New Horizons spacecraft prepares to study Pluto after 9-year voyage

by
in space on (#2VNX)
About three billion miles from Earth, a spacecraft the size of a grand piano is about to wake up. The spacecraft is called New Horizons, and it has been traveling for nine years across the solar system on a high speed journey to its ultimate destination, the dwarf planet Pluto. A few weeks later, instruments on the spacecraft will begin to make observations. No one really even knows what Pluto looks like. Neither of the Voyagers visited Pluto on their journey through the solar system. One sad, pixelated picture taken by the Hubble telescope in 1994 is the best image of Pluto and its moon Charon ever made.

New Horizons is scheduled to make long-range observations of a small Kuiper belt object, temporarily designated VNH0004, in January 2015, before the Pluto flyby. After passing by Pluto, New Horizons will continue farther into the Kuiper belt. Provided it survives that far out, New Horizons is likely to follow the Voyager probes in exploring the outer heliosphere and mapping the heliosheath and heliopause. The heliopause might be reached around year 2047. Even though it was launched far faster than any outward probe before it, New Horizons will never overtake either Voyager 1 or Voyager 2 as the most distant human-made object from Earth. Close fly-bys of Saturn and Titan gave Voyager 1 an advantage with its extra gravity assist.
Reply 12 comments

Should we tell it? (Score: 2, Funny)

by slash2phar@pipedot.org on 2014-12-07 15:35 (#2VPE)

When it left, Pluto was a planet. Then it wasn't. And now perhaps it will be again.

Re: Should we tell it? (Score: 1)

by hyper@pipedot.org on 2014-12-08 13:52 (#2VQG)

Is our civilisation advanced and mature enough to offer psychological support to a planet, err moon ahh far orbiting large rock oh hell whateverwearerankingitastoday

Nuclear power battery (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-12-07 15:36 (#2VPF)

I am happy to read that New Horizons has a nuclear power battery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons#Power
Ok, hard to go without one in that kind of mission, but when I read this:
Less than the original design goal was produced, due to delays at the United States Department of Energy, including security activities, which held up production.
I am sure the uneducated mobocracy tried its best to throw a monkey wrench into the works.

Re: Nuclear power battery (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-12-08 17:31 (#2VQN)

Sadly, it may not have been a mobocracy intentionally trying to gum up the works. It may have simply been a run-of-the-mill bureaucracy incapable of producing any other result.

Re: Nuclear power battery (Score: 1)

by insulatedkiwi@pipedot.org on 2014-12-08 17:50 (#2VQP)

Or it could have been to the acute shortage of the fissionable material, don't assign to malice, etc etc.

Re: Nuclear power battery (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-12-08 20:06 (#2VQW)

I am sure the uneducated mobocracy tried its best to throw a monkey wrench into the works.
The WP article says there were only about 30 protesters, far less than previous missions. The DoE just isn't churning out Pu-238 in mass quantities like it used-to, and it's much more expensive as a result, too.

My question is, why isn't NASA getting more efficient (so that it only needs a fraction as much Pu) since the "T" in RTG is only 5-8% efficient?

They've been extensively developing SRGs to replace RTGs for quite a few decades, requiring only 1/4 as much Pu for the power, yet haven't ever put a single one in space.

Re: Nuclear power battery (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-12-08 20:49 (#2VQY)

I am certainly not an expert, but from a gut feeling I would say RTGs are more robust than SRGs. A moving piston? Over years? Yes, maybe for manned missions, where repairs or exchanges are possible. But for something like New Horizons? I would think something without moving parts would be superior.

Re: Nuclear power battery (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-12-08 21:17 (#2VR1)

I would think something without moving parts would be superior.
Try hitting a computer chip with a hammer. Then try the same thing with your car's engine. Still think solid-state is always superior?

Both SRGs and RTGs are designed (and tested) with the same lifetimes in-mind. The SRGs even lose less capacity over time (thermo-electric materials decay). And NASA has done the testing to prove that SRGs can operate continuously for the necessary lifetimes.

Re: Nuclear power battery (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-12-08 21:33 (#2VR2)

Try hitting a computer chip with a hammer. Then try the same thing with your car's engine. Still think solid-state is always superior?
I don't think hitting with a hammer is neither the normal mode of operation for computer chips, nor for car engines.

But nevertheless, it is interesting. I would never have expected that such a motor can run reliably over years. Not only because of the moving parts, but also because of the helium. Helium is not the easiest material to contain. Especially not heated helium.

Re: Nuclear power battery (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-12-09 11:00 (#2VRM)

I was just engaging in a spot of successful percussive maintenance today. I swear the damn thing knows when its my gf at the deck cause it just does not like me

Oblig Starwars (Score: 1, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-12-08 13:53 (#2VQH)

That's no moon!