Talk:Pioneer 10

Leaving the Solar System

I contend that the statement that Pioneer was the first to leave the Solar System when it passed the orbit of Neptune is incorrect as the boundary of the solar system is now said to be the Oort Cloud which presumably Pioneer 10 won't reach for some years to come. 23skidoo 18:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I think you're both right and wrong. Yes "orbit of the outermost planet" is a pretty dated definition. On the other hand, the Oort Cloud isn't a universally-accepted boundary either -- many prefer the heliopause. In any case, definitions of astronomical terms like "boundary of the solar system" and even "planet" are subjects of heated debate, and we shouldn't insist that one particular definition is the only correct one. I've reworded the statement to reflect that fact. ---Isaac R 16:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When will it reach the boundary of the next solar system over? I assume if it's left this system its got to be close if not already in entering a different solar system. Also is it really 100% sure this is the first human object launched out of the solar system? I saw something on the history channel about a secret Nazi space program and theres some evidences that pre-historic civilizations may have had very advanced technology and been capable of launching something like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.71.164.111 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) However the boundaries of "solar systems" are defined, they are much, much smaller than the volumes of interstellar space between them. If Pioneer 10, or 11, or Voyager 1 or 2 were heading directly towards the nearest such system known, that of Alpha Centauri (though none of them is), it would get there in something like 100,000 to 200,000 years. (2) (Some of) the Nazis may have had long-term ambitions for a space program: their rocket scientists certainly did, and after WW2 began to carry them out - but did so working for the USA and USSR. There is zero credible evidence or likelihood of any space launches having happened before the mid 1950's. (3) Similarly, I've never heard of any evidence whatever for any real "pre-historic civilization" having anything remotely near spaceflight capability, despite being a long-active fan of spaceflight, archeology and science fiction. If you can point us to something even remotely credible, please do! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

whats the dif.

The Pioneer Plaque page states the following:

"The mean time for the spacecraft to come within 30 astronomical units of a star is longer than the current age of the galaxy."

However, this page states the spacecraft is heading toward Aldebaran, and will reach it in 2 million years.

-jcrocker

• No contradiction -- 30 AUs is 30 times the distance of the earth from the sun, about the size of the orbit of Neptune. That's a tiny distance in galactic terms. Aldebaran is 68 lightyears away, which translates to 4 million AUs. On that scale, a flyby can be thousands of AUs from the target and still count as a near miss! ---Isaac R 17:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, so it doesn't contradict because we will consider "reaching Aldebaran" to include distances over 30 AUs? Hmmm, ok... so what are the boundaries? The Ort cloud? The heliopause of a star?

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Would adding a reference to the movie "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" be appropriate? Pioneer 10 is depicted in this movie. (See last paragraph of http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Pioneer_10 ) 66.92.165.123 10:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Why not? Lots of Wikipedia articles contain similar references. However, I'd put it in a separate section called "Fictional References". And crosslink the article on the movie. ¶ Unless an article is long or controversial, there's no reason to be hesitant about making small additions yourself. You might want to read Be bold in updating pages.

As for fiction, in the book "Battlefield Earth", ISTR that the Psyclos found one of the Voyager probes, not Pioneer 10. Gold was the metal the Psyclos were after more than any other, and the Voyager records are gold plated.

"Outermost Planet"

Matterson52 made a change that seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the article text and misinformation about the planet Pluto. Calling Neptune "the outermost planet" has nothing to do with the discovery of Pluto, which occurred some 38 years earlier. It has to do with the fact that Neptune was, at the time, closer to the Sun than Pluto.

Last contact attempt on March , 2006

I've added a comment that there will be a final attempt on this date (see http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/pioneer_anomaly/update_200511.html, "Day 2",first paragraph). Are there any other references available that confirm this ?

as it now reads, it says that there was no obvious response but they are "still going over the data." How long will they be going over the data? It's two months later, and I'm wondering if they have given up officially, because it wouldn't do for the wikipedia article to still read "still going over the data" years from now simply because nobody knows or has bothered to revise that part. If the "still" came from a certain press release, perhaps adding a "as of /00/00/00 were still going over the data" would be better? Jafafa Hots 20:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt make sense 2 me because they can also pick up radio signals from stars and planets that are over a million times farther away than Pioneer 10. It seems either their trying cover up some kind of mistake or something unexplained happened and the probe was somehow damaged or missing. That no one is askign questions about this makes me think this isnt as simple as it seems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.71.164.111 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Radio "signals" from planets millions of times further away than Pioneer - no, no such detections ever made, or possible with current technology (provided we're talking about natural emissions, not fictional broadcasts by aliens). From stars, yes, but stars are many billions of times more powerful than the transmitters on space probes. Frankly, 130.71.164.111, your grasp of physical reality seems a little weak. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Location anomaly

The article would benefit from a knowledgeable person adding a paragraph about Pioneer 10's location anomaly. At a site linked to by Slashdot today there's a discussion about how under our current theory, Pioneer 10 should be in a different location than it is now, so even at this late date the spacecraft is contributing to science. Tempshill 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

After typing the above, I found a perfectly servicable paragraph over at Pioneer 11 which I copied and pasted here. Tempshill 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

aldebaran

The page on Aldebaran states that the star is moving away form us at ~11.3 au/yr, faster than Pioneer is moving toward it. Adding a note here, and removing the comment on Aldebaran. Potatoswatter 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image showing paths of space probes

The background on which these paths are drawn is an image generated by the JPL Solar System Simulator, and attribution should be given. It isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.222.8 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

italics

i started to convert some of the italic representations of Pioneer 10 to remove then, but fast realized there's a boatload of them. is there any reason for this? i don't think it's necessary, but if someone feels it improves readability i'm good with that. Anastrophe (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By long-standing convention, also adopted in Wikipedia, names of ships are typeset in italics. —johndburger 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

very good, thanks for the clarification. at minimum, i'm going to convert the html itals to wiki markup for uniformity. Anastrophe (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job, I see you caught some un-italicized mentions too. Consistency is a Good Thing^TM. —johndburger 04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks. i debated applying itals to the picture captions as well, but since the text is smaller, i think the effect would likely either be lost, or look gruesome. Anastrophe (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer 10 Legacy

Just because Voyager is more popular and more faster, doesn't mean we have to forget all about Pioneer. It was the first spacecraft to cross the asteroid belt and the first to visit Jupiter and Saturn. I have best wishes that the Pioneer Spacecraft will continue to go on and enjoy the Journey through Interstellar Space.

Good Luck Pioneer! Philip Graham122.105.113.11 (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AU

AU is not explained and not even converted to any other unit. Please see the Voyager 1 article, where you have at least the covnersion. for example: "As of June 19, 2009, Voyager 1 was at a distance of 110.239 AU (approximately 16.49 terameters, 10.22 billion miles, or 0.0017 light years) from the Sun,..". What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

First use of "AU" linked to page on "Astronomical unit". 86.7.22.39 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It will not reach Aldebaran

It will probably be destroyed by earthlings (presumably Iranian extremists or by some far left organisations) because of the golden plates with naked humans on it. Just imagine: that Pioneer-10 is flying (actually crawling thousands time slower than the light) through the Oort cloud, then suddenly a concorde-like thing intersepts it and IT IS FIRIN IT'S LAZER!!!! And no more Pioneer-10 . . .