Talk:Voyager program

Propulsion?

I'm really puzzled by the lack of a section on PROPULSION and the lack of mention of it on the talk page. Number one amazing feature of this program has got to be, how did we get this enormous machine into space, how did we get it to the end of the solar system. There is some talk of propellant, but how much propellant and how long does it last? APDEF (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions

Hmmm, very nice to get a lot of details... But I don't know a fifth of all the three-letter abreviations used... I guess space-program insiders might be familiar with them. I suggest someone explains them so that the rest of humanity can better understand all the nice techno details outlined in the text. 129.241.139.73 23:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we need to get some Wiki links for some of those TLAs. I would especially like to know what UVS is. - Eisnel 00:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done! :) though this article needs much MUCH more work. The Voyager missions did a huge amount of science and this page could easily be quadrupled in size....

A UVS is an Ultra-Violet Spectrometer. However, all such abbreviations ought to be explained by writing them out on their first appearance. Why can't people get this through their heads? I have already corrected this a time or two in the article.74.249.82.221 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup of this page plus Voyager 1 and 2 pages

I've taken these pages to stub status, they're Wikified.

They need more science results. I recommend putting Jupiter and Saturn results/discoveries on this page, with the corresponding sections in Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 pages referring here.

I also recommend putting Uranus and Neptune discoveries in this same Results/Discoveries section, but noting that this is only from Voyager 2, and having some duplication in the Voyager 2 entry. JamesHoadley 03:23, 8 February 2005

Recommend adding additional details about trajectory, speed (initial and final), final intersteller destination and time to reach. Some info here:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0225.shtmlJoema 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I guess that can go at the end of the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 articles. JamesHoadley 21:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This article could at the very least LIST the instruments that were built-in to the two space probes. As far as I know, they were all identical ones, and therefore, they belong in this article about the overall program.74.249.82.221 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

the voyager was launched before I graduated high school. I'm now middle aged. I'd like to know more about the people who created it - are they still alive , and who still are in charge of making the decisions and tracking the data from it. Thanks to all who've contributed, and please no flaming me this'll be my 2nd edit ever on a wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.60.181 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

the most widely-separated man-made objects

"Voyager 1 and Pioneer 10 are also the most widely-separated manmade objects in the Universe." This is, stricktly, incorrect. Man made satellites and Voyager 1 would be the most widely-seperated. --ProdigySportsman 01:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Voyager 1 and Pioneer 10 are proceeding in nearly opposite directions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that the Voyager 1 and Pioneer 10 are not the most widely-separated manmade objects show lack of knowledge of basic trigonometry. Those two space probes are at the opposite vertices of a vast obtuse triangle, with either the Earth or the Sun at the other vertex - take your choice. The angle at this other vertex is approaching 180 degrees.74.249.82.221 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

New Horizons

I believe that New Horizons will overtake Voyager 1 in distance from the sun, but I have read it will take about 200 years before they are equidistant.

User: Petroleum

Incorrect : See http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=16057

Voyager 1 is traveling faster than the New Horizons probe because besides the speeds from their launch rockets, Voyager 1 received gravitational boosts in speed from both Jupiter and Saturn.
As for Voyager 2, it received gravitational boosts in speed from Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, but it lost speed in its fly-by of Neptune. A good chunk of the kinetic energy (K.E. = 1/2mv^2) was expended in changing its flight path well out of the plane of the ecliptic, in a direction can be considered as partially "south" with respect to the Sun. Hence, Voyager 2 is leaving the Solar System at a speed less than that of Voyager 1, and in a different plane.74.249.82.221 (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Soviet equivalents?

As I know Soviets never launched their probes further than to Mars, Venus, and Halley's Comet. But didn't they make any plans? Such opportunity as in the late 70's couldn't pass unnoticied. Does anybody know if they had any conceptions similar to Voyager program? Amakthea computer 16:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen anything that said that they even considered the idea. Not even a space probe like Pioneer 10 that went through the asteroid belt and to Jupiter. The Soviet's electronics technology and other space probe technologies simply never were good enough to build a space probe that would last for the years and years that it would take. For example, the two Voyagers, launched in 1977, reached Jupiter in 1979 and 1980. That's too long a time in outer space for the Soviets. Thus, they concentrated on Venus, and occasionaly sent a space probe to Mars.74.249.82.221 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say exactly what the state of the Soviet Union's electronics and technological prowess of the time was. It's possible it may not have been sufficiently advanced, but I suspect the reasons are more politically-focused. Being the first to a world that people could see might have been more beneficial politically to the Politburo and the Central Committee than some more nebulous target of "somewhere out there in space". I don't claim to hold any special insight into the workings of the Soviet Union, but it is my general understanding that they were more obsessed with material things than ethereal scientific achievements. Capedude2005 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How does information from it reach earth?

And when will we no longer be able to receive transmissions from it?

Round trip time for information as of 2007:
28.5 Hours Voyager 1
22.5 Hours Voyager 2
The spacecraft will run out of power in 2020 and it seems up to then we should still be able to receive signals.

Taken from a NPR science Friday Podcast: Voyager spacecraft the never-ending journey (this is quite informative) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.246.111 (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The round-trip radio time (or even the one-way time) has nothing to do with it. Nothing. The Voyagers can be programmed to send transmissions toward the Earth automatically and periodically. The question really has to do with how much electric power remains. All instruments can be turned off for good, and only the computer and the radio transmitter left on. The electric power from the radioisotope electric generators can be accumulated in the storage batteries, and tranmissions can be sent in bursts, but there will come time when even that won't work anymore.
Also, there could possibly arise an antenna-pointing problem after the Voyager's attitude-control fuel runs out.74.249.82.221 (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How far way is it from the next solar system?

How far away is Voyager from getting to the next solar system? How long will it take? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.5.54 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

They never will reach another solar system. You need to realize that solar systems are very small and very widely-scattered. The Voyagers aren't aimed at any of them, anyway, and we don't rally know where any other solar systems are - and we certainly did not in 1977. It was really out-of-the-question.74.249.82.221 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the timescale you think in. There are not an infinite number of solar systems (otherwise space would appear white from the infinite number of stars associated with those systems) and there are not an infinite number of galaxies, either, but who knows what might be "in their path" a billion or so years' hence. Of course, next Tuesday, the probes could run into a pebble-sized asteroid and it'd be game-over for either or both of them. I think it would be really awesome if we were to keep track of where the probes are so that, perhaps in a few hundred years, if we develop the means for interstellar travel, we could catch up to one and shoot some video and stills and do scans to check on their physical conditions. Capedude2005 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I do know that back in the '80s Bob Ceserone of JPL wrote a paper on what stars the Voyager craft would go (fairly) near over the next several million years. Alas, I don't have a copy and haven't taken the time to search for an on-line cite, but I do know that the subject has been investigated. BTW, Ceserone was also the man who was responsible for sending one of the two craft behind Titan to get the first measure of the depth and density of its atmosphere. (I was at JPL for several years in the mid-80s and learned this from conversations with him and some of his co-workers.)JDZeff (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

How did the two Voyager spacecraft withstand 180,000 degrees Fahrenheit? ???

At the boundary of the Solar System, where the solar wind and interstellar wind cancel each other, Voyager 2 recorded the temperature as 99,982 degrees centigrade = 180,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1/10 the expected 1.8 million Fahrenheit). With 65,000 parts many made up of sub-parts, including sensing, computing and communications equipment, what exactly about their construction allowed these spacecraft to continue into interstellar space after withstanding temperatures that melt: tungsten (mp 1650 C), carbon (mp 3,500 C), halfnium (mp 3,890 C), and halfnium carbide (mp 4,215 C), listed as the substance with the highest melting point? ???
Please tell, I am fascinated! That temperature is 20 times the mp of halfnium carbide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.114.23 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it has to do with density of space. While there are particles flying extremely fast, and thus qualifies as having an extremely high temperature, there are way too few of them to pose any risk to the probe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersFeder (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - the matter density in interplanetary and interstellar space is way too small to contain very much heat, no matter what the "temeperature" is. The key concept is specific heat capacity, and not temperature.

Celestial Navigation wiki link useless

From the article "use celestial or gyro referenced attitude control to maintain pointing" There is a link on celestial that goes to the Celestial navigation page. However that page is mostly about terrestrial celestial navigation. Should the link be changed to point to Star tracker as this is the actual device used for spacecraft attitude control and provides more relevant details than the operation of a sextant, or should the article on Celestial navigation be expanded to cover spaceflight in more detail? 70.252.164.180 (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the link to point to Attitude dynamics and control HumphreyW (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone contribute some facts regarding...

I heard an astronomy podcast a while back, which stated that one of the more interesting mysteries of our solar-system is the fact that the Voyager and Pioneer probes are not as far away from us as they should be. In other words - there is an unknown factor causing these probes to not proceed on their way at the anticipated rate. Can anyone contribute any data on this? I would be really interested to know about the size of this discrepancy? any what hypotheses there are to explain it? M62902 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops - ignore me - I found this article which covers it.M62902 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Media

Possibility to add a particular reference to a certain "Motion Picture" that fictitiously refers to the Voyager program, 'Voyager 6'? I'll leave this up to you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.242.7 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

bow shock

"Beyond the heliopause is the bow shock" needs revision, as other articles say the expected bow shock turned out not to exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.98.254 (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are the Voyagers?

Jet Propulsion Laboratory Website's page has interactive distance counters for both Voyagers and some additional information which enhances this article. (Retrieved July 29,2012.)

 O = M _C ⁴  21:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Table of instruments with activity status - which craft ?

There are two such tables in the "Voyager program" and "Voyager 1" articles. The two lists appear to be slightly different. In the "Voyager 2" article, however, there is no such list. Could the 2 lists be checked against recent data and moved to the appropriate articles? At the moment, it is hard to tell which one is for V1 and which is for V2. In particular, the table in the "Voyager program" does not indicated to which craft it pertains. Thanks. Fi11222 (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Should the hatnote have "For the TV program, see Star Trek Voyager"?

Not because I want pop culture over science but because it could be a legitimate way of looking for it......it is a television program, I can imagine people typing in "Voyager program" looking for it. --occono (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Instrument Status Removal

Since this article nominally concerns both Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, showing a single instrument status cannot reflect the program's instrument status. As of this writing, the instrument status shown in this article fails to agree with status in neither the Voyager 1 nor Voyager 2 articles. Whereas correcting this article to reflect correct instrument status for both Voyager spacecraft involves substantial work for marginal benefit, I propose removing instrument status status from this article and stating instrument status for the individual Voyagers are maintained within their respective articles. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point, this seems to be typical WP-overeagerness. I removed it. --79.223.26.73 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Budget/Costs

Is there any information on the original budget of the program and probably also on its annual cost today (cost for staff and DSN-capacities)? The Grand Tour program#Mariner Jupiter-Saturn article mentions 360 Mio US$ but excluding the Uranus and Neptune visits. --92.76.197.111 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting Information in Article

In the History section, it says "In September 2013, NASA announced that Voyager 1 had crossed the heliopause on August 25, 2012, making it the first spacecraft to enter interstellar space.[14][15][16]"

In the Voyager Interstellar Mission section, it says that they haven't crossed the heliopause yet. Seems like this segment needs updating. Quoting one part of the current iteration: "The heliopause has never been reached by any spacecraft so far and the Voyagers may be the first spacecraft to reach it. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisissami (talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Voyager program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721050617/http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html to http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721050617/http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html to http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721050912/http://starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov/pds/viewHostProfile.jsp?INSTRUMENT_HOST_ID=VG2 to http://starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov/pds/viewHostProfile.jsp?INSTRUMENT_HOST_ID=VG2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185312/http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2007/Aug/hour1_082407.html to http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2007/Aug/hour1_082407.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voyager program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708092850/http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/transitional_regions.html to http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/transitional_regions.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stickings90.webspace.virginmedia.com/voyager.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition of "Influence on popular culture" section

Hello, I added this section a few days ago and it was deleted subsequently based on the claim that it was inaccurate or not sourced. All of the information I added was sourced, to, for example, relevant wikipedia pages (star trek movies and tv shows) and to a a website which mentioned the Voyager program popping up in an episode of the X files. If you (BillCat) have any specific information concerning errors in the additions I made, please feel free to tell me what they are and I can address. I feel that the program's influence on popular culture is an important piece of the program's history and deserves a section on this page. It's not just another NASA mission, it's a seminal development in 20th century astronomy and one of the defining moments of the 20th century. Dorfbier (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Dorfbier

The Astronomy.com article cited, How the Voyager missions rippled through pop culture, is interesting, however it doesn't support most of your content. The source makes no mention of "The Changeling" episode (which involved a space probe called NOMAD); the source discusses Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Editors need to summarize sources accurately. Also, using Wikipedia articles as sources is never allowed.

I'm removing the section because it is inadequately sourced. If you get consensus to include influence on popular culture using the Astronomy.com source or additional sources, it can then be added. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge . Викидим (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Mariner Jupiter-Saturn into this article. Same team, same goal, same spacecrafts. It is just a new name, we traditionally do not create separate articles in cases of such clear continuity. Size of this article is within acceptable limits. Викидим (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Support: MJS article explains nothing but a brief period of its name and how it had to be changed. Pretty much all of this content can be moved to Voyager article's history section. A redirect can be made from the MJS towards Voyager. Footy2000♡; 05:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support, it belongs to the History section. Artem.G (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voyager program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: The Herald (talk · contribs) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 01:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am going to have to quick-fail this article, due to a number of concerns that I have:

• There are numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. This is especially evident in the "Computers and data processing" and "Scientific instruments" sections. Also, the "Spacecraft design" talks about the diagram, but this information needs to be cited with inline citations, instead of referring to the image.
• There are many one-sentence paragraphs, which are not recommended for articles, as too many of them are difficult to read. Instead, merge this information with other paragraphs.
• I suggest using the sources listed in "Further reading", or remove them altogether.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ping me or message me on my talk page. I will run the bot to fail this GAN momentarily. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.