New Horizons: One Billion Miles From Pluto

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Horizons: One Billion Miles From Pluto

Posted by Soulskill on Monday February 13, 2012 @07:56AM from the investigating-a-planetary-imposter dept.

astroengine writes "On Feb. 10, NASA's Pluto-bound New Horizons probe entered the homestretch of its mission. When you are sprinting across the solar system, 'homestretch' is the final 1 billion miles of your journey. That sounds like quite a long stretch! But the half-ton spacecraft has already logged 2 billion miles since its launch in early 2006. That's twice the distance between Earth and Saturn. Though the icy dwarf planet is still three years away from its close encounter, mission scientists call this the Late Cruise phase of the flight."

135 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 08:04 · Score: 0

Pluto? When did it leave Uranus?
1. Re:Obligatory by Samantha+Wright · 2012-02-13 08:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It flew through the orbit of Uranus on March 18, 2011.
  Scientists at NASA reported that it made a "woosh" noise as it did so, despite the vacuum. They then started a petition to rename Uranus to Urectum.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
2. Re:Obligatory by Ramley · 2012-02-13 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  They then started a petition to rename Uranus to Urectum.
  Urectum? I didn't know Uknewum?
  Couldn't resist...
3. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  That ought to get rid of that joke once and for all.
4. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 18:51 · Score: 0
  
  It flew through the orbit of Uranus on March 18, 2011.
  Scientists at NASA reported that it made a "woosh" noise as it did so, despite the vacuum. They then started a petition to rename Uranus to Urectum.
  Futurama ripoff.
  http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Urectum
5. Re:Obligatory by MichaelSmith · 2012-02-13 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  Futurama reference.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Astronomical distances and poetry by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 08:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Whenever I see posts like this, it always makes me think about how big the universe really is. Poets have talked about how far away the stars are and planets and the like. They always talked about hundreds or thousands of miles. Then we get to the real size of the universe and BAM! all of that is now wrong. Even modern poets usually talk in terms of "millions" of miles or kilometers to reach the stars and planets. Makes you seem really small when farther than you can even imagine is not far enough.
1. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 08:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Whenever I see posts like this, it always makes me think about how big the universe really is. Poets have talked about how far away the stars are and planets and the like. They always talked about hundreds or thousands of miles. Then we get to the real size of the universe and BAM! all of that is now wrong. Even modern poets usually talk in terms of "millions" of miles or kilometers to reach the stars and planets. Makes you seem really small when farther than you can even imagine is not far enough.
  Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
2. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Samantha+Wright · 2012-02-13 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  And that's why we invented scientific notation. After all, what's an order of magnitude between friends?
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
3. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Whenever I see posts like this, it always makes me think about how big the universe really is. Poets have talked about how far away the stars are and planets and the like. They always talked about hundreds or thousands of miles. Then we get to the real size of the universe and BAM! all of that is now wrong. Even modern poets usually talk in terms of "millions" of miles or kilometers to reach the stars and planets. Makes you seem really small when farther than you can even imagine is not far enough.
  Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
  To experience the vastness of the universe can I suggest you enter the Total Perspective Vortex ? ^_^
4. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Bengie · 2012-02-13 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  What I don't get is why they use "miles". "Billions" is already such a large number that I cannot relate to it, might as well use a "proper" measurement.
5. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by j35ter · 2012-02-13 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, 6.000 light years is a huge amount of space....
  
  --
  Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
6. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by na1led · 2012-02-13 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  The multiverse outside our universe is infinite because time is infinite, therefore it doesn't have a size.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
7. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by SJHillman · 2012-02-13 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Light-years are too large for this case and the only thing we really have between light-years and miles are AU, which most people don't really get. Granted, they don't understand exactly what a lightyear is either (especially the "I haven't been there in lightyears" crowd), but its even harder to understand what an AU is.
  I think the main reason they use miles is people can relate to it. "Grandma's house is 12 miles away. California is 3,000 miles away. Hey, it takes a while to drive to California, I know because I've done it! A billion miles must be reaaallly big". It's a lot harder for Common Joe to relate to AU or lightyears, nevermind trying to explain that 1 billion miles is a little over 5,368 lightseconds.
8. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-13 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think you understand what an order of magnitude is. It has nothing to do with friendship really. It's more like a mathematical concept.
9. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by monkeyhybrid · 2012-02-13 09:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I've been interested in all things 'space' since I was a young kid and consider myself reasonably knowledgeable about the universe, galaxies, star systems, etc, but I still get blown away when thinking about the scale of things some times.
  
  One of the main things I try to put across to people when I talk about space, is just how big it is. Sometimes people can't get their head around the numbers, which is quite understandable seeing as we typically don't have much experience dealing with these kind of measurements, so if I have the chance I will point them to the following links containing fantastic visualisations of such scales. They cover the very big and the very small equally well I think, and are simple and engaging enough for kids to follow too.
  
  Powers of Ten - very interesting short video commissioned by IBM back in 1968.
  
  The Scale of The Universe - interactive flash applet that allows you to zoom in and out of the universe (an updated version of one done a year or two back by the same authors).
  
  Relative size of stars and planets - I have no idea who originally made this set of images but they have propogated around the web over the years and this just happens to be first link to it I found in Google results.
  
  If there's one thing in the second and third links that I think will surprise a lot of people, it's how insanely large the biggest stars are compared to our Sun (in diameter, not necessarily in mass).
10. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Gilmoure · 2012-02-13 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  I move we start measuring distance in light forthours.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
11. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Your description still doesn't explain why I'm drinking something that's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
12. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Samantha+Wright · 2012-02-13 09:54 · Score: 2
  
  It's really more of a huge amount of line. Cubic light years, of course, are another story.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
13. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Samantha+Wright · 2012-02-13 10:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Of course I know what an order of magnitude is. It's a secret society of knights that dates back to medieval times, dedicating to raising prime numbers and other common radicals to various exponents. The most famous orders are the Power of Two and the Power of Ten, although some people, mostly retired Russian computer scientists, speak in hushed whispers of the Power of Three (though officially the Power of Three doesn't think they belong, since balanced ternary is quite different from true ternary computing.) The Power of Two used to have two junior orders, the Power of Eight and the Power of Sixteen, but Eight is pretty much defunct these days.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
14. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  Where do you get that from? Last I checked we don't know how large the part of the universe outside the observable universe is. It could be infinite and it could be finite, and we don't have enough data to choose between those hypotheses.
15. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-13 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  ? You say you have friends with these people? Orders from middle ages? Like a fraternity? What part of the world are you from?
16. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Ginger+Unicorn · 2012-02-13 11:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Time isn't infinite. When the universe was at minimum entropy, time began. When the universe reaches maximum entropy, time ends.
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
17. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Ginger+Unicorn · 2012-02-13 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I heard the visible universe is 13.7billion light years across, and the full universe is finite but boundless (toroidal in 4 dimensions, total number of dimensions unknown) with a 78 billion light year circumference. I think I got that from AstronomyCast and I can't remember how certain that hypothesis was.
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
18. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Ruie · 2012-02-13 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  The multiverse outside our universe is infinite because time is infinite, therefore it doesn't have a size.
  Actually, the latest estimates suggest there are 1e500 different possibilities for a universe - a larger number, but sure not infinite ;)
19. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Black.Shuck · 2012-02-13 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Current thinking is that the Universe is flat and we can observe about 46 billion light-years of it in all directions.
20. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-02-13 11:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Of course I know what an order of magnitude is. It's a secret society of knights that dates back to medieval times, dedicating to raising prime numbers and other common radicals to various exponents.
  Yes, and the seal of their order showed ten knights riding one horse, if I remember correctly.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
21. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by j35ter · 2012-02-13 12:49 · Score: 2
  
  Oh please, lets keep it simple for the creationists :)
  
  --
  Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
22. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by na1led · 2012-02-13 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  If time is infinite, then so must the universe, and time must be infinite because time can't start itself.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
23. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by jackbird · 2012-02-13 13:36 · Score: 2
  
  Two things about The Powers of Ten:
  While commissioned by IBM, it was created by the office of Charles and Ray Eames. As in the chair.
  An updated, shiner, IMAX version, narrated by Morgan Freeman, was recently created. While prettier, if you watch the two back-to-back on youtube, you can see the science content getting softer and more digestible (not that the original was a tremendously high bar). One exception - the area of the previous order of magnitude is displayed as a circle rather than as a square.
24. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by bryan1945 · 2012-02-13 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Is that a leopard guarding your file cabinet?
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
25. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Thing+1 · 2012-02-13 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  toroidal in 4 dimensions
  The first 20 minutes or so of "Thrive" shows the torus configuration in just about everything -- so I think it's really cool that our universe is also toroidal. ("Thrive": $20 on Amazon, or free via Google or your kooky friend.)
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
26. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Thing+1 · 2012-02-13 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's a secret society of knights [...]
  Yes, yes I heard that as "k-nig-hts"</nee>, thankyouverymuch</elvis>
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
27. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by RenderSeven · 2012-02-13 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
28. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 16:03 · Score: 0
  
  Time exists beyond the universe. It's merely the name we give to the passage of events, it can't end.
29. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Garth+Smith · 2012-02-13 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Just wanted to say thanks for the videos!
  - Someone who majored in math
30. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by niktemadur · 2012-02-13 18:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  From the second Wikipedia link in your post:
  "If the universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe."
  Mind blown.
  
  --
  Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
31. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by niktemadur · 2012-02-13 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  The statement that time isn't infinite has always bugged me, because there were events before "time" (as we measure it) began, before our Universe and markers of reference, a state where (and when) quantum fluctuations occurred, at the very least. Let's put a name to it and call it Meta-Time.
  In this Meta-Time, some event precipitated the Big Bang, or False-Vacuum Inflation, or whatever Everything is.
  As for infinity, I have no difficulty visualizing time going forward forever, but backwards... a Meta-Clock having already ticked an infinity with no discrete moment of origin... I get a weird vertigo just thinking about it, like my mind is on a tightrope and there's no safety net underneath.
  
  --
  Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
32. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by CSMoran · 2012-02-13 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  If you can get this through peer review, I'll be inclined to believe it.
  
  --
  Every end has half a stick.
33. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Ginger+Unicorn · 2012-02-13 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  This assumes that whatever medium the universe exists in is subject to entropy and causality as we understand it. There could very well be no meta-clock. The metaverse may be infinite and timeless. Our universe could exist, fixed and determinate with it's entire timeline laid out like a 4 dimension film reel. We experience movies one frame at a time, but the entire reel exists no matter what frame you're looking at.
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
34. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by arisvega · 2012-02-14 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Time isn't infinite [..] time ends.
  Seems that you have it all figured out. Well, not much point in having physicists around I guess.
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
35. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by arisvega · 2012-02-15 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Of course I know what an order of magnitude is.
  Do not forget their sworn enemies functioning from within, the Mole Fraction: a fraction of moles that are trying to work their way up the hierarchy, the ratio of the number of moles in one of the Orders of Magnitute to the total number of moles in all Orders of Magnitude has been believed to be constant among all Orders of Magnitude, even though there is much speculation on that; it perhaps reflects the fact that noone really can predict which one of the Orders will prevail so the moles are trying to keep their bases covered. Truth is, the Mole Fraction has been infiltrating the Orders of Magnitude from as far back as the 1300's, where apparently all the spoils of war have been forcing scholars of the time to be able to perform better and more accurate measurements, in order for The Order to spoil itsself in an appropriate "Lion's Share" fashion, and for less spoily spoils to precipitate down the pecking order in an orderly fashion. But what do I know.
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
36. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by Samantha+Wright · 2012-02-15 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  In grade eleven, my chemistry teacher was a nice old fellow on the verge of retirement. He had been teaching for an untold number of years, and had quite a long and illustrious career in research before that, even doing his Masters at Chalk River. This long teaching career meant that he had a lot of spare photocopies and other documents lying around; for one exam he had us fill out scantron forms very carefully with a #2 HB pencil, gave us some specific ID numbers to use, and then hand-marked them.
  When we got to the unit on stoichiometry, the first thing he handed out was a set of copies from a colouring book about—you guessed it—those wonderful, fuzzy little moles, clearly intended for five-year-olds. It was a good class.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
37. Re:Astronomical distances and poetry by RockDoctor · 2012-02-15 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies,
  or of other galaxies near to the apparent position of the originally-considered galaxy, but at a considerably different age.
  
  formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe."
  . . . multiple times. And there is nothing fundamental to prevent us (our galaxy) from being the source of the gravitational lensing that allows us to see the distant galaxies.
  If the observable universe is (say) 4 times the diameter of the actual universe (for universes of positive curvature), then looking in one direction, you'd see direct light from a galaxy in that direction , and nearby a gravitationally-lensed image of the same galaxy at 3 times the age and distance ; when you deconvolve the structure of the lensing mass, it looks suspiciously similar to our galaxy's map.
  Oh, hang on, that only works for the specific case where the distant galaxy is half-way around the universe from us ; the general solution would be more complex.
  And of course, on this sort of time-scale, the galaxies move significant distances as well as things moving internally. It's the old Sphinx puzzle - would you recognise a toddler, a middle-aged man and a wobbly senile wreck as being the same organism?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I'm impressed, by MSesow · 2012-02-13 08:10 · Score: 2

Blazing out of the sun’s gravitational well at 34,000 miles per hour
That's about like driving from San Francisco to New York City in 5 minutes, or from Madrid to Moscow in a little more than 4 minutes (via Google Maps directions), instead of a couple of days. I'm impressed.
1. Re:I'm impressed, by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-02-13 08:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Actually, it's about as different from driving as you can get. Stop for just one traffic light between here and Pluto, and see what it does to your mission profile.
2. Re:I'm impressed, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Do you still get a ticket if you don't have any brakes?
3. Re:I'm impressed, by HappyHead · 2012-02-13 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well, considering the distance travelled per second, and the number of seconds warning that you would get that the light was going to turn red (nobody ever starts breaking until the light is orange!), to go from 34,000 miles per hour to a dead stop in about 12 seconds would require a total energy of ... er... half a ton times... ouch. I think you're going to get a bit of a seat-belt rash from that one. Good thing they planned for a route with no traffic lights or stop signs. Hopefully they won't have a problem at the moose crossing.
4. Re:I'm impressed, by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-02-13 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know why- but that comment has got the song "UFOs, Big Rigs, And BBQ" stuck in my head.
  UFOs are big rigs
  They come from outer-space
  stopping off at the truck stop earth
  looking for some food to eat
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
5. Re:I'm impressed, by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-02-13 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's also like rocketing from Earth to Pluto in just over 8 years, or from the Moon to Saturn in just under 5 years (via TFA). =)
  
  Teasing aside, the little space-bullet hit 51,000 mph during Jupiter's gravity assist. Crazy fast.
6. Re:I'm impressed, by SJHillman · 2012-02-13 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Do retro rockets count? Surely they're DMV approved.
7. Re:I'm impressed, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  "(nobody ever starts breaking until the light is orange!"
  Oh my god! Someone must stop those lights! Wait, did you mean "break" like spiritually?
8. Re:I'm impressed, by reezle · 2012-02-13 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know... geosynchronous satellites go about 7000mph, and we have dozens (hundred?) of them up there.
  Seems like interplanetary missions should be going at least an order of magnitude faster.
  (Yeah, the economics of it all)
9. Re:I'm impressed, by mhajicek · 2012-02-13 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Stop for just one traffic light from that speed and see what your face does to your windshield.
10. Re:I'm impressed, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  It's actually not that impressive. Sure it would be expensive but my god, we're a decade into the 21st century. Why can't we have a real 'space race' -- see what percentage of lightspeed a craft can actually get to. Use chem rockets to do a boost toward the sun, gravity assist around it and do that a couple more time between planets, use an additional ion engine for cruise... We could probably easily catch up to Voyager...
11. Re:I'm impressed, by Jeng · 2012-02-13 10:34 · Score: 2
  
  Yellow lights should last around 1 second per 10 miles of speed, if the speed limit is 34,000 miles an hour then the yellow light should last 3,400 seconds or a little under an hour.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
12. Re:I'm impressed, by Kittenman · 2012-02-13 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Blazing out of the sun’s gravitational well at 34,000 miles per hour
  That's about like driving from San Francisco to New York City in 5 minutes, or from Madrid to Moscow in a little more than 4 minutes (via Google Maps directions), instead of a couple of days. I'm impressed.
  Oh goody, a car analogy. Sort of.
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
13. Re:I'm impressed, by slew · 2012-02-13 11:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  FWIW, I think most folks are just thinking about things wrong when they talk about velocity of space vehicles. It's often better to think of things in terms of work and kinetic energy (force x distance). For example, interestingly, once you are in geosync** orbit***, the "escape" speed (aka escape velocity) is even lower than on the ground (since escape_speed ~ sqrt(2GM/r), bigger "r" means lower escape speed), but moving a certain distance and having a certain kinetic energy in the gravitational potential well are more intuitive notions.
  Besides, velocity is "generally" relative anyhow ;^) Acceleration is the interesting notion. Standing on earth we are already all going 65,000mph relative to the sun because the earth is in orbit (meaning the earth is balanced between falling into the sun and flinging away). It's only the difficulty of maintaining a chosen velocity on earth where there's lots of friction that warps our perception of velocity. Under constant acceleration in a vaccuum, acheiving high velocity is just a matter of waiting for some time.
  **Geosync is just the orbit you have to get to so that the gravitational acceleration matches the centripital acceleration needed to maintain the same relative position on the ground. Of course for a satellite still on the ground, that's easy, static frictional forces provide the needed acceleration to maintain the same relative position on the ground. When the satellite is launched above the ground, there aren't any static frictional forces, so you need to rely on gravity to apply the appropriate gravitational acceleration. If mass and the gravitational constant are invarient, you really only have the radius to play with. You then get whatever "circular" velocity you get at that radius (or you don't stay in orbit very long) w/o applying additional forces over the gravitational force.
  ***In orbit, you sweep out equal areas in equal time, so in a highly eccentric orbit (or even a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit that you get with gravity assist), you can get really, really, high velocities at some points in the orbit. Of course these types of orbits aren't geosync orbits anymore.
14. Re:I'm impressed, by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-02-14 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's a very good point. Maybe the thing is flying at 51,000 mph, but that's just relative to Earth. As we orbit the sun, does the velocity of the craft slow down as our orbit approaches it? I guess the answer's yeah, it does, since the reference point is changing. Still, mph or kps are a good units for the average joe (or even folks who could get the math if they tried, but choose not to delve that deeply).
  
  Since the math doesn't really matter to us, other than for the fun of it or if we are doing actual research, maybe just saying that the craft is hauling space-balls is good enough.
15. Re:I'm impressed, by HappyHead · 2012-02-14 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the last time I stopped when it was still orange, I got rear-ended (by an off-duty cop...) and the back end of my car broke. Does that count?
  Otherwise I'll credit that one to lack of sleep. (Like the cop did.)
Detailed location data by dtmos · 2012-02-13 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative

A page showing New Horizons' location relative to the planets is here. Detailed ephemeris and other data on the probe can be obtained from NASA's HORIZONS system -- click on Target body "[change]", then enter "-98" in the search box.
The Vertically Challenged Planet by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-02-13 08:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Getting to pass close to an object as small as Pluto, (reclassified as I like to say as a "vertically challenged" planet) from 3 billion miles away is impressive. Especially since this is no sitting duck.
This is an object whose velocity is measured in KM per second moving in a very eccentric orbit.
We often take for granted NASA does this and NASA does that- because they have been doing it for decades- but it never ceases to amaze me how we can so accurately target (relatively) small objects that are travelling at such incredible speeds from such mind boggling distances.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1. Re:The Vertically Challenged Planet by SJHillman · 2012-02-13 08:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You've got a point.
  I bet when NASA engineers play beer pong, each cup is moving at a different speed with a different path. And you have to aim from the next city over looking through a spyglass.
2. Re:The Vertically Challenged Planet by boristdog · 2012-02-13 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Man, you make those NASA folks sound as smart as a bunch of rocket scientists.
3. Re:The Vertically Challenged Planet by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-02-13 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, if our marksmen had the same accuracy- a sniper with a powerfull enough rifle could have taken out Saddam Hussein with a single shot whilst standing on top of Mt. Rushmore. Completely avoiding the 2nd Gulf war.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
4. Re:The Vertically Challenged Planet by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-02-13 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  I should point out that in my analogy above- the sniper is standing on top of Mt. Rushmore- not Sadam Hussein.
  Saddam would presumably have been dedicating a statue of himself in Baghdad.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
5. Re:The Vertically Challenged Planet by Chris+Burke · 2012-02-13 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  I bet when NASA engineers play beer pong, each cup is moving at a different speed with a different path. And you have to aim from the next city over looking through a spyglass.
  And nobody is impressed unless you use the lip of a closer cup to redirect the ball into the cup you were aiming for.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
6. Re:The Vertically Challenged Planet by chichilalescu · 2012-02-13 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean radially challanged
  
  --
  new sig
7. Re:The Vertically Challenged Planet by jaa101 · 2012-02-13 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  You do realise they do course corrections? Yes, the maths they do is neat, especially when they need to take relativistic effects into account. There's a limit to how accurately the spacecraft can set its course so they plan to fine-tune multiple times during a mission.
8. Re:The Vertically Challenged Planet by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-02-13 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  I should point out that in my analogy above- the sniper is standing on top of Mt. Rushmore- not Sadam Hussein.
  Well, in the latter case the shot is quite a bit easier.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
9. Re:The Vertically Challenged Planet by Rich0 · 2012-02-13 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  True, but just working out the exact position of the probe and Pluto to that level of precision is a challenge.
fingers crossed by spirit_fingers · 2012-02-13 08:24 · Score: 2

Given the way NASA's keeps getting slashed, we'll be lucky if there's any money left to analyze the data when it finally does arrive at Pluto.
1. Re:fingers crossed by spirit_fingers · 2012-02-13 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Given the way NASA's keeps getting slashed, we'll be lucky if there's any money left to analyze the data when it finally does arrive at Pluto.
  Err, that should have been "Given the way NASA's budget keeps getting slashed..."
2. Re:fingers crossed by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-02-13 08:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nah- Pluto is getting slashed too. A few years ago a planet, now a dwarf planet- soon it will be an asteroid and later it will be reclassified as inter-stellar debris.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
Not malfunctioning the electronic? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 08:24 · Score: 0

And into 0 degrees Kelvin from deeper space, they lie.
JCPM
1. Re:Not malfunctioning the electronic? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  Satellites and deep space probes do have heating on board as far as I can remember.
2. Re:Not malfunctioning the electronic? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  Satellites and deep space probes do have heating on board as far as I can remember.
  Not only it, the antenna is too cold that is required to be heated, and the probe has not the right heating distribution to all electronic piece from the board to the extreme point of the antenna or satellite.
  Then, they are talking another more lies.
  JCPM: space researchers will be surprised about the hidden lies when they do physical calculus.
3. Re:Not malfunctioning the electronic? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  So, um, what exactly is the problem with electronics working in space? It's not actually "cold" or "hot". It isn't anything, like the vacuum in a Thermos bottle, or between your ears.
  You sound like a moron.
You are here by sakdoctor · 2012-02-13 08:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Earth's_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_(JPEG).jpg/1920px-Earth's_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_(JPEG).jpg
The edge of the observable universe is 47,000,000,000 light years away.
Where is your god now?
1. Re:You are here by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-02-13 08:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Probably sitting in front of my fish tank swatting at the glass.
  I worship my cat- she is my goddess and empress of the universe. I admit, the question wasn't aimed at me, and not everyone agrees with my deity of choice.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
2. Re:You are here by Gilmoure · 2012-02-13 09:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  According to my dogs, I'm the god of good treats and he who knows how to make the adventure box go down the road.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
3. Re:You are here by operagost · 2012-02-13 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  47,000,000,000.1
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
4. Re:You are here by willaien · 2012-02-13 09:37 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I feel like the image titled 'pale blue dot' does a better job of illustrating just how... small we are in the grand scheme of things.
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue_Dot.png
  Do a search on youtube for 'Pale Blue Dot' by carl sagan if you want to be humbled.
5. Re:You are here by spam4rakesh · 2012-02-13 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  right here.
6. Re:You are here by viperidaenz · 2012-02-13 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  If the universe is only 13.75 billion years old, how do you observe something 47 billion light years away?
7. Re:You are here by mbrod · 2012-02-13 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  La illaha.
  
  There is no God.
  
  There is no God in creation because he is the Creator of creation and there is nothing like Him. He created existence, time and space.
  
  La illaha il illah,
  
  There is no God, but God.
  
  There is nothing in this Universe able to create (la illaha). So look for the One that does create.
8. Re:You are here by amicusNYCL · 2012-02-13 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  I presume that one would observe it when it used to be a lot closer, shortly after the big bang, when the universe was much smaller. At least, you would observe the light which left that object when it used to be closer and has only now overtaken us as we move outward.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
9. Re:You are here by MarkVVV · 2012-02-13 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Observing ungrateful people like you.
10. Re:You are here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  Last paragraph of summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
11. Re:You are here by mhajicek · 2012-02-13 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Even better: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347 Plank Length to Observable Universe in a flash.
12. Re:You are here by element-o.p. · 2012-02-13 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well, assuming your numbers and my math are correct (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), I'd say we have something like 9.25*10^21 cubic light years in which to search.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
13. Re:You are here by viperidaenz · 2012-02-13 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I figured that after I clicked submit.Futher googling confirmed the theory as well
14. Re:You are here by uhuru_meditation · 2012-02-13 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. Still here and in the center of the universe..as The Earth always was.
15. Re:You are here by melikamp · 2012-02-13 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  IMHO, Sun worship and cat worship are some of the most sane and non-superstitious religions in existence (and ancient Egyptians did both). Unlike in many other religions, the deities are real and their immense powers over humans are apparent to all. Cats in particular have never done as well as today, and their star seems to be still rising. They don't do absolutely anything but look cute, and they are set for life with food, healthcare, and entertainment. Wild populations are often tolerated, giving them even more options.
16. Re:You are here by bryan1945 · 2012-02-13 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  Eating a banana. Bobo likes a banana before bed time.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
17. Re:You are here by bryan1945 · 2012-02-13 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  It took a wrong turn at Sacramento.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
18. Re:You are here by viperidaenz · 2012-02-13 14:50 · Score: 2
  
  Not Albuquerque?
19. Re:You are here by dudpixel · 2012-02-13 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  you're making some assumptions there...
  say you built a robot - it would be pretty easy for you to hide from it if you didn't want to be seen. its a crude example, but kind of demonstrates the point.
  science and religion are 2 different fields. generally speaking one cannot disprove the other.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
20. Re:You are here by Whiteox · 2012-02-13 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Let me know when we get to Pizmo beach.
  
  --
  Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
21. Re:You are here by niktemadur · 2012-02-13 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  Cats in particular have never done as well as today, and their star seems to be still rising.
  And it shall remain so, until the Nibblers finally come to usurp the throne of the LOLcat.
  
  --
  Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
22. Re:You are here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  Ignoring you.
Not writing the english? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 08:43 · Score: 0

And no "degrees" with Kelvin is necessary, no lie.
Jesus Christ, Price Moderator.
Just some things by Darth+Snowshoe · 2012-02-13 08:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Already, NH has prompted much more thorough scrutiny of Pluto, resulting in the discovery of a new (fourth) moon;
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/20jul_p4/
And hey, the program is trying to select a member of the Kuiper Belt to visit beyond Pluto, and they're crowdsourcing the search;
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-06/22/crowd-source-new-horizons-next-destination
Also, there's a New Horizons app in the iPhone App store (don't know if there's an Android version).
1. Re:Just some things by element-o.p. · 2012-02-13 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Also, there's a New Horizons app in the iPhone App store (don't know if there's an Android version).
  I didn't see one when I searched market. The only apps that showed up in a search for "New Horizon" was a combination compass/artificial horizon and a banking application.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
2. Re:Just some things by Darth+Snowshoe · 2012-02-14 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  There's a link from this page to the app store;
  http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/epoapps/
  I have it on my own iphone, so I'm sure it exists. It's not very exciting just now, (though you can see the images from the Jupiter flyby).
3. Re:Just some things by element-o.p. · 2012-02-14 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry -- I should have specified which market I meant. I was checking to see if there was an app for Android, not iPhone ;) (but I appreciate the effort, anyway)
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Distance from Earth to Saturn by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 08:54 · Score: 1

"That's twice the distance between Earth and Saturn."
The distance is quite variable so this doesn't make much sense. Perhaps you meant to say:
"That's twice the difference between radii of Saturn's and Earth's orbit.",
9.98 AU from Pluto by dfcamara · 2012-02-13 08:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

Distance from Sun (AU): 22.34
Distance from Earth (AU): 23.06
Distance from Pluto (AU): 9.98

IMHO much more sense than billions of miles.
1. Re:9.98 AU from Pluto by DanielRavenNest · 2012-02-13 12:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The scientifically interesting distance is when it gets close enough to get better data than Hubble did. At perigee, Pluto was at a minimum distance of 28.6 AU from Earth. New Horizons has a much smaller telescope, so it gets 1/20th the resolution as Hubble gets. Therefore it needs to be that much closer, or 1.4 AU away, before it can take better photos. Until then, Earthbound equipment does a better job. That time is around the start of 2015, 6 months before flyby.
Think about this by eclectro · 2012-02-13 08:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

If it had not been for the exhorbitant cost of the wars, we could have afforded to build a probe to orbit Pluto rather than just do a flyby.
As it was, New Horizons was largely made possible by a few congressman who pushed specifically for funding for this mission before Pluto's orbit removed it too far away from the sun.

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Pluto is small by skrimp · 2012-02-13 08:57 · Score: 1

Pluto is smaller than our Moon. Our planet should be re-classified as a binary planet, with the number of planets in our solar system restored to 9.
1. Re:Pluto is small by turing_m · 2012-02-13 10:49 · Score: 2
  
  Interestingly enough there are seven moons that are larger than Pluto. Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, the Moon, Io, Europa and Triton.
  
  --
  If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
2. Re:Pluto is small by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  Pluto is smaller than our Moon. Our planet should be re-classified as a binary planet, with the number of planets in our solar system restored to 9.
  Earth is not considered a planet anymore.
So any "Pioneer" effect? by wisebabo · 2012-02-13 09:17 · Score: 2

Has there been any indication of the slight change in velocity experienced by (one of?) the Pioneer probes? (I don't know if it was claimed to affect the Voyager probes).
I realize that they think it was due to heating causing a tiny radiation pressure but just wondering.
Also, have they decided if there is a ring system at Pluto to avoid? Any follow on plans to image any specific Kuiper objects?
You know, if they could figure out how to use the main dish for radio-astronometric purposes, it would be fantastic! Although the dish size is very small compared to the ones on the ground, if they could make this work what a fantastic baseline! 100AU! I think they've got enough power to do this (the half life of the plutoniium is 88 years). But maybe they'd need to have an atomic clock on board to pull it off, I doubt they thought of that :(
1. Re:So any "Pioneer" effect? by MichaelSmith · 2012-02-13 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  I saw an article about it recently. The velocity change was being attributed to asymetric emission of heat radiation from the spacecraft. But I don't think that was the final word.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Discovery channel junk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 09:52 · Score: 1

And in other news (on the same page) "Psychics Say Apollo 16 Astronauts Found Alien Ship", "NASA Finds Lost Spacecraft on DARK [emphasis mine] Side of the Moon".
question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 09:55 · Score: 1

New Horizon is traveling about 34,471 mph. It was launched January 19, 2006 and has been flying almost six years. I know as an object approaches the speed of light time slows down. So, how much has New Horizon actually aged with respect to us?
1. Re:question by duh+P3rf3ss3r · 2012-02-13 15:52 · Score: 2
  
  The probe started out at roughly our speed and accelerated to 34,471 mph, or about 15.4 km/s. In the absence of a complex acceleration history, the simple, first-order approximation of the probe's average speed over the last 6 years is about 7.7 km/s or about 2.6e-5 c. At that speed, the relativistic effect is about 0.99999999967015470011, meaning that the probe has aged about 62 milliseconds less than you have.
  
  --
  Give a man a match: warm him for an instant. Douse him in petrol and set him aflame: warm him for the rest of his life.
Slow by southpolesammy · 2012-02-13 11:37 · Score: 1

I just don't see what the big deal is. My Imicus can clear this distance in about 20 seconds, including the time to startup and shutdown.
Apathetic planet, I've no sympathy at all.

--
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
1. Re:Slow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe, but my Helios can do it faster (cloaked)!
2. Re:Slow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  Spaceships are shiny toys for infant civilizations.
  About 30 seconds by tesseract to the planet Uriel in the Messier 101.
WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 11:56 · Score: 0

After of a little lecture of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons, i discovered their possible failures: their instruments will be super frozen, and they will be hardful to be booten themselves for starting to collect data and to transmit them to Earth.
WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
JCPM
1. Re:WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. by MichaelSmith · 2012-02-13 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  This bit is interesting:
  
  Other possible targets are Neptune trojans. The probe's trajectory to Pluto passes near Neptune's trailing Lagrange point ("L5"), which may host hundreds of bodies in 1:1 resonance with the planet (the first one, 2008 LC18, was discovered in 2008). If any Neptune trojans are found to be close enough to be studied, observations may be planned. However, spacecraft passage near this Lagrange point comes shortly before the Pluto encounter. Depending on where the object is along the spacecraft trajectory, New Horizons may not have significant downlink bandwidth, and thus free memory, for trojan encounter data.[62]
  People talk about Pluto having been a moon of Neptune once but I wonder if it originated in the Neptune L5 point.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Stupid scientists. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-13 14:38 · Score: 0

About vacuum, stupid space scientists on Earth don't distinguish the difference between the pressure (at 0 atmospheres or 0 Pascales) and the temperature.
Vacuum is NOT EQUAL to 0 Kelvin.
JCPM: error!, errata!, bug!, asshole!, period.
Charon by Z-4195 · 2012-02-13 16:22 · Score: 1

Great, three more years before discovering the Charon Mass Relay. Asari, here we come!
Ugh! These slow-ass ballistic trajectories by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-02-13 17:40 · Score: 1

NASA needs to knock off all the PR projects they know aren't going anywhere and start dumping some cash into next generation tech for robotic probes. It's ridiculous that we're still lobbing up satellites when we've got tech like solar sails and ion drives we can do right now. Yeah, yeah, need cash but man am I tired of having to wait 5-10 years for probes to get to their targets.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
and the anwser to all your questions is.... by higuita · 2012-02-13 22:47 · Score: 1

42 !!!

--
Higuita
LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 03:17 · Score: 0

Until it gets smashed in the final million miles by a random meteor. I've heard those things are pretty common out there. LOL
I should reach in approximately 3 minutes! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-14 04:33 · Score: 0

I should reach in approximately 3 minutes!
Re:Ugh! These slow-ass ballistic trajectories by CtownNighrider · 2012-02-15 13:10 · Score: 1

Both of the ideas you threw out are like orders of magnitude slower that conventional rockets. They are just more efficient. The most efficient trajectories to the moon from earth take about a month, they use them with ion drives because it's cheaper and waiting a month is worth a few billion dollars.