Talk:New Horizons/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fuel problems

In the Mission Profile section, the article currently says "However, a lack of available plutonium means that the required orbital maneuvers for post-Pluto encounters may not be possible.". Shouldn't that read "a lack of Hydrazine monopropellant"? Or is the plutonium in the radiothermal generator also needed for maneuvering as well as electricity? Ponder 14:45, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

lack of plutonium in the radiothermal generators means less operational time, in which they produce enough electicity to keep the spacecraft and its instruments operational. For Pluto flyby there is enough plutonium, but for futher KBO flybys may be not. --Bricktop 15:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The comment in the article is at best confusingly phrased, and at worst downright wrong (number of course corrections required won't fix the problem if the problem is lack of power). I've modified the article text to something closer to the meaning of the space.com article cited. --Christopher Thomas 17:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, your version is significantly better ;-) --Bricktop 21:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that problems with plutonium fuel support were solved, read [1]. Someone should add this to the article (my english is not good enough:-) ). --Bricktop 02:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the paragraph to reflect this development; thanks for the excellent research! --Christopher Thomas 05:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Message for Aliens?

Will New Horizons also have a message for aliens on board as the Voyager Golden Record of the Voyagers?

I haven't heard of any, but I haven't read all material about the probe. Check NASA's pages on the craft, linked from the main article. --Christopher Thomas 19:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also haven't heard of any, although I wrote some parts of this article and nearly all of the german New Horizons article and therefor read large amount of NASA material about the probe. But haven't look specifically for such a "message for aliens" --Bricktop 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can add your name to a list that is sent with the spacecraft. That's all, I think. [2] Awolf002 18:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The only message that needs being sent anymore is clearly written in the flight path!   freshgavin TALK    04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Aliens would not understand anything we could put in a message. I never saw the point. Skeletor 0 (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Solid Rocket

Are there any concerns that this mission will suffer the same fate as CONTOUR? It has a similar solid rocket booster built into the spacecraft: [3] Awolf002 18:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Not quite - NH has a Star48B upper stage, whereas Contour used the upper stage as well as having a Star30 built in - it was the latter that failed. As far as I know, there is no Star30 on New Horizons. Shimgray 18:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

also on the contour flight the upper stage did not fire intill it had spent some period of time in orbit in the cold of earths shadow.the accident board I believe cited this as a probable cause of a most likely detonation of the upper stage some days after launch.

[ [user:infocat13 ] ] 24 Jan 2007 --Infocat13 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Centaur flyby

I can't confirm the following sentence beyond an offhand comment on a message forum. I'll therefore remove it for the time being. The Singing Badger 19:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

During the cruise to Pluto, New Horizons will perform a distant flyby of a Centaur (an escaped Kuiper Belt Object), (83982) 2002 GO9, in 2010.

I did some calculations and tried to verify this, and the flyby will occur around March 8, 2010 at a distance of 412 million kilometers. — Yaohua2000 14:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? My buddies and I came up with March 10th at 390 million kilometers but we're amatures so we just want to know. Skeletor 0 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fastest ever?

According to [4] (who in turn cite NASA as a source), "About the size of a baby grand piano, New Horizons will be the fastest spacecraft ever to depart Earth, according to NASA. It will pass the moon in nine hours and will reach Jupiter in a little more than a year, the space agency says." I always take such statements in the press with a grain of salt, but that does seem quite fast (didn't Apollo take 3 days to get to the moon?). Can anyone provide any details? I didn't see anything obvious on the public web page for NH, but I didn't spend very much time looking. -Dmh 19:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the fastest ever to depart Earth, but not the fastest to leave our solar system, Voyager 2 has multiple gravitational slingshots and leaves faster. You can imagine that Atlas V rocket 551 is really huge and New Horizons is only 480 kg, so the spacecraft will have an extremely high speed. — Yaohua2000 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

According to a NASA paper (don't have the link any more) NH will leave Earth at a speed of 12,81 km/s if a Jupiter fly-by is achievable and 12,884 km/s if it flies without Jupiter fly-by. --Bricktop 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, these numbers from me were wrong. Spaceflightnow gives the exact speed for yesterday's launch as 10.07 miles per second - 36,256 mph (16,21 km/s) [5]. --Bricktop 06:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In its current format, in the trivia section the page says that after a gravity assist from Jupiter, the probe will be the fastest man made object ever at a speed of 47,000mph. Pioneer 11 attained a speed of 108,000 mph at periapsis on its Jupiter swingby according to this NASA page: [6]. Apologies if I am not conforming to the typical format here, but I'm a newbie and didn't know where else to raise this issue, while doing as little damage as possible.--Andrew

(Don't worry Andrew - you are doing great - Welcome to Wikipedia!). I agree we need to get a little more precision into this. I changed the trivia footnote yesterday because the quote in our article was misleading. It is quite possible I still did not get it right. Our old quote said "The New Horizons spacecraft aboard the Atlas V rocket will only take nine hours to reach the Moon's orbit (compared to the three day trip the Project Apollo spacecraft needed to reach the Moon). This will make it the fastest spacecraft ever launched. The record-holder prior to New Horizons was Voyager 1.", but when I looked at Voyager 1, I saw that the Voyager 1 spacecraft is traveling faster than the claimed current speed for New Horizon. Therefore, I surmised (perhaps incorrectly) that the record would not be broken until after New Horizon's gravity assist. I think the first thing to clear up is what do we mean by "fastest"? Do we mean "fastest speed ever achieved for one instant in time"? "Fastest departure from earth's atmosphere"? "Fastest average travel speed"? "Fastest departure from the solar system"? Or do we mean, at the current instant in time, it is the fastest thing, which would mean that other objects could have been faster in the past if they have slowed down in the meantime. Johntex\^talk 15:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rather ambiguous. Fastest with respect to what? The earth? The sun? The body it is currently orbiting, or whose sphere of gravitational influence it happens to be in at a particular moment? The earth itself has an instantaneous velocity relative to the sun of more than 60,000 miles an hour. So, relative to the earth, Voyager 1 might be moving on the order of 100,000 miles an hour at the right time of year. So I think in that case they mean relative to the earth's mean position, the sun. After thinking about this, New Horizon's own periapsis speed on its Jupiter swingby might even be similar to Pioneer 11's, I haven't seen any published information about that.

The 47,000mph is probably with respect to the sun, relative to which the planets have a mean velocity of zero, but instantaneous velocities that can easily exceed this. A rigorous standard would account for this, and would probably include something about the spacecraft's mean velocity relative to the center of the solar system over a significant period on a planetary orbital timescale being significantly different from zero. Or some such.--Andrew

The number 36,256 mph given as "fastest ever" seems to be relative to the Earth (center), see [7]. Does this make sense to you, as well? Awolf002

• Like you, I have also wondered about "Fastest with respect to what?" I agree it seems the best comparison would be to the sun, but it is difficult to know if that is what other people are referring to when they give measurements unless they either specify it, or unless someone knows of a definite convention that NASA and others in the field stick to. Johntex\^talk 18:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Trivia section to make it factually correct, while trying to retain as much original wording as possible. You are welcome to fine tune or improve further. 62.245.80.251 02:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh well let be add further to the confusion then ! Ulysses was reported by aviation space week at the time (1990 ?)to have had the highest hyberbolic access speed from earth orbit.Ulysses and its Star upper stage made it into Jupiter space(some jupiter radii to the left of jupiters "B" plane) and was thrown into a south/north polar solar orbit.But I have no idea as to how this compares to the question at hand.Due to a large error in its trajectory at launch pioneer 11 was fired into a simuler orbit but its orbit was corrected during pioneer 11 TCM-1.the pioneer 11 upper stage however would have made an uncontrolled flyby into a solar polar orbit. [ [ infocat13 ] ]--Infocat13 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Helios 2 Helios 2 Helios 2 Helios 2. Helios 2? Helios 2 Helios 2. Helios 2! --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. According to the Guinness World Records, Helios 1 and 2 reached 252 800 km/h and this is the "fastest spacecraft speed". I think they mean "fastest spacecraft speed relative to the Sun". -- Bowlhover 05:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Its funny because in reality, we don't know how fast everything is traveling. For example the speed of the earth? As someone said its about 60,000 miles an hour but then take the solar system at 200 kilometers per second and factor in the speed of the galaxy at 300 km per second and it just becomes immeasurable. We are all traveling at a impossible speed and we don't even notice it! I know that there was not much point to telling that but I just want to make a point Cheers Skeletor 0 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Launch time

Someone changed the launch time to 18:14, but are you sure it will launch at 18:14 UTC? (NASA TV coverage just said 1:02 left, but I doubt if this is correct, because the launch window to be open at 18:24 UTC.) — Yaohua2000 17:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There are builtin "holds" in the countdown. Do not use that number to predict when the launch will happen. It is currently planned for 13:24 EST. Awolf002 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

IT is currently planned for 13:45 EST. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So, it lauunched at 14:00 EST (1900 UTC). User:Seungwoo

Resetting clock and recycling

The virtual launch page of NASA says that the clock has been reset to T-4 minutes and holding, but the countdown page says that 'Built-In-Hold' is 40:00. Is the clock at T-4 minutes and holding or is it something else? I guess that the answer to that answers my next question: when the page says 'we will recycle for a 24-hour turnaround' what do they mean by 'recycle'? Do they take out the LO2 and LH2 out of the tanks or is it going to be left there ready for tomorrow's launch attempt? Thanks. DarthVader 23:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

During a countdown the clock stops at T-4 minutes and stands for 10 minutes at this point to give the launch team some time to deal with all kind of potentially faults. After that 10 minutes the clock starts again at T-4min and goes on until T-0.

I dont know about kerosine in the main stage, but LOX and LH2 from the main stage and from the Centaur are taken out of the tanks, because of their cryogenic temperatures. --Bricktop 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So I am assuming that the LO2 and LH2 are not in the tanks right now. Assuming that this is the case, will the clock start again at say T-120 minutes and counting (or similar) today so that the tanks can be refuelled? Or will the tanks be refuelled at T-4 minutes and holding? DarthVader 07:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes LOX and LH2 are now in the ground tanks, not in the rocket. The whole launch procedure of today is the same (or nearly the same) as of yesterday. --Bricktop 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Centaur

What will be the fate of the Centaur stage? Fall back to Earth? Rmhermen 19:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Acording to the Environmental Impact Statement [8] (pdf), the Aerojet and Atlas stages will separate, break up, and fall into the Atlantic Ocean. The Centaur will accelerate to Earth escape velocity, though, before releasing the spacecraft. It's likely that the Centaur will enter a long solar orbit, though it's not clear to me what velocity it will have when its burn is complete. Potentially it could be leaving the solar system itself, as long as it's going fast enough -- just not going anywhere interesting. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The centaur is mentioned in a blog/newsletter kept by DR Stern at the new horizens web site as being in a long solar orbit.Perihelion past Mars.

the Star third stage information can be found there to. [ [ infocat13 ] ] 24 Jan 2007

Mars flyby....

I see an anonymous has added a Mars flyby to the mission timetable.. although I agree that's the date the probe will pass Mars' orbit, does it actually fly past Mars itself? Tompw 19:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it will be very far away from Mars. See my animation, the white one is New Horizons, the red one is Mars. — Yaohua2000 20:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I added that and have corrected the entry per this discussion.

Odd phrasing

In the intro to the article, Pluto's atmosphere is described as "neutral". What does this mean? I've never heard that word used to describe and atmosphere before.

I added an explanation. Hope this helps. Awolf002 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jovian radii

Is Jovian radii the right word? Should it just be Jupiter radii? Unless I am wrong my understanding is Jovian mean Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune all together not just Jupiter.

n2271 19 January 2006

Jovian means "of Jupiter". Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are Jovian planets because they're "near" and "like" Jupiter. Zocky | picture popups 03:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

'Jovian planets' is not general English usage. J, S, U, N are generally referred to collectively as 'gas giants', though there is a general move to distinguish U and N as, perhaps, 'helium giants' or otherwise because they are rather different from J and S.

'Jovian' is indeed 'of Jupiter' and it only refers to multiples of the planet's radius in this case. Tarquin Binary 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, we should not say "Jovian radii of Jupiter"; this is saying the same thing twice over again, which is immediately obvious to anyone :-) I'm removing the "Jupiter" part and I'll link Jovian to the Jupiter article. Michaël 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that didn't make any sense what I just said. I'm not changing anything. Sorry. Michaël 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Propulsion

Surprised the probe doesn't have an ion drive. Any reason why still using hydrazine? especially for such a long range mission. Toby Douglass 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For an ion drive you need a big amount of electricity, which is usually generated by solar panels. Unless a nuclear reactor for spacecrafts is developed (Project Prometheus, which was cancelled last year), there is no way to use ion drives beyond the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. --Bricktop 19:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well... an RTG is always a possibility. But they seemed to have trouble getting enough plutonium for just 120 W. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you'll need multiple RTGs. You'll need some kW of power to be consumed by an ion drive. --Bricktop 00:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Flyby vs. Orbit

What is remarkable to me is that this mission, alone of all the recent planetary missions, will not achieve orbit around the planet that is its primary target, but instead will only fly by. Clearly, you get less science from this approach, so one must wonder why this choice was made. I'm going to assume that it was because it was not possible to carry enough fuel to decelerate into orbit; in other words, NASA was faced with a choice between "get there fast and stay briefly" versus "get there slowly and settle into orbit." I'd love to know more about this; in particular, how long would it have taken to get a spacecraft of simlar capability to Pluto if the goal had been orbital insertion? What other tradeoffs would be involved? Was the chance to do more KB exploration a significant factor, or was it more a matter of "well, we can't stop, we'll be out there, so we might as well look around"? I haven't seen anything addressing this question; I'd be grateful for anything that anyone here can provide. --orbert Fri Jan 22 22:20:03 UTC 2006

A space probe would need MUCH more fuel to go into orbit around Pluto. And it would have to fly on a much slower hohmann transfer route, on which it would take about 30 years to reach Pluto. --Bricktop 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It would also have taken more fuel to launch the extra fuel store out of Earth's gravity. Most of the probe's momentum will be given to it by Jupiter, although I don't understand how a probe could escape a planet's gravity with more momentum than it went in with - it would accelerate toward Jupiter, but then slow down as much, shouldn't it? GBC 23:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question, GBC; see gravitational slingshot for a full explanation. The fast answer is that the probe hooks behind Jupiter in its orbit; Jupiter loses a little kinetic energy to the probe in the encounter. Believe me, Jupiter can spare it. ACW 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cost of this expedition?

Could someone add something about how much this thing cost to this article? I'd be quite interested in knowing, and I'm sure others would too.

Launch Press Kit says: Approximately $700 million (including spacecraft and instrument development, launch vehicle, mission operations, data analysis, and education/public outreach) over the period 2001–2016. --Bricktop 02:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Trajectory animation

While I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into making the trajectory animation, I have a few concerns with it:

• The thumbnail version that appears in the article seems to be cropped, as opposed to resized, which results in an image that's very confusing and doesn't really show much.
• Labels on the orbits on the large version would be nice. I can tell what most of them are meant to be, but a new reader might not.
• Per the discussion at Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging regarding the MRI scan animation used there, it might be best to make the basic image static, while having a link in the caption to the full animation for people who want to see the moving version. Perhaps put dots on the orbits in the static version indicating positions at important times, to give some impression of travel time/speed.

Again, thanks for taking the time to produce the animation! --Christopher Thomas 18:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This animation should be longer. It only covers a couple weeks, and thus when it displays in the animation it displays so quickly you can't really make out what's going on. Phaldo 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I made this but since no official ephemeris available, I used a gravitation simulator to produce a simulated trajectory, but it is a bit difficult to export the simulated result as GIF animation (I did it manually, but rather take time), the official ephemeris should be available in 2 or 3 hours, so this can be replaced. — Yaohua2000 18:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I also found the animation on the main article page to be annoying and distracting from the reading, without being particularly useful. I like the idea of having the thumbnail be static. Also, how about a link to a "Celestia" presentation? Now that will give a nice orbit plot! — Długosz

The 'Trajectory Aniumation' is not at all clear. It needs more explanation. Can someone supply? Duncan.france 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there some wrong with that trajectory animation image? In only displays a truncated animation for me, lasting about a full second. -- Pinktulip 05:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

doesn't work for me either, I've removed it. optimized gifs don't resize well in my experience. The full size image doesn't work for me either, just a second or so of animation. --Duk 05:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the trajectory with a svg version, please reload if you cannot see the changes. It seems the svg render engine wikipedia used is very buggy, and due to another wikipedia's bug, the gif animation (800x800) cannot be auto-resized. I'll try to work these problems around if I have time. — Yaohua2000 07:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A Second New Horizons Mission?

About a year ago, there was talk of launching a second New Horizons spacecraft to Uranus and some other binary KBO. This was before 2003 UB313 was discovered. It so happens to be that a second New Horizons spacecraft could be launched on a Uranus-2003 UB313 mission if launched between 2007-2009. I wonder if mission planners have yet pondered this idea.... J P 18:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

See [9] for more. --Bricktop 19:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've writen about this in the Extrasolar Visions forum [10]. But I read for a Uranus-Pluto flyby, not a Uranus-2003 UB₃₁₃. But seeing UB₃₁₃ would be neat. A Uranus flyby is another cool idea. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• For instance the mission to Venus from ESA was made from the leftovers of the Mars mission. It would be a good idea, but it would take ages to reach 2003UB313, but launching it to Uranus makes it quite resoanable. Is there any plan from NASA? --Pedro 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Venus Express wasn't made from leftovers of Mars Express; the plan was always to use the main bus of Mars Express for future developments, and whilst the instrumentation is mostly redesigned versions of previous ESA instruments, they're not actual spares. However, leftovers do get used - three different probes have used backup hardware from the ill-fated Mars Observer, despite being physically quite different vehicles, for example. Shimgray | talk | 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose possible (but doubt it with current budget conditions and our President's emphasis on a human mission to Mars). Anyway, we've already had one Uranus flyby mission - Voyager 2. I would think if we were going to spend the money to go to Uranus, we'd want an orbiter for an extended stay. An orbiter is already planned for Neptune I think, so perhaps it would make more sense to use the spare parts from that.... FelineAvenger 06:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is quite possible. Europe's aim is also Humans on Mars around 2030 I guess. A mission to Ceres was also halted, which is an object never visited, and for what I've read, it is interesting. it seems like a new space race... doesn't it? Yes, there's a mission to Neptune and Triton. Is there any European plan to the outer Solar System? I guess not. A mission to UB313 would be nice, mostly because we know nothing about it. -Pedro 01:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Geocentric vs. heliocentric velocity

Guys, please stop including the statement in the introduction that the Jupiter gravity assist will accelerate the spacecraft from 16 to 21 km/s, or compare the two velocities. This is blatantly incorrect, and such a comparison cannot be done, as the two are very different velocities.

The probe has a geocentric (relative to Earth) velocity of 16 km/s just after launch, but it will slow down (relative to Earth) to about 12-13 km/s before leaving Earth's sphere of influence. At that time, it will have some 43 km/s heliocentric (relative to Sun) velocity, and it will actually slow down on its way to jupiter to some 21 km/s heliocentric.

Stating that the probe travelled 16 km/s at launch, but will travel 21 km/s after Jupiter encounter can lead visitors who don't know much about interplanetary travel to an absurd conclusion that the probe will somehow travel at 16 km/s all the way to Jupiter until Jupiter accelerates it to 21 km/s. That is plainly misleading and false.

The Jupiter encounter and the respective velocity, as well as the effect of its gravity to boost the probe's speed, are already included in the Mission profile section. Please work from there if you want to make improvements or add further information about the probe's speed changes. 62.245.80.251 12:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How long it took

Passing the moon - 9 hours after launch
Passing Mars - 78 days after launch
Asteroid 2002 JF56 Flyby - 145 days after launch
Closest Approach to Jupiter - 1 year, 39 days after launch
Saturn Orbit Crossing - 2 years, 141 days after launch

New Horizons

Thanks for whoever changed what I wrote. I did use that site for my work but I didn't know how to link the page. I'm still brand new and learning. But it's coming along. :)

Second Satellite Launch

I live in Florida, and one on of the days when they delayed the launch of NH, there was a satellite launch, which either meant that NASA lied when they talked about a delay, or more plausibly, it was a military satellite launch, which wouldn't be announced the media. I'm not sure whether we should put that in. The Gwai Lo 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ironic

We're sending a plutonium powered piano to the Plutonian system. LOL — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Star 48?

What does this comment mean?

"The Star 48 third stage will beat the New Horizons spacecraft to Jupiter. So will two small despin weights, the "yo-yo weights," released from the stage. However, since they will not be in controlled flight, they will not receive the optimal gravity assist, and will pass Pluto after New Horizons."

What's Star 48? Another spacecraft?

It's the upper rocket stage, which boosted New Horizons towards Pluto. Since the upper stage flies with nearly the same speed as the spacecraft, it also will reach Pluto. --Bricktop 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

and follow the spacecraft out of the solar system.AIAA astrodynamics conference papers from the period of the pioneers and voyagers tell the story of the voyager's star motors also following the spacecraft into a Jupiter flyby and these two objects are heading for the stars.Sadly they do not have onboard any plaques or records--Infocat13 03:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2002JF56

In the article it says that it has encountered asteroid 2002 JF56 . However when I go to List of asteroids/112001–113000, there is no asteroid 2002JF56. There is an asteroid 2002 JE56 however (2002JE56) so is it a typo or what ? Hektor 07:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New discovered asteroids are not numbered immediately, this not a typo. Yao Ziyuan 18:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Investigator?

From the article: >"The mission's principal investigator is S. Alan Stern of the Southwest Research Institute."< Does it really mean investigator, or should it be investor?

Uuhhh... This is a scientific endavour, not a financial one. People who direct the investigation in a major way are given the title principal investigator or PI, yes. Awolf002 16:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Visit to notable planetoids

Ixion in Jul 14, 2015. Close-by!

Quaoar in Jul 14, 2015. Close-by!

2005FY9 in Jul 14, 2015. Very faraway.

2003EL61 in Jul 14, 2015. Also distant.

Orcus in Jul 14, 2015. Distant.

Is it possible that the New Horizons will visit, after Pluto, 2005 FY₉, 2003 EL₆₁, Orcus, or other TNOs with the diametre of Mimas or bigger? Is it possible with the power that it has to reach one of these planetoids? That would be cool it would be like the "Voyager 3". Is a "Pluto -> Ixion -> Quaoar" cruise possible?

Permanent Designation	Provisional Designation	Albedo	Equatorial diameter (km)	Semimajor axis (AU)	Date found
	2005 FY9	0.8 ± 0.2	1800 ± 200	45.7	2005
	2003 EL61 "Santa"	0.6 (assumed)	~1500 (1	43.3	2005
(90482) Orcus	2004 DW	0.1 (assumed)	~1500	39.4	2004
(50000) Quaoar	2002 LM60	0.10 ± 0.03	1260 ± 190	43.5	2002
(28978) Ixion	2001 KX76	0.25 – 0.50	400 – 550	39.6	2001
55636	2002 TX300	> 0.19	< 709	43.1	2002
55565	2002 AW197	0.14 – 0.20	650 – 750	47.4	2002
55637	2002 UX25	0.08?	~910	42.5	2002
(20000) Varuna	2000 WR106	0.12 – 0.30	450 – 750	43.0	2000

--Pedro 15:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's extremely unlikely that NH will be able to alter its course enough to fly by any of the objects you've plotted orbits for. It'll pass by Pluto at about 13.8 km/s. Pluto's escape velocity is about 1.2 km/s. This means any course change resulting from a Pluto flyby would only be a slight deflection in an almost-straight hyperbolic course. Total maneuvering delta-v of NH itself is only 0.3 km/s. So the only additional objects NH can visit are those that are within a cone somewhere on the order of +/- 5 degrees from its present path (or lower; this is an upper bound estimate). --Christopher Thomas 16:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• | Not good then. because something smaller than 400 km will be just ice for a drink. At lest, there's Pluto and Charon to show-off. As it won't cross another planetoids in the path the best would to orbit Pluto, but I've heard that's not achievable. --Pedro 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If New Horizons had enough fuel to orbit pluto it'd probably be able to visit Eris as well, which is the real one everyone'd want to see... Orbiting a planet is hard work... There is lots of things that can be gained by visiting a smaller body, look at the comet missions, NEA missions. None of those objects were very big, but they did return some interesting results. Tuvas 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tuvas ! good to see you here.I have been looking through old and new space craft missions looking for the odd item such as where are they now? you know the history of science.have not even got to the mars wiki pages yet.editing very amall parts of voyager and pioneer so far.I can see potential here.......................images of soviet landers here on wiki hahaha--Infocat13 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing image

The image in the info box does not exist. Did someone forget to upload it? Will 19:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

New Horizons is now no more than 4,200,000,000 kilometers away from 134340 Pluto.

2006-09-24 06:29:27.205 UTC

Object	Range (km)	Range-rate (km/s)	Velocity (km/s)!
134340 Pluto	4,200,000,000	-21.260	22.392
Jupiter	256,896,937	-19.738	19.738
Sun	549,876,822	19.509	22.626
Earth	647,963,355	37.241	52.264

"Pluto" vs. "134340 Pluto"

Definitely not trying to start a "Pluto is a planet" fight here... not my interest at all... but I do think that there is some merit to the complaint about the use of "134340" - albeit for a very different reason than what the poster intended. There's really no need to list it as "134340 Pluto" just because it is catalogued as such. The common name (for the dwarf planet, just reaffirming that this isn't some desperate plea for Pluto's planethood) is Pluto, and using the full term -- especially in a casual reference such as this -- is akin to referring to a friend by his or her full name every time you speak to them. Just my two cents. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree, the use of the 134340 Pluto is a bit overkill, but I don't see any reason to remove such a reference from a talk page, and certainly not for removing posts that were made between the times. Personally, when I'm talking about an astroid, I wouldn't use the number either, but, there are times where it can be useful. Tuvas 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you 100% about the editing of the post, and the other deletions - that was completely uncalled for. The editor in question should have started a dialogue instead. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Solar escape?

Will NH escape the Sun's gravity, or will it (eventually) end up orbiting back? I assume the former... either way, I think the "is a satellite of" field needs a note in it.

Problem solved - if there's no text on the line (I removed the "N/A"), then the field doesn't appear at all. Good catch! --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, could someone who knows how archive the older content of this page? Tompw 21:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

First image of Jupiter

You can find it here: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/news_center/news/092606.html NH started working. In the image one can also see Europa and Io and their respective eclipses on Jupiter. --Pedro 23:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says the plan is to "fly within 10,000 km (6,213.7 mi) of Pluto". The translation to miles seems overly precise here.

Magic numbers

Discussion

Ummm... what exactrly are these? Tompw 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

These are the instantaneous distances between New Horizons and Pluto. — Yaohua2000 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK... but why three tables for different lattitudes and longitudes? And what's the difference between "range rate" and velocity?

The spacecraft to be transported twice during this peroid. The range rate is the rate of range, range is the position difference between New Horizons and Pluto, while velocity is New Horizons' speed with respect to Pluto. They are different. — Yaohua2000 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. Firstly, from what you said, the range is the distance form New Horizons to Pluto, so the "range rate" is the rate at which the range changes... which is exactly the speed relative to Pluto! Secondly, could you explain in a bit more detail abotu the different lat/longs?

Range-rate does not equal to the speed, because the spacecraft does not fly toward its target directly. For the first lat/long, it is Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility at Kennedy Space Center, where the assembly hall at, for the second lat/long, which is Vertical Integration Facility at Launch Complex 41, about 1800 feet south to the launch pad, the third lat/long is the launch pad. — Yaohua2000 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Range-rate is the same as pluto-relative velocity (as long as we're treating velocities as scalars now...). "Velocity" on the chart is, I assume, sol-relative? - JustinWick 03:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Velocity is pluto-relative velocity, range-rate is the rate range changes, they do not equal because the probe does not travel toward Pluto directly. — Yaohua2000 12:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

New ephemeris available at JPL Horizons, data above should be updated soon. Yao Ziyuan 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Data updated. Yao Ziyuan 06:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why use Template:Jupiter spacecraft?

New Horizons will only pass Jupiter. It is not intended to be real target. The craft will do observations, but only because it will be passing though. Will (Talk - contribs) 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• you are incorrect, it is also a Jupiter spacecraft as it will flyby Jupiter, in the same way as voyager or pioneer. Don't confuse it with newer kind of missions like Galileo and Cassini.--Pedro 19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • yes, I put the template there because this mission has a planned Jupiter encounter. Just passing through is no real argument, as it will also just pass throught Pluto... Ricnun 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Then there should be a "spacecraft to Pluto" template there, too. While it's only the first to Pluto, I think it's safe to say more Plutonian spacecraft are going to be flying in the future.

What's the use of having a template with one item?! Pluto is very faraway... Maybe just the template of Jupiter seems rather stupid, but no other craft reached Pluto or will reach it in the near future. Wait, there are cancelled missions:

• Pluto Fast Flyby (USA, 2010) - cancelled
• Pluto Express (USA, 2012) - cancelled

--Pedro 11:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jupiter template is used for all the missions that had Jupiter as one of it's targets. This is the case. As for a Pluto template, it makes as much sense as a Neptune one... Perhaps a "outer planets" template that would list Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, KBOs, etc? This would have more than one spacecraft on it. (unsigned)

Jupiter template does not seem out of line. New Horizons will apparently return more data from Jupiter than it will of Pluto! FelineAvenger 03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added the Pluto template, after having seen that Uranus an Neptune have such templates. -- BIL 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression was the the template was for craft that had Jupiter has a primary target. New Horizons will do science there, but its instruments were calibrated for Pluto. My impression was Jupiter was being used to test the instruments more than actually attempting to do useful science that could not be done another way. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The template also lists Cassini-Huygens which flew by Jupiter, but whose primary target was Saturn FelineAvenger 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Flyby of Jupiter

I restored the "Jupiter" mention after it was deleted a few moments ago, but then reverted myself to rethink. Obviously, the journey includes Jupiter for the speed boost. However, is the mission a flyby of Pluto etc.", or a flyby of "Jupiter, Pluto, etc."? Is NASA planning to do any scientific work at Jupiter? Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Jupiter is a fly-by gravity assist, the probe was built for Pluto. That alone makes Pluto the priority and and a Plutonaian spacecraft.Something14 00:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncompressed?

Initial, highly-compressed images will be transmitted within days. The science team will select the best images for public release. Uncompressed images will take about nine months to transmit

This must be incorrect. There is no conceivable way New Horizons will be wasting bandwidth transmitting uncompressed anything beyond simple telemetry. I think this should read 'highly-lossy' and 'lossless' images, although I can't speak to it; it is possible that all compression used for the mission is lossy to different degrees. Allenc28 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No more than 4 billion kilometers away from Pluto

2454120.284880148 = A.D. 2007-Jan-19 18:50:13.6448 (CT)

Sun

• Range: 738,866,580 km (4.939018 AU)
• Range-rate: 17,846.202 m/s
• Velocity: 19,774.088 m/s

Earth

• Range: 833,230,977 km (5.569805 AU)
• Range-rate: -2,844.746 m/s
• Velocity: 27,101.859 m/s

Jupiter

• Range: 64,081,751 km (0.428360 AU)
• Range-rate: -18,599.807 m/s
• Velocity: 18,614.977 m/s

Pluto

• Range: 4,000,000,000 km (26.738348 AU)
• Range-rate: -18,417.111 m/s
• Velocity: 19,276.503 m/s

222.130.193.31 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of craft

Did I miss how the craft got its name? And the even more interesting question of how it got a name that sucks so badly? Why don't we just call it Applegate Enterprises? Even New Nifty Gizmo would say more about what it is and does, than what they got. No historical reference, even. The technical writer in me wishes to protest. SBHarris 01:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's how New Horizons was named: [11]

It's from May 2005, so no wonder you missed it!--Planetary 06:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Black&White camera

Why is the main telescope camera black and white ? Looks somewhat boring. Probably because it allows higher resolution? There seems to be a colour camera onboard also (PERSI). Are there photos of Jupiter with it? -- 217.209.225.140 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The data is still being downloaded from the probe. Expect color images in a few months. For now, just some sample images were transmitted, to check that everything is well with the spaceprobe.Ricnun 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Too risky more than once?

Why not multiple Jupiter dives? Multiple gravity assists could shorten the trip time to Pluto. 82.131.210.162 09:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No it's not like that. The ship only passed by at a very shallow angle - not slingshotting all the way around jupiter. Basically, as NH passes by Jupiter, the planet drags the ship in it's wake, so Jupiter looses some momentum giving it to the probe. This image shows what's going on: Joelholdsworth 10:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 

I could have been possible to do it again if passing Saturn or Uranus. Now the position of these planets is not such that it is possible. In the 1980-ies it was possible during a period to do this, since the planets had the correct positions, and it was done by Voyager 1 (Jupiter and Saturn) and Voyager 2 (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune). To repeat the Voyager 2 journey is not possible until about year 2150. -- BIL 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also something to be said for sending the ship too quickly. When it arrives at Pluto, it won't be braking or going into orbit: it will be flying by as Voyager and other probes before it. If the craft were going too fast, it wouldn't have much time to snap pictures and take other readings. There had to be a balance between speed and usability.
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 03:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jupiter closest encounter picture

I was trying to replace the current picture with one from http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/passingplanets/passingPlanets_current.php at a more accurate time, but I can't find the upload link on the Commons picture. Can someone help? Rdl381 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Solar System" vs. "solar system"

I disagree with Ckatz's edit comment that "solar system" should be capitalized because "there is only one (ours)". If there were no other planets around other stars, I could consider this a valid reason. But I maintain that "solar system" is not a proper noun, and ours is certainly not the only one, and therefore should be lower-case. See this end note on the Solar System article: Solar_System#endnote_Anone. After all, one only capitalizes "Captain" when referring to the master of a vessel when citing a formal title (Captain Jack Sparrow) or when directly addressing a person with that rank: "Aye, Captain." (As opposed to: "The captain scanned the horizon.")

Unless there is an outcry or other form of consensus, backed up by reasoned argument, I am going to reinstate my edits.
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue comes up occasionally in the astronomy articles, and it is a common misconception that "solar system" refers to any star-and-planet system. However, as outlined in the Solar System article, and in several related discussions, "Solar System" refers only to the Sun and the associated objects orbiting it. There is also an IAU guideline for English spelling of astronomical objects, which uses as an example "the Solar System". With that in mind, it's not a question of what you maintain, it is instead about what the accepted standard is on Wikipedia - and that would be "Solar System". --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note, as well, that the citation you used (from the Solar System article) does not support your assertion that "solar system" is a generic term. Here is the relevant text:

"Capitalization of the name varies. The IAU, the authoritative body regarding astronomical nomenclature, specifies capitalizing the names of all individual astronomical objects (Solar System). However, the name is commonly rendered in lower case (solar system) including in the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, and Encyclopædia Britannica."

As you can see, it does not address the generic issue at all, only covering the capitalization. Further it outlines how - while some sources use lower case - the "authoritative body regarding astronomical nomenclature" specifies using capitals. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification and the education.  :)
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 06:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. I've had many people help me out in the time I've been here, so it's good to "pay it forward" (so to speak). Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway. "solar system" is not the name of our system. The true proper noun is the Sol System (our sun is named Sol) Cheers! Skeletor 0 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Context for velocity

I was thinking about how we describe NH as the fastest probe, and was impressed with the "nine hours to the moon versus three days for Apollo" comparison given. In a similar vein, the time taken to get to Jupiter (just over a year) could be compared to, say Voyager (18 months?), or Cassini (crossing Jovian orbit, I have no idea?) or Galileo at six years(!). It may not be a fair comparison as the routes and relative planetary positions, but may provide some context to rather abstract numbers. I, for one, have no concept of 21km/s, but seeing something relative may help. If there are no useful comparisons, then just ignore my rambling. LeeG 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point is a good one, and it raises interesting ideas about other ways to improve or expand the article in addition to your suggestion of comparing time taken to reach Jovian orbit. From an orbital mechanics perspective, the easy value to compare two spacecraft trajectories is the Characteristic energy, C₃, but that totally lacks meaning for most readers. Whereas time to cross Jovian orbit is quite intuitive. By the way, it is fair to compare Jovian orbit crossing times! The tradeoff for probes that have taken more circuitous routes using gravity slingshots is exactly that: a tradeoff of time en-route versus launch cost. It might be a reasonable question to ask (and for the article to answer): why did the New Horizons mission planners see a need to get there so quickly? Why did they spend money on such a powerful launch vehicle? (Sdsds - Talk) 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ulysses comparison

Ulysses was not technically launched directly toward Jupiter. It first reached Earth orbit on the space shuttle. See the article for details. Someone should clarify this comparison. 71.102.134.129 03:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading

It is misleading to compare New Horizon's travel time to the Moon and that of Apollo 11. Apollo 11 would have gotten there much faster if it didn't have to take time to slow down to actually land on the Moon.--Pharos 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. What the article needs in this spot (or somewhere) when discussing the New Horizons' velocity is a sense of "How fast is that really?" A better comparison would be to some other spacecraft that left the vicinity of Earth. For example, how fast was Voyager 1 travelling when it crossed the orbit of the Moon? Sadly, we don't seem to know the answer to that. So to give a sense that New Horizons is going faster than other spacecraft, what else can we do but compare with Apollo? (Sdsds - Talk) 00:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should only compare it to Voyager and other outer planets probes. Of course earlier flyby/impact missions to the Moon also got there considerably faster than Apollo 11. Luna 2 hit the the Moon dead-on in 33 1/2 hours in 1959! I think I remember the Apollo 11 comparison was first put out in a press release at the time, and I couldn't help thinking it was highly irresponsible of NASA to hype themselves in this manner.--Pharos 02:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the Apollo 11 comparison. If someone has a more meaningful comparison on the Earth-Moon trip time, feel free to add it.--Pharos 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, it serves no purpose to compare velocities in space. For my reasoning see above section called "Fastest Ever?" Skeletor 0 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocket propulsion

This is just a layman's POV, but in missions like this one where you're taking 10 years to get all the way to Pluto, I've never understood why they can't just strap a massive fuel tank and rocket on it, and continue accelerating to a few 100,000MPH. That'd cut down the flight time a lot, obviously. Any ideas why this isn't done? --=== Jez === 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair question; one reasonable answer might be "cost". Ask: how much would it cost to launch that massive fuel tank? Even if the fuel tank weighed only as much as the probe itself, the launch costs would be double! Also ask: what's the hurry? (Sdsds - Talk) 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reason is that if you got to 100,000 MPH, you now have the problem of decelerating to some reasonable speed such that you can enter the orbit of the body you are exploring. This requires even more fuel. Often times, you want to use the minimum fuel allowed so that you can allow for more margin in building your science instrumentation/payload. Wikipedia brown 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another consideration is the fact that rockets cause a lot of vibration, and some of the instruments need to be perfectly still to operate correctly. The dust counter is the best example of this. Unlike the other instruments, it's operating almost non-stop all the way to Pluto, but its sensitive detectors are triggered by even the slightest vibration. If a rocket were burning during the entire voyage, the dust counter would be overwhelmed and unable to collect any real data. 205.175.225.22 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Current status

The "Current status" section isn't really current status - it's more of a history of what's happened so far (stopping in November 2006), and thus overlaps significantly with the "mission profile" information immediately preceding it. Is there any reason why this shouldn't all be merged into one narrative? Or was the intention that "current status" should be a more detailed version of what's already been said? If so then at minimum the heading needs changing. Matt 23:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

...and later on in the article there's more overlap, since the Jupiter flyby is mentioned for a third time under "Science objectives and observation plan". I think two treatments - a mission summary and a mission detail - should be enough, no? And at the end, "Mission notes" seems a kind of miscellany, most of which could be integrated into the earlier text to improve organisation.

Overall, I think this article could do with a reorganisation. I did just make a few organisational changes actually, but I'm reluctant to take the thing apart any more in case I am missing some overarching principle. Thoughts? Matt 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How are the knickknacks secured?

The "cultural artifacts" description here fills my head with amusing images of loose objects getting out of control... Pluto's discoverer's ashes getting in the mirrors and camera, the compact disc revolving unpredictably every time the gyroscope is applied, and so on. I'm sure all these things must be very well secured - how? 70.15.116.59 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is turning into the lamest of all Edit Wars

I am talking on whether Pluto was a Greek or a Roman god. He was both. But since he was a Greek god before he became a Roman god it is proper to call him a Greek rather than a Roman god. It is not that the Greeks called the god of the underworld Hades and the Romans Pluto, it was the ancient Greeks first called him Pluto and the Romans adopted the name. This is not the case of Venus that we can properly call a Roman godess since her Greek name was Aphrodite, other than that we are talking about the same god (the Romans simply adapted the Greek Pantheon and gave them Roman names, if they did) in this case we have the same name. While in Homer he is only called Hades, since Aeschylus (at the latest) he is also called Pluto and, as Plato said:

τὸ δὲ Πλούτωνος, τοῦτο μὲν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πλούτου δόσιν, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς γῆς κάτωθεν ἀνίεται ὁ πλοῦτος, ἐπωνομάσθη: ὁ δὲ “Ἅιδης,” οἱ πολλοὶ μέν μοι δοκοῦσιν ὑπολαμβάνειν τὸ ἀιδὲς προσειρῆσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ, καὶ φοβούμενοι τὸ ὄνομα “Πλούτωνα” καλοῦσιν αὐτόν.

As for Pluto, he was so named as the giver of wealth (πλοῦτος), because wealth comes up from below out of the earth. And Hades--I fancy most people think that this is a name of the Invisible (ἀειδής), so they are afraid and call him Pluto. (Plato, Cratylus 6 403, translation by Fowler 1921 Loeb edition from Perseus)

While modern mythographers disagree with Plato this is direct proof that Pluto is also the Greek name of the god. BTW the references that I have added are from Greek sources calling the god Pluto, they are not telling which is Pluto relation with Hydra and Nix, as is implied by having the ref at the end, the ref goes at Greek not Pluto. One of the guidelines of Wikipedia is 'do not remove sourced material unless you want to get into trouble'.

If this edit is removed without citing a hard source why he should be called a Roman rather than a Greek god, I will take this to WikiProject:Mythology for arbitration. about.com is less reliable than Plato My reluctance to get bogged in a new edit war while I am busy is why until now edited this page anonymously. Ikokki (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares anyway? This article is about a spacecraft, not about mythology. I simply replaced "the Greek god Pluto" with "the mythological Pluto" and now all is well. Go and fight about it somewhere else. Cop 663 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Cop 663, it's an irrelevant point here, fair compromise. (We could even go with "the classical god Pluto" too if we wanted.) Ikokki, I agree it's a lame edit war. Thanks for starting it (and perpetuating it). Also, thanks for finally using the article talk page. BTW, please learn how to use the citation templates. That's why they're there. Thanks in advance.  :-) --Bark (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New Image

Image of Pluto taken in negative:

New Horizons image

Serendi^podous 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pluto Charon's Barycenter

During New Horizons encounter with Pluto in 2015 will its NASA handlers investigate the "Barycenter" or center at which Pluto and Charon orbit each other (which just happens to be above Pluto's surface). Is a "Barycenter" simaliar to a "Libration Point"? Will there be small moons found there? The Earth/Moon "Barycenter" is located below Earth's surface (not at it's center) this causes the Earth to "wobble", does it also help keep the Earth's interior molten? Jalanp (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A barycenter is different from a libration point. The barycenter is the geometric center of the spinning "dance" that Pluto and Charon perform, and barycenters are always closer to the heavier partner. The libration point is where you would feel equally pulled towards both bodies, and it's always closer to the lighter partner. Nothing can stay at the barycenter - it would just fall towards Pluto. I'm not certain, but I don't think anything can stay right at the libration point either - any tiny nudge away from the exact point would make the object more drawn to one body or the other. In the Pluto/Charon pair, the barycenter and libration point are both just empty locations in space with nothing in particular to investigate. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are stable and unstable libration points. Two body systems have 5 libration points. 3 are unstable and 2 are stable... that is if a body is at L1, L2, or L3 (the unstable LPs) then it can orbit them in something called a halo orbit, but this requires constant thruster firings. Think of an object resting on top of a bowl. It can remain on the top unless it gets a small nudge, then it falls off the top. L4 and L5 are stable, in that small bodies can fall towards them. For Jupiter there are trojan asteriods located at L4 and L5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.48.105 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Flyby of Eris and Others?

I am wondering if in the part where it says that by 2016-2020: Kuiper Belt, does anyone have info on whether NASA is planning to get New Horizons to pass Eris' orbit, as it is just as mysterious(probably more). As well, why is there such a broad date on the Kuiper Belt, is there not a definite date for entering the Kuiper Belt?

Laisinteresting 22:58, 25 May 2008 (ET)

NASA hasn't actually made specific plans yet. Even though we know there are many, many objects out in the belt, they're too small and dimly-lit for us to know where most of them are. Once New Horizons gets much closer to Pluto, it will hopefully be able to locate some KBO's in the neighborhood. As far as I know, Eris won't be close enough to New Horizon's trajectory for a close-up look. The reason the date range is so wide is because the belt's so broad that the probe will actually take years to pass through it. It's not just a narrow little asteroid belt. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I read back when NH was first launched that they aren't sure exactly what KBO's will be in its path as it leaves, but they are looking for and evaluating targets. Though it isn't explicitly said, I take this to mean there aren't any low-hanging fruit like Eris in NH's immediate path. aremisasling (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if NH could visit another dwarf planet candidate. Since there are about 50 of them already known, some should be rather close to Pluto. Does someone know which is currently (resp. in 2015) closest to Pluto? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It can't visit any known large KBO as it's potential trajectory is quite restricted. That's why NASA is projecting to encounter one 50-100km in diameter, which is far too small to be considered a dwarf planet. While more KBO's are being discovered regularly, most, if not all, the largest ones already have been. Don't Be Evil (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Solar system object positions with a blue line approximately showing New Horizon's trajectory after the Pluto flyby

To give some context, this image includes the year 2000 positions of Kuiper belt object (KBO) known in 2007. The blue line roughly shows the path New Horizons will take after it flies past Pluto. Of course by 2015, Pluto will have moved 33 degrees anticlockwise, but the KBOs will also have moved by about that much, if slightly less. Also, the image shows objects in plan view, but most KBOs are in fact spread out vertically above and below the plane, so in fact I believe (no citation) that none are known so far anywhere near to the post-flyby path. I would be interested if anyone produces a similar kind of chart that shows the view from the side as well as from above. -84user (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Name in italics

The article italicized the name "New Horizons" inconsistently. Sometimes it is in a standard font, whereas other places it is italicized. If there were a pattern to this (e.g. italics when referring to the craft itself, not when referring to the mission) that would be great, but I haven't been able to identify a pattern.

I would suggest that when referring to the name of the craft itself, "New Horizons" should be in italics, but when referring to the mission, it should not be. But before making this change myself, I'd like to ask if there are other standards which might be more appropriate for this article. --ΨΦorg (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Earth- and solar-escape trajectory

can someone please rephrase and wikify above in the introduction?

Earth escape trajectory and solar escape trajectory?

216.80.119.92 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Recommend Semi-protect

I just removed some juvenile sexual vandalism. Recommend semi-protection. 70.58.155.45 (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Speed changes for the Pluto flyby

The speed of the planned flyby of Pluto and Charon changes from 13.78 km/s for Pluto at around 11:47 to 13.87 km/s for Charon at around 12.01. I don't know much about space travel in general or this mission in particular, but it seems like a big change in speed for a small timeframe. I also know it's a seriously minor thing, but it's going to annoy me if i don't get it fixed :) Knuthove (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume the speed changes because the spaceship "falls" in the gravity field of Pluto and Charon. Also, it's not really much: an increase by 90 m/s(=300 km/h) in 14 minutes can easily be achieved by an Earth-bound plane. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the fastest man made object?

The article states in the opening that New Horizons is now the fastest man made object. However, NASA and Germany's Helios probes in the 70's were considerably faster. As documented on their own Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_probes So I think that statement should be changed (I'm new to Wiki and don't know how to do that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.147.67 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that was a record at the time, which does not still stand. Given that the Helios spacecraft remained in heliocentric orbit whilst New Horizons reached escape velocity, which do you think was faster? --GW… 23:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the fastest man-made objects to date have been the Voyager space probes.--143.167.235.164 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Voyager probes are flying at a speed of 30 and 36 Km/s relative to Earth, which is about twice as fast as the speed of NewHorizon.--143.167.235.164 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.235.164 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article contradicts this discussion. It says, later in the article, this: "New Horizons holds the record as the fastest spacecraft ever launched, having achieved the highest Earth-relative velocity and thus leaving Earth faster than any other spacecraft to date. It is also the first spacecraft launched directly into a solar escape trajectory, which requires an approximate velocity of 16.5 km/s, plus losses, all to be provided by the launcher. However, it will not be the fastest spacecraft to leave the solar system. This record is held by Voyager 1, currently travelling at 17.145 km/s (38,350 mph) relative to the Sun. Voyager 1 attained greater hyperbolic excess velocity from Jupiter and Saturn gravitational slingshots than New Horizons. Other spacecraft, such as Helios 1 & 2, can also be measured as the "fastest" objects, due to their orbital velocity relative to the Sun at perihelion. However, because they remain in solar orbit, their orbital energy relative to the Sun is lower than the five probes (and three other third stages on hyperbolic trajectories), including New Horizons, that achieved solar escape velocity. (The Sun has a far more massive gravity well than Earth.)"

Now, didn't that just say that, relative to Earth, New Horizons is the fastest... well, read above? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New Horizons left the Earth at the fastest speed to date, but it is not the fastest spacecraft ever created.--143.167.235.164 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

First, as you're personally attacking me alongside your new addition to this conversation, I'll have to point out that I am, indeed, assuming good faith here. You are right on the numbers, wrong on the physics. I took math, yes, but I also paid attention in astrophysics. For instance, I know that, relative to the Earth's core, I'm orbiting at a velocity of around 900mph. When you consider the Earth is also orbiting the sun at around 30km/s. So my velocity increases and decreases daily based on my position in the orbit. Further, the Earth orbits the center of the Galaxy at a variable velocity both slightly more and slightly less than that of the Sun based on the time of year. All that being said, it's simply enough to say speed is relative. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SO what is your point? Why is my edit vandalism?--143.167.235.164 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[13]

What the article says: New Horizons is the fastest spacraft ever created.

This is not true

New Horizons left the Earth at the fastest speed. When it was launched, it had the highest speed relative to Earth to date. In the Solar System, velocity is based on the position of the Sun. Thus relative to the Sun, Voyager is the fastest spacecraft ever created. You should understand this if you had paid attention in astrophysics. By the way you have broken the 3RR yourself already.--143.167.235.164 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, please read WP:AGF first. Second, "rv" is short for "Revert". "Revert Vandalism" is abbreviated "rvv". Once you finish reading AGF, please read this section of the edit summary article. Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, IP 143.167.235.164, Not only did I reply on the talk page... here... at enough length to justify myself, you have been reported for violating the 3rr. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

K dude, but you still have not replied to my point.... You are just giving me Wikipedia links and stuff, but have not replied to the content change at all. What you said in your previous post was simply that speed is relative. You did not make any point on what I said. Enough...--143.167.235.164 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New Horizons does hold a speed record of its own, however, but it is much more specific than simply the "fastest spacecraft." New Horizons is instead the fastest spacecraft launched from Earth to date. In other words, New Horizons was traveling faster as it left Earth orbit than any previous vehicle launched into interplanetary space [14]--143.167.235.164 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll stick my neck out and say that I've read multiple times that the Voyagers are the fastest spacecraft made by human hands, though they were not the fastest at launch. Orbital slingshots are powerful things in regards to spacecraft velocity and the Voyagers did a few of them. So I think the current version which more clearly states that it's record is Earth-escape specific is preferable. The original article text didn't necessarily contradict itself as much as it just didn't define the nuance well enough. aremisasling (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

At launch from earth new horizens holds the speed record( past the moon for instance) however new horizens then ecounterd Jupiter for a gravity assit adding to its speed relative to helocentric.but so did the voyagers.all in all new horizens is the speed record holder.as for me I have contribited the 4 upperstages in solar system escape orbits to wiki in the past.

they are voyagers 1 and 2 pioneer 10 new horizens but not I believe pioneer 11 the references for this would be copyrighted AIAA atrodynamics specialist conferences and personal communications with astrodymanics specialists can anybody suggest to me how to cite in this sort of case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infocat13 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality of images

What will be the quality of the images this probe takes of Pluto? The article talks about the targets being "only a few pixels across" but also talks about an increase in resolution after this. Will there be photos of comparable quality to, say, the voyager images of Saturn? --65.73.75.248 (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Voyager 1 came within 177,000 km of Saturn, and New Horizons will come within a mere 10,000 km of Pluto. Pluto is far smaller of course but I'm going to guess 'yes' to your query. Tempshill (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

past tense vs present tense

Some material in this article was written before launch and not updated yet; copy editing to remove present-tense from the launch portion of the article would be useful. Also this line in particular struck me:

Then, when the spacecraft is cruising inactively in the cold outer solar system, the louvers are closed, and the shunt regulator reroutes power to electric heaters.

I assume the louvers have already been closed and the regulator is currently rerouting power in this way - could a knowledgeable editor edit this section accordingly? (If possible, stating at what point this mode change occurred.) Or is "inactively" the key phrase, and this mode will be turned on and off during the flight? Tempshill (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now Halfway to Pluto

This site: [Fox] writes that New Horizons is now halfway to Pluto.Agre22 (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Is it capable of doing color images?

--MathFacts (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in the "mission science" section. It has a black and white camera, a telescope with several spectral bands in visible and near-infrared (which could be used to take colour images), and a camera with a large number of ultraviolet spectral bands (which could be used to make false-colour images of UV features). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How about 60 days, and fewer threads? 10 threads would leave threads from 2008 here. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done 5 threads, 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Propose Move: Rename New Horizons to New Horizons (spacecraft)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New Horizons → New Horizons (spacecraft) — 1) Clarify what the article is about. 2) Put all of the dozen New Horizons articles in Wikipedia on an equal footing for a very general term.

With over a dozen New Horizons entries in Wikipedia, I don't see that the NASA spacecraft should necessarily get top billing for the New Horizons encyclopedia entry. Is there some rationale to defend this?

I propose we move the New Horizons to become New Horizons (spacecraft)

• Support -- as proposer, I support the move. Rationale: 1) clarity as to exactly what this article is really about and 2) leaving all uses of a general term, like New Horizons, at the same level on the disambig page. N2e (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Though I note we've managed to avoid this with just about every other spacecraft. In fact, I can't find ANY that use (spacecraft). We have Magellan probe, MESSENGER, and the Voyagers and Pioneers have identifying numbers (as does any series of probes part of a program, thus Ranger program and Apollo program (no parens). And it's Apollo spacecraft, not Apollo (spacecraft). We do have Sojourner (rover). Thus I suggest New Horizons probe, only for consistancy with other WP work, not necessarily logic. SBHarris 21:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose First off, after reviewing the disambiguation page, it is apparent exactly why this page has been assigned primary topic status. The other entries do not appear to rank in the same manner, a situation that is unlikely to change as NH approaches Pluto. Secondly, with respect to the "clarity" argument and the title of the article, please keep in mind that we do not preemptively disambiguate titles for that purpose. Thirdly, there does not appear to be any pressing need for this move, as evidenced by the lack of enquiries and complaints on this talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Oneiros (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose -- I wouldn't be terribly upset if the change occurred, but I don't see a pressing need for it either. User:Ckatz correctly points out that it'd create a fair bit of work updating relevant other bits of the project, so I'd lean towards not doing it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons given by Oneiros (and no need to create unnecessary work) and Ckatz. -84user (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On the standard of grouping digits

I noticed that in this article a comma is used to separate digits in groups of three. Quoting from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [15]:

"10.5.3 Grouping digits

Because the comma is widely used as the decimal marker outside the United States, it should not be used to separate digits into groups of three. Instead, digits should be separated into groups of three, counting from the decimal marker towards the left and right, by the use of a thin, fixed space. However, this practice is not usually followed for numbers having only four digits on either side of the decimal marker except when uniformity in a table is desired."

Since English Wikipedia is widely used worldwide, not only by English/American mother tongues, I suggest to follow NIST rules regarding grouping gidits.

Andrea 13:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrea.jena.bellini (talk • contribs)

See the Manual of Style, it states: "Use commas to break the sequence every three places: 2,900,000." HumphreyW (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Last New Frontiers mission

The article says that New Horizons is the last New Frontiers mission. Is it meant to say first? SamH|Talk 11:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

baud rate

I have seen a question in the Hebrew Wikipedia about the decrease of transmitting rate as the spacecraft goes farther and farther from the earth (38 Kb/s near Jupiter to 1 Kb/s near Pluto) what is the main reason for that? I looked for it in the New Horizon NASA web site and only found a reference that the rate decreases with distance (the curve shape looks like 1/r to some power)Amirber (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The beam spreads out in a cone, so you have a 1/r^2 dropoff in intensity at Earth. The amount of noise the Earth-based receiver sees, however, stays constant. You can still detect faint signals at Earth; it just takes more time to unambiguously determine what bit (or multi-bit symbol) was sent, so the bit rate goes down. The Shannon-Hartley theorem gives the detailed derivation of this limit. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Amirber (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fastest man-made object?

According to the Wikipedia page for the Helios probes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_probes), they set the speed record among spacecraft, at 252,792 km/h vs. New Horizons' 58,536 km/h. Which page is correct? 99.253.110.188 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Both are. Helios moved the fastest relative to the sun (because it was in a close orbit around it), and New Horizons moved the fastest at launch (ejected from Earth's gravity well the fastest). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

elapsed/passed

"elapsed" does not connote ongoing...it is the time passed from a reference point. see http://www.tfd.com/elapsed. --emerson7 16:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Elapsed - A passage of time

Your definition is only partial. See [16] for a more complete definition. Elapse suggests that the launch date is still occurring in a certain passage of time. This is incorrect. A mission can be an elapsed period of time but a launch date cannot. That is why 'ago' is more appropriate.

Another example is your birth date. It is not a period or passage of time; it is a fixed reference point. When you would speak about that date, you say that was 'x years ago' not 'it has elapsed x year'. --Xession (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

hmmm....i think i'd rather go with the conventions used by nasa here, rather than go with your rather nuanced pedantics. --emerson7 02:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice that it does not say 'Launch Date' above that counter. Launch date and mission elapsed time are entirely different, hence the separate categories in the infobox. If you'd rather dispute the 'Mission Duration', then I may be more willing to bend on this (though I still contend that a mission doesn't occur until the primary mission is activated regardless of NASA's position on this particular mission). However, 'Launch Date' is a fixed point and does not change over time. I am changing it back.--Xession (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have stated a clear and concise argument as to why I feel it is important to not use 'elapsed' and in return you have only criticized my changes as 'nuance pedantics'. If you feel that the difference is so entirely subtle, then why the disagreement? If you feel it is instead important to use 'elapsed' in place of 'ago' under the section 'Launch Date', why is the term 'elapsed' more descriptive? My intent with using 'ago' entirely revolves around the fact that a date is a single reference point in time. You can speak of the mission has having an 'elapsed' time because it is ongoing through a period of time with an eventual end as the word is defined. A date ends immediately at the next date. It is therefore my opinion that 'ago' is still the more appropriate term.--Xession (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Key mission dates

Where do all these figures come from? Nearly all of them are unsourced. Are they from any NASA website? If so, this should be cited. If not, where do they come from? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This was actually discussed already in the section directly preceding this. This is just one of the very many unsourced sections throughout the unmanned spaceflight articles unfortunately. Any further source of dates is welcome. --Xession (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent launch details

Under "Launch" it states "The Centaur second stage reignited at 14:30 EST (19:30 UTC), successfully sending the probe out of Earth orbit." However, it later states that New Horizons was "the first spacecraft launched directly into a solar escape trajectory". If it was launched directly into a solar escape trajectory it never would have been in orbit. 208.103.155.31 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the person who wrote this used the formulation "out of Earth orbit" to mean the probe simply escaped Earth's vicinity without any intention of suggesting it circled around Earth? Just a guess though.Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

technically speaking, a baseball sitting on the beach is in earth orbit, and also, broadly speaking in solar orbit. One could state that if a large enough impulse is applied to a baseball it would transition into a higher energy earth orbit, and if the impulse continued to be applied it would departs earths solar orbit and move into a higher solar orbit. If impulse continued to be applied it would then move into solar escape orbit. So, if someone wants to clean up the language, that's their call. --Patbahn (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Now there is apparently a much larger error in the Launch entry. It states the vehicle uses a Boeing Star 48B upper stage, the STAR 48 is manufactured by ATK/Thiokol. If there is a corporate owner change, i am not aware of it. --Patbahn (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the solar system?

"2029 — The probe will leave the solar system." Last time I checked, there were two definitions for "the edge of the solar system." One is the Heliopause, and the other is the Oort Cloud. It's likely that the statement is refering to the former, as it is much closer, but still, it should be specific. Mr. Anon515 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand, the vast consensus is that the major influence of the Sun ends at the heliopause. Past the heliopause is interstellar space and therefore outside of the solar system. --Xession (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, if it is refering to the heliopause, it should say so. Not to mention the statement needs to be sourced. Mr. Anon515 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly concur on the matter. I did some light research on the 2029 date and came up empty handed. The other dates I was unable to track down as well however they should be easier to substantiate. --Xession (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. For the 2016-2020 Kuiper Belt mission, I remember reading about that somewhere. However, the other "planned" dates seem very specific, especially the claims of the exact times and dates of the Pluto flyby. I would think that the farther out one gets through the Solar System, the less specific dates you can produce. Mr. Anon515 05:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Here are the other claims that need to be dealt with.

"March 18, 2011 — The probe will pass Uranus' orbit."

"August 24, 2014 — The probe will pass Neptune's orbit."

These two may be true to the month, but putting the exact date seems very speculative.

"July 14, 2015 — Flyby of Pluto around 11:47 UTC at 13,695 km, 13.78 km/s."

"July 14, 2015 — Flyby of Charon, Hydra and Nix around 12:01 UTC at 29,473 km, 13.87 km/s."

These two I am very concerned about. Not only do they give the time to the exact date, but also the exact time, as well as the speeds of the craft when they approach.

"2016-2020 — Possible flyby of one or more Kuiper belt objects (KBOs)."

This one I have confirmed to a certain degree, since it is less specific than the others, so it can stay.

I think we should remove the first four's claims of date or more specific information, since such claims cannot be proven by anyone. I doubt even NASA could provide the exact time New Horizons will reach Pluto, given the fact that we have no knowlege of its exact location. Mr. Anon515 05:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Most definitely with this mission, as the speed is decreasing due to the pull from the Sun being different than the Voyager probes. The heliosphere is far from being perfectly spherical as well and fluctuates constantly. At best, '2029' needs to be a range of years.--Xession (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The other years are projections likely using either Daniel Muller's site or the Solar System simulator, which is where Daniel Muller pulls his data from. They can be surprisingly accurate with times (even down to the minute and second) up to a certain point. However, I would most certainly caution projecting 20 years in advance. A better far future date would be the EoM (end of mission) date where the power runs too low which will likely be a date prior to 2029 regardless the date it eventually reaches interstellar space. --Xession (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, due to edit conflict my reply did not come out as desired. I agree with what you are saying. 2029 is a somewhat random date that should be removed if no citation can be found. As for the other dates, checking NASA's website, it does give a countdown to when New Horizons will reach closest to Pluto, down to the nearest second, although I don't think this is to be taken literally. For example, NASA may simply be counting down to the midnight of the day New Horizons will reach its closest to Pluto (I don't know since I live in a different timezone than the clock NASA is using). Mr. Anon515 06:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Arg! Another edit conflict. So you have found other simulations to the nearest minute and second. In this case, which dates should we leave and which ones should we remove? Mr. Anon515 06:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The date 2029 for the spacecraft leaving the solar system was added by a one-off editor, 72.73.46.229, from the Ashburn, VA area at 18:24 on 12 July 2008. He has not been back in the three years since. I had intended asking him on his talk page to give a source for his date, but there is no point. The change of date from 2029 to 2029–2030 was by 71.232.229.74 in the Boston, MA area in three edits between 18:14 and 18:16 on 19 February 2011, with no citation. To date, this latter editor has had edits questioned on his Talk page for lack of supporting evidence. I have placed a question on his talk page about it. Owing to the blue sky origin of the information, I have removed the 2029–2030 date in the article until a verified date can be found. — O'Dea (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Speed of light conversion

Would it be useful to list 16.26 km/s as a fraction of the speed of light in the intro? I believe this number is about 0.00005c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.160.17 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this would be useful. HumphreyW (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I second this. Offering the speed of light, at least in the article overview, is unnecessary and mostly useless for the incredibly small comparison that the number represents. It may be more useful to mention this later in the article for those really interested in comparing objects in this measure. --Xession (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with HumphreyW and Xession. More people will be able to make sense of 16.26 km/s, whereas the second number will not tell the majority of readers anything. Thus I oppose having this in the lead.Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

it's simple parenthetic point of reference much like mph/kph comparisons in american related articles. the whole idea wikipedia is to impart knowledge, and it complies with all mos guidelines. --emerson7 03:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that a conversion adds to the article; it'd act as clutter for the majority of users, as there's nothing in the article that makes it useful in context. Anyone who wants a comparison with the speed of light can make their own comparison readily enough. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

sections moving

Should not the sections of "Passing Mars orbit and asteroid flyby", "Jupiter gravity assist", "Pluto approach" and "Kuiper belt mission" be included within the Mission science section? this is producing alot of confusion for readers, i started reading the above sections searching for information about the planets flyby, but i wondered when i found information about the same subject in the section of science after taking everything from the previous sections --aad_Dira (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

I agree. This info needs to be rearranged. Currently the sections "Passing Mars orbit and asteroid flyby", "Jupiter gravity assist", "Pluto approach" and "Kuiper belt mission" seem to be focused on giving mission dates, whereas the "Mission science" section talks about the scientific results obtained. Also I think the "Mission science" section is too long and needs to be cut down.Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved all the Jupiter related stuff into one section in order to give this article a better organization. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Key mission dates section

I added another cleanup tag to this section, because I feel this section should be removed altogether. Its content should be incorporated into appropriate article sections using prose. If anyone thinks this template is inappropriate, please feel free to discuss this matter. However in the current condition, most of this sections content seems to be pure speculation and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this section is interesting because it allows the reader to get a quick overview of the previous and next major steps in the program. However, the information could be arranged differently. How should it be organized, that's the question. Xionbox^₪ 06:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with your argument that the section is useful to get a quick overview over the project steps. But I think the information should be reorganized. What about a table, like the following?

Date	Event	Description	References
June 8, 2001	New Horizons picked by NASA over a competing design, POSSE (Pluto and Outer Solar System Explorer).	Both teams (those representing POSSE and New Horizns respectively) conducted a three month concept study before submission of the proposal
September 24, 2005	Spacecraft shipped to Cape Canaveral	It was moved through Andrews Air Force Base, aboard a C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft.
December 29, 2009	The probe became closer to Pluto than to Earth	This means the probe has traveled half the distance from Earth to Pluto.

And I think this table should only contain dated information, for which a source can be provided. Any ideas or comments? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, very good proposal! Do you want to take care of it, or should I? Xionbox^₪ 09:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I am a bit short of time right now. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit of links for dates, they may be useful as references [17] (Many dates) [18] (Saturn orbit passing date) [19] (See the section "Planetary Approaches" at the bottom) --aad_Dira (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

I moved all of the planned Key Mission Dates into the table. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks! Xionbox^₪ 07:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cost of accident

The article currently reads: "It was believed that a worst-case scenario of total dispersal of on-board plutonium would spread the equivalent radiation of 80% the average annual dosage in North America from background radiation over an area with a radius of 105 km (65 mi), with cleanup costing anywhere from US$93 million to US$463 million per square kilometre (US$241 million to US$1.2 billion per square mile)"

That's a total cleanup cost of up to $15.93 trillion, which is larger than the cost of 100 Hurricane Katrinas, 200 Japan tsunamis, and the entire United States federal budget—combined. Are we sure that's passing the sanity check? MillingMachine (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Quantity of data transmitted & factual accuracy

"Because of the much shorter distance from Jupiter to Earth, the communications link can transmit multiple loadings of the memory buffer; thus the mission actually returned more data from the Jovian system than it is expected to transmit from Pluto."

• I don't think this statement can be accurate. While New Horizons was closer to Earth when it passed Jupiter this made no change to the rate at which it could transmit data; the probe does not have to wait for conformation of reciept of data so the distance to Earth should have no influence on how much data can be sent in a given time. If there is a reason for lower data transmission then it must instead be down to a combination of faster velocity relative to Pluto than relative to Jupiter (due to the Jupiter gravity assist), the smaller size of Pluto limiting the distance at which it can usefully be observed and (possibly) the longer exposure times the cameras will require due to lower light levels.

Is there a citation to support the comment in the article? Or is it someone's opinion? - Zephyris _Talk 13:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• On my phone here so I don't have a citation nor have I validated the statement. However, it is liely accuate. The further from Earth you go, a slower data rate is necessary due to the signal to noise ratio. At Jupiter, a stronger signal can be obtained and thus a higher data rate while at Pluto, it may need to be a quarter(?) of that to get a reliable signal. Otherwise, it's a lot easier to get corrupted data. -Xession (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually NH is already slower than it was before the Jupiter flyby, and will be even slower when passing Pluto, due to being decelerated by the Sun's gravity, as the velocities spread over the article show. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Photos

I notice the pictures of Jupiter and the Galilean moons are in blac and white. When NH reaches Pluto, wll the pictures taken be in color or black and white? 134340Goat (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just curious. 134340Goat (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the probe will pull over soon at Neptune, swing by a Walmart and get a roll or two of color film.

8/ BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that a no, then. No need to be testy, now. 134340Goat (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Arr. Mostly the colour pictures taken by space probes etc are compositions of separate black and white photos taken with different filters. Depending on the filters they may approximate what a human (perhaps with enhanced colour perception) would see or use the different colours to emphasise differences in composition, temperature or whatever. I guess what is presented would depend on how interesting or pretty the combined pictures are, assuming the mission profile gives the opportunity to take similar views with different filters. --Mirokado (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The camera that took all those black-and-white images is LORRI. This camera is primarily for pathfinding, especially in the hazardous approach into the Pluto system. As the article states, this camera's CCDs are monochromatic. It doesn't need to be fancy, just high angular resolution. At Pluto New Horizons will do most of the science imaging with Ralph, which again as the article states, has panchromatic and colour-filtered CCDs to retrieve high-resolution colour information. All the info is in the article. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Plaque?

As stated in the article, if the New Horizons lasts that long, it is expected to explore the outer Heliosphere after passing the Kuiper Belt. It would only seem natural that if a the spacecraft will be leaving the Sol System, then it should have some plaque or something attached in the event that it’s discovered some time in the future, just as was done with both of the Pioneer and both Voyager crafts. However, in viewing the official NASA website for the New Horizons mission, the only thing I found was that they had attached a compact disc to the craft that carries 434,738 names (which can be searched on the same website). Did NASA attach a proper plaque and just didn’t find it that important compared to it’s other objectives to be worth mentioning, or is that CD all there is to say, “Hello?”
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, New Horizons also carries one U.S. quarter-dollar coin, Florida-themed. Check it out here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/fl_quarter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fascinating also from another archetypal view. Romans were often buried with a coin in their mouths, as payment for the ferryman Charon to carry them over the River Styx, to the realm of Pluto. And here, this craft not only carries some of the ashes of Tombaugh, discoverer of Pluto, but (ho!) a coin to pay the boatman for his passage. It's just too cute. SBHarris 00:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

VNH0004, not VNH2004

"Jan 2015 Observation of KBO VNH2004"

It is VNH0004, not VNH2004.

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=24691

Fixed! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Update

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/jan2014/presentations/08_1615_Weaver_NH_Status_SBAG.pdf --Craigboy (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

SVG?

Why do we have SVG files for the photos of Jovian moons? That's the weirdest use of SVG I've seen so far. --Makkachin (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

New Horizons mission to the Planet Pluto

I believe if you will check, you will find that NASA has NO official position on whether Pluto is a Planet or an Dwarf Planet and as such, I think the first sentence should read, Planet Pluto not Dwarf Planet. There maybe individual Scientist who work at NASA (But not paid by NASA) who support the View on Dwarf Worlds however. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That is irrelevant as it is not for national body like NASA to decide. The International Astronomical Union is the only authority which decides astronomical nomenclature. The IAU defined Pluto as a Dwarf Planet. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

'Dwarf planet' is correct of course. However, in the context of the sentence "launched by NASA on 19 January 2006 to study the dwarf planet Pluto" it is slightly misleading, I think. Pluto was not officially a dwarf planet (it was still considered a planet) at the time of launch. So, at its inception (and even at launch) New Horizons was a mission to study the only remaining unexplored 'planet'.62.232.250.50 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no relevance. The mission intends to study Pluto, regardless of the conceptual and arbitrary classification. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We say that "Columbus discovered America." Not "Columbus discovered what many years later became known as America." New Horizons is on its way to the trans-Neptunian object Pluto. What its status was at the end it was launched is irrelevant.JavautilRandom (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rings?

Re "Search for additional moons, and any rings".

One of the stated tertiary objects is to look for rings. Does anyone know where this comes from? Is there any stated record of this being a goal? Is there any reason to believe any of these bodies could have rings? 62.232.250.50 (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Pluto has several small moons. Around Saturn, several of the small moons create rings because they do not have sufficient gravity to hold onto material after micro-impacts. This may be happening with Pluto, too. JavautilRandom (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Course correction

Yesterday's course correction in preparation for New Horizon's arrival next year was done yesterday. Will a regular editor update this information or should I add it in the Pluto approach section? New Horizons Marks a ‘Year Out’ with a Successful Course Correction --PremKudva^Talk 06:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Key mission dates" section

If the community agrees, I would propose deleting the "Key mission dates" section from the article. The table itself looks misplaced in the article and a number of dates are unreferenced. Other than that, all of the mentioned dates and events are already mentioned in the appropriate sections of the article, with the most important ones in the lead section, so the table basically duplicates them for no reason. Regarding future mission milestones, they too are clearly stated in the "Kuiper-belt mission" and "Pluto flyby". I personally dislike going too detalied about future missions because they are clearly still being planned and the exact mission for New Horizons after the Pluto encounter is still unclear. Can I get some opinions on this? :-)--Saxum (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with its removal and I think it should be restored. There are plenty of citations available. The Mission website makes all of this clear. PS I'm pretty much retired on wikipedia and feel strongly enough about this to temporarily come out of retirement to address my views--T1980 (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering I still find this section misplaced in the article, I would suggest using it as a basis for separate list as a compromise: "List of New Horizons mission dates"? Can I get some opinions on this? :-).--Saxum (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What will be the distance of Pluto from Earth on July 14, 2015, and the time required for a one-way radio signal? When will JPL have images back from the probe that they can release to the public? Apparently, we will not have the instant gratification we had when Voyager 2 was sending images back from Saturn, Uranus or even Neptune - same day or next day. GCapp195970.65.227.142 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hibernation savings

"been spent in hibernation mode to preserve onboard systems"

That´s nosense, isn´t it? There is nothing that would wear out on the probe. It´s to save money for operators and time on the deep space network. --Maxus96 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure this is nonsense: while the probe do not experience "wear" in the more strict sense of the word (see Wear), electronics can benefit from not being turned on thw whole flight time to Pluto. This is also written in the referenced webpage http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/news_center/news/062807.php Luca Mauri (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Escape the Solar System?

The article is pretty clear on why NH will never overtake the Voyagers, but will NH escape the star system or will it end up orbiting the Sun? If an answer is known, I think it should be added to the article. 129.94.237.181 (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it will escape the solar system. Unfortunately, I can't find a good reference.JavautilRandom (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

flight path

Has the flight path been finalized? Are we going optimal or safe? — kwami (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

According to a blog post Alan Stern made back in 2013, the final decision won't be made until as late as possible. The spacecraft will be making observations of its flight path as it approaches Pluto to see if there are any unanticipated hazards. JavautilRandom (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Seventy days

Seventy days from January to May? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.244.131 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It says seventy days out, not seventy days from. In other words, seventy days before the Pluto encounter. DinoSlider (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mass of space craft - 68 lb?

When I read this line I was shocked:

"The total mass of the spacecraft is 31 kg (68 lb)"

and checking it against other sources find it is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.174.154 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

---

of the two references cited, one gives an error. The other says the mass of the GENERATOR is 68 lbs.

BTW: otherwise this is an excellent article and thank you for doing such a good job! 192.173.174.154 (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)tomc Tacoma WA

The infobox specifies the spacecraft's on-orbit mass, including fuel, is over 470 kg (1,040 lb). It is noted in the description too. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the statements that are correct. Only the one that is not: the statement that "The total mass of the spacecraft is 31 kg (68 lb)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.174.154 (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

2011 HM₁₀₂

I have just redone an edit I made earlier deleting some unsourced claims made here. Supposedly the bandwith to the probe "may" have been limited which is a strange assertion to make - after all the team operating the probe know exactly how much traffic they may send to and from the probe - this is not itself subject to some form of scientific conjecture. In support of that statement we have a reference that does not address the issue at all, which is hardly surprising when it was written five years before even the discovery of the body in question. Nor does it make any reference to any capacity limits on the link to the probe - in short it does nothing to support that claim.

Given that I don't see any reason at all to include it. Speculation about things we know for a fact is not really sound anyway, but when that speculation is essentially a random person editing here rather than attributable to an expert it becomes very difficult to justify. Pink Fluffiness (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, which why I've just re-undone that IP editors revert, this time with a different ref. It still doesn't address the issue at hand but did at least talk about transmission speeds if not limits - the reference still doesn't support the assertion that the reason studies were not done was because there was insufficient data capacity. Without that the calim has no validity. 3142 (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

listen i dont know jack about the item in question you are arguing against but Pink Fluffiness's assertion above "that speculation is essentially a random person editing here rather than attributable to an expert" when whomver added it originally added the citation given picked one from someone that is indeed an expert that one being the Principle Investigator for New Horizons, Alan Stern. Thus, to say Alan Stern is not an expert is ludicrous.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

But where did he make that claim? It wasn't in either reference provided so far. You can't say anything you want and then attach a random quote from a qualifying source as evidence to support it: the citation must make the specific point that it is reinforcing. Anything else is original synthesis. 3142 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV (04/14/2015-TwoBriefings@1:00&@2:30pm/edt/usa) - New Horizons spacecraft flyby of Pluto

FWIW - NASA-TV (Tuesday, 04/14/2015 - Two Briefings => @1:00 & @2:30pm/edt/usa) - panels of experts discuss "New Horizons spacecraft flyby of Pluto". - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Power

Is there any reference regarding the sentence «The RTG will provide about 250 W, 30 V DC at launch, and is predicted to drop approximately 5% every 4 years, decaying to 200 W by the encounter with the Plutonian system in 2015.»?
If the rate of output drop is correct, it appears to me the power in the middle of 2015 will be much higher than the 200W written here:

Year	Power (W)
2006	250,0
2010	237,5
2014	225,6
2018	214,3
2022	203,6
2026	193,4
2030	183,8
2034	174,6
2038	165,9

Luca Mauri (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I found a reference for the specs of the RTG over here . On page 4 the authors state that New Horizons needs 237W at launch and 191W at Pluto flyby (minimum). On the bottom of page 3 the authors state that a typical RTG should provide at least 285W at the beginning of mission. On page 6 the authors state that the New Horizons RTG uses plutonium-238, which has a half-life of 87.7 years. In the next scentence they state that the drop in thermal power is only 0.8% per year which corresponds to what I get when I punch my calculation (p = 100 - (100 * (0.5^((1/87.7)*t))) for t = 1 >>> p = 0.787247) in WolframAlpha. That considered the table by Luca Mauri should look like below, considering that the drop in electrical power is the same as the drop in thermal power.

As for the voltage, on page 6 the authors mention a test voltage of 30V. I assume this also goes for the New Horizons probe, so that would be correct. The rest of the power section does not seem to contradict the paper.

Year	Power (W)
2006	285
2010	276.131
2014	267.538
2018	259.212

However, this paper (page 41) states a different start power, roughly 245 W and power levels at Pluto (195 ~ 200W), which is not consistent with the power drop 0.8% per year.

Jonathan Juursema (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No where in the "power" section of this wiki article does it say when power level will drop to such an extent that the probe cannot phone home (and thus when and where would the probe be at loss of contact) - this needs to be added.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

References

This paper states that the power will be insufficient to provide energy to the scientific instruments by 2030. 2601:E:CD00:87A:8020:A1B4:10AB:AE3 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Countdown template being discussed

The template that shows the countdown in the "Current status" section of this page has been nominated for deletion. Your feedback is welcome on that page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

VNH0004

The article now mentions that the NH team a couple of years ago announced that they planned to study in January, 2015. The article VNH0004 itself contains the same claim, in the future tense.

Does anybody know whether or not such a study indeed was made in January (possibly with the negative but not quite uninteresting result that no satellite was found, or even that the object was not detected where the calculated orbit suggested that it would be), or instead the idea to make such a study was abandoned? JoergenB (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I would assume VNH0004's proposal reached the same fate as that of 2011 HM102. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is standard to assess targets of opportunity as the mission progresses. Once the probe is there, it can estimate its relative path to the object and proceed with a go/no-go depending on the fuel to spare. I would not suffer in this article every object considered along the decade of this mission. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyhow, it was not enough to edit just the first part from a future "will be" tense to a conditional "would be" tense, but retain the indicative future tense for the second and third observations. If (as Exoplanetaryscience suspects) the study of VNH0004 was cancelled, then the claim "A second object will be observed in June 2015, and a third in September, after the flyby" simply is wrong; even if that June observation is performed according to the 2012 plan, it then will be the first, not the second such observation. Therefore, I changed the tenses.

The resulting text is a bit stiff; but I guess that it would anyhow be rewritten later, when the outcome of any June study is clear, and when there are updated plans for the "transplutonian" part of the mission. (However, I mainly hope for and expect new information about and pictures from the Pluto system in June, and I suspect that secondary targets then will not be of a priority.) Regards, JoergenB (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad wording on page

"Estimates for the *sizes* of these bodies (assuming albedo 0.35) are Hydra 60 km, Nix 45 km, Kerberos 13 km, Styx 10 km." I believe it should be "diameter", no ? Can somebody confirm and correct ? 177.133.126.114 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated with the current estimates of diameter in both kilometers and miles, minimum to maximum, since there's a wide variation, and the numbers used here were the minima. Also recalculated the resolution for each using the pixels per kilometer given in the beginning of the paragraph and the minimum size for each. P Aculeius (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

unclear sentence

"Long-range imaging will include 40 km (25 mi) mapping of Pluto and Charon 3.2 days out." Is that trying to say that starting 3.2 days before the closest encounter, it will start mapping Pluto and Charon to 40 km resolution? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It would appear so. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

NASA-Audio (06/03/2015@1pm/edt/usa) - Moons of Pluto - "Surprising" Finds.

NASA-Audio (Wednesday, June 3, 2015@1pm/edt/usa) - Panel of experts to discuss latest "surprising" findings by the Hubble Space Telescope of the Moons of Pluto. - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Resolution exceeding Hubble

On what date did/will New Horizons' resolution exceed that of Hubble? The "Current status" section says May 5 but the "Mission timeline" and "Future mission timeline" sections say May 15. All three dates used to say May 5, but two have been changed in the past few days. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The New Horizons website says "May-June 2015" - you might not be able to pin down an exact second. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.seeplutonow.com/ (which is the ref for the "May 15" date in the "Future mission timeline" section) has a "Countdown to Better than Ever Imaging" which currently sits at about 8 days, which would tie in with the date of May 15. I presume "Better than Ever Imaging" is a reference to better-than-Hubble resolution (but I couldn't find anywhere that explicitly said that). I'm not really fussed which date the article says, but I would prefer the article to be internally consistent, and use the correct tense for exceeeded/will exceed. DH85868993 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The "May 5" has now been changed to just "May", so the article is now internally consistent (and the tenses are correct). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see http://i0.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/nh-weaver_5.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.36.142 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is misleading. Looking at the 21 June images from JPL the images are obviously crap and look essentially like the Hubble images; pixels. So, maybe "pixels" are higher "resolution" but the images are awful for both; basically equally awful. I really hope the camera does better at the 6000 miles or so close encounter. 174.131.5.205 (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It is hard to pin down an exact date that they get better - they must calculate it on the number of pixels, etc, but they don't get dramatically better on that date. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Include "anomaly" in the lede?

I have added a mention of the "anomaly" that has resulted in "safe mode" and resultant downtime for the spacecraft's mission, which may be one or several days, possibly more. The mention in the lede has been removed with an edit summary to the effect that it isn't important at this time. I disagree. The news is breaking in the media, and it seems logical to acknowledge this at the top, where it can be found. Let's discuss, as I believe consensus will exist to put the information back into the lede. Thanks. Jusdafax 17:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's an important enough development. A system shutdown that could take days to fix - days away from a historic flyby. Let's err on the side of keeping the readers up to-date on this current event. SlightSmile 18:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, normal communication was shortly after re-established and the overall impact on the missions is at this point still likely to be small. --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Communication is indeed reestablished with the spacecraft but as far as is known the original problem that caused the switch to the backup computer is not diagnosed, much less fixed, and the craft is currently not collecting data, for one or more days. Meaning Slightsmile is absolutely correct: the lede is not up-to-date, and Wikipedia readers will have to search the article for the information. The lede is of course supposed to summarize the article. Not mentioning this important development in the lede just wrong, as I see it. Jusdafax 21:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

For now, I agree with keeping it in the lede, with two caveats: mention of the anomaly should just be a summary, with any additional details in the main article, and, if normal ops resume soon with minimal mission impact (here's hoping!), then mention of it should be removed entirely from the lede. Just my two cents. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. No point to have it there after it's resolved. SlightSmile 23:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Although it is communicating, the spacecraft may miss the flyby data collection. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully moot; data collection is resuming: [20] A(Ch) 03:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent news! Delighted to have it mooted. Jusdafax 08:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting ready for the big show

I changed some stuff around, as most of it was old and out of date. What we gotta do, is to reconfigure the article so we can just plug stuff in. They're not going to release a lot of stuff on the flyby day, and not all that much before. Should the encounter be a separate article? Think about it....13:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've pondered the possibility of flybys begin their own separate articles. I once fancied splitting off Voyager 2's Neptune encounter into it's own article, but the fear of getting my article removed because of some unreasonable reason was too much for me to want to put any effort into it. The New Horizons encounter of Pluto should be big enough to warrant it's own article without any significant protest, surely! It's about time an spacecraft encounter got it's own article! PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 18:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm mistaken....but isn't the main purpose of the New Horizon's mission to do this flyby? As a reader, I'd be a little confused if the main objective of the mission wasn't in the mission's article....perhaps I'm misunderstanding the suggestion though. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Skyraider1. Besides, the data that will be transmitted weeks after the flyby will be used to enhance the Pluto article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ms. Vesna, Go here and DO IT!!!!!