Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Is there a reason why they didn't try to put this probe into orbit around Pluto?


It will simply be traveling too fast, and Pluto is simply too small, for the probe to get into orbit.

For them to have arranged for it to slowly catch up with Pluto and get into orbit, I imagine the path would have taken decades if not hundreds of years. (Assuming the fuel capacities we have to work with.)


Looks like they have gone into some detail on a potential mission like this[1], appears that it would take 17 years, at least with this particular launch window Jupiter alignment.

[1] http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PRO/ACT-RPR-PRO-ISTS2004-Plut...


Just getting close after 7.5 billion km is pretty impressive.


I think it might not carry enough fuel for the orbit insertion.


Slightly longer answer: space is expensive, especially when you try to change your trajectory.

National Geographic and 5WGraphics have produced an infographic of 50 years of space missions. It's interesting to note the count by destination:

Moon: 72, Venus: 40, Mars: 38, Jupiter:8, Saturn: 5, Mercury: 2, Uranus: 1, Neptune: 1, and Pluto: 1.

A related observation is that Mars in the only planet inabited soley by robots.

These aren't unrelated facts.

For more detail see this post addressing the meme "Mars is the only knonw planet inhabited solely by robots". https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/J7e5V-B-zHe2fNc6hScUXQ

What does it take to get a robotic mission onto a planet (or other solid body)?

1. It's got to be a solid body. That eliminates Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, straight out.

2. You've got to be able to get there in the first place. Nearer bodies are generally easier to reach, so long as they're not too close to the Sun. It actually took as long to reach Mercury (about 6 years) as it typically does Jupiter, despite the fact that Jupiter is about 10 times further away by distance. Both these and other missions used gravitational assists to reduce fuel requirements, resulting in complex trajectories:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/MESSENGE... The Cassini-Huygens probe had a similarly complex trajectory: Earth, Venus x2, Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn. http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/photos/imagedetails/index.cfm?ima...

To get to Pluto has taken New Horizons 9.5 years. That included a gravitational asssit from Jupiter. And on arrival, it's going to be trucking along at 49,600 km/h (30,800 mph). That's approaching the speed of the Chelyabinsk meteor (67,000 km/h, or about 41,750 mph).

3. You've got to be able either enter into orbit or slow down once you get to the destination. Gravity assists or aerobraking both help hugely, as they avoid the need to carry fuel, and the tyranny of the rocket equation (more below).

4. You've got to be able to land, softly, on the surface. Again, an atmosphere helps a lot. Or a nearby body and low gravity for a rocket landing (as in the Moon). Pluto's got low gravity, but is so far away we're travelling fast when we get there.

xkcd's Randall Munroe looked at what would be required to catch up with and return the Voyager I probe, similar in spirit to trying to deaccellerate using rockets on arriving at Pluto. It's not pretty: https://what-if.xkcd.com/38/

For more on delta-v budgets for various destinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget


Slowing down and speeding up are symmetrical, roughly speaking you'd need a rocket similar to the one used to launch New Horizons to put it into orbit around Pluto. So you'd need an enormous rocket to send all of that to Pluto, which is beyond our current technology and budget limits.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: