|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
It seems to me that a repeat test simply requires a modest satellite to
exit the solar system as rapidly as possible. Since the direction and basic design would appear to be uncritical the key issue appears to be speed. I imagine a modern design would be rather small and light and comprise little more than a small box of electronics, a radioactive power source and a large dish. Given the direction is uncritical presumably a multiple slingshot path could be devised so as to achieve maximum speed despite using a modest launcher. It is (for example) plausible to do multiple slingshots skimming (say) mercury, the moon and jupiter? It would be quite helpful if we didn't have to wait 30 years for a result.... -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
Thus spake Oz
It seems to me that a repeat test simply requires a modest satellite to exit the solar system as rapidly as possible. Since the direction and basic design would appear to be uncritical the key issue appears to be speed. I imagine a modern design would be rather small and light and comprise little more than a small box of electronics, a radioactive power source and a large dish. Given the direction is uncritical presumably a multiple slingshot path could be devised so as to achieve maximum speed despite using a modest launcher. It is (for example) plausible to do multiple slingshots skimming (say) mercury, the moon and jupiter? It would be quite helpful if we didn't have to wait 30 years for a result.... One might have thought the New Horizons mission an ideal opportunity, as the craft was powered straight into an escape trajectory http://ccar.colorado.edu/~nerem/zipfiles/hunkins/ Launched in January, New Horizons has already crossed the orbit of Mars and is now crossing the asteroid belt. It will reach Jupiter next February. It's the fastest spacecraft ever flown. Alas, the spacecraft will very likely be unsuitable for Pioneer Effect experiments for another reason: "Unfortunately, New Horizons suffers from a similar drawback in this respect to the Cassini spacecraft - namely, that its RTGs are mounted close to the spacecraft's body, so infrared radiation from them, bouncing off the spacecraft, will produce a systematic thrust of a not-easily predicted magnitude, several times as large as the Pioneer effect." From: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...r_anomaly.html I don't know, but this may be a problem with all recently built fission- powered space vehicles. Nieto et al have been campaigning for a special mission, but I don't know if they have even got as far as formally applying for funding. Regards -- Charles Francis substitute charles for NotI to email |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
Oh No writes
One might have thought the New Horizons mission an ideal opportunity, as the craft was powered straight into an escape trajectory Arrives pluto 2015. Jupiter slingshot to 32 jovian radii. Presumably a slingshot that went to say 3 jovian radii would result in a very significant exit velocity compared to the 11km/s achieved here. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
"John (Liberty) Bell" writes: Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message .com, "John (Liberty) Bell" writes Richard Saam wrote: Oh No wrote: The position of Pioneer was calculated from Doppler information. Ranging was not available. Can anyone explain why ranging could not be used? Is this just a limit on available technology, or is there a more fundamental reason? Regards Here is an extreme case in terms of Beta Pictoris at many light years distance arXiv:astro-ph/0601244 v1 11 Jan 2006 Dynamic motions are inferred from atomic molecular quantum transitions. The time (frequency) of such transitions are assumed the same there and here from which observed differences in frequencies are related to dynamic motions. The problem is the same as you identify. How does one "range" the motions of Asteroid size objects (which do not have quantum transitions) in Beta Pictoris other than observing the gross newtonian gravity motions of the system as a whole. The problem could be solved if only a radar signal could be sent, reflected for obtaining active ranging information. In fact, with the (still functional) Pioneer, the possibility of obtaining ranging data is enhanced by the fact that it contains a narrow beam broadcast antenna directed towards the Earth, which can be turned on and off via ground control. Whether or not NASA thought to accuirately design and measure such turn on/off delays prior to launch, in order to facilitate such a ranging test, is, of course, another matter. Even when Pioneer 10 and 11 were fully functional (and contact was lost with 11 in 1995 and 10 in 2003) According to Anderson et al. contact was not lost with Pioneer 10. The transmitter was switched off via ground control to conserve energy, thereby allowing it to be switched on again at a later date, for further tests. Your claim is incorrect. From Turyshev et al (gr-qc/0512121), ... The power source on Pioneer 10 finally degraded to the point where the signal to Earth dropped below the threshold for detection in its latest contact attempt on 7 February, 2003. The previous three contacts had very faint signals with no telemetry received. The last telemetry data point was obtained from Pioneer 10 on 27 April 2002 when the craft was 80 AU from the Sun. the fact remains that they couldn't do the type of ranging involving transmitting and receiving a modulated signal that was done with Galileo and Ulysses. They certainly wouldn't have used anything as drastic as turning the transmitter on and off. No, but they could now, if they knew switch on/off times accurately, in order to test whether the unexpected apparent anomalous acceleration had real consequences in terms of resultant reduced elapsed distance. The spacecraft antenna was not "switched off." From Anderson et al., "The two spacecraft transmit continuously at a power of eight watts." (sect. II. D.) "The radiated power has been kept constant in time, independent of the coverage from ground stations. That is, the radio transmitter is always on, even when not received by a ground station." (sect. VIII. A.) Furthermore, it was never possible to do accurate ranging to the Pioneer spacecraft (Anderson et al), so your claims are entirely unsubstantiated. CM |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
In message .com,
"John (Liberty) Bell" writes Jonathan Silverlight wrote: Even when Pioneer 10 and 11 were fully functional (and contact was lost with 11 in 1995 and 10 in 2003) the fact remains that they couldn't do the type of ranging involving transmitting and receiving a modulated signal that was done with Galileo and Ulysses. They certainly wouldn't have used anything as drastic as turning the transmitter on and off. Notwithstanding the fact that Anderson et al. claimed (I think in 2004) that Pioneer 10 was still functional, with its antenna turned off to conserve energy, Would you like to cite a source for that? Anyway, what do you mean "with its antenna turned off"? The Pioneers used travelling wave tubes in their transmitters, and although they were occasionally turned off everyone was surprised when they were turned on again and still worked :-) the fact remains that, if their reported apparent anamolous acceleration is real, this should mean that the effect of turning the antenna on or off should, by now, be observable on Earth more than 1 second before originally expected. Quite apart from more formal publications, the Pioneer anomaly has been discussed on Usenet for at least five years http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/a88ae76f f5a0f575/c3f9417441fff44e?lnk=st&q=%22pioneer+anomaly%22+tu ryshev&rnum=1# c3f9417441fff44e http://tinyurl.com/pdk47 and it's been established by correspondence with Slava Turyshev that a simple round-trip time measurement isn't sufficiently accurate to solve the problem, even if it could be done. You _have_ done some research on this topic, haven't you? -- Mail to jsilverlight at the address shown is more likely to be seen! |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
Craig Markwardt wrote:
"John (Liberty) Bell" writes: Oh No wrote: The position of Pioneer was calculated from Doppler information. This statement is misleading. The position(s) of Pioneer(s) at any given time was calculated using classical trajectory dynamics (with GR corrections taken into account). So was the anticipated velocity hence Doppler shift of antenna signal at any given time. What was observed by NASA/JPL was an accumulating deviation from predicted Doppler shift, which led Anderson et al. to infer an apparent classically anomalous acceleration of the probes. These apparent classically anomalous accelerations were tabulated against predicted positions, not against altered positions inferred from such apparent classically anomalous accelerations of the probes. Your statement is also misleading. As is yours. While it is true that the trajectory was "predicted" by classical mechanics, what you don't say is that the parameters of the trajectory (initial conditions) were adjusted in order to provide the best possible fit of the model to the Doppler observations. And, presumably, to match with the known positions of planets at the times they were used to catapault these probes into their final trajectories. Whilst Anderson et al. did not clarify how initial conditions were established in the papers I read, they did confirm that such anomalous accelerations have been known about since the 1980's. I saw no evidence of later attempts to revise these initial conditions, to provide a better match to subsequent Doppler observations. If you know otherwise, I would appreciate references. John (Liberty) Bell http://global.accelerators.co.uk (Change John to Liberty to respond by email) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
Uncle Al wrote:
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307042 Rationalized Pioneer anomaly http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810085 Believable rationalized Pioneer anomaly I fail to see the logic of these explanations. Expansion of the universe is signalled by increasing redshift at greater distances. If the Pioneers are 'swept along' by this universal expansion, then they too should exhibit an increasing classically unmodelled redshift. If they are not, then no resultant Doppler shift should be experienced. However, what was observed was an increasing classically unmodelled blue shift. It seems to me that these authors have assumed a coordinate system where the universal expansion is transparent, assumed that the Pioneer trajectories do not participate in that universal expansion, concluded therefrom that they will thus appear to experience a classically unmodelled deceleration, and have then conveniently forgotten that said universal expansion gives a redshift, thus concluding that failure to participate in said expansion will result in the observed increasing blueshift. If I have missed something important here, I would like an explanation of what it is. John (Liberty) Bell http://global.accelerators.co.uk (Change John to Liberty to respond by email) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
Oh No wrote:
Alas, the spacecraft will very likely be unsuitable for Pioneer Effect experiments for another reason: "Unfortunately, New Horizons suffers from a similar drawback in this respect to the Cassini spacecraft - namely, that its RTGs are mounted close to the spacecraft's body, so infrared radiation from them, bouncing off the spacecraft, will produce a systematic thrust of a not-easily predicted magnitude, several times as large as the Pioneer effect." From: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...r_anomaly.html I don't know, but this may be a problem with all recently built fission- powered space vehicles. Nieto et al have been campaigning for a special mission, but I don't know if they have even got as far as formally applying for funding. Presumably it should be considerably cheaper than other missions since only a transmitter needs to be boosted to high speeds? Dirk |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
It seems to me that a repeat test simply requires a modest satellite to
exit the solar system as rapidly as possible. Since the direction and basic design would appear to be uncritical the key issue appears to be speed. I imagine a modern design would be rather small and light and comprise little more than a small box of electronics, a radioactive power source and a large dish. Given the direction is uncritical presumably a multiple slingshot path could be devised so as to achieve maximum speed despite using a modest launcher. It is (for example) plausible to do multiple slingshots skimming (say) mercury, the moon and jupiter? It would be quite helpful if we didn't have to wait 30 years for a result.... -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ranging and Pioneer
John (Liberty) Bell writes
I fail to see the logic of these explanations. Expansion of the universe is signalled by increasing redshift at greater distances. If the Pioneers are 'swept along' by this universal expansion, then they too should exhibit an increasing classically unmodelled redshift. If they are not, then no resultant Doppler shift should be experienced. However, what was observed was an increasing classically unmodelled blue shift. Charles Francis' proposal (gr-qc/0604047 backed by gr-qc/0604047, gr- qc/0605127) places the shift as a correction due to quantum gravity since photons are essentially quantised. The same effect modified by being seen "edgeways on" produces a shift that matches the doppler shift that mond seeks to explain but with this explanation the galaxies rotate in a newtonian manner when the doppler shift is properly interpreted. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
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 10 test of light speed | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 48 | February 18th 05 04:40 AM |
pioneer 10 acceleration | Nodem Info. Sys. | Research | 19 | June 4th 04 10:15 AM |
NASA Test of Light Speed Extrapolation | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 26 | February 12th 04 02:29 PM |