Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Probe Reveals More Detail In Pluto's Complex Surface

Posted by samzenpus on from the check-it-out dept.

astroengine writes: As NASA's New Horizons spacecraft careens through the solar system with Pluto in its cross-hairs, new detail in the dwarf planet's surface is popping into view at an ever increasing rate. Any images acquired from here on in are the most detailed images humanity has ever seen of Pluto and, a little over a month from its historic flyby, New Horizons is already giving us tantalizing glimpses of what appears to be a rich and complex little world. Take, for example, this most recent series of observations captured by the mission's Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI), which were taken from May 29 to June 2. There appears to be large variations in surface albedo (reflectiveness), possibly indicating there are huge regions of varying composition.

66 comments

  1. frist planet by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    First "yes it's a planet" post.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:frist planet by Whiteox · · Score: 2

      Lister: "They're all the same, those blue and green planetoids. Blue, green and planetoidy! "

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    2. Re:frist planet by OakDragon · · Score: 2

      Someone should ask Pluto if it self-identifies as a planet.

      --
      Dark Reflection
    3. Re:frist planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rasciiiist!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Over the moon? by Guildor · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As happy as I am to see such amazing photos and time-lapse video, I immediately noticed a crater at the south pole which NASA are going to be surprised about. With a raised centre. Curious, but nothing we haven't seen on other moons and planets on the inner solar system.

    What's clear to me, is we've not no idea how planets or moons are formed, and the standard model doesn't really cut the mustard, hence, why we're still exploring, and still surprised at every turn.

    If Pluto had been whacked soo many times by asteroids (south pole, 90 degree impact?) wouldn't you expect its rotation to be tumbling all over the 3 axis? The time lapse looks like a regular rotation to me.

    1. Re: Over the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No. See: momentum, angular.

    2. Re:Over the moon? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I immediately noticed a crater at the south pole which NASA are going to be surprised about.

      NASA would be surprised about it already by now, if it was anything to be surprised about. Which it probably isn't. These are heavily processed images, and what you think you're seeing (quite how you've decided you're qualified enough to declare it to be a crater with a raised centre is beyond me) could be anything.

      What's clear to me, is I've not no idea how planets or moons are formed,

      FTFY.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re: Over the moon? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      That's funny, the last time I saw Guildor declare modern science to be ignorant (on the formation of accretion disks around black holes) it came to angular momentum as well...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re: Over the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stable rotators only rotate around two axis.

    5. Re: Over the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always angular momentum with these guys

    6. Re: Over the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please go somewhere to recruit morons for your idiotic cult. You are not a real scientist, you do not understand science and thus you do not qualify to argue about such things. In short: shut up and go away (plus get a life).

    7. Re: Over the moon? by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Did you even read that article you posted? In the third paragraph the author complains that pictures of black holes don't exist. Honestly think about that for a minute. Let's ignore the stupidity of imaging a black object against a black backdrop for a second (although it does remind me of a historic work of art done by one Bullwinkle Moose). You have a phenomenon that is so dense light cannot escape it's gravity well. How in the fuck, pray tell, is light supposed to reflect off of it for a picture? The "unidentified objects" that this quack so readily dismisses are examples of hawking radiation by the way. He then goes on into a rambling tirade about how establishing theory using an ideal model isn't 100% accurate, as if no one in the scientific community is aware of this fact. By the time I get to his division by zero argument, I just want to hit him. I want to find this guy and kick him in the shin. "Duh, you can't divide by zero", yeah and -1 doesn't have a square root either; that doesn't stop the equations from being right.

      You post about how a decent physicist and mathematician would understand this stuff better then the guys who devote their lives to studying it and then you post an article by someone who's math ability is somewhere short of pre-algebra. Way to make an argument.

    8. Re: Over the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " to question it's accuracy "

      it's means it is. Until you master grade-school grammar, your credentials about physics are suspect.

      Stop channeling James P Hogan.

    9. Re: Over the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you are going to argue against a crackpot (and get modded up...), you should at least try to have some background material in what you are arguing about.

      You have a phenomenon that is so dense light cannot escape it's gravity well. How in the fuck, pray tell, is light supposed to reflect off of it for a picture?

      GR makes some pretty straightforward predictions about what a black hole would do to background light. Additionally, there is a lot of research in to accretion disc dynamics and structures, and they also have plenty of predictions about what a black hole would look like when stuff is falling into it. A black hole isn't completely disconnected from observation (that would push it out of the realm of science), and it definitely has a lot of observation possibilities based on light.

      "Duh, you can't divide by zero", yeah and -1 doesn't have a square root either; that doesn't stop the equations from being right.

      There is a huge difference between division by zero and imaginary numbers. That said, it isn't really even relevant, as division by zero is not required for the exterior solution of a black hole.

      The "unidentified objects" that this quack so readily dismisses are examples of hawking radiation by the way.

      This is the big one... there are no known experimental examples of Hawking radiation from a black hole, it is purely theoretical. And even if true, there would be no way to observe it from a stellar sized black hole, as it would be near technologically impossible even with a probe in orbit around the black hole, let along at a distance of many light years, because of how weak Hawking radiation would be. Hawking radiation power scales with M^-2, and is very weak for anything not subatomic.

    10. Re: Over the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I'd have a listen to the hurrumph from the guy. - and yeah, what an annoying, arrogant git he is, - but that doesn't change what he's saying. To that end, I even went off and watch another video of him at some conference, spealing about division by zero, and Einstein's pseudo tensor. But the reason I got interested, was because what he said actually made sense. It's like reading a big thick boring tome of knowledge in a way. Bloody hard! But the content is golden. I couldn't fault him, and can see now, that if RIC=0 and does as he suggests represent a universe with nothing in it, then he is right to say you can't insert matter somewhere else in the equations. My head's a mess now! I thought I had a grip on reality! Since when did we ever allow divide by zero, and call that something? wha? If he's right, I've a lot of crying to do.

    11. Re: Over the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that if RIC=0.

      It doesn't, at least for a solution of a black hole.

      does as he suggests represent a universe with nothing in it, then he is right to say you can't insert matter somewhere else in the equations.

      This hasn't been a problem for using either the ideal analytic solutions which do include matter (they are not an empty universe) or numeric solutions including multiple bodies.

      Since when did we ever allow divide by zero, and call that something?

      No division by zero is required for any of the solutions around a black hole. You can get some weird stuff if you try to extrapolate what happens at the singularity in the center, but since that is beyond what is observable, even an intro level course or textbook will warn that it is speculation and not something testable.

  3. Investment into NASA vs welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    A dollar invested into welfare is a dollar lost, forever

    On the other hand, NASA's Pluto probe that is giving us all these pictures is worth much more than the money invested in it

    1. Re:Investment into NASA vs welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah because welfare recipients are so rich they will take that dollar and shove it under their mattress forever, never spending it.

    2. Re:Investment into NASA vs welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't really know how a capitalist economy works, do you?

    3. Re:Investment into NASA vs welfare by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      No, it's because when the Pluto probe engineer spends her dollar, it enters the economy at some relatively high level. When she buys a new Mac Pro and then the Apple Store pays rent in a freshly gentrified part of town, and then the real estate company pays its employees, who buy gas and pay bridge tolls while driving to the office, a lotof economic work is being done by that dollar.

      Meanwhile, the welfare dollar buys groceries at a convenience store that hasn't been updated in forty years. It gets stuck up, and the perps spend the dollar on meth from the cartelistas. Your dollar disappears from the US economy at that point.

    4. Re:Investment into NASA vs welfare by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Wow talking about buying into a fool's dilemma.

      You can spend money on feeding those that can not feed themselves and explore the universe.
      In fact I would say that a good society spends on both.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Investment into NASA vs welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, the welfare dollar buys groceries at a convenience store that hasn't been updated in forty years. It gets stuck up, and the perps spend the dollar on meth from the cartelistas. Your dollar gets spent on something else at that point, and remains in the economy just like your other example dollar.

      FTFY

    6. Re: Investment into NASA vs welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know how it works. Corporations do their best not to compete, ultimately eliminating competition. It's the best we have but it's a huge failure none the less.

    7. Re:Investment into NASA vs welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's because when the Pluto probe engineer spends her dollar,...

      You describe the multiplier effect of money. Research has shown that the largest multiplier effect of different types of government spending comes from: food stamps. That money that gets spent at local stores, and on perishable goods that are harder to import is more likely to get spent on again within the country. Give more well off people money (e.g. through employment or tax breaks), and they are more likely to spend it on things like electronics, and some to most of that money goes overseas, and out of the US economy.

  4. well isn't that special by swell · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    " ... most detailed images ... "

    I, for one, am grateful that my tax dollars brought me these lovely images. You might think I would prefer food, housing, medical treatment or other frivolities, but these images give me food for thought.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:well isn't that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The mission costs south of $50m per year for 15 years; for comparison, the US social security budget is on the order of $1t, or $1,000,000m. You lose more money for food, housing, and medical treatment due to rounding errors.

    2. Re:well isn't that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send a better camera next time. These images are next to useless..

    3. Re:well isn't that special by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      "We do these things, and the other things, not because they're easy, but because they're hard!"

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    4. Re:well isn't that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send a better camera next time. These images are next to useless..

      Are you really an idiot or are you just pretending? If pretending then you are doing an incredible job of it.

      The probe has another month of incredibly high speed travel ahead of it before it is close to Pluto. Once there we will be getting nice crystal clear images.

    5. Re:well isn't that special by Livius · · Score: 2

      Why don't we do world peace?

    6. Re:well isn't that special by Rei · · Score: 1

      That statement of Kennedy's sounds great at first, but it's so vacuous. You can use it to apply to any project whatsoever, no matter how ridiculous it is.

      Reporter: "Mr. President, please, I don't understand - why exactly are we excavating the entire state of Iowa to a depth of 100 meters and dumping all of the overburden on Nebraska in the shape of a giant weasel?"

      Kennedy: "We choose to make the weasel and do the other things, not because it is easy but because it's hard!"

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    7. Re:well isn't that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too hard.

    8. Re:well isn't that special by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Busy with the other things.

    9. Re:well isn't that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was just the fashion to say stuff like that back then:

      To those who ask me, "Why do you wish to eradicate measles?" I reply with the same answer that Hillary used when asked why he wished to climb Mount Everest. He said, "Because it is there." To this may be added, ". . . . and it can be done."

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14462174

    10. Re:well isn't that special by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      This guy named Hitler tried, but no one wanted his kind of peace. As long as people/countries get to make their own decisions, there will never be world peace. When I can force you to stop fighting your neighbor over the lawnmower, then there will be peace.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:well isn't that special by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Why don't we do world peace?

      We do. It's all the malcontents out there that won't go with the program.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    12. Re:well isn't that special by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      What makes me laugh is the context of Kennedy's remark there - one of "the other things" is referring to a previous sentence in the speech where he's asking why Rice plays Texas in college football, knowing that they will be creamed every year.

      Context:

      There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

      We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    13. Re: well isn't that special by pla · · Score: 1

      Most people die, prior to 67.

      No, they don't. (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 63 No 7, November 6 2014).

      Over half of Americans will not only collect SS, they will do so for longer than a decade.

    14. Re:well isn't that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you don't know much about Hitler, or what really happened leading up to WW2. But then, I think all western countries fail to tell their kids (and themselves) what really happened. Here's some education for you : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhGfCTA_6wA
      No one's saying he was a saint, ok? But like Bush, and Obama, men are sent to war for what they believe to be the greater good, or defense of a nation. That's not to say the decision was right. So as things happen on a greater and smaller scale in general, you're right about the fighting over a lawnmower! Hitler's solution? Give every man a job, and make the country so independent and strong economically, we'll all have a share in something. So get off your lazy arse, and mow that lawn! That is, if you can get the mower back off the neighbour..

  5. Most Detailed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the most detailed images humanity has ever seen of Pluto"

    Not at all. The Atlanteans left behind an entire Tourist Guide to Pluto in the library they left under the Sphinx's paw.

    1. Re:Most Detailed by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      Nah, that was lost but the Nibiruans will have more to hand over during Nibiru's next perihelion.

    2. Re: Most Detailed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we already know what dwells on Yuggoth: the Yithians were described in detail by Lovecraft

    3. Re: Most Detailed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by Yithians I of course mean Mi-Go... This knowledge is so accursed it slipped my mind.

  6. Celestia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Truth is what Celestia shows. The rest is just fairy tale.

    (Upload the models to Celestia Motherlode, update Ubuntu, Fedora, Windows, ... installers, and the I might believe it.)

    1. Re:Celestia by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Just as a curiosity, more than once I installed Celestia. It is interesting but the navigation is so crap, but so crap I quit shortly after.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:Celestia by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      I'm not entirely sure of what the AC is speaking...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Celestia by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Hahahaha no, no... This one. Is a very interesting application but the mouse navigation is a real pain to use, almost useless.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    4. Re:Celestia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use arrows and shift+arrows. Those will open up a new universe for you.

    5. Re:Celestia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.shatters.net/celestia/
      http://celestiamotherlode.net/

  7. Just a flyby of Pluto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real pity is that New Horizons like the Voyagers will not be able to orbit around the planet of interest. All we will get is a flyby of Pluto and then onwards to the Kuiper Belt.

    1. Re:Just a flyby of Pluto... by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

      Just newtonian physics. If it were to get captured by Plutonian gravity to enter the orbit it would have to travel much slower - and that would mean it would have taken forever for it to get there.

    2. Re: Just a flyby of Pluto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but what is so special about P1? From the NASA statement, several days ago will fly past Pluto to P1?

    3. Re:Just a flyby of Pluto... by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      9 years ago I typed my name in to the JPL website (I think it was JPL) along with 434737 others, these were added to a CD and attached to the probe. Kind of cool thinking a few bits of all that data are mine. Even if it's just a fly by, it's still pretty awesome. Unless future humans venture out after it, it's never coming back our way, for me this seems just as worthwhile as if it had fuel enough to slow down and place itself in orbit.

    4. Re:Just a flyby of Pluto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if we gave it an anchor and a long rope?

    5. Re:Just a flyby of Pluto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they should have added a probe to get closer like this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_%28spacecraft%29

    6. Re:Just a flyby of Pluto... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Or, they could have greatly increased the mass of the probe to include reaction mass and a thruster to slow down and capture into orbit... but that would have then required a far bigger lifter to get it off Earth to begin with, etc.

      Plus you're doing it all on automation because Pluto is ~5.4 light-hours away...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  8. Direct Image Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/blogs/dnews-files-2015-06-pluto-sharpens-670x440-150611-jpg.jpg

    1. Re:Direct Image Link by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I found this link to an even sharper image:

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  9. Oh, God, not again! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    As NASA's New Horizons spacecraft careens through the solar system [...]

    If the spacecraft is careening though solar system, did the engineers mixed up their metric and standard formulas again?

    1. Re:Oh, God, not again! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      did the engineers mixed up their metric and standard formulas again?

      Technically, Mars Climate Observer wasn't lost due to a metric / imperical foulup. It was lost because someone didn't write down the units on a set of numbers, and someone else assumed (incorrectly) what the units were when they read the numbers. The spacecraft would've been lost just the same if the figures had been written in kilonewtons, and someone had else assumed they were newtons.

      This was one of the most basic things drilled into me during my first engineering courses. Always write down your units. A number without units is meaningless (unless it's a dimensionless number). It's actually pretty shameful that not writing down the units for a number was a common enough occurrence with Lockheed/JPL that people would just assume what the units were instead of calling/emailing to confirm.

    2. Re:Oh, God, not again! by Opyros · · Score: 1

      I suspect the GP is meant as a nitpick about the use of the word "careen" rather than "career".

  10. I, for one... by zawarski · · Score: 1

    ... welcome our new Plutonian overlords..

  11. Viewing tip by ortholattice · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you turn javascript off on discovery.com (there are about 3 dozen(!) embedded sites; the list even scrolls off the NoScript screen), not only does the page load about 20 times faster, as a bonus you get the entire slideshow on one page and don't have to mindlessly click through one picture at at time.