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.