Voyager Interstellar Record |
Voyager Interstellar Record |
Sep 18 2017, 01:47 AM
Post
#16
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Did voyager bring a record player along with it? Asked and answered: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=8334 -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Nov 27 2017, 11:44 PM
Post
#17
|
|
Director of Galilean Photography Group: Members Posts: 896 Joined: 15-July 04 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 93 |
With the recent articles on the Voyager record, I took a look at the some of the pictures again and was struck by something odd.
Inner solar system picture Outer solar system picture On the 3rd line is the masses of the planets, relative to Earth. Everything looks fine, but when we get to Pluto it gets wonky. The mass of Pluto has changed over time, with it being 1/10 Me and changing to 1/100 Me right around the Voyager launch time, so either of those numbers should be there, but it looks like they used 9/10 Me? The images match the JPL versions at Voyager - Images on the Golden Record -------------------- Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
-- "The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality. |
|
|
Nov 28 2017, 01:12 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 4256 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 |
And Pluto's semimajor axis is out by a factor of ten. They were in a rush when they put this together.
|
|
|
Nov 28 2017, 07:19 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10229 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
" The mass of Pluto has changed over time, with it being 1/10 Me and changing to 1/100 Me right around the Voyager launch time"
Yes indeed. Pluto has been getting less massive ever since it was discovered, if not before. I dimly recall a great little article - I think it was in New Scientist decades ago, but could be wrong - that plotted the mass estimates against time and predicted that Pluto would disappear altogether fairly soon. Can anyone find that little gem? Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PDF: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
Nov 28 2017, 11:08 AM
Post
#20
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2431 Joined: 30-January 13 From: Penang, Malaysia. Member No.: 6853 |
Can anyone find that little gem? Maybe they were referring to this paper? From the ridiculous to the sublime: The pending disappearance of Pluto (1980) |
|
|
Nov 28 2017, 12:56 PM
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 934 Joined: 4-September 06 From: Boston Member No.: 1102 |
Link broken
-------------------- |
|
|
Nov 28 2017, 03:50 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 4256 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 |
That is a classic. They fit mass estimates to a cosine function of time raised to the pi power and predict Pluto will vanish in 1984. They say this event will be welcomed by some - "we will no longer have to tolerate Pluto's eccentricities"! After 1984, the mass becomes complex, with negative real part ("this idea may seem repellant to some"). "Pluto will reappear as a real planet in 2256".
This is written very much in the style of April Fool's papers of recent years. Here's a good example in a similar vein: using historical estimates of the value of pi to shockingly conclude that its value is changing with time: https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5321 |
|
|
Nov 28 2017, 05:58 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I can prove, with data, that by the mid 2030s - there will not be time for sporting events. Singing the national anthem is taking longer and longer...soon, it'll last hours and everyone will have to go home afterwards.
I call the step change in the 1980s the Whitney Houston Discontinuity. Then again - the same math proved that ExoMars was accelerating into the future and therefore wouldn't fly before the heat death of the universe....so...you know..... |
|
|
Nov 28 2017, 08:45 PM
Post
#24
|
|
Director of Galilean Photography Group: Members Posts: 896 Joined: 15-July 04 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 93 |
Ah, OK, I was thinking if they were known mistakes they'd be listed on the Wiki page. I knew they were rushed, and it almost didn't make it because of the motto on the cover, but didn't realize they were *that* rushed.
-------------------- Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
-- "The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality. |
|
|
Nov 11 2018, 10:20 PM
Post
#25
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 14-December 12 Member No.: 6784 |
Hello,
Does anyone know where I can find specifications of the exact dimensions of the record cover and record itself? "Murmurs of Earth" suggests the cover is 0.03 inch (0.0762 cm) thick but also states 0.08 cm. It is written that the record itself is two copper plates bounded together for a total 0.05 inch (0.127 cm) thickness. The National Air and Space museum lists their duplicate cover as being 1/16 inch (~0.16 cm) thick, but also states 0.13 cm. The record itself is listed as being 1/16 of an inch thick, but also as 0.1 cm. Any help would be appreciated. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2024 - 06:14 AM |
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. |