Flyby Anomaly Mystery Deepens

[Schneibster]

deepened

You're lying again.

And you failed to prove Juno encountered the flyby anomaly again.

So you lied twice.

[DeltaV]

deepened

Schnipester, the flyby anomaly deepened before you ever defecated on this forum.

And you failed to prove Juno encountered the flyby anomaly again.

How could I fail at something I never even attempted?

You're lying again.

[Schneibster]

deepened

Schnipester, the flyby anomaly deepened before you ever defecated on this forum.

And you failed to prove Juno encountered the flyby anomaly again.

How could I fail at something I never even attempted?

You're lying again.

Actually, your claim was I lied because I said you failed to prove Juno encountered the flyby anomaly.

Where's your proof then that it did?

[Schneibster]

I'll be honest at this point; I think your only sin was a little exaggeration and I wouldn't have made fun of you over it had you not been a smartass, and tried to "jump on the bandwagon." My reflexes took over and I'm sorry I slammed your face in the mud.

I think we should buy each other a brewsky and forget it. You can keep the handkerchief.

Your call.

Oh and also so there's no question, yes I admit there is a genuine mystery and it's interesting and you're cool for bringing it to everyone's attention. I never stint, waffle, or ditz. It may surprise you but I only doubted it until I'd seen the Wikipedia article and checked its source dox. Quite early on; many days ago surely.

As soon as the NASA sites are back up IIWY I'd grab the orbital elements. If you go to an observatory, or even a reasonably competent amateur star party, you can probably get a look at where the spacecraft is now, among other more esoteric benefits. If you need help LMK and I'll hunt them up; I'm pretty sure there's a NASA database that has them. My only concern is it might be a bit difficult to get the pre-flyby elements and the geocentric flyby elements. Of course, once NASA is back on line.

[GIThruster]

Geessss. . .is the troll still pretending he knew anything at all about the anomaly back when Delta pointed out the latest?

How long can the charade go on? Mr. Troll! You're a buffoon!

[JoeStrout]

I need everyone to please try harder to keep it civil.

(Yes, Schneibster, I see that you did exactly that in your last post above — thank you.)

Thanks,
- Joe

[DeltaV]

Actually, your claim was I lied because I said you failed to prove Juno encountered the flyby anomaly.

You are lying again. My claim was that you lied when you fabricated, out of thin air (and continue to fabricate, despite it having been pointed out to you), that I had even attempted to prove that Juno encountered the flyby anomaly. I made no such attempt. All I did was report a current event. The science will speak for itself when the Juno/ESA team is allowed to publish again, so I feel absolutely no compunction whatsoever to track down and analyze Juno orbital elements when the cognizant scientists and engineers have the situation covered. Or do you think they don't know what they are doing?

[Schneibster]

Actually, your claim was I lied because I said you failed to prove Juno encountered the flyby anomaly.

You are lying again. My claim was that you lied when you fabricated, out of thin air (and continue to fabricate, despite it having been pointed out to you), that I had even attempted to prove that Juno encountered the flyby anomaly. I made no such attempt. All I did was report a current event. The science will speak for itself when the Juno/ESA team is allowed to publish again, so I feel absolutely no compunction whatsoever to track down and analyze Juno orbital elements when the cognizant scientists and engineers have the situation covered. Or do you think they don't know what they are doing?

Whatever. Good bye.

[choff]

The top end deviation was 13mm/s and it got us 5 pages of posts. Maybe if they can inspect the spacecraft some day they might find a few grams of paint burned off by the sun, or a gram or two of cosmic dust tweeking the overall weight just enough to alter the predicted speed.

[hanelyp]

Pioneer 10 and 11 orbit determination analysis shows no discrepancy with Newton-Einstein's laws of gravity
http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4978
"... results show that orbital solutions may be achieved that do not require the addition of any "unknown" acceleration other than the one of thermal origin."

[DeltaV]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4218

[DeltaV]

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread. ... ber-9-2013

Presented Dec 10 at the AGU 2013 Fall Meeting. Not yet public.

TITLE: Juno Earth Flyby as a Sensitive Detector of Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes

AUTHORS (FIRST NAME, LAST NAME): John D Anderson1, James F Jordan1, James K Campbell1, John E Ekelund1, John J Bordi2, Mathew Abrahamson2, Shadan M Ardalan2, Paul F. Thompson2
INSTITUTIONS (ALL): 1. Retiree, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, United States.
2. Mission Design & Navigation Section, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, United States.

ABSTRACT BODY: The fact that unexplained energy changes occur in some Earth flybys, but not all, was reported in 2008 by Anderson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 091102. The anomaly is detected by analyzing radio Doppler and ranging data used for space navigation. It is most significant for the closest flybys at altitudes of 539 km for the NEAR spacecraft, 960 km for the first Galileo flyby, and 1956 km for the first Rosetta flyby, with anomalous total changes in the hyperbolic excess velocity at infinity of 13.5 mm/s, 3.9 mm/s and 1.8 mm/s, respectively. There is also a correlation with the amount of asymmetry of the flyby trajectory with respect to the Earth’s equator. As it turns out, the Juno flyby is well suited for another detection of this anomaly, with an altitude of about 500 km, and a declination of the incoming hyperbolic asymptote of 14.6 deg and an outgoing asymptote of 40.4 deg. Further, the control sequence for the spacecraft introduces no significant translational forces for an interval of plus and minus four days of perigee. Based on eight flybys analyzed previously, and an empirical formula given in the 2008 paper, the expected size of the Juno anomaly is about 7 mm/s. The standard error of the measurement is about 0.01 mm/s. We report first results of the data analysis.