New Horizons: Approach Phase, OpsNav - 25 January 15 to 28 June 15 Options

[ngunn]

In a way, I feel sad.

Well, you have to I suppose , and there's no point in me mentioning that there is an ever-increasing number of other mysterious places to think about . . .

But seriously, I remember the same regret being aired in the press at the time of the first moon landings.

[belleraphon1]

I am not sad at all. I am elated. We have lost nothing but gained truth. Was born when all the planets were just dots in the sky. Astronomical objects.
Now they are worlds.

And there is no end to this. I joke with my friends that a passion for planets is a gift that keeps on giving. There is no end. Space is BIG.

My grandsons are 8. What wonders will they know when they are my age?

Sigh...

[Webscientist]

I don't know whether there is a cryovolcanic activity on Pluto or Charon.

I've incorporated a view of Io at the right scale into the the newly released view of Charon and Pluto for comparison.
The image I've used is 200 px wide. Pluto is roughly 27 pixels wide. So, at the same distance (115 million km), Io would be 42 pixels wide (2368 km vs 3644 km).
Remove your glasses for a better idea!
Maybe, there are better candidates for the comparison.

Attached image(s)

 

[Gerald]

For anyone who missed part of the briefings, here links to recorded versions:
First briefing, part 1, 02:40:06 - 02:59:58.
First briefing part 2, 00:00:00 - 00:38:42.
A prevously recorded version of the second briefing, 01:40:24 - 02:37:07.

[Webscientist]

In the new image of the Pluto Charon system released, I've measured the apparent diameter of Pluto along the virtual line (orbital plane?) from Charon to Pluto and the apparent diameter of Pluto for the normal to this virtual line (south pole to north pole?).
I obtain (approximately) 24 pixels for the first figure and 28 pixels for the second figure.
So, the first figure is about 85% of the second figure or the second figure is about 16% higher than the first figure.

Apparently, not perfectly spherical (unless it is an artifact)? related to tidal forces?

[Phil Stooke]

Unfortunately that image is a gigantic blow-up of an original image where the planet was about one pixel across, so your result is a trifle unreliable. Wait a bit before trying to measure anything.

Phil

[Webscientist]

Ok, that's a little early I guess.

I've just represented what it might look like if it is squeezed that way and if it looks like Triton.

Here is the result:

Unfortunately that image is a gigantic blow-up of an original image where the planet was about one pixel across, so your result is a trifle unreliable. Wait a bit before trying to measure anything.

Phil

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[4throck]

Pluto's size is well known. Occultations give you a precise measurement, much better than low resolution images.
From Wikipedia you have 1184±10 km .

If you had an image where Pluto covered ~50 pixels, each pixel would be as large as the 20km error margin.
To refine the measurement you need images with the planet larger than that :-)

Smaller images will tell you very little and be dominated by individual pixel noise.

[alk3997]

...
I've just represented what it might look like if it is squeezed that way and if it looks like Triton.

...

If I followed Emily's response earlier, the original MVIC image was approximately 2 pixels by 2 pixels for Pluto, or something very close to that. So all of your image reconstruction is based on approximately 4-6 pixels.

Other than large scale color/brightness differences, I'm not sure what you can get from 4-6 pixels.

It's nice work but more based on the algorithm used to enlarge the original image rather than what Pluto looks like.

Andy

[jgoldader]

Ok, that's a little early I guess.

I've just represented what it might look like if it is squeezed that way and if it looks like Triton.

Here is the result:

My guess is the shape is still dominated by PSF, Pluto is not that oblate.

[Paolo]

slightly OT: I remember seeing an early-80s artistic view of Pluto and Charon where the latter was depicted as non-spherical and asteroid-like. anyone else remembers it?

[Landru79]

Webscientist

"Apparently, not perfectly spherical (unless it is an artifact)? related to tidal forces?"

¿Maybe a phase efect?

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Hungry4info]

As has been explained more times by now than should be necessary, Pluto is a pixel across in the original image. It has been blown up quite a bit in the image that we're all looking at. There's no surface or shape information in the image (other than the hemisphere-averaged surface colour). Everything that is being interpreted as such is a result of noise in the image being smoothed out in the process of making the image appear not pixelated.

[djellison]

¿Maybe a phase efect?

NO!

The Sun-Pluto-NH angle is approx 0.316 degrees currently.

It's one pixel - a bit of PSF - blown up massively. That is all.

[JohnVV]

I remember seeing an early-80s artistic view of Pluto and Charon where the latter was depicted as non-spherical and asteroid-like. anyone else remembers it?

from the 80's ????

i might be wrong but i thought that even when i first saw or read sagsn's "cosmos"
( sept. 1980 )

that the radius was known at least that it was bigger that 1000Km in diameter

Charon ? was discovered in 1978 so by 1980 ? a mass ( very ruff ) and orbit and range for the diameter should have been known for both Pluto and Charon

now for
P2,P3,P4,and P5
these are small
-- Artists concept --