Slashdot Mirror


Jupiter's "Mini-Me" Solar System Grows

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."

183 comments

  1. Spell doom for the system by dzym · · Score: 1

    No reason not to look for life on Europa NOW is there? I mean, any such doom for the planetary system would probably be a few million years off?

    1. Re:Spell doom for the system by IAR80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should look for life on Europa but I thing it is not the right moment. We lack technical capabilities for now. A probe looking for life on Europa should travel the distance between Earth and Jupiter, land on Europa, burn its way through a very thick layer of ice (maybe 10 - 20km, swim autonmously trough a dark ocean probing for life, find its way up to the surface and transmit data back to earth. I think this is out of our technicak capabilities for now. Maybe latter.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    2. Re:Spell doom for the system by mikerich · · Score: 3, Informative
      Agreed, that it looks impossible right now. We need an enormous velocity to get to Jupiter and then need to lose almost all of that to enter orbit around Europa. Any space-craft would be something like 90% fuel unless we use some radical technologies - which will need a lot of testing.

      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.

    3. Re:Spell doom for the system by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit mikerich:

      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.

      Nah, we just have to develop shields first.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    4. Re:Spell doom for the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any space-craft would be something like 90% fuel unless we use some radical technologies

      Since when is nuclear a "radical fuel"??

    5. Re:Spell doom for the system by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, but they're working on this technology using the work done at Lake Vostok as an example.

      --
      Huh?
    6. Re:Spell doom for the system by C21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see it as launching a craft that would put into orbit around europa and detach mini probes that would plunge/melt through the surface, transmitting discoveries to the "mother ship" and thus back to earth. All very "simple", electromagnetic waves can go through water, you know...

      --
      this is not a sig.
    7. Re:Spell doom for the system by passion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All this, while not contaminating any alien species' primordial goop, and wiping them all out just as we discover them.

      --
      - passion
    8. Re:Spell doom for the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not thinking this through far enough It appears that Europa's surface is regularly "turned over" with water from below.
      So all the probe has to do is land on the surface and take a sample. Sure it won't pick up any whales, but it can surely find evidence of life.

    9. Re:Spell doom for the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... it's full of stars...

    10. Re:Spell doom for the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, "nuclear" isn't a fuel. uranium and plutonium are, but that's just splitting hairs. besides, how do you propose to use nuclear power as a source of propulsion? controlled nuclear explosions? this isn't quake. rocket jumps aren't for real you know.

    11. Re:Spell doom for the system by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      Indeed extremly low radio frequencies can go through water. It is used for commnicating messages to submerged submarines. But you need a lot of power to do so. One thing you do not have in excess on a an interplanetary probe.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    12. Re:Spell doom for the system by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      Indeed the energy needs for such a mission are enormous (might I say astronomical). And there is a big chance that there might not be any ocean beneath the ice. Indeed the first reasonable step is an orbiter.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    13. Re:Spell doom for the system by Atrahasis · · Score: 1

      Nuclear propulsion is not "radical". Untested, but not radical.

    14. Re:Spell doom for the system by Morgahastu · · Score: 1

      Who says we have to go beneath the surface?

      If there was, or is, life on Europa the chances are pretty good that some organic material would make its way to the surface with the ice.

      What we need to do is send an orbiter to take pictures of the surface to find the most likely spot for organic materials (maybe a place where water from undernearth the surface has escaped rescently?) and sent a craft there to investigate.

    15. Re:Spell doom for the system by zenofjazz · · Score: 0

      Here is a thought... Why not creatively take advantage of the jovian magnetosphere, to brake a craft, and bring it down suitable speeds for maneuvering in the jovian system?
      Ok, I'll admit we've got zero experience with this as a means of propulsion, but let's look at what we have plenty of, at that end of the voyage, and see how we can use that to reduce the velocity of a probe.
      Sometimes it's not about what we can or can't do, it's about looking at the problem a new way.
      -Jazz

      --
      -- All That's Evil in the Geek Space ... Allthatsevil.wordpress.com
    16. Re:Spell doom for the system by IAR80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there is a ocean under the thick layer of ice (6-15km estimated), and if there is life, that life will probably exist only near thermal vents deep below and never find its way or at least never in detectable quantities. Here on Earth we do not know for sure if there is life in the Vostok lake.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
  2. Bad text to speech.... by BWJones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Geez, I checked out that text to speech link and was surprised the voice was not of any higher quality. Mac users at least, have had much better text to speech quality for years now going back to the mid 90's.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Bad text to speech.... by missing000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thequalityisokbymebutthewordsallseemtoruntogether

    2. Re:Bad text to speech.... by fredrikj · · Score: 1

      The MP3 is at 8 kbps quality. What would you expect, heh.

    3. Re:Bad text to speech.... by BWJones · · Score: 1

      The MP3 is at 8 kbps quality. What would you expect, heh

      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.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    4. Re:Bad text to speech.... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Wow, that is crap. The poor quality of the MP3 doesn't help either.

      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.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    5. Re:Bad text to speech.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its because they're using a mac512K to do it. :P

    6. Re:Bad text to speech.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd use my Mac's built-in text-to-speech if it made my computer sound like Joshua from Wargames

    7. Re:Bad text to speech.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like Festival with a low-quality voice used. With open source, you get what you pay for.

    8. Re:Bad text to speech.... by thelexx · · Score: 1

      I thought the machines name was W.O.P.R. and Joshua was Prof Falken's son, whose name was the password Lightman 'cracked' to get in as Falken...

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    9. Re:Bad text to speech.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Amiga had much better text-to-speech in 1985...

  3. Time to move... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since Jupiter is the largest planet in our Solar System it has influenced our neighborhood second only to the Sun.

    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.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:Time to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's Jupiter and its Fans. And they're all Freaks of you.

    2. Re:Time to move... by daeley · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Don't let the carbon nanotube ribbon hit you on the way out.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    3. Re:Time to move... by Peterus7 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Heh, pretty soon they'll get a telescope to monitor Jupiter 24/7...

      "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."

    4. Re:Time to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With not so breaking news, the cyborg cyber-god Bill Gates has BOUGHT Jupiter, after the astronomers put it up for auction. He plans to move his brain there when he dies. In a statement to the press he said something about 'I wanna be like Dave Bowman.' "

    5. Re:Time to move... by benna · · Score: 0

      His brain would be destoyed at launch...Too small to withstand it!

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    6. Re:Time to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You suck for one of two reasons;


      a) You're male, and a very good troll. This seems most likely, given your UID and posting style.

      b) You're female, and are so unsure of yourself you sell sex for popularity. This is the 'really too bad' option, because your comments are usually intelligent and/or funny.

      Which is it?

    7. Re:Time to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the US needs to get a UN resolution before messing with Jupiter. It may have Weapons of Mass Destruction you knoww...

    8. Re:Time to move... by perdu · · Score: 1

      I'll be glad to name one of the moons after you now! Just send me $75 and I will put the name of you or a loved one in a nice book and file it in a bank vault. Call now and you can get 2 moons for $150!

      --
      You only use 2% of your DNA
    9. Re:Time to move... by burnunit0 · · Score: 1

      Dammit, that's it! Jupiter and its allies are clearly taking an expansionist stance. Our regime of sanctions and flybys of this wayward planet has failed. And it continues to acquire masses. We require a firm resolution permitting the use of force to stop the brutal Jovian empire now, before it destabilizes its entire region.

      --
      yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
    10. Re:Time to move... by Peterus7 · · Score: 1

      Your limit of moons to buy ends at 10, we don't want anyone trying to monopolize on the moons. Sorry Bill.

  4. Europa's not the only possibility by s20451 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Recent results from Galileo indicate that Callisto and Ganymede may also have vast oceans beneath their surfaces. So ruling out Europa doesn't mean that there is no life in the Jovian system.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:Europa's not the only possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah.
      I just love it how scientists contradict themselfs all the time.

      First they go "Life adapts to it's enviroment".

      Then they say that life on other planets is impossible. EARTH-LIKE life sure I can agree on that but until you can either prove or disaprove anything shut up... don't have the technology to do it? then shut the fuck up and don't go saying something can't be just because you say so.

      First it was the church saying what was possible and what was not, now we have science.
      Go figure.

    2. Re:Europa's not the only possibility by Soft · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So ruling out Europa doesn't mean that there is no life in the Jovian system.

      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.

    3. Re:Europa's not the only possibility by xihr · · Score: 1

      But Callisto and Ganymede are still in the radiation and ion belts. If you rule out Europe because of these, you rule out all of the Galilean satellites.

    4. Re:Europa's not the only possibility by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Life would be underwater, in an ocean tens of kilometers deep, the radiations won't penetrate that far. So don't rule out Europa."

      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.

    5. Re:Europa's not the only possibility by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      I don't think there's a natural area of Earth that's completely devoid of life.....you'll find life forms...near some very hot thermal vents in the ocean floor.

      What about away from the thermal vents?

    6. Re:Europa's not the only possibility by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Then they say that life on other planets is impossible.

      References, please?

    7. Re:Europa's not the only possibility by RayBender · · Score: 3, Interesting
      This is a bit of a repeat story, so the response is worth repeating: high levels of radiation do not preclude life, and in any case the idea was that Europan life would be under kilometers of ocean.

      It's amazing how much radiation certain bacteria can survive, though..

      By the way, NASA is thinking about a new mission to the Galilean moons, called JIMO . Very exciting stuff - it's amazing how much more you can do with a nuclear propulsion stage.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    8. Re:Europa's not the only possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you rule out Europe because of these,

      then you'll have a lot of angry Europeans correcting you.

      Seriously, though, some parts of Europe are quite nice, and not many are miles below a frozen ocean.

    9. Re:Europa's not the only possibility by nhavar · · Score: 1

      I saw a show once where they left a camera down on the oceans floor, well away from the vents. The idea was to capture images of some kind of material, an algae I think, that got pushed around on the currents. To the scientists surprise at those depths and low temperatures there were many signs of life in the sand. Timelapse photography showed multiple organisms leaving trails on and under the sand.

      Additionally there are lichen that grow in freezing conditions and bacteria that live in the salt underneath iceflows.

      --
      "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
  5. Size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What makes a satellite an acceptable .. satellite? Obviously there's a size issue but is there something else that makes a particular body labeled as a satellite (In the 'moon' sense)?

    1. Re:Size? by mikerich · · Score: 4, Informative
      Essentially a satellite is just a body orbiting its the parent planet. So there is really no lower limit on size.

      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.

    2. Re:Size? by benzapp · · Score: 1

      Essentially a satellite is just a body orbiting its the parent planet. So there is really no lower limit on size.

      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 don't read or respond to AC posts
    3. Re:Size? by ShortSpecialBus · · Score: 1

      i would say that any hydrogen atom that can sustain a (more or less) unchanging, steady, stable orbit around a plant would be considered a satellite.

      I think pretty much any object that can sustain an orbit around a planet could be considered a satellite.

      i'm not an astronomer, though, so i could be way off.

      --
      //FIXME: Bad .sig
    4. Re:Size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • I propose:
      • Large satellites get called moons, as usual.
      • Average-sized objects, wrt human-scale, may be called satellites; so may moons be also be called satellites.
      • And anything orbiting another body that's smaller than a marble shall henceforth and forthwith be called ..... Orbitrons!
      *I* ... Anonymous Coward the 3rd, will have my ego pumped to be the coiner of that new coined term. oh yes. oohhh yes! I'm all that and a bag of chips! I'm going down in history babe-EEEEEEE
    5. Re:Size? by GrayCalx · · Score: 1

      If I'm up to date, I know officially the Earth has a total of 3 moons, 1 being in a strange horseshoe orbit that cirlces the Sun encounters earth and turns around the other way.

      But from what I've read a lot of scientists are hesitant to call these moons, because they don't fit in with the old conception of "Lookit that big ol' moon of ours."

      So ask 1 astronomer he'll prolly say anythings a moon, ask another and he may put size restrictions on it.

  6. I can only see 3 moons though... by saskboy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think I need a better telescope...

    Jupiter through a 3" telescope.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:I can only see 3 moons though... by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      That's seriously through a 3" telescope?

      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*

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    2. Re:I can only see 3 moons though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please, I know this is news for nerds, but please, lower your geekiness factor a tad!

    3. Re:I can only see 3 moons though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I concur! I've got a Meade 90mm (4") and I don't get much better of a view. The bad thing is that I actually got to look through a large observatory telescope (Mt. Laguna, CA) once and it was all over for me after that (MMMMmmmmm Pleiades) .
      Now, I find looking through my scope pretty discouraging....well, at least I can see good shots of our moon....

    4. Re:I can only see 3 moons though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but do you mean me, or you? Or were you talking about him?

      Be clear with your funny insults, not ambiguous.

    5. Re:I can only see 3 moons though... by saskboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, on second though, I think it was a 6" Newtonian telescope with a R.A. auto tracking motor. It was possibly a 12mm eyepiece, and the camera is a Canon Powershot S30 with 3X zoom and held against the eyepiece as steady as I could.

      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.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    6. Re:I can only see 3 moons though... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      According to XEphem, all four Galileans should be visible tonight with I think Europa and Callisto (or is it Io and Callisto) so close they'll be hard to separate). I'm unlucky enough to be in a badly, badly light-polluted area and so can't check it out myself.

  7. What is a moon? by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Specifically, my question is:
    How close does an natural astronomical body have to orbit a planet for it to be a moon?
    I know there has been much debate about what a planet is (the Pluto debate, etc), but what exactly is a moon? 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). If it did that, then would it be a Jupiter-moon?
    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    1. Re:What is a moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How close does an natural astronomical body have to orbit a planet for it to be a moon?

      If it orbits a planet, then it's a moon, period. There's no distance test.

    2. Re:What is a moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4'

    3. Re:What is a moon? by mikerich · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmmm.

      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.

    4. Re:What is a moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would have to do this by coming extraordinarily close to Jupiter or the Sun

      Let V = solar system escape velocity.

      If a body travels at V-epsilon, it only needs a small nudge to get to V+epsilon and escape. Similarly, a body traveling at V+epsilon only need a small nudge to get to V-epsilon and be captured.

      So it doesn't have to come "extraordinarily close to Jupiter" if it's velocity happens to be close to V. (Passing close to the Sun doesn't help, capture requires passing close to an object that is massive *and* moving fast with respect to the solar system barycenter.)

    5. Re:What is a moon? by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The action taken by France in front of the UN concerning Iraq.

      --
      As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
    6. Re:What is a moon? by WhiteBandit · · Score: 1

      Well the technical definition of a moon is a natural satellite orbiting a planet. Otherwise Earth would technically have about 10,000 moons. :)

    7. Re:What is a moon? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      What about Saturn's rings? Does that count as millions of moons?

    8. Re:What is a moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen, "girl", if something largish orbits a planet in a relatively tight orbit, it's a moon. If something orbits on a huge solar-system-leaving orbit, it's a comet regardless of what it's orbiting.

      How the heck do you get Score:4 for comments like this? Please... moderators... this is probably just some karma-whoring guy.

    9. Re:What is a moon? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "How close does an natural astronomical body have to orbit a planet for it to be a moon?"

      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.

    10. Re:What is a moon? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There *is* a natural limit to how far out you can get and still be orbiting a planet, like Jupiter. That limit (roughly) is the Hill radius*, which goes like (m/3 M)^(1/3) a, where m is the mass of the planet, M is the mass of the Sun, a is the planet's orbital semi-major axis and 3 is 3. For Jupiter, this is about half of an astronomical unit. That's actually a pretty big sphere of influence, since Jupiter is only 5.2 AU from the Sun to start with.

      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.

    11. Re:What is a moon? by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit Guppy06:

      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.

      (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''?

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    12. Re:What is a moon? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      A body is the satellite of any larger body located at one of the foci of its orbital ellipse. A moon is any natural satellite of a planet. A planet is a natural satellite of a star exactly equal to or larger in size than Pluto (according to this week's definition). A star is a large body that shines in visible light due to fusion (or former stars, like collapsars). Anything the size of a star that doesn't shine in the visible, or smaller than a planet which is a natural satellite of a star, is going to be hard to categorize with our current taxonomy.

    13. Re:What is a moon? by FPCat · · Score: 1

      This is a better question than it sounds.. There is an Apollo rocket booster that is swapping between orbiting earth and the sun. Why not asteroid? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/space_junk_0 20919.html

    14. Re:What is a moon? by barawn · · Score: 1

      A better definition would be simply anything that orbits the planet in an elliptic or circular path. Simply put,

      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.

    15. Re:What is a moon? by barawn · · Score: 1

      It's probably better to define a star as anything which completes the PP chain (or better) at its core. All objects radiate in the visible... just... very very dimly.

      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.

    16. Re:What is a moon? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What about Saturn's rings? Does that count as millions of moons?

      Imagine having a gov job to name each and every one of them. You could give them names like Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive.

    17. Re:What is a moon? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "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?"

      I'm not a professional astronomer, but I'm comfortable with that. After all, our exploration of of extrasolar planets suggests that there are star systems with far stranger things than more than one planet sharing the same orbit (more or less).

      But again, I'm not a professional astronomer, so my opinion doesn't mean squat.

    18. Re:What is a moon? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "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."

      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...

      "Also, by that definition of planet, Ceres is a planet. I don't have a problem with this"

      Is something in orbit around Ceres?

    19. Re:What is a moon? by entrigant · · Score: 1

      I have no idea if it could survive such an encounter without being ripped to pieces by tidal forces - anyone?

      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.

    20. Re:What is a moon? by barawn · · Score: 1

      "That definition" was the "held together by its own gravity" rather than chemical forces definition. Ceres is semi-spherical.


      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.

  8. Trip to Jupiter by rodney+dill · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well for 47 it really wasn't going to be worth the effort, but for 48 I think we better make the Trip. So Lets Go!


    "... but Capan, Capan, i can not Geet it oop, I got to have 30 minutes.. "

    (with apologies to Scotty)

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  9. i had a disturbing vision.. by collapser · · Score: 1

    of orbiting Verne Troyers

    and i wonder, is referring to Mike Myers films the way /. intends to attract now readers to science articles?

    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"?

    --
    <B>note to self:</B> <I>post as html</I>
    1. Re:i had a disturbing vision.. by t0ny · · Score: 1

      ya, Jupiters 'solar' system seems to be a little lacking the 'solar' component.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    2. Re:i had a disturbing vision.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Astrological'? Astrology is superstition. Astronomy is the science.

  10. But what are their names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what are their names? Jupiter has such cool names for its moons.

    1. Re:But what are their names? by boo+pixie · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suppose it will take some time and go before the official naming group.

      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"

      --
      -- http://uncannyvalley.org/
    2. Re:But what are their names? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Jupiter's moons are all named (saith the official Internation Astronomers' Union rules) after paramours of Jupiter/Zeus. There are a few exceptions, named for the nurses of the young Jupiter.

      But even with Zeus's ... er... excesses, we're running out of names.

      (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.)

    3. Re:But what are their names? by nalfeshnee · · Score: 1

      Not all ... seems the convention ran out of Titans (there are only 12). Random link from Google:

      "By astronomical convention, Saturn's moons bear the names of Titans and other figures taken from ancient Greek mythology.".

      LOL: there being a fair few (6000+) figures in Greek mythology. Even Jupiter won't be able to exhaust them all!

      Nalfy.

      --

      -- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --

    4. Re:But what are their names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That proves once again IAU is a racist organization who shuns astronomy progresses in non-Greek civilizations. WHY SHOULD IT BE LIMITED TO GREEK/ROMAN NAMES?!

  11. 48??? by king_penguin_05 · · Score: 4, Funny

    48 is worthless!

    42 is the answer.

    --
    "I can't drive 55. It only goes 38."
    1. Re:48??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but what is The Question???????????

  12. Speaking of Stephen Hawking by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 5, Funny

    He seems to have turned his attention from Astrophysics to producing gangsta rap

    1. Re:Speaking of Stephen Hawking by SageLikeFool · · Score: 2, Funny

      He must be after a Nobel Prize for M4D SK1llZ.

  13. hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that goes to all who think we can land on mars on our lifetimes. we don't even have the technology to correctly find what moons planets of the solar system have

    1. Re:hah! by He+Schutze+He+Scores · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go that far. Space is BIG. Heck, I can walk to the corner store without having to know the placement of every stone on the way there.

      --
      He Schutze, He Scores!
  14. dudes get over it by handybundler · · Score: 0

    Jupiter was almost the second of a binary star system.

    So, yeah, it's going to have some fans that just wont let go.

    --


    a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
  15. Picture of Jupiter by rodney+dill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The astronomy picture of the day a few days ago had a nice moving picture of Jupiter with two moons. Where did the other 46 go?


    (feeble Karma saving attempt)

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  16. This again? by Gregg+M · · Score: 1
    Why would this cast doubt on Europan life? If they exist they would be deep underwater.
    Unless you somehow convert Jupiter into a mini sun.

    --
    Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
  17. Synth Voice Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I cant understand that synthesized voice at all. Its worse than the old Sound Blaster 'Dr.Sbaitso', or whatever his name was. I've heard some recent artificial speech programs and they usually sound better than that. Has NASA simply not updated it in a decade or two??

    1. Re:Synth Voice Sucks by man_ls · · Score: 3, Funny

      My Name is Dr. Sbaitso. I am here to help you.

      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.

    2. Re:Synth Voice Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats awesome! That brought back the memories...
      Man I used to play with that thing for hours. Kinda got repetitive after a while...

    3. Re:Synth Voice Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy flashback, batman.

      That was the best part of the soundblaster soundcard - besides getting sound in Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure.

    4. Re:Synth Voice Sucks by potaz · · Score: 1
      My Name is Dr. Sbaitso. I am here to help you.

      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

    5. Re:Synth Voice Sucks by kEnder242 · · Score: 1

      I thought the parrot was a bit more entertaining ... then I tried to type.

      --
      my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
  18. ads and payments? by d00dman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    jesus. wasnt it on slashdot where we used to read about how much fullpage ads and subscription access sucks? now you can pay slashdot, to read OTHER PEOPLES NEW. this ontop of the box ads. osdn can lick my big hairy black cock.

  19. Ha! by maximillianarturo · · Score: 2, Funny

    48 moons? Ha! In highschool I was big enough to [insert fatjoke here]!!

    1. Re:Ha! by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

      48 moons? Ha! In highschool I was big enough to [insert fatjoke here]!!

      Shouldn't that read

      48 moons? Ha! In highschool I set the record with 51.

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    2. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you can get moded +funny without actually having to tell the joke! This rules!

    3. Re:Ha! by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 1

      48 moons? Ha!

      No. You got it totally wrong. It should be:

      "48, 48 moons! Ha, ha, ha..."

      --
      Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    4. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      em oh oh en spells moon!

  20. space probes by Pompatus · · Score: 1

    I remember a couple of days in a comment that Bush approved funding for a NASA project that focused on a new form of propulsion in order shorted space travel times. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear_po wer_030117.html (Sorry I don't know how to do a link). Anyway, my thought is develop this and use it to propel a probe to get out to jupiter and see exactly what is going on. And, of course, send people to mars :)

    --

    ----
    Squirrel ... It's not just for breakfast anymore
  21. Thank you by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

    I salute you sir for reminding me of Dr. Sbaitso.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  22. And what happens when... by jpt.d · · Score: 0, Troll

    The United States starts world war 3, civilization is destroyed. Some star charts (showing names...) and 2010 (the book) survive. Except for in this new century of 2100s, they take the book literally, and think that God owns Europa and forbids you to go there. Edan is not for you, my children. hehe

    --
    What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
  23. it's "Hawking", not "Hawkings" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    why do people always fuck this up?

  24. FRIEND WHORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $$$$$exyGal is actually ekrout.

    1. Re:FRIEND WHORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure. Go read this.

    2. Re:FRIEND WHORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's no way to really know (short of a $$$$$exyGal showing up at my doorstep).
      having said that, the choice of the name "$$$$$exyGal" is a clear indicator of attention craving. i imagine that there are numerous females on slashdot (well, at least 2) and they have androgenous names, "girly" names, or their real names as usernames. but they do not pick names that blatantly propose that they are "sexy gals". what advantage would advertising that gain them? more friends and better moderation are the only two that come to my mind. and what advantage does posting porn links give this person? more friends and better moderation. what we have here is a karma/friend whore.

      ---- blatant trolling below ----

      if i were to make my username "largecock", would you assume that i have a large cock (let me assure you that i do), or would you assume i am a lame troll (let me assure you that i am a lame troll as well as the owner of the aforementioned large cock)?

      c'mon folks, anyone can find porn on the internet. your sad, lonely, and depressing life will not improve if you befriend a friend-whoring "gal" who will make you feel special by giving you more porn to fill your lonely nights.
      for all intents and purposes, $$$$$exyGal IS ekrout, and is using you to fulfil "her" friend-whoring needs.

      fight the krout

    3. Re:FRIEND WHORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a chick who reads Slashdot. I have an androgynous account, but i always post anon :-) I karma whored for a while a few months ago, but i gave that account away on Trolltalk. "Anonymous Hack", anyone? Most people figured i was a guy because i talked about tits and whatever. It's almost impossible to tell online. It's really not a big deal, i don't care if $$$$exygal is a guy OR a chick. I just think s/hes a fuckin lame karma whore... No creativity, no uber-trolliness, nothing inflammatory, just these dumbass statements as above... it's not interesting.

  25. Mini solar system? by WankersRevenge · · Score: 3, Funny

    thus bringing its mini solar system to 48 total Considering our solar system is only 9 . . . doing you think Jupiter going overkill to compensenate in other areas which may be...um, lacking?

  26. It's not "Hawkings"... by 1984 · · Score: 2

    ...it's "Hawking".

    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.

    1. Re:It's not "Hawkings"... by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 1

      8 letters is longer than 7, though. At Slashdot, it's all about quantity, not quality! ;-)

      --
      evil adrian
    2. Re:It's not "Hawkings"... by Big+Mark · · Score: 3, Funny
      At Slashdot, it's all about quantity, not quality!
      That explains the dupes then!

      That's a point... is a triply posted story a tripe?

      -Mark
  27. Jupiter to moons: GET IN MY BELLY!!! by macshune · · Score: 3, Funny

    (REUTERS) JUPITER--"C'mere, I wanna eat ye! I'm bigger than you and I'm stronger than you, I'm higher on the food chain!" Jupiter announced today, shortly before it embarked on a moon-gobbling smorgasbord adventure.
    "By jove, I think he's mad," Europa said through a spokesperson today.
    The other 47 moons did not return our calls.

    1. Re:Jupiter to moons: GET IN MY BELLY!!! by Omerna · · Score: 1

      You do realize that "jove" is short for "Jupiter"? So when you say "By jove" you're really using an a really old form of "By God!" (Cursing/ swearing/ whatever to God).

      Anyway, what caught my eye was Europa is swearing to Jupiter using Jupiter's name. That seemed much funnier before I wrote this post...

      --


      No sig for you.
    2. Re:Jupiter to moons: GET IN MY BELLY!!! by macshune · · Score: 1

      The 'by jove' thing was intentional;) astro-nerd-pun i guess.

  28. So how do these new moons get named? by MBraynard · · Score: 1
    Maybe NASA or the ISS can raise some funds by auctioning them off. Would probably wind up with corporations winning.

    Could your grandchildren be colonists on Pepsi? Or DiamlerChrysler?

    1. Re:So how do these new moons get named? by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 1

      Actually, what'd be really cool is if NASA got these corporations to sponsor missions.

      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...

      --
      evil adrian
    2. Re:So how do these new moons get named? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or do like Coca-Cola and simultaneously cause several stars to go supernova in such a way that a giant Coke logo is visible in Earth's sky.

    3. Re:So how do these new moons get named? by He+Schutze+He+Scores · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      WARNING: This reply will be in poor taste!!

      Maybe this is already going on? Did anyone notice a large Microsoft logo on the side of the spaceshuttle Columbia? That would explain a few things. Say, did anyone notice a large BSOD on the shuttle monitors during that videotape they recovered?

      Next they'll be flying Columbia XP and telling us it's more reliable and easier to use.

      I am so going to hell...

      --
      He Schutze, He Scores!
  29. bad sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    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.

    I don't get it. Arthur C. Clarke indicated that we shouldn't probe for life on Europa?

  30. Something else in Jupiter's orbit? by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe they'll find that big black rock orbiting Jupiter that'll turn it into the second sun...or maybe Bush and co. will try to destory it since that would make solar power so much more effective...

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
  31. Shit....that's a good question! by Shit...that's+a+good · · Score: 0

    What part of slash was eliminated that allowed the editors to edit the story after it was posted?

  32. Re:Your sig/your auction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where does it say that. Which section in the agreement?

    That doesn't make much sense, because personal accounts shouldn't be allowed to get any money payments at all.

    On Jupiter, I've heard they have a much better form of Internet money transfer that uses Text-To-Speech.

  33. Doh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    once had a massively larger atmosphere

    You mean that Giant Gas Bag lost some weight recently?

  34. Orbit the considering factor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If orbit was the only factor then it seems as though pluto must be a planet, all of the rocks circling jupiter must be a planet, and halleys comet must be a planet to. It orbits around the sun. Very elliptically but it is still an orbit.

  35. Recent Moon Additions by FosterSJC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For those interested, here are the slashdot threads for the last two moon additions to Jupiter:

    1. New Moon of Jupiter Discovered

    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

    This one ran on 5/17/02.

    1. Re:Recent Moon Additions by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "S/2002 J1- Catchy name, eh? Beats the hell out of say, Europa or Ganymede."

      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.

  36. Exactly ! by Evil+Pete · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
    1. Re:Exactly ! by alzoron · · Score: 1

      timothy didn't write it, if you're going to bash anyone for the innnacuracy bash the anonymous guy. If you just want to bash timothy for something do so for things he actually did.

  37. Re:Your sig/your auction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like you are confused about how PayPal can be accepted. No Credit card logos, means you can choose to be paid however you want.

    VI. Use of PayPal Logos on eBay Auctions. In addition to the terms set out in Section V Part 5 of this User Agreement, when you display a logo on your eBay auction which contains the Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express logos, your PayPal account must accept payments made via credit card. You may edit your payment receiving preferences from your Profile.

  38. Moons... Too many already by ciroknight · · Score: 1

    Look at it, before we know it, Juptier's moons will have moons.. and those will have moons.. and so on and so forth.

    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?!?!

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:Moons... Too many already by slavik · · Score: 0

      A planet is a hunk of rock orbiting a star. a planet does not emit it's own light, and nowhere does fusion happen in, out, or around the planet. A moon is a natural sattlelite (spell check?). If earth lost its orbit around the sun, and started orbiting jupiter, earth would no longer be a planet, it would become a moon.

    2. Re:Moons... Too many already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a planet does not emit it's own light, and nowhere does fusion happen in, out, or around the planet

      Hey, we've got lightbulbs and nukes.

      That mean we're living on a star?

      No wonder we've got global warming!

  39. That's no moon by StormyWeather · · Score: 3, Funny
  40. Austin Powers 2 was NOT FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you Yanks pretend that "Fat Bastard" was in any way funny?

    Austin Powers 2 was a disgusting sequel to an otherwise brilliant movie.

    1. Re:Austin Powers 2 was NOT FUNNY by beelz · · Score: 1

      what can i say, exploitative stereotypes just crack us yanks up.

      "baby: the other white meat!"

      rotflmao... truer words were never spake... [wiping tears of redneck glee from my eyes]

    2. Re:Austin Powers 2 was NOT FUNNY by 56ksucks · · Score: 1

      2 was the funniest one yet. 1 was good,and without 1 there could be no 2. 3 was a let down, but 2 was great.

      --

      ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  41. ion cloud is irrelevant by g4dget · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Any life on Europe is likely going to be miles deep under water. An ion cloud and radiation hitting the surface is not going to make any difference there. So, the chances for Europan life are as good or as slim as they have ever been. However, the radiation may make exploration more difficult.

    1. Re:ion cloud is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In English and Latin it's called Europa. (In Latin, the continent is also called Europa, but in English, the continent is called Europe, silent e). In Greek, of course, both the satellite and the continent are called Europe, with an eta (not silent).

    2. Re:ion cloud is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In English, it's called a "typo".

    3. Re:ion cloud is irrelevant by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      Under the sea, there'll be no radiation, just difficult exploration, under the sea.

  42. "That's no moon! It's a space station!" by Darth+Hubris · · Score: 1

    Off topic, but I think Pluto is going to keep it's honorary planet title, even though it is a humongous Kuyper Belt Object. Oh yeah, it has a moon, Charon.

    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...

    --
    The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out
  43. $$$$$exyGal == Ekrout (a guy) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    $$$$$exyGal is a fan whoring guy...want proof? Check out these links

    $$$$$exyGal's obsession with fans (scroll down to the end of the porn links):
    http://slashdot.org/~$$$$$exyGal/journal

    Ekrout's obsession with fans:
    http://slashdot.org/~ekrout/journal

    Notice that Eric Krout compares his # of fans to the same type of people in both cases!

  44. fact check BEFORE posting.... by barakn · · Score: 4, Informative
    its ion cloud today seems to spell doom for what Sir Arthur C. Clarke indicated, is another reason to avoid probing life on Europa

    ceejayoz writes "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 about the Jovian ion torus never mentioned any hazards to Europan life.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    1. Re:fact check BEFORE posting.... by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      What, you're going to believe _scientists_ over the opinions of the Slashdot rumor mill? :)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  45. wow by kilonad · · Score: 1

    48 moons? I never would have pictured Jupiter being catholic. ;)

  46. Parity warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Name, you're making me to #&%^#&#^zi, Parity Warning...

  47. well crap... by frozencesium · · Score: 4, Funny

    why not take advantage of the "mini solar system" and just ignite jupiter and turn sol into a binary system?

    2 stars = more sunlight to grow crops, power solar vehicals, etc...

    ah crap...i've been watching too much stargate SG1...

    -frozen

    --
    I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    1. Re:well crap... by Spunk · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the show, but it sounds like the writers have been reading too much Arthur C. Clarke. He's got fr1st p0st on that concept.

  48. You made my day... by Amiasian · · Score: 1

    I was just reading that and thinking of all the radiation bombarded underwater Frenchmen, and Englishmen and at least the paleness becomes explainable ... :D But, in truth, that was highly amusing.

  49. Hrm... by Amiasian · · Score: 1

    Who said we had to reach Europa quickly. I don't know the dynamics and physics of space travel, but why not send this device on at a slower speed, but still considerable, to save fuel on stopping it? Or maybe some internal belt fires to provide a force to counteract inertia. I'm not sure. It'd be some kind of device that rotates counterwise to the direction the ship is traveling in.
    Ahh, screw it, I don't know what I'm talking about.

  50. not only that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    in ternary, a bit is a trit, and a nybble is a tribble!

    - a.c.

  51. Re: state-of-the-art TTS for the time... by ajedgar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually it was State-of-the-art Text-to-speech at the time... Centigram Communications now SS8 Networks (91 E. Tasman San Jose surrounded by Cisco buildings ) started licensing the technology in 1993. It is based on a mathematical simulation of the vocal cords and voice tract and was very good in the day.

    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... :-)

  52. Re: state-of-the-art TTS for the time... by BWJones · · Score: 1

    Thank you. This is the sort of post that is sorely missing on Slashdot. Informative, a historical perspecive and polite.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  53. Superheroes on Europa? by extra88 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    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.

  54. Dr. Sbaitso by 56ksucks · · Score: 1

    I will try to answer that question in my next version.

    --

    ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  55. But can it START there by siskbc · · Score: 1
    Life here on Earth exists in some VERY harsh environments.

    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...?

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:But can it START there by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I think that's a fair hypothesis. I honestly have no idea. I don't know how fragile life was when it first started.

      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. :)

  56. Europa images by orbiter by Sdoh · · Score: 1

    Already done by Galileo. http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/europa/eurimage s.html