|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Horizons article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|WikiProject Spaceflight||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Solar System||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
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:
- 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.
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.
- 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.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"been spent in hibernation mode to preserve onboard systems"
- 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)
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)
- 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)"
of the two references cited, one gives an error. The other says the mass of the GENERATOR is 68 lbs.
- 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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)