Solar System Fossils Found By Hubble 237
segment writes "Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered three of the faintest and smallest objects ever detected beyond Neptune. Each lump of ice and rock is roughly the size of Philadelphia and orbits just beyond Neptune and Pluto, where they may have rested since the formation of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. The objects reside in a ring-shaped region called the Kuiper Belt, which houses a swarm of icy rocks that are leftover building blocks, or "planetesimals," from the solar system's creation. The results of the search were announced by a group led by Gary Bernstein of the University of Pennsylvania at a meeting of NASA's Division of Planetary Sciences in Monterey, Calif."
What can we do with them (Score:5, Funny)
no?
pfft. what use are they then?
Re:What can we do with them (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What can we do with them (Score:2)
Well what use are they then? I agree with the parent, hubble should be looking for more oil to improve the economy! That's why we built the thing, isn't it?
Re:Because it is true (Score:1)
You mean the type of facts that don't have any supporting evidence? The current administration in the USA seems to like those type of facts.
Re: What can we do with them (Score:2)
> i dont care if he knew bin laden. the mass murder was enough for me to support kickin saddam out.
Shouldn't we have invaded the Congo first?
Re: To stop terrorism, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
> To stop terrorism, of course, as Saddam Hussein was a major source of it.
The sad irony is that the only terrorists operating out of Iraq were the Ansar al Islam, which arose in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region under the no-fly zone, and could not have existed without American bombers to hold Saddam in check. (FYI, terrorists hated Saddam almost as bad as they hate us.)
> Anti-imperialism was also a goal too, given Saddam's track record of attacking neighboring countries with the goal of annexin
Re:Good. then don't comment (Score:2)
> Why would the US administration be strongly opposed to US imperialism ?
I think he meant to say "opposed to competing imperialism".
Re:Good. then don't comment (Score:2)
Pfft, don't cloud the argument with facts! Let us continue with our ignorant use of the word "imperialism" without anything to back it up! What's wrong with you, man?
Re:Funny You Should Mention That. (Score:2)
Re:What can we do with them (Score:2)
> what oil have we taken?
Moot point, since most of it is still in the ground or else spilling into a big burning puddle where a pipeline used to be.
> i for one am sick of listening to you spineless jackasses try to justify not supporting this war and trying to save face by making up motives for us.
Quit your republican fantasizing. I didn't support the war, don't support it now, and am proud of both facts. I don't feel the slightest need to save face, except when I tell people I'm an American. (B
Re: But how will Iraq ever pay us back? (Score:2)
> They owe us for their liberation and all. I would recommend cheap oil. They have so much of it and all. In fact, it's the second largest known oil reserve and is mostly untapped. I'm sure Haliburton could help them get it out of the ground and everything. Come on Iraq... play ball!
Wasn't that part of the spin the Administration offered when trying to convince us the invasion was a good idea and wouldn't be very expensive?
Americans love doing good deeds... so long as they don't have to pay taxes for
Size of Philadelphia (Score:5, Funny)
"The three small objects the astronomers spotted - given the prosaic names 2003 BF91, 2003 BG91 and 2003 BH91 - range in size from 15 to 28 miles
Hence the size of Philadelphia varies from 15 to 28 miles. Oh, and Philadelphia is a also an irregular sphere.
Re:Size of Philadelphia (Score:3, Funny)
Not that I'm a jaded Philadelphia fan or anything...
Space Hockey (Score:1, Funny)
But of course. They will change the face of the NHL forever, as they have had millions of years of hockey experience: these icey planetoids are really nothing but hockey rinks.
In other news, Mike Illitch has launched a space probe that is expected to drop a dead octopus on one of these icy surfaces by the year 2017.
Re:Size of Philadelphia (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Size of Philadelphia (Score:2)
Didn't work though...
I love these invented-for-the-moment units.
The next time I need to order something I'll try make up my own and wait with excitement for what I'll get. Use an area unit for a room mesurement must give bonus points (and vise-versa).
"Hello, I would like 10 keyboard units of sand, please".
Re:Size of Philadelphia (Score:2)
Re:Size of Philadelphia (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Size of Philadelphia (Score:2)
I was planning on posting an answer myself, but my math skills are a little rusty. Does anyone remember the fomula's for Elephant Packing an Irregular Sphere?
Re:Size of Philadelphia (Score:2)
Did you notice this fact?
The results of the search were announced by a group led by Gary Bernstein of the University of Pennsylvania
I imagine if it had been an MIT group, they would have said the objects were the size of Massachusetts. Thank heavens they weren't from Alaska!
What's that in Volkswagons? (Score:2)
-Hope
Re:Size of Philadelphia (Score:2)
creation of the solar system (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:creation of the solar system (Score:2, Informative)
Re:creation of the solar system (Score:2, Informative)
This New Horizons mission was hit by a big funding cut early this year, although that decision has now been reversed [space.com]. However it is still not certain that the mission is going to happen, which is a shame because this really is a mission to go where none has gone before...
Re:creation of the solar system (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the orbits (Score:2)
Expected more (Score:1)
"Discovering many fewer Kuiper Belt Objects than was predicted makes it difficult to understand how so many comets appear near Earth since many comets were thought to originate in the Kuiper Belt,"
Wasn't there a NASA theory about space junk threshold and how big bits collide and divide into smaller bits which in turn divide etc..
"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:5, Funny)
In Armageddon, the meteor was "as big as Texas", now, this one is "roughly the size of Philadelphia".
Now, for the non-US guys here, could you translate ?
Re:"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:2)
Re:"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:1)
You mean 0.03 to 0.055 fluffy cumulous units [go.com] or 65 to 120 little clouds? This is a gross underestimation I think. Has to be rather around 20 fluffies I feel. Can a NASA engineer appove these numbers?
Re:"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:3, Funny)
a. Americans who use geo-centric descriptions like "roughly the size of Philadelphia
-or-
b. People from the rest of the world who don't bother to read the article and find out the actual size of the objects and instead simply bitch about the geo-centric descriptions?
Actually, the answer is actually:
c. People like me who live in the Philadelphia suburbs but have no idea how big the city actually is in terms of miles/km/whatever.
Re:"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:2)
That's one less ignorant suburbanite to poison the city I love.
Re:"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:2)
Mod Up, that's damned funny.
Re:"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:2)
Re:"roughly the size of Philadelphia" (Score:2)
> Philadelphia: Think 6 Million Fat Americans
So Texas is less than four times the size of Philadelphia? Granted, I've never been to Texas, but that seems a bit off. (I can ruin any joke)
Slashdot Effect (Score:5, Informative)
Contact: Steve Bradt bradt@pobox.upenn.edu 215-573-6604 University of Pennsylvania
Solar system 'fossils' discovered by Hubble Telescope
PHILADELPHIA -- Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered three of the faintest and smallest objects ever detected beyond Neptune. Each lump of ice and rock is roughly the size of Philadelphia and orbits just beyond Neptune and Pluto, where they may have rested since the formation of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. The objects reside in a ring-shaped region called the Kuiper Belt, which houses a swarm of icy rocks that are leftover building blocks, or "planetesimals," from the solar system's creation.
The results of the search were announced by a group led by Gary Bernstein of the University of Pennsylvania at today's meeting of NASA's Division of Planetary Sciences in Monterey, Calif.
The study's big surprise is that so few Kuiper Belt members were discovered. With Hubble's exquisite resolution, Bernstein and his co-workers expected to find at least 60 Kuiper Belt members as small as 10 miles in diameter -- but only three were discovered. "Discovering many fewer Kuiper Belt Objects than was predicted makes it difficult to understand how so many comets appear near Earth since many comets were thought to originate in the Kuiper Belt," said Bernstein, associate professor of physics and astronomy at Penn. "This is a sign that perhaps the smaller planetesimals have been shattered into dust by colliding with each other over the past few billion years." Bernstein and his colleagues used Hubble to look for planetesimals that are much smaller and fainter than can be seen from ground-based telescopes. Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys was pointed at a region in the constellation Virgo over a 15-day period in January and February. A bank of 10 computers on the ground worked for six months searching for faint moving spots in the Hubble images. The three small objects the astronomers spotted - given the prosaic names 2003 BF91, 2003 BG91 and 2003 BH91 - range in size from 15 to 28 miles and are the smallest objects ever found beyond Neptune. At their current locations, these objects are a billion times fainter than the dimmest objects visible to the naked eye. But an icy body of this size that escapes the Kuiper Belt to wander near the sun can become visible from Earth as a comet as the wandering body starts to evaporate and form a surrounding cloud. Astronomers are probing the Kuiper Belt because the region offers a window on the early history of our solar system. The planets formed more than 4 billion years ago from a cloud of gas and dust that surrounded the infant sun. Microscopic bits of ice and dust stuck together to form lumps that grew from pebbles to boulders to city- or continent-sized planetesimals. The known planets and moons are the result of collisions between planetesimals. In most of the solar system, all of the planetesimals have either been absorbed into planets or ejected into interstellar space, destroying the traces of the early days of the solar system. Around 1950, Gerard Kuiper and Kenneth Edgeworth proposed that in the region beyond Neptune there are no planets capable of ejecting the leftover planetesimals, so there should be a zone, now called the Kuiper Belt, filled with small, icy bodies. Despite many years of searching, the first was not discovered until 1992; nearly 1,000 have since been discovered from telescopes on the ground. Most astronomers now believe that Pluto, discovered in 1930, is in fact a member of the Kuiper Belt. Astronomers now use the Kuiper Belt to learn about the history of the solar system, much as paleontologists use fossils to study early life. Each event that affected the outer solar system -- such as possible gravitational disturbances from passing stars or long-vanished planets -- is frozen into the properties of the Kuiper Belt members that we see today.
If the Hubble telescope could search the entire sky, it would find perhaps a half-million pla
Aha! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Aha! (Score:2)
Comets (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Comets (Score:1)
You should preview in past (Score:2)
Yah, in the future of some long-forgotten past. (-:
Pluto express.. (Score:5, Interesting)
This could be bad news for the New Horizons (Pluto-Kuiper Belt) [nasa.gov] mission, which plans to visit some as-yet undiscovered Kuiper belt objects after swinging by Pluto - but if there are a lot fewer than first thought..
Discovering many fewer Kuiper Belt Objects than was predicted makes it difficult to understand how so many comets appear near Earth since many comets were thought to originate in the Kuiper Belt,..
Re:Pluto express.. (Score:2)
Or worse, it's a dust cloud resulting from Kupier belt objects that collided with each other over the billions of years. Single objects you could avoid, but how would you like to slam into a sandstorm at 26,000 mph?
I didn't see it stated, but is this cloud expected to lie in the orbital plane only, or does it envelope the Solar System like a sphere? If the latter, and it is a dust cloud, it could make extra-system exploration very difficult...
Unit conversion (Score:3, Funny)
Does the Google calculator convert between Philadelphia's and metric units for us non-Americans?
Philadelphia? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah but how much would they weigh at sea level in metric elephants?
Re:Philadelphia? (Score:2, Funny)
It's all the cheese steaks, you know...
Re:Philadelphia? (Score:2)
Yeah but how much would they weigh at sea level in metric elephants?
African or European?
Philadelphia (Score:1)
Re:Philadelphia (Score:2)
In other news (Score:2, Funny)
In other news, Bob Vila will be demonstrating how to build a solar system from scrap in his series This Old House. Also, a hotel chain in Sweden has threatened to sue God for patent infringement citing illegal use of icy blocks for construction. [head-space.org]
Media Size Scale (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Media Size Scale (Score:2)
wow! (Score:1)
So?... They found slightly bigger rocks between all the other rocks?
Re:wow! (Score:2)
What an anti-climax. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Solar System Fossils Found By Hubble"
When I saw this in my newsfeed I thought they'd found an alien fish or lizard.
Re:What an anti-climax. (Score:2)
Re:What an anti-climax. (Score:2)
conversion probs (Score:2, Funny)
solar system is one messy ass place (Score:4, Funny)
Semi Offtopic mass summation and star birth (Score:2)
From the horse's mouth (Score:5, Informative)
How do we know these things came from our Solar System and not another one? The response about the directions of orbits is good; all the Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) and all the known planets orbit in the same direction around the Sun. Wouldn't happen if things were falling in randomly, so almost certainly reflects the rotation of the disk of gas & dust from which our solar system formed. Also, why would it be any easier to make a chunk of ice/rock around another star and have it accidentally caught be our star thousands of light years away, then to just make it around our star? There are grains of dust moving through our Solar System that appear to come from interstellar space, but no big chunks.
Another posts said that comets are the true fossils; in fact short-period comets (including the ones targeted by the spacecraft) are believed to be escapees from the Kuiper Belt. Comets are being evaporated by the Sun (that's why they look so big, they have clouds around them) and so they'll evaporate to nothing but rubble in 10,000 years or so. Not very long by astronomy standards. So there must be unborn comets in "cold storage" somewhere far from the Sun.
The New Horizons mission to Pluto & Kuiper Belt object(s) is alive & kicking. Our discovery means it will be a little harder to find a Kuiper Belt target for them to hit, but it should still be possible. There probably is a dust cloud associated with the Kuiper Belt (debris from collisions), which is doughnut-shaped, but this cloud is not very dense and won't be a threat to the spacecraft. Space is very empty, even in a "crowded" neighborhood like the inner Solar System.
Re:From the horse's mouth (Score:2, Informative)
Alternatively, KBOs get redirected into less stable orbits when the encounter Pluto or each other. This would also be a
Philadelphia (Score:3, Funny)
Any Toynbee Tiles? (Score:2, Funny)
Just like Philly (Score:2)
Religious zealots on the atheist side, too. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or people like the original poster who can twist any subject into a platform to bash people who do not have the same religious views as the poster.
Re:Religious zealots on the atheist side, too. (Score:2)
Okay, prove a miracle was indeed a miracle and not some kind of misunderstanding or natural phenomenon. Any miracle at all.
Re: Religious zealots on the atheist side, too. (Score:2)
> Do you know anything about the history of science? If you did, you will know that science is often proven time and again to be inaccurate, and things are revised. Look at "spontaneous generation" (barnacle geese) and phrenology.
Neither the belief in spontaneous generation nor phrenology were the product of science. Spontaneous generation was an ancient belief about where maggots and mice come from, and phrenology was the ignorant conception of a German physician [wikipedia.org], neither derived from nor supported b
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
While I may disagree with your theme, I can't argue much of it, as I don't have "God's viewpoint." One problem, however, arises with this statement you made. Humans are not "inarguably inifinitely more complex." I can argue the point that humans aren't infinitely anything.
Perhaps you chose the wrong words?
We believe we know how almost all parts of the human body work, just as we believe we know how a computer works, bu
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I would argue that we do not know how most parts of the human body work. If we did, we could, for instance, stop aging and death, or accomplish still more mundane things like cure diseases such as AIDS without effort. For certain, there would be a great many researchers out of work by now. Ad
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
Eh, I guess I did, but it proves that whatever "IT" is, I am not part of "it."
> I believe that it is safe to say that we do know exactly how electricity works.
Please enlighten me then. How does an electron create heat? On such a small scale it would seem that it is a little ball (or whatever) flying around another mess of little balls, in what would basically amount to a vacuum.
Since there isn't any way to transfer heat thro
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
I applaud the well-worded post, but the problem is that things get tricky when working on the timescale of evolutionary theory. I can, however, fathom such an experiment where a population of organisms are kept in a controlled and self-sufficient environment and monitored for evolutionary signs. Practically, I cannot monitor such an experiment for the time duration required, nor can I sufficiently control the i
Re: I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
> However, I would argue that we do not know how most parts of the human body work. If we did, we could, for instance, stop aging and death, or accomplish still more mundane things like cure diseases such as AIDS without effort.
Does not follow. For example, we know how internal combustion engines work, but we can't cure the ills of friction, imperfect fuel efficiency, waste heat, and noise.
> Now, as coincidence would have it, I am an electronics engineer.
"electronics engineer"? I've never heard
Re: I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
> One definition of engineer is...
[snip mucho apolgetics]
Boy howdy, wasn't that a long-winded way of saying "I'm not really an engineer".
BTW, I'm a great admirer of the self-taught, and I think people's claims should be judged on the basis of those claims rather than on their credentials (cf. my comments on Hoyle). But I'm not a big fan of people who try to misrepresent their credentials to their readers. You could have easily stated your field of experience concisely and accurately without labellin
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
> The case for creation completely embraces the notion that the universe began in a "Big Bang" or similar act of creation.
That's why there isn't a case for creation: the arbitrary will of and omnipotent being is compatible with anything, and is therefore lies outside the realm of things that can be studied on the basis of evidence.
> There are many renowned and respected scientists that use the scientific method to disprove the theory of evolution.
Actually there are aren't that many at all, as Pr [ncseweb.org]
Re: I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
> The idea that Behe says that evolution as it exists is at best incomplete is itself sufficient to undermine the current basis of the theory of evolution.
No, as I clearly stated in my post, Behe merely shows that a strawman version of evolution is "incomplete". This does nothing whatsover to undermine the actual theory of evolution.
> If Behe is right, that evolution is not responsible for the creation of life, then what might that be?
No scientist believes evolution is responsible for the "creat
Re: I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
> No, you have not demonstrated anything. 10^50 is such a low probability that it is dismissed as being so remote as to never happen in nature unassisted by intelligence.
That claim is simply false, as is easily demonstrated by shuffling a deck of cards.
How many times must we point out that you know nothing about this subject matter, before you stop pontificating on it?
> Argue with Hoyle and Wickramasinge if you think they erred.
I'll be happy to, if they show up here spouting nonsense that I am
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
> Behe's conclusions are recent and unchallenged.
Get a clue, man. Behe's conclusions have been thoroughly debunked [talkorigins.org].
> While it may be true that Behe, et al. believe that life can evolve from life, they clearly believe that it cannot sponateously create itself from non-life.
Perhaps you can cite something where they claim that? You were totally unaware that they subscribed to the theory of evolution until we pointed it out to you.
> No one has said in these posts what is responsible for Behe's I
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
Your arguments on probabilties of certain protein sequences occurring are pointless. Consider a protein whose job is to catalyze a particular chemical reaction (a.k.a. an enzyme). It does so by momentarily capturing the chemical reactants at a site on its surface know as the active site, comprised of only a few of thehundreds of amino acids in the protein. The rest of the protein holds it together, and the actual order of the non-activ
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
"However, the order of events given in the creation account are absolutely in agreement with modern evolution accounts"
Which order of events? Genesis is not in agreement with itself about the order of creation.
"I
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
And to radical revision, thorough rethinking, obsolesence and complete dismissal. However, if you have a theory that did a very good job of explaining a whole mountain of evidence, you're not going to throw the babyout with the bathwater when a problem arises - first, you see if you can fix the theory. Or, you may layer a more sophisticated theory on top. We still teach Maxwell's Equations, for example, because they're great for explain
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
Spoken like a true Jehovah's Witness. Their book "Life - How Did It Get Here? By evolution or by creation?" lists the following ten stages in chronological order:
(1) a beginning
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water
(3) light
(4) an expanse or atmosphere
(5) large areas of dry land
(6) l
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
And as for the birds vs
Re:I have a strange feeling (Score:2)
Genesis chapter 2 should merely retell the story from ch.1 if there's any truth to it. But Gen. 2:4-7 says that God made the first man on the same day He made the earth and the heavens, i.e. on what ch.1 calls day 1, not day 6. When
We are trolls (Score:2)
The text I use is The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (aka the New Revised Standard Version). It is a direct descendent of the Revised Standard Version, the Bible with the distinction of being officially authorized by all major Christian churches: Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and E
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Informative)
The intresting part of the search was the discovery of lots of big icy rocks there compared to the relatively very low amounts of small ones.
Its not yet known why there is a lack of the small rocks..
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
First, creation of the solar system happened about 10 billion year later than the big bang. Second, planets do not just magically appear, they slowly form when smaller particles and rocks lump together because of either gravity or impact. Therefore small blo
Not big bang. Our sun is 2nd generation. (Score:5, Interesting)
After the big bang, you had the cooling out of our different forces, the formation of subatomic particles, the formation of Hydrogen atoms, and then the formation of giant stars.
Those stars all exploded long ago, creating the wealth of other elements that we see today. Life may or may not have formed at that time, but if it did, it is my guess that all such lifeforms would have been destroyed in the supernovaes of the first generation of stars. Our solar system formed from the exploded remains of one or more of those.
All of which makes these fossils impressively old, the moreso because it is not inconcievable to me that bacteria could predate planetary formation. It would indeed be interesting to look at them, and see what we see.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Stardust [nasa.gov]
Contour (failed) [contour2002.org]
Rosetta (to be launched) [esa.int]
Imagine... (Score:2)
Millions of beetle-sized rocks hurtling through space in our direction to the tune of the 'Pods Unite' commercial (Light & Day by the Polyphonic Spree).
Re:Interesting technical data? (Score:2, Interesting)
The three new discoveries are about 42 AU from the Sun, in orbits that are about the same distance but less inclined (tipped) to the rest of the Solar System than Quaoar. They are not "plutinos".
Press releases are always skimpy on the real information; if you want the gory details, read the scientific paper [arxiv.org]. There will be some articles in Science News, maybe other places, at an intermediate level.
Re:Oh, really? You're sure... (Score:2)
I looked at that website, and its the same old young-Earth creationism drivel taht's been making the rounds for decades. No integrity, no credibility, and no science.
Re:Oh, really? You're sure... (Score:2)
Then you didn't look at all. There's quite a bit there, and the first time through, it took me over a week to read through just the archives of the Disclosure articles. There is indeed quite a bit of science there, much of it quoted form evolutionist journals...