Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Pluto Plans Progress 23

Posted by michael from the can't-kick-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth dept.
akiaki007 writes: "Here is an article on NYTimes (free reg.) that talks about the late discussions about how NASA is going to be spending their money. Looks like the decision to send a craft to Pluto has been made final. January 2006 has been set for the launch date. Pluto's atmosphere is expected to freeze around 2020, so this is the last chance to make any type of observations on the planet we will get until about 2200."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pluto Plans Progress More

Pluto Plans Progress

Comments Filter:

  • wow (Score:1)

    by seann ( 307009 )
    this is amazing
    I wish I could read the article though.

  • What will they find? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Probably nothing but ice and iron. Maybe some silicon and sulphur, but not much else. Venus or Jupiter's moons would be much more interesting, IMO.

    We'd probably also find some spam from kilgore bashing the U.S. up there. It seems to be everywhere nowadays.
  • I was unable to read the article, but for you who were able to, does it mention anything about possible travel time and any new technologies being used? Personally, I think it would be exciting to see a plasma rocket power this probe. Chemical rockets (and solar sails) would be too slow, but Antimatter is too far ahead. Also, will they use the same nuclear power generators that they used on Cassini? It really made me mad, how everyone was protesting, saying it would blow up and leak radiation everywhere.
    • They made no mention of propulsion at all, however they did say that they expected the trip to take about a decade. That is about right for a conventional rocket like the voyager probes. I too would love to see some new technology used. I am a physics student and am considering working in this field. Ion/plasma propulsion could easily cut down the travel time. However, the technology has not been thoroughly developed, so it would be much more expensive. I say that while it would be worth the cost, it is may be too much of a risk to test a new technology when we will only have this one chance.
      • Yes, but wait 5 years and we will have an engine ready to get to pluto before the same probe gets to pluto if you send it now. It takes a decade to get there, why the rush?
        Anyways on a side note, I think a million people misread the scale on the survey (1 was best 10 was worse) and thats why they are sending a probe to pluto.
        • It will be a lot more than 5 years before we can go any faster. What advancements have you seen lately? Every satellite that has gone into deep space (deep space in current terms) has been boosted by a conventional rocket and left to coast for a decade or two. The exception is Deep Space 1, which was the same except for its ion engine. The ion engine supplied a few grams of thrust for many many months, which did make a significant increase in speed.

          There are problems involved in a Pluto mission though. It is damn far away, and that means carrying a lot of gas for the ion engine. That means a lot of mass to carry with you, which means you need that much more fuel to push the fuel you are already using. And as you get really really far from the sun, you can't get much energy from it anymore, so you had better hope you have enough speed to make it. I think that if we wait for better ion technology to develop, we would loose any benefit that we would have gained with ions. I am all for alternative propulsion, though.
      • I don't think using advanced tech would be a good idea, for a mission transit of 10 years you've got to use something reliable and proven.

        And with the Mars mission problems you know NASA want to avoid the egg.
    • The article also mentions that the window for using a traditional 'no-cost gravitational catapult' to get there will end in 2007. After that a new (not mentioned) experimental propulsion system would be necessary.
  • I'm a nerd, no doubt about that. I like space and science as much as the next guy but I'm also cheep. My question is this: Why spend our money on a Pluto probe when we could put it towards getting ourselves to Mars or the Moon?

    Has anyone thought of this from a cost/return perspective?
    • We should spend the money on Pluto now for a couple of reasons. 1) It is the nearest Kuiper-belt like object, and the Kuiper-belt is quite likely the largest and most poorly understood part of our solar system. 2) If we don't act now to launch, rather than wait for cheaper space travel that should come in a few decades, then we will not get the chance to investigate it until 150 years from now or we devise much much much more powerful forms of space propulsion.
      • Not to be dismissive about this but who cares if we don't understand about the Kuiper-belt for the next 150 years? Can you give me any good reason why this information would advance technology or science more now as opposed to 2200? Besides, I'm willing to bet that in under 150 years, we'll be able to get a ton of information from Earth/orbital/Lunar based observatories without waving to throw a $2bn lump of metal out there.

        As for NASA making less exotic endevors cheaper, hey, I'm all for that. If we can save some money on the monthly missions, that's all the faster that we'll be terraforming the Moon, Mars and the Jovian Moons (except for Europa of course).

        I've been disappointed in NASA's apparent lack of direction with regards to space settlement. Sure the space station is a nice step and yes, I'm aware that we've been to the Moon and we've sent expensive trinkets to Mars but we still don't have a foothold off of this mudball and it doesn't look like we'll be going in that direction any time soon.
    • What Mt_Honkey said in terms of specifics, but...if NASA thought about cost/return in general, don't you think they'd have invested more than a trifle into reducing the cost of routine space missions?
  • After canceling its own efforts in September 2000, NASA last November chose a team led by the Southwest Research Institute and the Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory to design, build and operate a reconnaissance mission to Pluto at a cost of $546 million, including projected inflation. Continuing on to explore a Kuiper Belt object would cost an additional $73 million.

    After spending $546 mil they've got to spend the $73 mil to look at the Kuiper Belt. I mean I need to know if it will go with my suit!
  • http://www.boulder.swri.edu/pkb/ [swri.edu] will get you to the New Horizons mission website.
  • If I don't check out what's at the bottom of my closet before the top shelf spills over I may not have another chance again. Not sure if there's anything there, but this is my only chance. I better go soon, forget what else I have to do. This seems silly to me.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Close