Best photograph of Pluto (13 July 2015) from the New Horizons mission
MISSION SUMMARY New Horizons: The First Mission to the Pluto System and the Kuiper Belt. The New Horizons mission will help us understand worlds at the edge of our solar system by making the first reconnaissance of the dwarf planet Pluto and by venturing deeper into the distant, mysterious Kuiper Belt – a relic of solar system formation.
LATEST NEWS
14 July 2015 - NH is just slightly past its closest flyby to Pluto, taking the highest quality photograph of the planet (see photo above)
NH will soon be taking detailed photographs of Pluto's moons, starting with Charon
It will take 16 months from now to download all data from the Pluto flyby
MISSION DETAILS New Horizons launched on Jan. 19, 2006; it swung past Jupiter for a gravity boost and scientific studies in February 2007, and will conduct a five-month-long reconnaissance flyby study of Pluto and its moons in summer 2015. Pluto closest approach is scheduled for July 14, 2015. As part of an extended mission, the spacecraft is expected to head farther into the Kuiper Belt to examine one or two of the ancient, icy mini-worlds in that vast region, at least a billion miles beyond Neptune’s orbit.
Sending a spacecraft on this long journey will help us answer basic questions about the surface properties, geology, interior makeup and atmospheres on these bodies.
The National Academy of Sciences has ranked the exploration of the Kuiper Belt – including Pluto – of the highest priority for solar system exploration. Generally, New Horizons seeks to understand where Pluto and its moons “fit in” with the other objects in the solar system, such as the inner rocky planets (Earth, Mars, Venus and Mercury) and the outer gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune).
Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, belong to a third category known as "ice dwarfs." They have solid surfaces but, unlike the terrestrial planets, a significant portion of their mass is icy material.
Using Hubble Space Telescope images, New Horizons team members have discovered four previously unknown moons of Pluto: Nix, Hydra, Styx and Kerberos.
A close-up look at these worlds from a spacecraft promises to tell an incredible story about the origins and outskirts of our solar system. New Horizons also will explore – for the first time – how ice dwarf planets like Pluto and Kuiper Belt bodies have evolved over time.
Funding to a first target in the belt next year, I don't see why not. Funding with a full scale team for the 10 years it will take to go through the belt ... will depend on how well they sell it.
So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
On July 16 2015 03:59 MysteryMeat1 wrote: Can we explore Uranus?
NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft made its closest approach to Uranus on January 24, 1986. Voyager 2 discovered ten previously unknown moons, studied the planet's cold atmosphere, and examined its ring system, discovering two new rings. It also imaged Uranus' five large moons, revealing that their surfaces are covered with impact craters and canyons.
Well the craft flies on without any funding. They don't really need a lot of money to keep it hibernated and then to make a course correction once every couple of years; even the flyby is possible with a rather small budget and it will be likely done no matter what. The DSN antenas already exist and are not going anywhere either.
As for other projects, the money needed to actually build nad launch a craft are so insane that anything you could crowdfund will really be peanuts. I always stare in awe how expensive is a single space probe compared to some totally groundbreaking worldwide projects in my research area.
They say it will take about 16 months for all the data to arrive. Does it means that the data is 'floating' in space right now? And even if something were to happen to New Horizons, the data would still reach Earth? Sorry if my question is ridiculous
They say it will take about 16 months for all the data to arrive. Does it means that the data is 'floating' in space right now? And even if something were to happen to New Horizons, the data would still reach Earth? Sorry if my question is ridiculous
No, the travel time for the data is only about 5 hours. The data is stored at New Horizons, it will only take so long to download them becasue the speed of the link is worse than an early 2000's modem even when using some of the largest radio dishes on Earth.
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
The problem with orbiting is that you basically have to get yourself to the planet, and then change your velocity to roughly match the planet you're trying to orbit. Even a highly elliptical orbit requires a huge change in velocity when you're talking about the type of speed the orbiter would need in order to reach Pluto in a relatively short period of time. Basically, it took an entire rocket worth of fuel to speed it up to the point where it could reach Pluto in 10 years (including a piggyback with Jupiter), so you would essentially need another whole rocket to slow it down to get into orbit. But to have an entire rocket worth of fuel sped up to that kind of speed, you'd need an even bigger rocket to bring all that fuel up to the same speed. It quickly becomes impractical to launch these types of missions, sadly.
One way to slightly get around that is to plan your path to Pluto so that you essentially come up behind it, or have it creep up on you slowly at the end of your journey, in order to greatly reduce the delta V (change in velocity) needed to obtain an orbit. This requires much, much less fuel at the end to obtain an orbit of some fashion, but the downside to this is that the path you take to get to a planet as far away as Pluto would take several times as long to get there..... At minimum..... Even if it was launched today, none of us would likely be around still when it finally gets into orbit..... You would need to ensure that the technology of the probe would be capable of lasting a century or more, which also makes it so much more difficult to pull off as well.
Basically, there is no realistic way to get an object into orbit around Pluto. At least, with current technology..... It's one thing to do it for Mars or Venus, because they are relatively close to Earth and actually travel at relatively similar speeds, and also putting something into orbit around one of the gas giants is also much easier because they have a lot stronger gravity that can hold something in place easier. Pluto is a bitch though.
On July 16 2015 00:32 Yurie wrote: Anybody know if they will get funding to swing by a Kuiper Belt body or if they will just let it go to waste after going out there?
A shame astronomy is rarely appreciated or given real interest in people who own the chequebooks. Receiving photos of Pluto versus conceptual computer art is a real gift. Got to see Saturn with an amateur astronomer neighbour of ours today which made me appreciate space even more.
On July 16 2015 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I don't know why, but I didn't expect Pluto to be that color.
Yea can someone explain to me why the damn thing isn't blue. I swear every picture I had seen of it as a kid in a science class showed it as blue. Really exciting to see actual photos this time. Is it something to do with Nitrogen-ice, or more to do with how the sun reflects off of the lack of atmosphere?
On July 16 2015 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I don't know why, but I didn't expect Pluto to be that color.
Yea can someone explain to me why the damn thing isn't blue. I swear every picture I had seen of it as a kid in a science class showed it as blue. Really exciting to see actual photos this time. Is it something to do with Nitrogen-ice, or more to do with how the sun reflects off of the lack of atmosphere?
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
Good effort with the explanation and I am sure the intention is well, but with "science stuff" like this mission is, it is always better to be direct, even when the aim is to explain to a layman. Your explanation provides a good overview of the plot of the mission, but it greatly undermines the science and math behind the whole thing.
Your golf ball/dart example puts emphasis on human skills, and no matter how accurate or skillful the golf/dart player is, he/she will never be 100% accurate. In the case of this mission, we have practically all the data we need such as position of the planets, specifically Jupiter, distance and relative position of all these solar system bodies, speed of the voyager, etc. And we can and have always used the accuracy and predictability of these data for all space missions. The only limitation is politics and budget, which determines what kind of technology we can put out there. And of course, there is always that unknown factor when exploring the unexplored, but that is precisely the reason why we go to space.
To emphasize, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just explaining that the going there and hitting all the relevant milestones is something our science can do very accurately. Cheers.
Also it's not like we just kick the probe from Earth and hope it doesn't miss, it has navigational capablities and course correctoion have been performed (as planned). I now that the delta-V needed with the current trajectory to enter orbit is probably unrealistic, but solar system spacelight usually offers a lot of routing options that are hard to predict using just a pen and paper.
On July 16 2015 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I don't know why, but I didn't expect Pluto to be that color.
Yea can someone explain to me why the damn thing isn't blue. I swear every picture I had seen of it as a kid in a science class showed it as blue. Really exciting to see actual photos this time. Is it something to do with Nitrogen-ice, or more to do with how the sun reflects off of the lack of atmosphere?
Common enough on icy bodies. If enough dirt, surface tends to be black (comets) ; if not enough dirt, ultraviolet radiations interact with surface ices to produce tholins which are reddish-brown. (main hypothesis for Pluto)
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
Good effort with the explanation and I am sure the intention is well, but with "science stuff" like this mission is, it is always better to be direct, even when the aim is to explain to a layman. Your explanation provides a good overview of the plot of the mission, but it greatly undermines the science and math behind the whole thing.
Your golf ball/dart example puts emphasis on human skills, and no matter how accurate or skillful the golf/dart player is, he/she will never be 100% accurate. In the case of this mission, we have practically all the data we need such as position of the planets, specifically Jupiter, distance and relative position of all these solar system bodies, speed of the voyager, etc. And we can and have always used the accuracy and predictability of these data for all space missions. The only limitation is politics and budget, which determines what kind of technology we can put out there. And of course, there is always that unknown factor when exploring the unexplored, but that is precisely the reason why we go to space.
To emphasize, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just explaining that the going there and hitting all the relevant milestones is something our science can do very accurately. Cheers.
On the contrary, it shows just how damn accurate and precise the science and math that goes into this kind of mission actually is. The accuracy and precision needed was roughly in line with the analogies I gave.....
EDIT - or at least I try to show how accurate and precise it is. It's really hard to simplify something like this mission into an analogy that anyone can appreciate.....
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
Good effort with the explanation and I am sure the intention is well, but with "science stuff" like this mission is, it is always better to be direct, even when the aim is to explain to a layman. Your explanation provides a good overview of the plot of the mission, but it greatly undermines the science and math behind the whole thing.
Your golf ball/dart example puts emphasis on human skills, and no matter how accurate or skillful the golf/dart player is, he/she will never be 100% accurate. In the case of this mission, we have practically all the data we need such as position of the planets, specifically Jupiter, distance and relative position of all these solar system bodies, speed of the voyager, etc. And we can and have always used the accuracy and predictability of these data for all space missions. The only limitation is politics and budget, which determines what kind of technology we can put out there. And of course, there is always that unknown factor when exploring the unexplored, but that is precisely the reason why we go to space.
To emphasize, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just explaining that the going there and hitting all the relevant milestones is something our science can do very accurately. Cheers.
On the contrary, it shows just how damn accurate and precise the science and math that goes into this kind of mission actually is. The accuracy and precision needed was roughly in line with the analogies I gave.....
EDIT - or at least I try to show how accurate and precise it is. It's really hard to simplify something like this mission into an analogy that anyone can appreciate.....
For what it's worth, I actually enjoyed your analogy.
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
Good effort with the explanation and I am sure the intention is well, but with "science stuff" like this mission is, it is always better to be direct, even when the aim is to explain to a layman. Your explanation provides a good overview of the plot of the mission, but it greatly undermines the science and math behind the whole thing.
Your golf ball/dart example puts emphasis on human skills, and no matter how accurate or skillful the golf/dart player is, he/she will never be 100% accurate. In the case of this mission, we have practically all the data we need such as position of the planets, specifically Jupiter, distance and relative position of all these solar system bodies, speed of the voyager, etc. And we can and have always used the accuracy and predictability of these data for all space missions. The only limitation is politics and budget, which determines what kind of technology we can put out there. And of course, there is always that unknown factor when exploring the unexplored, but that is precisely the reason why we go to space.
To emphasize, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just explaining that the going there and hitting all the relevant milestones is something our science can do very accurately. Cheers.
On the contrary, it shows just how damn accurate and precise the science and math that goes into this kind of mission actually is. The accuracy and precision needed was roughly in line with the analogies I gave.....
EDIT - or at least I try to show how accurate and precise it is. It's really hard to simplify something like this mission into an analogy that anyone can appreciate.....
Since Pluto changes distance from the sun, and is on a separate orbital disk, it's as if someone programmed a serving machine to shoot a tennis ball from Newark, NJ, bounce off the windshield of a truck driving in Jersey City, and hit the face of a helicopter pilot giving a tour of Manhattan.
Distance of about 9 km per your previous golf analogy.
Edit: any three cities will do, I just picked these because they're lined up with almost the same ratio as the planets.
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
Good effort with the explanation and I am sure the intention is well, but with "science stuff" like this mission is, it is always better to be direct, even when the aim is to explain to a layman. Your explanation provides a good overview of the plot of the mission, but it greatly undermines the science and math behind the whole thing.
Your golf ball/dart example puts emphasis on human skills, and no matter how accurate or skillful the golf/dart player is, he/she will never be 100% accurate. In the case of this mission, we have practically all the data we need such as position of the planets, specifically Jupiter, distance and relative position of all these solar system bodies, speed of the voyager, etc. And we can and have always used the accuracy and predictability of these data for all space missions. The only limitation is politics and budget, which determines what kind of technology we can put out there. And of course, there is always that unknown factor when exploring the unexplored, but that is precisely the reason why we go to space.
To emphasize, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just explaining that the going there and hitting all the relevant milestones is something our science can do very accurately. Cheers.
On the contrary, it shows just how damn accurate and precise the science and math that goes into this kind of mission actually is. The accuracy and precision needed was roughly in line with the analogies I gave.....
EDIT - or at least I try to show how accurate and precise it is. It's really hard to simplify something like this mission into an analogy that anyone can appreciate.....
Oh, I didn't expect you to defend your analogy, and I expected you to at least admit that there was a problem with the phrasing. So let me be direct. We all agree that space missions are accurate and precise. The problem with your analogy is that it implicitly implies that it is difficult because we have very little control over it and require some exquisite skills (like golf and dart players). The truth of the matter is we have almost full control of everything about this mission except what we will see in Pluto and the rest of the Kuiper bodies. The problem with your analogy is that it unnecessarily mystifies the process (as if the success relies on some exquisite human skill), wherein if this mission teaches us anything, it is that science rocks, and we have come so far in understanding and manipulating it to our goals.
For those you high on the photos of another planet far away who want more space travel stories based in real science, I suggest the Martian as an amazing read.
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
Good effort with the explanation and I am sure the intention is well, but with "science stuff" like this mission is, it is always better to be direct, even when the aim is to explain to a layman. Your explanation provides a good overview of the plot of the mission, but it greatly undermines the science and math behind the whole thing.
Your golf ball/dart example puts emphasis on human skills, and no matter how accurate or skillful the golf/dart player is, he/she will never be 100% accurate. In the case of this mission, we have practically all the data we need such as position of the planets, specifically Jupiter, distance and relative position of all these solar system bodies, speed of the voyager, etc. And we can and have always used the accuracy and predictability of these data for all space missions. The only limitation is politics and budget, which determines what kind of technology we can put out there. And of course, there is always that unknown factor when exploring the unexplored, but that is precisely the reason why we go to space.
To emphasize, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just explaining that the going there and hitting all the relevant milestones is something our science can do very accurately. Cheers.
On the contrary, it shows just how damn accurate and precise the science and math that goes into this kind of mission actually is. The accuracy and precision needed was roughly in line with the analogies I gave.....
EDIT - or at least I try to show how accurate and precise it is. It's really hard to simplify something like this mission into an analogy that anyone can appreciate.....
Oh, I didn't expect you to defend your analogy, and I expected you to at least admit that there was a problem with the phrasing. So let me be direct. We all agree that space missions are accurate and precise. The problem with your analogy is that it implicitly implies that it is difficult because we have very little control over it and require some exquisite skills (like golf and dart players). The truth of the matter is we have almost full control of everything about this mission except what we will see in Pluto and the rest of the Kuiper bodies. The problem with your analogy is that it unnecessarily mystifies the process (as if the success relies on some exquisite human skill), wherein if this mission teaches us anything, it is that science rocks, and we have come so far in understanding and manipulating it to our goals.
Any analogy is going to be imperfect.
You could conceivably design and build a machine capable of hitting the hole in one at 9km after bouncing off of something. It is dealing with something in a ballistic nature, which is very much like a rocket because even though you can make very minor corrections with maneuvering thrusters, the vast majority of what happens is pretty similar overall to just throwing something and watching the trajectory it takes. A very, very slight miscalculation of direction or speed or time could put you so far off course that the mission would be pretty much a complete failure. Even if you calculate everything properly, a very slight calibration error could give you bad information and cause a failure of some kind. Space travel is incredibly difficult, as history has shown.....
There's a lot of red on that list..... And that's basically our neighbor.....
To build a machine capable of allowing you to hit a golf ball into a hole 9km away after bouncing off of something would be an insane feat. And yet everything necessary to be able to do it is also known. We can determine the mass of the object we plan on hitting into the hole with very high accuracy, we can determine the effects of the atmosphere on it (with regards to drag, spin, wind, etc) with a very high degree of accuracy, we can determine the effect of gravity, of any potential electro-magnetic forces, etc. Even though we could theoretically build something capable of doing that, that does not mean it is trivial..... It's very similar in a lot of respects to what was needed to sling this piano to Pluto.
If anything, my analogy is making it sound easier than it actually was though..... Just because we have "control" of everything does not mean it was easy. Trying to make it seem easy or trivial is a huge disservice to the mathematics, science, engineering, and computer programming involved in this mission. To the average person, the stuff that was required to pull this off is pretty much magic. Hell, even to the above average person, this stuff is pretty much like magic.
I studied engineering in university for 3 years, and from what I know, I can tell you that this mission is far above my pay grade that I quite literally have no idea where to even start..... It's given me a huge appreciation of it though, because I have a strong understanding of the fundamental principles required to pull this off.
The coolest part of all this though is that the photos are basically going to cause us to completely re-think everything we thought we knew about Pluto.
How in balls is some guy's chip-on-the-shoulder perfectionism the subject of half the posts in the thread when we just got photos of friggin' pluto.
It's an analogy. By its very definition it simplifies some aspects in order to make other aspects easier to understand. If you want to highlight a different aspect you use another analogy; yours will be imperfect too. That's what analogies do.
Regarding the actual mission, I'm interested to see what they come up with to explain the geographic features. It's fun when your answers create a million more questions, but it's less fun when it takes 25 years to test the next hypothesis.
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
Good effort with the explanation and I am sure the intention is well, but with "science stuff" like this mission is, it is always better to be direct, even when the aim is to explain to a layman. Your explanation provides a good overview of the plot of the mission, but it greatly undermines the science and math behind the whole thing.
Your golf ball/dart example puts emphasis on human skills, and no matter how accurate or skillful the golf/dart player is, he/she will never be 100% accurate. In the case of this mission, we have practically all the data we need such as position of the planets, specifically Jupiter, distance and relative position of all these solar system bodies, speed of the voyager, etc. And we can and have always used the accuracy and predictability of these data for all space missions. The only limitation is politics and budget, which determines what kind of technology we can put out there. And of course, there is always that unknown factor when exploring the unexplored, but that is precisely the reason why we go to space.
To emphasize, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just explaining that the going there and hitting all the relevant milestones is something our science can do very accurately. Cheers.
On the contrary, it shows just how damn accurate and precise the science and math that goes into this kind of mission actually is. The accuracy and precision needed was roughly in line with the analogies I gave.....
EDIT - or at least I try to show how accurate and precise it is. It's really hard to simplify something like this mission into an analogy that anyone can appreciate.....
Oh, I didn't expect you to defend your analogy, and I expected you to at least admit that there was a problem with the phrasing. So let me be direct. We all agree that space missions are accurate and precise. The problem with your analogy is that it implicitly implies that it is difficult because we have very little control over it and require some exquisite skills (like golf and dart players). The truth of the matter is we have almost full control of everything about this mission except what we will see in Pluto and the rest of the Kuiper bodies. The problem with your analogy is that it unnecessarily mystifies the process (as if the success relies on some exquisite human skill), wherein if this mission teaches us anything, it is that science rocks, and we have come so far in understanding and manipulating it to our goals.
[b]If anything, my analogy is making it sound easier than it actually was though..... Just because we have "control" of everything does not mean it was easy. Trying to make it seem easy or trivial is a huge disservice to the mathematics, science, engineering, and computer programming involved in this mission.[b] To the average person, the stuff that was required to pull this off is pretty much magic. Hell, even to the above average person, this stuff is pretty much like magic.
I studied engineering in university for 3 years, and from what I know, I can tell you that this mission is far above my pay grade that I quite literally have no idea where to even start..... It's given me a huge appreciation of it though, because I have a strong understanding of the fundamental principles required to pull this off.
The coolest part of all this though is that the photos are basically going to cause us to completely re-think everything we thought we knew about Pluto.
This is funny because the bolded part is exactly my criticism against your golfer/dart analogy, and now you are strawmanning by claiming I am saying the feat is trivial. That is not true. I will summarize the exchange so far:
You: NH mission is amazing. Like golf/dart player doing insane feat of marksmanship Me: Yes, NH mission is amazing, but using human skill analogy (golf/dart player) is inaccurate because unlike human skill, which is prone to error and inconsistency, a lot of the variables in this mission are accounted for (unlike the golf ball bounce and dart example where we have no control of the driver, wind, and other variables). Unlike your golf/dart example, we have full account of all the variables about the mission. IIt is much better to discuss the actual science and math behind the process rather than making it look like magic.
I want to emphasize also that your claim that I am making it seem trivial is wrong. I claim that the mission is extremely difficult, which was the reason why the testing and calibration took almost a decade before the launch. After that it was all systems go and a matter of finding out how close we are to our calculations, AND most importantly, the joy of exploration and discovery.
I hope this is the last word on my part on this, as I don't think I am making any mistakes here. If you reply, I hope it is to admit that your example is not a good one. I really don't mean to be offensive, but in my profession, when discussing science, it is always better to be as accurate and factual as possible. That's is simply my point.
As your first post pointed out, Impervious's intention was good, even if his analogy might be incorrect (I'm not here to judge that). At least he go out of his way to, trying be more informative to rest of us about this subject. This is just a gaming forum after all, we aren't here because we are trying to find factual and accurate analogy.
Your attitude is simply not helping to sell this stuff, you're just make others feel unapproachable about this subject.
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
Good effort with the explanation and I am sure the intention is well, but with "science stuff" like this mission is, it is always better to be direct, even when the aim is to explain to a layman. Your explanation provides a good overview of the plot of the mission, but it greatly undermines the science and math behind the whole thing.
Your golf ball/dart example puts emphasis on human skills, and no matter how accurate or skillful the golf/dart player is, he/she will never be 100% accurate. In the case of this mission, we have practically all the data we need such as position of the planets, specifically Jupiter, distance and relative position of all these solar system bodies, speed of the voyager, etc. And we can and have always used the accuracy and predictability of these data for all space missions. The only limitation is politics and budget, which determines what kind of technology we can put out there. And of course, there is always that unknown factor when exploring the unexplored, but that is precisely the reason why we go to space.
To emphasize, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just explaining that the going there and hitting all the relevant milestones is something our science can do very accurately. Cheers.
On the contrary, it shows just how damn accurate and precise the science and math that goes into this kind of mission actually is. The accuracy and precision needed was roughly in line with the analogies I gave.....
EDIT - or at least I try to show how accurate and precise it is. It's really hard to simplify something like this mission into an analogy that anyone can appreciate.....
Funny thing is: the math and science are precise enough, but we are not precise enough during launch to manage a mission such as New Horizons. Over such distances, there are even perturbations in the solar system.
This is why the spacecraft has thrusters of his own for trajectory corrections. Of course, the earlier the corrections, the bigger the impact, it's a tuning exercise over 10 years. First 2 corrections early 2006, then again in march 2006, september 2007 and june 2010 for the last one before Pluto.
If our measurements of Pluto, such a near body, were so wrong then how can we trust the measurements of galaxies far far away? I trust science of course, but it goes to show that erroneous methods still thrive today.
On July 16 2015 11:23 PhoenixVoid wrote: A shame astronomy is rarely appreciated or given real interest in people who own the chequebooks. Receiving photos of Pluto versus conceptual computer art is a real gift. Got to see Saturn with an amateur astronomer neighbour of ours today which made me appreciate space even more.
This. One of my first amateur observations was also of Saturn with a 50-year-old guy who programs as his job and does stargazing as a hobby. Was with an 8-inch Celestron telescope I believe. It is truly beautiful to look upon the heavenly bodies and to wonder about their compositions and the possibility of life on them. The jewel box was another observations we made that night that I won't forget.
On July 17 2015 17:39 NeThZOR wrote: If our measurements of Pluto, such a near body, were so wrong then how can we trust the measurements of galaxies far far away? I trust science of course, but it goes to show that erroneous methods still thrive today.
"So wrong" is a bit harsh: estimates were "between 2300 and 2400" (2350 +- 2%) 10 years ago and the measure is at 2370 today. The estimate for near bodies is precise enough: timing of a star occultation and knowledge of orbital parameters gives a value.
The main issue with Pluto's estimate was its atmosphere, which we were unsure of and which makes the occultation time fuzzy.
On July 16 2015 05:40 opisska wrote: So far the system seems more interesting than anyone expected. Both Pluto and Charon show signs of geology, young terrain, mountains, ridges ... which is not what you would have expected from such small icy bodies without many sources of internal heat - icy moons of big planets have at least tidal forces, but Pluto-Charon system is tidelocked already with no external torque to help.
This is the moment when we start to regret that the probe is not an orbiter.
This whole thing with NASA sending a spacecraft to Pluto has really shown how people underestimate how difficult space travel is. NASA basically took something the size of a piano, chucked it through space, and managed to get it to go between Pluto and it's moon, after piggybacking on Jupiter to speed it up along the way. Pluto is a fucking tiny target with respect to our solar system, and insanely far away.
Imagine setting up a golf ball on a golf course and hit a hole in one at a distance of over 9km, while bouncing it off of something first. Alternatively, it would be like hitting a bulls-eye on a dartboard at a distance of over 1km while bouncing off of something first. That is basically the degree of difficulty involved in the challenge that NASA had to overcome in order to do what they just did. It's absolutely incredible. Getting into orbit is even more challenging, to the point where it simply can't be done right now.....
Good effort with the explanation and I am sure the intention is well, but with "science stuff" like this mission is, it is always better to be direct, even when the aim is to explain to a layman. Your explanation provides a good overview of the plot of the mission, but it greatly undermines the science and math behind the whole thing.
Your golf ball/dart example puts emphasis on human skills, and no matter how accurate or skillful the golf/dart player is, he/she will never be 100% accurate. In the case of this mission, we have practically all the data we need such as position of the planets, specifically Jupiter, distance and relative position of all these solar system bodies, speed of the voyager, etc. And we can and have always used the accuracy and predictability of these data for all space missions. The only limitation is politics and budget, which determines what kind of technology we can put out there. And of course, there is always that unknown factor when exploring the unexplored, but that is precisely the reason why we go to space.
To emphasize, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just explaining that the going there and hitting all the relevant milestones is something our science can do very accurately. Cheers.
On the contrary, it shows just how damn accurate and precise the science and math that goes into this kind of mission actually is. The accuracy and precision needed was roughly in line with the analogies I gave.....
EDIT - or at least I try to show how accurate and precise it is. It's really hard to simplify something like this mission into an analogy that anyone can appreciate.....
Oh, I didn't expect you to defend your analogy, and I expected you to at least admit that there was a problem with the phrasing. So let me be direct. We all agree that space missions are accurate and precise. The problem with your analogy is that it implicitly implies that it is difficult because we have very little control over it and require some exquisite skills (like golf and dart players). The truth of the matter is we have almost full control of everything about this mission except what we will see in Pluto and the rest of the Kuiper bodies. The problem with your analogy is that it unnecessarily mystifies the process (as if the success relies on some exquisite human skill), wherein if this mission teaches us anything, it is that science rocks, and we have come so far in understanding and manipulating it to our goals.
[b]If anything, my analogy is making it sound easier than it actually was though..... Just because we have "control" of everything does not mean it was easy. Trying to make it seem easy or trivial is a huge disservice to the mathematics, science, engineering, and computer programming involved in this mission.[b] To the average person, the stuff that was required to pull this off is pretty much magic. Hell, even to the above average person, this stuff is pretty much like magic.
I studied engineering in university for 3 years, and from what I know, I can tell you that this mission is far above my pay grade that I quite literally have no idea where to even start..... It's given me a huge appreciation of it though, because I have a strong understanding of the fundamental principles required to pull this off.
The coolest part of all this though is that the photos are basically going to cause us to completely re-think everything we thought we knew about Pluto.
This is funny because the bolded part is exactly my criticism against your golfer/dart analogy, and now you are strawmanning by claiming I am saying the feat is trivial. That is not true. I will summarize the exchange so far:
You: NH mission is amazing. Like golf/dart player doing insane feat of marksmanship Me: Yes, NH mission is amazing, but using human skill analogy (golf/dart player) is inaccurate because unlike human skill, which is prone to error and inconsistency, a lot of the variables in this mission are accounted for (unlike the golf ball bounce and dart example where we have no control of the driver, wind, and other variables). Unlike your golf/dart example, we have full account of all the variables about the mission. IIt is much better to discuss the actual science and math behind the process rather than making it look like magic.
I want to emphasize also that your claim that I am making it seem trivial is wrong. I claim that the mission is extremely difficult, which was the reason why the testing and calibration took almost a decade before the launch. After that it was all systems go and a matter of finding out how close we are to our calculations, AND most importantly, the joy of exploration and discovery.
I hope this is the last word on my part on this, as I don't think I am making any mistakes here. If you reply, I hope it is to admit that your example is not a good one. I really don't mean to be offensive, but in my profession, when discussing science, it is always better to be as accurate and factual as possible. That's is simply my point.
Buddy, you win. I am in awe at what was done here, and I don't care about arguing over this. I was trying to point out how small of a target NASA just nailed in terms that people could actually visualize, and did so with some rough calculations to translate it into sizes and distances we are familiar with. If you can come up with a better analogy, do it yourself, because it is very, very hard to appreciate what was done here without having some idea of the scale of it.
On July 17 2015 17:39 NeThZOR wrote: If our measurements of Pluto, such a near body, were so wrong then how can we trust the measurements of galaxies far far away? I trust science of course, but it goes to show that erroneous methods still thrive today.
"So wrong" is a bit harsh: estimates were "between 2300 and 2400" (2350 +- 2%) 10 years ago and the measure is at 2370 today. The estimate for near bodies is precise enough: timing of a star occultation and knowledge of orbital parameters gives a value.
The main issue with Pluto's estimate was its atmosphere, which we were unsure of and which makes the occultation time fuzzy.
For those who find the trajectory of New Horizons impressive, i'd like to show you the trajectory of the Rosetta mission. this really blows my mind.
Earth gravity assist Mars gravity assist Earth gravity assist Asteroid Stein Flyby Earth gravity assist Asteroid Lutecia flyby And then finally arrive to 67P
Speeding away from Pluto just seven hours after its July 14 closest approach, the New Horizons spacecraft looked back and captured this spectacular image of Pluto's atmosphere, backlit by the sun.
The image reveals layers of haze that are several times higher than scientists predicted.
Just seven hours after closest approach, New Horizons aimed its Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) back at Pluto, capturing sunlight streaming through the atmosphere and revealing hazes as high as 80 miles (130 kilometers) above Pluto's surface. A preliminary analysis of the image shows two distinct layers of haze one about 50 miles (80 kilometers) above the surface and the other at an altitude of about 30 miles (50 kilometers).
NASA has selected the next destination for New Horizons, the spacecraft that made a historic flyby past Pluto in July, the space agency announced Friday.
New Horizons, which hurdled past Pluto at 31,000 mph after a 3 billion-mile journey, will next set its sights on an object called 2014 MU69, NASA said. It is located in the Kuiper Belt, a region of frozen asteroid-like objects orbiting at the edge of the solar system.
“Even as the New Horizons spacecraft speeds away from Pluto out into the Kuiper Belt, and the data from the exciting encounter with this new world is being streamed back to Earth, we are looking outward to the next destination for this intrepid explorer,” John Grunsfeld, astronaut and chief of the NASA Science Mission Directorate in Washington, said in a news release.
Because Kuiper Belt objects receive so little warmth from the sun, NASA says they are likely "a well preserved, deep-freeze sample of what the outer solar system was like following its birth 4.6 billion years ago."
The 2014 MU69 object is about 30 miles across and orbits almost a billion miles beyond Pluto, an icy dwarf planet that is also part of the Kuiper Belt, according to NASA.
The New Horizons team still has to do more assessments before finalizing the journey into the outer regions of the Kuiper Belt, including submitting a proposal to NASA due in 2016 that will be evaluated by independent experts. But the spacecraft is expected to reach the tiny object on Jan. 1, 2019.
Color images of Pluto released by NASA this year show the dwarf planet has a reddish brown surface. But an even newer photo shows that despite those colors, Pluto's atmosphere has a blue haze.
The discovery results from the New Horizons probe's fly-by of Pluto, which also captured data showing that the planet contains "numerous small, exposed regions of water ice," NASA says.
But first things first: Why would a planet that's been known to be reddish — even pink — have a blue sky?
Scientists attribute the color disparity to tholins, particles formed after sunlight sparks chemical reactions between nitrogen and methane in the atmosphere. The process was first seen on Titan, Saturn's moon; in the case of Pluto, the particles are likely gray or red — but they scatter blue light, making it the most visible to the human eye.
New Horizons successfully "phoned home" at 10:28 a.m. EST, letting NASA scientists know all of its systems survived the flyby of Ultima Thule. The first real images will now slowly trickle in over the coming hours and days.
"We have a healthy spacecraft," Mission Operations Manager, "MOM," Alice Bowman announced to a crowd of cheering scientists Tuesday morning.
Not long after the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Day, as 2018 gave way to 2019, NASA's New Horizons spacecraft flew by the far-out space rock Ultima Thule. At 12:33 am EST this morning, the craft passed within 2,200 miles (3,540 km) of the Kuiper Belt Object (KBO), formally known as 2014 MU69. This was the farthest object that any craft has ever visited.
Now, New Horizons will beam the first information and images from this close flyby back to Earth. However, seeing as the exploratory spacecraft is about four billion miles (6.6 billion km) from our home planet, this data takes a while to travel back to Earth. In fact, it takes more than six hours for radio signals carrying information from New Horizons to deliver the data to NASA's Deep Space Network.
At 10:28 am EST today, New Horizons made its pre-programed “phone home,” letting the mission team back on Earth know that the craft completed the flyby unharmed. This call didn't include any information about the object, but later today the first science data and imagery of the far-out space rock will be available.
At 3:15 pm EST, the first science data will arrive from the craft, including a grainy image just 100 pixels across. This first image of the peanut-shaped object will be followed by more scientific data and higher-resolution images over the next few hours and days.
Tomorrow, Jan 2, at 8:55 pm EST, a better, 200-pixel image of the asteroid may be available, depending on how the rock is positioned. New Horizons was set to take a total of 900 highest-resolution images throughout the flyby and the mission team will know in time how many of those images clearly show Ultima Thule. All in all, New Horizons will collect 50 gigabits of data, as compared to the 55 gigabits collected at Pluto.
For those looking to keep up with the influx of science data and imagery, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which live-streamed coverage of the flyby, will continue to provide updates in press conferences which can be viewed here. You can also follow along on NASA TV.
Thanks for sharing this StealthBlue. Although I'm not very familiar with space, I took an interest in your post and read up on it. Good read and learned something new on what contact binary objects were.
Anyone watch the "Pluto and Beyond" documentary on PBS? Was really cool, went back into the history leading up to the mission, and lots of interviews and footage of the people behind it. Just amazing how everything came together and all the hard work they put in. Here's link if anyone wants to watch: