Jupiter's Eleven New Moons 37
nautical9 writes "Yahoo is reporting that scientists have discovered 11 new moons orbiting around Jupiter, bringing the total to 39. They were discovered using the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope and one of the largest digital imaging cameras in the world. Unfortunately, very little is known about them at this point other than that they're relatively small (compared to the previously known ones), and they all have irregular orbits."
Shoemaker (Score:2, Interesting)
Very interesting. Would have been better with better pics, though.
Re:Shoemaker (Score:4, Informative)
What's more plausable is that these moons are remnants of impacts on other moons. Read the Space.com article on the moons [space.com].
Re:Shoemaker (Score:2)
That may be debateable...
In the book 2001, maybe it was 2010, been a while since I read them, Arthur C. Clarke described there being a large diamond at the center of jupiter, from what i've read in science publications this is not too far fetched considering the amount of carbon in the universe and Jupiters high heat and gravity.
Re:Shoemaker (Score:1)
Gotta love those crazy moons (Score:2, Funny)
Let me play among the stars
Let me see what spring is like
On Jupiter and Mars
In other words, hold my hand
In other words, baby kiss me
Fill my heart with song
and let me sing forevermore
You are all I long for
All I worship and adore
Re:Gotta love those crazy moons (Score:1)
To quote: (Score:3, Funny)
"The Solar System consists of the Sun, Jupiter, and various other debris"
Re:To quote: (Score:2)
What about the orbits? (Score:1)
Re:What about the orbits? (Score:2, Informative)
Some of these satellites may develop stable orbits, others are likely to eventually either escape Jupiter's gravity well or fall into the planet. Most of these satellites would cross the orbits of other satellites (the long, elliptical orbits compared to the more stable almost-circular orbits) and these other bodies will have a large effect on the fate of the captured satellite.
Re:What about the orbits? (Score:3, Interesting)
Orbiting in the direction opposite to the rotation of the planet and orbiting at an incline relative to the planet and orbiting elliptically. A typical orbit being (per our local prejudice) being somewhat circular as opposed to more elliptical.
I tend to agree with the conclusions of the researchers that the irregularity of the orbits of some suggests that the objects were trapped by Jupiter's gravity and that they have broken up over time. My initial thought was that Jupiter sucks up an inordinate amount of junk. Asteroids and comets fly by earth with some regularity. It would not surprise me if similar objects flying by Jupiter would get sucked into an orbit on occasion. There has certainly been enough time since the formation of the solar system to have this happen with some degree of regularity.
The similarities with the other gas giants having much larger numbers of moons and irregular moons(Saturn in particular) suggests that this may be a common attribute of gas giants, based on our extensive sample size of four.
I wonder how long it will be until these objects completely degrade into smaller bits of debris or perhaps ring material?
I also wonder how much crap Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune have sucked out of the solar system (asteroids, comets, etc.)? I also wonder how much we should be thankful that there are a number of gas giants in our solar system to clean up some of the Kuiper belt visitors and the closer meteorite bits/asteroids in the inner solar system? It is quite possible that we are here to
Guac-foo, full of speculation and wonder at the cosmos -- billyuns and billyuns of SWAGs this morning.
Re:What about the orbits? (Score:1)
More detailed reports (Score:2, Informative)
Also see the offical offical press release [hawaii.edu] from University of Hawaii.
trend? (Score:2)
Re:trend? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, we sort of have two. There's an asteroid called Cruithne [queensu.ca] that has a curious orbit around the Earth and Sun...
Re:trend? (Score:2)
The other route is to collide with a pre-existing object already in orbit. The collision will dissipate energy and let the new moon settle in. Earth, having just one Moon, isn't a good candidate for this technique. Also, our domain of graviational dominance (over the Sun's gravity) is much, much smaller than Jupiter's. So capture is hard for us.
Re:trend? (Score:2)
Re:trend? (Score:2)
Re:trend? (Score:2)
Wouldn't Pluto have that distinction?........that is if you can call Pluto a "planet".
Sounds like the solution then is to bust our moon into many peices. Better do it now before it is colonized, otherwise you might have to deal with angry lawyers and judges.
Re:trend? (Score:2)
Re:trend? (Score:1)
Not to mention all the KBOs. [sciam.com]
More links (Score:1)
Wonder if they're going to get named? Astronomers must be running out of references to Zeus' amorous adventures by now....
Re:More links (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Americanism (Score:2, Informative)
This was the number one hit on Google for 'canada france hawaii'. Do a bit of research on the telescopes you're posting about, before you just generalize!
Canadianism Re:Americanism (Score:2)
Re:Canadianism Re:Americanism (Score:2)
Don't look! (Score:2, Funny)
Naming the Moons (Score:2)
Zeus/Jupiter was bi (Score:1)
What about the werewolves? (Score:3, Funny)
I think we should establish a charitable organazation dedicated to the plight of the Jovian werewolf, deprived of the right to exist in their original form.