Talk:Voyager 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Voyager 1 article.
Article policies
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Top

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Jupiter and Saturn

I looked for sources on the minimum distance to Jupiter because of the change 350,000 -> 349,000 and found the number of 4.89 Jovian radii (71398 km) which would make a distance of 349,000 km as now in the article (349,136.22 km but with only 3 digits on the first number the missing 136.22 km become pointless (try with 4.885 to 4.894 RJ))--Deelkar (talk) 04:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How far out is Voyager?

The article says Voyager 1 was 100 AU's from the sun on November 5, 2003. But then it says it was 93.2 AU's from the sun in September 2004. I assume it didn't backtrack. Which figure is correct? MK2 05:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that 100 AU is supposed to be 90. [1]--Deglr6328 05:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can it still communicate with earth that far out?


[edit] Response (How far out is Voyager)

If you look here, [2], you can see that as of November 25, 2005, Voyager 1 was at a distance of 9,059,000,000 miles from the Sun. Since an AU is approximately 93,000,000 miles, this gives a figure of about 97 AU.

And yes, you can clearly see from the page that communication with Earth is still possible via the Deep Space Network.

Voyager 2 was about 78 AU from Sol on the same date.

[edit] Mariner 11?

I seem to recall seeing somewhere that Voyager 1 was initially designated Mariner 12 and Voyager 2 was Mariner 11. It may have been from an article in Science around the time of the launches (1977).--Clemmentine 01:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major cleanup--achieved stub status.

I've done a major cleanup. Gone is the Voyager Golder Record (linked from Voyager program), and Jupiter and Saturn are now separate, although lack specific scientific results. Probably should be Science section in Voyager program.

[edit] I don't like this page

It is poorly written, as if everyone understands astronomical language. The links are shite, the order of facts is as if written by a lunatic (excuse the pun) and the link to the heliosheath which I found on the main page is a load of nonsense. Please, burn this page, I hate it. In fact I have had enough of Wikipedia, it has become a load of shit peddled by people who feel enlightened, a bit like advertising consultants. I was really optimistic at one point, as if the Foundation had come true, but with every passing day Wikipedia makes itself clearer - it is a good few gigabytes of utter rubbish.

See talk in Talk:Voyager program.

Perhaps instead of whining like a total asshat you could click the little button at the top of the article's page that says "EDIT" and do something about what you see as a bad article. --Deglr6328 03:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I find the Wikipedia more useful (and of course, more current), than most other encyclopedias I used to depend on; don't despair, some articles are more mature than others. Ebeisher 16:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that you don't find Wikipedia helpful. Deglr does raise a complelling point, however - every passing day, wikipedia gets better! Oracleoftruth 06:28, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Structural layout

Some questions hopefully someone can answer (and add :-):

  • How does the satellite work?
  • How does it communicate to Earth
  • When will we lose track of it?

(above is not signed nor dated)

See also Voyager program. (SEWilco 05:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

Some answers hopefully someone can question (and add :-):

  • It floats with anti-gravity forces driving it away from Earth.
  • The satelite moves further and move further out in space meanwhile sending a signal back to the space-station at NASA.
  • IF we will lose track of it, we don't know when, but I presume in a few years, at worst.

(above is not dated or signed)

...kidding!--OleMurder 09:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that we know exactly where the spacecraft is, rather that we know where it should be (it's only significantly affected by the sun and it's own thrusters), and that along this specific line we point the DSN antennas (Deep-Space Network), we get signal. "Losing track" of it is a really grey area, We could probably plot where it will be in a few million years, courtsey of Sir Issac Newton, and not be off by much. The craft communicates with it's high-gain antenna via DSN at a rate of 16b/s up, 160b/s down [3] (and a 26 hour ping :P). "How does it work" is a bit vague, it's powered by the radioisotope generators as mentioned in the article, but how the Low-Energy Charged Particle detector works is, IMHO, overkill. Prometheus235 01:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, presumably we have a pretty good idea where it is, simply by measuring the time taken for its signal to reach earth ! Also we know the direction where the signal is coming from - anonymous

[edit] Digital camera on board

Voyager took pictures of Jupiter, with a considerable good resolution. I would like to know how these pictures were made, as Digital Photography in a resolution like the Voyager camera hit commercial markets as late as 1999 - did the Voyager have a digital camera installed? thanks, Abdull

For a description of the detector technology, you might want to look at CCD. It doesn't have a history section, but they were developed quite a while before becoming reasonable in digital cameras, because of price, and I think also because it was difficult to make them work well at room temperature. Digital cameras also require electronics which became small and cheap enough only recently. I'm not absolutely positive CCDs were developed before the Voyagers, but if not, they probably had something like a CCD but simpler. 03:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The article Voyager program describes the instruments. It mentions it was a slowscan vidicon camera. If memory serves me correctly, that is a vacuum-tube TV camera. The plate upon which the image was focused built up a charge which was detected by a scanning electron beam. For this application, the tube would be designed to hold an image for a while so long-exposure images could be formed. Aha, I found a diagram; I'll update vidicon. The image was slowly scanned and recorded on tape in digital form, for later retransmission to Earth. (SEWilco 04:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC))
Hi SEWilco, great information you digged up! So, to correct common misbelief, it'll be good to mention it was NOT a CCD, but a vidicon that recorded the Voyager images. Do you have a link to the information source about the whole "image acquiring and sending to earth" process? I'd like to update the Voyager 1 section with this info. --Abdull 5 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
No, I don't have a source for the image handling. My memory is that the digital tape recorder captured images along with other data, but I am not aware of a source which specifically states so. (SEWilco 5 July 2005 22:10 (UTC))

[edit] We rule!

Aah; isnt human kind great? We actually managed to send out a probe all the way to the other side of the solar system! How cool - and that baby can keep on moving for 15 more years! Cor blimey, hats off to the human race. --Thewayforward

It'll work for 15 more years or so, but keep moving for a very long time. Prometheus235 01:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


Don't feel so special, humans are guilty of thinking they are greater then they really are.


If we kill each other, isn't it a scary thought that this is all that we have, our legacy, our gift to the races across the galaxy, maybe when any of our probes enter a new solar system, one of the probes lands on planet, and the natives end up revering the golden disk as a religious item, the holy grail of their planet? I guess we won't be forgotten in vain. -- User:Psyfyman81 —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about the ocean?

I think that this is a great accomplishment. I have great faith in the success of this project and the space program in general. But we know more about space than we do the ocean, on our own planet. We know little of giant squids, sea plants, and other things that we should probably research before it is too late. Maybe NASA or the Russian Space Association or someone could make a division that studies the ocean. Some of the same technology can be used underwater, I'm sure. I know I sound like some freakazoid wildlife advocate or something, but I think that we should concentrate on our own planet first. Bobbo Kingbobbo king 21:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Let's do both! NOAA. kmccoy (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


I think that is a great idea, why should we invest so much with outerspace when we have such a wonderfully diverse and unexplored planet right in front of our eyes?

[edit] Numbers in the article

I hope the people messing with the numbers in the article know what they're doing. Personally I don't think we need numbers accurate to 3 digits updated monthly... Haukurth 00:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I am also getting the impression that converted numbers may have been used to update the non-converted, original numbers. Conversions are fine, but make sure the other editors know what the original numbers were. Rl 06:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Original numbers. What units should be used for distances and speed throughout the article? NASA's page uses km; mi for distance, and km/s; mph for speed, and I figure something a little easier to grasp like AU is also nice. Along with wherever units are cited, maybe include a disclaimer, e.g. "as of May 2005"? Prometheus235 15:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I suggest adding <!--inline comments--> to avoid confusion in the future. It won't clutter the article but warn editors about to embark on number conversion quests. Rl 15:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
As of now, the masses of the probe (815 kg in the article vs. 715 kg in the side-box) are rather discrepant. I don't know what the real data is (and don't have the time now...) Could somebody clean this up? Topquark170GeV 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billions

Here's my ceterum censeo: I am not happy with the use of billions. The Manual of Style suggests to avoid the use of that word. It is very misleading to pretty much everyone who learned English as a second language (because for them, it means 1012). I agree with the manual which suggests either scientific notation or explaining the word the first time it's used. Rl 22:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] What scientific discoveries did Voyager 1 make?

I would like to know more about what scientific discoveries were made by this space craft as well as what scientfic instruments were used.

I can't help you with that, theres way to many discoveries the Voyager 1 made and is still making, and please sign your signature (presuming you have one). Thank you -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] whats keeping up voyager

There is some verry intresting news about voyager, namely it's slowing down.
Check on the internet there are various sources who confirm this including NASA.
Checkout with google, what still bafles scientist is why this happens.
Because of this a lot of scientist doupt that we have a good model of the behaviour of gravity

It wouldn't harm the article if it got a little updated with such info.
As for the moment the voyagers also function as our first gravity effect probes. And so still performs a scientiffic intresting purpose.
see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html

You're confusing Voyagers with Pioneers (see Pioneer anomaly). Unfortunately, Voyagers are not suitable for the study of the anomaly. Because both Pioneer 10 and 11 are dead, there are currently no probes studying it. But that doesn't make Voyagers scientifically unimportant, since they still make very important studies about the outer regions of Sun's magnetosphere.--Jyril 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voyager 1 is now 100 AU from the sun!

Voyager 1 is now 100 AU from the sun! I edited the main article to reflect this important milestone. J P 18:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)J P

[edit] Passing Voyager 1

This page had said that Voyager 1 was going to be the farthest object until 2070. The mention in the preceeding sentence implied that it would be New Horizons that would pass it then. But the New Horizons team has said that that craft will never pass Voyager 1.[4] Is there any craft that will pass Voyager 1? Rmhermen 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if the article keeps the phrase "a faster probe launched in the interim overtaking it", but you seem to be ruling out the science fiction possibilities as impossible. For instance, imagine a nuclear powered stellar probe launching in the mid-2100's. Art LaPella 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
While some craft may someday pass it, I can't find any that will by the mentioned 2070 and hence there is no "interim" defined to speak of. That sentence was added August 7, 2006 by User:Leon7. Rmhermen 13:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
On the question of, how long will Voyager 1 remain as the farthest human-made object?: Right now, New horizons is still traveling considerably faster than Voyager 1. With or without gravity assist, the question remains, how much will it's velocity change and when? The date 2070 was derived from NH's and V1's current speeds, assuming no change in velocities until then. Anyone know? Leon7 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
NH's velocity is changing right now so is Voyager 1's. Both NH and V1 are being decelerated by the sun. NH being much close to the sun is decelerating much faster (about 800 times at the moment). In any case [5] shows that @100 AU NH will only have a speed of 13 kps, vs. V1 17 kps @ 100 AU.

[edit] Voyager's Cargo

Resolved.

I believe it is this spacecraft that is carrying pictures and recordings of humans?Can anyone confirm this.It would be a good addition to the article.--Ashmole 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's already an article on that, linked to at the bottom. Voyager Golden Record.--Planetary 03:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that there should be a mention of the Golden record in the article. It's probably the one thing that people think about when they think about the Voyager1 probe. In fact I think the two articles should be merged.stib (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There is now a short section in the article that links to the golden record article. (sdsds - talk) 03:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voyager's computer

I am looking for information on Voyager's computer: processor, memory, etc. I am also interested in information about the software, I know that memory used to be a big problem and special software tricks had to be used. I tried looking at the official website, but all information there was astronomical. --DelftUser 15:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the Voyagers used an RCA 1802 processor. --Joseppc 22:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My astronomy teacher mentioned that my TI/83 graphing calculator had more capibility than than Voyagers memory.

[edit] Longest Mission?

The Voyager 1 spacecraft is an 815-kilogram unmanned probe of the outer solar system and beyond, launched September 5, 1977, and is currently operational, making it NASA's longest-lasting mission.

Voyager 2 was launched on August 20, 1977 and according to the JPL Voyager home page was still operational as of November 2, 2006. --Lenard Lindstrom 00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I took out the reference to Voyager 1 as the longest mission. Voyager 2 was launched first, is also still operational, and therefore, it is the longest-lasting mission in NASA history. Jsc1973 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Pioneer 6 was launched before either of the Voyagers, is still operational and is occasionally tracked in solar orbit. 66.28.178.67 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distance to the stars

"It is not heading towards any particular star, but in 40,000 years it will to within 1.7 light years of the star AC+793888 in the Camelopardis constellation." At its current speed, Voyager 1 takes about 17400 years to travel one light year. How is the quoted statement possible?

I don’ know, but the statement comes from the fine folks at NASA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I looked it up. The figures are right. It seems AC+79 3888 is moving relative to us. In 40,000 years the relevant distances will be approximately AC-Earth 2.9 ly, AC-Voyager 1.64 ly, Earth-Voyager 2.3 ly. It's an odd statement though. Scale it down by making each light year a thousand miles, then say "Over the course of the next 40,000 years Voyager One will, at a foot a day, bisect the US from west to east, going from San Francisco to Washington DC and pass within 1,600 miles of Nicaragua".

[edit] Discrepancy in expected vs actual position.

I hear that there is an ongoing debate on the reason why there is a discrepancy in Voyagers expected (calculated) position and its actual position. Anyone care to comment? 209.191.144.12 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Pepp.

See Pioneer anomaly. Jonathunder 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gigameters? Terameters?

text has:

As of August 12, 2006, Voyager 1 is over 14.96 gigameters (14.96×109 km, 100 AU or 9.3 billion miles) from the Sun.

a gigameter is 1×109 meters. 1×109 km is 1×1012 meters, or terameters. I've made that minimal change in the text, but I have another issue. This is the first time I've ever used "terameter" in a sentence. I think it's the first time I've ever seen "terameter" in a sentence. I agree it's a perfectly acceptable SI prefixed unit, but I'm still a little startled when I see it. I suppose I don't mind using it, but is there a reason I've never seen it in English text before? Is it stylistically (as opposed to technically) correct? Co149 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the primary subdivision, the 'meter', becomes a little insignificant once you get into distances that large. Either way I don't really think that style should come into it, where SI units and naming conventions are concerned. :) L3p3r 10:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Terameter Error?

I am uncertain if this observation is correct BUT :

1) The speed of light (as per google) is : 299 792 458 m/s

2) Distance Given / Speed of Light = (15.80×1012 m) / (299 792 458 m/s) = 52703.12704 (to 5 d.p) This is the number of "light seconds" covered by Voyager 1, which is 14.64 light hours (where I take an hour to be 3600 seconds). I am sure that the wiki calculation in the introduction is probably correct due to some potential oversight I have made - but would anyone care to comment on how the 14.62 light-hours results was obtained?

Would it also be prudent (from a purely academic point of view) to consider Voyager's average velocity as a percentage of the speed of light? Since there are about 365*24=8760 hours in a year, then voyager has travelled about 14.62/8760=0.1671% of a LY =0.001671 LY over a (say) 31 year time period (going from 05/09/1977 to 07/03/2008 is about 11141 days). So that's 0.1671%/31=0.005391%=0.00005391 the speed of light (ie: VERY slow). At that speed, ignoring relativistic effects, Voyager would take 4.22/0.00005391 = 78278 years to reach Proxima Centauri (ie: 78 thousand years) IF it were going in that direction.

Would such calculations (at least ones relating Voyager's speed relative to the speed of light) be worth placing on the article? ConcernedScientist (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Caption Incorrect

The image is incorrectly identified as an "artist's rendering". It is not. It is a photograph of the ground test model. The original can be seen in the Von Karman auditorium at JPL. -- Terry Hancock

Label made more ambiguous. Haven't found auditorium image which perfectly matches this image (but this image was under special lighting and Von Karman unit has aged). (SEWilco 06:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] More distant than every natural solar system object known?

The article says: "At this distance, it is more distant from the Sun than any known natural solar-system object, including 90377 Sedna. Though Sedna has an orbit that takes it 975 AU away from the Sun at aphelion, as of 2006 it is less than 90 AU away from the Sun and approaching its perihelion at 76 AU."

Does this take into account known long-period comets? --Cyclopia 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1680 comet is currently just over 250AU from the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.7.6 (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Spaceflight Tag?

Does this page not need a current spaceflight tag? Technically, it is current, n'est-ce pas?--Snideology 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question! After some discussion, I recently added to the Usage section of the {{current spaceflight}} template the phrase, "this template is intended for use on the pages of articles describing those spaceflights that are expected to be generating news." That is, as a descendant of {{current}}, it is for a spaceflight that is considered a "current event". Voyager 1, although still flying in space, is unlikely to generate much fast-breaking news coverage! I wonder if the template should be renamed, {{current spaceflight event}} or some such? (sdsds - talk) 05:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably not. Had I known better, I would have looked up the tag. However, one learns Wikipedia bits at a time (or, at least I seem to), and I wasn't aware that such tags have policies. In hindsight, it should have been obvious. Ahhhh, hindsight - my old nemesis. I shall try to figure out how to find tag policy tonight. Thanks!--Snideology 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is it headed?

Article should state where it's headed. It used to (see "Distance to the stars" above, in this talk page) but the information seems to be missing now. Tempshill 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not missing. From the article: "It is not heading towards any particular star, but in 40,000 years it will be within 1.7 light years of the star AC+793888 in the Camelopardis constellation." --Cyclopia 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! It escaped my notice. I moved this line to a separate paragraph, as I think it's something people will be interested in. Tempshill 20:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hog Farm Bus destination marquee: 'Further' LorenzoB 07:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actual Mass?

The summary says 722kg, but the first sentence says 733! Does anyone know the correct mass!? --L3p3r 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"On-orbit Dry Mass: 721.9 kg." NSSDC Master Catalog Please update the article text. (sdsds - talk) 13:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RTG

A friend at NASA that navigates these craft told me that the Voyager 1 RTG electronics have deteriorated to the point that one is nearly useless, one is fair and one is still at full power. Does anyone have a verifiable reference on this? LorenzoB 07:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Correction: friend at JPL LorenzoB 07:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] farthest known human-made object or just farthest ?

I removed the "known" qualifyer once again. Maybe other editors can give their opinion so we can come to a definitive version.

Personally I don't think it makes any sense. A hypothetical meteorite impact, blowing some human artefact into space and further than the current position of Voyager, would have to be so energetic that it couldn't possibly have been missed. We don't have any knowledge of any candidate event. And even IF such an outrageously unlikely event has taken place somewhere in the distant past, I still wouldn't think it justified the change.

Adding the "known" qualifyer gives an unwarranted impression of uncertainty. An artificial sense of mystery which we don't need. For all practical purposes, we can definitely say that the Voyager 1 is the most distant human made object JH-man (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should represent the certainty of a stated fact. Wikipedia uses this kind of language all the time, such as here:
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years). - This is extremely non-committal, and states the actual fact, that this is widely held as true by modern geologists.
- Onmyounomichi (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that no (scientific) knowledge can be absolute. But let me quote Stephen J Gould here:
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Or in other words: at some point the "certainty" of a claim crosses a line, a line beyond which statements of doubt no longer fairly present the status of that claim. I think this is clearly the case here, and adding the qualifier "known" does more harm to the truth than leaving it out.
There are two possibilities that would make the claim wrong:
1)another spaceprobe has been launched by homo sapiens somewhere in the past and happens to be more distant at this time. This would either have to be a "secret" probe launched fairly recently, or one launched by an unknown ancient culture. The former is practically impossible because it would be almost impossible to hide, and because it would make no sense to hide it since prestige would be the biggest non-scientific incentive to launch the mission. The latter can only be true if we consider to completely rewrite the history of homo sapiens. Historical revisionism of some magnitude which would require immense amounts of evidence which are clearly lacking at this point.
2)The possibility, as you stated, that something like an asteroid or comet impact blew human artefacts into space, and actually with enough energy to put them beyond Voyager 1's current position. First of all this is an extremely unlikely case. In written history absolutely no event of the required magnitude has happened. Secondly, I think the statement "farthest human made object" contains an implicit assumption that we're specifically talking about a device that was sent out there on purpose, intentionally. A human achievement instead of some chance event.
I'd like to hear some other opinions on this so we can settle it...
JH-man (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be farthest, not farthest known, I've seen these sort of thing on WP before. It's like changing "The first person to fly was XYZ" to the "The first known ..." because tornadoes can suck people into the air and we don't know if this happened to some people or not before the invention of the aeroplane. Changing it to farthest known is some sort of fallacy, but I don't know which one. --JamesHoadley (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly confident this language was inserted by an editor with a youthful world-view. The qualifier would have meant something like, "To our knowledge, no spacefaring alien has used its technology to take a human-made artifact back to its home-world," or some such. In fact science tells us very little about the probability of an event like that having occurred. Speculation about such things was all the rage toward the end of the last millenium! In other articles, the "best" approach has been to find a citable source which states what "experts" on the subject believe to be true. (sdsds - talk) 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance evaluation

I rated this article "spaceflight-importance=Top" because, "Voyager 1 is the farthest human-made object from Earth." (sdsds - talk) 21:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

Star Trek movie, vger, oh the shame, I can type no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.167.116 (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How can Voyager 1 communicate with Earth?

I find it very doubtful that Voyager 1 sends feedback to Earth at that distance. Also if it is really able to send feedback at such distance, that means it can send the same signal forward or even more at a cross direction, so assuming it is/was on our galaxy edge the signal was transmitted in 3 more galaxies. How can anyone believe NASA statement then that in 4 galaxies the only living technological-advanced forms are humans when : a) we have no idea how Voyager communicates the data back to us b) we have no idea if the signal has been intercepted and transmitted back in an altered form

Marios Pisis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.124.14 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious years added to Interstellar mission

In the "End of specific capabilities as a result of the available electrical power limitations" table, row for year 2025 has been changed and four new rows have been added. They seem dubious to me. They are so dubious infact that I have moved them here pending reliable sources. The NASA source does not mention them at all. I highly doubt that Voyager had "Television RADAR", or RADAR of any kind.

Year End of specific capabilities as a result of the available electrical power limitations
...
2025 Terminate all Plasma Wave Subsystem and radio transmitter[citation needed]
2028 Starting to shut down Communication Antenna,[dubious – discuss]terminate Powered Television Radar and terminate Single Wave Radar[citation needed]
2029 Shut down all power and wave[citation needed]
2035 Only can received communication with 1,1 Power Data.[citation needed]
2039 End of the Voyager exploration[citation needed]

-84user (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)