Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Probe Spies Possible Polar Ice Cap On Pluto

Posted by samzenpus on from the coldest-of-the-cold dept.

astroengine writes: As NASA's New Horizons spacecraft rapidly approaches Pluto for its historic flyby in July, the dwarf planet is gradually sliding into focus. And in the latest series of observations beamed back from the fringes of the Kuiper belt, surface features are becoming evident including the stunning revelation that Pluto may possess a polar ice cap. "As we approach the Pluto system we are starting to see intriguing features such as a bright region near Pluto's visible pole, starting the great scientific adventure to understand this enigmatic celestial object," said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington D.C. "As we get closer, the excitement is building in our quest to unravel the mysteries of Pluto using data from New Horizons."

60 comments

  1. Very PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this enigmatic celestial object

    Just admit it. Its not a planet.

    1. Re:Very PC by confused+one · · Score: 2

      Pluto got the shaft. Pluto is round, having reached a hydrostatic equilibrium due to it's own gravity. It orbits the Sun. It's a planet!

    2. Re:Very PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You place way too much importance on terminology, and act like it changes things that it doesnt. Regardless of whether or not the Pluto a planet, astronomers are quite aware of the mutual influence. The name doesn't change the existence of the effect when talking about such dynamics in literature, as one just talks about the Earth and Moon. Beyond Pluto and Earth, there is not some long list that needs to be consolidated into a specially named category. Not to mention that the influence between the Earth and the Moon exists between all planets and their moons, similar to Pluto. The terminology is just there to save the effort if it makes it easier to write and read a long list of your complains. But beyond the succinctness of such, it doesn't make much difference one way or another to me.

    3. Re:Very PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pluto got the shaft. Pluto is round, having reached a hydrostatic equilibrium due to it's own gravity. It orbits the Sun. It's a planet!

      And so are thousands of trans-Neptunian objects.
      How are the kids going to learn the name of 2000 (at the very least) damn planets orbiting our sun. Think of the kids !!!!

    4. Re:Very PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You place way too much importance on terminology, and act like it changes things that it doesnt. Regardless of whether or not the Pluto a planet, astronomers are quite aware of the mutual influence. The name doesn't change the existence of the effect when talking about such dynamics in literature, as one just talks about the Earth and Moon. Beyond Pluto and Earth, there is not some long list that needs to be consolidated into a specially named category. Not to mention that the influence between the Earth and the Moon exists between all planets and their moons, similar to Pluto. The terminology is just there to save the effort if it makes it easier to write and read a long list of your complains. But beyond the succinctness of such, it doesn't make much difference one way or another to me.

      Terminology is important in science. Terminology aids in classification, and classification is the very first step in understanding natural phenomena. Take a look just over there in radioastronomy. 3 decades ago we had quasars and radio galaxies and then blazers etc.... Today we classify them under the name Active Galactic Nuclei. It's important because it means what we thought were different physical objects/phenomena are actually the same thing.
      Pluto is a dwarf planet, like thousands of other dwarf planets orbiting around the sun in the Kuiper belt. They are the remenants of the early solar system. Pluto is discarded material (more like a giant planetesimal). Not so for Earth, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Mercury.

    5. Re:Very PC by confused+one · · Score: 2

      Good for them. Make them learn something... Why, back in my day I had to come home from school, split fire wood, then study by candle light. 9 planets or 90. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, don't call it a chicken.

    6. Re:Very PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classification and understanding don't reflect terminology. Terminology reflects communication habits, which follows from classification and understanding. When there is a need to group things differently, terminology changes or new terminology is created. Otherwise, you just end up with slightly less concise wording in papers when you have to tack on qualifiers, or a sentence somewhere near the beginning re-defining some group as needed for the paper.

    7. Re:Very PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about all those extra apostrophes? It's means it is.

    8. Re:Very PC by shione · · Score: 2

      Do they have to know every planet there is? Just teach them the important ones ie the 9 that we've always known. We don't teach kids every animal species there is out there, why should it be important to know the names of all the 2000 planets out there.

    9. Re:Very PC by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, don't call it a chicken.

      Except if it's one of these.

    10. Re:Very PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they have to know every planet there is? Just teach them the important ones ie the 9 that we've always known. We don't teach kids every animal species there is out there, why should it be important to know the names of all the 2000 planets out there.

      You say that like the number of known planets has always been the same. You're wrong.
      Increasing knowledge about the world is what the scientific method does. And that implies that knowledge is ever changing. Not static.
      When I was a kid in the early eighties we didn't know about dark matter, dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe. No sane person
      today would teach the kids what we were taught back then because we now know that was not the complete picture. Same with planets.
      People before 1930 learned only about 8 planets. People after 1930 learned a new thing. And now we know that Pluto is but one of a new class of astronomical
      bodies known as dwarf planets (ie. the discarded material of the formation of the solar system, all of whom are found beyond the orbit of Neptune and into the Kuiper belt). That's knowledge that people didn't have in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and so on.

    11. Re:Very PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is Ceres, which was also briefly considered a planet right up until astronomers discovered that it was not alone in its orbit. The only difference between Ceres and Pluto is how long it took to discover other trans-Neptunian objects.

    12. Re:Very PC by quenda · · Score: 1

      Pluto got the shaft. Pluto is round, having reached a hydrostatic equilibrium due to it's own gravity. It orbits the Sun. It's a planet!

      So is Ceres, and Ceres was discovered 130 years before Pluto.
      It was demoted from planet to asteroid, but you don't hear anyone bitching about that. Did Ceres run around screaming "I'm the 10th planet!" ?
      At least Ceres is by far the biggest asteroid. Pluto is probably just one of many large Kuiper Belt objects.

    13. Re:Very PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People before 1930 learned only about 8 planets. People after 1930 learned a new thing. And now we know that Pluto is but one of a new class of astronomical

      People between ~1810 and 1846 learned of 11 planets, as there was Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta, commonly listed in book's tables of planets and even with planetary symbols. By the 1850s astronomer were starting to think something different was going on with the asteroids. I suppose it was a lot easier to drop them from lists when you didn't have Twitter yet to let people complain.

    14. Re:Very PC by shione · · Score: 1

      Obviously, when I wrote "we've" I was referring to the post 1930s generation who were taught that theres 9 planets not 8. Same as I am not referring to the currently generation when I wrote "we've" because they being taught that theres 8 again.

      If you go back even further there were even less than 8 planets. OMG!

  2. NASA Prob and Possible Ice Caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story speaks of the relevance of your own stake in the argument as this polar ice cap on planet Pluto can sustain life, so perhaps put your own mankinds survival as the only priority. I can expect future probes to Pluto, but I have never really met anyone that actually gets there themselves, even when they believe they do. For example, do you ski? Or drive your car even when you don't absolutely must? Or do you smoke blunts or eat food with a high percentage of fat? All these are based on emotions other than the desire to live (as in survive).

    If Pluto has polar ice caps that contain life, although I agree with you that most people put way to little logic into their decisions, and generally act on emotions without any thought at all (that is why advertisement works but offtopic), it is important to probe with NASA one's own thinking equally well. For example, are you sure you're not basing your beliefs on the fact that acknowledging carbon emissions as something really bad would make the western world (and the US in particular) be the bad guy? As the Middle East consistently fights with itself. On Pluto? It is certainly psychologically tense, and something my subconscious eagerly tries to make me rationalize away if such evidence is possible from probing Pluto its polar ice caps

    By the way, I'm not that hard pressed to come up with a formula for why plants are more important than rocks. I would probably base it on entropy: plants are simply more complex than rocks. That is why a painting is more beatiful than an empty canvas (usually).

    1. Re:NASA Prob and Possible Ice Caps by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Always take your medications prior to posting.

      How about this scary thought: Water is really turning out to be the Universal Solvent. It is everywhere we look. That has profound implications for the possibility, no probability, of life throughout the galaxy and beyond.

      It also strongly suggests that future planetary missions should be sure to stock some WD-40.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:NASA Prob and Possible Ice Caps by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      Since WD40 is designed to displace water, this is very true.

  3. Let me fix that for you, John by waynemcdougall · · Score: 1

    ...starting the great scientific adventure to understand this enigmatic dwarf celestial object, ...

    --
    Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
  4. "Spies"? NSA gets around by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    A meteoroid scraped off the first "A" in the probe's "NASA" logo

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  5. NASA--spies possible--Pluto by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    OMG! yes, she's 13.

  6. Bright spot? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It's the Death Star's aiming laser. The damned thing has to be re-categorized yet again...

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  7. Pluto is a PLANET, once and for all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sick of people denying this, god damn. Historically, it was a planet until an arbitrary decision was made and poof it all the sudden wasn't. There was a reason for the process. It doesn't have to be an ego thing, tradition is often marked by less then ego. Statues, monuments, and all sorts of other items of historic value could refer to it as a planet and the new classification. It could have been just as easy for the scientific definition to provide an exclusion for an existing classification of just one planet. It would be no more complicated then saying what was once a planet is now not one.

    1. Re:Pluto is a PLANET, once and for all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It could have been just as easy for the scientific definition to provide an exclusion for an existing classification of just one planet.

      Just as primes could have been defined to include the number one. But when you make an exception in the definition, then a lot of uses might need to make that definition too. Hence, if one counted as a prime number, there would be many theories that make a reference to "all primes except one." The only point of such classification is to make communication more concise, not to make some sort of valuation or judgement about things that fall into or out of a category.

  8. How do they know its ice? by rossdee · · Score: 2

    "a bright region near Pluto's visible pole"

    But how do they know its ice? It could be frozen CO2, Nitrogen, methane, or some other gas.
    Pluto is pretty damn cold.

    If we are thining about terraforming Pluto, I propse we send the IAU there to warm it up with their hot air.

    1. Re:How do they know its ice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In astronomical parlance, any volatile in solid form is an 'ice' (yes, I realize this is not the adopted nomenclature outside of the field). So yes, it could be something like CO2, etc.

    2. Re:How do they know its ice? by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      For fun, ask an astronomer to define "metal"! XD

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:How do they know its ice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fun, ask an astronomer to define "metal"! XD

      Only if you want to have a discussion about Jethro Tull. ;-)

  9. dwarf? DWARF? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

    the dwarf planet

    You have some problem with little planets? What's next: midget planet?

    --
    Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    1. Re:dwarf? DWARF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the dwarf planet

      You have some problem with little planets? What's next: midget planet?

      I propose the use of giant planetesimal.

    2. Re:dwarf? DWARF? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Aye, ya wee celestail body ... there, we'v said it ... 'yer wee, ye'll always be wee ... too wee 'ta be called a planet, so you'll e'er be doomed to be called an almost planet, or an ex planet as it were.

      Sorry, but we ha' no time to listen to the lamentations of an ex planet, sorry Pluto, but 'yer too wee to listen to.

      Take tha' you wee ex planet ... why we have people wha' have bigger heads than 'ye!!

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:dwarf? DWARF? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      I was one of the "tough guys" of my school (some decades ago... in Greece... without any "anti-bullying" bullshit lectures yet...), and you just made me cry... watching you break little Pluto's soul - respect!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
  10. But what is the cap made of? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Most of Pluto is going to be ice. Is the cap solid Nitrogen?

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  11. Ice *cap*? by erice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would expect the whole surface of the (dwarf) planet to be ice, much like all the other outer system objects too small to be gas giants. It would not necessarily be water ice and TFA did not suggest that it was water. In a region where methane and co2 freeze there are lots of options and water ice would not be favorite for a polar cap.

    Actually, the only information so far is: "There is a spot that is brighter than the rest. We don't know why."

    1. Re:Ice *cap*? by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Although there is a very substantial distance between the sun and Pluto, I'd imagine that the radiation from the Sun still causes the ices (in this case any sort of ice, not just water) to sublimate from the areas more exposed to solar radiation year-round. You'd get a cap in places where that radiation does not regularly reach, such as at the poles.

      I think you actually need specific conditions of atmosphere, or at least gravity, to actually maintain a snowball planet, as opposed to a very cold, but otherwise barren rock.

    2. Re:Ice *cap*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pluto is out beyond multiple ice lines (the point where various ices sublimate) so those can exist in solid form.

    3. Re:Ice *cap*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pluto is out beyond multiple ice lines (the point where various ices sublimate) so those can exist in solid form.

      As opposed to what? Ice in liquid form?

  12. Where will they stop? Just when is enough enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First the NSA spied Germany's Merkel. then Europa, now they reached Pluto.

    They must know they can go on and on like that. Someone must draw a line!

    Wait... Pluto... NaSA... oops, sorry, my bad... please go on with your, uh, "commenting" and the like... excuse me...

  13. I Read This Wrong For A Second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was wondering why an NSA probe needed to spy on the Pluto ice caps.

  14. Firts image of Pluto .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... here

    Don't blame me. I Googled for Pluto not a planet.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. This means it's a planet! by sandbagger · · Score: 1

    So SHUT UP!

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  16. Why hasn't anyone wondered... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    ...Why such a cold object would have a polar icecap? Surely Pluto is cold enough all over to freeze anything.

    Unless it has an internal source of heat, like the Earth.

    1. Re:Why hasn't anyone wondered... by jihema · · Score: 1

      An internal source would heat up to the surface uniformly.

      --
      JMA
    2. Re:Why hasn't anyone wondered... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We've long thought that Pluto has an atmosphere at perihelion that freezes when it moves further from the sun. Some common gasses freeze very close to absolute zero. It also does have internal heat from radioactive decay, which may even make liquid water possible deep inside.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    3. Re:Why hasn't anyone wondered... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Which is why the Earth doesn't have polar ice caps. Right?

    4. Re:Why hasn't anyone wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's why an internal source of heat isn't the reason that the Earth has polar ice caps.

    5. Re:Why hasn't anyone wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earth receives about 4000 times as much power from total solar heat flux than it does from internal heat flux. Even though the latter is very non-uniform, on the large scale it only varies from ~0-300 mW/m^2. That variation is smaller than a one degree change in surface angle of even something at the poles receiving an annual average of 20 W/m^2 from the Sun.

    6. Re:Why hasn't anyone wondered... by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      Tidal friction seems like a major factor for heating Pluto. The system has its barycenter between Pluto's surface and Charon!

    7. Re:Why hasn't anyone wondered... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Absolute zero? Pluto's min temp is 33 K, quite far from 0 K.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:Why hasn't anyone wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are fortunate to live on a planet where surface life is possible.

    9. Re:Why hasn't anyone wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pluto & Charon are tidally locked and in an orbit that is as close to circular as we can measure. There would be virtually no tidal heating between Pluto and Charon.

  17. Re: In the words of the great Pottering himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are "pretty personal attacks"? Calls for rainbows to fall on your head and for unicorns to impale your anus?

  18. metric is hard by agdr · · Score: 1

    "...distance from Pluto decreased from about 69 million miles (93 million kilometers) to 64 million miles (104 million kilometers)"

    1. Re:metric is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...distance from Pluto decreased from about 69 million miles (93 million kilometers) to 64 million miles (104 million kilometers)"

      I'd be worried if those conversions came directly from NASA. Maybe they'll end un crashing New Horizons on Pluto after all.
      Metric pfft who needs that !! Give me inches, feet , yards and pints.

  19. Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can somebody tell Charon to stop photobombing our probe's pics?