Talk:Deep Space 1

What happend to this thing? I know they retired it in 2001, but is it leaving the Solar System like the Pioneer & Voyager probes, or is it now in a heliocentric orbit?


 * Heliocentric, according to this rather sad little website. The Singing Badger 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It won't orbit the Sun 'forever' BTW. ;-) Just for a very long time. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk)

name
Why does it have this odd name?

Stunning Images?
Near the end of the Introduction, it is stated that Deep Space 1 took "stunning images" of comet Borrelly and asteroid Braile on its flyby of said objects. Did the author click on those links? Both pictures that Deep Space 1 took, while helpful and impressive to astronomers, are just blurs to laypeople. --70.15.4.226 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

External link to official website
When attempting to visit Deep Space 1's official JPL website, I'm unfortunately getting a 403-Forbidden and the information that I "don't have permission to access /ds1/ on this server". While boldly assuming others would end up with the same error: What's the matter? Trouble only temporary? URL wrong or outdated? Does the site even still exist? If not, we'd better follow suit, remove the link, which I'm not doing right away since I'm unsure whether something's simply out of kilter here. Seem's somewhat hard to believe that JPL themselves would not keep any information or appreciation concerning DS1 online?! Even though it's been well over 13 years ago.. I mean this mission really broke new grounds back then. Zero Thrust (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep Space 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509172350/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19098/1/98-0310.pdf to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19098/1/98-0310.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

That looks correct Fcrary (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep Space 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415134047/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/17743/1/99-1185.pdf to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/17743/1/99-1185.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep Space 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015071801/http://nmp-techval-reports.jpl.nasa.gov/DS1/Scarlet_Integrated_Report.pdf to http://nmp-techval-reports.jpl.nasa.gov/DS1/Scarlet_Integrated_Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That looks correct. I've marked checked as true. Fcrary (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

solar concentrator
The article says: "The SCARLET arrays generated 2.5 kilowatts at 1 AU, with less size and weight than conventional arrays.". I'd really like to know how the size is smaller (and what a conventional array means - did they compare to same PV cell without lens?). According to the image here: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/ds1/tech/scarlet.html the size of the panel is not smaller than if they used a full sized array without the lens (as here only a portion of the panel is occupied by PV cells). The price may very well be lower of course. Or is there something I don't understand? It's hard to find details on this thing. Hoemaco (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't find a reference to this, but I believe the lenses and the resulting, higher solar flux on the solar cells resulted in an higher efficiency. So a smaller area was required than would have been necessary, if they had used the same cells without lenses to provide the same amount of power. But I don't want to put that into the article based on just my memory from twenty years ago. If I can find a reference, I'll add something. Fcrary (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm thanks for the tip. I found this https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/solar-cell-operation/effect-of-light-intensity . According to it, if P input is 2x, then Isc is 2x and Voc is about 1.026x so efficiency would go up by 2.6 percent. I'm curious though about this: it generates more heat and higher temperature should decrease efficiency. Hoemaco (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)