Pluto's 3 Moons and a Probe to Study Them 143
It doesn't come easy writes "For those of you keeping score, Pluto now officially has three moons, with more possibly to follow. The newfound moons orbit about 27,000 miles (44,000 kilometers) from Pluto, more than twice as far as Charon, Pluto's other satellite. They are 5,000 times dimmer than Charon. The moons were found using the Hubble Space Telescope. For now, Pluto is the only Kuiper Belt object known to have satellites. Some nice images of Pluto and its moons are included in links. Enjoy!" Relatedly IZ Reloaded writes "NASA says the Atlas 5 rocket that will carry the New Horizons Pluto probe has suffered slight damage thanks to Hurricane Wilma. New Scientist reports: "The Atlas 5 rocket stands within a construction hangar at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on Florida's east coast. As Wilma rolled though the region on 24 October, fierce 122-kilometer-per-hour winds tore holes in the hangar's 83-meter-tall door and caused minor damage to the rocket inside.""
Well, this is going to be rather interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well, this is going to be rather interesting... (Score:2)
Hey now! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hey now! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey now! (Score:2)
Hear that sound?... (Score:1)
*ducks*
Re:Hey now! (Score:1)
How many Bothans died to bring you that information?
Re:Hey now! (Score:1)
No confirmed (Score:3, Informative)
Ah! Where else in the Galaxy... (Score:2)
Nice? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice? The photographs are a bunch of small white dots! Does anyone else see real photographs? I guess he is referring to the "artistic conceptual drawings"
Re:Nice? (Score:1)
Re:Nice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice? (Score:1)
Re:Nice? (Score:3, Informative)
The Wikipedia is currently exhibiting the best true-color image of Pluto to date:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nice? (Score:1)
Re:Nice? (Score:1)
Re:Nice? (Score:4, Informative)
I disagree. For those of us who get excited about these things, they are actually really cool. For anyone who spends much time in front of a telescope, these are quite exciting.
Now, in terms of whether Pluto is a planet or not... It is clear that it did not form from the same planetary disk that spawned the planets from Neptune on in. It does not appear to be made of the same material, nor does it appear to be close to the plane of the ecliptic. Mars's moons are different and were clearly captured as well though probably from the asteroid belt where planetary formation was disrupted by the gravity of Jupiter (though I suspect that our moon was formed along with the earth in the same band-- the fact that the moon is a near perfect sphere, and that it is within a couple degrees of the ecliptic support this hypothesis I think better than the idea that either the moon was ejected from the earth or that it was captured). Pluto as the nearest of the large KBO's provides many opportunities to study issues involving comet formation and even the dynamics which may have brought the precursors of life to our planet.
Re:Nice? (Score:2)
Re:Nice? I am not a professional astronomer, but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there are usually two aspects to the impact ejection theory. The idea is that the earth was struck and:
1) ejected dust that formed the moon and
2) knocked the earth's axis so that it we have the tilt that generates the seasons.
Now, there are two issues that I have with this theory:
First, it presumes that the earth's equator was very close to the ecliptic. This is not something I can take
Re:Nice? I am not a professional astronomer, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice? I am not a professional astronomer, but.. (Score:1)
Re:Nice? I am not a professional astronomer, but.. (Score:2)
Re:Nice? I am not a professional astronomer, but.. (Score:1)
Re:Nice? I am not a professional astronomer, but.. (Score:2)
Re:Nice? I am not a professional astronomer, but.. (Score:1)
The other alternative I see is on direction of rotation, but if that is the case, Venus also has an equator near the elliptic - just spin
Re:Nice? (Score:1)
The most plausible theory for the formation of the Moon is that the earth was hit by a Mars-sized body, and a bit proto-earth mantle blobbed up, found its way into orbit, and became the moon.
The capt
Re:Nice? (Score:2)
But this theory was mandated by a theory (that carbonaceous chondrites were the original planetessimals) that has suffered some serious setbacks in the last couple of years. The question is: If the moon was co-formed with the earth, why are the elemental makeup of the body so different? The answer that the impact the
Re:Nice? (Score:1)
But this theory was mandated by a theory (that carbonaceous chondrites were the original planetessimals) that has suffered some serious setbacks in the last couple of years. The question is: If the moon was co-formed with the earth, why are the elemental makeup of the body so different? The answer that the impact theory postulates is that the moon was formed by material from the Earth's crust.
Interesting, what are the setbacks? As for the composition differences, there basically automatic in the theory.
Re:Nice? (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting, what are the setbacks?
Take a look at http://carnegieinstitution.org/news_980917.html [carnegieinstitution.org]
The basic problem is that the iron/silicon ratios of C1 carbonaceous chondrite meteorites matches the composition of the earth, but new data from the Pathfinder is raising doubts as to whether Mars has the same ratios (as previously thought). If this data continues to hold up it means that C1 carbonaceous chondrites may have helped form Earth, but Mars joins Mercury as an inner planet not formed from them. And
Re:Nice? (Score:1)
Take a look at http://carnegieinstitution.org/news_980917.html [carnegieinstitution.org]
Interesting paper, but doesn't really make a difference to the Moon/Earth compositional difference. It's just saying that the "C1 model" doesn't hold for Mars. If it didn't hold for the moon, then maybe that's because it lost a lot of it's native material during the Earth/Theia [wikipedia.org] impact, and Theia did fit the C1 model--or not. Or maybe the moon is captured, and it does or it doesn't fit the C1 model.
Re:Nice? (Score:1)
say what? (Score:2)
I don't understand this, can you elucidate? Are you saying there was another planetary disk at some other time? Or that Pluto and friends wandered in from interstellar space?
Re:say what? (Score:2)
I don't understand this, can you elucidate? Are you saying there was another planetary disk at some other time? Or that Pluto and friends wandered in from interstellar space?
There are other planetary disks around other stars.
And Pluto probably wandered in from the Kuiper Belt. Not sure if I consider this to be intersteller space or not. But it is certainly outside the rest of the solar system.
Re:say what? (Score:1)
Re:Nice? (Score:2)
And there is the problem with the public and science/space in general. They've come to believe that unless it's flashy - it's boring and pointless.
Re:Nice? (Score:2)
No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:5, Informative)
My good friend UB313 [caltech.edu] would have to disagree.
There are actually several known KBOs with moons. Or was the submitter being overly litteral and meant multiple moons?
Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:1)
Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what the submitter was thinking when they wrote that statement.
Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:2)
Xena and Gabrielle were never characterized as lesbian. Yes, they played around, and the writers and producers had a field day with the lesbian subtext. But subtext is all it ever was.
Sigh.
...laura
Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:2)
Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:2)
Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:1)
Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:1)
Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? (Score:2)
Quite a few KBO have moons (Score:5, Informative)
Various other KBOs do, including Xena :
http://www.planetary.org/news/2005/xena_moon_1003
Re:Quite a few KBO have moons (Score:2)
As usual, Lovecraft foresaw this (Score:4, Informative)
I hope we have our XK-PLUTO [infinityplus.co.uk] nuclear-powered bombers ready for the Old Ones. Me? I'm going to take a little trip to XK-Masada.
Re:As usual, Lovecraft foresaw this (Score:2)
Re:As usual, Lovecraft foresaw this (Score:2)
Or (Score:5, Funny)
More like "four big asteroids are gravitating around each other beyond the orbit of Neptune".
Actually... (Score:2)
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Funny)
Okay then: "two big asteroids are known to be orbiting around each other beyond Neptune, but two more are presumed to have joined the party, which incidentally pisses Neptune off to high heavens".
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Incidently, the CNN report mentions that the astronomers called them the Halloween Moons - I didn't know Eric Raymond was an astronomer!
Re:Or (Score:2)
Depends... (Score:2)
Re:Or (Score:2)
Remember (Score:1, Funny)
Pluto is a planet, not an object. Anything else is either cultural revisionism or solar system wide discrimination.
Re:Remember (Score:2)
Planetary Discrimination? Somebody call the EEOC!!
Pluto has 3 moons? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pluto has 3 moons? (Score:1)
Re:Pluto has 3 moons? (Score:1)
Classification (Score:4, Insightful)
-Da3vid-
Re:Classification (Score:3, Informative)
There are all sorts of other benefits moons provide, by the way, as far as astronomy goes, from their chemical properties compared to those of the parent, to their diffraction of light from stars behind them.
Having multiple moons isn't as i
Re:Classification (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that isn't true. Particularly in the case of Pluto. Multiple moons certainly help refine mass measurements in the general case. In the case of Pluto, Charon is so large (compared with the parent) that you don't GET the mass of Pluto from an orbital period/distance measurement, you get the mass of combined system. (Technically, this is always true. But for most bodies, including all of the planets, the mass o
Re:Classification (Score:2)
Re:Classification (Score:2)
I believe that the error on the mass of Charon is around 5-10%, actually. But I'd have to look that up to be sure since it's been years since I've let it keep me awake at night.
Re:Classification (Score:2)
We can detect and confirm solar system celestial bodies by spotting what we think is a new object then, if I understand this right, working out where it would have been x number of years ago and looking for it on photos from that time.
If it shows up on the old photo where you predicted it would be, this confirms that you have a new object, right?
This makes me wonder how effective we would be at detecting asteroid-sized objects moving around in the solar system under
That is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Would this help u
Re:That is why (Score:3, Informative)
First, we don't know that all eight planets have cores. The biggest of the lot, Jupiter, is currently an unknown. A new mission is in the works to test precisely this issue, though.
Second, some asteroids DO have cores. And we're pretty certain that many more used to because that's where the metal-rich asteroids came from. (Break-up of larger asteroids which had differentiated.)
Now, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the "composition is mixed", but I
Kinda small... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Kinda small... (Score:4, Interesting)
You are way out of the ballpark, I'm afraid. These two new moon are larger than Phobos (diameter approx. 22Km) and Deimos (diameter approx. 12Km). The Earth (and its moon) Mars, Venus, Mercury, the Galilean Moons and Titan are thousands of kilometers across, but everything else is much smaller. Ceres (the largest asteriod) is only 914Km across.
Let's not forget (Score:1)
Re:Kinda small... (Score:1)
Re:Kinda small... (Score:2)
Bzzt, hate to correct you, but Phobo and Deimos are TINY
Phobos - 22.2km diameter
Deimos - 12.6km diameter
Hardly thousands of kilometers across and if they're going to be "moons" why not Plutos?
You got the scale wildly wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Even if you rolled all the rockets we have ever launched, and all the fuel we packed into them, I doubt it they would form a sphere even a single kilometer in diameter.
A Saturn V was about 20 meters in diameter, and about 100 meters tall, more or less. Volume of a cylinder is pi r^2 * length. That would make the volume of a Saturn V about pi * 2500 meters^3.
The volume of a sphere is 3/4 * pi r^3. The volume of a sphere one kilometer in diameter would be pi * 93,750,000 meters^3. That would be volumne of something like the prelaunch volume of 37,000 Saturn Vs. The payload of a rocket is a fraction of the mass of the entire thing. Let's say 1%. Most rockets are much smaller than a Saturn V. Payloads launched into low earth orbits decay within decades, like Mir, or Spacelab.
It wouldn't surprise me if the volume of all the working satellites, and space detritus, that remain in orbit would be less than the prelaunch volume of a single Saturn V.
Re:Kinda small... (Score:2, Interesting)
It not the only KBO to have moons. (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:It not the only KBO to have moons. (Score:1)
Re:It not the only KBO to have moons. (Score:1)
Calling Pluto a planet in the first place (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Calling Pluto a planet in the first place (Score:2)
Which termionology is that? Are you saying that there is a widely accepted definition of a planet that is not in the center of a controversy? Please, do tell. What is it?
(there isn't one, don't bother trying to find it)
If it were as cut and dried as referring to the definition of the term "planet" there'd be no controversy. Pluto would fit the definition, or it wouldn't. But there isn't a definition that has gained enough acceptance to settle the
Re:Calling Pluto a planet in the first place (Score:1)
Fierce Winds?!? (Score:1)
Oh please, 'twas but a mere breeze. That hangar's falling apart anyway.
Why more moons further out?? (Score:2)
But now even puny Pluto is getting into the act. Three moons, when Mercury has zero and Mars but two. What gives? Why are moons more common in a general way in the outer Solar System than the inner? This is odd. Is it all captured from the Kuiper Belt? Did
Re:Why more moons further out?? (Score:2)
The answer is: it's easier to capture objects in the outer solar system because the spheres of influence are larger. To get into the region of space where Earth's gravity dominates ove
This feels like a publicity ploy (Score:2)
I don't know. I'm probably just crazy, but it seems possible to me.
Imperial units! it's an American rocket program! (Score:2)
Can we have this in imperial units, this is an American website and an American space program we're talking about here...
Re:Imperial units! it's an American rocket program (Score:2)
I don't think we should send a probe to Pluto (Score:2)
I'm afraid of their brain canisters!
Re:Hubble (Score:5, Funny)
Dubya: we need to kill Hubble. We have more, erhm.., pressing needs for money
Hubble astronomers: No wait! We found another Pluto moon !
NASA: come on, we can't kill the thing, it's useful
Dubya: hmm, I dunno...
Astronomers: Wait! wait! anOTHER moon!!
NASA: Wow
Dubya: stop that...
Astronomers: Hold on... HOLY CRAP, TEN MORE MOONS! and a black hole inside Jupiter too!!!
Dubya: We're closing guys, you need to go home now...
Astronomers: NO REALLY! LOOK! ALL THESE MOONS!!!
Re:Hubble (Score:1, Troll)
Re:astrology (Score:2)
Absolutely nothing. From an astrological perspective, the moons will always be at the same place on your chart as Pluto and thus would make no difference to the chart's interpretation.
I get sick and tired of astrologers needlessly multiplying entities by making postulates that are not only patently untrue but useless and stupid anyway, like the theory that there is a shadow earth in our orbit on the other side of the sun. If you want something more useful wit
Re:astrology (Score:2)
Well, astrology as a detailed field probably lacks the ability to create atomic, testable hypotheses which can then be repeatably tested
Re:astrology (Score:2)
Ok.... Let me explain a few things to you about my concept of astrology. First the most important form of astrology is personal (birth chart) astrology that tells people about themselves. Additionally we have the ability to look at the character of specific time frames (via solar return charts, progressions, transits), and answer specific questions (horary astrology, though many times, the chart just says
Re:astrology (Score:2)
Usually in the sense that "Hmm. Based on these charts, it looks there is a chance that if I approach such and such this way, that I might be able to accomplish such and such." For me astrology is very results-oriented.
On the other hand, charts contain so much information that occasionally I have missed very disasterous things that made perfect sense in retrospect. For example, there was one woman who I was in love with for a while just
Re:astrology (Score:2)
As I mentioned, it was discovered after the fact, but it provides a link between otherwise unrelated activities. And it was discovered by applying a technique that I was studying at the time-- t
Re:astrology (Score:2)