Slashdot Mirror


Pioneer Anomaly Solved

First time accepted submitter gstrickler writes "After years of work recovering and analyzing old mission data and vehicle schematics, a just published analysis(Pdf) provides strong evidence for anisotropic thermal radiation being the source of the slowing of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft. The theory isn't new, but the recovered data and new analysis provide solid evidence that at least 80% of the deceleration is accounted for by anisotropic thermal radiation. Members of The Planetary Society were instrumental in recovering the data and helping fund the analysis. The lesson is, in space, it matters what direction your heat radiating surfaces point."

147 comments

  1. Pioneer by Sene · · Score: 0

    Was just wondering what the company have made an Anomaly out of...

  2. This just in by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Heat makes things go fast!

    1. Re:This just in by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      You mean slower? Cause that's what happened in this case.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:This just in by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Faster, slower - just depends on where the heat is being emitted - either towards where the craft is going (mainly the case here) or back towards where it came from.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:This just in by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well actually, if they'd anticipated this and pointed the heat dissipating surfaces to the rear, Pioneer would be going faster.
      What the article did not state was how long it would take for these forces to cease forward momentum -- or if that is an issue.

    4. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean because? 'Cause you need an apostrophe in this case.

    5. Re:This just in by Wraithlyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm thinking pointing your heat dissipating surfaces directly towards the sun might decrease the efficiency of said heat dissipation.

      (Obviously this becomes less of a concern the farther from the sun you are)

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    6. Re:This just in by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well actually, if they'd anticipated this and pointed the heat dissipating surfaces to the rear, Pioneer would be going faster.

      I'm not sure they'd have done anything... the effect is so small, completely irrelevant for the main part of the missions, and they might have other reasons for orienting the craft a certain way -- maybe to maximize cooling. As a rule the side that emits the most photons would also be absorbing the most from the sun. I realize the situation could be more complicated than this; if it was simple the result would have been calculated a long time ago.

      What I'm wondering is how many people will remove this from their "these handful of unexplained results in not fully understood circumstances mean all of physics are wrong (and my pet theory is right)" lists?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:This just in by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could one compromise and put the radiators perpendicular to the direction of the sun (and travel?) eg, not on the front or back, but on the sides? Provided you did so equally, any force resulting in their radiation should cancel itself out.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [...]and they might have other reasons for orienting the craft a certain way -- maybe to maximize cooling.

      One end of the spacecraft is a big-ass radio dish, and the orientation is determined by pointing that dish at the Earth so that we can communicate with it.

    9. Re:This just in by v1 · · Score: 1

      The lesson is, in space, it matters what direction your heat radiating surfaces point

      Am I arrogant for saying "wasn't this obvious?" Isn't that newton's first law at work? This looks like a job for Captain Obvious.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    10. Re:This just in by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      That's what I was going to say at first but I wanted to lead into the cooling thing -- anticipating the follow-on that they craft could have been designed differently to both radiate heat and radio in the same direction. Somehow.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:This just in by jrumney · · Score: 1

      You mean slower? Cause that's what happened in this case.

      If it keeps it up, eventually it will be going fast in the other direction.

    12. Re:This just in by jrumney · · Score: 2

      What the article did not state was how long it would take for these forces to cease forward momentum -- or if that is an issue.

      I'm more worried about how long it will take before it plunges back to Earth. But on a more serious note, I think the energy source that is causing the heat will run out before either of those events happen, and if not, hopefully Earth will be in a different place in its orbit than it was when Pioneer was launched when it flies past on its way back.

    13. Re:This just in by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Even better. The radio dish provides shade from the sun's rays for the cooling surface behind.

    14. Re:This just in by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Am I arrogant for saying "wasn't this obvious?"

      Not really as long as you realize that some things seem obvious once you know they're true... Or as long as you just mean "obvious possibility".

      It's not like they didn't know that if there was a favored direction for the emission of radiation that this would affect the velocity of an object. The concept of a photon drive existed for decades before the Voyagers were launched. It's just that it was though that whatever net force there was would be essentially zero. Assume a uniform, spherical Voyager craft...

      This has been a long-standing possible, and then probable, explanation for the anomaly. Seems to have taken quite a bit of effort to figure out what the actual value of the force would be with sufficient precision. I remember what seems like a long time ago an article posted to /. about someone calculating the effect of heat radiation using Phong shading, the 3D graphics technique, as an approximation and got pretty good agreement.

      Going all the way to a complete finite element analysis, using multiple methods to come up with the coefficients for the model, and getting a result that leaves only a noise-level signal is pretty impressive. And not what I'd call obvious.

      So despite maybe feeling like it, it's not exactly a case of research by the Maximegalon Institute of Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Surprisingly Obvious.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You mean slower? Cause that's what happened in this case.

      That depends on your choice of reference.

    16. Re:This just in by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Informative

      Faster, slower - just depends on where the heat is being emitted - either towards where the craft is going (mainly the case here) or back towards where it came from.

      In space, speed is a meaningless attribute without a point of reference. As well, space is non-euclidean in nature -- you can travel in a straight line and wind up in the same place you started. It's better to speak in terms of vectors and delta...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    17. Re:This just in by Iniamyen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "speed" of the Pioneer craft is usually referenced to the Sun and it's orbit

    18. Re:This just in by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      and acts as a solar sail...

    19. Re:This just in by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      What about pointing them sideways, backwards in relation to your orbital movement direction? The probes don't fly straight away from the Sun, that would waste enormous amounts of fuel due to actively fighting the gravity. Instead, they move in an increasingly wide orbit, by increasing orbital speed they make the orbit longer.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    20. Re:This just in by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wouldn't worry about that seeing as its velocity is enough to escape our solar system altogether. It's more likely to get closer to Aldebaran, a star currently 68 light years away, than our own Sun... given 2 million years or so that is.

    21. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Motion is relative to something else whether in space or on Earth.

    22. Re:This just in by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      And, I suppose if we want to talk to the craft, we're kind of screwed because they have to be pointing the antenna toward us, and thus will continue to slow throughout the remainder of the mission.

    23. Re:This just in by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      and acts as a solar sail...

      Apparently not as effective a propulsion source as the isotropic heat radiation.

    24. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, what? Perhaps you're confusing the Pioneer missions with ion-propulsion missions like Dawn, where an ever-widening "orbit" (essentially a spiral, with elliptical segments wherever it's not thrusting) is used. The Pioneer missions, like almost all interplanetary-space missions to date, is propelled with short burns of chemical rockets.

      For those leaving the solar system, this means a hyperbolic trajectory, which indeed asymptotically approaches a linear path nearly straight away from the sun -- in the case of Pioneer 10, for example, the asymptote passes about 7 AU from the sun. Given that it's presently over 10x that far from the sun, it's pretty damn near straight away.

    25. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could one compromise and put the radiators perpendicular to the direction of the sun (and travel?) eg, not on the front or back, but on the sides? Provided you did so equally, any force resulting in their radiation should cancel itself out.

      That would negate the heat's effect on speed and trajectory. But have you considered the compressive effects of these forces? Eventually the satellite would be compressed into a miniature black hole. Now consider this: you're an advanced alien species whose home system was just traversed and damaged by a miniature black hole. You capture and inspect it (they ARE advanced), determining it's NOT natural and even has documented its point of origin (obviously in an attempt at intimidation). So this now pissed off alien race gathers up their space navy, comes to Earth and commences reading Vogon poetry at humanity.

      Do you REALLY want to take that chance, hmmmmm?

    26. Re:This just in by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Correct, and yet, this loss of speed has cost it about 250k mi in it's first 34 years. On a percentage basis, it's irrelevant, but over time it adds up. Here's an older article on the anomaly

      The discrepancy caused by the anomaly amounts to about 248,500 miles (400,000 kilometers), or roughly the distance between Earth and the Moon. That's how much farther the probes should have traveled in their 34 years, if our understanding of gravity is correct. ...

      The drift showed that the Pioneers were being accelerated toward the Sun (or, rather, decelerated in their movement away from the Sun) by a tiny but inexplicable amount. The level of drift is equal to a gravitational effect 10 billion times weaker than the pull of Earth.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    27. Re:This just in by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyway, imagine GP's idea with whatever vector of travel you've got, just pointing the heat radiation backwards so as not to impede your progress.

      There are degrees, if you will, of backward pointing, from perpendicular and not affecting the travel vector, to nearly directly back and maximizing forward thrust, to directly back and catching maximal solar radiation.

    28. Re:This just in by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Heliocentrism is just as wrong as Earth Centrism. There is no "center" all things are relative. The concept of "speed" is flawed.

      Consider the concept of two ships, heading in opposite directions each traveling at the "speed" of light (C), how fast are they going relative to each other? The flaw comes not from the "speed" but from the reference point at which one measures "speed"; you change the perspective you change the equation, and that changes everything.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    29. Re:This just in by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What I'm wondering is how many people will remove this from their "these handful of unexplained results in not fully understood circumstances mean all of physics are wrong (and my pet theory is right)" lists?

      None. They'll just claim it's a worldwide conspiracy of physicists publishing only articles conforming to the official story to keep funding. And if that fails they'll ask for unfiltered instrument readings: if those aren't provided then the scientists are hiding something, and if they, the inevitable presence of noise proves or disproves whatever a person wants (dis)proven when subjected to (in)appropriate analysis methods.

      Ask global warming "sceptics" for details.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:This just in by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Ain't it the truth. :(

      Though on the other hand it's been nearly a decade since I've heard the solar neutrino problem brought up as an obvious reason why everything mainstream physics thinks is wrong and [kooky theory] is totally obvious if you aren't a member of the Scientific Clergy.

      I think a lot of them will just move on using whatever other "anomalies" they please and ignore the times where they said "this means I'm right!" and they turn out to be wrong. Classic selection bias.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    31. Re:This just in by smpoole7 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that the source of heat will long since have gone cold before it even gets 1 light year from Earth.

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    32. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it's orbit

      "its".

  3. Slowing? by countach · · Score: 1

    Err... is it the slowing of the craft, or the accelerating? Because the analysis refers to the "acceleration" of the spacecraft.

    1. Re:Slowing? by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Acceleration can be positive or negative.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Slowing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's now going so fast that time seems to have slowed down.

    3. Re:Slowing? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Informative

      its accelerating backwards... ie, it's effectively got its "engine" (ie the heat radiating surface) pointing in the direction its heading, and this is slowing it down. I guess its still got a lot of velocity, but this is being reduced by the lack of anything pushing it in the right direction.

      In other words, in space, your hot arse is a form of propulsion!

    4. Re:Slowing? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Usually my hot arse propels people away from ME~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Slowing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't moving at any velocity whatsoever relative to a stationary body result in time slowing down for the moving object?

    6. Re:Slowing? by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      I believe this was the cornerstone of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    7. Re:Slowing? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Which is stationary and which is moving? It's all relative. Both think their own clocks are right and the other one is slow.

    8. Re:Slowing? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

      Your ass propels you with as much force as it propels others.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Slowing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be amazed how many people end up inside of my hot arse.

    10. Re:Slowing? by tibit · · Score: 1

      That's some lame ass commie country, in my commie country we knew laws of dynamics in grade 8 at the latest ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    11. Re:Slowing? by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Your ass propels you with as much force as it propels others.

      But that's only force, and we all know F==m*a. So his ass must propel his mass, while the gas from his ass must propel the mass of the masses behind his ass.

    12. Re:Slowing? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Especially in a small enclosed space...

    13. Re:Slowing? by Sinn3d · · Score: 1

      Depends from what direction you are looking at it...

    14. Re:Slowing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So his ass must propel his mass, while the gas from his ass must propel the mass of the masses behind his ass.

      You mean to say if Mick Jagger were to explain it, he'd say "It's a ass gas mass"?

    15. Re:Slowing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true. While both experience the effects of relativity. The one that experienced acceleration, will have the "slow" clock. Distance and the definition of "simultaneous" will take up the slack and make sure causality still works.

    16. Re:Slowing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually my hot arse propels people away from ME~

      No I'd say it's more due to your condescending and grumpy posting style.

    17. Re:Slowing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pippa Middleton last year performed the same experiment and found the opposite to be true.

  4. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's that, I guess.

    Y'all wanna do somethin?

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hookers and Blow?

    2. Re:Well by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      I call player one!

    3. Re:Well by rikkitikki · · Score: 1

      In fact, forget the Blow...
      -Bender

    4. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, screw the whole thing.

  5. Oops. More specifically... by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry to self-correct - acceleration is a vector, it has both magnitude and direction. By summing all of the acceleration vectors, you get a resultant which determines the rate of change of your velocity.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to self-correct - acceleration is a vector, it has both magnitude and direction. By summing all of the acceleration vectors, you get a resultant which determines the rate of change of your velocity.

      technically, I also took high-school physics

    2. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only the one acceleration vector, which is the result of all the FORCE vectors which are acting on the object.

    3. Re:Oops. More specifically... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I thought force vectors WERE acceleration vectors?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A force vector is a force vector. If you're Newtonian,

      F = ma

      So to figure out the acceleration vector, you sum all of the force vectors and divide by the object's mass.

    5. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's an acceleration vector for every force vector and a net acceleration and a net force vector. They're mathematically equivalent. You could also look at it as a sum of momentum delta vectors. How is the electromagnetic force conveyed? By a photon exchanging momentum. So is force something that only exists as an effect of adding up all the changes in momentum, or vice versa? Neither, both are correct viewpoints. Have a nice day.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Technically the Newtonian way of putting it would be F = dp/dt.

    7. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Acceleration is a property of the mass being acted upon by many forces. The acceleration of that mass cannot happen in multiple directions (unless the mass is not a rigid body). Thus there is only one acceleration vector for any one rigid mass. While you may mathematically view it as many accelerations, it isn't physically correct at all. Forces cannot be determined by "adding up" all the changes in momentum, as there is only one directional change in momentum at any given time. The forces cannot be inferred by the acceleration, thus disproving your point. As I am an AC, however, I will be ignored.

    8. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      The forces cannot be inferred by the acceleration, thus disproving your point.

      You can't infer the forces from the net acceleration, you can't infer the accelerations from the net force, what is your point? Physically, the "force" keeping you from falling through your chair is being transmitted via discreet transfers of momentum and the 'force' field is just a consequence. But you can still talk about forces. You're not wrong about that, you're just wrong that it's wrong to talk about accelerations or changes in momentum adding to produce a net force. F = dp/dt. It's not a one-way thing. It's an equivalence.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Oops. More specifically... by ThreeKelvin · · Score: 1

      It's rather easy to infer the acceleration from the resulting force (and mass). But why do you keep talking about "accelerations" (plural)? A ridgid body can only have one acceleration. (As the grandparent previously correctly stated.)

    10. Re:Oops. More specifically... by FrootLoops · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your post and its high moderation made me feel overeducated, so I wrote a poem in archaic style to reinforce the feeling.

            Today I chanced to Look Down from my Ivory Tower;
                  the Vision horrified me.
            I saw the Peasants Clamoring blindly
                  for the Simplest Certain Knowledge
                  of the Calculus and of Physicks.
            I saw the Depth of Divide betwixt us thus:
                  One Man's Hidden Knowledge is Offal to th' Other.

      P.S. To be fair, the stuff you mentioned is somewhere around the programming equivalent level of "objects can have properties".
      P.P.S. Also, note the pun on "offal"/"awful" in the last line. It's the only good line of the poem. It's true in at least 4 ways.
      P.P.P.S. Sorry for such a weird post. Maybe it'll amuse someone.

    11. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the only good line, but it is inapt in all 4 ways.

    12. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      It's rather easy to infer the acceleration from the resulting force (and mass).

      And rather easy to infer the net force from the net acceleration (and mass), which is how you actually measure force.

      But why do you keep talking about "accelerations" (plural)? A ridgid body can only have one acceleration. (As the grandparent previously correctly stated.)

      It can only have one net acceleration and also only one net force. Yet you can break that acceleration up into components which add up to the net acceleration, and those are the accelerations, plural.

      It's like you think F=ma only applies to the net force and not to individual forces acting on a body. But that's wrong. A force is the acceleration of a mass. If you have multiple force components, then you have multiple acceleration components.

      If I have Ftot = F1 + F2, then I can say that atot = Ftot/m, or I can say that a1 = F1/m and a2 = F2/m and atot = a1 + a2.

      a1 and a2 are accelerations the body experiences. Like forces, they add as vectors to get a net result. It's as valid as talking about the forces adding. If you think there's no component acceleration, then that's equivalent to saying that there's no component force, only a net force. Well, in a sense you could say that a rigid body can only experience one net force. But to then go "what do you mean forces, plural?" would be to miss the broader perspective.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Oops. More specifically... by ThreeKelvin · · Score: 1

      This is high school physics, more specifically Newton's laws of motion. It's not as if this is really that hard to understand:

      First Law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. Second Law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma. Thrid Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

      Nowhere in Newton's laws of motion do I find any mention of "net acceleration" or "accelerations" (plural), but let's for a moment assume you're right.

      Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity, dv/dt, so, each of these "accelerations" will result in "velocities" (again plural), and using the definition for velocity, i.e., rate of change of position, or dp/dt, we get multiple positions. So, a direct consequence of your "accelerations" is "positions" (plural!), all for the same mass! I've never observed anything like that, nor have I ever heard of anybody observing it. If you have any evidence of this, I'd very much like to see it.

      Now, it can be advantageous to calculate the acceleration of a body by summing the individual forces divided by the mass of the body. But that's all it is. A computational trick. There is no such thing as "accelerations".

    14. Re:Oops. More specifically... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This is high school physics, more specifically Newton's laws of motion. It's not as if this is really that hard to understand:

      Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity, dv/dt, so, each of these "accelerations" will result in "velocities" (again plural), and using the definition for velocity, i.e., rate of change of position, or dp/dt, we get multiple positions. So, a direct consequence of your "accelerations" is "positions" (plural!), all for the same mass! I've never observed anything like that, nor have I ever heard of anybody observing it. If you have any evidence of this, I'd very much like to see it.

      Heh, well, you certainly have a high-school physics understanding. Such as not realizing that you have observed this in every experiment you've ever conducted; or conversely that if your conception was correct that every 'acceleration' you've ever claimed to measure was wrong and you should have failed high school physics. After all, how often when calculating the force on an object did you add in the force of gravity from the sun, or the center of the galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, etc. Never I'd wager. You're always selecting a sub-set of forces and calculating the acceleration due to them, completely ignoring your own incorrect declaration that this is invalid!

      You see, things can have multiple accelerations, velocities, and positions. Say you're on a train moving at a constant velocity. You then begin riding your unicycle down the aisle at a constant velocity. Relative to the train you have one velocity and position, and relative to the tracks you have another velocity and position, and of course relative to the sun you have yet a third. You could view your track-relative velocity as simply your velocity, or you could view it as the sum of your velocity relative to the reference frame of the train and the velocity of the train reference frame to the tracks. Or your velocity is simply that relative to the train, and the tracks too have a velocity relative to the train. According to the Galilean principle of relativity, these are all, really, physically equivalent ways of viewing it and there isn't one answer that is "true" and the others false. Measuring the velocity of your unicycle from the train, or from the track, gives different answers yet both are correct.

      Similarly, relative to something that is accelerating towards the center of the earth at 9.8m/s^2, you are being accelerated upward at 9.8m/s^2 by your chair. The general principle of relativity is trickier to formulate in all cases, yet still applies.

      Because you can always view the situation from a perfectly equal viewpoint where only a subset -- or exactly one -- force or velocity vector applies, you can always refer to each component of the net acceleration as the sum of accelerations of each of the component reference frames.

      And what's more, you take advantage of this fact yourself all the time, and yet were unaware that you were doing it.

      Hopefully now you'll see it next time you think your car's acceleration due to its engine is something meaningful despite being an insignificant rounding error on its acceleration towards the sun.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:Oops. More specifically... by ThreeKelvin · · Score: 1

      While what you say about Galilean invariance is true, it has no implication on the current discussion. For each inertial frame you only have one acceleration per ridgid body.

      Your words were:

      If I have Ftot = F1 + F2, then I can say that atot = Ftot/m, or I can say that a1 = F1/m and a2 = F2/m and atot = a1 + a2.

      a1 and a2 are accelerations the body experiences. Like forces, they add as vectors to get a net result. It's as valid as talking about the forces adding. If you think there's no component acceleration, then that's equivalent to saying that there's no component force, only a net force. Well, in a sense you could say that a rigid body can only experience one net force. But to then go "what do you mean forces, plural?" would be to miss the broader perspective.

      Clearly you were talking about the "accelerations" in one inertial frame, not in multiple. So sorry, but you can't weasel yourself out of this discussion by refering to Galilean invariance.

      Now, let's use the above on your example: Me sitting on a chair. According to you there is an acceleration from the pull of gravity, a1(t) = -9.8 m/s^2, and an acceleration from my chair, a2(t) = 9.8 m/s^2, and we can sum these to get the "resulting acceleration": 0 m/s^2. So far so good. What you say seems to work.

      But, since I have two "accelerations" a direct consequence is that I will have two distinct "positions". A position at p1(t) = -1/2*9.8 m/s^*t^2 and a position at p2(t) = 1/2*9.8 m/s^*t^2. (In the same inertial frame!) At the moment I am still sitting on my chair. My position is neither above my chair nor below it, so what you claim is still wrong.

  6. but it always means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you are going faster than before, eh?

    1. Re:but it always means... by sribe · · Score: 1

      No.

    2. Re:but it always means... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Your statement is relatively wrong.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  7. Inadvertant proof of concept? by Banichi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this discovery have a relationship (however distant or inefficient) to Nuclear Lightbulb or Nuclear Photonic propulsion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb

  8. voyager twitter feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Voyager probes are getting closer to Earth! They have twitter feeds, and report the light-travel time to the Earth. If you look at the history of their tweets, you'll see they have been getting closer to Earth recently.

  9. What now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that's been solved. What now?

    1. Re:What now? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      make up conspiracy theories?

  10. Re:Second rate story by gstrickler · · Score: 1

    "First time accepted submitter gstrickler" != "at least once rejected submitter gstrickler".

    FTFY

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  11. Can they fix the problem? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    So now they know why its slowing down, can they fix the problem?

    I think they should reconfigure the main deflector to emit a tachyon pulse. That usually works.

    1. Re:Can they fix the problem? by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      Shoot it with a laser from over here, heat up the other side too.

    2. Re:Can they fix the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better reverse the polarity first.

    3. Re:Can they fix the problem? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      "The problem", is the difference between flying out if the solar system forever, and flying out of the solar system forever at a very slightly slower speed ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  12. Just in space? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    The lesson is, in space, it matters what direction your heat radiating surfaces point.

    It matters in bed too.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Just in space? by qu33ksilver · · Score: 1

      You don't say !! .. :o

  13. Re:Second rate story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or the Repugs bringing back Romney.

  14. This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009 by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Informative

    A portuguese aeronautics engineering student from Instituto Superior Técnico already figured this out way back in 2009 in his masters thesis, available here.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    1. Re:This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      and now they have confirmed it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009 by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      So, how does his evidence and analysis stack up against the current one? (Especially in light of how little data was available until recently.)

      I.E. lots of people have theorized the effect, some have made (relatively crude) calculations supporting this as a cause - but this is the first using the whole dataset.

    3. Re:This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009 by careysub · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not exactly.

      Numerous investigators have been strengthening the case for thermal radiation as the cause for nearly a decade. The work of Bertolami, Francisco, et al in Portugal in 2008-2009 accounted for 67% of the acceleration, a then-new high point in this reckoning. This was a notable result, but they didn't "figure it out" or "solve" it, they strengthened the case that was by then widely believed to be correct. For an account of the whole story up through 2010 see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.3686v2.pdf .

      The new study raises the level of confirmation to 80%, using data that they newly recovered, and further shows that the remaining 20% is not statistically significant. It is this study that deserves to be regarded as having "solved" the problem: accounting essentially for the full anomalous acceleration, and leaving no residual anomaly.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    4. Re:This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009 by Jorgensen · · Score: 1

      Yep. These guys are coming to the same conclusion. Too bad that the title in slashdot claims it to be "solved" - the new paper does not claim to have it solved - merely to have reached the same conclusion with (what appears to be) a higher confidence level.

      Don't be misled by the title in Slashdot... :-)

    5. Re:This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009 by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      A portuguese aeronautics engineering student from Instituto Superior Técnico already figured this out way back in 2009 in his masters thesis, available here.

      Ah, that was the Phong shading one! Only in 2009? Seemed like longer ago...

      At the time people were saying "Oh, why Phong shading? What's so perfect about that?" and, well, the answer is it isn't, it's an approximation. Not a bad one, either, but still. So's the finite element analysis these folk did. Just a much better one.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009 by bdabautcb · · Score: 0

      It's not real science if it comes from Instituto Superior Taquito, although they do make some great snacks.

      --
      Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
    7. Re:This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the new paper does not claim to have it solved - merely to have reached the same conclusion with (what appears to be) a higher confidence level.

      It's the first time the confidence level is high enough to account for the entire anomaly (given assumed noise in the data). That's where the "solved" comes from, which I think is fair.

  15. next questions... by countach · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will this effect be powerful enough to ever cause it to stop, turn around and come home? And when it does so, how much strife will it cause to Spock and Kirk?

    1. Re:next questions... by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      In the orginal article about it in the Planetary Report (from the Planetary Society) the answer was yes! The spacecraft with their little p$rno plaques meant for salacious alien entertainment will loop back to our solar system... I don't know if that conclusion is still operative.

  16. Mass?? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    But if heat radiation does not have mass then why should it effect it?
    Does it have mass?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Mass?? by countach · · Score: 1

      Alpha and Beta radiation has mass. They are particles.

    2. Re:Mass?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't heat radiated in the form of infra-red?

      This would seem to work by the same idea as a solar sail

    3. Re:Mass?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photons don't have mass, but they have momentum, which is what was being conserved by the deceleration.

    4. Re:Mass?? by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      It has momentum. C'mon, this is high school physics.

    5. Re:Mass?? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Does it have mass?

      In a sense yes. Radiation and all other forms of energy have relativistic mass, as in the m in E=mc^2, as in things that have more energy (moving objects, high-energy states of atoms and molecules, systems in general) have more mass as it applies to inertia and gravity.

      Heat radiation as in (mostly infrared) photons don't have rest mass. That's the m0 in E = root(pc^2 + m0^2*c^4). So they don't have mass in the sense of matter as you usually think of it. But it turns out the way you usually think of mass is not equivalent to matter. Even though the usual way you think about it is that they are.

      Hope that clears things up. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Mass?? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I thought that E=mc^2 meant that E could me converted to M not that all it was both energy and mass at the same time.
      And that massless photons when shot in one direction actually push back in the other.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:Mass?? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought that E=mc^2 meant that E could me converted to M not that all it was both energy and mass at the same time.

      So did I! But it's not a conversion, it's an equivalence! Energy and mass -- relativistic mass, the quantity that informs our notions of gravity, weight, and inertia -- are really, always, the same thing just in different units. If there's more energy in a system, then it weighs more on a scale. Water weighs less than two hydrogen and one oxygen because it's at a lower energy state. This of course includes the energy that is in the form of rest mass.

      Rest mass is a form of energy. It can be converted into other forms of energy at a rate equal to m0*c^2. Energy and relativistic mass are always related by the equation E=mc^2.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Mass?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even leaving aside relativity, photons would still have momentum. It cannot be otherwise. Photons originate from charged particles. Photons carry energy (that much should be obvious, as they are capable of heating things up). Thus if a charged particle emits a photon, the energy of that photon must come from somewhere. The only place it can come from is the kinetic energy of the charged particle which is emitting the photon. Well, if the kinetic energy of the particle changes, then its momentum must change as well. Momentum is conserved. Ergo, the difference in momentum must be in the photon itself.

    9. Re:Mass?? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You thought wrong.

      When you heat something up it gets heavier.

    10. Re:Mass?? by Internal+Modem · · Score: 1

      That's why hot air balloons work, after all...

    11. Re:Mass?? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Neither of which are heat.

    12. Re:Mass?? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Radiative heat is actually just photons.

      Photons have mass and carry momentum, but don't have rest mass.

    13. Re:Mass?? by SexyHamster · · Score: 1

      That's why hot air balloons work, after all...

      That's more of an increase in volume causing an increase in displacement. Along the same lines: just because a battleship floats on water doesn't mean it's particularly light.

    14. Re:Mass?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just dense!

    15. Re:Mass?? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Yes, you thought that through well didn't you?

      Air has a density of 1.204kg/m^3 at 20C, so a baloon with 3000m^3 of air has 3612kg of air. When we heat that air to 120C the density drops to 0.898kg/m^3 so 2694kg.

      Now lets pretend the mass increase from heating magically applies to all the original air - 3612kg of it. Our temperature change is 100C == 100K. Heat capacity of air ranges from 1.005 to 1.013 over our temperature range. Since we're going for the overestimate lets say it's 1.013.

      1.013 kJ/kg*K * 3612 kg * 100 K = 365,895 kJ

      E=mc^2
      365,895,000 = m * 299,792,458^2
      m = 365,895,000 / 299,792,458^2
      m = 0.000000004kg

      So a 0.000000004kg mass increase and a 2694kg mass decrease and you think the increase is going matter?

      And yes I'm probably off by a few orders of magnitude on a unit conversion or something somewhere - but you know what - it doesn't change the result. The crease in the baloon material making our volume measurement be off by some tiny amount makes a bigger difference.

    16. Re:Mass?? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      A 3612kg-2694kg = 918kg mass decrease.

      I knew I'd screw something up. Still:

      0.000000004kg versus 918kg - which one will matter most?

    17. Re:Mass?? by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      It gets even more obvious if you use Plank units, where c = 1. Then, this equation becomes just E = m.

      If the term "equivalence" bothers you, just think of it as a unit conversion.

  17. Old News by hemo_jr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or rather a confirmation of some preliminary work done years agor (2008) http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001400/

    1. Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn those scientists and their obsessive need to provide further proof based on a larger set of observations!

      Captcha: odorous - indeed!

    2. Re:Old News by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point of this new article, it confirms the theory by accounting reducing the variance to below the "noise" level. Scientifically and statistically speaking, it's a solid confirmation.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  18. Chalk up another win for the known laws of physics by ganv · · Score: 1

    It is very nice to see this analysis come to a clear conclusion. There are many reasons for physicists and those who feel constrained by the laws of physics to wish for violations of known laws that have significant effects in our corner of the galaxy. But time after time mundane explanations based on known laws turn out to be right. At some point more people are going to catch that we are not going to continuously overturn accepted science. Eventually the philosophers and sociologists of science might catch on too. But maybe that is wishful thinking.

  19. Solved means %100 certainty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the reason accounting for %20 of the unknown deceleration is still a mystery? If so drop the term "solved".

    1. Re:Solved means %100 certainty by careysub · · Score: 3, Insightful

      100% certainty exists only in a fictional version of science.

      They showed that the residual 20% is not statistically significant. This is a showing that there is no additional anomaly to be accounted for. This is what is called "solving a problem" in real science.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  20. Prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a Crookes radiometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer) as a kid, which demonstrated this very thing.

    1. Re:Prior art? by careysub · · Score: 2

      Nah. Crookes radiometer is not due to thermal radiation pressure in a vacuum. It is a ballistic effect of air molecules in a very thin atmosphere bouncing off a hot surface with more velocity than they had when the collided with.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:Prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it didn't.

  21. Re:Stress energy tensor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "goblygook" "gyberish"

    Umm, speaking of which...

  22. And the other 20%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dark Matter. It's always Dark Matter. Except when it's Cosmic Strings. Or Quantum Boogaloos. Or Electron Roulette.

    But at least it's not the Phlogiston.

  23. It depends... by Grog6 · · Score: 2

    It depends on the particular machine race the spacecraft runs into; If it's Beserkers, they aren't going to care about the cute bald chick. :)

    The Borg on the other hand; If they look like 7of9, they can assimilate me anytime.

    .

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:It depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful. She uses a prosthesis to assimilate...

  24. interesting for ion engines by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I understand ion thrusters correctly (that's a big if), a big tank of neutral atoms are bombarded by electrons to knock other electrons out of orbit around those atoms, creating positive particles, which are electrostatically accelerated out a big metal screen thing and the motion of them going the opposite way makes your spaceship go the correct way.
    I believe thermal radiation in this article's context means heat being turned into infrared light, that means photons going the opposite direction can have a noticeable impact on an existing spaceship in a real world text over a relatively short distance in space. I would think a gigantic atom nucleus has thousands of times more mass than a photon so ion thrusters would be pretty effective over time. Now of course the opposite "kick back" reaction is proportionate to the amount of energy you're putting into the ions and their speed is ohhhhh just a hair slower than a photon (lol) but at least we can say the theory should work in real space based on this experience.

    1. Re:interesting for ion engines by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Yea, I was wondering about this as well. What kind of specific impulse this would represent?

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    2. Re:interesting for ion engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now of course the opposite "kick back" reaction is proportionate to the amount of energy you're putting into the ions

      Do pay attention in physics. Energy hasn't a blessed thing to do with it, it's momentum that matters.

      and their speed is ohhhhh just a hair slower than a photon (lol) but at least we can say the theory should work in real space based on this experience.

      Say what theory "should work"? We already know ion thrusters work in space (because we've got fucking spacecraft flying around the solar system with them!), and there's never been any doubt photonic propulsion would work, either, it's just that current "flashlight" tech has damned low thrust and poor efficiency.

  25. But I thought it was You-Know-Who? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    This means it wasn't Voldemort making a Horcrux out of the Pioneer Plaque!

    1. Re:But I thought it was You-Know-Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be reassured that at least one person out here gets the reference.

      For everybody else, educate yourselves: hpmor.com

  26. As Always On /. by Mana+Mana · · Score: 0

    A> Solved

    B> evidence for

    brash pronouncements of a _solution_ (A) sound a lot like a hard MAYBE (B). *sigh*

  27. Re:Second rate story by smellotron · · Score: 1

    (strcmp("First time accepted submitter gstrickler", "at least once rejected submitter gstrickler") != 0)

    FTFY

  28. Re:Stress energy tensor by tibit · · Score: 1

    Isnt it convinent shit can have no "mass" but still have "momentum".

    No rest mass, but they do have relativistic mass, m_r = h*f/c^2, where h is Planck's constant, f is photon's frequency, and c is speed of light. And they are affected by gravity, a photon emitted from a flashlight held horizontal will fall on Earth a bit. That's why gravitational lensing works.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  29. Can this explain the Universe acceleration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All gases expand if they are released in a lower pressure environment. I wander what happens when you release a gas under pressure at high temperature in the space outside the solar system. I would guess that it accelerates as it cools down. What about the matter released by the Big Bang. Do we really need dark matter?

  30. A dedicated spacecraft should be launched by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    A spacecraft dedicated to disproving this anomally should be slingshotted out of the solar system to test this once and for all and address the reamining 20%. It could be a cheap spin-stabilized craft with a pinger and a transmitter and carefully studied thermal characteristics.

  31. Pioneer 's coef of drag... by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    It's sort of like we're measuring a solar sail effect to the point that there is such thing as a Cd value in space.

  32. its all a conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the true cause was aliens on a nearby planet

  33. Again? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Oh, I suppose I'd better RTF-preprint now. Just for a change.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"