Lucy’s solar panel hasn’t latched:
NASA's Lucy spacecraft launched safely into space early on Saturday morning from Florida, but after the deployment of its two large solar arrays, one of them failed to latch properly.
Combined, the two solar arrays have a collecting area of 51 square meters. Such large arrays are necessary because the spacecraft will spend much of its 12-year journey about five times the distance of the Earth from the Sun. Lucy's solar panels can only generate about 3 percent of the energy at a Jovian distance than they can at Earth's orbit around the Sun.
[...] "In the current spacecraft attitude, Lucy can continue to operate with no threat to its health and safety," the agency said in a blog post. But it is not yet clear how the latching issue will affect long-term operations and maneuvering of the 1.5-ton spacecraft.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @03:27PM (12 children)
Sure hope the hell they got their latches working for the James Webb Telescope.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday October 19 2021, @03:40PM (3 children)
That's why they went through all that pain in testing...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:12PM
I wonder if that is what Boeing said about its Starliner?
And 737 MAX?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:22PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:10PM
Even ground testing can tell you a lot, if you actually do it. Endless simulations without hard data to ground them tend to only give you the answers that you already had.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 19 2021, @03:48PM (3 children)
It doesn't sound like the mission is dead because of this. Just that there is a small mechanical issue and they want to address it if possible so it doesn't become a real problem later.
JWST has a lot of parts that can fail. If it does fail, I think we'll see at least a $300 million robotic probe approved just to try to fix it. Too much money already committed.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:27PM (2 children)
How much for JW was design work rather than building -- how much would a second telescope cost?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:57PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Cost_and_schedule_issues [wikipedia.org]
It's complicated. You can try to interpret it or wait for the tell-all book.
I don't believe that a second telescope with the exact same design wouldn't also have hundreds of millions or billions in testing tacked on.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:05PM
Depends upon how many flight qualified spares they have on the ground and whether they are available for use. If there isn't much reuse possible, then it would also depend upon whether you want a build-to-print duplicate, or to work in the design lessons learned since the JWST design was frozen. Build-to-print also assumes you can get the same processors, etc. as the original, which is probably not the case, so the new processors are probably not pin-for-pin compatible, so what do you do there? At some point you are redesigning anyway . . .
It's complicated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:00PM (2 children)
How hard can this be?? It's not like it is rocket science or anything!
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:35PM (1 child)
Failure of solar panels to properly deploy is a recurring problem in space programs. It seems this is not getting enough competent attention.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:29AM
The root problems run deeper than merely throwing more brain power at it. The rocket equation is not kind and space is both extremely hostile and notoriously difficult to simulate on the ground, so there is intense pressure to limit weight and not everything can be fully tested before flight. Deep space missions push the limits of what our current manufacturing and quality control are capable of, which is a big part of why they are so expensive. There are only two real ways to improve the situation: a bigger, more powerful rocket, so you have enough mass budget to build in greater reliability, or a much cheaper rocket capable of rapid launching, letting you fly batches of cheap payloads so you can afford to lose a few along the way. The only rocket likely to deliver on either of those demands in the near future is still a couple of years away from operational status at the soonest, and it will take time after that for new projects to take advantage of it, so we're probably looking at another decade or two.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:54PM
The James Webb Telescope is already having problems latching on to its name
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 19 2021, @03:43PM (4 children)
Some technician somewhere is hoping no one figures out that he spat out a wad of gum, but didn't know exactly where it went.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:40PM (1 child)
Just think how the Russian engineers felt when that hole on the ISS module was discovered. That was obviously sabotage by an American astronaut, though. (Not obviously and a kind of weird accusation for them to have made.)
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:01PM
You are on to something.
This must be Russian sabotage.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:37PM (1 child)
You jest, but...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020360-700-particle-beams-hit-the-bottle/ [newscientist.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:01PM
https://www.aerotime.aero/28940-%20tequila-bottles-empty-boeing-747-san-antonio [aerotime.aero]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Snotnose on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:30PM
Oblig.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @04:48PM (7 children)
(Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday October 19 2021, @05:14PM (5 children)
The Sun is a fusion reactor.
Not one of those fishin' reactors.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:53PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @04:46AM
With modern solar panels Jupiter is close enough to the "steam vent" for practical purposes. Saturn is too distant but Lucy isn't going that far.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:46AM (2 children)
If your going to hate nuclear energy fine. But for fucks sake at least get educated on the subject so don't look like more of a fool than you already do.
FYI, the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators currently powering both Voyagers, the Pioneers, Curiosity and Perseverance, and New Horizon, as well as those that powered Cassini and would have powered this latest mission ARE NOT FISSION BASED NUCLEAR POWER. RTGs use the DECAY of Plutonium 238 to produce heat for a bunch of stacked Thermocouples and are the best way of powering any space probe that travels beyond the asteroid belt. Just in case you don't get the whole "decay" part that means it is getting less radioactive as time goes by.
The reason NASA had to use Solar for this mission is mostly because there isn't enough Pu-238 available for all the missions they are doing thanks to the few nuclear power plants that could produce Pu238 being shut down due to age without replacement reactors being available.
I am so fucking tired of people screaming "fission bad!" every time the subject of nuclear power comes up even in cases where fission has nothing to do with the topic.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:52PM (1 child)
I know what RTGs are. I know that fission is a clean source of energy, provided you can trust everyone involved to design and operate it safely; and have a way to dispose of spent fuel.
The problem is that RTGs don't make for a cheap and easy punch line.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:09PM
In other words, fission will never be a clean source of energy. Not in the real world anyway.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:17PM
If they'd asked for a reactor then Lucy would never have been approved. Pu238 is very expensive and in short supply, so only flagship missions qualify for it. Solar panels are good enough now for missions out as far as Jupiter so there is little point in not using them. There is also question if the panel didn't lock or if it is just a bad sensor.