06 Jul 15
NASA's New Horizons mission is 8 days, 7 hours, and 34 minutes from its closest approach to Pluto, and not one poindexter on this forum has made a peep about it. So, I shall be that poindexter. 😉
Contact with the probe was momentarily lost on July 4, but was restored within a couple of hours. Some rather nice images and animations are to be found at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/index.php. I guess the quality of the images surpassed the best the Hubble Telescope could manage sometime around April, give or take a month.
At this point I think we can all rest assured that neither Pluto nor Charon is an abandoned Death Star.
06 Jul 15
Originally posted by moonbusIts just a label, so it doesn't matter a whole lot to me whether you call it a planet or not. But to be reasonable, you will have to include quite a lot of other solar system bodies, and even some rather small asteroids.
Peep.
BTW, I still think Pluto is a planet. Anything massive enough to have a moon qualifies, in my book.
Check out this planet that went right past Earth in January:
http://earthsky.org/space/asteroid-that-flew-past-earth-january-26-2015-has-a-moon
07 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastI have been following breathlessly! The images are getting better by the day, far better now than any telescope on or near Earth. Here is a problem for you: calculate the size a telescope would need to be somewhere in the vicinity of Earth to have images of Pluto even as good as they are now, never mind when they get to closest approach. That is to say, the diameter of the reflector.
NASA's New Horizons mission is 8 days, 7 hours, and 34 minutes from its closest approach to Pluto, and not one poindexter on this forum has made a peep about it. So, I shall be that poindexter. 😉
Contact with the probe was momentarily lost on July 4, but was restored within a couple of hours. Some rather nice images and animations are to be found at ...[text shortened]... point I think we can all rest assured that neither Pluto nor Charon is an abandoned Death Star.
08 Jul 15
I am a little surprised the probe suffered a computer crash. You'd think they would have outfitted it with multi-processor multi-tasking capable kit.
Breathless indeed. Every time we get close to another body in our immediate neighborhood, we re-discover how complicated our little community is!
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by moonbusSometimes its easier just to make sure your computer can recover from a crash.
I am a little surprised the probe suffered a computer crash. You'd think they would have outfitted it with multi-processor multi-tasking capable kit.
Breathless indeed. Every time we get close to another body in our immediate neighborhood, we re-discover how complicated our little community is!
10 Jul 15
2 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastAlso on yesterdays APOD. This is really an exciting time for space exploration, first REALLY up close and personal on a comet and now a real close up look at Pluto. I wonder if there will be enough time to see the moons also? There are 5 of them we know about.
The latest images are at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
So, now there are images from yesterday, the first received since the July 4 glitch.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
11 Jul 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is, and there are (at least) two reasons for this.
Sometimes its easier just to make sure your computer can recover from a crash.
One, the KISS principle. Multiple redundancy is nice, does have its organisational cost; and multi-tasking is complicated. The less there is to go wrong, the less there will go wrong. And if you only rely on multiple redundancy, what do you do when the redundancy circuit itself goes wrong?
Two, you will crash, even with redundancy. It's a wild universe out there; sooner or later you will encounter a flare that fritzes all of your chips at the same time, or a rock which knocks you off course and out of touch with home. You are, guaranteed, going to get into trouble, and you're going to have to be able to recover. Why not make sure that that's an easy, automatic task? As proven this time, it has its benefits.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Jul 15
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI was thinking along very similar lines when looking at the recent roller-coaster ride crash in the UK.
It is, and there are (at least) two reasons for this.
One, the KISS principle. Multiple redundancy is nice, does have its organisational cost; and multi-tasking is complicated. The less there is to go wrong, the less there will go wrong. And if you only rely on multiple redundancy, what do you do when the redundancy circuit itself goes wrong? ...[text shortened]... Why not make sure that that's an easy, automatic task? As proven this time, it has its benefits.
They had all kinds of safety features installed that meant it was supposed to be impossible for
two trains to be on one of the gravity sections at once.
Evidently in this case they failed.
When the two trains crashed neither fell off the track, and the restraints held people in place with
minimal to no injuries.
The 4 people who were hurt were the 4 in the front 'car' who smacked directly into the stopped [empty]
train in front. They have had legs amputated and suffered injuries like collapsed lungs etc.
Now the safety stuff was all about preventing a crash in the first place, but if they had said "ok, it's supposed
to be impossible, but say 'the hand of god' comes down and makes a crash happen anyway, how do we
design this to prevent any injuries?" they might well have put in a buffering system that meant in the event of
a crash the passenger compartments would never impact each other. As the restraining system evidently
worked to prevent injuries they would have had a few bruises and strains and that's it.
As opposed to 4 people in critical condition with life changing injuries.
By all means design systems to prevent accidents and crashes happening in the first place as much as possible.
But always then introduce measures to mitigate against harm when those accidents and crashes happen anyway.
13 Jul 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeRoller coasters are restrained in ways trains never can be, multiple contacts with the tracks and such, and the velocity would be well under a real train and the mass would be many times less so the kinetic energy would be way less.
I was thinking along very similar lines when looking at the recent roller-coaster ride crash in the UK.
They had all kinds of safety features installed that meant it was supposed to be impossible for
two trains to be on one of the gravity sections at once.
Evidently in this case they failed.
When the two trains crashed neither fell off the tra ...[text shortened]... then introduce measures to mitigate against harm when those accidents and crashes happen anyway.
I wonder if the computer glitch on Horizons will ever be figured out?
13 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe cause was "an obscure timing flaw in a command sequence sent to the probe in preparation for flyby".
I wonder if the computer glitch on Horizons will ever be figured out?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2015/07/10/how-new-horizons-survived-the-40-year-glitch-and-made-it-to-pluto/#.VaQ9KZNViko
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by moonbusThere are asteroids that have moons also, but I wouldn't call it even a dwarf planet, way too small:
Peep.
BTW, I still think Pluto is a planet. Anything massive enough to have a moon qualifies, in my book.
http://www.space.com/28428-sharpened-view-of-asteroid-with-moons-earth-encounter-video.html