More Moons Around Pluto? |
More Moons Around Pluto? |
Oct 31 2005, 05:49 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
Press Release Source: NASA
NASA's Hubble Reveals Possible New Moons Around Pluto Monday October 31, 12:30 pm ET WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to view the ninth planet in our solar system, astronomers discovered Pluto may have not one, but three moons. If confirmed, the discovery of the two new moons could offer insights into the nature and evolution of the Pluto system; Kuiper Belt Objects with satellite systems; and the early Kuiper Belt. The Kuiper Belt is a vast region of icy, rocky bodies beyond Neptune's orbit. "If, as our new Hubble images indicate, Pluto has not one, but two or three moons, it will become the first body in the Kuiper Belt known to have more than one satellite," said Hal Weaver of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md. He is co-leader of the team that made the discovery. Pluto was discovered in 1930. Charon, Pluto's only confirmed moon, was discovered by ground-based observers in 1978. The planet resides about 3 billion miles from the sun in the heart of the Kuiper Belt. "Our result suggests other bodies in the Kuiper Belt may have more than one moon. It also means planetary scientists will have to take these new moons into account when modeling the formation of the Pluto system," said Alan Stern of the Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, Colo. Stern was co-leader of the research team. The candidate moons, provisionally designated S/2005 P1 and S/2005 P2, were observed approximately 27,000 miles away from Pluto. The objects are roughly two to three times as far from Pluto as Charon. The team plans to make follow-up Hubble observations in February to confirm the newly discovered objects are truly Pluto's moons. Only after confirmation will the International Astronomical Union consider names for S/2005 P1 and S/2005 P2. The Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys observed the two new candidate moons on May 15, 2005. The candidates are roughly 5,000 times fainter than Pluto. Three days later, Hubble looked at Pluto again. The two objects were still there and appeared to be moving in orbit around Pluto. The team looked long and hard for other potential moons around Pluto. "These Hubble images represent the most sensitive search yet for objects around Pluto," said team member Andrew Steffl of the Southwest Research Institute. "It is unlikely that there are any other moons larger than about 10 miles across in the Pluto system," he said. The Hubble Space Telescope is a project of international cooperation between NASA and the European Space Agency. The Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore conducts Hubble science operations. The Institute is operated for NASA by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., Washington. For detailed information and images about this research on the Web, visit: http://hubblesite.org/news/2005/19 For information about NASA and agency programs on the Web, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/home -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: NASA |
|
|
Oct 31 2005, 09:38 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 220 Joined: 13-October 05 Member No.: 528 |
I doubt this will cause any problems on the encounter planning, because they haven't even launched the vehicle yet. The exact launch date plays a part in which potential arrival dates are possible... so since we don't know exactly when in the launch window the actual launch will take place, I would be willing to bet that there is no firm approach plan in existance yet. I'm sure they have outlines, but minute by minute planning simply is not in existance yet.
And besides, even if it were, they would have ten years to tweak it a bit. That hardly seems like a major problem. I suspect the bigger problem will be in coming up with an approach timing and trajectory that gives them at least a moderate distance approach to one of the new sattelites, and still gets them their desired Pluto and Charon encounters. |
|
|
Oct 31 2005, 09:46 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1636 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Lima, Peru Member No.: 385 |
QUOTE (Mariner9 @ Oct 31 2005, 04:38 PM) I doubt this will cause any problems on the encounter planning, because they haven't even launched the vehicle yet. The exact launch date plays a part in which potential arrival dates are possible... so since we don't know exactly when in the launch window the actual launch will take place, I would be willing to bet that there is no firm approach plan in existance yet. I'm sure they have outlines, but minute by minute planning simply is not in existance yet. And besides, even if it were, they would have ten years to tweak it a bit. That hardly seems like a major problem. I suspect the bigger problem will be in coming up with an approach timing and trajectory that gives them at least a moderate distance approach to one of the new sattelites, and still gets them their desired Pluto and Charon encounters. I thought the same as to you. Perhaps, I am afraid it would be another surprise, with any more moons or any invisible asteroide from Kiuper belt spining around Pluto. It would be a good advise that the NH would have more propellents for main and mini-thrusters than planned to manouver any obstacle since our best telescope still does not look clearly any drifts roaming around Pluto. Rodolfo |
|
|
Oct 31 2005, 10:16 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Oct 31 2005, 02:46 PM) I thought the same as to you. Perhaps, I am afraid it would be another surprise, with any more moons or any invisible asteroide from Kiuper belt spining around Pluto. It would be a good advise that the NH would have more propellents for main and mini-thrusters than planned to manouver any obstacle since our best telescope still does not look clearly any drifts roaming around Pluto. Rodolfo I respectfully suggest that you really ought to familiarize yourself with some of the basics here -- there are at least four reasons why this scenario is science fiction. One, there is no way to change the spacecraft at this point -- add mini-thrusters?! The time to make major design alterations came and went a long time ago. Two, and equally important, you are VASTLY overestimating the hazard, in particular from large objects (observable and steer-around-able). There is a power law that relates the number of impactors WRT size -- if there was a nonnegligible threat of impact with a large object, then there would be a virtual guarantee that the craft would be destroyed by a "rain" of small, but still deadly, particles. Given that we have no reason to fear that (see below), there is virtually zero concern WRT large objects. Third, while any spacecraft could be destroyed at almost anytime, by a pellet of tiny size, the probability of this is low anyplace in interplanetary space with very rare exceptions. The density of near-Pluto space is lower than that of the asteroid belt, and seven spacecraft have flown through there without incident. Two Pioneers and two Voyagers have flown through the Kuiper Belt, also without incident. Indeed, the various Mars orbiters face a greater threat from debris, and go on year after year -- without incident. In fact, Earth-orbiting spacecraft stand a pretty good example of the low degree of impact menace. And this is already orders of magnitude greater than the threat in near-Pluto space. Fourth, with the enormous round-trip time for radio signals, any steer-around plan would only make sense for hazards detected well in advance -- and hazards detected well in advance would be, in many cases, detectible from Earth; and in many more cases -- realistically speaking, in almost ALL cases (see above) invisible to the craft until the moment they hit. The new satellites are estimated to be about 140 km in diameter with orbits 100,000 km across. That is, if a football field were the size of these orbits, the moons themselves would be about the size of a fist. And any undiscovered moons would be more the size of a fingernail. It's really not a great threat that any craft would strike them. I know that the spirit of this board is in a lot of good fun, but it wouldn't hurt to do a *LITTLE* fact checking before dispensing "good advise". |
|
|
Nov 2 2005, 03:00 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1636 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Lima, Peru Member No.: 385 |
QUOTE (JRehling @ Oct 31 2005, 05:16 PM) I respectfully suggest that you really ought to familiarize yourself with some of the basics here -- there are at least four reasons why this scenario is science fiction. One, there is no way to change the spacecraft at this point -- add mini-thrusters?! The time to make major design alterations came and went a long time ago. ... ... ... I know that the spirit of this board is in a lot of good fun, but it wouldn't hurt to do a *LITTLE* fact checking before dispensing "good advise". Many thanks to JRehling with your very good explanation. Now, I can feel it more realistic after knowing your details. Sorry of my first reaction since I am a novel of astronomy science. Little by little I will be better off on that. Taking the advantage of this post, congratulations to Alan and his team for this great news. Rodolfo |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 04:24 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |