Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Question concerning Voyager 1/2
Question concerning Voyager 1/2
2009-09-18, 8:17 PM #1
This seems like a question someone around here would know, for absolutely no reason. I can't seem to find much information on this question, maybe I am just not wording it right I suppose.

Anyway here goes:

How exactly did both probes transmit pictures to earth? Did they have digital photo technology back in the 70's? If so, what process did they use to transmit the images muchless render them? I would assume it is through radio waves since those are the only thing practical enough for long distance transmission. If that is in fact the case, how is it possible to transfer data through radio waves?

This may seem a stupid question to some of you but I am no rocket scientist so I am throwing this one out there for some enlightenment.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2009-09-18, 8:56 PM #2
Watch this documentary about it.

Radio waves were used AFAIK. In the same way that a dial-up modem can encode digital data onto an analog phone line through the use of tones, digital data can be encoded onto radio waves. I wouldn't be surprised if they used a similar method actually.

Camera info is on NASA's official Voyager site and was easy to find.
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/instruments_issna.html
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/instruments_isswa.html

Doesn't mention how the images go from camera to earth, though. The Wikipedia articles on the probes have a lot of references and external links; check some of 'em out.

2009-09-19, 6:24 AM #3
The pioneer program is far more fascinating:

http://planetary.org/programs/projects/pioneer_anomaly/

Quote:
You may recall that all of this started when a Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist, John Anderson, noticed that the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft (first launched in 1972 and ‘73) appeared to be “breaking the rules.” They were falling behind in their trajectories by a small amount each year. Since then, a total of seven independent research groups—using the original data—have confirmed the initial findings of the Pioneer team.

But no one can yet explain why. One by one, obvious causes—like gravitational influences from Kuiper belt objects, or the effect of the solar wind—have been excluded. Now we’re down to only a handful of possible explanations.

But if these “conventional” explanations are all finally disproved, then we really will be left with groundbreaking new science: ideas like effects from so-called “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” and many other ideas. Or—in some ways the most radical idea of all—perhaps we’ve made a fundamental error in our understanding of Newtonian physics!
2009-09-19, 7:02 AM #4
Quote:
perhaps we’ve made a fundamental error in our understanding of Newtonian physics!

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the real culprit. Our "laws" work well on the scales we normally use, but start talking about extra-solar ballistics there's bound to be some error.
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2009-09-19, 10:27 AM #5
V'ger
"Nulla tenaci invia est via"
2009-09-19, 10:31 AM #6
I like that movie goddamnit.
2009-09-19, 11:05 AM #7
It's strange that they blame Newtonian physics for the Pioneer problem since it is just an approximation. Everything is actually relativistic, though typically speeds are so low that Newtonian is good enough.

GPS doesn't even work with Newtonian physics. They shouldn't expect calculations for one of these probes to.
"Flowers and a landscape were the only attractions here. And so, as there was no good reason for coming, nobody came."
2009-09-19, 11:08 AM #8
Originally posted by Darkjedibob:
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the real culprit. Our "laws" work well on the scales we normally use, but start talking about extra-solar ballistics there's bound to be some error.


ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
2009-09-19, 11:24 AM #9
Originally posted by Darkjedibob:
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the real culprit. Our "laws" work well on the scales we normally use, but start talking about extra-solar ballistics there's bound to be some error.


The thing about inductively discovered "laws" is that they only are only valid for the conditions in which we observe them. Other variables can exist that do not change or change too little for us to detect, and there is really no way to know how many other variables there can be that we have not thought of or are unable to check for.
2009-09-19, 11:35 AM #10
it's your mom

she's so fat that her extra gravity is slowing down the space probes
Stuff
2009-09-19, 4:18 PM #11
Aren't your mom jokes bannable? xD
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2009-09-19, 4:56 PM #12
Originally posted by Onimusha:
Aren't your mom jokes bannable? xD


so is mini-modding jerk
:master::master::master:
2009-09-19, 5:01 PM #13
Originally posted by stat:
so is mini-modding jerk


So is micro mini-modding.

...or is it? :tinfoil:
2009-09-19, 5:15 PM #14
Originally posted by Alco:
The pioneer program is far more fascinating:
Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if it's caused by the radiation pressure near the bow shock, though.

Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
The thing about inductively discovered "laws" is that they only are only valid for the conditions in which we observe them. Other variables can exist that do not change or change too little for us to detect, and there is really no way to know how many other variables there can be that we have not thought of or are unable to check for.
Newton's laws are a natural consequence of understanding and calculating rates of change. I can't disagree that there is more going on than I understand, but if you want to argue that calculus doesn't work I'd be more than happy to convince you otherwise.
2009-09-19, 5:48 PM #15
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if it's caused by the radiation pressure near the bow shock, though.

Newton's laws are a natural consequence of understanding and calculating rates of change. I can't disagree that there is more going on than I understand, but if you want to argue that calculus doesn't work I'd be more than happy to convince you otherwise.


"Inductive"

Unlike observable physical relationships, mathematics is deductive. Although it is possible that I have confused inductive with deductive. :p

EDIT:
Originally posted by Wikipeida:
Note that mathematical induction is not a form of inductive reasoning. While mathematical induction may be inspired by the non-base cases, the formulation of a base case firmly establishes it as a form of deductive reasoning.
2009-09-19, 6:49 PM #16
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
I like that movie goddamnit.


Pfft. Star Trek: The Motionless Picture.
"Harriet, sweet Harriet - hard-hearted harbinger of haggis."
2009-09-19, 7:53 PM #17
Cool stuff guys, thanks.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2009-09-19, 7:55 PM #18
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Unlike observable physical relationships, mathematics is deductive. Although it is possible that I have confused inductive with deductive. :p
I'm not exactly sure what you're claiming here. Newton's laws state a ceteris paribus relation between rates of change. You can't fault a theory for the assumptions it makes.
2009-09-19, 7:59 PM #19
Originally posted by stat:
so is mini-modding jerk


Thus the "xD" face.

Take a joke!
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2009-09-19, 11:06 PM #20
Originally posted by zanardi:
V'ger


I can't believe there's a thread about me.

I'm honored.

*bow*
This signature agrees with the previously posted signatures. To violate previously posted signatures is a violation of the EULA for this signature and you will be subject to unruly behavior.
2009-09-20, 9:15 AM #21
Originally posted by Jon`C:
I'm not exactly sure what you're claiming here. Newton's laws state a ceteris paribus relation between rates of change. You can't fault a theory for the assumptions it makes.


Well, the point was that a theory is only as good as it's assumptions.

↑ Up to the top!