Slashdot Mirror


Mission Complete! WMAP In 'Graveyard Orbit'

astroengine writes "The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has, quite literally, changed our view of the Universe. And after nine years of mapping the slight temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, its job is done and NASA has commanded the probe to fire itself into a 'graveyard orbit' around the sun. WMAP measured the most precise age of the universe (13.75 billion years), discovered more evidence supporting dark energy and dark matter theories, and found one or two mysteries along the way."

32 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Uuhhh... clumsy PR? by oldhack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That project was supposed to go on for a few more months I thought... The cooling system exhausted prematurely, didn't it?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Uuhhh... clumsy PR? by Afforess · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, according to wikipedia the project was actually extended an extra year to 2010. So it went above and beyond it's original mission.

      --
      If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    2. Re:Uuhhh... clumsy PR? by sznupi · · Score: 3, Informative

      If there's some clumsy PR, it seems to be in other part of TFS. WMAP has not ,"quite literally, changed our view of the Universe" - it further refined it nicely, continuing in the footsteps (if mentioning only large space experiments) of COBE and RELIKT-1 (the latter might be one sad example of another type of clumsy PR - apparently already gave us large part of the results for which COBE is praised, but...)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  2. Dark Matter (Gravity); please explain by grangerg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So Dark Matter was a theory invented to explain why stars orbit a galaxy's core like they were on spokes around the hub of a wheel ...instead of how we observe the motion of object orbiting our sun. So if Dark Matter exerts such a huge force to keep huge objects (stars) moving in such a manner, how come that same force doesn't affect the objects going around the star? Or, in other words, if it's powerful enough to keep the outer-most stars in a galaxy moving in the same period as inner stars, how come we can't detect it here? Or have we detected such tidal forces already?

    1. Re:Dark Matter (Gravity); please explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      So Dark Matter was a theory invented to explain why stars orbit a galaxy's core like they were on spokes around the hub of a wheel ...instead of how we observe the motion of object orbiting our sun. So if Dark Matter exerts such a huge force to keep huge objects (stars) moving in such a manner, how come that same force doesn't affect the objects going around the star? Or, in other words, if it's powerful enough to keep the outer-most stars in a galaxy moving in the same period as inner stars, how come we can't detect it here? Or have we detected such tidal forces already?

      While there's a lot of dark matter in a galaxy compared to "normal" matter, it's typically spread out over a much larger volume than the viewable parts of a galaxy. Thus, it is actually quite diffuse and has very little effect within something on the scale of a solar system (to the point of being unmeasurable with current technology).

    2. Re:Dark Matter (Gravity); please explain by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      The dark matter halo around our galaxy is theorized roughly as a large sphere, not just extra mass along the flattened wheel of the spiral. Look at the graphic here: http://startswithabang.com/?p=656

      That's a lot of extra room. So much so that even when those researchers calculated that our solar system should have 300 times the dark matter density compared to the galactic dark matter halo, this only ends up being a very tiny fraction of the earth's mass in dark matter bound to our solar system. See: http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/

      So basically, it's going to be rather difficult to detect dark matter nearby.

    3. Re:Dark Matter (Gravity); please explain by ETEQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I guess no one knows such things, but I wonder what would prevent it from clumping up like normal baryonic matter. Maybe it's too diffuse to form dark matter nebulae, but those are only held together by gravity too, right? Or would fast-moving particles just fly apart before gravity could act? Or maybe we just can't see the clumps. Or maybe it's a happy medium—loosely bound to the galaxy but nothing more...

      Actually, the explanation for this one is pretty simple: it's because the dark matter is dark. The reason why baryonic matter collapses into a (relatively) tiny disk in the center of a much larger dark matter halo is that baryonic matter emits light... and light carries off energy. So baryonic matter quickly loses all the energy it can while still conserving angular momentum, and the result is a disk-like structure (spiral galaxies). Once it collapses into a disk, the density becomes high enough that it can further clump into nebulae and stars and such. Dark matter, on the other hand, is much lower density and hence isn't able to collapse efficiently (i.e. its Jean's Length is much longer, if you want to think in terms of some simple math).

  3. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Funny

    We put it in the Graveyard and wait for night to send it all the way.

  4. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It would be very expensive to do so. The probe would have to lose a massive amount of momentum for its orbit to decay far enough for it to pass through the Sun.

  5. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by sznupi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would actually require a lot of delta-v; you need less to get to other stars (time of travel being what limits us in this case)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  6. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by robot256 · · Score: 3, Informative

    They could just as well send it plunging to burn up in Earth's atmosphere. It actually takes more energy to send it on a safe Earth-bound trajectory, and a lot more to send it on a sun-bound trajectory, than it does to move to a graveyard orbit higher up. That way they can keep running the satellite until it's fuel tank is closer to empty.

  7. Cosmic background radiation by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What if the cosmic background "warmth" which hovers just above 2 Kelvin isn't the remnants of the Big Bang but rather a physical phenomenon produced by some more general aspect of our universe. Like goldfish in a bowl, the limits of our experience are defined by our universe, so the phenomena we experience define and are defined within that framework. But like a human outside the goldfish bowl, we can understand why certain phenomena (such as bending of light through the glass) occurs at a simpler, more general level than the goldfish within could grasp.

    Our bowl tells us that there is a background radiation permeating the universe, that unknown and unobservable matter and energy are pulling the universe this way and that, and that time and space exist. We send our tools out to study and measure this bowl. We come away with a great deal of understanding of our bowl, but for some reason things don't all fit together.

    Outside this bowl of ours there is probably a simple and elegant description of the phenomena we experience here. But for the time being, I'm glad to see us working so hard to learn about this little bowl we live in.

    1. Re:Cosmic background radiation by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if the cosmic background "warmth" which hovers just above 2 Kelvin isn't the remnants of the Big Bang but rather a physical phenomenon produced by some more general

      What you need to understand is that what you said, while sounding philosophical to the uneducated is gibberish. To a scientist what you said sounds something like "What if what I thought was my hand was actually an ardvaark in disguise". There are specific properties/features of the CMB that require it to be left over radiation from the Big Bang. Of course to understand this you also need to understand the Big Bang itself and why we'd collectively believe something so counter-intuitive as the universe beginning from a singularity. In other words you need to read your science historyf or the last couple of hundred years.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:Cosmic background radiation by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I concur, and a favorite comic springs to mind:
      Science: It works, bitches

      From the wikipedia page about the CMB:
      Two of the greatest successes of the big bang theory are its prediction of its almost perfect black body spectrum and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background.

      When basically the whole observable universe matches your theory, it's generally considered pretty strong evidence that you're going in the right direction.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    3. Re:Cosmic background radiation by MountainMan101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've misunderstood the difference between doubting a theory and doubting an observable. Walking off a cliff would be stupid, it it clearly observed that things fall. On the other hand doubting that the reason is due to the attraction of masses, perhaps in favour of some alternative source of the force, does not lead to such stupid mistakes.

      The original poster did not contradict the evidence for the big bang, rather the explanation.

    4. Re:Cosmic background radiation by syousef · · Score: 2, Informative

      The original poster did not contradict the evidence for the big bang, rather the explanation.

      The CMB *IS* part of the evidence for the Big Bang.

      The CMB is the afterglow - of a very consistent temperature produced by the Big Bang. This explanation is greatly oversimplified: The Universe being very compact in the past resulting in a uniform distribution of energy at the point at which it went from being opaque to translucent is the only good explanation we have for a uniform glow in all directions.

      WMAP mapped the very minor variations in the CMB that tell us about conditions at the point in time when the universe had cooled enough to allow light to travel freely. It tells us a little about what conditions were like at that time and you can calculate what must be the age of the Universe based on this variation. (Yes some assumptions do need to be made, but our modelling has gotten good enough for scientists to be very confident about the age of the Universe).

      Why do people insist on talking garbage about things they clearly know nothing about?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:Cosmic background radiation by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      More accurately, CMB is an observation we have made that is currently best explained by the Big Bang theory.

  8. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably on the off-chance that it discovers something while in a graveyard orbit. You never know what sort of crazy stuff happens when you just leave a camera running. Sure, the odds are pretty low, but the satellite's already in space, so why not?

  9. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by sznupi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, what would the Klingons do without deactivated shooting targets?

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  10. So long..... by tpstigers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ..... and thanks.

  11. Re:Maybe I am being espically thick right now by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    The prior orbit was at the L2 point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#L2 one of the very few stable points in the solar system. Leaving WMAP there would be a bad idea because it makes a very nice spot become more hazardous. We're already having serious trouble with spacejunk in Earth orbit. There's no good reason to star trashing up the rest of the system also.

  12. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by Kagura · · Score: 2, Funny

    Or some SciFi writer discovers it and the damsels appear, followed by the evil tentacled villains . . .

    Sounds like a day in the life of my Adamantine miners.

  13. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, we're waiting for it to become a zombie, and then start killing satellites that are still working, turning them into zombies as well...

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  14. "Mission Accomplified" by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ever since Bush, people say mission "complete" instead of "accomplished". Then again, the word "stimulus" is tainted also, replaced with "recovery program".

  15. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Probably on the off-chance that it discovers something while in a graveyard orbit. You never know what sort of crazy stuff happens when you just leave a camera running. Sure, the odds are pretty low, but the satellite's already in space, so why not?

    Because it costs money and consumes personnel, communications, etc., resources.

  16. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by Nutria · · Score: 2, Informative

    It would be very expensive to do so. The probe would have to lose a massive amount of momentum for its orbit to decay far enough for it to pass through the Sun.

    I see now that WMAP is at an L2 point, whereas I had naively/foolishly assumed it was at an L3 point.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  17. Re:It's all crap by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 3, Funny

    Silly Christian propaganda! Islam provides a far more accurate view of the heavens than any man-made space doohickey . I bet Muhammed (Geese be upon him) got a pretty good look at space while he was traveling around on his flying mutant horsie, hobnobbing with all and sundry in heaven.

    Hmm, come to think of it I think there may have been some man/horse love - at least if this excerpt is anything to go by:

    "Hearing this he (the mutant horsie) was so ashamed that he sweated until he became soaked, and he stood still so that the Prophet mounted him."

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  18. Re:Maybe I am being espically thick right now by Framboise · · Score: 3, Informative

    The orbit was *around* L2, not at L2. The orbit around L2 appears as loops with an apreciable extension wrt to the Earth-L2 distance.
    The paradox is that L2 is actually unstable, but orbits can be found around L2 which are stable over a sufficiently long time.

       

  19. Re:Maybe I am being espically thick right now by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

    And that's why it has to be moved to a retirement orbit. The fuel will run out soon and left where it was it would wander off into some unpredictable and perhaps inconvenient orbit, possibly cluttering up the L2 region and making it hard to use it for anything else. This way it's in a known, out-of-the-way orbit.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  20. Re:It's all crap by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, despite being an atheist i'm finding these frequent and gratuitous anti-christian trolls tedious. They are not funny, they are not relevant, they are not informative, and they are not original. They are all crap.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  21. Re:Why not send it plunging ... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Funny

    It'll come back as W'AP looking for the creator.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  22. Re:It's all crap by Atrox+Canis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a fellow athiest, I have to agree. I don't much care for the mythology believing folks calling me a devil worshipper (damned odd that you would think I believe in a fallen angel when I profess to not believe in a diety, but I digress). So, I try not to make fun of the believers. So, all you other non-believers, cut those folks some slack. There are in fact a number of very bright, well educated and yes, even articulate individuals that profess a belief in a god. They are not all slack-jawed, mouth breathing rednecks from the hinterlands.

    --
    Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy