A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pioneer Anomaly 2017



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 14th 17, 12:13 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 7:27:45 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:08:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 6:52:52 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:

---
---
Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
paper.

This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
"onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.

Nope, you are incorrect. The 2012 paper concludes that "thermal
recoil" is the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. But not
*solar* thermal. Or rather, the *new* thing of that paper is
that by including the *internal* thermal effects (RTGs and
electrical compartment dissipation) the anomaly is resolved.


My paragraph above is exactly as presented in Turyshev's paper.
You will find it in the conclusion section.


OK, I acknowledge that quote now, but you are still incorrect.
The conclusion of the paper is that *internally generated*
thermal recoil force is a signifcant effect that has to be newly
reckoned.

The quote you are referring to is a single sentence in the entire
paper. It *SUGGESTS* that the "early data" points in the chart
you like to refer to, *may* be because the early analysts
erroneously did not account for internal heat generation. Not
the entire anomaly, as you originally stated, but the early data.


But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"

I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
"tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.
---
---
Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces,
and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the
Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated
thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."


What exactly are the physical properties of these thermal terms?
Do they represent new physics that Anderson was unaware of back
in 2002?


Hey, you asked this question, I responded that you could read
Turyshev et al's 2012 paper for details, and you conveniently
deleted that response. Why do you ask again?

And, if you had bothered to read my other responses, you would
be aware that (a) Anderson et al in 2002 did a more simplified
modeling analysis (i.e. it was not "new physics," but rather
model fidelity) (b) Anderson did not have access to temperature
and other thermal data during the actual mission, that did become
available later (Viktor Toth spent a large amount of time
recovering old data disks with mission data). (c) The team
"discovered" or at least had more time to consider pre-launch
thermal engineering documents that Anderson did not. And (d)
there was time to develop a high fidelity thermal model of the
Pioneer spacecraft and validate it against actual mission
temperature data.


None of that can override Anderson's very fundamental logic. It's
not handwaving by any means. So which part did he get wrong??
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
---
---

Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical
properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly
change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon"
coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore,
your assumptions are irrelevant.


However you wish to define "optical properties", one thing
that's certain is that if a paint surface deteriorates and
becomes more absorptive, it will also become equally more
emissive. ...


Incorrect. Optical (reflective) properties of most thermal
coatings, including the coatings in question for Pioneer, do
degrade. But the infrared emissivity properties do *NOT*
change significantly. I referred you to a textbook on the
matter, but you ignored it.

Here, let me quote for you,
"Thermal-control finishes are affected in orbit by charged
particles, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, high vacuum, and the
contaminant films that deposit out on almost all spacecraft
surfaces. The general result of these processes is an increase
in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR
emittance."


That makes no sense. If energy is continually pumped in through
increased solar absorptivity, there's no doubt at all that the
energy must come out again. Otherwise the temperature of the
affected object will increase forever. Or is the reference to an
onboard energy source, where the emittance remains constant as
the surfaces degrade? I'll assume this to be the case.

(Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook, 2002, p. 143)
But if you read onward, there are like twenty pages about
degradation, why it occurs, etc.

There have been long-term studies of degradation on the
International space station (Fig 4.12) which show optical but
not infrared degradation.


Why would anyone expect anything else in these or any other
circumstances?

Let's bring it all back to the earth's surface and apply normal
physical principles.

My solar hot water system provides a proper insight into the
consequences of the principles involved. It's a "stand alone"
system which consists of an array of six solar panels connected
in parallel, giving a maximum total output of 50 amps at 32 volts
(1600 watts). The heating element wire diameter is 2.57mm and
that's formed into a coil which is 2mm diameter less than the
bore of the tube into which it's fitted.

Earlier elements failed because they were placed inside a ceramic
tube, which obviously required a much greater core temperature so
that the 1600 watt input could be transferred to the water. They
failed because the required core temperature was too high.
**There's no doubt that if 1600 watts is put in, 1600 watts will
eventually come out**.

If the element tube is placed in an open air environment the
tube temperature will rise until 1600 watts of thermal energy
is transferred at the tube/air interface. Temperature sensors
placed around the tube would all read the same.

If (e.g.) 1/2 of the element circumference is shielded by a long
ceramic insulator, placed inside the tube, a lesser temperature
will be recorded adjacent to the insulator. But the total must
still add up to 1600 watts.

Now place the part shielded element tube in a vacuum. The only
means of transferring the thermal energy is via radiation. The
whole assembly would of course melt long before 1600 watts could
be transferred via the vacuum. But now there's a significant time
delay involved in the process of pumping the temperature up to
the required level. Thermal conduction around the tube housing
would quickly smooth out the temperature asymmetries.

So it really doesn't matter where the sun is relative to a
Pioneer spacecraft. All absorbed solar thermal energy will
conduct throughout all contacting surfaces, adding to the general
temperature. It would take some time before full emissive
capability could be achieved. In the meantime, thermal energy is
conducting to the lower temperature areas, ironing out the bumps.

The ratio of conducted thermal energy per radiative thermal
energy for a given temperature is not 1/1. Nothing like it. The
temperature differential between the two means of transferring
energy vastly favors conduction, so the temperature will continue
to rise fairly uniformly throughout all contacting parts of the
spacecraft until the absorbed energy rate is matched by the
emission rate. And it will be emitted globally from all parts of
the spacecraft at roughly the same rate. So, apart from a reduced
solar radiation pressure, the drive from absorbed solar thermal
energy is virtually zero.

These two statements were derived from chapter V111 in the above
link;
(1) The RTG coating was designed to give .9 emissivity and .2
absorptivity.
(2) The fore and aft emissivity would need to change by 10% to
account for the Pioneer anomaly.

So all that's left to drive the spacecraft inward are, the RTG
reflections off the back of the HGA dish which diminish in power
as the rear surfaces deteriorate, a solar radiation pressure
error which becomes less significant with distance, and an
emissivity difference between the fore and aft faces of the
RTG's, even though your earlier quote appears to reject such a
thing; "contaminant films deposit out on almost all spacecraft
surfaces. The general result of these processes is an increase
in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR emittance".

Changing the absorptivity of any RTG face isn't going to affect
the emissive power generated from within the RTG's. Decreasing IR
emittance from the front face of the RTG's is the only way to
cancel the anomaly. And solar radiation is all that's left to do
the job. The rate of degradation of the RTG sun facing surfaces
would then follow a solar radiation pressure style curve. But
that doesn't compare with the Pioneer anomaly at all.

Even if the front face of the HGA dish was affected by solar
radiation in a manner that would increase solar thermal
absorptivity the same curve would result.

The reflective surface of the HGA dish was also covered in the
same contaminates as the rest of the spacecraft yet it was still
capable of reflecting audible signals to the onboard receiver at
distances beyond 80 AU. The reflective surface certainly hadn't
deteriorated too much.

-----

Max Keon

  #42  
Old May 15th 17, 06:34 PM posted to sci.astro
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 3:50:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
... are you again there ? .... consider the point of max anomaly or the point of max changement of anomaly ! .. and so you understand the uselessness to discuss around the RTG or similar things for resolving the Pioneer anomaly .. i think ..


Not really. From the best available Doppler tracking data, dating from about 1980 and onward, the "anomaly" is quite constant. But also, the generated heat is rather constant as well, so it is difficult to disentangle these two effects. Turyshev's 2012 work showed that the emissive heat is compatible with the Doppler tracking data.

CM

  #43  
Old May 15th 17, 07:36 PM posted to sci.astro
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017


But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"

I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
"tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.


Actually, you are right, Anderson’s arguments were fairly convincing FOR THE TIME. What happened is that the Turyshev et al 2012 work came up with *more convincing* evidence of what’s going on. Heck, the section you quote says, “a complete thermal/physical model of the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any other unsuspected heat systematics,” but then dismisses it. It turns out that was a premature dismissal. It doesn’t take much to see that Anderson did a very crude estimate using simple geometry, when it is now clear a higher fidelity approach was required.

I think the key thing that Anderson’s discussion could not have known at the time, is that whether or not the equipment compartment louvers are open or closed, most of the heat generated inside the compartment escapes out the fore platform surface, and that is enough to account for much of the anomaly.


Here, let me quote for you,
"Thermal-control finishes are affected in orbit by charged
particles, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, high vacuum, and the
contaminant films that deposit out on almost all spacecraft
surfaces. The general result of these processes is an increase
in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR
emittance."


That makes no sense. If energy is continually pumped in through
increased solar absorptivity, there's no doubt at all that the
energy must come out again. Otherwise the temperature of the
affected object will increase forever. …


It’s unfortunate it doesn’t make sense to you. Yes, there is a thermal balance between energy received (related to optical absorptance alpha), energy emitted (related to infrared emittance epsilon) and temperature. If alpha increases while epsilon is constant, then yes, the temperature increases.


So it really doesn't matter where the sun is relative to a
Pioneer spacecraft. All absorbed solar thermal energy will
conduct throughout all contacting surfaces, adding to the general
temperature.


Nope, that’s mostly incorrect. The sun-absorbing face of the spacecraft is the high-gain antenna, plus some of the RTGs. These bodies are thermally insulated from the rest of the spacecraft, so they do not “conduct.” The HGA primarily comes to thermal equilibrium via emission. It’s true that non-sun-facing (fore) side of the HGA which is adjacent to the equipment compartment, and is the same temperature as the sun-facing side because of conduction. But since the emissivity of the sun-facing side is 10-20x more than the fore side, most of the solar heating is re-emitted toward the sun. Very little of it is emitted toward the direction of the anomaly.


But let’s summarize the issues you seem to be “lost” about.

1. You continue to mention that somehow Turyshev’s 2012 work is about “solar thermal” when that is incorrect. It is about solar thermal yes, but mostly about internally-generated thermal. When noted, you ignore or distract.

2. You continue to ask about what is in the Turyshev 2012 paper. I continue to refer you to it, but you ignore or distract.

3. You continue to ask about what is different between the Anderson 2001 and Turyshev 2012 works. I reply with detailed points, but you ignore or distract.

4. You continue to appeal to authority of Anderson’s work for thermal aspects. However, Anderson’s work in this topic is rather crude, and limited to point-like and plate-like approximations. Even Anderson noted that a higher fidelity model could be useful and Turyshev’s 2012 work accomplished it! You continue to ignore or distract from this point.
  #44  
Old May 22nd 17, 09:00 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

Il giorno domenica 14 maggio 2017 09:50:09 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno venerdì 5 maggio 2017 10:07:49 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno lunedì 1 maggio 2017 22:52:52 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
Opening note...
Don't tell me it won't.

Hey bud, this is an open discussion forum. Whatever you think I should or should not say is completely irrelevant.


On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:15:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, wrote:
---
---
Fig.2 from this link
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.

Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
(Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
"anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.

I note no response.

Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
paper.

This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
"onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.

Nope, you are incorrect. The 2012 paper concludes that "thermal recoil" is the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. But not *solar* thermal. Or rather, the *new* thing of that paper is that by including the *internal* thermal effects (RTGs and electrical compartment dissipation) the anomaly is resolved. Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces, and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."


But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
that was accurately determined prior to launch,

Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.

You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
the RTG's. ... The pressure gradient will
follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.** ....

Your writing appears to be motivated by intuition, but that is not the case. You can find a more correct and physics- and engineering-motivated discussion in books like "Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook." Also, there are quite a few reference books on the degradation of thermal coatings from the time in the public domain.

Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon" coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore, your assumptions are irrelevant.

But bringing back to your original point before you distracted... you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.


It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
this new result override all others when the average result from
all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
That's a funny way to do physics.

What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
papers is relevant. ...

I note no response.

Still no response.

But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
thermal. ...

I note no response.

Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work.

"Most folk?" That's a rather unsubstantiated throwaway claim. It was *you* who claimed that everybody except for Turyshev et al 2012 had ignored the thermal origin, and I had to point out the error of your statement.


You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with. But
that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
anomaly were derived.

This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
"onset" chart to understand how it was derived.

But a discrepancy between observation and what was expected
according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
the 20 AU mark. ...

Non-sequitur. Your statement doesn't make it any easier for a Doppler analyst to reconstruct how the data analysis was done with early data.

And... if you read Anderson's paper, the discrepancy was clearly noted... in the 1980s far after the spacecraft had passed 20AU. There is nothing in the paper that I can find which references earlier times, aside from the figures you point out of unknown provenance.


Furthermore, let's be clear what was happening in the early
1970s. The Pioneer spacecraft were the first spacecraft to be
sent to the outer solar system, with long cruise phases. Earlier
spacecraft were kept inside the Earth-Moon system, or directed to
the inner solar system. This new direction required new
attention to detail and modeling of the physical effects of the
space environment. No, the physical laws did not change, but the
modeling capability within the software that was used did not
capture all of the physics with the same fidelity.

Effects such as spacecraft spin and new relativistic physics were
being incorporated at that time. You can read the paper of Wong
& Lubeley from 1974 (AIAA Paper No. 74-845) which demonstrates
how the orbit determination groups were incorporating new
software with better capabilities.

Effects such as spacecraft propellant valve leaks were harder to
understand, and navigation analysts had to make do. What
physical laws does one apply to a valve that is leaky???

Before encountering Jupiter, both Pioneer spacecraft performed
frequent maneuvers (every few weeks), which disturbed the orbit
determination process, and also introduced more possibilities for
leaks.

Within the first 20 AU, the solar system radiation pressure is
significant. In fact, before Jupiter approach, the radiation
pressure is dominant over most of the force terms and is many
times the "anomalous" acceleration. You pointed out thermal
coatings, but let us not forget that the exact geometry of the
spacecraft has an effect. Is the antenna treated as parabolic
or flat-plate?

What about the cut-outs and antenna feeds, how are those
treated? These are not simple "physical law" issues. They have
to do with how accurately the spacecraft systems can be modeled.
Early in the mission, with computing power limited, some short
cuts were inevitably taken.

Each component would need to be analyzed properly, with a fairly
in depth description of the processes involved if the analysis
was expected to be taken seriously.

Exactly. In the early 1970s, the computing power did not exist to do the in-depth analysis required. The operational need did not exist either.. But I see now that you understand that the process is not just about physical laws, but something more.

Which raises some questions here.
What data was plugged into the 2012 Turyshev computer simulation?
The answers are in the Turyshev 2012 paper and its predecessors.

Were the RTG emissions and solar radiation pressures correctly
represented?
Discussed in the Turyshev 2012 paper. "Correct" is a matter of tolerance.

Or were they in fact mismodeled as was the
assumption regarding Anderson's work?
Thanks for the loaded question. Anderson et al did not "mismodel" anything intentionally. The level of fidelity was lower and they did not have the thermal data available at the time required to check, which Turyshev et al did have by 2012.


Does the simulation software contribute toward the outcome? If
so, what was the programmer's information source?

The software is validated against all the missions supported by JPL for radiometric navigation, and the thermal modeling software is standard in the industry. That's why I say it has been validated: it has successfully been used thousands of times to correctly predict temperatures and emission profiles of equipment under test. And, let's not forget that Anderson et al 2002 compared multiple independent software suites, to guard against software errors.

Thermal modeling software also has many inputs. All the inputs for thermal/optical properties were taken from Pioneer engineering documentation, but error tolerances were also considered. *AND*, then the simulations were validated against actual spacecraft measured temperatures. This temperature record was not readily available for Anderson et al to use in 2001, but was for later work.

In the end it comes down to unconditional belief.

Please. It comes down to a consideration of an analysis using established techniques, which has been validated against known data (both other spacecraft and Pioneer itself). There are mountains of documentation on this, which you ignored or barely skimmed over. It's easy for you to just cast out that claim without substantiation, and I reject it.


So, please do not pretend that the state of affairs in the early
1970s can really be compared to the state today.

Again, no response.


The figure which you have referred to which shows the "onset" of
the acceleration, you have replotted. What you failed to show
was the uncertainty range (error bars) of the points. If you had
displayed those as well, you would have seen that the bars are
very large and that early data is not necessarily as stringent as
you say.

Again, no response.

...
First of all, the quote is actually what Anderson et al. said in
their paper, not me. And second of all, what is your point?
If the goal is to accurately measure the "onset" of the anomaly,
then the early data which would or could have shown that is
largely lost forever. If the goal is to get an accurate measure
of the anomaly in late days (20 AU) then the Anderson et al 2002
paper is just fine... but it doesn't prove or disprove any of
your claims then. Anderson's paper claims the acceleration is
consistent with being constant, quite the opposite of your claim!

But he does acknowledge that there was an observed onset of the
anomaly which indicated a deviation from well known standard
physics at the time.

Who acknowledges it? As I noted above, aside from the figures from unknown sources which you care to reproduce deceptively (see above), Anderson et al 2002 do not mention an "onset" in the paper.

Again, I note that Anderson's claim is that the Pioneer anomaly is consistent with being constant. There was no evidence in the data available for something varying with time. This completely undercuts your own conclusion.

CM

PS.:
.. could somebody give to me the email address of Mauro De Benedetto , rocket trajectory 'analist ?


... are you again there ? .... consider the point of max anomaly or the point of max changement of anomaly ! .. and so you understand the uselessness to discuss around the RTG or similar things for resolving the Pioneer anomaly .. i think ..


.... ohoo .. ohooo ..is somebody hearing ? may i do a rererephrasation and try to do a little step for the science , and a big step for the anomaly' Pioneer ?
The anomaly has yearly some changements ... changements of the 10-15% ..: the sun can stay between the earth and the Pioneer or the earth can look directly the rocket without the sun interposition ... so the difference in the anomaly'value becomes the 20-30% ... conclusion : if the earth should remain fixed in special positions , we should have differences in the anomaly of the 20-30% ... without discussing of RTG or interior leakages , can we do an hipothesis ? : the anomaly should be given by the distances that the rocket is marking .. and that is so true that the larger increasing (changement) of the anomaly'value is just when the earth is changing the speed relatively to the rochet of 30 km/s (sinusoidal inflection) ...
hypothesis in the hypothesis : it is the Raman effect ( scattering ) aging in the distance and vacuum differences ... nope, nope ... yespe , yespe ...
  #45  
Old May 22nd 17, 03:28 PM posted to sci.astro
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:01:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 14 maggio 2017 09:50:09 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno venerdì 5 maggio 2017 10:07:49 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno lunedì 1 maggio 2017 22:52:52 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
Opening note...
Don't tell me it won't.

Hey bud, this is an open discussion forum. Whatever you think I should or should not say is completely irrelevant.


On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:15:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, wrote:
---
---
Fig.2 from this link
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.

Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
(Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
"anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.

I note no response.

Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
paper.

This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
"onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.

Nope, you are incorrect. The 2012 paper concludes that "thermal recoil" is the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. But not *solar* thermal. Or rather, the *new* thing of that paper is that by including the *internal* thermal effects (RTGs and electrical compartment dissipation) the anomaly is resolved. Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces, and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."


But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
that was accurately determined prior to launch,

Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.

You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
the RTG's. ... The pressure gradient will
follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.** ...

Your writing appears to be motivated by intuition, but that is not the case. You can find a more correct and physics- and engineering-motivated discussion in books like "Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook." Also, there are quite a few reference books on the degradation of thermal coatings from the time in the public domain.

Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon" coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore, your assumptions are irrelevant.

But bringing back to your original point before you distracted... you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.


It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
this new result override all others when the average result from
all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
That's a funny way to do physics.

What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
papers is relevant. ...

I note no response.

Still no response.

But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
thermal. ...

I note no response.

Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work.

"Most folk?" That's a rather unsubstantiated throwaway claim. It was *you* who claimed that everybody except for Turyshev et al 2012 had ignored the thermal origin, and I had to point out the error of your statement..


You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with. But
that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
anomaly were derived.

This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
"onset" chart to understand how it was derived.

But a discrepancy between observation and what was expected
according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
the 20 AU mark. ...

Non-sequitur. Your statement doesn't make it any easier for a Doppler analyst to reconstruct how the data analysis was done with early data.

And... if you read Anderson's paper, the discrepancy was clearly noted... in the 1980s far after the spacecraft had passed 20AU. There is nothing in the paper that I can find which references earlier times, aside from the figures you point out of unknown provenance.


Furthermore, let's be clear what was happening in the early
1970s. The Pioneer spacecraft were the first spacecraft to be
sent to the outer solar system, with long cruise phases. Earlier
spacecraft were kept inside the Earth-Moon system, or directed to
the inner solar system. This new direction required new
attention to detail and modeling of the physical effects of the
space environment. No, the physical laws did not change, but the
modeling capability within the software that was used did not
capture all of the physics with the same fidelity.

Effects such as spacecraft spin and new relativistic physics were
being incorporated at that time. You can read the paper of Wong
& Lubeley from 1974 (AIAA Paper No. 74-845) which demonstrates
how the orbit determination groups were incorporating new
software with better capabilities.

Effects such as spacecraft propellant valve leaks were harder to
understand, and navigation analysts had to make do. What
physical laws does one apply to a valve that is leaky???

Before encountering Jupiter, both Pioneer spacecraft performed
frequent maneuvers (every few weeks), which disturbed the orbit
determination process, and also introduced more possibilities for
leaks.

Within the first 20 AU, the solar system radiation pressure is
significant. In fact, before Jupiter approach, the radiation
pressure is dominant over most of the force terms and is many
times the "anomalous" acceleration. You pointed out thermal
coatings, but let us not forget that the exact geometry of the
spacecraft has an effect. Is the antenna treated as parabolic
or flat-plate?

What about the cut-outs and antenna feeds, how are those
treated? These are not simple "physical law" issues. They have
to do with how accurately the spacecraft systems can be modeled..
Early in the mission, with computing power limited, some short
cuts were inevitably taken.

Each component would need to be analyzed properly, with a fairly
in depth description of the processes involved if the analysis
was expected to be taken seriously.

Exactly. In the early 1970s, the computing power did not exist to do the in-depth analysis required. The operational need did not exist either. But I see now that you understand that the process is not just about physical laws, but something more.

Which raises some questions here.
What data was plugged into the 2012 Turyshev computer simulation?
The answers are in the Turyshev 2012 paper and its predecessors.

Were the RTG emissions and solar radiation pressures correctly
represented?
Discussed in the Turyshev 2012 paper. "Correct" is a matter of tolerance.

Or were they in fact mismodeled as was the
assumption regarding Anderson's work?
Thanks for the loaded question. Anderson et al did not "mismodel" anything intentionally. The level of fidelity was lower and they did not have the thermal data available at the time required to check, which Turyshev et al did have by 2012.


Does the simulation software contribute toward the outcome? If
so, what was the programmer's information source?

The software is validated against all the missions supported by JPL for radiometric navigation, and the thermal modeling software is standard in the industry. That's why I say it has been validated: it has successfully been used thousands of times to correctly predict temperatures and emission profiles of equipment under test. And, let's not forget that Anderson et al 2002 compared multiple independent software suites, to guard against software errors.

Thermal modeling software also has many inputs. All the inputs for thermal/optical properties were taken from Pioneer engineering documentation, but error tolerances were also considered. *AND*, then the simulations were validated against actual spacecraft measured temperatures. This temperature record was not readily available for Anderson et al to use in 2001, but was for later work.

In the end it comes down to unconditional belief.

Please. It comes down to a consideration of an analysis using established techniques, which has been validated against known data (both other spacecraft and Pioneer itself). There are mountains of documentation on this, which you ignored or barely skimmed over. It's easy for you to just cast out that claim without substantiation, and I reject it.


So, please do not pretend that the state of affairs in the early
1970s can really be compared to the state today.

Again, no response.


The figure which you have referred to which shows the "onset" of
the acceleration, you have replotted. What you failed to show
was the uncertainty range (error bars) of the points. If you had
displayed those as well, you would have seen that the bars are
very large and that early data is not necessarily as stringent as
you say.

Again, no response.

...
First of all, the quote is actually what Anderson et al. said in
their paper, not me. And second of all, what is your point?
If the goal is to accurately measure the "onset" of the anomaly,
then the early data which would or could have shown that is
largely lost forever. If the goal is to get an accurate measure
of the anomaly in late days (20 AU) then the Anderson et al 2002
paper is just fine... but it doesn't prove or disprove any of
your claims then. Anderson's paper claims the acceleration is
consistent with being constant, quite the opposite of your claim!

But he does acknowledge that there was an observed onset of the
anomaly which indicated a deviation from well known standard
physics at the time.

Who acknowledges it? As I noted above, aside from the figures from unknown sources which you care to reproduce deceptively (see above), Anderson et al 2002 do not mention an "onset" in the paper.

Again, I note that Anderson's claim is that the Pioneer anomaly is consistent with being constant. There was no evidence in the data available for something varying with time. This completely undercuts your own conclusion.

CM
PS.:
.. could somebody give to me the email address of Mauro De Benedetto , rocket trajectory 'analist ?


... are you again there ? .... consider the point of max anomaly or the point of max changement of anomaly ! .. and so you understand the uselessness to discuss around the RTG or similar things for resolving the Pioneer anomaly .. i think ..

....
The anomaly has yearly some changements ... changements of the 10-15% ...: the sun can stay between the earth and the Pioneer or the earth can look directly the rocket without the sun interposition ... so the difference in the anomaly'value becomes the 20-30%


This is not a correct assessment of the Pioneer "anomaly." There are no such changes of the magnitude of the anomaly with sun-earth-probe angle. What is the basis for your supposition?

CM

  #46  
Old May 23rd 17, 11:36 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

Il giorno lunedì 22 maggio 2017 16:28:56 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:01:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 14 maggio 2017 09:50:09 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno venerdì 5 maggio 2017 10:07:49 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno lunedì 1 maggio 2017 22:52:52 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
Opening note...
Don't tell me it won't.

Hey bud, this is an open discussion forum. Whatever you think I should or should not say is completely irrelevant.


On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:15:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, wrote:
---
---
Fig.2 from this link
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.

Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
(Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
"anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.

I note no response.

Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
paper.

This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
"onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.

Nope, you are incorrect. The 2012 paper concludes that "thermal recoil" is the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. But not *solar* thermal. Or rather, the *new* thing of that paper is that by including the *internal* thermal effects (RTGs and electrical compartment dissipation) the anomaly is resolved. Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces, and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."


But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
that was accurately determined prior to launch,

Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.

You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
the RTG's. ... The pressure gradient will
follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.** ...

Your writing appears to be motivated by intuition, but that is not the case. You can find a more correct and physics- and engineering-motivated discussion in books like "Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook." Also, there are quite a few reference books on the degradation of thermal coatings from the time in the public domain.

Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon" coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore, your assumptions are irrelevant.

But bringing back to your original point before you distracted... you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.


It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
this new result override all others when the average result from
all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
That's a funny way to do physics.

What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
papers is relevant. ...

I note no response.

Still no response.

But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
thermal. ...

I note no response.

Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work..

"Most folk?" That's a rather unsubstantiated throwaway claim. It was *you* who claimed that everybody except for Turyshev et al 2012 had ignored the thermal origin, and I had to point out the error of your statement.

  #47  
Old May 23rd 17, 08:40 PM posted to sci.astro
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 6:36:48 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Il giorno lunedì 22 maggio 2017 16:28:56 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:01:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 14 maggio 2017 09:50:09 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno venerdì 5 maggio 2017 10:07:49 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno lunedì 1 maggio 2017 22:52:52 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
Opening note...
Don't tell me it won't.

Hey bud, this is an open discussion forum. Whatever you think I should or should not say is completely irrelevant.


On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:15:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, wrote:
---
---
Fig.2 from this link
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution..

Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
(Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
"anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.

I note no response.

Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
paper.

This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
"onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.

Nope, you are incorrect. The 2012 paper concludes that "thermal recoil" is the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. But not *solar* thermal. Or rather, the *new* thing of that paper is that by including the *internal* thermal effects (RTGs and electrical compartment dissipation) the anomaly is resolved. Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces, and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."


But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
that was accurately determined prior to launch,

Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.

You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
the RTG's. ... The pressure gradient will
follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve..** ...

Your writing appears to be motivated by intuition, but that is not the case. You can find a more correct and physics- and engineering-motivated discussion in books like "Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook." Also, there are quite a few reference books on the degradation of thermal coatings from the time in the public domain.

Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon" coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore, your assumptions are irrelevant.

But bringing back to your original point before you distracted.... you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.


It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
this new result override all others when the average result from
all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
That's a funny way to do physics.

What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
papers is relevant. ...

I note no response.

Still no response.

But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
thermal. ...

I note no response.

Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work.

"Most folk?" That's a rather unsubstantiated throwaway claim. It was *you* who claimed that everybody except for Turyshev et al 2012 had ignored the thermal origin, and I had to point out the error of your statement.


You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with.. But
that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
anomaly were derived.

This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
"onset" chart to understand how it was derived.

But a discrepancy between observation and what was expected
according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
the 20 AU mark. ...

Non-sequitur. Your statement doesn't make it any easier for a Doppler analyst to reconstruct how the data analysis was done with early data.

And... if you read Anderson's paper, the discrepancy was clearly noted... in the 1980s far after the spacecraft had passed 20AU. There is nothing in the paper that I can find which references earlier times, aside from the figures you point out of unknown provenance.


Furthermore, let's be clear what was happening in the early
1970s. The Pioneer spacecraft were the first spacecraft to be
sent to the outer solar system, with long cruise phases. Earlier
spacecraft were kept inside the Earth-Moon system, or directed to
the inner solar system. This new direction required new
attention to detail and modeling of the physical effects of the
space environment. No, the physical laws did not change, but the
modeling capability within the software that was used did not
capture all of the physics with the same fidelity.

Effects such as spacecraft spin and new relativistic physics were
being incorporated at that time. You can read the paper of Wong
& Lubeley from 1974 (AIAA Paper No. 74-845) which demonstrates
how the orbit determination groups were incorporating new
software with better capabilities.

Effects such as spacecraft propellant valve leaks were harder to
understand, and navigation analysts had to make do. What
physical laws does one apply to a valve that is leaky???

Before encountering Jupiter, both Pioneer spacecraft performed
frequent maneuvers (every few weeks), which disturbed the orbit
determination process, and also introduced more possibilities for
leaks.

Within the first 20 AU, the solar system radiation pressure is
significant. In fact, before Jupiter approach, the radiation
pressure is dominant over most of the force terms and is many
times the "anomalous" acceleration. You pointed out thermal
coatings, but let us not forget that the exact geometry of the
spacecraft has an effect. Is the antenna treated as parabolic
or flat-plate?

What about the cut-outs and antenna feeds, how are those
treated? These are not simple "physical law" issues. They have
to do with how accurately the spacecraft systems can be modeled.
Early in the mission, with computing power limited, some short
cuts were inevitably taken.

Each component would need to be analyzed properly, with a fairly
in depth description of the processes involved if the analysis
was expected to be taken seriously.

Exactly. In the early 1970s, the computing power did not exist to do the in-depth analysis required. The operational need did not exist either. But I see now that you understand that the process is not just about physical laws, but something more.

Which raises some questions here.
What data was plugged into the 2012 Turyshev computer simulation?
The answers are in the Turyshev 2012 paper and its predecessors..

Were the RTG emissions and solar radiation pressures correctly
represented?
Discussed in the Turyshev 2012 paper. "Correct" is a matter of tolerance.

Or were they in fact mismodeled as was the
assumption regarding Anderson's work?
Thanks for the loaded question. Anderson et al did not "mismodel" anything intentionally. The level of fidelity was lower and they did not have the thermal data available at the time required to check, which Turyshev et al did have by 2012.


Does the simulation software contribute toward the outcome? If
so, what was the programmer's information source?

The software is validated against all the missions supported by JPL for radiometric navigation, and the thermal modeling software is standard in the industry. That's why I say it has been validated: it has successfully been used thousands of times to correctly predict temperatures and emission profiles of equipment under test. And, let's not forget that Anderson et al 2002 compared multiple independent software suites, to guard against software errors.

Thermal modeling software also has many inputs. All the inputs for thermal/optical properties were taken from Pioneer engineering documentation, but error tolerances were also considered. *AND*, then the simulations were validated against actual spacecraft measured temperatures. This temperature record was not readily available for Anderson et al to use in 2001, but was for later work.

In the end it comes down to unconditional belief.

Please. It comes down to a consideration of an analysis using established techniques, which has been validated against known data (both other spacecraft and Pioneer itself). There are mountains of documentation on this, which you ignored or barely skimmed over. It's easy for you to just cast out that claim without substantiation, and I reject it.


So, please do not pretend that the state of affairs in the early
1970s can really be compared to the state today.

Again, no response.


The figure which you have referred to which shows the "onset" of
the acceleration, you have replotted. What you failed to show
was the uncertainty range (error bars) of the points. If you had
displayed those as well, you would have seen that the bars are
very large and that early data is not necessarily as stringent as
you say.

Again, no response.

...
First of all, the quote is actually what Anderson et al. said in
their paper, not me. And second of all, what is your point?
If the goal is to accurately measure the "onset" of the anomaly,
then the early data which would or could have shown that is
largely lost forever. If the goal is to get an accurate measure
of the anomaly in late days (20 AU) then the Anderson et al 2002
paper is just fine... but it doesn't prove or disprove any of
your claims then. Anderson's paper claims the acceleration is
consistent with being constant, quite the opposite of your claim!

But he does acknowledge that there was an observed onset of the
anomaly which indicated a deviation from well known standard
physics at the time.

Who acknowledges it? As I noted above, aside from the figures from unknown sources which you care to reproduce deceptively (see above), Anderson et al 2002 do not mention an "onset" in the paper.

Again, I note that Anderson's claim is that the Pioneer anomaly is consistent with being constant. There was no evidence in the data available for something varying with time. This completely undercuts your own conclusion.

CM
PS.:
.. could somebody give to me the email address of Mauro De Benedetto , rocket trajectory 'analist ?

... are you again there ? .... consider the point of max anomaly or the point of max changement of anomaly ! .. and so you understand the uselessness to discuss around the RTG or similar things for resolving the Pioneer anomaly .. i think ..

...
The anomaly has yearly some changements ... changements of the 10-15% ..: the sun can stay between the earth and the Pioneer or the earth can look directly the rocket without the sun interposition ... so the difference in the anomaly'value becomes the 20-30%


This is not a correct assessment of the Pioneer "anomaly." There are no such changes of the magnitude of the anomaly with sun-earth-probe angle. What is the basis for your supposition?

CM



The Anderson et al paper did not find evidence of a different amplitude of acceleration depending on sun-earth-probe angle. Figure 6 is actually historical, but is not the result of Anderson et al's work. Figure 18 is a *daily* variation of Dopppler residuals which is not an acceleration.

The conclusion of the Anderson et al work is that the anomaly was constant to within the measurement tolerances. However, after the thermal result, the Turyshev et al work in 2012 concluded that the small variations in the measured "anomaly" were consistent with the thermal origin.

CM
  #48  
Old May 25th 17, 04:42 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:36:17 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"

I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
"tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.


Actually, you are right, Anderson's arguments were fairly convincing
FOR THE TIME. What happened is that the Turyshev et al 2012 work
came up with *more convincing* evidence of what's going on. Heck,
the section you quote says, "complete thermal/physical model of
the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any other
unsuspected heat systematics," but then dismisses it. It turns out
that was a premature dismissal. It doesn't take much to see that
Anderson did a very crude estimate using simple geometry, when it
is now clear a higher fidelity approach was required.


That's not so at all. Anderson dismissed the idea because it was
**CLEARLY** incapable of generating the Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps
you should read it again.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"

It's very clear that the key to Turyshev's success is in his
determination of the error margins relating to the RTG surface
coatings because the uncertainty provides 20% of the total error
budget.

In section X1 of Anderson's paper; POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF THE
SIGNAL; he lists many theories, ranging from slight variations to
known physics to completely new physics which attempt to explain
the anomaly, and they all get the thumbs down. Turyshev's
analysis is seriously flawed as well.

---

I've reinstalled the following three paragraphs from your
previous reply.

There have been long-term studies of degradation on the International
space station (Fig 4.12) which show optical but not infrared degradation.


"Optical but not infrared degradation"? What kind of test would
be relevant here? i.e. If the amount of solar thermal energy
reflected off the ISS surfaces reduces, absorbed thermal energy
must increase by that amount. Otherwise where has the missing
thermal energy gone? If all surfaces have degraded equally and
the added thermal energy isn't freely emitted from the surfaces
the internal temperature will rise until it is. Infrared
emissions will always be exactly as expected.

Even if a local thermal energy source is absorbed into the
degraded surface it will still be immediately emitted because
the internal temperature is already altered to accommodate the
degraded emissive properties.

There have been detailed studies of the reflective properties of the
Cassini high gain reflector (which has temperature sensing; di Bennetto,
"The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft ..." 2001)
which show the same.


The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft
demonstrate a major flaw in Turyshev's analysis. The Cassini
mission parameters didn't include extended flight times beyond
Saturn. But that's irrelevant to the proposal that the Pioneer
anomaly is generated by mismodelling of the thermal
characteristics of the onboard power sources. Radial velocity
is of no consequence either. So if Turyshev is right, the same
anomaly should be noted for Cassini, **at very least**. From
Anderson's paper the Cassini RTG's are much closer to the
spacecraft body than for Pioneer. If that distance is halved,
the consequences of reflection off the rear of the HGA dish will
be four times greater.

So how do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
Cassini ???

My proposal isn't related to radial velocity either. But the
Cassini mission is confirmation that it's correct. Run the
application file and you will notice that the anomaly is only
just beginning to really make its presence known at 9.5 AU.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe

The Pioneer anomaly onset is very obvious. And it's nothing
like the sun focused curve Turyshev's analysis would generate.

There was work in the late 1960s and early 1970s which showed the same for
the exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer (e.g. Mayer et al. 1969,
"Investigation of Spacecraft Coatings," NASA CR-61267; Broadway 1971,
"Radiation Effects Design Handbook, Section 2. Thermal-Control Coatings").


"exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something
Turyshev didn't?

---

I think the key thing that Anderson's discussion could not have
known at the time, is that whether or not the equipment compartment
louvers are open or closed, most of the heat generated inside the
compartment escapes out the fore platform surface, and that is
enough to account for much of the anomaly.


If that info has recently become available the question of how
much has been answered. So how much does it contribute toward
removing the anomaly? In which direction did the error bars
shrink?

Here, let me quote for you,
"Thermal-control finishes are affected in orbit by charged
particles, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, high vacuum, and the
contaminant films that deposit out on almost all spacecraft
surfaces. The general result of these processes is an increase
in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR
emittance."


That makes no sense. If energy is continually pumped in through
increased solar absorptivity, there's no doubt at all that the
energy must come out again. Otherwise the temperature of the
affected object will increase forever.


It's unfortunate it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, there is a
thermal balance between energy received (related to optical
absorptance alpha), energy emitted (related to infrared emittance
epsilon) and temperature. If alpha increases while epsilon is
constant, then yes, the temperature increases.

So it really doesn't matter where the sun is relative to a
Pioneer spacecraft. All absorbed solar thermal energy will
conduct throughout all contacting surfaces, adding to the general
temperature.


Nope, that's mostly incorrect. The sun-absorbing face of the
spacecraft is the high-gain antenna, plus some of the RTGs.
These bodies are thermally insulated from the rest of the
spacecraft, so they do not "conduct".


So the anomaly canceling effect from a hotter than expected HGA
dish can't be considered. i.e. If the fore/aft surfaces of the
dish were identical the added thermal energy would be emitted
equally in opposite directions, but because the aft (reflective
surface) is known to be much less emissive than the fore surface
a substantial inward drive would be expected. Your claim that
the anomaly has been explained would have a lot more credibility
if it could be shown that Anderson had overlooked something like
this.

A discrepancy between current theory and my theory is guaranteed.
The difference is determined by how inaccurate current theory is,
or by how inaccurate my theory is. The Pioneer anomaly, fact or
fiction, is the key to truth.

Either way, I don't care. I would be over the moon if my theory
could be proven wrong. Reality according to current theory and
my theory is vastly different. You wouldn't like mine.

The HGA primarily comes
to thermal equilibrium via emission. It's true that
non-sun-facing (fore) side of the HGA which is adjacent to the
equipment compartment, and is the same temperature as the
sun-facing side because of conduction. But since the emissivity
of the sun-facing side is 10-20x more than the fore side, most
of the solar heating is re-emitted toward the sun. Very little
of it is emitted toward the direction of the anomaly.


Why do you say "re-emitted" ??? Absorption doesn't precede
reflection.

Anyway all of the above was tested prior to launch and has
obviously been considered in Anderson analysis.

---

If the sun facing RTG coating has degraded to the point where
the internally generated heat emission is at the error bar limit
while all other anomaly negatives have been set at their most
negative limits, some error bars overlap and the anomaly is
proclaimed dead.

You're a scientist, what do you think of that proclamation?
Do you honestly believe it's justified?

I say it's absolutely ridiculous.

My conclusion:
The cards just keep on falling into place.

-----

Max Keon

  #49  
Old May 25th 17, 04:26 PM posted to sci.astro
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 11:42:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:36:17 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"

I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
"tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.


Actually, you are right, Anderson's arguments were fairly convincing
FOR THE TIME. What happened is that the Turyshev et al 2012 work
came up with *more convincing* evidence of what's going on. Heck,
the section you quote says, "complete thermal/physical model of
the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any other
unsuspected heat systematics," but then dismisses it. It turns out
that was a premature dismissal. It doesn't take much to see that
Anderson did a very crude estimate using simple geometry, when it
is now clear a higher fidelity approach was required.


That's not so at all. Anderson dismissed the idea because it was
**CLEARLY** incapable of generating the Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps
you should read it again.


Again, your appeal to authority. See #2 below. You don't deny that Anderson's work was simplistic and crude compared to Turyshev's.

In section X1 of Anderson's paper; POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF THE
SIGNAL; he lists many theories, ranging from slight variations to
known physics to completely new physics which attempt to explain
the anomaly, and they all get the thumbs down. Turyshev's
analysis is seriously flawed as well.


So far you haven't been able to bring up a clear or quantitative reason why Turyshev's *much more detailed* analysis is flawed.

.....
If all surfaces have degraded equally and
the added thermal energy isn't freely emitted from the surfaces
the internal temperature will rise until it is. Infrared
emissions will always be exactly as expected.


Please learn about the difference between thermal emission and thermal emissivity. (#5 below) It is the emissivity which changes.


There have been detailed studies of the reflective properties of the
Cassini high gain reflector (which has temperature sensing; di Bennetto,
"The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft ..." 2001)
which show the same.


The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft
demonstrate a major flaw in Turyshev's analysis. ...
... So if Turyshev is right, the same
anomaly should be noted for Cassini, **at very least**. From
Anderson's paper the Cassini RTG's are much closer to the
spacecraft body than for Pioneer. If that distance is halved,
the consequences of reflection off the rear of the HGA dish will
be four times greater.

So how do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
Cassini ???


Why are you asking me when you could read de Bennedetto's work yourself? If you had bothered to, you would find that de Bennedetto has a very careful discussion of thermal effects, including RTGs and the HGA. In other words, a fairly detailed thermal analysis... just as Turyshev was able to accomplish for the Pioneers.



There was work in the late 1960s and early 1970s which showed the same for
the exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer (e.g. Mayer et al. 1969,
"Investigation of Spacecraft Coatings," NASA CR-61267; Broadway 1971,
"Radiation Effects Design Handbook, Section 2. Thermal-Control Coatings").


"exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something
Turyshev didn't?


Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties, you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below). The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have read about this but did not.


I think the key thing that Anderson's discussion could not have
known at the time, is that whether or not the equipment compartment
louvers are open or closed, most of the heat generated inside the
compartment escapes out the fore platform surface, and that is
enough to account for much of the anomaly.


If that info has recently become available the question of how
much has been answered. So how much does it contribute toward
removing the anomaly? In which direction did the error bars
shrink?


I note you keep asking this question, I keep responding, and you ignore (#2 below)



Nope, that's mostly incorrect. The sun-absorbing face of the
spacecraft is the high-gain antenna, plus some of the RTGs.
These bodies are thermally insulated from the rest of the
spacecraft, so they do not "conduct".


So the anomaly canceling effect from a hotter than expected HGA
dish can't be considered.


I see you finally understand that. Neither Anderson et al (2002) nor Turyshev et al (2012) claimed that degradation of the HGA could "account" for the anomaly. You could have read this but did not (see #2 below). However, the *uncertainty* in the thermal properties of the HGA does contribute an uncertainty of the thermal effects, which is what Turyshev et al considered.

If the sun facing RTG coating has degraded to the point where
the internally generated heat emission is at the error bar limit
while all other anomaly negatives have been set at their most
negative limits, some error bars overlap and the anomaly is
proclaimed dead.


That's kind of how science works. Compare the tolerances of the experiment with the tolerances of the theory, and if they overlap, then we cannot reject the theory.

In this case we cannot reject the thermal origin theory.

And by the principle of Occam's razor, if we have a "new physics" theory and a "basic physics" theory which are both consistent with the data, then we choose the basic physics. This is basic science. Why would we pick new physics when mundane physics will suffice?

But let’s summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring.

1. You continue to mention that somehow Turyshev’s 2012 work is about “solar thermal” when that is incorrect. It is about solar thermal yes, but mostly about internally-generated thermal. When noted, you ignore or distract.

2. You continue to ask about what is in the Turyshev 2012 paper. I continue to refer you to it, but you ignore or distract.

3. You continue to ask about what is different between the Anderson 2001 and Turyshev 2012 works. I reply with detailed points, but you ignore or distract.

4. You continue to appeal to authority of Anderson’s work for thermal aspects. However, Anderson’s work in this topic is rather crude, and limited to point-like and plate-like approximations. Even Anderson noted that a higher fidelity model could be useful and Turyshev’s 2012 work accomplished it! You continue to ignore or distract from this point.
  #50  
Old May 31st 17, 09:26 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

Il giorno martedì 23 maggio 2017 12:36:48 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno lunedì 22 maggio 2017 16:28:56 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 4:01:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 14 maggio 2017 09:50:09 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno venerdì 5 maggio 2017 10:07:49 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno lunedì 1 maggio 2017 22:52:52 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
Opening note...
Don't tell me it won't.

Hey bud, this is an open discussion forum. Whatever you think I should or should not say is completely irrelevant.


On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:15:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, wrote:
---
---
Fig.2 from this link
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution..

Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
(Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
"anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.

I note no response.

Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
paper.

This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
"onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.

Nope, you are incorrect. The 2012 paper concludes that "thermal recoil" is the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. But not *solar* thermal. Or rather, the *new* thing of that paper is that by including the *internal* thermal effects (RTGs and electrical compartment dissipation) the anomaly is resolved. Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces, and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."


But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
that was accurately determined prior to launch,

Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.

You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
the RTG's. ... The pressure gradient will
follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve..** ...

Your writing appears to be motivated by intuition, but that is not the case. You can find a more correct and physics- and engineering-motivated discussion in books like "Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook." Also, there are quite a few reference books on the degradation of thermal coatings from the time in the public domain.

Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon" coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore, your assumptions are irrelevant.

But bringing back to your original point before you distracted.... you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.


It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
this new result override all others when the average result from
all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
That's a funny way to do physics.

What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
papers is relevant. ...

I note no response.

Still no response.

But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
thermal. ...

I note no response.

Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work.

"Most folk?" That's a rather unsubstantiated throwaway claim. It was *you* who claimed that everybody except for Turyshev et al 2012 had ignored the thermal origin, and I had to point out the error of your statement.


You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with.. But
that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
anomaly were derived.

This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
"onset" chart to understand how it was derived.

But a discrepancy between observation and what was expected
according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
the 20 AU mark. ...

Non-sequitur. Your statement doesn't make it any easier for a Doppler analyst to reconstruct how the data analysis was done with early data.

And... if you read Anderson's paper, the discrepancy was clearly noted... in the 1980s far after the spacecraft had passed 20AU. There is nothing in the paper that I can find which references earlier times, aside from the figures you point out of unknown provenance.


Furthermore, let's be clear what was happening in the early
1970s. The Pioneer spacecraft were the first spacecraft to be
sent to the outer solar system, with long cruise phases. Earlier
spacecraft were kept inside the Earth-Moon system, or directed to
the inner solar system. This new direction required new
attention to detail and modeling of the physical effects of the
space environment. No, the physical laws did not change, but the
modeling capability within the software that was used did not
capture all of the physics with the same fidelity.

Effects such as spacecraft spin and new relativistic physics were
being incorporated at that time. You can read the paper of Wong
& Lubeley from 1974 (AIAA Paper No. 74-845) which demonstrates
how the orbit determination groups were incorporating new
software with better capabilities.

Effects such as spacecraft propellant valve leaks were harder to
understand, and navigation analysts had to make do. What
physical laws does one apply to a valve that is leaky???

Before encountering Jupiter, both Pioneer spacecraft performed
frequent maneuvers (every few weeks), which disturbed the orbit
determination process, and also introduced more possibilities for
leaks.

Within the first 20 AU, the solar system radiation pressure is
significant. In fact, before Jupiter approach, the radiation
pressure is dominant over most of the force terms and is many
times the "anomalous" acceleration. You pointed out thermal
coatings, but let us not forget that the exact geometry of the
spacecraft has an effect. Is the antenna treated as parabolic
or flat-plate?

What about the cut-outs and antenna feeds, how are those
treated? These are not simple "physical law" issues. They have
to do with how accurately the spacecraft systems can be modeled.
Early in the mission, with computing power limited, some short
cuts were inevitably taken.

Each component would need to be analyzed properly, with a fairly
in depth description of the processes involved if the analysis
was expected to be taken seriously.

Exactly. In the early 1970s, the computing power did not exist to do the in-depth analysis required. The operational need did not exist either. But I see now that you understand that the process is not just about physical laws, but something more.

Which raises some questions here.
What data was plugged into the 2012 Turyshev computer simulation?
The answers are in the Turyshev 2012 paper and its predecessors..

Were the RTG emissions and solar radiation pressures correctly
represented?
Discussed in the Turyshev 2012 paper. "Correct" is a matter of tolerance.

Or were they in fact mismodeled as was the
assumption regarding Anderson's work?
Thanks for the loaded question. Anderson et al did not "mismodel" anything intentionally. The level of fidelity was lower and they did not have the thermal data available at the time required to check, which Turyshev et al did have by 2012.


Does the simulation software contribute toward the outcome? If
so, what was the programmer's information source?

The software is validated against all the missions supported by JPL for radiometric navigation, and the thermal modeling software is standard in the industry. That's why I say it has been validated: it has successfully been used thousands of times to correctly predict temperatures and emission profiles of equipment under test. And, let's not forget that Anderson et al 2002 compared multiple independent software suites, to guard against software errors.

Thermal modeling software also has many inputs. All the inputs for thermal/optical properties were taken from Pioneer engineering documentation, but error tolerances were also considered. *AND*, then the simulations were validated against actual spacecraft measured temperatures. This temperature record was not readily available for Anderson et al to use in 2001, but was for later work.

In the end it comes down to unconditional belief.

Please. It comes down to a consideration of an analysis using established techniques, which has been validated against known data (both other spacecraft and Pioneer itself). There are mountains of documentation on this, which you ignored or barely skimmed over. It's easy for you to just cast out that claim without substantiation, and I reject it.


So, please do not pretend that the state of affairs in the early
1970s can really be compared to the state today.

Again, no response.


The figure which you have referred to which shows the "onset" of
the acceleration, you have replotted. What you failed to show
was the uncertainty range (error bars) of the points. If you had
displayed those as well, you would have seen that the bars are
very large and that early data is not necessarily as stringent as
you say.

Again, no response.

...
First of all, the quote is actually what Anderson et al. said in
their paper, not me. And second of all, what is your point?
If the goal is to accurately measure the "onset" of the anomaly,
then the early data which would or could have shown that is
largely lost forever. If the goal is to get an accurate measure
of the anomaly in late days (20 AU) then the Anderson et al 2002
paper is just fine... but it doesn't prove or disprove any of
your claims then. Anderson's paper claims the acceleration is
consistent with being constant, quite the opposite of your claim!

But he does acknowledge that there was an observed onset of the
anomaly which indicated a deviation from well known standard
physics at the time.

Who acknowledges it? As I noted above, aside from the figures from unknown sources which you care to reproduce deceptively (see above), Anderson et al 2002 do not mention an "onset" in the paper.

Again, I note that Anderson's claim is that the Pioneer anomaly is consistent with being constant. There was no evidence in the data available for something varying with time. This completely undercuts your own conclusion.

CM
PS.:
.. could somebody give to me the email address of Mauro De Benedetto , rocket trajectory 'analist ?

... are you again there ? .... consider the point of max anomaly or the point of max changement of anomaly ! .. and so you understand the uselessness to discuss around the RTG or similar things for resolving the Pioneer anomaly .. i think ..

...
The anomaly has yearly some changements ... changements of the 10-15% ..: the sun can stay between the earth and the Pioneer or the earth can look directly the rocket without the sun interposition ... so the difference in the anomaly'value becomes the 20-30%


This is not a correct assessment of the Pioneer "anomaly." There are no such changes of the magnitude of the anomaly with sun-earth-probe angle. What is the basis for your supposition?

CM


..many years ago , i read queekly the referement'paper of the anomaly arxiv gr-qc/0104064 19 apr 2001 and searched inside it the confirmation to a kind of personal theory of the Bigbang ... effectively the things are more complicated around the anomaly : somebody thought also to a sinusoid of 200 days 'period ; often , or yearly fit'manouvres were made ; the points 'averages for building curves were along few days (much better mounthly ?!); Pioneer 10 and 11 had almost opposite directions , but the datas were furnished sometime overposed ; the fig. 6 at page 33 could clear , but nothing is really sure ; it is difficult also clarify the question 'toward' the sun because in the fig. 6 the solar'pressure is diminuishing the anomaly'value , but at page 72-73 the same strenght , jointed to the 'radio beam reaction force' have the same positive sign = are its increasing the anomaly with its components? ... Benedetto , quoted by you , was thinking that Cassini had an anomaly 'away from the sun' , not 'towards'(did i undestood well?!)


... Craig - msk.. you are much higther than me in the cohomprension of the Pioneer 'anomaly .. at this point , i go back home near the fire ,.. i have only one question : why in the historical figure 6 , the sun 'pressure is of opposite sign ( + sun'pressure and - the anomaly'acceleration ) regards to the anomaly and in the last pages of the same report , the 'sun'pressure' and the 'radio beam reaction force' have , ofcourse , the same sign + , but -there- also the anomaly has their same sign + ( also in the precedent page , their quantities are added to the anomaly ) ? ..thanks ..
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pioneer Anomaly [email protected] Policy 7 July 21st 07 09:44 PM
30 Years of Pioneer Spacecraft Data Rescued: The Planetary Society Enables Study of the Mysterious Pioneer Anomaly [email protected] News 0 June 6th 06 05:35 PM
Pioneer anomaly Oz Research 10 October 1st 05 09:40 AM
The Pioneer Anomaly Mark F. Amateur Astronomy 4 December 25th 04 02:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.