Kelly Beatty
HOMEPAGE NEWS by Kelly Beatty

The "Pioneer Anomaly": Case Closed

When NASA launched twin Pioneer spacecraft toward the outer solar system in the early 1970s, there was no dilly-dallying.

Distant Pioneer
An artist's concept of a Pioneer spacecraft in interstellar space. NASA maintained contact with Pioneer 11 until November 1995 and with Pioneer 10 until January 2003.
NASA / Don Davis
Rocketing away from Earth at more than 32,000 miles (51,000 km) per hour, Pioneer 10 reached Jupiter in just 21 months. Pioneer 11 followed about a year later, then boomeranged out to Saturn. By 1979, their planet-hopping days were over.

But even as they coasted outward toward the stars, the craft continued to radio their whereabouts and a trickle of scientific data back to Earth — and that's when dynamicists noted something very odd: neither spacecraft was as far away as expected. Instead, it was as if some unknown force were adding a little extra tug back toward the Sun.

Over the years, many theorists have weighed in on the possible cause of the "Pioneer anomaly." Logically, a few speculations focused on measurement errors, propellant leaks or some unanticipated property of the spacecraft.

The
Early unmodeled sunward accelerations of Pioneer 10 (from about 1981 to 1989) and Pioneer 11 (from 1977 to 1989). Values nearest the Sun are uncertain because solar gravitational and radiation pressure forces are large.
J. D. Anderson & others
Others explored the Pioneers' interactions with the solar wind, solar radiation pressure, or interplanetary particles. And more than a few were "out there," conjuring a pull imparted by unseen masses, variations in Newtonian physics, and controversial notions of altered space-time.

Five years ago, after many years of painstakingly dredging up old tracking data and reconstructing the probes' trajectory, Slava Turyshev (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) announced that some (but not all) of the retarding force was due to heat radiating away from the spacecraft unevenly.

Now four Portuguese physicists have taken a closer look at how the Pioneers radiated their heat. Key to their analysis is a technique used in computer-graphic programs known as Phong shading. It keeps track of light's diffuse and specular reflections off a surface and uses polygons to model curved surfaces.

Pioneer model showing heat reflections
A simplified model of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft shows how waste heat (red arrows) reflected off the back side of the communications antenna.
F. Francisco & others
Led by Frederico Francisco of Lisbon's Instituto de Plasmas e Fusão Nuclear, the team finds that waste heat from each spacecraft's main equipment compartment was reflecting off the back of the 9-foot-wide (2.7-m) paraboloidal antenna that always pointed inward toward the Sun and Earth.

Just how much heat was bouncing around remains unclear: "The main difficulty in dealing with this problem has always been the lack of sufficient and reliable information for a detailed engineering modeling of the spacecraft," they write. However, by assuming a range of plausible values, they calculate that the tiny force resulting from those reflections closely matches the Pioneers' observed deceleration.

"Unless new data arises," they conclude, "the puzzle of the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer probes can finally be put to rest."

Posted by Kelly Beatty, April 4, 2011
links: + digg | + del.icio.us | + reddit | + permalink | + rss

comments (18)

Post a Comment


The following comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sky Publishing.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.

First comments (from 18)

Pioneer 10

Posted by Kenneth Frankel April 5, 2011 At 04:35 PM PDT
Pioneer 10 launched March 2, 1972, and came closest to Jupiter Dec. 3, 1973. Pioneer 11's dates are Apr. 5, 1973 and Dec. 2, 1974. So it took longer than 4 or 7 months. Even the New Horizons mission to Pluto took about 13 months to pass Jupiter. What were you thinknig of? Perhaps the time it took to get to the asteroid belt?


re: trips times for Pioneers 10 and 11

Posted by Kelly Beatty April 6, 2011 At 05:10 PM PDT
Ken: thanks for keeping me honest: I misread the launch and arrival dates in my sourcebook and have corrected the story.


The closed case

Posted by Peter Wilson April 6, 2011 At 09:01 PM PDT
"The main difficulty in dealing with this problem has always been the lack of sufficient and reliable information for a detailed engineering modeling of the spacecraft," they write. An over-density of dark matter in the solar neighborhood would have been more fun.


GR and the Pioneer anomaly

Posted by Edward Schaefer April 7, 2011 At 02:25 PM PDT
It is nice to have a tenable explanation for this effect. I for one have played with creating an alternative to GR, and at one point looked to the Pioneer anomaly as possible evidence favoring my ideas. I immediately ran hard up against a problem: This effect is way, way too big to be accounted for by the second-order deviations in the Post-Newtonian approximations that distinguish my ideas from GR. Also, my ideas utterly failed to account for the near-constancy of the magnitude of the anomalous acceleration. OTOH, the Pioneer anomaly as a result of waste heat neatly explains its constancy: Operations have been ongoing at a fairly steady level ever since the planetary phase of these missions ended. In hindsight, all gravitation-based models are given tremendous difficulty by that aspect of the anomaly. So my hat's off to Dr. Francisco and his team.


Alternate explaination

Posted by Mace April 8, 2011 At 09:37 AM PDT
It could have been little green men hitching a ride on the rear bumber. *That* would have been more fun!


Equal and Opposite

Posted by notsosure April 8, 2011 At 10:47 AM PDT
Maybe it's just my lack of training in physics but isn't this explanation somewhat like installing a giant fan on a sailboat to blow the sails? Doesn't seem like radiated heat reflecting off any surface of the same vehicle can impart any force other than net zero to the system.


Re: Equal and Opposite

Posted by James Lummel April 8, 2011 At 12:19 PM PDT
It's not like a fan on a sailboat, it would act more like the reverse thruster on the jet engines on a 737 aircraft. When the plane slows down after landing, two re-directors on either side of the exhaust opening are placed in the path of the jet exhaust, and that re-directs the force opposite the direction of travel and helps to slow down the aircraft, acting as a brake (I've traveled in many 737's and have seen this multiple times). Here the back of the dish is acting as a re-director in the path of the heat, re-directing it in opposition to the direction of travel and acting as a brake. Without the dish, the Pioneer anomaly would been a slow acceleration rather than a slow deceleration. James


Re: Equal and Opposite

Posted by Michael Hennebry April 8, 2011 At 12:27 PM PDT
Replace the fan with a tank of compressed air *attached to the sailboat*. Place the whole works in a vacuum. If the sail is too small, the boat will go backwards. If the sail is big enough, the boat will go forwards. Heat radiation measurably affects the orbits of some asteroids.


Action-Reaction

Posted by Rudy April 8, 2011 At 01:33 PM PDT
What happened to the thrust associated with the release of the heat, or as a radiant energy is there no force that balances out that which impacts the antenna?


What is the end result

Posted by Don April 8, 2011 At 01:39 PM PDT
If the Pioneer space craft is slowing down, will it come to a full stop at some point? If not a full stop slowed enough where it does not make any more meaningful progress in any flight? If it will stop, can we project where the place and time when this might occur?


Search:
 
Tag:
 
Author:
 
Date:  
 









Sky Publishing, a New Track Media Company
Copyright © 2012 New Track Media. All rights reserved.
Sky & Telescope, Night Sky, and SkyandTelescope.com are registered trademarks of New Track Media