The Search For Apollo 10's "Snoopy" 116
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the look-harder-charlie-brown dept.
from the look-harder-charlie-brown dept.
astroengine writes "A UK-led team of astronomers are going to use their comet and asteroid-hunting skills to track down a piece of Apollo history. In 1969, Apollo 10 did everything the first moon landing (Apollo 11) did, except land on the lunar surface. During the Apollo 10 mission, the lunar module, nicknamed 'Snoopy,' was jettisoned and sent into a solar orbit — it is still believed to be out there, 42 years later. 'We're expecting a search arc up to 135 million kilometers in size which is a huge amount of space to look at,' British amateur astronomer Nick Howes told Discovery News. 'We're aware of the scale and magnitude of this challenge but to have the twin Faulkes scopes assist the hunt, along with schools, plus the fact that we'll doubtless turn up many new finds such as comets and asteroids makes this a great science project too.'"
How hard can it be (Score:5, Funny)
How hard can it be to find Snoopy? Just look for an area where bombs are being dropped, then search for a biplane within that area. When you find that, follow the trail to the nearest Christmas party, and you'll find Snoopy drowning his sorrows in a (root) beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could just ask Charlie Brown, who is slightly easier to find:
http://web.mac.com/jimgerard/AFGAS/pages/apollo/A-10.html [mac.com]
http://www.london-attractions.info/london-blog/2011/apollo-10-command-module-charlie-brown-at-the-science-museum.htm [london-attractions.info]
Re: (Score:2)
But this is a case of Snoopy setting off to the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm to find his original owner, or to Needles to find his cousin Spike, or Petaluma for the arm wrestling world championship.
Yeah, that's right - obscure Peanuts references, get 'em out of yer system while they're still on topic!
Back in the early eighties, there was a series of books called "Charlie Brown's Book Of Questions And Answers", the second volume had a section on space exploration, and the Apollo 10 mission was one of the subjects,
Mine! (Score:2)
This is going to be really tough (Score:5, Informative)
We don't know the exact orbit. If this had been from only a few years ago this would be a small range. But after 40 years this means that the module has a massive range. We don't know where it is. Although we should have a better idea how fast it should be moving which helps slightly. Also, this sort of thing has been done before. Since the late 1700s there's been attempts to track down objects based on some observations. This started off in some sense with Halley's Comet, but that was more about realizing that a large set of observations were the same thing (Halley also had the advantage of realizing that Jupiter and Saturn had a major impact on comets and also had Newton's previous work to guide him). The next time this would be used would be in the early 1800s when Gauss (yes, that Gauss as in Gauss's law and lots of other math and physics stuff. He was very productive.) calculated the orbit of Ceres based on a few months of observations. Since then we've refined these sorts of techniques a lot, and in this case we aren't limited to ground based observations since we have a pretty good idea where and when Snoopy was sent out.
The main problem is going to probably be that Snoopy is tiny. Something this small is very hard to see even with very good telescopes. Most asteroids that are detected with telescopes are much larger than the lunar lander. Spotting something of that size even with the (fairly large) telescopes that they are using will be tough.
Re:This is going to be really tough (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem is going to be that Snoopy has a low mass to area ratio, and thus will be very subject to radiation pressure. It's orbit may not have changed much, but it could be anywhere along it (i.e., could have any mean anomaly).
Re: (Score:2)
It is tiny. Know-one knows exactly where it is. Yes NASA did know where it went but not with enough accuracy to tell where it is now. 40 years is a long time to modify and orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the understatement of the century. How is this even going to be possible. From what I've always heard, Hubble can't even resolve things like this on the lunar surface.
http://news.discovery.com/space/apollo-10-search-snoopy-astronomy-110919.html [discovery.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind knowing too. Going by the specs on the Liverpool telescope, they get 0.135 arcseconds/pixel using their best camera, which is about 250m/pixel at the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This [nasa.gov] was the founding of space archaeology.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not the only thing (Score:5, Interesting)
There are also the Apollo 8, 10, 11 and 12 S-IVBs [wikipedia.org] (3rd stage). (Starting with Apollo 13, the S-IVBs were impacted on the Moon to produce "Moonquakes" for the ALSEP seismometers). For all of those except for Apollo 8, there were also 4 large SLAs (panels) around the LM, which were ejected when the LM was retrieved just after TLI. (The Apollo-8 panels stayed on the S-IVB, as it had no LM.) In a real trivia, the Apollo 13-17 SLAs also should be out there, as the S-IVB was directed to hit the Moon after the LM was retrieved, and thus after they were ejected.
There was a claim that the S-IVB for Apollo 12 might have been found [nasa.gov]. I don't know if that was ever confirmed, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I know something about it because I was following it at the time, and because I am still involved in such stuff.
Here are some links to get you started
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/index.html [nasa.gov]
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/sitemap.htm [myspacemuseum.com]
http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/ALSEP/hl_alsep.html [honeysucklecreek.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Everything he posted is right on Wikipedia's various Apollo links. Reading that and following the source links should keep you busy for a long time.
Re: (Score:1)
Curious: What happened to the lunar modules for Apollo 11, 12, and 14-17? After the ascent stage docked with the command module and the astronauts transferred over, the ascent stage was jettisoned, right? So what makes the LM for Apollo 10 special? Or did the ascent modules for the landing missions remain in orbit around the moon?
------RM
Re: (Score:3)
There were a bunch of Lunar satellites in the Apollo era.
Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 LMs were deliberately impacted onto the Moon, again, to make Moon-quakes for the ALSEP seismometer network. Apollo 13 LM went into the Earth's atmosphere.
Apollo 15 and 16 released one "Particles and Fields subsatellite" each for lunar studies, and the Apollo 11 LM ascent stage (and, apparently, the Apollo 16 LM ascent stage), were left in Lunar orbit. There were also the Lunar Orbiters 1-5 and a similar number of unmanned Sovi
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the Apollo 8 S-IVB was blown up by SHADO because it was harboring UFOs [fanderson.org.uk].
Titanium Dioxide Spectral Profile (Score:2)
Short of sending a probe out there, I think we're as sure as we're going to get that object J002E3 is the Apollo 12 S-IVB, due to a spectral profile that matches titanium dioxide paint.
Good work (Score:1)
Oh men... (Score:1)
... it will take 300 years to come back, but when it does, it will be pissed...
(yeah, i'm still thinking of a cool name, but snyger stinks...)
Before the obvious... (Score:2)
I know there will be a few "who cares?" and "why are we bothering?"... If it's in orbit it will come back around again. Much like how we need to track all satellites around Earth to prevent collisions, and asteroids/comets that may be on a trajectory towards Earth, we'll need to track this object as well. Who knows when and where it might collide with something in the future.
All I hear is... (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't they already do this search? (Score:4, Funny)
God, Russell (Score:2)
This reminds me of a learning project (Score:2)
When folks want to learn to program, or in fact do pretty much anything, I usually suggest they pick an arbitrary project idea in the general field and simply start working on it. *What* exactly they're working on matters less than that they are working on something and learning from the process. (The scope of the project ideally grows naturally on their existing knowledge base).
In this case anybody working on this is developing (hopefully better) technology for finding stuff. That technology will go into o
Re:Money NOT well spent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine if all the money spent on sending handfuls of people into space was spent on health care education here on Earth?
Seems to me that spending money on something that will eventually contribute to the over-population of the planet while NOT spending money on ways to get off this rock, would be the definition of counter-productive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't make much progress in only one field of research at a time, and you certainly can't predict which branch of scientific (or other) endeavor will bring the next improvement in the human condition. Chemistry, biology, physics, etc all advance much more quickly when we employ them together, and space research does just that.
Chasing only short-term benefits is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten us into the mess we're in.
Re: (Score:3)
When the short term benefit is, literally, life versus death... opting for anything but immediate relief for the dying is pure evil.
Thinking short-term is what is pure evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course letting people starve to death can be an acceptable situation. If by letting 10,000 people starve to death today, that means that we will be able to feed 100,000 people tomorrow, then it would be sociopathic to let those 90,000 people die tomorrow.
Re: (Score:3)
No we don't, especially not permanently. Populations will grow exponentially, while resources are bounded.
Also, don't forget that our food productivity is so high only because people wasted money and time tinkering with science, rather than feeding the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
That we have the resources, at this moment, to utterly and permanently eliminate starvation is not an if.
Really? The primary cause of starvation in most of the world is NOT lack of food or money. The causes are political. Warlords stealing shipments, governments not allowing humanitarian aid, funds being diverted or squandered. Unless your "resource" somehow avoids those pitfalls, you can't stop starvation. duh.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it'll annoy you, but I'll throw another 'if' at you.
If we do in fact have the resources, at this moment, to utterly and permanently eliminate starvation, then why is it still a problem? Furthermore, if we do have so many resources available, then isn't it the perfect time to indulge in some science?
Re: (Score:3)
You've been reading the 'Nutter's Weekly' again, haven't you?
Take any culture, be it human, canine, rodents, or whatever. Allow that culture to breed without restraint, and soon, that culture will have consumed all available resources. Worse, it will probably poison itself with it's own waste products. Go get yourself a petrie dish, and try it out. Just put one little organism in the dish, with unlimited nutritional resources. You can even replenish those resources every day if you wish. Just watch,
Re: (Score:2)
We have the resources to feed everyone right now, but it wouldn't be permanent. Quite aside from population increase, modern agriculture is dependent on easily accessible petroleum and natural gas. Not just for agricultural equipment, but also because modern agriculture is completely unsustainable and relies on fertilisers mostly made from petrochemicals. When we run out of easy fossil fuels, we'll start running out of food.
Re: (Score:1)
"Populations will grow exponentially, while resources are bounded." - A solvable dilemma.
"our food productivity is so high only because people wasted money and time tinkering with science" - And it's high and nigh past the time where we can employ the results of that science to realize the initial premises of such research.
Re: (Score:1)
Education.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not an "if" but, rather, a "why."
Let's say we find the cure for cancer... and then proceed to not implement the treatments which facilitate that cure.
We will have the ability to state that we've cured cancer, but people will still be dying from cancer, right?
This is precisely what we are doing with regard to feeding and medicating those who aren't being fed or offered treatment.
Re: (Score:1)
Education cures many things.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - but you're still stuck with a population that grows exponentially. You'll notice that despite the educated peoples in Europe and North America slowing their growth rate, the human race continues to reproduce at an unsustainable rate. China leads the world, with their negative growth rate, but still we have the masses of Asia, Africa, and South America plus Mexico producing around 5 babies per woman.
I guess you need to get out there and start educating people!
Meanwhile, I still ask, what good does i
Re: (Score:2)
It's always moral to permit things. Save your condemnation for those people actually actively causing people to starve... their own governments, generally.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a discussion. Save your rule-making decrees for people who aren't actively participating in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A good start would be to have people in shithole, arid areas of the world stop having 12 kids per family (plus all the illegitimates).
A nice followup would be to eliminate a lot of the hyperprocessed crap that's eaten in the "developed world", stop wasting corn making HFCS, etc.
Unfortunately, what these really require is a political solution because it's predominantly a political problem. In the US, HFCS production is high because of government subsidies, mostly because Republican legislators are beholden t
Re: (Score:1)
So... we should just ignore all of that and move on, right?
Again... people are dying. They do not have to.
"Welcome to life" doesn't feel so callous a statement to you because you don't know the people who are suffering and aren't personally effected...
Callously pretend that you do and that you are.
Welcome to compassion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Right-wing buffoonery, lies, damn lies, and statistics.
"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab." - It does NOT address how much of their income as a percentage they pay in total taxes - by which I mean income tax, property tax, and the various regressive taxation schemes (sometimes called "fees", sometimes not) cooked up by Republicans in recent decades.
The rest of that piece of toilet paper
Re: (Score:1)
In what way is this comment trolling?
Mods... just because you disagree with a point being made doesn't make it the comment a trolling comment... I'm about 30 comments deep into this thread... logged in and engaged. If that's trolling, then I'll stop sleeping with your mother.
Re: (Score:2)
You need more than just a certain amount of calories to be well nourished. It's the people pumping out the kids in areas without the infrastructure to cope with them that need to change. We can try to improve the infrastructure too, but blaming developed countries for third world hunger is like blaming the Police for drug imports.
Re: (Score:1)
"Blaming developed countries for third world hunger"
Straw man much? This is a global problem with global solutions. Meaning; the whole globe.
Go to the nearest major metropolitan area which you can access... People are starving there, too.
We're far better at hiding them than we are at feeding them... and we invest far more resources into hiding them than we to toward caring for them.
Re: (Score:2)
transrational [wiktionary.org]: Beyond the rational; believed without logic or evidence.
Based on your arguments in the dozens of posts above, I would have to agree that this definition is apt.
Re: (Score:1)
People are starving? Where?
Re:Money NOT well spent. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the ratio of what is spent on NASA to what is spent on "Defense"?
There is a lot of waste in the budget, but NASA and the sciences are not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not. They may find other benefits, and probably will, but even if it just advances tracking technology for telescopes that would be sufficient, IMHO, to justify the expenditure. Worst case you've got better technology for spotting asteroids that might impact the Earth.
Re:Money NOT well spent. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if all the money spent on sending handfuls of people into space was spent on health care education here on Earth?
Yeah, or if the trillions of dollars spent on the military were given to me. Then I could buy everyone a fur coat. (But not a real fur coat, 'cause that's cruel.)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to get me a Reliant, I'd prefer it be prepended with USS. (What kind of name is Reliant, anyway? reliant upon a massive service infrastructure)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to get me a Reliant, I'd prefer it be prepended with USS.
You want a Reliant? Which one, a Reliant Robin [wikipedia.org] or a Reliant Regal? [wikipedia.org]
You can call it USS if you like... (^_^)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to get me a Reliant, I'd prefer it be prepended with USS. (What kind of name is Reliant, anyway? reliant upon a massive service infrastructure)
But is there Dijon Catsup in the trunk?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, what the hell; I'll bite.
Imagine if all the money spent on sending handfuls of people into space was spent on health care education here on Earth?
Well, we'd probably see far fewer posts like this post's parent, and that does hold a lot of appeal: health care education would certainly go a long way toward eliminating the homeopathy advocates and so on. All the same, if you're going to argue that the money spent on space exploration could be better spent on earth, I can think of far better arguments for that than these ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah... like food and medicine. Stupid conspiracy theorists all starving themselves and dying of curable diseases... the destitute are so selfish!
Re:Money NOT well spent. (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess the larger question is "Why?" Why are they even looking for this in the first place?
Because it's there.
Seriously, if we never did anything except the true and tested, we would never have left Africa. I'm sure the first one who said "I want to see what's over that mountain" was ridiculed by the tribal reactionaries.
Re:Money NOT well spent. (Score:5, Informative)
For example, did you know the flu shots are ineffective and even dangerous? If you start to show the signs of a flu there are simple things you can do. A homeopathic remedy of Oscillococcinum along with Chiropractic adjustments form a two-pronged attack on the flu virus. The Oscillococcinum attacks the young viruses while the adjustments to the spine help the body's innate healing capabilities destroy the mature virus. It's a 100% painless and safe way to heal yourself from within with the human body's most powerful weapon: innate intelligence.
Bob, are you trying to troll at this point? We've got homeopathy involved now too? Ok. Let's spell this out very explicitly: There's no such thing as a young virus or a mature virus. Viruses don't have any metabolism. That means they are either fully assembled or they are being assembled or they are being disassembled while infecting something. There are no young viruses. If you know this little about basic biology you might want to consider what else you don't know. Maybe, just maybe you are wrong about chiropractice being the be all and end all. It takes a lot of effort to admit you are wrong. Many humans can't do it for things they've spent a lot of time believing. But, maybe you can.
However, I suspect you won't. You'll just keep spamming your misguided ideas all over Slashdot and the rest of the internet. In which case, kindly go practice chiropracticory on yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if all the money spent on sending handfuls of people into space was spent on health care education here on Earth?
Ummm, we wouldn't have trolls like you? So on that sentence, and only on that single one, we sorta-kinda agree.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to applaud "Dr. Bob" for doing more to debunk the validity of chiroquacktic than anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Bob. The one and only.
Hey, Bob - what if you cure all of humanity's ills, just to have an asteroid half the size of the moon crash into the earth the next day? Just think - all that wasted time solving one set of problems, just to have another, bigger problem dropped on your head, out of nowhere.
I'll deal with the flu, staph, and strep, if I can just get OFF THIS ROCK! It's a deathtrap, I tell you! I've beaten the flu a couple dozen times now, but I have little idea how to beat a few million tons o
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer to imagine a world
Re: (Score:2)
If they can find something as small as a lunar descent stage with a spaceborne telescope, then a piece of rock with the potential to eradicate every lifeform on this planet in an instant should be a doddle to spot, in plenty of time.
Re: (Score:1)
Oscillococcinum and similar "remedies" are simply yummy, to my taste at least. I treat them as seasonal candies, nothing more. I love the echinacea pills, sour and smooth. Cheap if you know where to buy them at a discount, too.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for the Goatse.
Re: (Score:1)
that AEONITY.COM link is NSFW dammit (Score:1)
that AEONITY.COM link is NSFW dammit
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. I hang my head in shame.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
No one seriously thought we would talk into plastic in 1850 or glass would glow in 1790 or that the earth was round in 1200 either. The very fact that you are staring at a glowing screen pushing English letters on a plastic panel that is tethered to a metal box )or integrated into as the case maybe) is something that the whole of science didn't seriously think was possible while Teddy Roosevelt was in office. So that in it selves says it came and most likely will be done.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes (although this is reverse engineering). In orbital dynamics, the easiest thing to change in the mean anomaly - i.e., where are you on the orbit. Orbital shape, size and orientation is harder to change (and, thus, easier to model). This is true both for initial errors, and for perturbations. Suppose you get the semi-major axis just a little off, say 300,000 km, or ~ 0.2%. Then you have the orbital period wrong by ~ 0.3%, and each year you build up an error of about 1.2 degrees of mean anomaly (longitude