Eye's on the New Horizons and the Kuiper Belt

[Ophiolite]

Thank you for keeping us updated on this. I'm apt to forget about. (It is a long way away. )

 

[essentialsaltes]

NASA’s New Horizons Spacecraft Captures Its First Photo of Ultima Thule, Its Next Target

Though it’s still 107 million miles from its target, the New Horizons spacecraft has caught a first glimpse of Ultima Thule, a mysterious Kuiper Belt object.

The photo is not going to win any prizes, but "these images are now the most distant ever taken from Earth (New Horizons just broke its own record). And lastly, New Horizons proved that it’s now able to visually detect its target, which means mission planners can adjust the spacecraft’s trajectory if needed."

 

[Shemjaza]

NASA’s New Horizons Spacecraft Captures Its First Photo of Ultima Thule, Its Next Target

Though it’s still 107 million miles from its target, the New Horizons spacecraft has caught a first glimpse of Ultima Thule, a mysterious Kuiper Belt object.

The photo is not going to win any prizes, but "these images are now the most distant ever taken from Earth (New Horizons just broke its own record). And lastly, New Horizons proved that it’s now able to visually detect its target, which means mission planners can adjust the spacecraft’s trajectory if needed."

Is it just me, or is "Ultima Thule" the most Occult Alien or Space Nazi named object ever?

I feel like evil wizards that Flash Gordon needs to stop dwell there.

 

[rockytopva]

We are 1 AU, or 100,000,000 miles, from Ultima Thule

06/28/2015 - 14.54 km/s (32,500 mph)
08/14/2015 - 14.50 km/s (32,400 mph)
10/31/2015 - 14.47 km/s (32,400 mph)
01/14/2016 - 14.45 km/s (32,200 mph)
12/24/2016 - 14.43 km/s (32,200 mph)
02/01/2017 - 14.31 km/s (32,000 mph)
06/02/2017 - 14.27 km/s (31,900 mph)
07/06/2017 - 14.26 km/s (31,900 mph)
12/26/2017 - 14.20 km/s (31,765 mph)
08/02/2018 - 14.14 km/s (31,630 mph)
09/01/2018 - 14.13 km/s (31,608 mph)

The spacecraft is still being slowed by the suns gravity. The NASA scientist are going to have to estimate a time of arrival to Ultima Thule, the speed, the theoretical location of the object at the time of encounter, and then they are going to have to rotate the spacecraft at 31,500 mph as it passes the KBO so they can get a full view of the object. If they are off by a second they will only see outer space and will miss the object during the rotation. They will be 24 AU's from the object, or 4 billion miles. It takes 5 hours for a data transmission to reach the object from Earth.

It will be an interesting encounter! A lot of math to make it work!

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Where-is-New-Horizons/index.php

 

[rockytopva]

September 5th update.... Preparing for the encounter....

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/PI-Perspectives.php?page=piPerspective_09_05_2018

 

[FredVB]

I am looking forward to seeing images with details of MU69/Ultima Thule as well.

Whether you think Pluto is not a planet or you think it is, how planets are defined are arbitrary, and some bodies will be included or excluded with any little change in definitions, which are likely to still happen, over time at some point eventually.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180907110422.htm

 

[FredVB]

According to this article, Pluto should be reclassified as a planet:

The reason Pluto lost its planet status is not valid, according to new research from the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union, a global group of astronomy experts, established a definition of a planet that required it to "clear" its orbit, or in other words, be the largest gravitational force in its orbit.

Since Neptune's gravity influences its neighboring planet Pluto, and Pluto shares its orbit with frozen gases and objects in the Kuiper belt, that meant Pluto was out of planet status. However, in a new study published online in the journal Icarus, UCF planetary scientist Philip Metzger, who is with the university's Florida Space Institute, reported that this standard for classifying planets is not supported in the research literature.

Metzger, who is lead author on the study, reviewed scientific literature from the past 200 years and found only one publication -- from 1802 -- that used the clearing-orbit requirement to classify planets, and it was based on since-disproven reasoning.

He said moons such as Saturn's Titan and Jupiter's Europa have been routinely called planets by planetary scientists since the time of Galileo.

"The IAU definition would say that the fundamental object of planetary science, the planet, is supposed to be a defined on the basis of a concept that nobody uses in their research," Metzger said. "And it would leave out the second-most complex, interesting planet in our solar system." "We now have a list of well over 100 recent examples of planetary scientists using the word planet in a way that violates the IAU definition, but they are doing it because it's functionally useful," he said. "It's a sloppy definition," Metzger said of the IAU's definition. "They didn't say what they meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet clears its orbit."

The planetary scientist said that the literature review showed that the real division between planets and other celestial bodies, such as asteroids, occurred in the early 1950s when Gerard Kuiper published a paper that made the distinction based on how they were formed.

However, even this reason is no longer considered a factor that determines if a celestial body is a planet, Metzger said.

Study co-author Kirby Runyon, with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, said the IAU's definition was erroneous since the literature review showed that clearing orbit is not a standard that is used for distinguishing asteroids from planets, as the IAU claimed when crafting the 2006 definition of planets.

"We showed that this is a false historical claim," Runyon said. "It is therefore fallacious to apply the same reasoning to Pluto," he said. Metzger said that the definition of a planet should be based on its intrinsic properties, rather than ones that can change, such as the dynamics of a planet's orbit. "Dynamics are not constant, they are constantly changing," Metzger said. "So, they are not the fundamental description of a body, they are just the occupation of a body at a current era."

Instead, Metzger recommends classifying a planet based on if it is large enough that its gravity allows it to become spherical in shape.

"And that's not just an arbitrary definition, Metzger said. "It turns out this is an important milestone in the evolution of a planetary body, because apparently when it happens, it initiates active geology in the body."

Pluto, for instance, has an underground ocean, a multilayer atmosphere, organic compounds, evidence of ancient lakes and multiple moons, he said.

"It's more dynamic and alive than Mars," Metzger said. "The only planet that has more complex geology is the Earth."

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason Pluto lost its planet status is not valid, according to new research from the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

Since when do scientists care about validity anymore?

Valid ... to them ... is when those who sign their paychecks takes their project(s) off their hands and "sells" it to the public as a "scientific breakthrough."

Or a "wonder drug" ... or "whatever."

Then when something goes wrong, scientists can point their fingers upward (LOL ... that sounds funny) at administration, who more than likely consists of scientists themselves, and blame them for it.

Had the Hindenburg not blown up and killed innocent people, scientists would probably still be loading those things with hydrogen.

Had that Florida footbridge not collapsed, scientists would still be rolling those cracked and faulty "life savers" down the street and putting them in place prematurely.

Our blood being spilled is the impetus that makes scientists go back to the drawingboard.

When scientists stop crucifying us for something we didn't do, then they can harp on "validity."

 

[FredVB]

Pluto should be reclassified as a planet, experts say

According to this article, Pluto should be reclassified as a planet:

The reason Pluto lost its planet status is not valid, according to new research from the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union, a global group of astronomy experts, established a definition of a planet that required it to "clear" its orbit, or in other words, be the largest gravitational force in its orbit.

Since Neptune's gravity influences its neighboring planet Pluto, and Pluto shares its orbit with frozen gases and objects in the Kuiper belt, that meant Pluto was out of planet status. However, in a new study published online in the journal Icarus, UCF planetary scientist Philip Metzger, who is with the university's Florida Space Institute, reported that this standard for classifying planets is not supported in the research literature.

Metzger, who is lead author on the study, reviewed scientific literature from the past 200 years and found only one publication -- from 1802 -- that used the clearing-orbit requirement to classify planets, and it was based on since-disproven reasoning.

He said moons such as Saturn's Titan and Jupiter's Europa have been routinely called planets by planetary scientists since the time of Galileo.

"The IAU definition would say that the fundamental object of planetary science, the planet, is supposed to be a defined on the basis of a concept that nobody uses in their research," Metzger said. "And it would leave out the second-most complex, interesting planet in our solar system." "We now have a list of well over 100 recent examples of planetary scientists using the word planet in a way that violates the IAU definition, but they are doing it because it's functionally useful," he said. "It's a sloppy definition," Metzger said of the IAU's definition. "They didn't say what they meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet clears its orbit."

The planetary scientist said that the literature review showed that the real division between planets and other celestial bodies, such as asteroids, occurred in the early 1950s when Gerard Kuiper published a paper that made the distinction based on how they were formed.

However, even this reason is no longer considered a factor that determines if a celestial body is a planet, Metzger said.

Study co-author Kirby Runyon, with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, said the IAU's definition was erroneous since the literature review showed that clearing orbit is not a standard that is used for distinguishing asteroids from planets, as the IAU claimed when crafting the 2006 definition of planets.

"We showed that this is a false historical claim," Runyon said. "It is therefore fallacious to apply the same reasoning to Pluto," he said. Metzger said that the definition of a planet should be based on its intrinsic properties, rather than ones that can change, such as the dynamics of a planet's orbit. "Dynamics are not constant, they are constantly changing," Metzger said. "So, they are not the fundamental description of a body, they are just the occupation of a body at a current era."

Instead, Metzger recommends classifying a planet based on if it is large enough that its gravity allows it to become spherical in shape.

"And that's not just an arbitrary definition, Metzger said. "It turns out this is an important milestone in the evolution of a planetary body, because apparently when it happens, it initiates active geology in the body."

Pluto, for instance, has an underground ocean, a multilayer atmosphere, organic compounds, evidence of ancient lakes and multiple moons, he said.

"It's more dynamic and alive than Mars," Metzger said. "The only planet that has more complex geology is the Earth."

Since when do scientists care about validity anymore?

Valid ... to them ... is when those who sign their paychecks takes their project(s) off their hands and "sells" it to the public as a "scientific breakthrough."

Or a "wonder drug" ... or "whatever."

Then when something goes wrong, scientists can point their fingers upward (LOL ... that sounds funny) at administration, who more than likely consists of scientists themselves, and blame them for it.

Had the Hindenburg not blown up and killed innocent people, scientists would probably still be loading those things with hydrogen.

Had that Florida footbridge not collapsed, scientists would still be rolling those cracked and faulty "life savers" down the street and putting them in place prematurely.

Our blood being spilled is the impetus that makes scientists go back to the drawingboard.

When scientists stop crucifying us for something we didn't do, then they can harp on "validity."

Well AV, I never noticed it from your posts before, it seems you have some anger in you.

Did you notice that it was scientists in this article that was shown who were saying that there isn't historical basis from defining planets to exclude Pluto from identified planets? Not all scientists are so bad as to not care for validity, and I think most are not that bad. It is an arbitrary way of defining planets to exclude Pluto being used now. It certainly may change at some time. A more sensible way to define planets was shown. Of course with this, other bodies in the solar system will be recognized as planets, it wouldn't be nine of them.

 

[Speedwell]

Since when do scientists care about validity anymore?

Valid ... to them ... is when those who sign their paychecks takes their project(s) off their hands and "sells" it to the public as a "scientific breakthrough."

Or a "wonder drug" ... or "whatever."

Then when something goes wrong, scientists can point their fingers upward (LOL ... that sounds funny) at administration, who more than likely consists of scientists themselves, and blame them for it.

Had the Hindenburg not blown up and killed innocent people, scientists would probably still be loading those things with hydrogen.

Had that Florida footbridge not collapsed, scientists would still be rolling those cracked and faulty "life savers" down the street and putting them in place prematurely.

Our blood being spilled is the impetus that makes scientists go back to the drawingboard.

When scientists stop crucifying us for something we didn't do, then they can harp on "validity."

What? Scientists didn''t do any of that. No scientist ever built a faulty footbridge in Florida. No scientist ever loaded any hydrogen onto the Hindenburg.

 

[sjastro]

Since when do scientists care about validity anymore?

Valid ... to them ... is when those who sign their paychecks takes their project(s) off their hands and "sells" it to the public as a "scientific breakthrough."

Or a "wonder drug" ... or "whatever."

Then when something goes wrong, scientists can point their fingers upward (LOL ... that sounds funny) at administration, who more than likely consists of scientists themselves, and blame them for it.

Had the Hindenburg not blown up and killed innocent people, scientists would probably still be loading those things with hydrogen.

Had that Florida footbridge not collapsed, scientists would still be rolling those cracked and faulty "life savers" down the street and putting them in place prematurely.

Our blood being spilled is the impetus that makes scientists go back to the drawingboard.

When scientists stop crucifying us for something we didn't do, then they can harp on "validity."

We can blame the work of scientists for ultimately providing you with the technology for expressing ignorant and bigoted comments on a large scale.
Since you have such an aversion towards scientists why are you being a hypocrite by sponging off the benefits of their research?

Be consistent and go live in a cave....

 

[Herman Hedning]

What? Scientists didn''t do any of that. No scientist ever built a faulty footbridge in Florida. No scientist ever loaded any hydrogen onto the Hindenburg.

Well, no they didn't. Unless you by scientist mean engineer...

 

[Astrophile]

Had the Hindenburg not blown up and killed innocent people, scientists would probably still be loading those things with hydrogen.

According to https://www.britannica.com/hindenburg , the Hindenburg 'was designed to be filled with helium gas', but it 'was filled with highly flammable hydrogen because of export restrictions by the United States against Nazi Germany' (my italics). In other words, it was a matter of politics, not science.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to https://www.britannica.com/hindenburg , the Hindenburg 'was designed to be filled with helium gas', but it 'was filled with highly flammable hydrogen because of export restrictions by the United States against Nazi Germany' (my italics). In other words, it was a matter of politics, not science.

That's neat.

"You're not going to send us any helium? No problem. We'll just use hydrogen."

That's like saying:

"You're not going to open this bridge to let me across? No problem. I'll just funambulate across this wire here."

Real brilliant.

But academically acceptable, I guess.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's neat.

"You're not going to send us any helium? No problem. We'll just use hydrogen."

That's like saying:

"You're not going to open this bridge to let me across? No problem. I'll just funambulate across this wire here."

Real brilliant.

But academically acceptable, I guess.

You don't like scientists, you don't like engineers, you don't like academics, you don't like scholars.

It seems you don't like anyone who uses their brain to its full capacity. Why do you suppose your God put all that effort into creating such a masterpiece of perception and reasoning if it wasn't to be used?

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems you don't like anyone who uses their brain to its full capacity.

Do you really think filling an airship with hydrogen is "using your brain to its full capacity"?

I mean ... really?

If so, you didn't learn anything from the disaster, did you?

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you really think filling an airship with hydrogen is "using your brain to its full capacity"?

I mean ... really?

If so, you didn't learn anything from the disaster, did you?

Jesus loves you AV, even if you don’t love yourself.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you really think filling an airship with hydrogen is "using your brain to its full capacity"?

I mean ... really?

If so, you didn't learn anything from the disaster, did you?

Not to trust right-wing extremist engineers?

 

[FredVB]

Do you really think filling an airship with hydrogen is "using your brain to its full capacity"?

I mean ... really?

If so, you didn't learn anything from the disaster, did you?

Those originally filling an airship with hydrogen were not in the same position to learn from the disaster, were they? If they believed they had completely safe containment even knowing hydrogen is so flammable, they wouldn't foresee such disaster. They had yet to learn there is no such completely safe containment, and they did learn then to not keep using hydrogen airships.

The newer discoveries in the Kuiper Belt are not offering any information to dislodge Pluto from qualifying as a planet, as planets were considered before, still.

About MU69/Ultima Thule, the object's surface is reddish and dark, about as reflective as potting soil, they say. This Ultima Thule appears to be about 23 miles (37 km) wide.

They were considering that satellites or a ring of debris could be there. But I am sure with this small width it is unrealistic that it would have the gravitation to keep any of such in orbit about it.

 

[rockytopva]

We are roughly 0.25 AU, or 25,000,000 miles, from Ultima Thule

06/28/2015 - 14.54 km/s (32,500 mph)
08/14/2015 - 14.50 km/s (32,400 mph)
10/31/2015 - 14.47 km/s (32,400 mph)
01/14/2016 - 14.45 km/s (32,200 mph)
12/24/2016 - 14.43 km/s (32,200 mph)
02/01/2017 - 14.31 km/s (32,000 mph)
06/02/2017 - 14.27 km/s (31,900 mph)
07/06/2017 - 14.26 km/s (31,900 mph)
12/26/2017 - 14.20 km/s (31,765 mph)
08/02/2018 - 14.14 km/s (31,630 mph)
09/01/2018 - 14.13 km/s (31,608 mph)
11/28/2018 - 14.10 km/s (31,540 mph)

33 days away! Ought to start getting more news from the John Hopkins University there in Baltimore, Mayland!

New Horizons
New Horizons