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
I pay for NASA and I don't want them to spend needless resources releasing a public post-mortem. Talk about waste of resources.

>>iLoveO+Co
This is the right call, let the people of the NASA focus on what is really important, and not waste time on PR.

It's pretty obvious that the people who managed to extend the lifetime of Voyager are very smart, based on all the tricks they had to do.

They are remotely configuring an old-tech device that is billions of kilometers away, with insane lag, and uncertainty that the underlying hardware is even responding properly.

Absolutely anything could have gone wrong at this stage.

They'll anyway investigate internally what happened, in order to hopefully, find a solution.

There is no need to spend resources to make the material public, if the goal is mostly to satisfy curiosity (though it's interesting).

>>rvnx+Sq
Does this assume the information is made available, but just not as polished as PR?