and what the Deep Space Network dishes have to listen for.

      • Korhaka ( Korhaka@sopuli.xyz ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 months ago

        Kinda puts the huge distances into a bit of perspective. How difficult is it to pick up that kind of signal? I struggle to get WiFi in the garden.

        • LastYearsIrritant ( LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          https://www.nasa.gov/communicating-with-missions/dsn/

          The Deep Space Network is very impressive.

    • newton ( newton@feddit.online ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      You guys have a hallway ?

  • inari ( inari@piefed.zip ) OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    4 months ago

    NASA has a neat little video showing the path taken by Voyager 1: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4139

    • A_norny_mousse ( A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Very interesting. So they both manouvred (slingshot) using planets’ gravity wells? Not everything in SciFi is fiction I guess.

      And V1 has traveled further from our solar system than the solar system’s diameter. Wow.

      Extremely high bitrate on the video due to starry background, btw. My old lappy got wheezy.

      • Alcoholicorn ( Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes, and there was a 175 year window for the planets to be lined up like that.

        • A_norny_mousse ( A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          You mean the planets just sat there for 175 years? Wow, I really learned something new today.

          • Alcoholicorn ( Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            4 months ago

            Windows to use all the gas giants for gravity slingshots in quick succession only occur every 175 years. Is that better?

            • [deleted] ( snooggums@piefed.world ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yes

      • ruuster13 ( ruuster13@lemmy.zip ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        In the scientific fiction genre, everything is scientifically possible. That’s the entire premise. Time tells us what they get right and what becomes fantasy.

        • SaveTheTuaHawk ( SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Nothing in Star Wars is scientifically possible or ever will be.

          • RicoBerto ( RicoBerto@piefed.blahaj.zone ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Star wars is barely science fiction. It’s basically fantasy with a bit of tech.

            • Steve ( Steve@communick.news ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              It’s absolutely fantasy. No debate. So is Star Trek.

              Actual science fiction is like the recent Hail Mary. Everything is based on literal real science, with maybe one “what if” kind of stretch.

              • RicoBerto ( RicoBerto@piefed.blahaj.zone ) 
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                I don’t know that i’d go that far. There is certainly debate on what constutes hard or soft sci-fi, but I’d say as long as the technology is either the focus, or is the main facilitator of the story then it’s more sci-fi. In star wars there is not much technology that is necessarily required, all of it could have been replaced with fantasy elements and it’s the same. It’s not a focus, whereas the expanse for instance relies upon the limitations of the technology to drive the plot.

                I don’t know could be talking out my ass, purely vibes based genre definition.

        • Steve ( Steve@startrek.website ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Wut

        • Steve ( Steve@communick.news ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Not everything, no.
          That’s called fantasy.

        • A_norny_mousse ( A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          deleted by creator

  • SaveTheTuaHawk ( SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    22W LED bulb? For suntanning?

    • Dionysus ( Dionysus@leminal.space ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      The person who wrote this was also as old as the engineers who built Voyager and assume everyone still uses incandescent bulbs.

      Didn’t the Mango Mussolini go on a rant once about LED bulbs?

      • kalpol ( kalpol@lemmy.ca ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Its actually lower than a lot of LED bulbs. The heaters are what’s using most of the power.

  • melsaskca ( melsaskca@lemmy.ca ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    That was back when bulbs lasted almost forever until they changed them so they’d break earlier so you’d have to spend money to buy more bulbs. Voyager is like the bulbs of old.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk ( SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Uh, what. Bulbs last years now.

      • SteevyT ( SteevyT@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Y’all are replacing light bulbs?

        • Swedneck ( Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          only bulb i’ve replaced is the stupid powerful 2000lm smart bulb i have in the ceiling to replace the sun, but that’s under warranty so who cares

      • Gumus ( Gumus@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s because the cartel ceased to operate almost a hundred years ago…

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

    • scibra122 ( scibra122@piefed.social ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Carrying water for incandescent bulbs on the basis of their reliability is wild. Yeah, several companies have taken advantage of the conception of lightbulbs as a disposable good to cheap out on LED bulb construction until they are also disposable, but they did that so successfully because changing incandescent bulbs was such a common occurrence, it was the template for a proto-meme joke. Not everything in the past was better than things today

      • Don_alForno ( Don_alForno@feddit.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Changing incandescent bulbs was common because they lasted too long in the past and were intentionally made less reliable to make more money. It’s a cascade of enshittification at this point.

  • Arancello ( Arancello@aussie.zone ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    this is the kind of content i come here for! love it.

  • Scipitie ( Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    So it generates about 18 Watts of power while transmitting.

    Impressive!

Space

space

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !space@beehaw.org

News and findings about our cosmos.


Subcommunity of Science


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 1 user / day
  • 2 users / week
  • 66 users / month
  • 571 users / 6 months
  • 2.34K local subscribers
  • 9.36K subscribers
  • 759 Posts
  • 1.95K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • Chris Remington ( remington@beehaw.org ) 
  • alyaza [they/she] ( alyaza@beehaw.org ) 
  • Gaywallet (they/it) ( Gaywallet@beehaw.org ) 
  • wintrparkgrl ( wintrparkgrl@beehaw.org ) 
  • BE: 0.19.15
  • Modlog
  • Legal
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code