This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Space & Planetary Science

Has Voyager 1 Left The Solar System?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 7, 2012
Filed under ,

More evidence that Voyager has exited the solar system, Houston Chronicle
“New data from the spacecraft, which I will discuss below, indicate Voyager 1 may have exited the solar system for good. If true, this would mark a truly historic moment for the human race — sending a spacecraft beyond the edge of our home solar system.”
Voyager Recent 6 Hour History
Voyage Cosmic Ray Subsystem (Data Graphic)

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

11 responses to “Has Voyager 1 Left The Solar System?”

  1. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    If this turns out to be the case, and the magnetometer is the confirmation, then we have just witnessed a historic event.

    • Helen Simpson says:
      0
      0

      I agree completely, but I can’t help wondering if the Lagrange-point denialists will be spluttering “But … but … there isn’t anything THERE!” Their line, of course, is that you can only “explore” if you do it on a rock.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Helen I hate to say this but you are stuck with such a limited perspective here, thinking that my or anyone’s advocacy of the Moon or another body means that this is all that we support.

        It all comes down to what is the purpose of spaceflight?  If all it is, is a bunch of science missions, then that implies a certain direction for the implementation of missions and plans.  If however, the purpose is to extend the reach of mankind, that means humans as well as robots, into first the solar system, then the stars, then there is a dramatically different implementation plan for missions and plans.

        The near term focus for human spaceflight of the Moon first then Mars is tied to industrial and economic development leading to permanent human settlement in the inner solar system.  It is patently absurd to think that we should bypass the Moon and its resources in order to go to Mars.  

        I would very much like to see mission’s like Konrad Dannenberg’s TAU (Thousand Astronomical Unit) mission.  You are not going to do that with the primitive level of technology that we are at now.

        I want to see interplanetary free space vehicles powered by thorium reactors built on the Moon, providing energy to VASIMR type propulsion systems.  Do you seriously think that you are going to build that on the Earth and Launch it?

        EML-2 is a great location, but only if it is tied to a serious effort at lunar resource utilization.  If you are going to ignore that then EML-2 makes no sense and ESL-2 makes much more sense as you can use a lunar gravity assist to get you out there and thereby save propulsion mass.

        • Helen Simpson says:
          0
          0

           “Helen I hate to say this but you are stuck with such a limited
          perspective here, thinking that my or anyone’s advocacy of the Moon or
          another body means that this is all that we support.”

          Dennis, you didn’t read my (very short) comment. You’re just making stuff up. I *never* said I thought that anyone’s advocacy of any body meant that was all they supported. Totally bogus. Actually, I don’t hate to say it.

          The point that I was clearly making was that there are people, perhaps not you, who believe that EM Lagrange points are not justifiable destinations because there is nothing there. They’ll look you right in the eye and say that explicitly. I’m just pointing out that we are all getting very properly excited about Voyager reaching a place where there is, similarly, nothing there.

          Of course, we’re very excited about work we do regularly in LEO which, aside from the stuff we put there (which may include debris), there is nothing there.

          I’m simply thumbing my nose at those who would argue that what makes a destination, and what validates a space accomplishment, is rocks and gravity. That’s all.

          Although it doesn’t relate to my exasperation about your limited understanding here, I will take issue with your “lunar resource utilization or bust” metric for the importance of EM Lagrange points. They may be of value in doing that utilization, but there are many other important goals that can be achieved at those locations.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Although it doesn’t relate to my exasperation about your limited understanding here, I will take issue with your “lunar resource utilization or bust” metric for the importance of EM Lagrange points. They may be of value in doing that utilization, but there are many other important goals that can be achieved at those locations.

            When you start off a comment with the word “deniers” to describe those who disagree with you you are not really trying to make friends and or influence people in a positive manner.

            Yes it is Lunar Resources or bust is the point as the budget to do exploration will be orders of magnitude higher if we don’t do that.  If you look at the failure of both SEI and the VSE/Constellation, they can be traced to this very issue.

            Yes there are things that can be done there if we ignore the existence of the Moon though any HEO orbit will do just about as well for the vast majority of them.

          • Helen Simpson says:
            0
            0

            I respect the right of people to say that we shouldn’t go to Lagrange points unless we restrict ourselves to lunar resource development. I don’t agree with it, but I respect it.

            I don’t particularly respect the right of people to say that we shouldn’t go to Lagrange points because there’s nothing there. That’s just dumb. I’m not trying to make friends with that kind of denier, and they’re probably beyond influencing in a positive manner.

            When you say “ignore the existence of the Moon”, you’re talking about ignoring lunar resources. Take your blinders off. We could also be talking about lunar science. Any HEO orbit would hardly be useful for lunar science.

            I think lunar resource development is a great idea if we’re talking about moving large numbers of people and large quantities of equipment into the solar system. I’ve seen no national policy that proscribes that yet, however.

            With Voyager, we sent a small amount of equipment far into the solar system, and we’re enormously proud of it.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Again, hate to do it this way, replying to Helen below.

             I’ve seen no national policy that proscribes that yet, however.

            National policy is not something that is handed down from the stars, it is generated by thoughtful and dedicated people who influence the political leadership of this country.  To say that we should not be talking about and working toward the economic development of the solar system simply because the dunderheads in Washington are not does not seem very productive.

            I would call your attention to the February 11, 1988 National Space Policy by the Reagan administration that called for humanity to move outward into the solar system.

            I would also call your attention to the VSE Speech by George W. Bush where he references lunar industrialization.

            I would further call your attention to the Goddard Symposium Speech by Dr. John Marburger where he forcefully stated that the economic development of the solar system is the goal of the current space policy.

            The policy is out there.  It is our responsibility as citizens and technologists who work in this field to continue to present the case why this economic development is in the best interest of the nation and the world, until we get someone on the other end with the brains to understand it and the ability to execute on it.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Capabilities and use of them are different things.

        Voyager 1 is an example of using an incredibly small and (considering modern capabilities) primitive capability to succeed at a magnificent endeavour. Entry into interstellar space.

        Shuttle was an attempt to create a RLV capability to bring down the cost, increase the access to space. Total failure to achieve that capability. Because of compromises made in its design and deployment. But it succeeded in deploying the ISS (in lieu of SSF) as well.

        ISS is an attempt to generate a capability for long term research in earth orbit. The capability has also been compromised by design and deployment. Some wish to presume failure although it is ongoing and potentially remediable.

        Both the Voyager 1 success and EML 1/2 share the meaning of being a point of departure. The capability is, like with all others, just a beginning.

        There will be many naysayers to any capability, mostly because of agenda – if you warp it perhaps you can compel things “your way” and not others. NASA HSF is dominated by this. Which is why the unmanned side has tended to get further.

        To make matters worse, to take capabilities further, we need to develop them beyond what government would. Many are fearful of this. Yet at this point, their are many advantages beyond how government would by its nature do things, that an entrepreneurial business could do – with COTS you see the pluses (and minuses) of.

        NASA’s charter addresses this, and COTS, CCDEV, CCiCAP are examples of LEO ways to accomplish this. The BEO ways include improving the logistics for exploration – the largest number of ways at a central point, for the largest number of mission targets, for the greatest “flux” through a single point, such that the benefit may be “paid off” quickest/leat risk.

        Which is Gateway.

        It may take a lot to “bootstrap” – that isn’t NASA. But the “bootstrap of the bootstrap” … is.

        So that we may use those resources to be able to economically “scale up” through economic expansion, such that among other missions, something longer lived, faster, deeper ranged than Voyager … can go millions of times further into that which Voyager has just stepped.

        Which is not just scrabbling around on any one rock.

  2. mattmcc80 says:
    0
    0

    Those JPL guys don’t screw around when they build something.. 🙂

    But what amazes me is how abrupt that boundary turned out to be.  LA1 particle averages dropped 250% within one measurement on Aug 24th, 23/sec to 9/sec, then after four days it down to 3/sec, and now for the past three weeks practically flat around 2/sec.

  3. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    As long as we truly are a science and technology culture, and not one who mouths it but then goes off into a “dead end”.

    Right now we could have the entire solar system. A certain childishness dominates our culture – often expressed ideologically, and/or nationalistically. That, not purity, keeps us from a clear eyed application of resources to reach beyond following Voyager.

    I don’t fear a China or a Russia. I fear the distraction of fear itself, for the ability to tackle all that lies just outside our technological grasp.

  4. Howie_H says:
    0
    0

    Dennis Wingo said:

    It all comes down to what is the purpose of spaceflight?  If all it is,
    is a bunch of science missions, then that implies a certain direction
    for the implementation of missions and plans.  If however, the purpose
    is to extend the reach of mankind, that means humans as well as robots,
    into first the solar system, then the stars, then there is a
    dramatically different implementation plan for missions and plans.

    I agree-this is the problem with the current NASA plan for the ‘L point gateway’. Instead of designing and building something new with new capabilities, they are still talking about using a Russian Salyut module as the core. Even the Russians, like recently returned cosmonaut Gennady Padalka, are complaining 

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id

    http://www.citizensinspace….

    that the Russian technology is decades old and does not compare favorably with the US/international side and his superiors are agreeing that they need to be developing new capabilities or their entire program will die. The NASA leadership, because they are not controlling costs-and just as likely, not managing the technologies and the development process, aren’t even thinking about anything new. The station people are in serious danger of making the same mistake that was made with Shuttle-no improvements, no upgrades, lets just keep using what we’ve been using.

    This is a sure way to make little progress and not extend anyone’s reach anywhere. They sure are not embracing the Elon Musk Space-X philosophy that all things are possible. Lay out a plan and pursue it. This seems to be the difference between the current NASA management and the NASA management of the 1960s. In the 60s, the NASA leadership identified what needed to be developed and they did the job. Today the NASA managers appears afraid to do anything (maybe its because they have so far done so little).