6
$\begingroup$

Ultima Thule is thought to be about 20 miles (30 km) across. However, I can't seem to find any information about approach distance or typical image resolution of New Horizons in regards to this second target.

What I am interested in is that, since Pluto is a good deal larger than Ultima Thule, we knew a lot more about it before we got there. There are several technical details known about Pluto but not about Ultima Thule due to its dimness (it is a million times dimmer than Pluto), distance, and the fact that it was only discovered 4 years ago. Presumably knowing these details in respect to Ultima Thule would aid the technical aspects of imaging it.

What meter/pixel resolution could we expect to get from such a small target?

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

Update 2019-01-01: I've calculated detailed resolution and range values for the encounter's imaging schedule. The chart can be found in this answer (scroll down to Resolution during capture in meters per pixel).


I was gathering data to do the math and came across this:

New Horizons is planned to come within 3,500 km (2,200 mi) of 2014 MU69, three times closer than the spacecraft's earlier encounter with Pluto. Images with a resolution as fine as 30 m (98 ft) to 70 m (230 ft) are expected. [1] [2]

Source: (486958) 2014 MU69, Wikipedia

Various estimates of 2014 MU69's diameter have been made:

Source: ibid, as cited


The resolution of the imagery to be collected is discussed in detail in another answer

Note that "Ultima Thule" is currently just a nickname for 2014 MU69. As partially quoted on the above-linked Wikipedia page:

[W]e’re going to give 2014 MU69 [sic] a real name, rather than just the “license plate” designator it has now. The details of how we’ll name it are still being worked out, but NASA announced a few weeks back that it will involve a public naming contest. [6]

Another source7 adds:

After the flyby, NASA and the New Horizons team will choose a formal name to submit to the International Astronomical Union, based in part on whether MU69 [sic] is found to be a single body, a binary pair, or perhaps a system of multiple objects.


Citations:

1 Green, Jim (12 December 2017), New Horizons Explores the Kuiper Belt, 2017 American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in New Orleans: 12–15.
(PDF)

2 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (2017), New Horizons Files Flight Plan for 2019 Flyby, 6 September 2017, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.

3 Buie, Marc (15 October 2014), New Horizons HST KBO Search Results: Status Report, Space Telescope Science Institute, 23.
(PDF)

4 Lakdawalla, Emily (15 October 2014), Finally! New Horizons has a second target, Planetary Society blog, Planetary Society, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.

5 Bill Keeter (3 August 2017), New Horizons' Next Target Just Got a Lot More Interesting, NASA, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.

6 Stern, Alan (28 April 2017), No Sleeping Back on Earth!, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.

7 Tricia Talbert (13 March 2018), New Horizons Chooses Nickname for 'Ultimate' Flyby Target, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for that info, exactly what i was looking for! $\endgroup$ – TheGeneral Dec 28 '18 at 3:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Remarkable citation style. $\endgroup$ – Boosted Nub Dec 28 '18 at 4:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @BoostedNub How so? You mean mixing inline and numbered citations? I don't consider Wikipedia authoritative so I typically don't provide full, formal citations when I reference it (just links and acknowledgement). $\endgroup$ – Alex Hajnal Dec 28 '18 at 4:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If I were writing a formal research paper it would be different though; everything would get a proper citation, Wikipedia included. Note that given its non-authoritative nature, Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source in any serious paper. (It can be useful for tracking down primary sources though.) $\endgroup$ – Alex Hajnal Dec 28 '18 at 4:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Most of us on Space.SE just place a hyperlink to the source on an appropriate word in the answer, instead of providing a Wikipedia-style footnote. $\endgroup$ – Hobbes Dec 28 '18 at 15:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.