WWTBAM Bored

and sends some remarkable images:




more to come as it gets closer.

Technical stuff here

Robin Williams (as Mork) said it best.

"Don't go to Pluto. It's a Mickey Mouse planet."

And with this, we've now sent flybys or landers to all of the planets in the Solar System. (Yes I know. It's not a planet anymore. But it was when it was launched. And my brain still thinks that Rhodesia and the Belgian Congo are still countries.)

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Robin Williams (as Mork) said it best.

"Don't go to Pluto. It's a Mickey Mouse planet."

And with this, we've now sent flybys or landers to all of the planets in the Solar System. (Yes I know. It's not a planet anymore. But it was when it was launched. And my brain still thinks that Rhodesia and the Belgian Congo are still countries.)

The Belgian Congo was never a country.

This is a great accomplishment, but it seems a shame to spend nine years getting there and just whiz past into nothingness. I wonder why they didn't design it to go into orbit, or at least crash into the surface. Maybe that would have required too much mass for fuel and propulsion systems.

TheConfessor wrote:This is a great accomplishment, but it seems a shame to spend nine years getting there and just whiz past into nothingness. I wonder why they didn't design it to go into orbit, or at least crash into the surface. Maybe that would have required too much mass for fuel and propulsion systems.

According to the link in the OP,

After Pluto, the spacecraft will be sent to fly past one or several Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) that have yet to be chosen. New Horizons has enough power to last into the 2030s.

So we may someday see more amazing discoveries.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. The Disney crew was obviously there years ago sculpting the surface.

TheConfessor wrote:This is a great accomplishment, but it seems a shame to spend nine years getting there and just whiz past into nothingness. I wonder why they didn't design it to go into orbit, or at least crash into the surface. Maybe that would have required too much mass for fuel and propulsion systems.

Real simple - no brakes.

I'm not sure what orbital velocity around Pluto would be (Earth's is about 17,500 MPH, and I think the Apollo craft orbited the moon at something less than 3000 MPH, and Pluto has about 70% of the moon's mass, so you can figure something less than that), but braking a craft from 36,000 MPH into a parking orbit would require some serious rocket power.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:This is a great accomplishment, but it seems a shame to spend nine years getting there and just whiz past into nothingness. I wonder why they didn't design it to go into orbit, or at least crash into the surface. Maybe that would have required too much mass for fuel and propulsion systems.

Real simple - no brakes.

I'm not sure what orbital velocity around Pluto would be (Earth's is about 17,500 MPH, and I think the Apollo craft orbited the moon at something less than 3000 MPH, and Pluto has about 70% of the moon's mass, so you can figure something less than that), but braking a craft from 36,000 MPH into a parking orbit would require some serious rocket power.

Or some serious braking time, not to mention the above fuel and mass requirements, which would have caused it to take much longer than 9 years.

But, the bottom line is, Pluto is just not all that interesting of an object, at least in comparison to other Kuiper Belt objects.

This one is really remarkable.

Spoiler

As it gets closer, the resolution of the photos is becoming clearer, and there is grave concern at Nasa

flockofseagulls104 wrote:As it gets closer, the resolution of the photos is becoming clearer, and there is grave concern at Nasa

I've got a bad feeling about this ...

gsabc wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:As it gets closer, the resolution of the photos is becoming clearer, and there is grave concern at Nasa

I've got a bad feeling about this ...

It's a trap!!!

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

gsabc wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:As it gets closer, the resolution of the photos is becoming clearer, and there is grave concern at Nasa

I've got a bad feeling about this ...

It's a trap!!!

Cool thing about Pluto- it appears to be geologically active, as there are no/very few impact craters.

Jeemie wrote:Cool thing about Pluto- it appears to be geologically active, as there are no/very few impact craters.

Either that or there aren't many meteors that have intersected Pluto's weird orbit.

Charon, Pluto's largest moon:

On a related note, there's a neat interactive graphic from the BBC last year that I saw (via too many links) showing how vast space is.

http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/20140 ... teractive/

It starts off with a measurement of "1 pixel = 1 m" and goes up logarithmically to "1 pixel = 1 million km" before it gets to Pluto. Another realization of the vastness is that it would take light (or a radio signal) over four hours at minimum to reach Earth from Pluto.

My favorite notation is at the end, when you've hit the far side of the outer solar system, about 21 billion km out. "It would take you about 23 million years of continuous scrolling on this scale to get to the farthest regions of the observable universe, another 435,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 km or 46 billion light years away. We think we'll stop here."

SpacemanSpiff wrote:On a related note, there's a neat interactive graphic from the BBC last year that I saw (via too many links) showing how vast space is.

http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/20140 ... teractive/

It starts off with a measurement of "1 pixel = 1 m" and goes up logarithmically to "1 pixel = 1 million km" before it gets to Pluto. Another realization of the vastness is that it would take light (or a radio signal) over four hours at minimum to reach Earth from Pluto.

My favorite notation is at the end, when you've hit the far side of the outer solar system, about 21 billion km out. "It would take you about 23 million years of continuous scrolling on this scale to get to the farthest regions of the observable universe, another 435,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 km or 46 billion light years away. We think we'll stop here."

If 46 billion years is three times the age of the universe, how would we be able to see anything that far away.... at least without our wormhole spectacles?

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:If 46 billion years is three times the age of the universe, how would we be able to see anything that far away.... at least without our wormhole spectacles?

lb13

I thought three times the age of the universe was 18,000 years. At least that's what my father-in-law would say.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:If 46 billion years is three times the age of the universe, how would we be able to see anything that far away.... at least without our wormhole spectacles?

lb13

I thought three times the age of the universe was 18,000 years. At least that's what my father-in-law would say.

Well, then we may as well stop looking past Pluto!

Interesting side note... I don't know anyone who grew up to know the nine planet solar system who is willing to accept Pluto's demotion a few years ago. To me, there will always be nine planets. It occurred to me there's a life lesson in this... we don't like to be told that the things we were taught growing up and came to accept as fact are ever incorrect... regardless of how much proof or evidence one wants to throw out there. I can understand now why people don't like to give up their old world views they were brought up on and took to be gospel in the face of modern times and thinking...

lb13

The definition of planet set in Prague in 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body which:

is in orbit around the Sun,
has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

I believe Pluto fails to fulfill the third criterion, IIRC, which is why it is classified a dwarf planet.

But there is a school of thought which does say we should follow the cultural definition of a planet, which is "A planet is a planet if enough people say it is".

Jeemie wrote:The definition of planet set in Prague in 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body which:

is in orbit around the Sun,
has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

I believe Pluto fails to fulfill the third criterion, IIRC, which is why it is classified a dwarf planet.

But there is a school of thought which does say we should follow the cultural definition of a planet, which is "A planet is a planet if enough people say it is".

By the third criterion, Neptune has yet to clear Pluto out of its orbital path...

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:By the third criterion, Neptune has yet to clear Pluto out of its orbital path...

lb13

They aren't in each other's orbital paths even though Pluto was closer to the sun for 20 years, ending in 1999.

Pluto has a wildly tilted orbit that it never really "crosses" Neptune's.

Jeemie wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:By the third criterion, Neptune has yet to clear Pluto out of its orbital path...

lb13

They aren't in each other's orbital paths even though Pluto was closer to the sun for 20 years, ending in 1999.

Pluto has a wildly tilted orbit that it never really "crosses" Neptune's.

I learn new things every day... I had never seen a diagram with orbital tilts before. I always assumed the planets all orbited on the same plane...

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:By the third criterion, Neptune has yet to clear Pluto out of its orbital path...

lb13

They aren't in each other's orbital paths even though Pluto was closer to the sun for 20 years, ending in 1999.

Pluto has a wildly tilted orbit that it never really "crosses" Neptune's.

I learn new things every day... I had never seen a diagram with orbital tilts before. I always assumed the planets all orbited on the same plane...

lb13

Pluto's severe orbital tilt has always been considered anomalous among planets. --Bob