Slashdot Mirror
Why Didn't Voyager Visit Pluto?
Flash Modin writes: NASA built the twin Voyager spacecraft for a rare planetary alignment that put Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune within reach at once. Originally, Voyager 1 was programmed to see Pluto in 1986, but managers targeted Saturn's planet-like moon Titan instead. That choice made Pluto impossible by vaulting Voyager 1 from the orbital plane. Interestingly, Voyager 2, which couldn't reach Pluto, made the case for New Horizons by revealing Neptune's moon Triton as a kidnapped Pluto. "I'm very glad that they chose not to go to Pluto in 1986," says New Horizons head Alan Stern. "We'll do a better job at Pluto with modern instruments than they would have, and they did a much better job at Saturn..."
but there is a secret alien base on Pluto
Titan has the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the finding of which would mark one of the biggest discoveries in the history of the human race and end all doubts that we are alone in the universe.
Pluto is a cold rock on the outskirts of the solar system.
Which one would you rather investigate?
Back at the time of Voyager, Pluto was a planet
that's why!
If it was Uranus, well, that's a different story.
"Nothing to see here, move along!"
You really don't want to anger those living there now. Those NASA engineers knew what they were doing...
Sorry, but there's no proof any of this happened. If you think humans could build such a probe in 1977, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you -- for cheap. Hell, we can't even build anything like this today. The Russian and Chinese most certainly could, but they're too interested in the military applications of space, not so much scientific research.
You need some serious psychological help.
So do you if you don't see the obvious humor.
That was a strange comment.
If you really believe that I feel sorry for you, and anyone around you.
If you are actually trolling then I wonder why and again feel sorry for people around you.
Get help.
Soon.
If you read the commentary at the time, they simple wanted to project one out in the plane of the solar system and one out towards its axis. I believe Voyager 1 still hasn't passed pluto if projected back down onto its orbital plane.
Carl Sagan thought it was more important to get close to Titan, which made a gravity assist for Pluto impossible. I think he hoped that there would be good pictures of the hypothesized Methane seas, but in the event the Titan haze made the surface just a blur.
What the close Titan approach did provide was a radio occultation of the Titan atmosphere, showing how deep it was and something of its structure.
In space flight, as in life, you have to chose, and they chose Titan.
Pluto was on away on a planetary midgets conference.
The original "Planetary Grand Tour" project would have visited Pluto, but it relied on a planetary alignment that would have to have started in 1976 or 1977. It was originally announced as a single craft, which became four before it was cancelled (I don't remember that, but for a brief history, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). This was replaced by the two Voyager satellites launched in 1977. The later launch date made Pluto harder to visit, but it was still possible.
It's Charon, not Sharon and it has other satellites, Nix, Hydra, Styx, and Kerberos.
Why Didn't Voyager Visit Pluto?
Because of the bark, you dummies!
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
No coins to pay the Ferryman to navigate from the sea to the netherworld.
It was to avoid her destroying our spacecrafts as proportionate response to demoting her from the planetary status.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
.. and they corectly predicted that Pluto would be declasified as one. So why waste resources for some stupid rock which is neither a planet, nor a moon?
Why Didn't Voyager Visit Pluto?
Why is this asked as a question, when the summary does in fact have the answer? Why not just headline it thus:
Why Voyager didn't visit Pluto
Then I'd be less likely to mistake it for another speculative piece of guff from a professional blog writer, which we already have plenty of.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
V'ger will visit all of our solar system, record its findings and then remove the carbon based infestation on the third planet.
I had the opportunity to ask Ed Stone, the JPL Director & Voyager scientist, this question. His rather glib answer was, "well, Titan was 3 hours away, and Pluto was 3 years away - and I had to make payroll." I think the broader answer is that JPL assumed they'd get another mission funded if they simply skipped it (and they almost did).
no, it is sharon. the moon was names after sharon stone.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
Captain Janeway does what she wants.
Whichever one has a Steak'n'Shake.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No.
Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them. Anyway, several asteroids have been found to have tiny satellites, so owning a satellite doesn't count for much anyway.
I believe Voyager 1 still hasn't passed pluto if projected back down onto its orbital plane.
Voyager 1 is almost 20 billion miles away from us now, and is traveling about 35 degrees out of the ecliptic. Some really rough trigonometry shows that if you project that down onto the ecliptic, it's still about 16 billion miles away from the Sun, which is almost three times the length of the long axis of Pluto's entire orbit.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Whichever one has a Steak'n'Shake.
$4.99 double steakburger combo and a kickass chocolate milk shake? I'm in.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them. .
As I love to point out, the problem with this definition is that it also applies to the Sun-Jupiter system.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
No, the moons have been renamed now that it's a dwarf planet. Sharon, Tracy, Debbie, Jessica, and Steve.
Steeeve!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
If Pluto is a planet, then you would have to include about 100 other rocks that are as large or larger than Pluto and have a defined orbit. They are just further out in the Kuiper belt
That's lovely that "your" definition of a planet concerns "moons", but the astronomical community differs with you.
Why do you think that having moons important to being a planet?
Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them.
Technically, I don't think any such defintion has ever been formally adopted by the IAU (and they're the people who matter when it comes to deciding whether anyhing is technically anything in space).
There was a proposal to reclassify Pluto and Charon as a double planet system, but it was rejected, so they remain (dwarf) planet and moon.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them. .
As I love to point out, the problem with this definition is that it also applies to the Sun-Jupiter system.
This is true and will remain true for another billion and a half years at which point the Sun will have expanded enough to put the barycenter under the surface of the photosphere. The barycentric point (as it is known) if at 1.068 solar radii.
The location of the barycentric point is of some interest, but isn't really very meaningful in defining the properties of two body systems.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Back at the time of Voyager, PlutoÂÂa planet
Isn't a dwarf planet still a planet? Or did it get demoted to an asteroid recently and I missed it?
I've pointed this out to people before, and it's amusing to explain.
How far out would the moon have to be to become another planet, and us to be just part of a binary system?
I know it's relatively close now, the barycentre being only about a thousand miles beneath the surface of Earth, and I know the moon is receding from us too (though slowly). When will it get far enough out to become a planet?
Except Pluto. Attempt no landing there.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Have you ever considered eating your own turds?
Oops, you are right and I jumped in too soon. Guess I'm just tired of the "Pluto is a planet" contorted arguments which I really shouldn't care about. In reality does the nomenclature really matter that much? Pluto and Charon are what they are, Kuiper belt objects if they must be classified; more similar to a bunch of others out there than to any other solar system objects. The term "planet" seems to be too broad and undefinable to be useful; it's often pointed out that the newish IAU definition has problems. And whether they are a "dwarf planet and moon" or "double planet", an accurate description requires more detail about their system than a couple of words can convey. I'm staying out of it going forward.
One of the things accomplished by taking Voyager I behind Titan was a direct measurement of the thickness and density of Titan's atmosphere. They did this, btw, by measuring how much of the probe's signal was absorbed before it was completely occluded and by how long it took the signal to come back to normal strength after it came out on the other side. And to show you how good the navigation was, closest approach was less than two radii out, meaning that if it had been cut in half, Voyager would have collided with Titan instead of just passing closely. I know this, because I spent some time at JPL in the mid 1980s and am slightly acquainted with the man who came up with the idea and did most of the work involved.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNtTylNR7ks pluto is definitly a planet, bitch!
Pluto is a planet. In fact it is more of a planet than Mercury or Venus are, because unlike them it has its own satellite that orbits it (Sharon).
There are nearly 300 some bodies orbiting the Sun that have a moon, including many minor planets with multiple moons. Some of these are as small as pairs of 100 m and 10 m in size.
If he didn't get a planet named after him, the dog certainly didn't deserve one.
Actually, James Christy named it after his wife, Charlene. The family called her Char, and he realized he could name it after her under the pretext of using a name from Classical mythology which was conveniently associated with Pluto/Hades.
Voyager didn't visit Pluto because the planet is misogynist. It would be problematic if the Voyager probe had spend precious time and resources documenting a shitlord planet.
Why? He already has you to do it for him.
It was rejected because Pluto is still bigger than Charon and while pluto wobbles around the barycentre, Charon still orbits then both thus making it a moon.
Begs to think what to call binary star systems when they have the same conditions, like Polaris (yes: the polar star is a binary star system consisting of Polaris A and Polaris B).
I love watching binaries on my telescope. Started with the realization that Ursula Majopris (the Great Dipper) also included binary stars. Mizar (the second star from the tip of the dipper handle) is a binary, as Polaris, observable with domestic telescope (I use a 6" Celestron Nexstar 6SE).
I still don't understand why it would visit Uranus. #LoveRules
That's hardly a problem. I don't mind calling the solar system the 'sol-Jupiter' system. Sounds neato.
Pluto is a planet. In fact it is more of a planet than Mercury or Venus are, because unlike them it has its own satellite that orbits it (Sharon).
Your language betrays you, Galilee.
It's Charon, which is pronounced with a hard k. The alternative spelling for the ferryman of Hades is Kharon.
While the planetary alignment was convenient, it isn't exactly necessary on RTG-powered spacecraft. Pioneer 11 visited Jupiter, then flew to almost the opposite side of the solar system to visit Saturn. Longer travel time (and greater chance of equipment failure during that time) is the only drawback.
Another factor working against a Pluto encounter was the lack of sunlight that far out. During Voyager 2's encounter with Neptune (which was slightly further away from the sun than Pluto at the time), sunlight was so dim that NASA had to reprogram the cameras to take longer exposures than they were originally designed. Then someone calculated that Voyager 2 would be moving so fast that the photos of Neptune would be blurred just by the changing parallax between the spacecraft and Neptune. So they programmed the spacecraft and cameras to rotate slightly during the exposures, effectively panning the camera to cancel out the changing parallax.
All this happened so quickly they got just one shot at it, and they had to do it blind. By the time the first near photos reached Earth, if they had turned out to be blurred, any correcting instructions sent to Voyager 2 would have arrived after the spacecraft had passed Neptune. So NASA wasn't even sure if the closest Neptune and Triton photos would even be aimed correctly. Heck, they weren't even sure they were going to make it to Triton (Voyager 2 flew less than 5000 km over Neptune's North pole to get to Triton). But as it was the last major destination and they'd recently discovered an atmosphere on Triton, they figured what the heck and rolled the dice. As it turned out, they got everything right, and Voyager returned some spectacular Neptune and Triton photos.
A Pluto encounter would've run into the same problem. Except Pluto is a much smaller target than Neptune, whose mass (and therefore gravity) is much less accurately known so properly aiming the camera is even trickier. Even New Horizons (with newer, more sensitive cameras) is going to have to use the same panning trick Voyager 2 used at Neptune. New Horizons is moving fast enough it could cover the distance from the Earth to the Moon in less than 8 hours, so all the close-up photos and measurements of Pluto are going to be over in a matter of hours. And it's basically guiding itself - providing the most accurate measurements we have of Pluto's mass so we can fine-tune its trajectory as it approaches Pluto.
Imo, while Pluto is an interesting planet to check out. It has less promising details than other planets. For all we know it could be very well just a bigger dwarf planet. There's definitely more action around Jupiter and Saturn because these giants have so many moons that are like a mini solar system.
There's one that spins so fast it's more like a discus than a classical sphere, named Haumea. The only one so far discovered that's (arguably) larger than Pluto is Eris, and that's considering a margin of +/-30km.
Source: The most complete list ANYWHERE.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Still, it's refreshing to see an astronomy story that isn't from StartsWithABang.
If he'd written it, the title would be "Why NASA should have made Voyager visit Jupiter" and the article would be a rambling string of ad hominems, baseless assumptions, and Monday morning quarterbacking.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Pluto is a planet. In fact it is more of a planet than Mercury or Venus are, because unlike them it has its own satellite that orbits it (Sharon).
Your language betrays you, Galilee. It's Charon, which is pronounced with a hard k. The alternative spelling for the ferryman of Hades is Kharon.
I prefer the original Klingon, where it's K'haron.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Mizar (the second star from the tip of the dipper handle) is a binary, as Polaris, observable with domestic telescope (I use a 6" Celestron Nexstar 6SE).
Observable by eye if you get dark enough conditions.
Titan has the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the finding of which would mark one of the biggest discoveries in the history of the human race and end all doubts that we are alone in the universe.
Sure, finding extraterrestrial life would be a HUGE discovery; however, the total amount of energy on Titan is negligible and the variety of energy gradients do not lend themselves well to anything but the simplest forms of life. These would be extremely difficult to detect and even more difficult to identify as actual life.
Europa, with its water and tidal heating from Jupiter is a much more likely candidate for finding extraterrestrial life. The whole ice shell thing is a real issue so I would not pin all of my hopes on Europa either.
Honestly, the best chance for finding evidence of extraterrestrial life is on Mars. Yes, it will be long dead, but I would be surprised if we did not eventually find some sort of fossil evidence. If not Mars, then it will be extra-solar.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Mizar (the second star from the tip of the dipper handle) is a binary, as Polaris, observable with domestic telescope (I use a 6" Celestron Nexstar 6SE).
Actually Mizar and Alcor are a sextuple system. Mizar is quadruple and Alcor is a double.
I wonder what's the furthest planet we have put something in orbit around? Trying to orbit Pluto would be interesting
It was rejected because Pluto is still bigger than Charon
It not like a binary system will have two objects that are exactly the same size. One will always be bigger, if only by a tiny amount.