This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Space & Planetary Science

NASA Remains Silent on New Horizons Issues (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 31, 2012
Filed under , , , ,

Keith’s note: In October NASA SMD PAO was caught totally off guard when the New Horizons team announced that debris in the vicinity of Pluto might force them to “bail out” (their term) of the original encounter. I submitted the following questions to NASA SMD PAO on 16 October and was told that a reply was being prepared. It has been 2 1/2 months and I still haven’t heard anything back from them. My questions:
“- Will there be a formal statement from NASA regarding debris issues in the vicinity of Pluto and how it will affect mission plans?
– Will NASA be spending additional funds for additional telescope observations of Pluto? If so how much will these observations cost, what budget pays these costs, what telescopes/spacecraft will be used, and how long will these observations be conducted?
– When will contingency plans for changing the trajectory of New Horizons at Pluto be finalized?
– Who (Individual, agency) makes the final decision as to whether New Horizons continues on its original trajectory or if that trajectory is modified?
– When was NASA notified by New Horizons mission team that the original flight trajectory was in jeopardy due to debris concerns?”

Will NASA Have To ‘Bail Out’ On Close Pluto Encounter?, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

13 responses to “NASA Remains Silent on New Horizons Issues (Update)”

  1. Monte Holly Tabor says:
    0
    0

    So, NASA is just not going to take the risk? Seems to me that a small probe called Cassini flew through a gap in Saturns rings….that was a risk…could have been dust there that would have dameaged the probe and what about landing Curiousity on Mars using an untried skycrane system…that sure was risky….why has NASA suddenly developed an aversion to risk; especially with unmanned space probes?

    • Dr. Brian Chip Birge says:
      0
      0

      The aversion to risk, it’s not sudden. And it’s well earned since every crackup yanks the nutjobs out of the woodwork that want to shut down NASA because it’s too “expensive”.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Monty,

      One difference to consider is that this probe has traveled considerably farther and taken longer to get there than the missions you listed, so it would be a long time before we could again get anything from Pluto if it failed completely.  If they decide to be conservative with this mission, it may simply be a matter of let’s get something now, instead of maybe nothing for a long time.  Besides, according to everything I can find, NASA hasn’t actually made a final decision yet on what they’re going to do.

      Steve

  2. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    It’s prolly not a big deal, plenty of time to formulate a contingency plan and really, what’s the odds of hitting anything near Pluto? 

  3. Brian Campbell says:
    0
    0

    Actually, given it’s proximity to the K-belt, there’s bound to be not only “debris in the vicinity of Pluto”, but debris EVERYWHERE!  That is, no matter which way NASA may try to turn NH, unless it’s 180-degrees to go home, there’ll be no way they can avoid flying through debris!  How on earth (or pluto) did they even handle going through the inner-solar system’s asteroid belt, anyway? 

    The NH was designed and built with the express purpose of observing Pluto… period! (okay, Charon too).  The other objects discovered after launch (the ones that got Pluto demoted) are just distant gravy, but they are not — nor can they be — the new main course.  And after Curiousity’s so-called “seven-minutes-of-terror”,  why has NASA gotten so paranoidally risk adverse (I mean, more adverse than usual). 

    I say, follow Adm Farragut’s rule:  “DAMN THE TORPEDOES! FULL STEAM AHEAD!!”  Just turn on the probe’s full sensor suite earlier and keep it continuoulsy rolling until it flies through or until it goes suddenly goes dark.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Brian,

      Adm Farragut’s people had immediate control over their hardware.  “Full steam ahead” isn’t quite so advisable when the order to “belay that last” will take hours to reach the probe, by which time it will be far too late to avoid disaster.  The NH team has to somehow become almost prescient to make their decisions on a probe that far away in time.  Let’s not judge them harshly, especially before the fact.

      Steve

    • Andrew Gasser says:
      0
      0

      This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever.  

      • Brian Campbell says:
        0
        0

        The “Damn the Torpedoes” was probably over dramatic and apparently taken too literally, but my sentiment holds:  If the alternative is to be so risk adverse that NASA swings it well clear of the dwarf planet, we’ll end up with getting minimal science, based on a fear that me might lose something that was purposed to go to that very body i the first place.

        I’m not calling for them to sail straight towards and into a “spaceberg” that they spotted from a distance that they can otherwise maneuver.  Moving out of the way is acceptable, but going waaaay out of the way to avoid perceived too-small-to-detect debris they don’t know is there but they’re afraid might be, eventually enters the realm of diminishing returns.

    • Geoffrey Landis says:
      0
      0

      The density of objects in the Kuiper belt is something on the order of one object in ten-to-the-22 cubic kilometers.  There may be “debris everywhere”, but there’s one heck of a lot of “everywhere” in which that debris is spread across.

    • Mader Levap says:
      0
      0

       “How on earth (or pluto) did they even handle going through the inner-solar system’s asteroid belt, anyway?”
      Hint: real asteroid belts look a little different than in SF movies.

      “DAMN THE TORPEDOES! FULL STEAM AHEAD!!”
      You seem do not know that results from Pluto flyby will be send to Earth through next year after flyby. Loss of NH = loss of almost all data. So yeah, ludicrous comment.

  4. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    It doesn’t sound like any answer has yet been decided on, so it’s not surprising that PAO is unable to provide any comments. But I would be really surprised if the probe doesn’t stay pretty much on the announced path unless really unexpected concentrations of objects are seen near Pluto during the approach.

  5. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    As noted in these comments, and also by Alan Stern, there is no rush to make any decisions about this potential threat. A decision could be made several years from now. The advantage of the lengthy decision time is to do a more careful assessment of the risk, and to develop a responsible forward plan. Let’s hope that PAO doesn’t put its foot in its mouth by spouting some ill-conceived and poorly thought-out ideas.

    Note that this isn’t a matter of just keeping the New Horizons cameras on to look for debris as New Horizons approaches Pluto. The risk isn’t from large pieces that the camera would be sensitive to. The risk is from small pieces that are going to be vastly more prevalent than the large pieces. In that regard, the risk assessment is going to be largely theoretical. The number of large pieces near Pluto (including the five identified moons) is going to drive up the predicted estimate of smaller debris, in that larger pieces suggest opportunities for collisions. Such collisions, in the gravitational field of Pluto, could produce a long-lasting debris field. Need to look at the orbits of these moons to see how likely collisions might have been.

    By the same token the Kuiper Belt, as such, isn’t a risk. Collisions in the Kuiper belt don’t produce debris that is captured by any gravitational field. The Kuiper belt is not likely to be more hazardous than the much closer Mars-Jupiter asteroid belt, which we’ve never had any problem with.

  6. Dr. Brian Chip Birge says:
    0
    0

     Man oh man I hope they don’t bail out, I’ve really been looking forward to seeing this mission’s results.