Feature
What is the mystery force slowing down the Pioneer spacecraft? Do we finally know the answer?

Pioneer 10 Flies By Jupiter NASA

Thirty years ago, NASA scientists noticed that two of their spacecraft, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, were veering off course slightly, as if subject to a mysterious, unknown force. In 1998, the wider scientific community got wind of that veering—termed the Pioneer anomaly—and took aim at it with incessant, mind-blowingly detailed scrutiny that has since raised it to the physics equivalent of cult status. Now, though, after spawning close to 1000 academic papers, numerous international conferences, and many entire scientific careers, this beloved cosmic mystery may be on its way out.

Slava Turyshev, a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., and Viktor Toth, a Canada-based software developer, plan to publish the results of their strikingly comprehensive new analysis of the Pioneer anomaly in the next few months. Their work is likely to bring a conclusion to one of the longest and most tumultuous detective stories of modern astrophysics.

NASA launched Pioneer 10 in the spring of 1972 and Pioneer 11 one year later. The spacecraft's joint mission was to gather information about the asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn (in the case of Pioneer 11), and their moons. As they hurtled past those various celestial objects, the probes measured previously unknown properties of their atmospheres and surfaces; they also photographed Jupiter’s Red Spot and Saturn’s rings up close for the first time. Then, after completing their "flyby" missions in the mid-1970s, the Pioneers kept going. Carrying identical plaques depicting a man and a woman, the atomic transition of hydrogen, and the location of our planet within the galaxy—a message to aliens—the probes became the first manmade objects ever to plunge beyond the solar system into the inconceivable cold and dark of interstellar space.

Photograph of Saturn Taken by Pioneer 11:

JPL scientists continued Doppler tracking the Pioneers far into deep space. They sent and received a continuous stream of radio transmissions to and from both Pioneers, logging the velocity of each everywhere along its trajectory. An astronomer named John Anderson led the analysis of the Doppler ranging data. He and his team intended to use the data to study subtle gravitational effects in the outer solar system, far from the overwhelming influences of the sun and larger planets. It was thought, for example, that the Pioneers might oscillate in tune with low-frequency gravity waves.

Of course, in order to detect such curiosities in the motion of the spacecraft, the scientists needed to know exactly what to expect in the first place; this required the construction of an algorithm of truly staggering complexity. Contributing factors to the predicted Doppler shift included: the deceleration experienced by the Pioneers as they struggled against the gravitational pull of the sun, planets, moons, asteroid belts, and comet clouds, the positions and thus gravitational fields of which move constantly; the tiny push on the spacecraft by the sun's radiation, which weakened with time as the spacecraft moved progressively farther away, and also changed as the angle of the spacecraft changed; the increase in the delay time between the bounce of a radio wave and its reception back at Earth as the spacecraft grew more distant; the gravitational drag on the radio waves from the sun; the additional frequency shift in the radio transmissions caused by the rotation of the Earth… and the list goes on. Anderson synthesized that headache's worth of cosmic influences into a single algorithm. But unfortunately it didn't seem to work.

In 1980, he noticed a small discrepancy between the Doppler shifts he expected to receive based on his algorithm and the actual, measured shifts of the radio signals coming from the spacecraft. Their expected and actual motions weren't quite matching up. As they moved outward against the gravitational pull of the sun and planets, the spacecraft were, of course, slowing down. But the problem was they were slowing down too much. Each year, both of the spacecraft were a few hundred miles farther behind where they should have been on their respective paths, according to the algorithm. That isn't much in the context of space travel, to be sure, but it isn't trivial either. The constant, extra acceleration amounted to 8.74 x 10-10 m/s2 directed toward the sun– a factor ten billion times smaller than the acceleration due to gravity, but still, undeniably, there.

Anderson's first reaction was to think his algorithm must have been missing something. Some tiny influence on the motion of the spacecraft must not have made it into the mathematical mix. A few years of thinking and discussing led him and his immediate team to the conclusion that the anomalous acceleration must have been caused by “outgasing” - fuel dripping from the thrusters, exerting a recoil force against the spacecraft as it dripped. Since by that point the craft were cruising through interstellar space without propulsion, the scientists thought the fuel drops would soon finish dripping and the effect would go away. But perplexingly, it didn't: Over the next decade, the spacecraft racked up billions of frequent flier miles--but thousands less than they should have.

In 1994, Anderson received an email out of the blue from Michael Martin Nieto, a cosmologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory near Santa Fe, NM. Nieto had lately become interested in alternatives to Newton’s inverse square law for gravity, including a new theory called MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics), and so he contacted Anderson to find out how sure NASA was about the strength of gravity based on their observations of the motions of spacecraft. Anderson replied that, as a matter of fact, gravity didn't seem to be working right for the Pioneers.

When Nieto read the exact value of the small, anomalous acceleration experienced by Pioneers 10 and 11, he almost fell off his chair. (In typical physics-speak: “My office had a hard floor and my computer chair had wheels, so when I arched my back in a "wha?" reaction the chair started rolling.”) There was a profound cosmic coincidence afoot: As Nieto immediately noticed, the value of the Pioneer anomaly almost exactly equaled the so-called “cosmic acceleration”—the speed of light ‘c’ multiplied by the Hubble constant ‘H'—suggesting the anomaly's cause lay within the foundation of physics.

Right then and there, Nieto signed on to work with Anderson at JPL, got a major investigation of the Pioneer anomaly off the ground, and has spent most of his energy studying it ever since. Why? “The Pioneer anomaly could be the first evidence that gravity deviates from an inverse-square dependence,” he said recently. “It could be huge.”

single page
Page 1 of 3 123next ›last »

48 Comments

Interesting article and very revealing in one issue regarding mankind: stubborn persistence and extreme need to know the truth.

Great writing! And also great images - that last illustration of the pioneer really hits home how romantic some of our ideas about space really are.

Very intersting reading, I'm sad to find out that the abnormal drag originally slowing down the craft was not a giant cloaked ship sent here to study us...

Wow! Awesome, well written, science based article!

I can't wait for your follow up article when they publish peer reviewed details....

Coolige said it well, "...persistence and determination alone are omnipotent..."

Great article. The in-depth look at what they are doing to solve this problem is a great refresher to the usual blurb articles that we usually see.

I am happy to say that I spent some time at work reading this.

very well compiled article.. u piqued my interest in the Pioneer spacecraft for sure ;)

XD nice antispam measures too popsci! :D

Excellent Article!!!

It was like reading a script to a movie.

Natalie Wolchover, I think you should write a book about this after the final details are released.

The article was inspiring actually, the home computers, the colaborations, the great unknowns...excellent!

Now it's time to get back to work on my own anomylies.

I was expecting a quote from Sheldon Cooper or Rodney McKay. Great article! My head hurts just thinking about all that math!

Great article and a real joy to read!

Thanks Pop. Sci. and great job Natalie Wolchover.

She deserves a raise.

This is the kind of great writing I look for in Pop. Sci. Mag.

Well done!

Fox

Yes, excellent stuff - felt a bit like NOVA, no offense intended, of course.

Everyone is saying "excellent, great article" I just say long and confusing.
There was an article a while back that theorized that the farther you go into space then matter's parameters to be stable changes. Could simply space's "grid" (the grid in all the explaining gravity images) be distorted like unaligned crossing toothpicks.

(can't make diagram with font) >:(
||||
++++
\\\\
++++
||||

Or have just jumped the gun on theorizing what someone else thought or spent years on?

I have been under the impression that Voyager was further out than Pioneer? NASA appears to believe this as well... if one is to accept that the article posted on PopSci yesterday at least.
"Voyager 1 launched in 1977 mind you – is now poised to become the first man-made object to leave the solar system for the larger galaxy beyond."
That, taken in context with this article, "the probes became the first manmade objects ever to plunge beyond the solar system into the inconceivable cold and dark of interstellar space." just seems a bit off to me.
Does anyone know what source reports Pioneer as being in interstellar space? It bothers me that I have believed for some time that Voyager was going to be the first to officially breach the solar system.

Excellent article by Natalie Wolchover. This is the kind of intelligent, in-depth science reporting that I want to see in the pages of Popular Science. There have been too many gee-whiz articles with little critical analysis in the past, and this shows that PopSci readers do appreciate detail and thoroughness. Bravo, Natalie!

lnwolf41
Just becuase physics works on earth why should it be the same far way? Remember 600 years ago the earth was flat and everything revoled around it.

That was exceptionally nerdy and fun. I was reading it like a movie and expecting the laws of Newtonian physics to come crumbling down at the edge of our solar system. While reading, I started to imagine my own explanations, that gravity might begin to flux or curve in disorder further out, or that heat generated in the absence of gravity becomes parasitic to motion.

Mightn't we be looking at an effect of gravitational lensing?

A possible explanation for this fascinating anomaly ...

Article: What Causes the Mass to be Deficit Inside a Nucleus?, Prespacetime Journal, Vol. 1, Issue 9, November 2010, Available at http://www.prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/123

Anyone else think it was a bad idea to include the location of our planet on the plaque that was sent? I hope the aliens that find them are not conquerors.

TonyB...

It depends on the definition of 'leaving the solar system'. Pioneer 10 and 11 were the first probes to pass beyond the orbit of Pluto, then considered to be the last planet in the solar system. If you define 'leaving the solar system' as passing the orbit of Pluto (or now Neptune), then Pioneer 10 holds the distinction of being the first to leave the solar system.

Some people however define it as passing the point at which the sun no longer exerts any influence on the spacecraft. In that case then Voyager 1 and 2, although launched well after the Pioneer probes but are traveling a lot faster, will be the first to exit the solar system based on that definition. The Voyager craft passed the Pioneer craft sometime in the 90's. So yes, Pioneer 1 and 2 are the farthest man made craft in space, but only because they were traveling faster than Pioneer, not launched before Pioneer.

Have they thought about the amount of space crap this thing is running into?

You only get the data if you carry the sorry asses at the top of the dust up along with you on your back as dead weight, contributing nothing at all. The old records are probably questionable as anything of that age being translated must be. What's next? Parallax error on old equipment, rounding errors in the old language integrators? This controversy will be solved when these old probes reach infinity, i.e. never.

I face the same problem in my work. I've found the cure for drug addiction, it's the grease on a man's face--a pheromone passed in kissing. There's about five million advanced google entries under 'the cause of love' all of which are wrong. Try telling that to a scientifically illiterate reviewer with a psychobabble degree. No you are not getting funded. "But I have changed the sexual orientation of people with pheromones, famous people!" No. That's impossible. "Look at my dozens of anecdotes!" Anecdotes mean nothing, go away.

An effective, broad-spectrum  medical treatment for borderline personality disorder, suicidal ideation, drug addiction, delinquency, and perversion has been discovered.  It is a human pheromone, the healthy adult male facial skin surface lipid 'kissing daddy' pheromone.  Unfortunately and presumably due to differing metabolic/neuronal pathways, alcoholism is little effected by pheromone treatment.  One dose of 150-250 mg provides permanent relief of even the most obdurate cases.  

See:

Nicholson, B. 1984;  Does kissing aid human bonding by semiochemical  addiction?   British Journal  of  Dermatology  111(5):623-627.

Nicholson, B. 2009:  Of Love  ( Amazon Digital Services, www.tinyurl.com/y8vxlxp ASIN: B0030MIG24 ) ( Google Books, www.tinyurl.com/2bjjl7s 9780981522616 )

BBC-TV interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeD6JtqbSbY
typical anecdote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVJbRaCVj20

@Rooskies2006 Why would giving up out position be a bad thing? Any hostile aliens would see our signature in EM emissions and atmospheric pollution as soon as they looked at our system... they could readily determine the position of our star from the trajectory of the craft so at least it makes us look more confident.

@lcpltom Thanks for clearing that up, I was aware Voyager launched years after Pioneer but I did not realize (though it makes sense now that you have informed me) they were using separate definitions for leaving the solar system in each claim.

The Deluge occurred in 10800 BC which is a multiple of 3 of the orbital period of planet Nibiru located in our solar system. Thus Nibiru passed by earth at the birth of Christ. It was not a star or nova that the Wise Men were following. In about 20 years, Nibiru will be three quarters around in its orbit of the sun along the minor axis. Why does NASA say that these spacecraft have left this solar system when we have this enormous orbit of 3600 years??

1.)@BNicholson: You show-off son of a B*TCH. None of what you've said has anything to do with the article. And all of your ideas are faggish... and stupid, just like those stupid internet ads.

2.)For the article, no matter how lcpltom explained the different "out-of-the-solar-system" perceptions, the author confused regular PopSci readers by saying "the probes became the first manmade objects ever to plunge beyond the solar system into the inconceivable cold and dark of interstellar space". Does she even work for PopSci? If so, BOO to the editor since not just a few days back, there's an article titled "Voyager 1 Arrives at the Outward Reaches of the Solar Wind, Prepares To Enter Interstellar Space" saying Voyager 1 and not the Pioneer are the first to enter Interstellar Space. Well, if the author is "Astronomy/Science" inclined, she should be aware of the Voyager 1's accomplishments, then she should've said a little bit of something in the article about the difference of the PIONEER and Voyager's accomplishments. Well, the article is okay but long and confusing.

3.) Just a point, if it's true that the factor for the acceleration is a non-machine or non-human error, let's say, the c * H theory, haven't they checked the Voyager 1? What happens in PIONEER should have the same effect to Voyager 1. If it doesn't match, PIONEER Anomaly is 80%-95% human/error

Wow... this is a featured article. How great is the editor not to review the article. Thanks to the people who comment for clearing the confusion on Voyager 1 and Pioneer 10/11 on the first to leave or home solar system.

Damn! Burned you editor.

For the acceleration of the universe, I get that it is Newton's gravitational constant G times the mass of the universe divided by the radius squared of the universe. The mass divided by the radius is linear mass. And linear mass times the gravitational constant is the speed of light squared. So the acceleration is the speed of light squared divided by the radius of the universe is the acceleration equal to 8.98x10^-10 m/s2. However, there is Einstein's excess radius equation which says that objects are 1/3 larger due to relativity, so this acceleration has to be divided by 4/3 or multiplied by .75 to give 6.74x10^-10 m/s2. It will be interesting to see what lower value they determine.

do the voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft exhibit similar anomalies?

@JohnStClair:

Spare us the pseudo-scientific bullshceiße about Nibiru. Go drop hits of acid and communicate with Marduk on an astral plane until your fantasy world ends in 2012. There is no place for such quackery on PopSci.

@vmaldia:

As far as I understand it, Voyagers I and II have a three-axis stabilization system that has made it somewhat difficult to calculate their respective theoretical positions; a large enough degree of uncertainty that it has obfuscated the observance of similar deceleration. Pioneers 10 and 11 are spin-stabilized and thus, much easier to investigate.

@Hokusai
You do realize that Queen Innana came back to earth in 1998 to retrieve the Anunnaki artifacts? Then Lord Anu came through in 1999 upon leaving this solar system in his mothership piloted by the Piol Mantis that EN.KI created. If not, you are not ready to move into the universe.

@JohnStClair:

Are you this guy?

http://media.photobucket.com/image/Giorgio%20A.%20Tsoukalos/daknsphotos/giorgio-a-tsoukalos.jpg

You're this guy, aren't you?

I never knew this was happening but now that I know of it, is this thing happening to the Voyager Probes as well?

@Sion8:

No, at least not quantifiably so. See my comment above.

Nice article by Natalie Wolchover, geared for the public rather than written in geekspeak. Since spacecraft navigation, which is intimately tied to this problem, is an extremely arcane subject, the few inaccuracies and gloss-overs committed in the article are easily forgivable.

I led the Orbit Determinastion task for Voyager II after Saturn, and stayed with it through the Uranus and Neptune encounters, the last of which was in 1989. Voyager used hydrazine thrusters to maintain attitude, and one of the hardest parts of the orbit determination task was accounting for the non-gravitational accelerations due to the thrusting, which was complicated by the fact that the thruster plumes impinged on the spacecraft structure in complicated and time-varying ways. If my memory doesn't betray me, the thrusters would pulse typically 20-30 times per day, and it was impossible to accurately account for their effects. Thus, the Voyager spacecraft were just not good candidates for analyzing the sub 1e-12 km/s^2 accelerations talked about in the article, since the uncertainties in the thrusting were about the same magnitude.

We did see acceleration from the RTG (Radioisotope Thermal Generator) that Voyager used, which became prominent in the navigation problem after the Saturn flyby, when solar radiation pressure became less of a factor, but it was correlated with the thrusting, and so it was hard to separate the effects from one another

I must say that I was never much of a believer in the cosmological origin of the acceleration. In fact, I distinctly remember having a conversation with John Anderson around 1989 when we discussed the Pioneer anomaly, and I suggested that the spacecraft RTGs would be a likely source. A pity that this was not quantitatively investigated in more detail a lot earlier.

Well I have read the article and enjoyed it immensely. I do have a theory of my own which may mor accurately explain the probes slow down. Einsteins theories which assume that space itself has substance much like a sponge whereby the sun and each planet having mass, will dent the sponge much like laying a bowling ball on a bed. Now the sun being the densest object in our solar system will obviously cause the largest and deepest dent. That dents shape is the entire reason we call such things "gravity wells" the sun has a gravity well, each mass in the solar system has a gravity well, those effects regardless of what you may have been taught are logically additive once you leave the region of a local gravity well you enter the system gravity well. It's as if the probes are heading up hill on there way out and I believe you will see in another few years...you mayfind that the speed of these probes will pickup considerably and be noted as another unexplainable event. Physics is wonderful.

I hate be a buttinsky, but must say that anyone reading the Old Testament as Christopher Columbus did, would quickly realize that anyone suggesting that the earth was flat was a complete ignoramus. Every real sailor has seen the earth's curvature from the crow's nest.

Now, I must ask a very ignorant question regarding the Pioneer anomaly.

If the Sun gives off a solar wind, is it even remotely possible that our Milky Way galaxy also exudes some sort of a galactic wind? If so, how would the galactic wind effect change the Solar based calculated constants?

Also, would Einstein's calculation of E = MC squared be affected by having the effect of altering C as a constant 300,000 KM/sec?

I believe it is fundamental errors caused by using Eintein's two relativities: constant speed of light, relativistic redshift, relativist mass. removing all these non-sense, we will have a better read of the anomaly.
Based on pure Newton's law, the anomaly should be 0.69e-10 m/s^2.

I've written one thesis about it but not ready to publish. please reply to this post, if you want to preview it.

Solar system is a combination of gravity wells, coused by the sun and planets, but it should also have some density and weather, coused by radiation from bodies in it. Until probes were inside that bublle, they had some weight and thermal equilibrium with the rest, but outside the system they should be lighteer and wormer then sorrounding mass, causing sort of solar buoyancy efect.
Perhaps that's also connected with reasons, why solar bodies are round in shape, that principle is also a force. Our artificial probes are breaking that laws, we couldn't observe in any other objects in space because those paths are resault of natural motion only.

Nice article and well-written. One of the very few long articles on popsci that I've read fully.

Article was interesting and was well presented. From reading all of the comments, it seems we will have to wait for the results to be published. It seems like a waist of energy to predict before the results are in but apparently it is a lot of fun. (Vegas odds on Niburu appears to be a non-bet.)

..for me , article don't say news , only hopes ...much more interesting i find in wikipedia , at word 'pioneer anomaly ' , in the part of discussion , the last one ... at ' Level of normal solutions in Pioneer ' cosmonautics ' ... i should like other opinions in that last one ..

Eleventh planet anyone ? I mean you know, thats the first thing I would look for...

Hey, the third word in the captcha was captcha... better check the math. There goes Webster!

It is impossible to calculate all of the variables that might cause a drag on the actual spacecrafts or the radio energy itself for that matter. RF is subject to gravitational distortion, same as light waves. Every object in the universe has a potential of gravitational effect, including minute particles and single molecules that might cause cumulative friction or static charge. There are undoubtedly forces that science can't even measure or haven't even been discovered yet. This is really a great subject to ponder and scientific curiosity is the mother of physics. Whatever knowledge is gained from this study will fine tune future calculations and may open up a whole new understanding of the laws of physics.

What a wonderful article.

I was completely sucked in to the story. It captures, among other things, splendidly how much grunt work data analysis can be. This article truly stands out over the superficial articles one normally encounters in print.

I look forward to reading many more pieces by Natalie Wolchover.

This article was interesting and informative. However, I'd like to offer a correction to one of the illustrations. The one entitled "Mac Quadro Computer Processes Pioneer Data" is wrong. The diplay *is* from a Mac but it is a virtual control panel modelled after telemetry hardware that's been long taken out of service. Probably done with LabView or similar software.

But I still enjoyed the article.

Pioneer passed close to the Earth's equator on its way out so it could have been influenced by Earth's rotation. A very small effect but there is no good theory for spinning gravitational fields so it could be what we are looking for.

In 1980, he noticed a small discrepancy between the Doppler shifts he expected to receive based on his algorithm and the actual, measured shifts of the radio signals coming from the spacecraft. Their expected and actual motions weren't quite matching up.www.thaicartrick.com



June 2013: American Energy Independence

Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email

Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif