5 ms·

Not in this context. They are sending commands. The spacecraft is not responding to them. This is exactly a breakdown of the communication, which is exactly wha

• leptons 3y ago
  Sorry but you're still wrong. You're assuming the spacecraft isn't receiving the commands. You don't know that. Nobody really does. All that is necessary for this to be "communication" is for the transmitter to send and the receiver to receive, and the receiver may well be working but the transmitter on the spacecraft may not be working, making that scenario one-way communication. It takes far less power to receive than it does to transmit, so it would be no wonder if the spacecraft were still receiving commands but unable to send responses. If the spacecraft is known to not be receiving, I think the term "broadcasting" would apply.
  • bmitc 3y ago
    > You're assuming the spacecraft isn't receiving the commands. I didn't say that. The article even mentions that they feel the spacecraft is receiving and processing the commands. There's just no response. The article title and intro are correct. For all intents and purposes, the spacecraft has stopped communicating. Broke down, used in the intro, is better than stopped. Discussing this is pedantic and pointless, which is why the guidelines state not to make comments like the original one. As we can all see. It has led nowhere interesting. And you and everyone keep bouncing around all these side definitions. The definition of communication between earth and a spacecraft like Voyager 1 and 2 is implied and assumed to be standard two-way communication. > It takes far less power to receive than it does to transmit, so it would be no wonder if the spacecraft were still receiving commands but unable to send responses. I don't follow. The spacecraft is known to still be transmitting a signal.
    • leptons 3y ago
      >The article even mentions that they feel the spacecraft is receiving and processing the commands. There's just no response. That is by definition "one way communication". You're saying it's not communication, but it absolutely is. I'm not sure why you can't accept that.
      • bmitc 3y ago
        Jesus christ. I'm not not accepting that. So just to end this, what would you and the others like the title to be given the article is perfectly clear and with a title that is substantively different? So we don't have to non-discuss this anymore.
        • malfist 3y ago
          It's really quite simple. The headline should tell us what happened. Voyager 1 is sending repeated data back to Earth. I think I saw an article on tech dirt saying the spacecraft was sending stuck in "groundhog's day" that I thought was clever
          • bmitc 3y ago
            Is it repeated data? Or is it repeated gibberish? I thought they weren't able to interpret the data as anything.
            • malfist 3y ago
              It is repeated data from what I've read. It's the same contents of the data recorder over and over again.
        • leptons 3y ago
          You're entitled to be as obstinate as you want to be, and as wrong as you want to be - I don't really care what you do. The fact is, sending information to a receiver that is receiving is in fact the definition of one-way communication, whether you want to refute it or not. You're dying on this hill.