Talk:Pioneer 10

Pioneer 10 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 13, 2004, June 13, 2005, June 13, 2006, June 13, 2007, December 3, 2010, June 13, 2011, June 13, 2013, June 13, 2019, and June 13, 2022.

First? artificial object to leave the solar system?

Albeit by accident of science experiments' unintended consequences, it appears that probably Pioneer 10 was actually the 3rd artificial object to leave the solar system:

"Jay Hereford November 26 at 8:39 PM The fastest manmade object isn't a hypersonic jet or spacecraft, but a large manhole cover.... When the US started doing underground nuclear testing, nobody really knew what would happen. One test bomb was placed at the bottom of a 485-foot deep shaft on July 26, 1957, and someone thought it was a good idea to put a half-ton iron manhole cover on top to contain the explosion. The bomb turned the shaft into the world's largest Roman candle, and the manhole cover was nowhere to be found. Robert Brownlee, an astrophysicist who designed the test, wanted to repeat the experiment with high-speed cameras so he could figure out what happened to the cover. So another experiment was created, this time 500-feet deep, and a similar half-ton manhole cover was placed on top. On August 27, 1957, they detonated the bomb. The high-speed cameras barely caught a view of the cover as it left the top of the shaft and headed into oblivion. Brownlee used the frames to calculate the speed to be more than 125,000 miles per hour.... more than five times the escape velocity of the Earth, and the fastest man-made object in history. Physicists have debated the whereabouts of the two manhole covers ever since. Recently, with the help of supercomputers and a lot more scientific knowledge, physicists are certain that they wouldn't have had time to burn up completely before exiting the atmosphere. This means both of the remaining pieces would have passed Pluto's orbit sometime around 1961 and are way beyond the edge of the solar system by now. " 24.165.150.190 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silly anecdotal tales w/o valid scholarly bases are not RS for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.39.61 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

The pre-war rocket scientists' intentions were of putting a manned satellite in orbit and eventually reaching the Moon (NONE of them even THOUGHT electronics would reach the point that UNMANNED satellites/probes would ever be useful). Their furthest dreams involved Mars at best; the outer planets never even entered their fantasies to accomplish in their lifetimes, let alone interstellar probes. Anyone who even suggests this has no real idea of the energies involved in Earth escape, let alone Solar (the 3rd "Cosmic Velocity" of Tsiakovski's). It might be fun to imagine Nazis on the Moon, but any actual spaceflight in our real world before our modern era is dependent on if the dinosaurs managed to develop intelligence in that last million years or so (or interstellar visitors). CFLeon (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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? (unsigned)

As NASA would have used in press releases at the time, the term "leaving the solar system" would have meant "crossing Pluto's orbit". However, when THAT happened, Pluto was closer to the Sun than Neptune. So, the definition would have had to be changed- probably either to Pluto's average distance or its furthest distance (aphelion). Which was used and when did THAT happen? CFLeon (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. [unsigned]

Has anyone ever noticed that to shoot P10 (or P11) in the 24th century, that Klingon Bird of Prey had to be in Earth's Solar system? CFLeon (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"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. [unsigned]

At the time (1983) Pluto was closer to the Sun than Neptune, as it was from 1979 to 1999. My question is what does "crossed the orbit of Pluto" actually MEAN? Pluto's perihelion or the distance Pluto was at the MOMENT in 1983 that P10 got there or the orbit at that PARTICULAR location that P10 passed through? CFLeon (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A paper published 27 March 2010 describes the source of the location anomaly. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.5222v1.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.51.2 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The phrasing is certainly confusing- no doubt reflecting someone in the NASA or JPL press offices writing for the mainstream media. My guess is that what is meant is where Aldebaran WAS in the 20th Century and the star's future movement was not taken into account. Also, there is some lateral movement involved and that may be a factor in the timing.CFLeon (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

About one sigma is anomaly?

If deceleration is (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² then since general relativity predicts roughly (7.0 ± 0.3) × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² I don't see any "anomaly" except that amateurs are taking the measurements (3 digits of sigma accuracy!). Maybe if the project were taken over by professional physicists who understand not only Newtonian gravitation the problem disappears? Jim (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding [reply]

slighty confused by data on articles for Pioneer 10 and Voyger 1

The Pioneer 10 article says that this is the first artificial object to leave the solar system, yet the article on Voyger 1 say it is the furthest artificial object from the earth, can they both be correct?62.228.0.20 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with definitions of the boundaries of the solar system. Pioneer 10 was the first artificial object to move beyond the orbits of the traditional planets of the Sun (whether the current eight 'major' planets, or including Pluto as ninth). Voyager 1 is currently calculated as the furthest-distant artificial object, and will almost certainly become the first to traverse the boundary of both the Heliopause and the Bow Shock, and enter intergalactic space, outside Sol's influence. --Chr.K. (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our articles, Pioneer 10 is traveling at some 12 km/s, while Voyager 1 is traveling at 17 km/s. That would seem to explain the discrepancy. Pioneer may have beat Voyager out there by virtue of being launched years earlier, but Voyager 1 has now caught up to it and passed it due to its higher velocity. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image quality

Some of the images in the Encounter with Jupiter section look like poor quality scans of halftone pictures. I suspect there must be better quality images somewhere. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are, I just need to get off my lazy butt and get back to editing and posting the images. -Xession (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. According to this source, some of the original data may be missing or even lost. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR?

The following content from the "Loss of signal" section was tagged as unsourced. I couldn't find suitable references, and possibly it is OR, in which case it doesn't belong in the article. Hence, I'm moving it here until suitable sources turn up, if any. [unsigned]

As of April 1, 2011, Pioneer 10 is approximately 103.017 AU from the Sun. It is at an elliptic latitude of 3 degrees, at a declination of 25.83 degrees. It is traveling at about 12.061 km/s and is traveling outward at about 2.544 AU a year.^{[citation needed]} Pioneer 10 is at a right ascension of 5.077 hours. Sunlight takes 14.32 hours to get to Pioneer 10 at its approximate distance. Pioneer 10 is traveling in the opposite direction when compared to Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Pioneer 11, and New Horizons.^{[citation needed]} The spacecraft distance and measurements are only true guesses^{[clarification needed]} due to the loss of communication with the probe. [unsigned]

Pioneer 10 is believed^{[by whom?]} to possibly still be transmitting extremely weak signals, however its antenna is not oriented to the earth, and therefore no signals can be detected.^{[citation needed]}

The article seems to be okay without this information. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense sentence?

"The trajectory of the spacecraft took it along the magnetic equator of Jupiter, where the ion radiation was concentrated. Peak intensities for these electrons 10,000 times stronger than the maximum around Earth."

I can't make any sense of the second sentence. Could someone fix it? I put on a clarify tag, although I'm a bit uncertain if it was the right one to use. Whitecroc (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that any better? I think it was just missing a verb, but I tried to rewrite it. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved, yes. Might need a wiki link or two (whatever they're called) for some of the terms used but the sentence now parses much better and makes sense. Whitecroc (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Combined image

Could someone with knowledge of the situation create a single image that shows the paths of both Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11? It would make it much easier for me at least to understand the directionality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Productions (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TE364-4

I removed a wikilink from the first paragraph of the "Launch and trajectory" sub-section of the "Mission profile" section, because it pointed to the "SM-65 Atlas" article, which has nothing about the TE364-4, nor about the Pioneer missions. The sentence in this article reads, "The third stage consisted of a solid fuel TE364-4 developed specifically for the Pioneer missions." If the TE364-4 was "developed specifically for the Pioneer missions" why is the wikilink pointing to a "Redirect" page which points to the "SM-65 Atlas"? If you know the answer to this question would you please write a full-fledged article at that redirect. Thanks, Nick Beeson (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some internet research, and found the actual designation. The TE364-4 was a Thiokol Propulsion rocket, which they called the Star 37, and is discussed on that Wikipage. The TE364-4 redirect page was just plain wrong and I have corrected it. Nick Beeson (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power and data rate

This seems wrong: "...by 2005 the total power output was 65 W. As a result, later in the mission only selected instruments could be operated at any one time." We lost contact in 2003, so the mission couldn't have continued to 2005, could it?

And this: "The data transmission rate at launch was 256 bit/s" is contradicted by Encyclopedia Astronautica. One of these two sources has confused bits with bytes, but I don't know which one. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information Needed

The dates P10 crossed the orbits of Saturn & Uranus probably should be listed, since this was the first probe to do so. Also, in the timeline table, the date of the start of Jupiter encounter is the same as the entry into the Asteroid Belt, which isn't likely (the date is correct for the Asteroid Belt entry). The formal Jovian encounter phase would have began sometime AFTER leaving the Belt, around 2 or 3 months before the actual FB in December. CFLeon (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer anomaly

We now have the Pioneer anomaly in two places, one under Deep Space and one under Current Status. Could these be combined? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault. I didn't catch the Deep Space comment wwhen I edited the section. I've fixed it by deleting that one- not because of any real preference, just that I think that the two articles (this and Pioneer 11) need to be consistant with each other. CFLeon (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnard's Star

In case anyone is wondering why I removed the bit about Pioneer 10 passing by Barnard's Star, the reason is simple: it won't do any such thing. The source for this "fact" was a book about Concorde, which also mentions Project Daedalus for some reason (I'm not going to read the whole thing to find out why...) and has a throwaway mention about the probe passing within 3.8ly of the star in about 10,000 years. However, the fact that Barnard's Star itself will be within 3.8ly of the Earth at that point rang some alarm bells when I read the same thing (now deleted) in its article. How could the distance be the same if the probe were headed toward the star? A little (unoriginal) research established that Pioneer 10 will be about 0.4ly away from Earth in 10,000 years, and - here's the important point - it's currently heading in nearly the opposite direction to Barnard's Star. Anyone reading this should be able to check that for themselves quite easily, so I hope that's sufficient evidence that the Concorde book is not only not a reliable source, but just plain wrong.
Just in case my other edits need justifying, I also removed the "ref" column from the table, since there's now only one reference, which is cited in the preceding paragraph. And took out the value of the probe's current speed, which is given in the section immediately above (and the two values didn't agree in any case). 78.146.214.216 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the whole "Timeline of the future" and all its data except about Aldebaran

I'm thinking of removing the whole "Timeline of the future" table altogether, even though its source is the NASA [1], because of a strikingly similar problem with star Ross 248. Both the table and the cited NASA report says Pioneer 10 will "come within 3.2 LY of the red dwarf star Ross?248 in the Andromeda Nebula in 32,605 years". Big problem, according to this Wikipedia graphic [2] Ross 248 will itself be about 3.1-3.3 ly from Earth at that time: passing at 3.2 ly of a star that itself is at 3.2 ly from your starting point is not what I'd call "passing close": the above argument for the Barnard star applies. Furthermore, if Pioneer 10 is headed to (the general direction of) Aldebaran in Taurus how can it come close to any star in Andromeda ? (I don't know is Ross 248 will still be in Andromeda by 34000 though). Looks like someone confused "reach about the same distance from Earth as star X" with "pass close star X". But even then I wonderr, if you're right about Pioneer 10 being 0.4ly away from Earth in 10,000 years, how can it even attain Proxima's distance in 26,000 years, since that distance should then also be about 3 ly according to the mentioned graphic ? --FvdP (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After further examination the numbers given by the cited NASA source don't even add up. The "current" speed of P10 they say is 45,000 km/h. (Somewhat larger than the latest number given by our article on P10). That is, if I computed things right, about 4.17e-5 ly/year. At that speed, in 26,118 years (the time they say P10 will pass Proxima) P10 cannot be further than 1.1 ly away: a far cry from Proxima's 3 ly. (P10 must be slowing down to escape Sun, it cannot accelerate to make up for the difference.) Similarly for the alledged "passing by" Ross 248 in 32,605 years from now, my computation gives an upper bound of 1.4 ly then for P10's distance to the Sun with Ross 248 at 3+ ly. What might add up is the passing of Aldebaran in about 2,000,000 years: if P10 keeps the 45,000 km/h speed (which it will not) it should be 83 ly away by then, that's at least plausibly in the same ball park (given the approximations) and on the right side of the inequality. The other reason I keep the Aldebaran reference (for now) is that's it's the only one mentioned in other sources. --FvdP (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pioneer 10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616131231/http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000477/ to http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000477/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.heavens-above.com/solar-escape.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNhome.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://arwen.arc.nasa.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Pioneer 10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skypath of Pioneer 10

It is requested that an astronomy diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Please generate a starmap of the skypath of Pioneer 10 similiar to that for Voyager 1, which can be seen on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voyager_1_skypath_1977-2030.png !

Voyager 2 is expected to pass Pioneer 10 around April 2023?

At present the article has "Voyager 2 is expected to pass Pioneer 10 around April 2023." A source or citation for this is not provided. I was curious about this and calculated August 15, 2023.

I got my data from https://www.heavens-above.com/SolarEscape.aspx


	Pioneer 10	Voyager 2
Distance from Sun (AU)	131.859	131.197
Speed relative to Sun (km/s)	11.904	15.296
Speed relative to Sun (AU/year)	2.511	3.227

1. Distance between Voyager 2 and Pioneer 10 (AU)		0.662	Math is V2 minus P10
2. Relative speed (km/s)		3.392	Math is V2 minus P10
3. Relative speed (AU/year)		0.716	Math is V2 minus P10
4. Years to matching distance		0.924581006	Math is line 1 divided by line 3
5. Days to matching distance		337.472067	Math is line 4 times 365
6. Today		9/12/2022	Today's date as m/d/yyyy
7. Today + days		8/15/2023	Math is Line 5 plus line 6
8. Overtake distance	134.1806229	134.1806229	Math is the spacecraft's distance from the Sun in AU plus its speed relative to Sun (AU/year) times line 4. It's the same result for both spacecraft.

Did I make a mistake, is the article wrong, or are both of us wrong? --Marc Kupper|talk 23:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked distances between both of spacecraft using NASA Eyes app for Windows and calculated July 19 and July 20, 2023. See my new topic. 95.134.111.98 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the whole article be rewritten into past tense?

As the contact to the spacecraft was lost two decades ago, maybe we should do the same thing as for other wikipedia articles about satellites whose mission has permanently ended, that is, change the tense of the article into past tense.El Roih (talk)

El Roih, I'd agree with past tense. NASA is using past tense on https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/pioneer-10/in-depth/ --Marc Kupper|talk 07:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I support this, I found the present tense strange. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 in May or July 2023

I've seen on this link:https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/48527/when-will-voyager-2-overtake-pioneer-10-as-the-2nd-most-distant-spacecraft-from

That Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun this month (May 2023). I was also checking distances between the Sun and both of this spacecraft using NASA Eyes app for Windows and theskylive.com.

Using this I've seen that Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun between July 19 and July 20, 2023. (according to theskylive.com). Note that I wasn't able to find what will be speeds of both spacecraft relative to the sun as of that time, I only got speeds as of today. This table says the distance between the Sun, Voyager 2 and Pioneer 10 as of July 19, 2023 (according to theskylive.com).


	Pioneer 10	Voyager 2
Distance from Sun (km)	20033.88 Billion	20033.81 Billion Km
Speed relative to Sun (km/s)	11.9	15.3
Speed relative to Sun (AU/year)	2.511	3.227
Days to matching distance	79
Today	05/01/2023
Matching distance date	07/19/2023

This table says the distance between Voyager 2 and Pioneer 10 as of July 20, 2023 (according to theskylive.com).


	Pioneer 10	Voyager 2
Distance from Sun (km)	20034.91 Billion	20035.11 Billion
Speed relative to Sun (km/s)	11.9	15.3
Speed relative to Sun (AU/year)	2.511	3.227
Days to matching distance	80
Today	05/01/2023
Matching distance date	07/20/2023

95.134.111.98 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the calculation is correct, Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 in July 2023. 46.8.172.178 (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently was able to find a distance in AU at which Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun on July 19, 2023, see details below.


	Pioneer 10	Voyager 2
Overtake distance (AU)	133.93	133.93
Overtake distance date	July 19, 2023	July 19, 2023
Days to overtake distance	33	33

Voyager 2 likely to overtake Pioneer 10 in July 2023, not May 2023

I don't think that Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 in May 2023. Using this link, I checked distance between the Sun and Voyager 2. Using this link, I checked distance between the Sun and Pioneer 10. I have added a subject about this on Talk:List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System. Per my earlier calculations, I calculated that V2 will overtake Pioneer 10 on July 20, 2023. Per my new calculation, Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun between 7:24 and 7:35, on July 19, 2023. I'm going to change 05-2023 to 07-2023 in the timeline section of the Pioneer 10 article. Would be this correct or not? 188.60.199.127 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the calculation was correct. 46.8.172.178 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a garbage-in-garbage out issue. We can't use data from fan sites and then perform calculations/estimates. It seems to be generally agreed that Voyager 2 is projected to overtake Pioneer 10 some time in 2023. We last heard from Pioneer 10 20 years ago in 2003. NASA is no longer tracking this spacecraft and so we can't make a guess more accurate than some time in 2023. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today is exactly 1 month before Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun, on July 18, 2023, I measured distances here. At last prediction, as of April 2011, Pioneer 10 was at the distance 9.6 billion miles from the Sun. The current distance between the Sun and Pioneer 10 is available on heavens-above.com, so Pioneer 10 is 133.767 AU from the Sun. In miles and kilometers, the current distance is available here. In distance to Earth, hoverer, Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 on September 23, 2023, when using theskylive.com. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue is that NASA has not tracked Pioneer 10 since 1995. Various web sites use different estimates for the orbital path and its probable location today. Voyager 2 may well have already surpassed Pioneer 10 or maybe that will happen months from now. We simply don't know where Pioneer 10 is with any degree of precision and can't know.

One surprise is that while Voyager 2 is an active mission that sources don't agree on how far it is from the Sun. At the moment I see

133.676 AU on https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status/
133.630 AU on https://www.heavens-above.com/SolarEscape.aspx
https://theskylive.com/voyager2-info does not seem to report the distance from the Sun

The only web sites publishing data on Pioneer 10 are fan sites that are also not stating their sources or calculations for how they estimate that spacecraft's location. It's getting deep into WP:OR to use a fan's estimate and calculations particularly as they are failing to show how they arrive at those estimates. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NASA has not tracked Pioneer 10 since 2003, not 1995.

I was really sure that Voyager 2 may have overtook Pioneer 10 in May 2023, according to this calculation. However, on heavens-above.com, Pioneer 10 is still farther than Voyager 2. To measure the exact date when Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun, try using this link, where I calculated July 19, 2023, or try using NASA's Eyes, where I calculated July 20, 2023 (I don't remember, either on July 19 or July 20 Voyager 2 will pass Pioneer 10, when I measured distances on NASA's Eyes, July 19 is on http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/simulations/1511746688216_hyperbolic.html). I think the real distance between the Sun and Voyager 2 is 133.68 AU, we should trust https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status/. theskylive.com and heavens-above.com don't say the correct distance between the Sun and Voyager 2, but the distance between the Sun and Pioneer 10 may be correct.

https://theskylive.com/voyager2-tracker says that Voyager 2 is 133.679 AU from the Sun.
https://theskylive.com/pioneer10-tracker says that Pioneer 10 is 133.73 AU from the Sun.

The following links below:

Say that Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun on July 19, 2023. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These websites calculate when the event occurs, and calculations are not 100% ideal. T^{fess up?}_{or down?} 12:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try measuring distances here. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring my point: calculations are not 100% ideal. T^{fess up?}_{or down?} 12:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try using NASA's Eyes. In this case, a calculation should be 100% correct. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OR. T^{fess up?}_{or down?} 13:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already read WP:OR a few days ago. My previous comment wasn't original research, because there are some other sources provided. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@178.95.99.242 - the problem is that we simply do not know where Pioneer 10 is now nor do we know its current trajectory, velocity, etc. We have not known this data since 2002 (my earlier 1995 was a typo). The data you are seeing on web sites today are their estimates of where the spacecraft may be. As you noted earlier, different web sites have very different estimates on where the spacecraft may be today. We can't compute when Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 other than it seems to be in the year 2023.

If someone at NASA or the JPL publishes an article about Voyager 2 overtaking Pioneer 10 then we can use that as a source on Wikipedia. Voyager 2 is an active mission and so I imagine people in the Voyager 2 crew are looking into if and when they can release an article. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but a few days ago I found a calculation on another talk page. Go here to review it. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until Voyager 2 overtakes Pioneer 10 to note it regardless of the calculation. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to predictions, Voyager 2 already overtook Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun (likely some 4 hours ago). Use NASA SSD Simulator to measure distances. 93.72.29.12 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]