Slashdot Mirror


How NASA Glimpsed The Mysterious Object 'New Horizons' Will Reach In 2019 (popsci.com)

necro81 writes: After its successful flyby of Pluto in July 2015, the New Horizons probe received a mission extension to fly past a Kuiper Belt object -- named 2014 MU69 -- in January 2019. However, we know few details about the object -- its size, shape, albedo, whether it has any companions -- which are crucial for planning the flyby. Based on observations from Hubble, the New Horizons team knew that the object would pass in front of a star -- an occultation -- on July 17th, which could provide some of this data. But the occultation would last for less than a second, would only be visible in Patagonia, and the star itself is quite dim.

NASA set up 24 telescopes near one community to capture the event, and received lots of cooperation from locals: turning off streetlights, shutting down a nearby highway, and setting up trucks as windbreaks. At least five of those telescopes captured the occultation. This was the latest in a series of observations ahead of the flyby.

"We had to go up to farmers' doors and say 'Hi, we're here from NASA, we're wondering if we can set up telescopes in your back pasture?'" one astronomer told Popular Science. "More often than not people were like 'that sounds awesome, sure, we'll help out!'"

68 comments

  1. Nibiru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most likely.

    1. Re:Nibiru by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Planet X eh? That's old news. It wiped us out in 2001 or something. I can't remember.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re: Nibiru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi we are from NASA..

      Bet half of them slammed the door first and then called the police there are American agents going door to door, the other half played along and then called the police.

    3. Re: Nibiru by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Why would you think that?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Slashdotters are already familiar with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... objects that they can't see but trust are there

    1. Re:Slashdotters are already familiar with... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... objects that they can't see but trust are there

      Like their toes?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Slashdotters are already familiar with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was going to suggest a different appendage.

    3. Re:Slashdotters are already familiar with... by Maritz · · Score: 2

      Evidence that contradicts climate change, I suppose. ;)

      Would be great to know what the odds are on New Horizons finding an object like this. Things get very dilute in the outer solar system.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    4. Re:Slashdotters are already familiar with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... objects that they can't see but trust are there

      Like the "fuzz" in their beer-belly navels?

      Now that would be MORE INTERESTING for NASA to investigate... and it's a whole lot closer than the Kuiper Belt!

  3. It's creimer's ebooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We tried to put them as far away as possible, but NO, you had to go look for them!

    1. Re:It's creimer's ebooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got cock hunting. Where are my cock eggs?

    2. Re:It's creimer's ebooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a Black Amazon Dot, which matches my vintage 2006 Black Macbook.

  4. good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The fact that people rose to the occasion is uplifting in itself.
    Lets hope the data leads to some good observations in 2019!

    1. Re:good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that people rose to the occasion is uplifting in itself.

      I can just imagine how the conversation started: "We're from the US government, and are here to help"

    2. Re: good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People were probably really upset and the police probably got a lot of calls those days.

    3. Re:good stuff by gtall · · Score: 0

      It depends. Imagine NASA doing that in some states (which shall go unmentioned) in the U.S. Fox News (sic) would claim it was an advance program by the "deep state" to steal something or other, any made up treasure will do. Now if the Russians offered to do it, Fox News would claim it was an opening to an new era in scientifical cooperation leading to a greater understanding of Hillary and Benghazi.

    4. Re:good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be lonely in your crazy alternative reality.

  5. 2014 MU69 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's my password!

  6. Cool story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now tell me the one about how cmdrtaco spotted uranus.

  7. Old school by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "We had to go up to farmers' doors and say 'Hi, we're here from NASA, we're wondering if we can set up telescopes in your back pasture?'" one astronomer told Popular Science. "More often than not people were like 'that sounds awesome, sure, we'll help out!'"

    That's what we used to do back in the old days when you wanted to set up your telescope in some rural area, away from the city lights, for a night's viewing. Ask for and get permission, and maybe have a pleasant conversation with a farmer who thinks what you're doing is really cool.

    Nowadays people just fly their drone over someone's property unannounced, then act like they're the one whose rights were violated when the property owner shoots it down.

    1. Re: Old school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think more often than not people were slamming their doors in them and calling the cops. It used to be the Soviet Union that was the global boogyman, but the bad reputation of the US has finally caught up with it for total effect the past 20 years with the Soviets gone.

      So what do you think is going to happen when you knock on a door in some country, one that has over its lifetime perhaps been ill affected by the US many times already, and tell whoever opens "Hi I'm with NASA a US government agency and we want to set up scientific equipment in your backyard"

      That's like saying "Good day, my name is Igor Smolenski, I am with the Post and Telegraph Service of the Soviet Union, Pochta SSSR. We would like to take some ah ah ... radio-electronic measurements cough-cough in your backyard"

    2. Re: Old school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Patagonia we're talking about, land of a thousand reality survival shows. A bunch of Americans with camera equipment would be nothing unusual around there.

    3. Re:Old school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "fly their drone over someone's property unannounced"

      You do realize that these big things called "aircraft" do the same thing (though generally at a greater altitude) routinely right? A persons property has certain limitations, and for better or worse those limitations are not clearly defined for either the property owner or the drone owner. And in the well known case of a property owner shooting down a drone (at least here in the US) it was pretty conclusively shown that the property owner was lying his rear off (drone was flying MUCH higher than claimed, camera not aimed at house, etc).

  8. Bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bribe the poor sheep farmers.

  9. Road my bicycle across a few states ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend and I road bicycles across a few states for a few weeks as teens, camping nightly in yards after asking permission from ranchers, farmers, or police (if in the city park). About 50% of the time, we'd be asked in for dinner and stay in the guest room.

    Folks are nice and happy to connect with others, especially if they are on an adventure and it doesn't take much effort.

  10. Things like this give me hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that humans aren't a lost cause after all.

  11. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank God the farmers were not like the anti-science nutcases in Hawaii who derailed the Thirty Meter Telescope because it would disrespect the volcano God. This lack of interest in astronomy and astrophysics from certain descendents of Polynesians and their hippie enablers who navigated by the stars.

    1. Re:Awesome by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Tibetans need the jobs more than Hawaiians do anyway.

    2. Re:Awesome by murdocj · · Score: 1

      They aren't anti-science, they are tired of having people come in and stomp on them. Like the Indians at Standing Rock, they are fighting back now. Deal with it.

    3. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patagonia is in South America (mostly Argentina). People there know to nod and smile when someone from the government asks a favor, although the landowners are typically quite wealthy and well connected.

    4. Re:Awesome by armanox · · Score: 1

      That's sorta what I was thinking, that in a lot of South America people are used to 'exchanging favors' with government officials so they are more then happy to work with someone from the government/police/etc; thinking that it will pay off down the line.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    5. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have an interesting definition of "stomp on them". The telescope site is built on the smaller of two mountains to leave the highest point untouched (even then I think they leave the highest point on the utilized mountain untouched) insane levels of approvals are needed before a telescope can be built, they conceded to remove several telescopes to build the new one, the sites have to be blessed before construction begins, once construction begins any vehicles parked overnight have to have oil pans placed below them to prevent "contamination" of the land, the list goes on and on.

    6. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't anti-science, they are tired of having people come in and stomp on them. Like the Indians at Standing Rock, they are fighting back now. Deal with it.

      The fighting back looks an awful like self harm most of the time. I can deal with that just fine.

  12. Does the title have meaning? by Walter+White · · Score: 1

    Or is it just a jumble of words?

  13. Headline Sense Not Make by pipingguy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You need a 'that' in there.

    "How NASA Glimpsed The Mysterious Object THAT 'New Horizons' Will Reach In 2019"

    1. Re:Headline Sense Not Make by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

      Which.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Headline Sense Not Make by pipingguy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I think you is right.

    3. Re:Headline Sense Not Make by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Disagree, reads fine without 'that'.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    4. Re:Headline Sense Not Make by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      If you're able to work out that it needs a "that," then you don't really need the "that."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Headline Sense Not Make by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Disagree

      Are you saying you disagree, or telling me to disagree?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Headline Sense Not Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circle gets the square.

  14. There's good news and bad news by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

    The good news: They got info on the object

    The bad news: It appears to be metallic in composition, and it is almost perfectly spherical except for a large parabolic dish embedded just above the equator.

    1. Re:There's good news and bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...... that's no object!

    2. Re:There's good news and bad news by Szeraax · · Score: 1

      The bad news: Its mass is roughly 1/4th of the moon and its slowing down, sir.

    3. Re:There's good news and bad news by TuringTest · · Score: 2

      Obligatory: Construction Shack by Clifford D. Simak.

      (Read the ending for the most relevant part, or enjoy it from the beginning).

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    4. Re:There's good news and bad news by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, it also has a groove on the equator and we have enough time to develop a proton torpedo.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:There's good news and bad news by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      Then it's no Death Star; the trench run was not done in the equatorial trench, but rather a smaller 'north-south' trench.

    6. Re:There's good news and bad news by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could be worse. It could transform into a maid.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:There's good news and bad news by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that schematic also had the dish on the equatorial trench. Fake news!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  15. Citizen Scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is actually a decent amount of work available to citizen scientists in this field. If you're at all interested, I suggest going to http://www.lunar-occultations.com/iota/iotandx.htm and reading up on what you need for timing an occultation.

  16. Not enough orbital telescopes by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This just goes to show that there aren't enough orbital telescopes, in enough different orbits. Instead of building more broken-by-design warplanes, we should be designing the next generation Hubble telescope. And no, the Webb telescope isn't a Hubble. Different frequencies. And, and this part is important, we should build eight copies of it, not just one, and send them to the L4 and L5 Lagrange points of the Sun and each of Venus, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune. (The Venus variant will be somewhat cheaper, 'cause we can skimp on solar panels.) Then we either need big fat radio telescopes at the Earth-Moon L4 and L5 points, with multiple independent large antenna arrays, or we need to perfect laser data transmission in free space at solar system scales. I'm not sure which is smaller, a radio antenna array or the optics required to handle laser communication. I'm guessing the laser, since the frequencies are so much higher. If we have enough telescopes leading or following enough of the planets, we can use them as a network to bounce data around the Sun as necessary.

    Let me be clear. I want so much incoming data that storing it all will prop up the hard drive manufacturing industry for a decade, because storing it all in flash memory would be too expensive. I want so much incoming data that astronomers start having NSA-style problems while looking for interesting things in an ocean of bytes. I want so much incoming data that astronomers start training neural nets as to what constitutes "interesting" and turning them loose on the ocean of bytes, because there isn't enough grad student slave labor to look at it all. I want astronomers to have a reason to hire engineers away from Google, because they have exa-scale data problems to deal with. I want all that and I'm not even an astronomer.

    I just think it would be nice to have a proper map of the solar system we live in.

    1. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      These budgetary priorities only address the wants of whites and do not address the serious problems facing communities of people of color. Always ask, who benefits? If the answer is "only whites", then it's a bad idea.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by necro81 · · Score: 1

      The reason they went to South America to get this data is that the occultation wasn't visible from anywhere else. (here's the ground track and ephemera.) Otherwise, they could have gotten the data from ground-based telescopes in, say, the United States, or one of the big observatories in the Atacama. An occultation is essentially the same as an eclipse, and those are hardly visible from any ol' place.

      Even if we had a dozen Hubbles out there, one would have had to modify its orbit so that it happened to coincide with the shadow track of this miniscule object at just the right moment. Part of the reason why they set up an array of ground telescopes was they there was enough uncertainty of the size and trajectory of the object they couldn't be sure exactly where on the ground to capture it. Only 5 of 24 telescopes managed to get it. At orbital velocities, your window of opportunity would be even smaller.

      I do agree with your larger point, however: I would love to see a grand fleet of space-based observatories.

    3. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JWST ended up costing around $10 billion. Building 8 of them is not realistic, even if there are some savings due to "mass production".
      There are other space telescopes as well. There is Spitzer, CXO, Hubble, Kepler, TESS, JWST, WFIRST, the European space agency's Gaia... That last one is creating a 3D map of the galaxy by the way.

      Those spacecraft are designed to answer different, very specific questions. Having more of them is not necessarily going to give us any significant advantage. For some applications terrestrial telescopes are just fine and they are much cheaper and easier to operate.

    4. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      This just goes to show that there aren't enough orbital telescopes, in enough different orbits.

      Why? Because a few people had to lug a few boxes to Patagonia? I think that was probably a lot cheaper than putting a telescope in orbit.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Even if we had a dozen Hubbles out there, one would have had to modify its orbit so that it happened to coincide with the shadow track of this miniscule object at just the right moment.

      No need to meddle with the orbits of any of the space based telescopes. Just pick a different star to use for occultation for each of them. If you already have approximate ephemera, it's easy enough to run the equations eight more times, not just for Earth. You also have a great many more useful choices of source light, since the space based telescopes don't have to contend with being portable (at least not conventionally) or with Earth's atmosphere.

      Depending on where the planets are at the time, you may not actually be able to use all eight telescopes, what with the Sun or their various companion planets getting in the way, but that's why you deploy to both L4 and L5. Even if the L4 telescope can't see because there's a gas giant in the way, L5 should be able to see what you want to look at. With multiple orbital telescopes, you should get multiple opportunities to observe an occultation for each one of them, if you're after an object in our solar system. This is also why Venus is a candidate planet to serve as gravitational anchor; its orbital period is short enough to change its perspective on the solar system quite rapidly compared to the outer gas giants, which should be useful in multiple circumstances.

    6. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      This just goes to show that there aren't enough orbital telescopes, in enough different orbits.

      Why? Because a few people had to lug a few boxes to Patagonia? I think that was probably a lot cheaper than putting a telescope in orbit.

      Because to make a map of the solar system, the process has to be repeated many many times. Current best estimates are that there are around 35,000 Kuiper Belt objects larger than 100km in diameter, and there could be 100 million total objects of detectable size. Lugging boxes to Patagonia helped pin down one of those objects.

    7. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      These budgetary priorities only address the wants of whites and do not address the serious problems facing communities of people of color. Always ask, who benefits? If the answer is "only whites", then it's a bad idea.

      Knowing where all the flying rocks are benefits every living thing on Earth, including voles. You're not prejudiced against voles are you?

    8. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      No need to meddle with the orbits of any of the space based telescopes. Just pick a different star to use for occultation for each of them.

      Because there are lots and lots of occultations available to pick from, and NASA went to Patagonia because it wanted a junket there?

      If it were just a matter of "picking a star" then the occultation could have been observed at any random ground based observatory. In fact even in Patagonia that could not tell which telescope would be in the correct position. The fact that this does not work on Earth should tip you off that your proposal is nonsensical. Being "in space" does not change the occultation odds.

      The disk of 2014 MU69 subtends about E-18 (a million trillionth) of the celestial sphere, which means that even with several billion fairly easy to observe stars in the Milky Way the odds of an occultation at a useful time (before New Horizons does its fly-by) is negligible if you are restricted to a single observing path.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    9. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      When is mapping Kuiper Belt objects going to be useful information?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    10. Re:Not enough orbital telescopes by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      When is mapping Kuiper Belt objects going to be useful information?

      Immediately. There's a theory that comets are Kuiper Belt objects whose orbits have been disturbed. Even if they're not originally Kuiper Belt objects, cometary orbits often extend will into the Kuiper Belt, and are therefore subject to possibly significant gravitational influence. Knowing a major comet's orbit has changed because of a close flyby with a Kuiper Belt object may be the difference between predicting a collision with Earth 70 years in the future vs 3 days in the future. I think the additional advanced notice could be useful.

  17. Path of occultation by necro81 · · Score: 2
    For those who want the most detail and ephemera, here is the a page with the details of the occultation path:

    http://www.boulder.swri.edu/MU69_occ/july17.html

    (The folks at SWRI are the principle investigators for the New Horizons mission.)

  18. Like ad & tracking scripts on /.? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I dust 'em all for more speed & security via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

  19. The title.. can punctuation halp? by kalieaire · · Score: 1

    Is it me, or is the title incredibly hard to read without tearing out your hair?