9 ms·
They've already mentioned having more than the of amount of manoeuvring fuel (or, as we should really be calling it, delta-v) they had planned to have left at t
by irdc 5y ago
They've already mentioned having more than the of amount of manoeuvring fuel (or, as we should really be calling it, delta-v) they had planned to have left at this point. Space craft have a limited life time anyway (CCD's wear out, semiconductors are subject to electron migration, solar panels degrade), so having a limited amount of fuel to stay at Sol-Earth L2 is just part of the whole lifetime equation.
- WalterBright 5y agoRight, but NOVA said that running out of fuel ended Kepler.
- irdc 5y agoIt worked for 9 years and 7 months, whilst being planned to operate for 3,5 years, so beyond it's expected lifetime then.
- WalterBright 5y agoAnd it would have worked for longer if it didn't depend on the fuel! BTW, I doubt there's enough experience with space hardware to accurately predict it's life, especially since each machine is a one-off.
- rcxdude 5y agoIt would have lasted a lot longer if its reaction wheels hadn't failed. That was the main failure which shortened its remaining operation.
- WalterBright 5y agoYou'd need at least 3 wheels to orient the craft. I bet that 4 wheels would be able to survive the failure of one.
- ddalex 5y agoKepler had 4 wheels, with 2 failing