Slashdot Mirror


New Theory About the Source of Pioneer Space Probe Deceleration

First time accepted submitter deathcow writes "After forty years, a fresh perspective on old Pioneer data leads to new conclusions as to why the Pioneer probes are decelerating. Many theories to the slowing probes have persisted over the years — was it gravity? some type of unforeseen radiation? dark matter? Thanks to the data backup preservation efforts of a NASA Ames Research engineer, mountains of old telemetry data were still available for studying this curious anomaly."

31 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Article too long, let me save you some time by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's thermal recall force from heat generated by components on Pioneer.

    The article is way too long but here's the essential paragraph:

    "we estimated the magnitude of the thermal recoil force at different times over the course of the Pioneer missions. After matching the model to the Pioneers’ temperature and electrical readings, we found that the spacecraft did experience a sizable thermal recoil force, corresponding to an excess of about 60 W even after 20 years in deep space. The magnitude of the force was still tiny by Earth standards—about the same as the backward push your car experiences in reaction to the photons spit out by its high-beam headlights. The team found that a good half of the force came from heat from the RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators), which bounced off the back of the spacecraft antenna. The other half came from electrical heat from circuitry in the heart of the spacecraft"

    There, you may resume.

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
    1. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The most impressive thing is that we can actually measure this minute effect to such an accuracy that we know there is something unexpected going on. And then subsequently accurately explain this inaccuracy.

    2. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

      The article is way too long.

      No kidding...and written like one of those awful Dan Brown novels... ("we'll tell you in the next paragraph, honest!")

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article is about the importance of retaining your original scientific data, rather than saying "we've analyzed it and now we're done with it forever."

    4. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      about the same as the backward push your car experiences in reaction to the photons spit out by its high-beam headlights.

      Damn, I'm gonna start driving without my headlights on to get better gas mileage!

    5. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Keep them on and drive backwards.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by bostonsysadmin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seriously... it is just so laughably insane. If you were to tell someone from even just the 1940s that we would have an object doing this and that we could measure its progress to an incredible degree of precision, they would laugh at you and think that you were insane. Seriously... how is there still religion in this world? JFC... wake up already.

    7. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... wasn't this already determined, around a year ago?

      Well not positively determined, the new analysis of the data does a better job of confirming it. So yes, as usual the summary is horribly wrong- it's a better proof of an existing theory, not a new theory.

    8. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by klapaucjusz · · Score: 3, Informative

      The most impressive thing is that we can actually measure this minute effect

      According to Wikipedia, it's 8.74×10^10 m/s^2. If you integrate that over fourty years, that's 17000 km, or 55 ms light-speed delay, which should not be too difficult to detect.

      --jch

    9. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by skids · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually it turns out we have a very long memory. We remembered gigabytes of data for several decades, as well as enough data about a machine we built decades ago to model it in excruciating detail, then used it to refine the calculations for a possible explanation for a miniscule discrepency in the speed of a relatively tiny object billions of miles away. I'd say that's pretty incredible.

      Meanwhile most people can't figure out how to remember a secure password. How's that for contrast?

    10. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is 55 ms on some 16 hours, seven orders of magnitude less. And it's not measured by round trip, but by Doppler effect.

      Then the calculations to where it is expected to be are so mighty accurate that we can actually know that this is an anomaly, and not within error. To be able to calculate where the craft should be, you must know very accurately the gravitational constant, the masses of the Sun and the respective planets, effects of the solar wind pushing the craft out (actually that's what they were trying to measure as well), the speed of the Earth relative to Voyager, and probably some relativistic effects. Probably I missed some variables that have to be taken into account here. That overall accuracy is simply mind boggling as there are so many variables involved that with the slightest error in some of them, you end up with a much larger error in the final result.

    11. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by steelyeyedmissileman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably I missed some variables that have to be taken into account here.

      You forgot the thermal radiation asymmetry. Don't worry; you're in good company.

    12. Re:Article too long, let me save you some time by chrismcb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article was about HOW they discovered and verified the theory. VERY interesting read.

  2. I hate IEEE Spectrum by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Informative

    I hate Spectrum. Not because they have bad articles, but because they never have anything that I haven't already been reading about for the past months, or even years.

    Hint to editors. If you ever get a submission with a link to Spectrum, chances are very high that Slashdot has covered it before.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    1. Re:I hate IEEE Spectrum by tloh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I too, stopped reading Spectrum a few years ago when real science article dropped to a trickle. However, this particular article is not bad. Not only was it authored by one of the original problem solvers, it was very readable despite the length. I was intrigued particularly by their description of how they modeled the craft. It struck me as they described having to contend with blueprints rather than CAD files and consulting retired engineers from the original mission, that they appeared to have forgotten there is a very nice physical model of the craft hanging from the ceiling of the Smithsonian:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_H

      I'm sure given the stakes involved (the real likely hood of discovering exotic physics) they wouldn't have minded taking the "replica" down for examination.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    2. Re:I hate IEEE Spectrum by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 5, Funny

      And if you're reading it on Slashdot, chances are that Slashdot has also covered it before.

    3. Re:I hate IEEE Spectrum by gagol · · Score: 5, Informative

      I suggest to anyone unhappy about repeat articles to help with moderation of submitted articles in "Recent".

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  3. Not so new by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not so new of a theory, and already discussed here at Slashdot:

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/26/0135234/heat-most-likely-cause-of-pioneer-anomaly

    Everything from clouds of dark matter, weird gravitational effects, alien tampering and exotic new physics have all been blamed for the 'Pioneer Anomaly' — the tiny, inexplicable sun-ward acceleration acting on the veteran Pioneer deep space probes. However, evidence is mounting for a more mundane explanation. Yes, it's the emission of heat from the spacecrafts' onboard radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), slowly nudging the Pioneers off course, that looks like the most likely culprit. It's unlikely that this new finding will completely silence advocates of more exotic explanations, however.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  4. Regardless - the science is fascinating by blanchae · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The design of these spacecrafts is simply amazing. No wonder the US was the technological marvel of the world at the time. Considering the tools that were available then and the thought that was put into the effects of space on the motion, is mind boggling. Not to mention a power source that will last 88 years and the fact that they are still going and communicating while using a 1 bit camera to create fantastic pictures. I am humbled. The technology that was created and developed as a side effect of this monumental tasks is what made the US a technology giant. We need more of this positive vision and less of the negative sabre rattling.

    1. Re:Regardless - the science is fascinating by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Informative

      It'll last longer than 88 years. The half life is 88 years... that means it's only halfway done after 88 years. All it's going to do is lose efficiency over the next thousand years or so.

  5. Summary by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Informative

    They were able obtain a longer history of telemetry data by getting it from some guy's laptop hard and finding some mag tapes under a staircase, and they reverse engineered hard-copy blueprints with the help of retired TRW engineers into modern CAD & FEA, and determined that the RTGs were bouncing thermal energy off the dish, creating recoil -- about the same amount as a car's headlights throwing photons forwards push the car backwards.

  6. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How was this not interesting? Less energy than is put out by your headlights on your car was actually slowing down a multi-tonne spacecraft zipping through space at over 36,000 miles per second! While its not groundbreaking, it definitely is interesting science, and its frigging SPACE man!

    Higgs Boson was discovered and proved to be real. They might even have found a previously undetected particle as well!

    Dark matter was proven to exist and the mystery of why the universe is expanding faster and faster was solved!

    A private company went into space!

    A man jumped from the edge of space and landed safely while anyone on the planet who cared to watch did so!

    What the heck do you want, Science to prove God Exists and invite him over for freaking tea?!?

    How can you be so jaded?

  7. Re:APK - Sex tip #35 by gagol · · Score: 4, Funny

    My money is on interstellar photo radar.

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
  8. Nah by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your attention span just... never mind, he wandered off.

    This is science kid, leave it for people who can read a full paragraph without needing a red bull. For once the article tells the complete story instead of being some butchered blog summary of a blog summary of a tweet of a snippet and the kiddies are up in arms because they actually have to use the reading skills they never mastered.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Nah by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is science kid...

      Which is exactly why it shouldn't be written like a suspense novel.

      Quick summary for all the people who know the background, full story underneath for those who don't (or just like to re-read it...)

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is science kid, leave it for people who can read a full paragraph without needing a red bull.

      Err no. Science starts by giving you a brief summary of the theory and conclusions, then proceeds to get into the details. We call it an Abstract. This is a fluff piece which should have been titled "Thermal radiation theory confirmed as source of Pioneer slowdown". Most of the space is spent rambling on about the history of the mission and very little about the methods used to determine the results.

    3. Re:Nah by PPalmgren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno, there's actually a benefit to this kind of approach. A public facing article, intended for the public, not just the 1% of us who love and understand science. I remember reading things like this as a kid and re-living the history of an event, feeling the experience of the scientist and their jubilation as they worked through a problem and found their answers. Science written in the form of a suspense novel brings people into the fray that would have otherwise ignored it. I'm all for it.

    4. Re:Nah by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's an article in IEEE Spectrum. Spectrum is a magazine that covers things that might be interesting to electrical engineers. Often those things are background stories on papers published in IEEE journals.

      If you want the science, read the paper (or the abstract if you've got attention span problems). The Spectrum article was the right thing for a Slashdot summary to link to. Especially since it's a dupe of a previous Slashdot story that DID just cover the nitty gritty.

  9. Summation by blogagog · · Score: 3

    If you don't feel like reading the very long and mostly unrelated story, here is the gist: "The puzzling deceleration was produced by the asymmetric radiation of waste heat created onboard the spacecraft. Read more to find out why we believe this." Seems like an awfully long article just to relate that bit of info imo.

  10. Here's something sad by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ....the entire mission cost -all the years in total - for Pioneer 10 was approximately $350 million (2001) USD. (It'll reach Aldebaran in about 2 million years.)

    That's a little bit under a single week of NASA's budget this year. ($19bill) ...or about 4 hours of the Defense budget ($677 bill) ...or about an hour of the Social Security+Medicare budgets ($1.92 trillion).

    --
    -Styopa
  11. Thermal force by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's thermal recall force from heat generated by components on Pioneer.

    Right. and the headline is a little misleading, it's a "new" explanation only if you weren't following; since it was announced in late 2010. The "anomaly" is solved.

    Popular Science article about Toth and Turyshev's work here: http://www.popsci.com/pioneeranomaly

    More detailed calculations supporting the explanation:
    Phys Rev Letters paper by Toth and Turyshev here: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i24/e241101
    ArXIV paper confirming the work with more details: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222v1

    JPL press release: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-209&cid=release_2012-209&msource=12209
    Centauri Dreams article: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=23720

    Still, it's a nice article to read about how the work is done.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com