Could Dust Be Responsible for the Pioneer Anomaly?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SJGooch
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Anomaly Dust pioneer
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the hypothesis that the Pioneer Anomaly's additional acceleration toward the Sun may be attributed to dust accumulation on the spacecraft. The original papers on the anomaly have considered gravitational effects from large dust clouds but have not addressed the potential for dust to adhere to the spacecraft, thereby increasing its mass. The author suggests that even a minimal increase in mass could account for the observed acceleration, and proposes measuring the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass to rule out this hypothesis. The feasibility of dust adhering to the spacecraft is questioned due to material properties and relative velocities.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Pioneer Anomaly and its implications in astrophysics.
  • Familiarity with gravitational mass versus inertial mass concepts.
  • Knowledge of spacecraft materials and their interactions with dust and solar wind.
  • Basic principles of acceleration and force in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Pioneer Anomaly and its historical context in space exploration.
  • Study the principles of gravitational mass and inertial mass measurement techniques.
  • Investigate the effects of solar wind on spacecraft materials and potential chemical reactions.
  • Explore methods for calculating the mass of dust required to influence spacecraft acceleration.
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, aerospace engineers, and anyone interested in the dynamics of spacecraft and the implications of the Pioneer Anomaly.

SJGooch
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I have looked through the on-line documentation of the Pioneer Anomaly, and have a simple question:

Could the apparent additional acceleration toward the Sun be due to an additional mass of dust which adhered to the spacecraft ?

I notice that the authors of the main papers ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0512/0512121v2.pdf ) claim to have considered the possibility of dust as a cause. But the only references I can find regarding dust are related to gravitational effects in which the spacecraft s are gravitationally attracted to large dust clouds. Not effects in which additional mass is added to the spacecraft by adhering dust particles.

In a similar vein, could some part of the outer skin of the spacecraft react with the solar wind, trapping hydrogen (for example) as part of a chemical compound?

There appears to be no treatment of how little the actual mass of a spacecraft would have to deviate from its accepted mass for the "anomalous" additional attraction to the sun to be observed. The observed effect is exceedingly small, so I suspect very little dust would be required.

Additional force of attraction to the sun due to additional mass of the spacecraft could be ruled out by measuring the ratio of inertial mass of the spacecraft to its gravitational mass. I.e. late in the mission, does the modification of the spacecraft 's velocity as it passes near a massive object verify the supposed mass of the spacecraft ?

Is there some obvious reason, that I have missed, that this slight additional deceleration due to solar gravity cannot be due to a slight increase in the mass of the spacecraft ?

Thank you for your attention.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It seems like a pretty decent hypothesis about the anomaly. Working out how much dust would be needed is beyond me, I would be interested to see if someone else here could work it out, which I expect they could.

My only concern would be that it might be difficult for the dust to adhere to the probe, perhaps due to materials used and high velocities of both probe and dust, seeing as I very much doubt they would be moving in the same direction with similar speeds which would make it easy for dust to adhere.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K