Live data from Hacker News

New Horizons’ first hi-res imagery of Ultima Thule

pluto.jhuapl.edu

81–90 of 151 posts

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

#81
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contact binaries are fairly common. Expected to make up about 10-15% of NEOs. My layman's understanding of how Kuiper object contact binaries develop is mutual capture during the early life of the solar system and angular momentum decay until they come into contact.

Can you say more about how angular momentum decays in orbital mechanics? I understand that, because the Earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, our tidal bulge will be ahead of the sublunar point, and will accelerate the moon in its orbit. Are there any other ways to get rid of angular momentum?

Tidal forces are one way - either between the two binary components, or from a close encounter with a third, larger body.

Another is the "YORP Effect". Sunlight falling on an asteroid produces a slight thermal radiation pressure (push). If, due to asymmetries in asteroid shape/albedo, the net radiation pressure force is not aligned with the asteroid's center of mass, it will produce a torquing force which will cause the asteroid to spin faster (or slower) over time. Applying the idea of YORP Effect to binary asteroids yields the "BYORP [Binary YORP] Effect", by which the orbital dynamics of the binary system are modified by this asymmetric radiation pressure over time, in a way that either pushes them together into a contact binary or apart into two unbound asteroids.

It's even hypothesized that some asteroids may be in a binary/contact-binary cycle on long timescales! There are solutions to the above in which the BYORP effect causes a loss of angular momentum in a binary pair, causing them to merge into a contact binary - but the contact binary may settle into a state where the YORP Effect actually causes the newly merged asteroid to spin faster, eventually flinging them apart due to centripetal forces... back into a binary state where the BYORP Effect may again cause them to merge someday.

Recommended reading: https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2676

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

#82
Um, is that BB-8?

Mimas (and Iaepetus too) really looks like the Death Star and now this thing looks like BB-8.

Ultima Thule-BB-8 comparison: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dv7psG3VYAA8jqa.jpg

Mimas-Death Star comparison: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/575/1*nUxm5MD_2xO5Y9Lorr...

Iaepetus-Death Star comparison: https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/80/750x445/8290...

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

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have you ever done course corrections in KSP? A tiny nudge early on is enough to make a huge difference farther out!

Yup. And if you've ever done maneuvers manually in KSP, you know that a tiny error in your nudge early on - e.g. hamfisting the throttle, or being a little too late in mid-maneuver staging - leads to a huge difference farther out, which you then have to correct, wasting precious ∆v :). I'm very much impressed by the control precision of real-life space probes.

> a tiny error in your nudge early on - e.g. hamfisting the throttle

And this is one of the many reasons why these machines are horrendously expensive - they are incredibly precise.

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

#84
I highly recommend reading the book Chasing New Horizons by Alan Stern[0]. It is a great insight into years of work it takes to get a mission like New Horizons going. It is a very well written book and I could not put it down until finished.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Chasing-New-Horizons-Inside-Mission/d...

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

#86
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, that's actually not true. Hitting Ultima-Thule is much harder. For starters, just figuring out where U-T actually is is very difficult. The observations we have only constrain two of its three degrees of orbital freedom. The third has to be inferred via orbital mechanics. Likewise, figuring out where the spacecraft is is also non-trivial. By way of contrast, figuring out where you are relative to New York to with…

I wonder how much would it cost to build a GPS-like network for the whole solar-system...

The good thing is that, for such a thing to be really useful, we'd have to invent better propulsion systems which would, in turn, make the network much cheaper to build.

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

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the crazy journey Rosetta took on the way to 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animation_of_Rosetta...

Wow, I actually had no idea; how is this all pre-planned, does somebody at NASA just put "67-P/Churyumov" into a "Orbital Maneuver Planner" and let some computers crunch the possible paths out? Or does someone actually sit down and come up with the possible sequence of orbital assits (to later verify with a computer) with a pencil and paper?

Just a correction, but it's a project of the European Space Agency, not NASA.

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

#88
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.

"They don't have to deal with unpredictable atmosphere"

Well, no, but they do have to deal with an atmosphere that has, until they get to it, only been theorized about, never observed - which is not the case for the atmosphere above New York.

There have been precisely four spacecraft that have gone anywhere near so far out as New Horizons, and they are between them the source for the majority of data we have about the atmosphere in the outer solar system. One of them discovered an anomalous acceleration effect that confused scientists for decades (and which, while it turns out not to have been externally caused, certainly left scientists wondering for a while whether their model for the solar wind was accurate). Of those that we believe have passed through the termination shock of the solar atmosphere, none have yet returned much accurate information, so we actually don't know much about the conditions there. I don't mean to say that these effects have meaningfully impacted navigation for deep space probes, but more these are genuine voyages of discovery - where they're going is predictable but until they get there we really don't necessarily know whether our predictions will be accurate.

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

#89
post #52

"hi-res" is relative - this is still about 5 times the feature size that was actually captured by the LORRI camera. Going to have to wait at least a few days for the glorious 30m/pixel version.

Some page wrote that it takes more than a year to get every piece of information about the fly-by.

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

#90
post #51

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?

This is still nowhere near full resolution - it's at 140 meters per pixel, whereas the camera got 30 meters per pixel. It's going to take a few days to download the full images at 1kbps though.

Isn't it 1000baud than 1kbps?
Post reply on HN