Four New Moons For Saturn 59
shyam writes: "An international team of eight "satellite hunters," astronomers who pluck tiny specks of light out of the distant solar system, has discovered four new outer moons of Saturn orbiting at least 15 million kilometers (more than 9 million miles) from the surface of the giant planet. The discovery gives Saturn a total of 22 known moons, surpassing the 21 orbiting Uranus. Nothing is known about the four new moons except for their brightness. Estimates of their size -- between 10 and 50 kilometers (6-30 miles) across -- are based on assumptions of their reflectivity. Observed from Earth-bound observatories, the moons appear as faint dots of light moving around the planet.
(
[Full] article)."
Re:The Real Anne Marie (Score:2)
So what? (Score:1)
Don't look (Score:1)
But, it was too late, Ethel was mooned.
0.1 AU et al. (Score:4)
On the other hand, this points to the continuing problem in astronomy that the more things we discover, the harder it becomes to clearly classify them. It's the dimpled chad of the solar system. We aren't quite sure if Pluto is a Kuyper object or a planet. It probably isn't going to be clear whether these objects are true "moons" or simply temporarily captured astroids. I'm sure we'll see more exact measurements and simulations that will attempt to determine if their orbits are stable.
Re:Time for some rhyming pentameter! (Score:2)
and let me write my name in chalk;
Let me see what Spring is like on
A 3 mile-wide rock.
In other words, hold my hand,
In other words, darling -- kiss me.
(you're not a musician, are you?)
--
Article date October (Score:1)
Re:FP (Score:1)
New moons (Score:4)
--
Re:Had to say it... (Score:3)
"Son, when i was younger, i had an open-source project that i needed to advertise in my sig, and so i did some things i'm not too proud of..."
"Oh God, Dad! You were a karma whore?!!"
--
Time for Sinatra! (Score:1)
and let me play among the craters,
Let me see what Spring is like on
A 5 kilometer rock.
In other words, hold my hand,
In other words, baby kiss me.
Thank you.
I was going to mod you down, bur... (Score:2)
I thought that would be a little unfair. It's not that there is anything specifically wrong with your post, it is just that 'Priceless' is no longer funny
Or I could be wrong on this...what do others think? Is 'Priceless' still funny?
Re:So how do they name these things anyway? (Score:1)
Re:Asteroid vs. Moon (Score:4)
Yep.
And no, they may not remain "moons" forever, in which case they would be reclassified. This usage has been pretty consistent since I started reading about such things, oh, in the mid-1970's.
It is by no means clear that any of the outer planet moons were formed in their current orbits. In fact, considering some of the recent work being done on the Rare Earth hypothesis, it seems likely that any small solid body near a gas giant probably came there from somewhere else.
It is also considered as near to certain as any of these things ever get that Mars' moons Phobos and Deimos are captured asteroids; yet they are definitely considered moons of Mars.
Old news item (Score:1)
2000-10-27 15:43:29 4 New Moons Puts Saturn Ahead (articles,space) (rejected)
including the link to the same Rutgers article AND the CNN article which alerted web viewers to this . Sheesh.
--
Re:0.1 AU et al. (Score:3)
Triton is of course the most impressive, being a captured Pluto-sized Kuiper object. And captured recently, too, since its orbit is unstable.
Re:Asteroid vs. Moon (Score:2)
Why couldn't moons form out of the protoplanetary discs, like the rings most likely did?
Stuff that matters? (Score:1)
Re:I turn naked girls into statue. (Score:1)
What does that have to do with anything?
lol
Re:Had to say it... (Score:1)
Re:Had to say it... (Score:3)
Saturn busts! House wins!
is it necessary (Score:1)
---
Re:Planetary comets? (Score:1)
Uranus is still more important (Score:1)
I strongly encourage everyone to head to http://www.sheepdot.org and sign the petition to study Uranus. There is a good chance that Uranus may have more satellites than Saturn, but we'll never know if researchers don't step up and consider it.
Finding moons on Saturn $1 million (Score:3)
Realizing that an underfunded NASA won't send anything out that way before 2010
Re:Had to say it... (Score:1)
---
That's no moon. (Score:5)
Re:Hmmm, (Score:1)
Back many moons ago (no pun intended), I was on a winter camping trip with my Scout troop. One of the guys had smuggled in his paintball gun. He didn't want to take it out and demonstrate what it could do during the day for fear of having it confiscated.
Late that night, he pulled it out of his duffle bag and asked for a volunteer to be shot. No one wanted to be first, so he decided to demonstrate that it didn't hurt by shooting one of the pellets into his hand. It would have made quite a mess except for the fact that the paintballs were frozen. He broke a couple of bones in his hand in the process, and gave us all a good laugh. :)
We've now found 5 new moons for Saturn this year! (Score:2)
Now, I want to see what they're made of (and if they have any atmosphere; it seems unlikely because of their sizes).
Mario.
Hmmm, (Score:3)
Of course I'm not sure what a paintball does on impact at -350 degrees farenheit.
tcd004 Janet RenoMargolis, the least downloaded woman on the planet [lostbrain.com]
Nooooo! (Score:1)
- B. Gates
It is cool and all (Score:1)
Asteroid vs. Moon (Score:3)
It would seem with a size of 10km that some of these "moons" could easily be debunked size-wise by some of the smaller asteroids.
What does an asteroid need to do to be officially declared a "moon"? Maintain an eliptical or circular orbit around a planet? (And how do we know whether these moons near Saturn will stay in place in 20 years? Or if some asteroids with really large orbits won't eventually be declared "moons" of some planet?)
So how do they name these things anyway? (Score:2)
OK... Shakespear is cool, but when then? I don't think we really want moons named Marge, Lisa, Maggie, and, um, Miss Krabappel do we?
Hmmm.. then again...
Re:I was going to mod you down, bur... (Score:1)
--
Re:Not like the other moons (Score:2)
While it's possible that they're older than Saturn's other satellites, I doubt they're that much older. Most of Saturn's other satellites probably did form from the accretion disk, while the outer satellites in irregular orbits (these four plus Phoebe) were captured (a rather gentler process than "yanked") later. However, they're far enough out that their orbits probably aren't stable over the lifetime of the Solar System: perturbations from the other outer planets (Jupiter, most importantly) can "de-orbit" them in much the same way they were originally captured. This has apparently been observed with a moon of Jupiter's [astronomica.org], BTW.
This may be somewhat less true for satellites captured into retrograde orbits, since those orbits tend to become smaller with time, as the moons exchange angular momentum with the primary body through tides; moons orbiting in the "normal" direction, of course, tend to slowly spiral outward -- and if these new moons are in normal ("prograde") orbits, it increases the chance that they'll be lost. Phoebe is indeed in a retrograde orbit, opposite the planetary rotation, and capture into a retrograde orbit is apparently much easier than capture into a prograde orbit. The new moons don't have orbital parameters determined yet, as far as I can tell; my money says they're retrograde (most of 'em, anyway). As far out as they are, tidal influences are pretty weak, anyway.
So they may be old, but Saturn itself (plus its regular moons) is pretty old: current thinking [apnet.com] is that the outer ("gas giant") planets may have condensed from the protosolar nebula in the first 10 million years or so, while the inner ("terrestrial") planets may have taken ten times that long. I suspect that these new satellites were captured much more recently, on the general timescale of the Solar System.
---
Re:New moons so far away? Whats there return time? (Score:2)
What I want to know is... (Score:1)
How did they fit 22 people in a Saturn? I don't recall a mini-van model or anything. I would think that a school-bus with 22 moons is more like it.
However, I surely agree -- if you see 22 moons looking at you from Saturn, there's nothing to do but show them Uranus.
2001 (Score:4)
HAL: That is not a moon, Dave.
Dave: What is it then, HAL?
HAL: It is a small meteor that has estabilshed an orbit around Saturn.
Dave: But how can astronomers see it from Earth, HAL?
HAL: The surface has been covered with AOL CDs, Dave.
Dave: Incredible! How did they get here, HAL?
HAL: Once AOL merged with Time Warner, the federal government sued AOLTW for monopolizing the space available in landfills and issued a federal order to clean the landfills. With AOL's knowledge of computer systems and TW's knowledge of satellite systems, they launched several satellites filled with AOL CDs. The payloads merged between the Earth and the Moon. Then used the "Slingshot Effect" to hurl itself into deep space.
Dave: Similar to how we arrived here.
HAL: Correct, Dave. But the CDs came too close to Saturn and were placed in an orbit around Saturn.
Dave: Ok HAL, thanks.
HAL: You're welcome, Dave
Old news? (Score:1)
Planetary comets? (Score:3)
Re:The Real Anne Marie (OT) (Score:1)
Too bad it's this post [slashdot.org] with s/bruce perens/anne marie/ig.
--
If I wanted to look at moons (Score:2)
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Hmmmm (Score:1)
Oooohhhh, neat. (Score:3)
It does give a whole new spin on the whole "When the Moon / hits your eye / Like a big pizza pie" when the moon in question isn't that much larger than some pizza pies, though.
-----------------
Re:So how do they name these things anyway? (Score:2)
Little moons first get systematic names, of the form date-planet-number (ie 1999 J 1). They only get real names later, if at all; usually the discoverer has the priviledge, and the IAU clears it.
and (Score:1)
In response to Uranus' recout... (Score:2)
"...are then compared, using computer software..." (Score:1)
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
Re:Planetary comets? (Score:2)
Why? If it orbits like a moon, and through a telescope it looks like a moon, then as far as I'm concerned it's a moon. A new designation is necessary only if that designation served some purpose. Nothing would be gained by a new name for moonlets except to inflict another definition on our suffering schoolchildren.
Re:Old news? Yes, it is (Score:1)
Seems, like wine, it must age properly.
--
Had to say it... (Score:4)
Uranus immediately called for a hand recount.
--
Re:2001 (Score:1)
wow (Score:3)
Wow, four new outer moons? They were formed, what, yesterday? Wouldn't "previously unknown" be a better designation than "new"?
--
Re:Planetary comets? (Score:2)
Unless earth's orbit has changed quite dramatically, an AU is still some 93 million miles (or is it 98? Can't remember). Which makes these more like 0.1AU away. Still close enough to be called a moon in my book (of course, I still consider Pluto to be a planet, so YMMV).
New moons so far away? Whats there return time? (Score:1)
Like, I dunno, smashing a planet and creating an asteroid belt, subsequently causing the extinction of the dinosaurs....
Zacharia Sitchen yo. [crystalinks.com]
Not like the other moons (Score:2)
---
um... (Score:1)
Re:Mmmm, chicken (Score:1)
Re:Had to say it... (Score:1)