Strange New Objects Seen In Saturn's Rings 113
Every 15 Earth years, Saturn has its equinox — the time during which its rotational axis is perpendicular to the rays from the sun, so that the sun is always directly "overhead" of Saturn's equator. This is significant because Saturn's rings orbit over the equator, so during the equinox, light from the sun hits them edge-on. This means that any objects wider than the rings, or orbiting above or below them, cast long shadows and are much easier to see. For the first time, we're able to get detailed images of these objects, thanks to Cassini. A moonlet, perhaps 1,300 feet in diameter, has been discovered in the B-ring, and the Bad Astronomy blog points out another object that seems to be bursting through the F-ring. Quoting: "The upward-angled structure is definitely real, as witnessed by the shadow it's casting on the ring material to the lower left. And what's with the bright patch right where this object seems to have slammed into the rings? Did it shatter millions of icy particles, revealing their shinier interior material, making them brighter? Clearly, something awesome and amazing happened here.
Savages (Score:3, Funny)
A moonlet, perhaps 1,300 feet in diameter
Can we have that in perches, chains and furlongs please?
--A. Luddite
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You lost me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you crazy? SI-Units should be used under any circumstance.
"Reproducibility of experimental results is central to the scientific method. A standard system of units facilitates this." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement @ 2009-08-09]
Some scientists or people with great affinity to science (eg.: me) are driven crazy by people using these obsolete units.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no problem buying food in Imperial units (not that I have to, since I'm in Australia), since it works out the same in the end. I even say I'm 6 feet tall, despite it being all metric here. I just can't stand Imperial units in a scientific context. Mythbusters get points of starting out metric in their early days, but they lose them again for presumably caving to producers who decided Americans were too stupid to know what a Newton is.
Re:Savages (Score:5, Funny)
producers who decided Americans were too stupid to know what a Newton is.
Of course we know what a Newton is... you just have to decide if you're going to go with one of the newer fruit varieties or to stick with the classic Fig.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fig_Newton [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's no moon (Score:5, Funny)
It's a budong [youtube.com].
Re:That's no moon (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe a monolith [wikipedia.org]...
Nice try, wrong planet. Besides, "1300 feet in diameter" isn't exactly how you'd measure rectangular parallelepiped.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the original novel, the monolith was on a moon of Saturn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the original novel, the monolith was on a moon of Saturn.
Too bad the movie came first.
Re:That's no moon (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the original novel, the monolith was on a moon of Saturn.
Too bad the movie came first.
The movie was originally shot to finish at Saturn but Kubrick changed his mind. The Saturn footage was recycled for Silent Running.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The movie was originally shot to finish at Saturn but Kubrick changed his mind.
I bet it was the commute that did him in.
Re:That's no moon (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's no moon (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Douglas Trumbull, the man who created the effects for 2001, told Kubrick that Saturn was too hard to depict realistically
And then ripped the footage off for his own movie!
Re: (Score:1)
Jupiter also looks better in the sense that it is a human ovum-shaped object which is encountering a sperm-shaped space craft. The symbolism of new life, new evolution is much clearer with Jupiter than Saturn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saturn is the right planet, stupid movie be damned.
And yes diameter is exactly how you would measure it until you got a high enough resolution image to atually see the shape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, take it back! It's only the best non-porn movie ever!
Well, it would be if it was possible to watch it without falling asleep within less than an hour into the film.
Re: (Score:2)
I would mod your post funny, had I not already posted in this discussion. After all, surely no one of any significant intelligence would seriously have a big meltdown over some random person in a forum saying anything negative about an old sci-fi flick.
And for the record, Clarke was my favorite of the "classic" sci-fi authors. I did read 2001 way back when I was perhaps 13 or 14 (I'm 41 now and closing in on the ultimate answer), and I really enjoyed the book back then. The movie was simply lacking and n
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, for a start you would use SI units.
Re: (Score:1)
Silly people. Its obviously the Magic School Bus [wikipedia.org]!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Except it.. uh... does [nasa.gov].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Fithp are coming! The Fithp are coming! Run for the hills!
Re: (Score:2)
The Fithp are coming! The Fithp are coming! Run for the hills!
We should just return to the trees. The Traveller Fithp will never think to look for us there.
That book would make a great movie BTW.
Re: (Score:1)
better make sure that is the high hills.
Dudes (Score:3, Funny)
stargate (Score:3, Funny)
That's just a Goa'uld mothership approaching Earth. No need for alarm at all.
Obligatory Footfall (Score:3, Funny)
Just let me know if they spot a ring that looks like it's been braided.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here you go. [si.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Just let me know if they spot a ring that looks like it's been braided.
Here you go. [si.edu]
That's part of why I love slashdot. For so many people that ask for something seemingly impossible, there seems to be someone who either has the answer or knows someone that does.
Bless you uber-nerds!
radial distance? (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't been able to find a reference that states the precise radial location of this object. Does anyone here have that information?
The Voyager 2 photopolarimeter data from 1981 suggested the presence of a small object in Saturn's B ring at a radial distance of around 109,000 km.
It would be interesting to know whether this is confirmation of that object, 28 years later.
(I have a vested interest: I was the principal author on the Voyager paper: Icarus 54, 267 (1983).)
Re:radial distance? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:radial distance? (Score:4, Informative)
According to Ciclops [ciclops.org] it's 480 km inward of the outer edge of the B ring, which puts it at a radial distance of 117,100 km
Thanks very much; that's a much better source of information than TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it's the original source.
Re:radial distance? (Score:4, Informative)
We assume an orientation of the anomaly parallel to Saturn's axis, but from the brightness of the reflected light on the "dark side" of it suggests an angle maybe closer to that of the ring plane... remember where the sun is. Although, it could be illumination of backscatter from Saturn, or by internal reflections between the particles.
Ring particles could be caused to move by electrostatics, not just gravity or collision, so I'm thinking a long plasma trail behind a comet passing thru, or a slower moving (orbital?) charged object causing a ruction. Heck, why not a moving cloud of magnetic particles colliding with the ring bits, which are then drawn along Saturns magnetic field.
Re:radial distance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously I haven't read that paper, nor any related papers on the subject ...
But wouldn't you expect to see pieces of the rings coalesces into larger objects (I'm guessing under the same forces that make planets) and then be destroyed by gravity continually?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, grandparent was basically right. You form temporary gravitational aggregates and then let tides destroy them on orbital timescales. It's seen in simulations all the time and the various data show strong indications that such structures must exist. (See, for example, the A Ring Azimuthal Brightness Asymmetry.)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously I haven't read that paper, nor any related papers on the subject ...
But wouldn't you expect to see pieces of the rings coalesces into larger objects (I'm guessing under the same forces that make planets) and then be destroyed by gravity continually?
No, while I haven't read the papers either, I can confirm that gravity will not be the force pulling objects apart, at least not directly, as it is an attractive force. Also, the forces that make planets are generally agreed to be massively more powerful than anything going on in the rings of saturn, although if they are also just gravity is beyond me.
By simple logic, the rings will settle into something resembling an equilibrium, as they haven't all turned to dust or clumped into one piece over the many
Re:radial distance? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, no. Gravity WILL, in effect, pull objects apart thanks to tides. This is what keeps the rings from accreting into a single body, more or less. So gravity, while most simply an attractive force, *can* actual cause repulsion. (Another fine example is the F ring itself, which is shepherded by two moons. The moons push the ring back when it tries to spread toward the moons.)
This is what keeps the rings from accreting, more or less. And collisions are so slow that grinding isn't a *huge* factor, although some amount of re-collection of dust onto macroscopic particles probably helps that significantly.
Re:radial distance? (Score:4, Informative)
No, while I haven't read the papers either, I can confirm that gravity will not be the force pulling objects apart, at least not directly, as it is an attractive force.
Maybe you should do some reading. Start with googling "roche limit". Tidal forces ripping an object apart are how the rings got formed in the first place.
Forecast: 6 more weeks of wierd science (Score:1, Funny)
Cassini sees its own shadow.
Its the Fithp! (Score:1, Funny)
The Thuktun Flishithy has arrived. We have about 20 years until the attack. Better start building Michael right now
PS: Don't get it? Read some Larry Niven.
Re: (Score:1)
++
One of my favorite sci-fi books!
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt many people under the age of 40 would get that :o)
Over here in the UK, I can't find a bookshop or library that holds any of E.E. Doc Smith's work. As I kid I lapped his work up. I wonder why it is so out of fashion now?
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you mean. That's probably why they are not P.C. any more.
Made me feel a little uncomfortable too ( being a nerdy liberal ) but they were great ripping yarns :o)
I've no need for amazon - I have most of them in my bookcase!
Oh dear (Score:4, Funny)
Could this be one of the few threads where the Goatse guy is on-topic? After all, numerous strange objects have been seen in his ring.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Strange New Objects Seen in Uranus
Re: (Score:1)
Strange New Objects Seen in Uranus
Saturn's strap on stuck in one of its rings. News at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Space dingleberries (Score:3, Funny)
TMA-3?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
duh (Score:2)
It's obviously the Thuktun Flishithy
Monolith (Score:1)
Well I was going to make the following joke...
Is this "moonlet" curiously rectangular in shape with dimensions in the ratio of 1:4:9 per chance? ...but the picture in TFA does in fact bear an uncanny resemblance to a monolith reflecting light off it's thin side and I don't want labelled as a complete mad-hatter so I'll just pitch one up for the real fruit-loops to bat out of the park instead...
UFO (Score:3, Funny)
Shit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, be nice. We all gain a little around the middle as we age.
Gathering of the nerds... (Score:2, Insightful)
Farscape, 2001, SG-1 and Star Trek all in one article's first few comments. I doubt it's a record for /., but damn. Pity no one could work a Doctor Who reference in there somewhere.
Yeah I'm off-topic, so sue... erm, mod me.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, if you insist...
"Gosh, I wonder if these strange new objects are dimensionally transcendental, like a Tardis!"
Happy now? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised this one hasn't been tagged vogonconstructorfleet yet.
Is that...? (Score:2)
"clearly something awesome..." (Score:2)
Please. This happens all the time, but now someone saw it. Who gives a crap? And don't decide what everyone thinks is 'clear' or 'awesome', thanks very much.
Re: (Score:2)
"all the time" isn't mutually exclusive with "awesome". Meteor impacts are happening in the universe all the time, but are awesome.
But you're right, it was unfair of the author to assume everyone would think this was awesome, not accounting for the large populations of prats out there.
Russell's Teapot (Score:1)
i know the feeling (Score:2)
i had some bean and cheese burritos Saturday night and blew out my O ring.
Clone? (Score:1)