Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

pluto.jhuapl.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

#31

Post by baq »

robotrout wrote: post #19
quakeguy wrote: post #15

"The team says that the two spheres likely joined as early as 99 percent of the way back to the formation of the solar system, colliding no faster than two cars in a fender-bender." Welded together by gravity, i'm really in awe seeing the, by far, weakest power so lovely at work.

So, two masses were close enough in relative velocity and vector, that one of them didn't careen off the other one, and instead, allowed the weakest of all known forces to bond them together as they hurtled at high velocity through space. This object(s) seem statistically unlikely to me. I'm not saying it's artificial. That would be even more unlikely, by orders of magnitude. Just saying "Wow!".

the comet rosetta visited was quite similar. it's either humanity's dumb luck or those things are more common than previously thought.

Re: New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

#33

Post by lisper »

mbrundle wrote: post #2

I find it truly amazing that New Horizons was able to take photos of a 20 mile object whilst flying past at ~8 miles/sec - that’s an incredibly small space and time window within which to capture the images. Does anyone know how NASA manages to pilot spacecraft with this level of precision? What kind of engineering processes do you need to enable this?

> photos of a 20 mile object whilst flying past at ~8 miles/sec

Not to detract at all from the astonishing technical achievement, but that's the wrong comparison. You can see the ISS with your naked eye, and it's a Actually, the right comparison is of the closest approach distance (~2000 miles) with the distance from earth (4,000,000,000 miles). That's like launching a missile from Los Angeles to New York and hitting your target to within a meter.

Re: New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

#34

Post by robotrout »

magduf wrote: post #28
robotrout wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, two masses were close enough in relative velocity and vector, that one of them didn't careen off the other one, and instead, allowed the weakest of all known forces to bond them together as they hurtled at high velocity through space. This object(s) seem statistically unlikely to me. I'm not saying it's artificial. That would be even more unlikely, by orders of magnitude. Just saying "Wow!".

When you think about the vastness of space (even in our own star system), as well as the incredible amount of time involved since the formation of our system, many things that seem statistically unlikely probably become very likely. How many objects are in orbit around the Sun in this system? We probably only know a small fraction of them, since we can't see ones this small very well from this distance, and there cou…

In the vastness of a universe as large as ours, polka dotted unicorns are probably very likely. But it's still unlikely to actually encounter one ... you know, because they're polka dotted unicorns and because the universe is so big...

What I mean is, your argument doesn't make any sense. Just because the universe is big, doesn't make unlikely events more likely to be stumbled upon.

Re: New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

#35

Post by jdmichal »

lisper wrote: post #33
mbrundle wrote: post #2

I find it truly amazing that New Horizons was able to take photos of a 20 mile object whilst flying past at ~8 miles/sec - that’s an incredibly small space and time window within which to capture the images. Does anyone know how NASA manages to pilot spacecraft with this level of precision? What kind of engineering processes do you need to enable this?

> photos of a 20 mile object whilst flying past at ~8 miles/sec Not to detract at all from the astonishing technical achievement, but that's the wrong comparison. You can see the ISS with your naked eye, and it's a Actually, the right comparison is of the closest approach distance (~2000 miles) with the distance from earth (4,000,000,000 miles). That's like launching a missile from Los Angeles to New York and hitting…

To be fair, while that's an accurate representation of the distances, it's not accurate of the difficulty. They don't have to deal with unpredictable atmosphere. There's reasons laser-guided missiles are about 1-2 meters-ish of accuracy with constant guidance, while we can basically fire-and-forget spacecraft to 4 billion miles away.

Re: New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

#36

Post by fromthestart »

robotrout wrote: post #34
magduf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you think about the vastness of space (even in our own star system), as well as the incredible amount of time involved since the formation of our system, many things that seem statistically unlikely probably become very likely. How many objects are in orbit around the Sun in this system? We probably only know a small fraction of them, since we can't see ones this small very well from this distance, and there cou…

In the vastness of a universe as large as ours, polka dotted unicorns are probably very likely. But it's still unlikely to actually encounter one ... you know, because they're polka dotted unicorns and because the universe is so big... What I mean is, your argument doesn't make any sense. Just because the universe is big, doesn't make unlikely events more likely to be stumbled upon.

>This object(s) seem statistically unlikely to me

Your post implied that the existence of such objects is unlikely, not the observation.

To which the other poster replied that (unlikely event) x (vastness of space) = likely occurance.

Re: New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

#37

Post by ansible »

robotrout wrote: post #19
quakeguy wrote: post #15

"The team says that the two spheres likely joined as early as 99 percent of the way back to the formation of the solar system, colliding no faster than two cars in a fender-bender." Welded together by gravity, i'm really in awe seeing the, by far, weakest power so lovely at work.

So, two masses were close enough in relative velocity and vector, that one of them didn't careen off the other one, and instead, allowed the weakest of all known forces to bond them together as they hurtled at high velocity through space. This object(s) seem statistically unlikely to me. I'm not saying it's artificial. That would be even more unlikely, by orders of magnitude. Just saying "Wow!".

> This object(s) seem statistically unlikely to me.

At this mass these bodies are at, they aren't going to crush together from gravity to form a single round body.

However, if you've got two bodies in very similar orbits around the Sun, in close proximity, it doesn't seem incredible to me that they might eventually collide and stick.

Re: New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

#38

Post by ihattendorf »

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #32

Pretty decent resolution of a object 27000 km distant. Has anybody seen the specs on what type of lens NH uses for images like this?

It's an 8" Ritchey–Chrétien telescope with a 1024x1024 pixel CCD camera.

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/lorri_about.html

Re: New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

#39

Post by tunnuz »

wallace_f wrote: post #24
samstave wrote: post #16

I personally find it amusing and interesting that the physical object, Ultima Thule, looks similar to the Virtual Game logo "Ultima" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Ultima_Online...

The nostalgia and innocence and discovry of childhood hit me so hard when I saw that logo

I feel you.

Re: New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

#40

Post by Retric »

jdmichal wrote: post #35
lisper wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> photos of a 20 mile object whilst flying past at ~8 miles/sec Not to detract at all from the astonishing technical achievement, but that's the wrong comparison. You can see the ISS with your naked eye, and it's a Actually, the right comparison is of the closest approach distance (~2000 miles) with the distance from earth (4,000,000,000 miles). That's like launching a missile from Los Angeles to New York and hitting…

To be fair, while that's an accurate representation of the distances, it's not accurate of the difficulty. They don't have to deal with unpredictable atmosphere. There's reasons laser-guided missiles are about 1-2 meters-ish of accuracy with constant guidance, while we can basically fire-and-forget spacecraft to 4 billion miles away.

Spacecraft also do some corse corrections. You can also measure where your going very accurately averaging over a few hours.
Post reply on HN