Why are probes that tend to explore outer system always launched to go outwards instead of straight upwards...












26












$begingroup$


Let's take a look at the trajectory of variety probe missions.



Variety Probe Mission TrajectoryNew Horizons and Ultima Thule will be 4.1 billion miles away when it visits the Kuiper Belt object. This chart shows the path of New Horizons compared to other probes that have left the solar system. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [1]



I wonder, why all these probes tend to explore outer system were launched to go outwards of the ecliptic plane instead of go upwards or downwards? What I'm talking about here is go upwards or downwards that is considerably closer to 90 degrees. I was told the ecliptic plane of any solar system tends to stay relatively uniform, with only Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) showing bizarre inclinations. The closest thing we'd find "below" the Earth would be an Oort Cloud object or outer star system, is it accurate to say so? What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?





Point of interest



1 Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor, January 2 2019, NASA's New Horizons Just Made the Most Distant Flyby in Space History. So, What's Next?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 39




    $begingroup$
    The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Jan 3 at 14:21






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
    $endgroup$
    – Makyen
    Jan 3 at 19:01






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
    $endgroup$
    – Makyen
    Jan 3 at 22:53






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    Jan 4 at 0:21






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Probes don't explore. They're sent to do closeups.
    $endgroup$
    – Agent_L
    Jan 4 at 10:54
















26












$begingroup$


Let's take a look at the trajectory of variety probe missions.



Variety Probe Mission TrajectoryNew Horizons and Ultima Thule will be 4.1 billion miles away when it visits the Kuiper Belt object. This chart shows the path of New Horizons compared to other probes that have left the solar system. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [1]



I wonder, why all these probes tend to explore outer system were launched to go outwards of the ecliptic plane instead of go upwards or downwards? What I'm talking about here is go upwards or downwards that is considerably closer to 90 degrees. I was told the ecliptic plane of any solar system tends to stay relatively uniform, with only Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) showing bizarre inclinations. The closest thing we'd find "below" the Earth would be an Oort Cloud object or outer star system, is it accurate to say so? What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?





Point of interest



1 Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor, January 2 2019, NASA's New Horizons Just Made the Most Distant Flyby in Space History. So, What's Next?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 39




    $begingroup$
    The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Jan 3 at 14:21






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
    $endgroup$
    – Makyen
    Jan 3 at 19:01






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
    $endgroup$
    – Makyen
    Jan 3 at 22:53






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    Jan 4 at 0:21






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Probes don't explore. They're sent to do closeups.
    $endgroup$
    – Agent_L
    Jan 4 at 10:54














26












26








26


2



$begingroup$


Let's take a look at the trajectory of variety probe missions.



Variety Probe Mission TrajectoryNew Horizons and Ultima Thule will be 4.1 billion miles away when it visits the Kuiper Belt object. This chart shows the path of New Horizons compared to other probes that have left the solar system. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [1]



I wonder, why all these probes tend to explore outer system were launched to go outwards of the ecliptic plane instead of go upwards or downwards? What I'm talking about here is go upwards or downwards that is considerably closer to 90 degrees. I was told the ecliptic plane of any solar system tends to stay relatively uniform, with only Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) showing bizarre inclinations. The closest thing we'd find "below" the Earth would be an Oort Cloud object or outer star system, is it accurate to say so? What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?





Point of interest



1 Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor, January 2 2019, NASA's New Horizons Just Made the Most Distant Flyby in Space History. So, What's Next?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let's take a look at the trajectory of variety probe missions.



Variety Probe Mission TrajectoryNew Horizons and Ultima Thule will be 4.1 billion miles away when it visits the Kuiper Belt object. This chart shows the path of New Horizons compared to other probes that have left the solar system. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [1]



I wonder, why all these probes tend to explore outer system were launched to go outwards of the ecliptic plane instead of go upwards or downwards? What I'm talking about here is go upwards or downwards that is considerably closer to 90 degrees. I was told the ecliptic plane of any solar system tends to stay relatively uniform, with only Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) showing bizarre inclinations. The closest thing we'd find "below" the Earth would be an Oort Cloud object or outer star system, is it accurate to say so? What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?





Point of interest



1 Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor, January 2 2019, NASA's New Horizons Just Made the Most Distant Flyby in Space History. So, What's Next?







probe planetary-science solar-system






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 4 at 15:18









Angew

1034




1034










asked Jan 3 at 14:06









Boosted NubBoosted Nub

856426




856426








  • 39




    $begingroup$
    The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Jan 3 at 14:21






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
    $endgroup$
    – Makyen
    Jan 3 at 19:01






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
    $endgroup$
    – Makyen
    Jan 3 at 22:53






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    Jan 4 at 0:21






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Probes don't explore. They're sent to do closeups.
    $endgroup$
    – Agent_L
    Jan 4 at 10:54














  • 39




    $begingroup$
    The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Jan 3 at 14:21






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
    $endgroup$
    – Makyen
    Jan 3 at 19:01






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
    $endgroup$
    – Makyen
    Jan 3 at 22:53






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    Jan 4 at 0:21






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Probes don't explore. They're sent to do closeups.
    $endgroup$
    – Agent_L
    Jan 4 at 10:54








39




39




$begingroup$
The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 3 at 14:21




$begingroup$
The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 3 at 14:21




8




8




$begingroup$
Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
$endgroup$
– Makyen
Jan 3 at 19:01




$begingroup$
Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
$endgroup$
– Makyen
Jan 3 at 19:01




10




10




$begingroup$
@Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
$endgroup$
– Makyen
Jan 3 at 22:53




$begingroup$
@Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
$endgroup$
– Makyen
Jan 3 at 22:53




5




5




$begingroup$
You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Jan 4 at 0:21




$begingroup$
You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Jan 4 at 0:21




9




9




$begingroup$
Probes don't explore. They're sent to do closeups.
$endgroup$
– Agent_L
Jan 4 at 10:54




$begingroup$
Probes don't explore. They're sent to do closeups.
$endgroup$
– Agent_L
Jan 4 at 10:54










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















49












$begingroup$

Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.



One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    36












    $begingroup$

    We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.



    For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:



    enter image description here



    You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.



    The others:




    • Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn

    • for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all

    • New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)



    What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?




    There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
    The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.



    A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
      $endgroup$
      – Ellesedil
      Jan 3 at 17:47






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
      $endgroup$
      – Hobbes
      Jan 3 at 20:18






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      One very interesting target outside the ecliptic is ʻOumuamua.
      $endgroup$
      – gerrit
      Jan 4 at 17:39






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      at 26 km/s, Oumuamua is going to be difficult to catch up with current technology.
      $endgroup$
      – Hobbes
      Jan 4 at 17:41






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Indeed challenging! A paper on chasing 'Oumuamua. Notice the the extreme manoeuvering on page 9. Out to Jupiter, swing around to basically fall into the Sun, make extra close flyby and light a heavy booster at perihelion. Then it's outwards and "upwards" to get the cigar and possibly collapsed alien light sail. (Although it it really is a light sail, it would be the dropped deceleration sail and the real fun will start in 100+ y or so when the actual payload arrives. Where is Larry Niven?)
      $endgroup$
      – David Tonhofer
      Jan 5 at 12:04





















    28












    $begingroup$

    It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.



    All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.



    It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.



    Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them. (You can use one to steer your craft up out of the plane, as @Organic Marble pointed out was done by Ulysses, but that sacrifices the speed boost you could have gotten from that planet.)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      Jan 3 at 20:31






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob Jacobsen
      Jan 3 at 22:58






    • 6




      $begingroup$
      +1: Probes aren't sent to look for, they're sent to look at.
      $endgroup$
      – chrylis
      Jan 4 at 18:07



















    5












    $begingroup$

    Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist



    But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      2












      $begingroup$

      A separate point - there's a degree of circular reasoning.



      Humanity can't see much of anything interesting outside the plane yet near enough to visit, so we don't go there when there are far bigger and more exciting things in/near the ecliptic plane.



      So the upshot is we haven't had a closer look. Probes cost money and without a defined set of mission goals that show a useful purpose, then the money goes to the more interesting proposals.



      Who knows what science might learn by shooting a generic probe straight up or down?



      Answer funding money comes easier when there's an interesting purpose.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Up/down could be a valid use for a solar-sail equipped probe that doesn't have to be anywhere on-time.
        $endgroup$
        – Criggie
        Jan 4 at 21:37






      • 6




        $begingroup$
        We've gotten really good at detecting objects in the solar system. We can see objects 30 km across at 40 AU. If there were any objects out of the ecliptic plane (other than a few outlier KBOs) we'd have found them already.
        $endgroup$
        – Hobbes
        Jan 5 at 9:02






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        When Planet Nine (or is that "Planet? Nein!") becomes a known quantity, there will be something to go "up and far".
        $endgroup$
        – David Tonhofer
        Jan 5 at 12:48





















      1












      $begingroup$

      Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.



      Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.



      Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        We do have satellites in retrograde orbits and in polar orbits, so clearly some launches are not entirely prograde equatorial. It depends on what the mission objectives are. If the mission objectives are such that there is benefit from a non-prograde-equatorial launch, or from transitioning out of the ecliptic, that'll be another factor that enters into "should we do this, or can possibly multiple alternative missions give us more science for the same amount of money?" discussions.
        $endgroup$
        – a CVn
        Jan 6 at 17:44










      • $begingroup$
        @aCVn Right, thank you. I was aware of the retrograde and polar orbiting satellites, I guess I was just talking about most missions the majority are in equatorial orbits. There are plenty of reasons to launch into different orbits even if they are just changing the orbital plane by a few degrees. Take GPS Navstar satellites for example, they all have different orbital planes. Thanks for pointing that out.
        $endgroup$
        – PolyversialMind
        Jan 6 at 18:06











      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "508"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33289%2fwhy-are-probes-that-tend-to-explore-outer-system-always-launched-to-go-outwards%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      49












      $begingroup$

      Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.



      One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        49












        $begingroup$

        Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.



        One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          49












          49








          49





          $begingroup$

          Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.



          One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.



          One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 4 at 12:32

























          answered Jan 3 at 16:09









          Steve LintonSteve Linton

          6,95411741




          6,95411741























              36












              $begingroup$

              We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.



              For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:



              enter image description here



              You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.



              The others:




              • Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn

              • for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all

              • New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)



              What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?




              There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
              The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.



              A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
                $endgroup$
                – Ellesedil
                Jan 3 at 17:47






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
                $endgroup$
                – Hobbes
                Jan 3 at 20:18






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                One very interesting target outside the ecliptic is ʻOumuamua.
                $endgroup$
                – gerrit
                Jan 4 at 17:39






              • 7




                $begingroup$
                at 26 km/s, Oumuamua is going to be difficult to catch up with current technology.
                $endgroup$
                – Hobbes
                Jan 4 at 17:41






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Indeed challenging! A paper on chasing 'Oumuamua. Notice the the extreme manoeuvering on page 9. Out to Jupiter, swing around to basically fall into the Sun, make extra close flyby and light a heavy booster at perihelion. Then it's outwards and "upwards" to get the cigar and possibly collapsed alien light sail. (Although it it really is a light sail, it would be the dropped deceleration sail and the real fun will start in 100+ y or so when the actual payload arrives. Where is Larry Niven?)
                $endgroup$
                – David Tonhofer
                Jan 5 at 12:04


















              36












              $begingroup$

              We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.



              For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:



              enter image description here



              You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.



              The others:




              • Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn

              • for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all

              • New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)



              What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?




              There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
              The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.



              A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
                $endgroup$
                – Ellesedil
                Jan 3 at 17:47






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
                $endgroup$
                – Hobbes
                Jan 3 at 20:18






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                One very interesting target outside the ecliptic is ʻOumuamua.
                $endgroup$
                – gerrit
                Jan 4 at 17:39






              • 7




                $begingroup$
                at 26 km/s, Oumuamua is going to be difficult to catch up with current technology.
                $endgroup$
                – Hobbes
                Jan 4 at 17:41






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Indeed challenging! A paper on chasing 'Oumuamua. Notice the the extreme manoeuvering on page 9. Out to Jupiter, swing around to basically fall into the Sun, make extra close flyby and light a heavy booster at perihelion. Then it's outwards and "upwards" to get the cigar and possibly collapsed alien light sail. (Although it it really is a light sail, it would be the dropped deceleration sail and the real fun will start in 100+ y or so when the actual payload arrives. Where is Larry Niven?)
                $endgroup$
                – David Tonhofer
                Jan 5 at 12:04
















              36












              36








              36





              $begingroup$

              We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.



              For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:



              enter image description here



              You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.



              The others:




              • Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn

              • for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all

              • New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)



              What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?




              There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
              The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.



              A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.



              For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:



              enter image description here



              You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.



              The others:




              • Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn

              • for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all

              • New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)



              What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?




              There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
              The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.



              A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jan 4 at 10:34

























              answered Jan 3 at 15:56









              HobbesHobbes

              88.2k2250398




              88.2k2250398












              • $begingroup$
                Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
                $endgroup$
                – Ellesedil
                Jan 3 at 17:47






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
                $endgroup$
                – Hobbes
                Jan 3 at 20:18






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                One very interesting target outside the ecliptic is ʻOumuamua.
                $endgroup$
                – gerrit
                Jan 4 at 17:39






              • 7




                $begingroup$
                at 26 km/s, Oumuamua is going to be difficult to catch up with current technology.
                $endgroup$
                – Hobbes
                Jan 4 at 17:41






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Indeed challenging! A paper on chasing 'Oumuamua. Notice the the extreme manoeuvering on page 9. Out to Jupiter, swing around to basically fall into the Sun, make extra close flyby and light a heavy booster at perihelion. Then it's outwards and "upwards" to get the cigar and possibly collapsed alien light sail. (Although it it really is a light sail, it would be the dropped deceleration sail and the real fun will start in 100+ y or so when the actual payload arrives. Where is Larry Niven?)
                $endgroup$
                – David Tonhofer
                Jan 5 at 12:04




















              • $begingroup$
                Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
                $endgroup$
                – Ellesedil
                Jan 3 at 17:47






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
                $endgroup$
                – Hobbes
                Jan 3 at 20:18






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                One very interesting target outside the ecliptic is ʻOumuamua.
                $endgroup$
                – gerrit
                Jan 4 at 17:39






              • 7




                $begingroup$
                at 26 km/s, Oumuamua is going to be difficult to catch up with current technology.
                $endgroup$
                – Hobbes
                Jan 4 at 17:41






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                Indeed challenging! A paper on chasing 'Oumuamua. Notice the the extreme manoeuvering on page 9. Out to Jupiter, swing around to basically fall into the Sun, make extra close flyby and light a heavy booster at perihelion. Then it's outwards and "upwards" to get the cigar and possibly collapsed alien light sail. (Although it it really is a light sail, it would be the dropped deceleration sail and the real fun will start in 100+ y or so when the actual payload arrives. Where is Larry Niven?)
                $endgroup$
                – David Tonhofer
                Jan 5 at 12:04


















              $begingroup$
              Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
              $endgroup$
              – Ellesedil
              Jan 3 at 17:47




              $begingroup$
              Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
              $endgroup$
              – Ellesedil
              Jan 3 at 17:47




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
              $endgroup$
              – Hobbes
              Jan 3 at 20:18




              $begingroup$
              A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
              $endgroup$
              – Hobbes
              Jan 3 at 20:18




              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              One very interesting target outside the ecliptic is ʻOumuamua.
              $endgroup$
              – gerrit
              Jan 4 at 17:39




              $begingroup$
              One very interesting target outside the ecliptic is ʻOumuamua.
              $endgroup$
              – gerrit
              Jan 4 at 17:39




              7




              7




              $begingroup$
              at 26 km/s, Oumuamua is going to be difficult to catch up with current technology.
              $endgroup$
              – Hobbes
              Jan 4 at 17:41




              $begingroup$
              at 26 km/s, Oumuamua is going to be difficult to catch up with current technology.
              $endgroup$
              – Hobbes
              Jan 4 at 17:41




              3




              3




              $begingroup$
              Indeed challenging! A paper on chasing 'Oumuamua. Notice the the extreme manoeuvering on page 9. Out to Jupiter, swing around to basically fall into the Sun, make extra close flyby and light a heavy booster at perihelion. Then it's outwards and "upwards" to get the cigar and possibly collapsed alien light sail. (Although it it really is a light sail, it would be the dropped deceleration sail and the real fun will start in 100+ y or so when the actual payload arrives. Where is Larry Niven?)
              $endgroup$
              – David Tonhofer
              Jan 5 at 12:04






              $begingroup$
              Indeed challenging! A paper on chasing 'Oumuamua. Notice the the extreme manoeuvering on page 9. Out to Jupiter, swing around to basically fall into the Sun, make extra close flyby and light a heavy booster at perihelion. Then it's outwards and "upwards" to get the cigar and possibly collapsed alien light sail. (Although it it really is a light sail, it would be the dropped deceleration sail and the real fun will start in 100+ y or so when the actual payload arrives. Where is Larry Niven?)
              $endgroup$
              – David Tonhofer
              Jan 5 at 12:04













              28












              $begingroup$

              It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.



              All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.



              It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.



              Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them. (You can use one to steer your craft up out of the plane, as @Organic Marble pointed out was done by Ulysses, but that sacrifices the speed boost you could have gotten from that planet.)






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 4




                $begingroup$
                Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
                $endgroup$
                – Organic Marble
                Jan 3 at 20:31






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
                $endgroup$
                – Bob Jacobsen
                Jan 3 at 22:58






              • 6




                $begingroup$
                +1: Probes aren't sent to look for, they're sent to look at.
                $endgroup$
                – chrylis
                Jan 4 at 18:07
















              28












              $begingroup$

              It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.



              All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.



              It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.



              Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them. (You can use one to steer your craft up out of the plane, as @Organic Marble pointed out was done by Ulysses, but that sacrifices the speed boost you could have gotten from that planet.)






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 4




                $begingroup$
                Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
                $endgroup$
                – Organic Marble
                Jan 3 at 20:31






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
                $endgroup$
                – Bob Jacobsen
                Jan 3 at 22:58






              • 6




                $begingroup$
                +1: Probes aren't sent to look for, they're sent to look at.
                $endgroup$
                – chrylis
                Jan 4 at 18:07














              28












              28








              28





              $begingroup$

              It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.



              All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.



              It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.



              Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them. (You can use one to steer your craft up out of the plane, as @Organic Marble pointed out was done by Ulysses, but that sacrifices the speed boost you could have gotten from that planet.)






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.



              All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.



              It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.



              Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them. (You can use one to steer your craft up out of the plane, as @Organic Marble pointed out was done by Ulysses, but that sacrifices the speed boost you could have gotten from that planet.)







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jan 4 at 15:12

























              answered Jan 3 at 18:43









              Mark FoskeyMark Foskey

              2,020917




              2,020917








              • 4




                $begingroup$
                Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
                $endgroup$
                – Organic Marble
                Jan 3 at 20:31






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
                $endgroup$
                – Bob Jacobsen
                Jan 3 at 22:58






              • 6




                $begingroup$
                +1: Probes aren't sent to look for, they're sent to look at.
                $endgroup$
                – chrylis
                Jan 4 at 18:07














              • 4




                $begingroup$
                Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
                $endgroup$
                – Organic Marble
                Jan 3 at 20:31






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
                $endgroup$
                – Bob Jacobsen
                Jan 3 at 22:58






              • 6




                $begingroup$
                +1: Probes aren't sent to look for, they're sent to look at.
                $endgroup$
                – chrylis
                Jan 4 at 18:07








              4




              4




              $begingroup$
              Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              Jan 3 at 20:31




              $begingroup$
              Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              Jan 3 at 20:31




              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              Jan 3 at 22:58




              $begingroup$
              I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              Jan 3 at 22:58




              6




              6




              $begingroup$
              +1: Probes aren't sent to look for, they're sent to look at.
              $endgroup$
              – chrylis
              Jan 4 at 18:07




              $begingroup$
              +1: Probes aren't sent to look for, they're sent to look at.
              $endgroup$
              – chrylis
              Jan 4 at 18:07











              5












              $begingroup$

              Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist



              But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                5












                $begingroup$

                Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist



                But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  5












                  5








                  5





                  $begingroup$

                  Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist



                  But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist



                  But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 4 at 7:23









                  Andreas HartmannAndreas Hartmann

                  1533




                  1533























                      2












                      $begingroup$

                      A separate point - there's a degree of circular reasoning.



                      Humanity can't see much of anything interesting outside the plane yet near enough to visit, so we don't go there when there are far bigger and more exciting things in/near the ecliptic plane.



                      So the upshot is we haven't had a closer look. Probes cost money and without a defined set of mission goals that show a useful purpose, then the money goes to the more interesting proposals.



                      Who knows what science might learn by shooting a generic probe straight up or down?



                      Answer funding money comes easier when there's an interesting purpose.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        Up/down could be a valid use for a solar-sail equipped probe that doesn't have to be anywhere on-time.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Criggie
                        Jan 4 at 21:37






                      • 6




                        $begingroup$
                        We've gotten really good at detecting objects in the solar system. We can see objects 30 km across at 40 AU. If there were any objects out of the ecliptic plane (other than a few outlier KBOs) we'd have found them already.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Hobbes
                        Jan 5 at 9:02






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        When Planet Nine (or is that "Planet? Nein!") becomes a known quantity, there will be something to go "up and far".
                        $endgroup$
                        – David Tonhofer
                        Jan 5 at 12:48


















                      2












                      $begingroup$

                      A separate point - there's a degree of circular reasoning.



                      Humanity can't see much of anything interesting outside the plane yet near enough to visit, so we don't go there when there are far bigger and more exciting things in/near the ecliptic plane.



                      So the upshot is we haven't had a closer look. Probes cost money and without a defined set of mission goals that show a useful purpose, then the money goes to the more interesting proposals.



                      Who knows what science might learn by shooting a generic probe straight up or down?



                      Answer funding money comes easier when there's an interesting purpose.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        Up/down could be a valid use for a solar-sail equipped probe that doesn't have to be anywhere on-time.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Criggie
                        Jan 4 at 21:37






                      • 6




                        $begingroup$
                        We've gotten really good at detecting objects in the solar system. We can see objects 30 km across at 40 AU. If there were any objects out of the ecliptic plane (other than a few outlier KBOs) we'd have found them already.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Hobbes
                        Jan 5 at 9:02






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        When Planet Nine (or is that "Planet? Nein!") becomes a known quantity, there will be something to go "up and far".
                        $endgroup$
                        – David Tonhofer
                        Jan 5 at 12:48
















                      2












                      2








                      2





                      $begingroup$

                      A separate point - there's a degree of circular reasoning.



                      Humanity can't see much of anything interesting outside the plane yet near enough to visit, so we don't go there when there are far bigger and more exciting things in/near the ecliptic plane.



                      So the upshot is we haven't had a closer look. Probes cost money and without a defined set of mission goals that show a useful purpose, then the money goes to the more interesting proposals.



                      Who knows what science might learn by shooting a generic probe straight up or down?



                      Answer funding money comes easier when there's an interesting purpose.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      A separate point - there's a degree of circular reasoning.



                      Humanity can't see much of anything interesting outside the plane yet near enough to visit, so we don't go there when there are far bigger and more exciting things in/near the ecliptic plane.



                      So the upshot is we haven't had a closer look. Probes cost money and without a defined set of mission goals that show a useful purpose, then the money goes to the more interesting proposals.



                      Who knows what science might learn by shooting a generic probe straight up or down?



                      Answer funding money comes easier when there's an interesting purpose.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Jan 4 at 21:37









                      CriggieCriggie

                      1215




                      1215












                      • $begingroup$
                        Up/down could be a valid use for a solar-sail equipped probe that doesn't have to be anywhere on-time.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Criggie
                        Jan 4 at 21:37






                      • 6




                        $begingroup$
                        We've gotten really good at detecting objects in the solar system. We can see objects 30 km across at 40 AU. If there were any objects out of the ecliptic plane (other than a few outlier KBOs) we'd have found them already.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Hobbes
                        Jan 5 at 9:02






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        When Planet Nine (or is that "Planet? Nein!") becomes a known quantity, there will be something to go "up and far".
                        $endgroup$
                        – David Tonhofer
                        Jan 5 at 12:48




















                      • $begingroup$
                        Up/down could be a valid use for a solar-sail equipped probe that doesn't have to be anywhere on-time.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Criggie
                        Jan 4 at 21:37






                      • 6




                        $begingroup$
                        We've gotten really good at detecting objects in the solar system. We can see objects 30 km across at 40 AU. If there were any objects out of the ecliptic plane (other than a few outlier KBOs) we'd have found them already.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Hobbes
                        Jan 5 at 9:02






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        When Planet Nine (or is that "Planet? Nein!") becomes a known quantity, there will be something to go "up and far".
                        $endgroup$
                        – David Tonhofer
                        Jan 5 at 12:48


















                      $begingroup$
                      Up/down could be a valid use for a solar-sail equipped probe that doesn't have to be anywhere on-time.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Criggie
                      Jan 4 at 21:37




                      $begingroup$
                      Up/down could be a valid use for a solar-sail equipped probe that doesn't have to be anywhere on-time.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Criggie
                      Jan 4 at 21:37




                      6




                      6




                      $begingroup$
                      We've gotten really good at detecting objects in the solar system. We can see objects 30 km across at 40 AU. If there were any objects out of the ecliptic plane (other than a few outlier KBOs) we'd have found them already.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Hobbes
                      Jan 5 at 9:02




                      $begingroup$
                      We've gotten really good at detecting objects in the solar system. We can see objects 30 km across at 40 AU. If there were any objects out of the ecliptic plane (other than a few outlier KBOs) we'd have found them already.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Hobbes
                      Jan 5 at 9:02




                      2




                      2




                      $begingroup$
                      When Planet Nine (or is that "Planet? Nein!") becomes a known quantity, there will be something to go "up and far".
                      $endgroup$
                      – David Tonhofer
                      Jan 5 at 12:48






                      $begingroup$
                      When Planet Nine (or is that "Planet? Nein!") becomes a known quantity, there will be something to go "up and far".
                      $endgroup$
                      – David Tonhofer
                      Jan 5 at 12:48













                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.



                      Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.



                      Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        We do have satellites in retrograde orbits and in polar orbits, so clearly some launches are not entirely prograde equatorial. It depends on what the mission objectives are. If the mission objectives are such that there is benefit from a non-prograde-equatorial launch, or from transitioning out of the ecliptic, that'll be another factor that enters into "should we do this, or can possibly multiple alternative missions give us more science for the same amount of money?" discussions.
                        $endgroup$
                        – a CVn
                        Jan 6 at 17:44










                      • $begingroup$
                        @aCVn Right, thank you. I was aware of the retrograde and polar orbiting satellites, I guess I was just talking about most missions the majority are in equatorial orbits. There are plenty of reasons to launch into different orbits even if they are just changing the orbital plane by a few degrees. Take GPS Navstar satellites for example, they all have different orbital planes. Thanks for pointing that out.
                        $endgroup$
                        – PolyversialMind
                        Jan 6 at 18:06
















                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.



                      Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.



                      Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        We do have satellites in retrograde orbits and in polar orbits, so clearly some launches are not entirely prograde equatorial. It depends on what the mission objectives are. If the mission objectives are such that there is benefit from a non-prograde-equatorial launch, or from transitioning out of the ecliptic, that'll be another factor that enters into "should we do this, or can possibly multiple alternative missions give us more science for the same amount of money?" discussions.
                        $endgroup$
                        – a CVn
                        Jan 6 at 17:44










                      • $begingroup$
                        @aCVn Right, thank you. I was aware of the retrograde and polar orbiting satellites, I guess I was just talking about most missions the majority are in equatorial orbits. There are plenty of reasons to launch into different orbits even if they are just changing the orbital plane by a few degrees. Take GPS Navstar satellites for example, they all have different orbital planes. Thanks for pointing that out.
                        $endgroup$
                        – PolyversialMind
                        Jan 6 at 18:06














                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.



                      Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.



                      Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.



                      Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.



                      Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Jan 4 at 1:01









                      PolyversialMindPolyversialMind

                      479




                      479












                      • $begingroup$
                        We do have satellites in retrograde orbits and in polar orbits, so clearly some launches are not entirely prograde equatorial. It depends on what the mission objectives are. If the mission objectives are such that there is benefit from a non-prograde-equatorial launch, or from transitioning out of the ecliptic, that'll be another factor that enters into "should we do this, or can possibly multiple alternative missions give us more science for the same amount of money?" discussions.
                        $endgroup$
                        – a CVn
                        Jan 6 at 17:44










                      • $begingroup$
                        @aCVn Right, thank you. I was aware of the retrograde and polar orbiting satellites, I guess I was just talking about most missions the majority are in equatorial orbits. There are plenty of reasons to launch into different orbits even if they are just changing the orbital plane by a few degrees. Take GPS Navstar satellites for example, they all have different orbital planes. Thanks for pointing that out.
                        $endgroup$
                        – PolyversialMind
                        Jan 6 at 18:06


















                      • $begingroup$
                        We do have satellites in retrograde orbits and in polar orbits, so clearly some launches are not entirely prograde equatorial. It depends on what the mission objectives are. If the mission objectives are such that there is benefit from a non-prograde-equatorial launch, or from transitioning out of the ecliptic, that'll be another factor that enters into "should we do this, or can possibly multiple alternative missions give us more science for the same amount of money?" discussions.
                        $endgroup$
                        – a CVn
                        Jan 6 at 17:44










                      • $begingroup$
                        @aCVn Right, thank you. I was aware of the retrograde and polar orbiting satellites, I guess I was just talking about most missions the majority are in equatorial orbits. There are plenty of reasons to launch into different orbits even if they are just changing the orbital plane by a few degrees. Take GPS Navstar satellites for example, they all have different orbital planes. Thanks for pointing that out.
                        $endgroup$
                        – PolyversialMind
                        Jan 6 at 18:06
















                      $begingroup$
                      We do have satellites in retrograde orbits and in polar orbits, so clearly some launches are not entirely prograde equatorial. It depends on what the mission objectives are. If the mission objectives are such that there is benefit from a non-prograde-equatorial launch, or from transitioning out of the ecliptic, that'll be another factor that enters into "should we do this, or can possibly multiple alternative missions give us more science for the same amount of money?" discussions.
                      $endgroup$
                      – a CVn
                      Jan 6 at 17:44




                      $begingroup$
                      We do have satellites in retrograde orbits and in polar orbits, so clearly some launches are not entirely prograde equatorial. It depends on what the mission objectives are. If the mission objectives are such that there is benefit from a non-prograde-equatorial launch, or from transitioning out of the ecliptic, that'll be another factor that enters into "should we do this, or can possibly multiple alternative missions give us more science for the same amount of money?" discussions.
                      $endgroup$
                      – a CVn
                      Jan 6 at 17:44












                      $begingroup$
                      @aCVn Right, thank you. I was aware of the retrograde and polar orbiting satellites, I guess I was just talking about most missions the majority are in equatorial orbits. There are plenty of reasons to launch into different orbits even if they are just changing the orbital plane by a few degrees. Take GPS Navstar satellites for example, they all have different orbital planes. Thanks for pointing that out.
                      $endgroup$
                      – PolyversialMind
                      Jan 6 at 18:06




                      $begingroup$
                      @aCVn Right, thank you. I was aware of the retrograde and polar orbiting satellites, I guess I was just talking about most missions the majority are in equatorial orbits. There are plenty of reasons to launch into different orbits even if they are just changing the orbital plane by a few degrees. Take GPS Navstar satellites for example, they all have different orbital planes. Thanks for pointing that out.
                      $endgroup$
                      – PolyversialMind
                      Jan 6 at 18:06


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33289%2fwhy-are-probes-that-tend-to-explore-outer-system-always-launched-to-go-outwards%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How do I know what Microsoft account the skydrive app is syncing to?

                      When does type information flow backwards in C++?

                      Grease: Live!