Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Dawn Spacecraft Becomes First To Orbit a Dwarf Planet

The Grim Reefer writes with news that at 7:39 AM EST (12:39 UTC) today, NASA's Dawn spacecraft was captured by the gravity of dwarf planet Ceres. Mission controllers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California received a signal from the spacecraft at 5:36 a.m. PST (8:36 a.m. EST) that Dawn was healthy and thrusting with its ion engine, the indicator Dawn had entered orbit as planned. "Since its discovery in 1801, Ceres was known as a planet, then an asteroid and later a dwarf planet," said Marc Rayman, Dawn chief engineer and mission director at JPL. "Now, after a journey of 3.1 billion miles (4.9 billion kilometers) and 7.5 years, Dawn calls Ceres home." In addition to being the first spacecraft to visit a dwarf planet, Dawn also has the distinction of being the first mission to orbit two extraterrestrial targets. From 2011 to 2012, the spacecraft explored the giant asteroid Vesta, delivering new insights and thousands of images from that distant world. Ceres and Vesta are the two most massive residents of our solar system's main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Further details available from the Planetary Society.

34 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Can't...resist...pun by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is the dawn of a new era in space exploration.

    1. Re:Can't...resist...pun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't be cereous, are you?

    2. Re:Can't...resist...pun by xevioso · · Score: 1

      don't make me kick your as-teroid.

    3. Re:Can't...resist...pun by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Your UID is too high to remember him, but this would have been a perfect response for the "IF I EVER MEET YOU I WILL KICK YOUR ASS" guy.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Can't...resist...pun by InterGuru · · Score: 1

      don't make me kick your as-teroid.

      Do you mean ass toroid -- a toilet seat?

  2. No pictures yet by mike2006 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The processing and removal of the larger and slightly smaller brightly lit pyramids will take time.

    1. Re: No pictures yet by hal9035 · · Score: 1

      Why the news black out for a month? All of a sudden the cameras won't work until nearly the end of April? Explanation? BUELLER? BUELLER?

  3. Slow boo boo versus fast boo boo by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that the ion engine acts quite slowly. It seems that the "news" of an orbit failure would be a matter of not being where it's expected to be, and there should be a period of uncertainty when the "error" is within expected measurement noise range such that "orbit failure" would be a slowly increasing probability value instead of a one-time confirmation. I don't get the "news point" thing of today.

  4. I believe the preferred term by xevioso · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe the preferred term is "Little Person Planet"

    1. Re:I believe the preferred term by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      So when does the satellite toss it?

    2. Re:I believe the preferred term by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Dont tell the Elf.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:I believe the preferred term by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      I believe they prefer the term "Gravitationally Challenged"

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  5. Pretty amazing by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ceres gravity is 0.27 m/s2 (Earth's is 9.8, Luna is a hefty 1.6)

    So 'going into orbit' of something so vanishingly weak is really an amazing accomplishment, discussed in their blog at http://www.planetary.org/blogs....

    (Amusing point of reference, with 3 ion engines, Dawn's 0-60 speed is 11 days. Take that, Jeremy Clarkson!)

    Congrats all.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Pretty amazing by nadaou · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Ceres gravity is 0.27 m/s2 (Earth's is 9.8, Luna is a hefty 1.6)

      Hold your finger out in front of you. Over 1 second accelerate it to
      end up 27 cm below where it started. It's still a reasonably attractive
      force.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    2. Re:Pretty amazing by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

      On the other hand, on Earth, by the time you have fallen for two seconds, you are traveling almost 20 meters per second, and you are probably going to die on impact. On Ceres, you can fall for over 70 seconds and over 700 feet and not reach the same velocity.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Pretty amazing by nadaou · · Score: 1

      right.

      on cerces square roots you too.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    4. Re:Pretty amazing by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Just FYI I think it's an asshole American who responds to China's landing a rover on the moon with "so what, we were there already, nyah, nyah"

      Your response, and my reaction to you: pretty much the same in both ways.

      --
      -Styopa
  6. dwarf planet definition is bullshit by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Has to have cleared orbit". Even if Earth or any other rocky planet put where Ceres or Pluto was, they couldn't clear that orbit.

    They're planets. "Dwarf planet" is an invention of morons, 95 percent of the astronomers in the IAU didn't vote on it because of when the vote was done.

    1. Re:dwarf planet definition is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Has to have cleared orbit". Even if Earth or any other rocky planet put where Ceres or Pluto was, they couldn't clear that orbit.

      Okay? So then Earth would be a dwarf planet if it were where Pluto is. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. So what? All categories are just words we make up to group things. We either had to put Pluto in the "not a planet" group, or expand the "planet group" to cover many, many more objects.

      I think you're just angry that something you learned as a child has changed.

    2. Re:dwarf planet definition is bullshit by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nonsense, I'd have no problem with 14 planets now rather than the 9 there were defined when I was a child.

      We expand the list of discovered planets, with a sane definition of "planet". That's the proper thing to do.

    3. Re:dwarf planet definition is bullshit by itzly · · Score: 2

      If you want to call it a planet, nobody's stopping you. Myself, I think it's wrong to call one fruit an "orange" after its color, but call another fruit "banana", which has nothing to do with the color. So, therefore I always refer to it as a "yellow". The word "banana" is an invention of morons.

    4. Re:dwarf planet definition is bullshit by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      sane definition of "planet"

      Care to elaborate?

    5. Re:dwarf planet definition is bullshit by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Yes, removing that silly rule I mentioned in this thread's first post

    6. Re:dwarf planet definition is bullshit by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      So then the solar system has lots of planets. No problem. Are you worried we'll run out of names? We will not.

  7. "reatlowing beacons"??? by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 2

    Quoting from the Planetary.org article: "While there are countless questions about Ceres, the most popular now seems to be what the bright spots are. It is impossible not to be mesmerized by what appear to be reatlowing beacons, shining out across the cosmic seas from the uncharted lands ahead." "reatlowing" doesn't appear to be a real word, and I can't figure out what was meant. Any ideas?

    1. Re:"reatlowing beacons"??? by thakalas · · Score: 2

      I think it's a perfectly cromulent word.

    2. Re:"reatlowing beacons"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's "Great Glowing", where some miscreant has purloined the G's.

    3. Re:"reatlowing beacons"??? by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      Chance collisions with debris have eroded the camouflage covering, exposing the battle steel underneath.

  8. Re:Not the first to post by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Didn't it previously orbit Vesta?

  9. We demand equal gravity for all planets! by mi · · Score: 1
    • What do we want?
    • Equal gravity!!
    • When do we want it?
    • Now!!!!

    The Big Astronomy does not want you to know, that big planets are getting bigger, while the small ones are getting smaller.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  10. Approach trajectory by amightywind · · Score: 1

    The approach trajectory was particularly cunning considering that there was an outage of Dawn's ion thruster.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  11. Re:"reatlowing beacons"??? - "glowing beacons" by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

    I posted a comment on the blog about it, and the author said he wrote "glowing" but somehow it got mangled. Fixed now.

  12. Re: Not the first to post by hal9035 · · Score: 1

    Why the news black out for a month? All of a sudden the cameras won't work until nearly the end of April? Explanation? BUELLER? BUELLER? BS?

  13. Re: Not the first to post by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    This was the time it spent transitioning from orbit at Vesta to orbit at Ceres. There was obviously not much to see during this time except for the tantalizingly increasing resolution of Ceres. People began to take notice when the two bright spots came into view.