Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Twelve New Moons Found for Saturn 52

Posted by timothy from the eleven-moons-and-a-battle-station dept.
sebFlyte writes "Auntie is reporting that astronomers have found 12 new moons orbiting Saturn. Most of these are thought to be captured bodies, and they bring the total number of Saturn's moons up to 46, which is 17 short of Jupiter's total of 63. The new moons don't seem to have been named yet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twelve New Moons Found for Saturn More

Twelve New Moons Found for Saturn

Comments Filter:
  • If they haven't already used it, at least one of these moons should be 'Sagan'. :-)

  • What defines a moon? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by turtled ( 845180 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @08:46AM (#12431182)
    What is the smallest size before it is not concidered to be a moon?

    • Re:What defines a moon? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by feidaykin ( 158035 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @09:51AM (#12431748) Journal
      Both the terms "moon" and "planet" are very subjective and usually it falls to the whim of the particular astronomer that discovered the thing. There's no set of guidelines. For example many astronomers consider the Earth and Moon to be almost a twin-planet system, because our moon is so large relative to the planet itself, and many consider Pluto not to be a planet at all but perhaps an escaped moon of one of the gas giants. Also astronomers seem to be prejudice toward balls of ice, those usually will never be called a planet no matter how large. So, there is really no cutoff size for moons or planets, and the classification is really not an exact science.

      • Re:What defines a moon? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @10:22AM (#12432067) Journal
        There are set guidelines, but not everybody uses the same ones.

        One of the common things I've seen used (still not universal, though) is using orbit to define what something is, and not size, not composition, not even satellites (I've seen this from both those who consider Pluto a planet and a comet, as well, even though it definitely excludes Pluto from planethood).

        For moons, it's mainly a matter of wether or not it's the dominant thing in its orbit. Ring material isn't considered moons, because no single object dominates any particular orbit, but there are also small objects which orbit in gaps in Saturn's rings that are otherwise empty. They're the primary thing in their orbit, so they're considered moons.

        In the case of planets, orbital domination is used, but also orbital shape and spacing is used. All the major planets (Mercury out to Neptune) are effectively alone in their orbits. Small objects cross their orbits, others orbit them, but the planets comprise the vast majority of material in their orbit. Earth is the only exception, since a considerable portion of the mass in our orbit is also tied up in our moon, which is what is what brings the "double planet" opinion - when taken together, the rest of the material along their orbit can be statistically discounted, since it's only an invisible fraction of the Earth and Moon's combined mass. Jupiter is the only planet that actually shares an orbit with objects that don't orbit it (as opposed to simply having its orbit intersected by them), but even the trojan asteroids' movements are controlled by Jupiter. Everything else in that orbital area has been cleared out long ago.

        In addition, all the planets orbit inside the approximate plane of the solar system, and have fairly circular orbits, and their average distances from the sun follow a pattern.

        Ceres doesn't get planetary status in this system. It fits into the pattern of orbinearlyts, it's in the plane, and it has a circular orbit, but it's not the dominant mass in its orbit due to Jupiter's influence. It hasn't cleared the other asteroids the way other planets in the solar system did in their own orbits. Ceres may be a considerable fraction of the asteroid belt's total mass, but not to such an extent that the rest of the belt can be discounted for mass purposes.

        In this definition, Pluto doesn't meet any of the requirements. It doesn't fit the orbital pattern, it has a classical trans-Neptunian cometary orbit and not a planetary one (far from circular, tilted dramatically out of the solar disk), and it's not unique in its orbit due to other large comets with simmilar orbis and even comparable size, like Sedna.

        Getting caught up on size and composition clouds the issue, really. If a comet the size of earth were to come in from deep space, loop just inside the orbit of mercury, then zip back out into space not to return for thousands of years, I don't think there'd be any argument. Despite it's size, it has the orbit of a comet, so it's a comet. Pluto's orbit shares many things in common with trans-neptunian comets - it's eccentric, tilted out of the plane of the planets' orbits. It's size doesn't really matter, since many asteroids and comets in the outer solar system are much larger than those that pass through the inner solar system. They're beyond the grip of Jupiter's gravity, so many of the largest objects have survived where ones in the inner solar system were eventually sucked up by the major planets, and comets that pass through the inner solar system loose mass on every orbit, comets that don't approach the sun keep all of their material, instead increasing in size from collisions with other objects.
        • "If a comet the size of earth were to come in from deep space, loop just inside the orbit of mercury, then zip back out into space not to return for thousands of years, I don't think there'd be any argument. Despite it's size, it has the orbit of a comet, so it's a comet." What? Of course there would be argument. At least from me. Orbits change. Mass does not. Its a planet because, despite its odd orbit, its as big as a planet. And round. And might even have an atmosphere and stuff. Unless it was a ball o
          • That's basically the point. I said it would be an earth-sized comet. A ball of snow and dirt. That's also what Pluto is, by the way - it has the same composition of other large comets.
        • Small objects cross their orbits, others orbit them, but the planets comprise the vast majority of material in their orbit. Earth is the only exception, since a considerable portion of the mass in our orbit is also tied up in our moon, which is what is what brings the "double planet" opinion - when taken together, the rest of the material along their orbit can be statistically discounted, since it's only an invisible fraction of the Earth and Moon's combined mass.

          The usual claim that the Earth/Moon system
      • Both the terms "moon" and "planet" are very subjective and usually it falls to the whim of the particular astronomer that discovered the thing. There's no set of guidelines

        So, everytime an astronomer makes the newspaper, she/he just announces the finding of a new moon around Saturn? Sounds pretty easy, lots of space rock around Saturn? Can I name some space dust? Please pretty please?

        • Naming each chunk in Saturn's rings should keep the hucksters busy for a while. Special on the 100m-500m range this week only.
    • Rules (arbitrary) for defining moon:

      1. Natural space material (no man-made)
      2. Visible with naked eye from surface of orbited plant
      3. Interesting enough that people will pay to have it named for them
      4. Profit!

      Okay, 3 & 4 are lame, but if you get past the difficulty of determining visibility from the orbited plant, 1 & 2 seem reasonable.

      OTOH, a simpler formula, such as minimum percentage of size relative to the orbited planet (10 percent?) would be more managable.

  • Names (Score:5, Funny)

    by youknowmewell ( 754551 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @08:47AM (#12431201)
    Big rock 1, Big rock 2, Big rock 3...

  • Names? (Score:1, Funny)

    by El Icaro ( 816679 )
    Can I name one first post?

  • My Suggestion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @08:49AM (#12431218) Journal
    One should be called 'Sofia'. (with an f)

    Sofia literally means 'wisdom' in Greek and I guess it is through our advancement as a society that we produce the technology to find these moons (or better classify them).

    Now that might not be wisdom, but it is a nice name!

    Lets petition it! who do we write to? :D
    • i'm sure you read "The DaVinci Code" ;-)
      • I suggest you read "Sophie's World" instead ... its much much more enriching than da vinci :P
      • I was puzzled as to which comment you were replying to. I have actually decided not to read the davinci code, and I think that guy is an arrogant piss head IMHO, and the last bit of the CIA encoded statue he did by himself, and he fudged it up so bad he is now embarrassed about it, and he cannot even give out the original message, because then people woudl realise he ballsed it up.

        I do not like the guy.
  • How about we name 5 of them "Anonymous Coward"?

  • George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Gondoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney,...
  • Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Nixon, ... Comet, Cupid, Donna Dixon.
  • Except that last one....
    That's not a moon! That's... ahh.. it's too easy.

  • Previous 34 moons (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @09:00AM (#12431307)
    Here's a list of the other 34 moons...these names are already taken:

    Titan, Pan, Atlas, Prometheus, Pandora, Epimetheus, Janus, Calypso, Telesto, Helene, Methone, Pallene, Polydueces, Ymir, Paaliaq, Siarnaq, Tarvos, Kiviuq, Ijiraq, Thrym, Skadi, Mundilfari, Erriapo, Albiorix, Suttung, NarviMimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Hyperion, Iapetus, Phoebe.

  • Cassini? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nuffsaid ( 855987 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @09:17AM (#12431464)
    At first, I wondered why these moons were not spotted by the Cassini probe from its much closer point of view. The answer lies probably in their large orbital radius. These bodies are farther from Saturn than Phoebe, the first moon Cassini encountered while approaching Saturn for the first time. The main Cassini mission happens well inside their orbit, so that the probe should point outward in order to spot them. It probably will, now that their existence and position is known, but it would have been wasteful to do a survey of the open sky far from Saturn, with so many interesting things to see in detail around it.
  • Are they all in a line, following each other around the planet? Or at different altitudes? Or what? Seems that with that many of them flying around, they're bound to crash into each other sometime.

    • Well, there's quite a bit of room out there...I think Douglas Adams summed it up best:


      Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.
  • 12 moons, 12 signs. They'd better be careful not to find any more.

    Does it strike anybody else as strange how close together
    their orbits are, considering how far out they are? It suggests to me a single body that was broken up by a just- barely- sufficient blow.

  • Name one for yourself! (Score:3, Funny)

    by bluGill ( 862 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @12:25PM (#12433310)

    There are 12 new moons to name. For $10000 I will register the name of your moon in a book with the US copyright office ($500 for each extra foreign country). You will also get a chart of the night sky, and instructions on how to find saturn, and your moon[1]. But wait, there is more, I will also send you a customized version of kstars [kde.org] with your moon name and orbit clearly marked, so you can keep track of your moon at anytime.

    Better hurry, there are only 12 moons to name, once they are gone they are gone.

    Don't be fooled my cheap name a star offers. There are millions of stars to name, but Saturn only has unnamed 12 moons - once they are named I will never make an offer to name them again.

    [1]Telescope powerful enough to view your moon is available for an extra charge.

  • Names (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jarlsberg ( 643324 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @12:52PM (#12433516) Journal
    The new moons don't seem to have been named yet.

    It often takes about a year from the discovery of the moon until it can be named. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) require detailed observations over time in order to recognize the moon as an unique object.

    • Re:Names (Score:2)

      by Shag ( 3737 )
      Yep! The orbit of the satellite needs to be known pretty well before they're willing to name it -- just to make sure it IS a satellite, and isn't going to A) fly off into space or B) crash into the planet after a few more orbits. :)
  • What's the point of having so many satellites?
    Why don't we say, that Saturn (and Jupiter) have asteroid belt?

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Close