Slashdot Mirror
Jupiter's Great Dark Spot
Edball writes "For more than a century astronomers thought that the Great Red Spot was the biggest thing on Jupiter. Not anymore. Images from NASA's Cassini spacecraft have revealed something at least as large,
The Great Dark Spot."
In related solar system news, pajamacore writes "Space.com reports that the first extrasolar planet to have its atmosphere detected is having its gas envelope boiled off by heat and blown away by tidal forces. At present, the planet is 70% the size of Jupiter but its orbit is closer to its parent star than Mercury's is to our own Sun. It should be a treat to eventually see the planet's core and maybe it'll clue us in a bit to gas giant formation."
So I guess mankind may as well send a spaceship there and find out about the all-mighty monoliths preparing for sparking life in Europa.
Maybe it's just me, but the dark spot in the center of the animation looks very artificial. It's clearly six-sided until the very end of the animation. Maybe the poor astronomer was bored and just wanted to have some material published for a change, you know, have his fifteen minutes of fame. Or it's the aliens. Always the aliens, dammit.
Jupiter's probably very sensitive about it.
They didn't happen to take a close up of it and discover a cloud of spinning blocks, size 1kmx4kmx9km, did they?
Looks like someone forgot to wipe the lense properly
The monoliths are already forming! Now we really need to stay away from Europa.
Note to self: find someone get to work on that Bowman virus post-haste.
You're only as smart as your brain.
That isn't a dark spot - that's just a collection of the densest matter on Earth.
Cassini. Remember that name. You're going to hear a lot about Cassini over the next few years. The knowledge brought to us by that probe will make science headlines for the rest of this decade. Not bad for something that cost 15% of the Federal Foodstamp budget in FY2001.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Today's APOD has a pic of Jupiter in IR (can't see the pole though).
The elusive Jovian G-spot. Theory says that the spot must exist, but astronomers have become increasingly frustrated (and think of poor Jupiter!) with their lack of success. Unfortunately, NASA has not the budget to sufficiently explore Jupiter from the inside, where the G-spot undoubtedly lies. Alas, the gas giant has yet to give up its last great secret. Or just give it up.
When will astronomers find Jupiter's G-spot?
Actually it's Geraldo Rivera. But outer space seems like a good place to put him..
The other interesting thing is the link below the story about X-ray pulses coming from the north pole.
Wouldn't the loss of mass for that planet eventually cause it's orbit to get bigger and bigger? Eventually it would reach some kind of break even point where it's no bigger than the head of small dog, no?
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
The image is artificial (composite of Cassini ultra-violet (UV) images)...and subject to artifacts. Squint and look to the left...that should soften it up just enough to make it look 'real'...
c'mon...
(An oldie but goodie...)
New York (AP) - The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by researchers at the University of Fulchester. The element, tentatively named Administratium, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However, it does have 1 neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons. Since it has no electrons, Administratium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Administratium caused one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than one second. Administratium has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at which time it does not actually decay but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that the atomic mass actually increases after each reorganisation. Research at other laboratories indicates that Administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations and universities and can usually be found in the newest, best appointed and best maintained buildings. Scientists point out that Administratium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how Administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
when have astronomers *ever* found a G-spot?
;)
I kid, I kid
It could be a moon that hit Jupiter a long time ago, or some giant crater under the layers of clouds. I bet that there must be a surface structure under those spots.
"Risked" is a strong word.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Not really. I'm used to hearing words on the order of threatened, endangered or imperiled from these folks. "Risked" seems comparatively much less hysterical.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Kind of confusing, since Neptune has a Great Dark Spot.
The Great Red Spot's real claim to fame is its longevity; it's been visible since we've had telescopes big enough to see it.
Don't forget there are two other moons have been known to have similar subterranean worlds. Very strong evidence has been discovered to support the idea of subterranean oceans beneath the surfaces of two other Galilean moons, Ganymede and Callisto. While these would be colder, there is also far less radiation to wory about. With some luck, any of these three worlds may well host life, weither microbial or maybe something more complex.
It was the shadow of a huge mothership that wisely chose to remain off camera when the picture was being taken.
graspee
The so-called "dark spot" is not a feature of Jupiter, but of Uranus.
Either Cassini is really expensive for an unmanned research probe or poor people are being neglected. I mean, space exploration is great, but so is making sure that everyone has food to eat.
Yeah, and the red spot is faster....
To whoever moderated it, surely the parent is not so much offtopic as just not funny. Why bother modding it at all?
If I had been in more of a hurry, I would have completely missed the thing about the gas envelope, which I find very interesting and would have stopped to read, because I already knew about the dark spot on Jupiter and wouldn't have considered it worth my time.
Were the two stories combined by the article submitter, or was this more weirdness from the /. editors?
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Okay, so mod me down for offtopic, but one thing that has always bothered me is, why don't people seriously (i.e. besides science fiction) consider the possibility of life of some form inside a gas giant? Sure, there is no liquid water, hence probably no "life as we know it", but if there are other forms of life as we don't (yet) know it, wouldn't this be an even greater discovery?
What is needed for life (of any reasonable definition) to evolve in an environment, is that arbitrarily complex structures can form in such an environment. Basically, the environment must be "interesting". Nothing ever happens on the surface of our moon, so we don't expect life to evolve there. On the other hand, all kinds of cool chemical reactions can occur in liquid water - as has happened here on Earth. But what about Jupiter's atmosphere? There certainly are interesting molecules floating about - in fact the "Great Dark Spot" is conjectured to be a cloud of hydrocarbon droplets. There is plenty of energy - kinetic (storms), electric, magnetic, some solar as well as plenty of radioactivity. What's more, the environment is HUGE. You have all ranges of pressure from near-vacuum to something ridiculously dense in the core, and everything in between. Is it possible for some region inside Jupiter to have what it takes for life to evolve? And, since there are other sources of energy besides solar, this might happen in the dark depth, where we will never find it. Maybe there's a whole civilization deep in there that we're not aware of.
Does this remind anybody else of the Slylandros in StarControl 2?
"...Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
seems no-one took it account the doppler shift in frequency from the Huygen's probe because of the relative shift in velocity some jiggery pokery with the post probe release has overcome it though www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/ headlines/2001/casshuygfix.html
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
I feel sure that something is going to happen.
Something wonderful.
blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
Been using it for nearly 3 months now ...
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
...does Callisto always have to sleep in the Great Wet Spot?
I guess some scientists just develop an obsession with spots during adolesence, it's only natural.
This is just taking it to proportions.
I'm fed up of new planets being called HGSY-121-SX and now "The Great Dark Spot". What next? A new galaxy found and we call it "a big peuce swirly thing". Should call it "The Great Dark Spot", more something like "The Massive Mutated Space Monster Lair of Jupiter". That'll get the kids back into wanting to go to space!!!!
The biggest structure is the great great white non-spot that surrounds the great dark spot.
...to run the new Hydrogen Economy?
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
Explain to me how spending money on the military is bad? What else is the federal government supposed to spend our taxes on??
As far as I'm concerned, the government's 1 and only job is to protect us so that we can live our lives however we choose. It is not the federal government's job to compensate for poor financial planning. It's not the federal government's job to provide to take care of me when I won't take care of my self. It's not the federal government's job to take my hard-earned paycheck and give it to someone who probably hasn't earned it.
So let me ask you again; what SHOULD our federal taxes fund? If it's anything more than protecting our freedom, it's none of the federal government's business.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Geez, write a personal or something...
The government has more jobs than just protecting us. Even so, "protection" is a very vague concept that entails more than just having a strong military. We the people are one in the same as the country, and so to protect us, the country must be protected as well. We don't need to just be protected from invading armies. We need to be protected from falling behind in the world as well, and that means more than just the military. In order to ensure a future for our nation (which is really why you're protecting it in the first place), you must have a basic framework within which people can live. Our people need to be educated in order to remain competitive in this global economy, therefore the government's job is also to provide basic education to its citizens. We need businesses to make and sell products that let us live our daily lives, and we need to be protected in case they grow too big. Therefore the government's job is also to create an economic infrastructure (the treasury and the mint), transportation (so that people have the freedom to travel and goods can get to where they need to be), telecommunications (or at least regulation thereof, so that people have the freedom to communicate with other people, and businesses can get their jobs done), welfare (because a temporarily unemployed person with no income cannot afford to pay bills, and therefore puts no money back into the economy, which does nothing for our nation. after a certain point, they become a drain on the economy, but welfare can be good when done properly), and taxation (because providing all of these services costs money).
I'm not talking small incidents (like 9/11), I'm talking threats to the nation's existence; the last time I can think of is WWII.
If you can be bothered to read the constitution then you would realize that America was never designed to have a standing military. The only purpose of the military was to combat a real threat to the nation (ie war). If you think about it this way, the US has been in a state of "war" for over 60 years...which seems kind of ridiculous...
Having a standing military gives the Executive branch too much power--it can declare war without bothering to worry about what Congress or the other branches think (not to mention the people of the nation).
Also, the federal government's role is not limited to the defense of the nation. If you read the preamble, it's purpose might be more clear.
Constitutional quibling aside, wouldn't you want your federal government to be able to protect you when the aliens come?
We don't need to just be protected from invading armies.
Correct! Our enemies are no longer rifle-wielding uniformed soldiers marching in columns towards our borders. Today they are ordinary-looking people getting into the country the easiest way they can. So instead of stationing our National Guardsmen in Germany, perhaps we should be deploying them where we are vulnerable: our borders.
Our people need to be educated in order to remain competitive in this global economy, therefore the government's job is also to provide basic education to its citizens.
So far, our taxpayer-funded schools have failed miserably, and throwing more money at them has done absolutely nothing to fix them. Time to let (regulated) private schools create a competetive environment in our education system.
Treasury and mint - definately needed
Transportation, telecommunications - should be left to private sector, with gov't regulation.
Welfare - Unemployment is OK, long term Welfare is bad, as is anything that encourages people to depend on the government to provide for their long-term sustainence. Social Security is one such money pit that should be done away with.
because providing all of these services costs money - the government isn't a service industry, and shouldn't be funded like one.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
What is the RFC for Jupiter?
What does "provide for the common defense" mean to you?
"I'm not talking small incidents (like 9/11), I'm talking threats to the nation's existence; the last time I can think of is WWII."
I don't think the people whose lives were disrupted/ended when those terrorists killed 3000+ people would consider 9/11 a "small incident". But moving beyond that, is it your belief then, that such acts shouldn't be prevented because they are so minor?
"Also, the federal government's role is not limited to the defense of the nation. If you read the preamble, it's purpose might be more clear."
Yeah, it says "promote the general welfare", not provide. Sorry, socialists...
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
If people keep pointing it out, it is only a matter of time befor Jupiter starts developing a negative self-image. It is then only a matter of time before Jupiter stomps off sulking and slamming doors, taking it's vast gravitational field with it and leaving us to collect our own space junk.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
We cannot say tht "what is needed for life to evolve is arbitrarily complex structures". We don't KNOW that.
Even if we assume that our current theories about life on earth are true... that says absolutely nothing about life on other planets or based on some different chemistry. Yes, we like to think it's possible.. but to state it as fact is rediculous.
When we find silicon based life forms that breathe methane, or whatever.. then we can start hypothesizing.. but until we find SOME other life based on SOME other system, postulating that it could exist is rediculous.
Star Control 2 was a video game.
Am I the only one humming the first few bars of Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra here?
Eerie.
"Don't matter how New Age you get, old age is gonna kick your ass." - Utah Phillips
You're right, there are ordinary-looking people trying to invade us and kill us. They're called terrorists, they're a major problem to us all, and they're damned hard to spot. But we don't have any National Guardsmen in Germany. The National Guard is our reserve force. Our presence in Germany is comprised of active duty personnel. Our borders are no longer strictly geographic either. We have endless miles of coastline, land borders, and airports. Trying to keep the terrorists out while letting the decent human beings in is like trying to tell the Viet Cong from the helpful Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. And no, we can't become isolationist.
So far, our taxpayer-funded schools have failed miserably, and throwing more money at them has done absolutely nothing to fix them. Time to let (regulated) private schools create a competetive environment in our education system.
Taking money away from underfunded public schools is bad. The reason throwing more money at them has done nothing is because it's just being thrown at them. Many school superintendents make well over $100,000/year. In my county, the superintendent gets a huge raise each year, whereas the teachers get next to nothing. Much of the money is also tied up in building new schools to deal with the population surge, and in buying computers and other equipment for schools to use. This costs a lot of money. Teachers often have their hands tied and can't control their classes, and administrators aren't much more capable of controlling their students either because of the sue-happy society we're in. Private schools wouldn't be able to handle many of these issues much better, and those that can will charge more for it, putting it out of reach for many underprivelaged children. Early regulation with regards to pricing will just take away the incentive to create a good school or will encourage cost cutting to the point where education is harmed. Simply put, there is no easy fix to the current educational system. If there was, it would have been implemented by now.
Although not nearly as important, I didn't quite mean that the government should actually provide transportation in the forms of busses and trains and such, but more in the form of roads and upkeep of roads. You do not want roads falling into the hands of the private sector. There's one road in my area that's private sector, and it costs $2 each way (about a 12 mile stretch).
I agree with you on Social Security, but how do you propose getting rid of it without pissing off the millions of Americans who have paid it their entire lives, and suddenly wouldn't get what they deserve?
It is hydrocarbons, right? If people are looking at mining the moon, it might be more efficient to get natural gas out of Jupiter ;-)
;-)
The only question is-- How much energy would be required to get it back to Earth
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Just ask yourself when was the last time that the US was actually threatened.
I'm not talking small incidents (like 9/11), I'm talking threats to the nation's existence; the last time I can think of is WWII.
Er... How about that little thing known as the Cold War? Or are you too young for it to have made much of an impression on you?
There might not have had outright attacks on US soil like Pearl Harbor, but the soviet doctrine of expansion was a real threat. Declaration of war or no, the US government was defending its (and by extension, sometimes a long extension, its peoples') best interests.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Am I the only one who was afraid to click on the link?
www.christopherlewis.com
then the government shouldn't be worried about much except
1)regulating interstate and international commerce
2)protecting the nation
If those are the two main purposes of the federal government, should they be gettting more money through income tax then my state is? Perhaps it's this surplus of money that we're giving the government that makes them feel all wacky and war-mongerish.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
If you can be bothered to read the constitution [cornell.edu] then you would realize that America was never designed to have a standing military. The only purpose of the military was to combat a real threat to the nation (ie war). If you think about it this way, the US has been in a state of "war" for over 60 years...which seems kind of ridiculous...
Long gone are the days when any given man with a shotgun could be quickly trained to be the finest of soldiers. War has become so technological that it's now a full-time job to maintain a military that is technologically advanced enough to be effective in the world today.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that we shouldn't have a standing military, philosophically speaking, for the reasons you outlined. I just don't see another way. I think that privatizing military R&D would just encourage the already corrupt and bloated multinationals in a bad way. Perhaps a restructuring of our government that takes the military away from the executive branch? With the military as an integral part of the government (as they will always be so long as the president is commander-in-chief) we will always be a stone's throw away from a military dictatorship. The only thing the president needs to make this happen is the confidence and loyalty of the military, and he needs this dedication to be given above the dedication a man gives to his country.
But if we could make it a public-funded institution that isn't actually part of the government that requires Congress to authorize action, we'd have a slow-to-war military. They'd be quick-to-defend us, but slow to go fight wars in other lands. There's a lot of dynamics of the suggestion that I'm not addressing, I'll admit. :)
Like what I said? You might like my music
It's Zorro, chasing bank-robbing aliens on horseback. Anyone else old enough to remember the black-and-white episodes?
hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
Clearasil should lift that spot right out. Seriously those are some fasinating.
You found my secret ship. This will make delivering makeup to Micheal Jackson much more difficult.
Table-ized A.I.
Say I am a big (but non-criminal) guy walking around city block in shabby dress, carrying a sign and asking some random people if I can do some work for them. If someone did ask me to wash their car, carry a heavy bag home etc, I would do it to the best of my ability and bring money to my family, if any. But something tells me I might get some handouts but no work. In an agricultural society, on the other hand, my neighbors would make good use of my muscles to plow a field, dig out a tree, move stones and so on.
I don't think it's always "refuse to take responsibility", more like "unable to find a common language with modern society". And the society should also take some responsibility for eliminating choices that once existed.
There was that little threat of vanishing in a giant radioactive cloud. If you'd been paying attention, you'd have remembered that was a big deal until at least the early 90s. The "leftover" troop commitments to allies from that era are still being re-evaluated, and troops will remain in some of them, because that threat of vanishing in a giant radioactive cloud still exists.
As for having a standing military, it's right in the document - oh, not using your exact phrase, but it's in there. Article 1, section 8.
While you're right that there is more to the government than military, you picked some really crappy (wrong) examples to back it up..
"Jupiter has Northern Lights just as Earth does, although on Jupiter they are hundreds to thousands of times more powerful,"
OMFG, is there any place on earth I can get my hands on that weed???
So let me ask you again; what SHOULD our federal taxes funRe:Role of Federal Gov't.d?
Let me ask you this: why do we give so much money to our federal government if all they should do is "protect our freedom".
Personally, I find picking on Iraq a far cry from protecting our freedom. You don't see any other democratic countries feeling the need to "protect their freedom". Do you have any idea how screwed we'd all be if everyone decided to exercise "pre-emptive defense"?!?!
1, this is not protection of freedom, this is us bombing them because we have a hunch that they might have decent weapons, and an even weaker hunch that they're stupid enough to fire one at us. 2, this ultra-liberal government you think we have doesn't exist and doesn't work. Governments take money and put it where it needs to go in all aspects of the economy, even if that means taking a little of your "good financial planning" and giving it to someone that needs it.
This will be most-likely modded as offtopic, rightfully so, but it is a point that should be considered.
You have successfully made me rip the stitches off my mouth.
I am laughing; I, the great Frankenstein.
HA-HA-HA-OUCH
In article 1 section 8 it says that the president is to raise and support an army but no appropriations for this shall endure for more than two years.
The next statement is that he is to provide and maintain a navy with no restrictions on this.
Navy is usually part of the military and it appears that it was to be standing.
Damn dued, it's just another lense problem or the tech was using the wrong film again.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
They _do_ get back the $bn they spend on cruise missles - they pay American defense companies (whos profit is taxed) who pay American workers (whos wages are taxed) who buy American goods (whos sales are taxed).
Even if the money is exported, this is taxed. Exported money is often then used to buy American goods and services, which is taxed.
--Money doesn't vanish*, it just goes around in circles.
*Excepting periods of negative worldwide economic growth, but there hasn't been one in my lifetime AFAIK.
Beep beep.
Who said anything about a lot of F/B/C probes? The government is going to look at it and ask, "why are we building five probes when we only need one?" And thus, funding for four of the probes will disappear.
Given any particular probe, the well construced one obviously has a better chance of success.
Yes, I did misspell his name. It should be "Bernard Shaw"! *News FlasH* From the Baghdad Hilton Observatory, Bernard Shaw reporting. When I went to pee, somebody took my seat in the bomb shelter, err, em, the observatory.
like the guy said.. nobody will read it unless it's modded up a bit more than its current score of 2.