zlacker

>>belter+(OP)
That official statement seems incredibly light on detail, almost as if written for children, or worse, members of congress.

I wonder, is there a technical publication elsewhere that has more substantial coverage for interested people?

>>inopin+hb
What more is there to say? It seems like a pretty clear explanation to me.

>>michae+Ne
Well, congressman, I might be curious what the actual commands were, why they were issued, how it led to the unfavourable outcome, how they detected and measured the degree of misalignment, what a corrected command sequence might’ve been, and then cross-referenced to a hopefully existing article on how the spacecraft will eventually re-align itself, and perhaps some further reading on other commands that are routinely or not-so-routinely issued and how they are received, decoded, and executed on board the spacecraft. Basic stuff, y’know; after all, this isn’t rocket science.

If there is such an archive, or some approximation thereof, it would surely be fascinating to pore over it.

>>inopin+Hh
Why would they owe you such detailed explanations? You're asking for a full-on incident report. These take days to write and there's no reason for the public at large to need it.

>>hfkwer+km
Because I pay for NASA and I can ask for NASA to do a post-mortem.

>>guhida+In
Normally this makes sense, because you're asking why money was wasted. But, in this case if it's permanently bricked you will actually save money, because if Voyager 2 is bricked the team working on it is now redundant. It's not like they had an incentive to be incompetent and waste money - very much the opposite.