Jupiter's "Mini-Me" Solar System Grows 186
An anonymous reader writes "University of Hawaii's robotic telescopes have discovered 8 new moons for Jupiter, thus bringing its mini solar system to 48 total. No one knows how Jupiter dissipates the energy of these likely asteroid captures, unless it once had a massively larger atmosphere. Indeed, its ion cloud today seems to spell doom for what Sir Arthur C. Clarke indicated, is another reason to avoid probing life on Europa. ('All these worlds are yours--except Europa. Attempt no landings there.'-- 2010: Odyssey Two). As an aside, one of those NASA sites seem technically to be doing text-to-speech in a very familiar-sounding, Stephen Hawkings version [MP3] of those articles."
Spell doom for the system (Score:2)
Re:Spell doom for the system (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Spell doom for the system (Score:4, Informative)
Although a halfway step would be nice - a high resolution Europa orbiter would be very useful. Then we could see exactly what the whole surface looked like, map it with radar and so on. Perhaps we could map the heat flow through the surface from that projected Europan ocean, work out what trace materials form those dark streaks, perhaps it would even be able to remote sense organic compounds that have come to the surface.
Still we can at least rule out a manned mission - the Jovian magnetosphere would cook any Frank Pooles and Dave Bowmans long before they got to Europa.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Spell doom for the system (Score:2)
scripsit mikerich:
Nah, we just have to develop shields first.
Re:Spell doom for the system (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Spell doom for the system (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Spell doom for the system (Score:3, Interesting)
All this, while not contaminating any alien species' primordial goop, and wiping them all out just as we discover them.
Re:Spell doom for the system (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad text to speech.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bad text to speech.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bad text to speech.... (Score:2)
Re:Bad text to speech.... (Score:2)
Actually, I am referring to the quality of the voice in terms of its "natural" sound and the ability of the speech algorithm to parse language into continuous speech withoutrunningwordstogether, as another poster amusingly put it and to properly enunciate.
Re:Bad text to speech.... (Score:2)
Just the other night I was listening to BOFH episodes while lying in bed, and although the pronunciation isn't always accurate, I've gotten used to what kinds of mistakes it makes, and can almost always understand it. It's far less monotonous than this, in any case.
Re: state-of-the-art TTS for the time... (Score:3, Informative)
Beside the actually voice quality the system also had very context sensitive parsing and could read addresses, titles, newspaper headaline, etc. properly.
One of the major licensees was Lernout & Hauspie who sometime around 1997 bought the division from Centigram.
Everyone knows it as the voice of Stephen Hawking. We also gave a courtesy system to Governor Pete Wilson back in 94/95 when he lost his voice while campaigning.
Centigram is now long gone. It was bought by ADC Telecommunications at the height of the telco frenzy back in the summer of 2000 for $200M cash. ADC sold it to SS8 Networks a year later for ten cents on the dollar.
Easy come, easy go. Technology marches on, soon to make all current forms of government obsolete... or die trying.
Andrew
Twelve $600 2Ghz Celeron systems circa 2003 have the same (or greater) rendering power as the $5M+ 300 100Mhz SuperSparc (SparcStation 20s) cluster used by Pixar to render Toy STory in 1995. I'm having fun with Povray...
Re: state-of-the-art TTS for the time... (Score:2)
Time to move... (Score:5, Funny)
Damnit, that's it. Jupiter and it's "friends" are creating too much havoc in this neighborhood, driving prices down, playing their music too damned loud. The police won't help, the astronomers seem to like it. Bah.
I'm moving.
Re:Time to move... (Score:2)
Re:Time to move... (Score:5, Funny)
"Not so breaking news. Today, 14 more moons were discovered orbiting Jupiter. That makes the current count 4612. The astronomical community has asked people to start sending applications and $75 cash to name one of Jupiter's moons."
Re:Time to move... (Score:2)
Europa's not the only possibility (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Europa's not the only possibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, I still can't see how the Europa torus could hamper life there. On the surface, yes, but that was pretty much already known. Life would be underwater, in an ocean tens of kilometers deep, the radiations won't penetrate that far. So don't rule out Europa.
Re:Europa's not the only possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Just wanted to bring up a point that's not considered very often: Life here on Earth exists in some VERY harsh environments. I don't think there's a natural area of Earth that's completely devoid of life. If you go underwater deep enough, you'll find life forms that exist without any light reaching them near some very hot thermal vents in the ocean floor.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if an ocean bearing planet or moon didn't have life.
Re:Europa's not the only possibility (Score:1)
What about away from the thermal vents?
Re:Europa's not the only possibility (Score:2)
Additionally there are lichen that grow in freezing conditions and bacteria that live in the salt underneath iceflows.
But can it START there (Score:2)
True - but can life originate in such an environment? I believe life at least started in a more hospitable temperature/environment, then spread out to these tougher areas. It's kind of like how your engine runs in 4th gear, but you can't start it there, or it'll stall. Life can tolerate tough conditions once it gets a head start, but that might be asking a bit to start there.
Of course, given what little we know of the early days of life...?
Re:But can it START there (Score:2)
Consider this, though: an oxygen atmosphere is very corrosive. This planet was quite UGLY when it first formed. Volcanic activity, etc. Plus, the planet was probably exposed to more radiation as well.
Granted, this is not an area of study of mine, so take what I suggest with a grain of salt. (in other words, I'm not claiming those details are true facts...) If I'm even close to right, though, life formed despite the lack of comfort on this planet. It stands to reason that it might just form in other places too.
At least that's my optimistic hope.
Exactly ! (Score:5, Interesting)
How is a radiation field going to penetrate kilometres of ice ... or even a few metres ? It can't. Timothy didn't even bother to read the original article which made NO mention of that conclusion .. he thought that up by himself.
Europa still looks good. In fact it looks like the best place to me.
Re:Europa's not the only possibility (Score:1)
Re:Europa's not the only possibility (Score:4, Interesting)
It's amazing how much radiation certain bacteria [allbio.org] can survive, though..
By the way, NASA is thinking about a new mission to the Galilean moons, called JIMO [nuclearspace.com]. Very exciting stuff - it's amazing how much more you can do with a nuclear propulsion stage.
Re:Europa's not the only possibility (Score:1)
References, please?
Size? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Size? (Score:5, Informative)
At the moment it is just the resolution of our imaging techniques that limits what we call a satellite. There are bound to be hundreds, if not thousands of smaller bodies around Jupiter that we haven't spotted yet.
Let's just hope that they fit future spacecraft with radar, or send a man up the main mast.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Size? (Score:2)
It certainly seems like that is the case today, with many satellites being nothing more than large rocks, don't you think that definition is limited?
I mean, would a hydrogen atom orbiting jupitor be considered an satellite? I don't think you meant to say that would be the case. There isn't a lower limit, but there should be.
I can only see 3 moons though... (Score:1, Interesting)
Jupiter through a 3" telescope [uregina.ca].
Re:I can only see 3 moons though... (Score:2)
What kind of optics? What kind of mount were you using? And what kind of capture device? How bad is the translation on Jupiter, anyway?
Kind of makes me really want to go buy that 8" Newtonian reflector on a Dobsonian mounting again... *sigh*
Re:I can only see 3 moons though... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I can only see 3 moons though... (Score:1, Funny)
Now, I find looking through my scope pretty discouraging....well, at least I can see good shots of our moon....
Re:I can only see 3 moons though... (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how my post could be construed as "flaimbait"? Slightly offtopic, I conceed, but people interested in Jupiter news might like to see how it looked just last Thursday. You never know when it will just pack up and leave with all it's moons in tow.
Re:I can only see 3 moons though... (Score:2)
What is a moon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What is a moon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything drifting between the stars is likely to have originated in a solar system somewhere. To have escaped from a star's gravity it would have needed an enormous velocity.
It would need to shed almost all of this velocity before it could then enter an orbit around Jupiter or the Sun. It would have to do this by coming extraordinarily close to Jupiter or the Sun - I have no idea if it could survive such an encounter without being ripped to pieces by tidal forces - anyone?
Needless to say we haven't seen anything entering the Solar System on such a trajectory, although it seems likely that huge numbers of small bodies were flung out of the Solar System in the period directly after planets were formed. So they might well be out there.
Is there an astrophysicist in the house?
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:What is a moon? (Score:2)
Perhaps some of them were? If the parts of a moon got ripped apart, but stayed close enough apart the collective force of gravity from all the parts would pull them back together again. I'm reasonably certain it's possible.
I think it'd be neat to see a computer simulation of this particular scenario, if it's possible.
Orbit the considering factor? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What is a moon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Close enough that it orbits the planet and not the system star. The sun is so much bigger than all the other planets (combined, even) that there is a definite line between those two.
"(the Pluto debate, etc)"
IMO, Pluto qualifies as a planet because it's held together by its own gravitational forces. Planetoids are held together solely by chemical forces (ie. just one big rock). Heck, Pluto even has its own atmosphere.
"but what exactly is a moon?"
Pluto and Charon confuse things a little bit in this reguard because it can almost be called a binary planet.
"Would it be possible for an object to travel into the Solar System, and then whip around Jupiter, and then reenter the Solar System, etc (without actually getting that close to the sun)."
No, because the sun is massive compared to Jupiter, like 1000 times more massive. An object would have to get extremely close to Jupiter (astronomically speaking) for it to notice Jupiter's pull more than the sun's. Note that all the other outer planets still orbit the sun, even though Jupiter is often much closer to each of them. Jupiter affects the orbit of these planets slightly, but those orbits are still around the sun.
Re:What is a moon? (Score:2)
scripsit Guppy06:
(I've been away from anything resembling planetary science for a while, so please be gentle with me if I'm talking nonsense...)
I was under the impression that there are now thought to be many Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) quite like Pluto and similar to it in size... I suspect (though I don't know where the cutoff is) that at least some of these objects are also held together gravitationally -- which would then make them all planets, as I understand your definition. Would you agree? Or might there be a better way to distinguish planets from KBOs and other ``objects''?
Re:What is a moon? (Score:2)
In the reference frame of the parent celestial body in question, if it is possible to describe a circle or ellipse which contains as its (or one of its, for an ellipse) foci a location inside the celestial body which describes the orbit of a natural satellite with good precision, that satellite is a moon.
If, instead, one of the foci is the approximate center of mass of the body-satellite system, and outside the body and the satellite, the system is a binary planet.
This makes the Moon a moon (the center-of-mass is way within the Earth), and makes Pluto/Charon a binary planet.
Also, by that definition of planet, Ceres is a planet. I don't have a problem with this - but other people probably would. I think a couple other asteroids are planets by this definition as well.
Re:What is a moon? (Score:2)
If you take this idea one more iteration, you'll may end up with brown dwarfs being considered "planets" in what would otherwise be considered a "binary star system."
Of course, defining "brown dwarf" is tricky as it is...
No it's not. Brown dwarves are objects which fractionally complete the PP chain at their core, but cannot fully complete the PP chain. Thus they generate some fusion, but because they require exotic constituents (deuterium, tritium, lithium, He-3) rather than plain old hydrogen, they don't explode into a star.
I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to distinguish between "binary star - brown dwarf systems" and "a massive parent star with a brown dwarf planet." If you think about it, the two must be formed by very different processes (one has a high total mass, the other has a low total mass), so you'd want them separated anyway.
Re:What is a moon? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are some who would call objects in the same helicentric orbit as the planet "moons". This class of objects includes the Trojan asteroids of Jupiter, as well as Earth's "second" moon. On the whole, however, astronomers seem to prefer to only consider something a moon if it really orbits the planet.
* It's actually a eeensy bit more interesting than that. Prograde moons can't seem to orbit stably much further than half of a Hill radius from their planet, while retrograde moons can orbit up to about a full Hill radius.
"That's no moon! It's a space station!" (Score:1)
Even if something is a captured asteroid, e.g. Amalthea, it's size seems to determine it's classification. It is a bit fuzzy, like defining what quality is. However, if you gave me specific examples, I could tell you moon/no moon.
But yeah, leave Pluto alone...
Re:What is a moon? (Score:2)
Re:What is a moon? (Score:2)
Plus brown dwarves (which progress through a portion of the PP chain) most likely radiate in the visible quite noticeably. I think (stress think) that we've seen a brown dwarf via non-reflected light.
A brown dwarf would be any object which can complete a portion of, but not all of, the PP chain at its core.
Re:What is a moon? (Score:1)
Re:What is a moon? (Score:2)
Trip to Jupiter (Score:3, Funny)
"... but Capan, Capan, i can not Geet it oop, I got to have 30 minutes.. "
(with apologies to Scotty)
i had a disturbing vision.. (Score:1)
and i wonder, is referring to Mike Myers films the way
solar system? is Jupiter to shortly become our second solar body, a'la 2010? c'mon, they're just satellites of a planet. I'd have thought a science poster to know the definition of a solar system.
with that cleared up, could you inform us of meaning of the new astrological term "mini-me"?
Re:i had a disturbing vision.. (Score:1)
48??? (Score:4, Funny)
42 is the answer.
Speaking of Stephen Hawking (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Speaking of Stephen Hawking (Score:2, Funny)
Picture of Jupiter (Score:3, Interesting)
(feeble Karma saving attempt)
This again? (Score:2)
Unless you somehow convert Jupiter into a mini sun.
Synth Voice Sucks (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Synth Voice Sucks (Score:4, Funny)
Say whatever is in your mind freely. Our conversation will be kept in strict confidance. Memory contents will be wiped after you leave.
So, tell me about your problems.
Thank you (Score:2)
I salute you sir for reminding me of Dr. Sbaitso.
Re:Synth Voice Sucks (Score:1)
Say whatever is in your mind freely. Our conversation will be kept in strict confidance. Memory contents will be wiped after you leave.
So, tell me about your problems.
>i don't have any pants
You may think you don't have any pants, but it is only an illusion.
>it's true, i have no pants
Just now you were talking about no pants, tell me more about that.
>What? uh - ok, seriously, though, i need some pants.
Don't talk dirty.
>quit
Re:Synth Voice Sucks (Score:1)
Ha! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ha! (Score:1)
Shouldn't that read
48 moons? Ha! In highschool I set the record with 51.
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
No. You got it totally wrong. It should be:
"48, 48 moons! Ha, ha, ha..."
space probes (Score:1)
And what happens when... (Score:1, Troll)
it's "Hawking", not "Hawkings" (Score:1)
Mini solar system? (Score:4, Funny)
It's not "Hawkings"... (Score:3)
No, I know it's not important. So I'll add an "s" to the end of your name, sometimes. It won't bother you because, after all, it's not important that it's actually correct, just that I know who you are.
Re:It's not "Hawkings"... (Score:1)
Re:It's not "Hawkings"... (Score:4, Funny)
That's a point... is a triply posted story a tripe?
-Mark
Jupiter to moons: GET IN MY BELLY!!! (Score:4, Funny)
"By jove, I think he's mad," Europa said through a spokesperson today.
The other 47 moons did not return our calls.
Re:Jupiter to moons: GET IN MY BELLY!!! (Score:1)
Anyway, what caught my eye was Europa is swearing to Jupiter using Jupiter's name. That seemed much funnier before I wrote this post...
Re:Jupiter to moons: GET IN MY BELLY!!! (Score:2)
Re:Austin Powers 2 was NOT FUNNY (Score:1)
"baby: the other white meat!"
rotflmao... truer words were never spake... [wiping tears of redneck glee from my eyes]
So how do these new moons get named? (Score:1)
Could your grandchildren be colonists on Pepsi? Or DiamlerChrysler?
Re:So how do these new moons get named? (Score:2)
Think about it: a moon mission. They could put all kinds of logos on the shuttle, have real-time telemetry data on the top of your screen while you watch, and the mission could be called something like the MBNA 480000.
OK... so obviously I'm excited about the race this weekend...
Something else in Jupiter's orbit? (Score:2, Funny)
Recent Moon Additions (Score:3, Interesting)
1. New Moon of Jupiter Discovered [slashdot.org]
S/2002 J1- Catchy name, eh? Beats the hell out of say, Europa or Ganymede. Incidentally, this ran on 12/28/02.
2. Jupiter's 11 New Moons [slashdot.org]
This one ran on 5/17/02.
Re:Recent Moon Additions (Score:3, Interesting)
That won't be its permanent name. All bodies are given temporary names of that kind until the Internation Astronomer's Union confirms their permanent names. Besides some slight beaurcratic overhead intended to keep astronomical nomenclature standardized, this is also because they want to be sure it's really a new object.
Moons... Too many already (Score:1)
One question though? What constitutes a moon? Because they say the earth only has one moon, but it has hundreds of orbiting satilites and MILLIONS of pieces of space dust circling it, so really, I think it's time to quit discovering the moons of jupiter. one last comment: how many moons does SATURN have?!?!
That's no moon (Score:3, Funny)
ion cloud is irrelevant (Score:3, Interesting)
fact check BEFORE posting.... (Score:4, Informative)
ceejayoz writes [slashdot.org] "A newly discovered gas cloud around Jupiter, created by ion radiation hitting the surface of Europa, has cast doubt on possible life on the moon.
The ion cloud is completely irrelevant to the chances of finding life deep in the oceans of Europa. The Earth itself is surrounded by belts of ionized radiation. Ions bombard the atmosphere hard enough for it to visibly glow near the magnetic poles. And yet life thrives in just about every Earth environment that isn't molten rock. And the original posted link [newscientist.com] about the Jovian ion torus never mentioned any hazards to Europan life.
Re:fact check BEFORE posting.... (Score:2)
Superheroes on Europa? (Score:2, Funny)
Exactly, it just increases the chances that life on Europa will have super-powers. The Fantastic Four knows all about that. Sure, they have super-powers now but all-in-all they'd rather they didn't, especially Ben Grimm.
wow (Score:1)
well crap... (Score:5, Funny)
2 stars = more sunlight to grow crops, power solar vehicals, etc...
ah crap...i've been watching too much stargate SG1...
-frozen
Re:well crap... (Score:2)
very familiar-sounding, Stephen Hawkings voice (Score:2, Informative)
No, no, no! (Score:2)
Newsflash! (Score:2)
Re:But what are their names? (Score:2, Funny)
You have any ideas? It seems theyre out of names from Roman mythology, and moved on to Shakespeare's plays and "The Rape of the Lock."
But then there's always the option of naming them all "George Forman"
Re:But what are their names? (Score:5, Interesting)
But even with Zeus's
(Saturn's moons are all titans, I believe, Neptune's are minor gods and goddess associated with, well, Neptune, and Uranus's are named for Shakespeare and Pope characters. Mostly sprites, I think.)
Re:hah! (Score:1)