IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Horizons In The Asteroid Belt, Summer - Autumn 2006
Greg Hullender
post Aug 22 2006, 02:08 PM
Post #16


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1017
Joined: 29-November 05
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Member No.: 590



Although note that the way the "Where Is New Horizons Now" page is drawn, it looks as though the asteroid belt extends right up to the orbit of Jupiter.

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/whereis_nh.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toma B
post Aug 22 2006, 02:18 PM
Post #17


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 626
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Subotica
Member No.: 384



QUOTE (Greg Hullender @ Aug 22 2006, 04:08 PM) *
Although note that the way the "Where Is New Horizons Now" page is drawn, it looks as though the asteroid belt extends right up to the orbit of Jupiter.

Why?
How it should be drawn?
I don't get it... sad.gif


--------------------
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare

My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Aug 22 2006, 02:59 PM
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3631
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



I think Greg is mistaking those white pixels as asteroids. These are apparently stars brighter than magnitude 12. They aren't very convincing, though -- no brightness variation, no nothing... What's the FOV of these projections supposed to be, without it the starfield has no meaning?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rob Pinnegar
post Aug 22 2006, 03:36 PM
Post #19


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 508
Joined: 2-July 05
From: Calgary, Alberta
Member No.: 426



If those are stars of magnitude 12 or brighter the FOV has to be miniscule -- miniscule enough that the starfield wouldn't have any meaning regardless of whether stars of different magnitude were given different symbols.

There's not much chance that any of the stars depicted there are bright enough to be seen without binoculars or a telescope. Remember that the density of stars goes up exponentially with increasing magnitude; I don't remember the exact relation, but that's the long and short of it. Just from a statistical standpoint it's unlikely anything there is brighter than maybe magnitude 9 or so.

An FOV wide enough to show recognizable constellations would be so jam-packed with dots representing 12th-magnitude stars that you wouldn't be able to see anything else. My guess is that this view is from a few thousand AUs out -- which would minimize perspective effects.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Greg Hullender
post Aug 23 2006, 03:50 AM
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1017
Joined: 29-November 05
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Member No.: 590



I think ugordon is right. I just didn't look closely enough -- otherwise I should have complained that there were too many "asteroids" inside the orbit of Earth!

Sorry about that . . .

--Greg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
punkboi
post Aug 24 2006, 01:03 AM
Post #21


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 540
Joined: 25-October 05
From: California
Member No.: 535



??

Um... You didn't know those were stars? Just wondering smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Greg Hullender
post Aug 24 2006, 03:25 AM
Post #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1017
Joined: 29-November 05
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Member No.: 590



QUOTE (punkboi @ Aug 23 2006, 06:03 PM) *
??

Um... You didn't know those were stars? Just wondering smile.gif


Well, I love checking those things for the various probes, so I do know they're stars, but for this one I guess I had "asteroid belt" so firmly in my mind that that's what I saw in there.

As John Kennedy said, "Some people see things that are and say, 'huh?' I see things that aren't there and say 'oh wow!'"

--Greg (Well, almost) :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AlexBlackwell_*
post Sep 1 2006, 09:46 PM
Post #23





Guests






Pluto-Bound Camera Sees 'First Light'
New Horizons Payload Fully Operational as Telescopic Imager Glimpses Star Cluster

For Immediate Release
September 1, 2006
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/news_center/news/090106.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RNeuhaus
post Sep 1 2006, 09:59 PM
Post #24


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1636
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Lima, Peru
Member No.: 385



This is a very important milestone since it is the first time that all 7 instruments start to operate fully, that is about almost after 8 months of dormant trip. At least all of them are in good conditions.

Rodolfo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alan
post Sep 2 2006, 01:15 AM
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1869
Joined: 20-November 04
From: Iowa
Member No.: 110



How dare you bump the New Horizon thread above the Pluto is / is not a planet discussion tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jeff7
post Sep 2 2006, 03:48 AM
Post #26


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 477
Joined: 2-March 05
Member No.: 180



Well if you'll note, the category is called "Pluto/KBO". It's lumped right in there with the other KBO's anyway, so it seems the decision has inadvertently been made already, eh? mHMMMMM? biggrin.gif wink.gif


Good to know that NH is in good shape. Hopefully it doesn't accumulate too much dust and who-knows-what-else on the lens like Cassini did. It's sure got a long trip ahead of it.

To those who are arguing about Pluto's planetness - hey, it's still got its very own probe headed to it no matter what we call it. That's got to count for something. Planet or not, I'm definitely going to be looking out for the data as it arrives from way the heck out there.
I still just love the look of the probe too - it looks like a huge antenna that just happens to be bringing an instrument pack along for the ride.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Comga
post Sep 2 2006, 04:22 AM
Post #27


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 19-June 05
Member No.: 415



QUOTE (Rob Pinnegar @ Aug 22 2006, 09:36 AM) *
If those are stars of magnitude 12 or brighter the FOV has to be miniscule -- miniscule enough that the starfield wouldn't have any meaning regardless of whether stars of different magnitude were given different symbols.

From http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/Master...6-001A&ex=1

The New Horizons Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) is a panchromatic narrow angle imager. .... It consists of a 20.8 cm aperture telescope which focuses visible light on a 1024 x 1024 pixel CCD. There are no filters or moving parts. The instrument has a 5.06 x 5.06 milliradian field of view with a resolution of 0.00494 milliradians/pixel.

Also available at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/spacecraft/instruments.html

and from http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/proje...nitude%22%20%22

LORRI limiting magnitude requirement, 4x4 binned. mode, 9.9 sec exposure is V = 17.4.

5 mrad is a little under 1/3 of a degree, or 2/3 the diameter of our Moon in the sky. Given that it can make 10 sec exlposures and see stars down to 17th magnitude, there are an enormous range of star clusters it can see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_PhilCo126_*
post Feb 1 2007, 07:21 PM
Post #28





Guests






So we can conclude this topic by stating that the New Horizons flew through the asteroid belt between May and August 2006 cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th November 2019 - 10:04 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.