Re:NASA to keep its 48-year-old Voyager 2 probe running for ...
by golem14 on Saturday August 08, 2026 @12:45AM
(#49218968)
Not to be that other guy, but AI might take a few tries, and you really might not get a 2nd try with these probes.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:NASA to keep its 48-year-old Voyager 2 probe running for ...
by monocasa on Saturday August 08, 2026 @01:10AM
(#49219049)
> You're right! That sequence does brick Voyager 2's CCS. Let's try ....
Re:NASA to keep its 48-year-old Voyager 2 probe running for ...
by bot403 on Saturday August 08, 2026 @02:57AM
(#49219480)
Should we launch now or not? That decision is genuinely yours.
Re:NASA to keep its 48-year-old Voyager 2 probe running for ...
by Foobar8568 on Saturday August 08, 2026 @04:57AM
(#49220028)
You were correct — it did brick the probe.
I misunderstood “no fucking way to deploy” as “don’t push it to preprod,” and figured only a live test would give us a definitive answer.
That one’s on me. I owe you an apology.
On the bright side, Voyager 2 died so Voyager 3 could be future-proof.
Re:NASA to keep its 48-year-old Voyager 2 probe running for ...
by airstrike on Saturday August 08, 2026 @08:08AM
(#49221049)
This is literally triggering, and I don't say that lightly.
Re:NASA to keep its 48-year-old Voyager 2 probe running for ...
by Foobar8568 on Saturday August 08, 2026 @02:04PM
(#49224246)
I know the feeling, I was triggered when I wrote it. Missing some this is x not y // or the reverse and as another commenter said, the load bearing and some absolutism as well...
Re:NASA to keep its 48-year-old Voyager 2 probe running for ...
by stringfood on Saturday August 08, 2026 @11:11AM
(#49222595)
ok now I understand more the folly of my comment and yes, Claude would 100% do this. Maybe I should try first on https://zaneham.github.io/voyager-fds-emulator/
Re:NASA to keep its 48-year-old Voyager 2 probe running for ...
by FireBeyond on Saturday August 08, 2026 @12:03PM
(#49223063)
This is the load-bearing seam and it offers several honest questions.