Pluto flyover by New Horizons

[Cerberus]

No I can't, but that's not to say someone hasn't broken ranks and gone public; but what would be their motivation, knowing full well that they'll be ignored?

Why would a whistle blowers who had evidence for fraud on a monumental scale, evidence that would make world wide news, become the story of century, be ignored by the media? Snowden, Assange, et al, had verifiable evidence, secret documents revealed, etc, and were not ignored. It's just a matter of evidence. Not claims. Not your claim. You have nothing to support your claim (whether you are serious, or not).

Snowden and Assange couldn't be ignored because it was government stuff, and the claims of corruption and incompetence too scandalous to be overlooked. Believe me, the governments would have ignored them if it were possible, but national security is a bit more profound than the kind of thing we're talking about here. I'll bet that Snowden and Assange wish they had been ignored!! Hell hath no fury like useless government bureaucrats exposed??

 

[DBT]

Why would a whistle blowers who had evidence for fraud on a monumental scale, evidence that would make world wide news, become the story of century, be ignored by the media? Snowden, Assange, et al, had verifiable evidence, secret documents revealed, etc, and were not ignored. It's just a matter of evidence. Not claims. Not your claim. You have nothing to support your claim (whether you are serious, or not).

Snowden and Assange couldn't be ignored because it was government stuff, and the claims of corruption and incompetence too scandalous to be overlooked. Believe me, the governments would have ignored them if it were possible, but national security is a bit more profound than the kind of thing we're talking about here. I'll bet that Snowden and Assange wish they had been ignored!! Hell hath no fury like useless government bureaucrats exposed??

Profound? Like public fraud on the scale that you are proposing is nothing that the people of America (and the World) would be concerned about?

 

[barbos]

You should be getting ready for school, barbos. I hope you're not bunking off?

Seriously?
After so many pages of people asking you to produce an argument you produced mind-boggling ignorance of even basic stuff. Now you resort to even more childish trolling.

 

[Cerberus]

Profound? Like public fraud on the scale that you are proposing is nothing that the people of America (and the World) would be concerned about?

It isn't 'fraud' per se, it's public dissembling under the guise of exploration in order to attract a continuous funding flow.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And from 'clutching at straws' we now descend into sarcasm. Well I always expect that - it's what those who realise they're losing an argument eventually resort to.

And, as always, also a tool used by someone who's realized their opponent's got the debate skills of a chalk chuck.

3) If the ‘climates’ on Pluto and Mars are so hostile to life that mankind couldn’t live there, what was the point of the missions?

Wow... It does burn, doesn't it?

 

[Cerberus]

And, as always, also a tool used by someone who's realized their opponent's got the debate skills of a chalk chuck.Wow... It does burn, doesn't it?

Have you anything worth saying, or are you just going to carry on with your puerile sniping and offer nothing of substantance?

 

[Keith&Co.]

And, as always, also a tool used by someone who's realized their opponent's got the debate skills of a chalk chuck.Wow... It does burn, doesn't it?

Have you anything worth saying,

I note that several people have asked you the same thing. DO you have any positive evidence for your positive claims?
Anything at all worth talking about?
A single reason beyond piss-antry to actually question the evidence you dismiss?

or are you just going to carry on with your puerile sniping and offer nothing of substantance?

Hey, you started it.

 

[James Brown]

1) Why didn’t NASA allocate more time for the probe do a few orbits of Pluto and take more photos – why just take the one with the ‘heart-shape’ in the momentary fly-by?

It wasn't about time; it was about fuel. To ease the fastest space probe we've ever launched into a parking orbit around Pluto (with its low gravity field) would have required a larger engine for braking, more fuel for the braking maneuver, more electronics, etc. All of that would have taken even more fuel, more weight, more parts to fail, etc.

I think it's a testament to the achievements of our space agencies that so many people have asked that question. We've become so accustomed to NASA launching missions that go into orbit around other Solar System bodies that we don't appreciate how difficult it is. The first mission we launched to Mars was just a flyby. As our experience grew, we were able to send orbiters and landers--although not with a 100% success rate, to be sure.

2) What’s the difference between liquid water and er water?

Liquid water is a state of water when between 0 degrees and 100 degrees Celsius.

3) If the ‘climates’ on Pluto and Mars are so hostile to life that mankind couldn’t live there, what was the point of the missions? Why not use the funding to build a colony on the moon?

Science is about exploration of the unknown, not just the limited goal of colonizing other worlds. And the small relative budget for New Horizons wouldn't put a dent in the enormous costs of building a colony on the moon. It's like asking someone, "Why did you buy an ice cream cone when you could have used that money to buy a house?"

And by the way, the 'climate' on the Moon is also harsh, much harsher than that of Mars, so a colony on the Moon will have an even harder time of it than on Mars.

And the Philae thing - when it bounced after first landing on the asteroid, how come the asteroid was still there when it came back down when asteroids travel at 280.000mph?

Same reason that when you jump up into the air, the Earth--which is rotating at 1,000 miles per hour at the Equator--doesn't rotate underneath you, leaving you to come back down far from where you started. The lander was under the influence of the asteroid's gravity.

If I think of any more questions I'll get back to you!

Please do! Asking questions is how we learn, and there are some clever folks on this board willing to answer questions in great detail.

 

[Cerberus]

I note that several people have asked you the same thing. DO you have any positive evidence for your positive claims?
Anything at all worth talking about?
A single reason beyond piss-antry to actually question the evidence you dismiss?
or are you just going to carry on with your puerile sniping and offer nothing of substantance?Hey you started it.

Well to finish it why not tell me your thoughts on the questions I put to dystopian in post 175. Don't leave all the hard work to him.

 

[Cerberus]

It wasn't about time; it was about fuel. To ease the fastest space probe we've ever launched into a parking orbit around Pluto (with its low gravity field) would have required a larger engine for braking, more fuel for the braking maneuver, more electronics, etc. All of that would have taken even more fuel, more weight, more parts to fail, etc.

I think it's a testament to the achievements of our space agencies that so many people have asked that question. We've become so accustomed to NASA launching missions that go into orbit around other Solar System bodies that we don't appreciate how difficult it is. The first mission we launched to Mars was just a flyby. As our experience grew, we were able to send orbiters and landers--although not with a 100% success rate, to be sure.

2) What’s the difference between liquid water and er water?

Liquid water is a state of water when between 0 degrees and 100 degrees Celsius.

3) If the ‘climates’ on Pluto and Mars are so hostile to life that mankind couldn’t live there, what was the point of the missions? Why not use the funding to build a colony on the moon?

Science is about exploration of the unknown, not just the limited goal of colonizing other worlds. And the small relative budget for New Horizons wouldn't put a dent in the enormous costs of building a colony on the moon. It's like asking someone, "Why did you buy an ice cream cone when you could have used that money to buy a house?"

And by the way, the 'climate' on the Moon is also harsh, much harsher than that of Mars, so a colony on the Moon will have an even harder time of it than on Mars.

And the Philae thing - when it bounced after first landing on the asteroid, how come the asteroid was still there when it came back down when asteroids travel at 280.000mph?

Same reason that when you jump up into the air, the Earth--which is rotating at 1,000 miles per hour at the Equator--doesn't rotate underneath you, leaving you to come back down far from where you started. The lander was under the influence of the asteroid's gravity.

If I think of any more questions I'll get back to you!

Please do! Asking questions is how we learn, and there are some clever folks on this board willing to answer questions in great detail.

Alright I will - thank you. How exactly was the device steered through all those billions of miles of space which resulted in its arrival at Pluto?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well to finish it why not tell me your thoughts on the questions I put to dystopian in post 175. Don't leave all the hard work to him.

I think you argue like a creationist, that's what I think.
You have no evidence, but claim your position is equal to any others.
You not only ignore countering evidence, you dismiss it based on nothing but speculation.
You challenge others to meet an impossible level of acceptability for their evidence. But you have fuck-all to meet even the most generous of thresholds.
You claim that an entire industry is involved in a conspiracy, based on their love of their jobs, which would make them love Being A Fraud more than seeking facts or sharing the truth. Your evidence for the conspiracy? Bupkes.
And you strew your posts with ad hominem, pretending your opponents are the stupid ones.

Feel free at any time to produce actual evidence FOR your claims, because gosh, that'll make me look foolish, won't it? And yet, I remain confident you cannot.

 

[Archimedes]

Cerberus, where's your proven and tangible evidence for the claims you've made about CGI graphics, jobs for the boys, that all NASA (and other space agencies) probes beyond the moon don't actually exist, about the hiring process at NASA, etc.?

Why do you refuse to provide any evidence for any of your many claims after you specifically stated that you only believe things that you have proven and tangible evidence for?

 

[Iznomneak]

Alright I will - thank you. How exactly was the device steered through all those billions of miles of space which resulted in its arrival at Pluto?

Good question!

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/new-horizons-navigating-to-pluto-040320154/

How do we navigate and home in on the aim point? First, we must determine where the spacecraft is — and where it's going — to high accuracy. To achieve this, we combine radio tracking of the spacecraft's trajectory (using NASA's Deep Space Network of tracking antennas) with a technique called optical navigation, in which New Horizons uses an onboard imager called LORRI to record the precise positions of Pluto and its satellites against background stars.

 

[James Brown]

Good question!

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/new-horizons-navigating-to-pluto-040320154/

How do we navigate and home in on the aim point? First, we must determine where the spacecraft is — and where it's going — to high accuracy. To achieve this, we combine radio tracking of the spacecraft's trajectory (using NASA's Deep Space Network of tracking antennas) with a technique called optical navigation, in which New Horizons uses an onboard imager called LORRI to record the precise positions of Pluto and its satellites against background stars.

Good answer. I'll simply add that New Horizons also has tiny engines that allow it to make simple course corrections if the engineers determine that it's getting off course.

But for the most part, New Horizons is a bullet with on-board cameras. I saw in a documentary last week that NASA engineers had estimated beforehand exactly where New Horizons would be when it reached Pluto. And after nine years of interplanetary travel and one Jupiter slingshot, the probe missed the target that they had estimated. . .

By one inch.

That is truly an impressive feat of engineering. I'm so glad I got to witness it.

 

[Malintent]

Cerberus,
I am very curious. What level of education did your parents (or the people that raised you) have? Where they college educated professionals? what is your level of education? Were you home schooled by your grandparents? did you attend college?

It is rare to 'meet' someone as yourself, so I am very interested where your particular manner of thought and communication came from.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why is that?
In any case, using 5000km spaced telescopes can easily give you 1% accuracy for signal from Pluto.
So no need for a larger base.

The probe is moving, they have to take their measurements all at once. They can't wait 6 months like they do for parallax on nearby stars.

Two dishes/arrays at opposite ends of Russia could take measurements of the location of the signal simultaneously. The amount they disagree on the celestial coordinates of the source gives the parallax, which is then converted directly into minimum distance. This is not hard to do.

 

[Keith&Co.]

the probe missed the target that they had estimated. . .

By one inch.

That is truly an impressive feat of engineering.

I teach maintenance of submarine launched ballistic missiles. One part of the course concerns missile guidance.
We're only flying a mere 4000 nautical miles and for less than an hour. At that distance, if the missile starts its flight with an accumulated error of 100 arc seconds (there are 60 arc seconds in one arc minute, 60 arc minutes in each degree, so 100 as = 1/36th of a degree) then the warheads are delivered with an error of two miles.

One inch after 9 years? 'Impressive' isn't anywhere near sufficient.

 

[barbos]

I very much doubt 1 inch story. First of all, such precision is not necessary and second, 1 inch with reference to what? surface of Pluto? but it's not defined that well. it has mountains and valleys mile(s) high/deep.

 

[dystopian]

And from 'clutching at straws' we now descend into sarcasm. Well I always expect that - it's what those who realise they're losing an argument eventually resort to.

Eh, no. "People always do x when they're losing the argument" is just a nice little fiction people tell themselves. In truth, I'm just the sort of bastard who will use sarcasm at any point.

Here are a few questions for you though, before I bow out - I'm intelligent enough to know that you can't argue against a closed mind

Oh, the irony.

- 1) Why didn’t NASA allocate more time for the probe do a few orbits of Pluto and take more photos

Really? You're 'intelligent enough' to know that you can't argue against a closed mind, but not intelligent enough to understand even the most bare-bone basics of things like... momentum?

First, space is big. Really big. Pluto is really really small relatively to the solar system. Pluto is very far from Earth. And the probe is travelling really fast. Even getting in the general vincinity of Pluto is like using a sniper-rifle to shoot the wings off a fly at a couple of kilometers distance. So that's pretty damn amazing to begin with.

Second, getting into orbit around another object in space is by no means easy. The horizons probe is travelling at a very high velocity; and Pluto does not have a big gravity well. Basic physics simply doesn't allow the probe to get into orbit around pluto at such speeds. The alternative would be to slow the probe down a great deal... but the probe has no way of doing this; it would either require the addition of impractical amounts of fuel (which would be problematic for all sorts of reasons) so that it could slow down upon approach... or it would require a probe that travels much, much, much slower throughout its journey... which would be impractical also because it would increase the mission time to unacceptable levels.

why just take the one with the ‘heart-shape’ in the momentary fly-by?

It didn't. The probe took a great deal of images... however the probe doesn't have the ability to send data back to earth very fast. It will take no less than 16 months for the probe to send all of the data it has gathered back to earth. The picture you're referring to is a compressed image the probe was instructed to send as a sort of 'we did it' celebration/PR move. The full range of uncompressed images and data will keep coming for the next year and a half.

2) What’s the difference between liquid water and er water?

Water can come in a number of different configurations. Frozen, liquid, and gaseous. I'm not sure what the relevance of your question is, however. There is no liquid water on Pluto; though there appears to be abundant frozen water on Pluto; in addition to frozen nitrogen.

3) If the ‘climates’ on Pluto and Mars are so hostile to life that mankind couldn’t live there, what was the point of the missions?

The point of the missions is to learn about the universe we live in, and to understand the processes that occur on other planets so that we might better understand such processes on our own. Science, is the point of these missions.

Why not use the funding to build a colony on the moon?

1) The moon is *more* hostile to life than Mars. Mars has a great many more features that would help a human colony thrive. It also has the long-term potential for terraforming; which the moon doesn't share. So if you're concerned about the viability of a Mars colony you shouldn't propose one on the moon.

2) You are severely underestimating the cost of setting up a moon colony. The budget for the New Horizons mission wouldn't even cover half a percent of the cost.

And the Philae thing - when it bounced after first landing on the asteroid, how come the asteroid was still there when it came back down when asteroids travel at 280.000mph?

For someone who claims to hold a certain degree of intelligence, you surely keep asking incredibly stupid questions. Do you not understand the concept of relative motion? Just because an asteroid is travelling very fast relative to us (I don't know where you get the 280.000 mph figure from; it certainly isn't the correct speed for 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko) doesn't mean it was travelling very fast compared to the lander. Obviously the spacecraft matched velocity with the asteroid first, allowing it to actually not transform into a fine particle mist upon touchdown.

If I think of any more questions I'll get back to you!

Oh joy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Huh? Since nobody had seen Mars at that point the fake need not be accurate.

"At that point," though.
You'd think that fraudsters would learn their lesson. Piltdown Man was made specifically to answer the theories of the time. As science moved on, theories changed, Pilty fit less and less well until people decided he was a sport and published without any reference to him at all.

Some dinosaur frauds were made to match the Comic Book portrayals of the time, but those became rather pointedly dated as the theories marched on. So if you're going to create a fraud that'll stand the test of time, and some of these 'frauds' (according-to-the-three-headed-Chihuahua-From-Hell) have to have lasted for generations, then you need really good facts for your fakes. The more accurate your fake, the longer it'll stand up to scrutiny.

Either that, or you have to make absolutely sure your conspiracy includes every single scientist and amateur who may contribute any observation to the sort of science you're trying to publish, and that all their observations contribute to a shared whole, a community fictional science shared-fan-fiction of space beyond Earth. So the only way to make the fraud that bullet-proof would be to send real probes so that no one who follows along after falsifies your fakes.

He's saying there still haven't been any probes beyond the moon. Thus we have no accurate images of Mars, the fake is fine.

- - - Updated - - -

Odd that Russia and the EU would fake their own failed missions to Mars. If you are going to fake something, you may as well make it a successful mission.

Unless the fakery requires hanging a transmitter in space--and the attempt fails or the transmitter dies.