Slashdot Mirror


New Moon System Around Uranus

An anonymous reader writes "Astronomers have discovered two of the smallest moons yet found around Uranus. The new moons, uncovered by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, are about 8 to 10 miles across (12 to 16 km) -- about the size of San Francisco. The two moons are so faint they eluded detection by the Voyager 2 spacecraft, which discovered 10 small satellites when it flew by the gas giant planet in 1986. The newly detected moons are orbiting even closer to the planet than the five major Uranian satellites, which are several hundred miles wide. The two new satellites are the first inner moons of Uranus discovered from an Earth-based telescope in more than 50 years. "It's a testament to how much our Earth-based instruments have improved in 20 plus years that we can now see such faint objects 1.7 billion miles (2.8 billion km) away," says Mark Showalter, a senior research associate at Stanford University. 'The inner swarm of 13 satellites is unlike any other system of planetary moons,' says co-investigator Jack Lissauer. 'The larger moons must be gravitationally perturbing the smaller moons. The region is so crowded that these moons could be gravitationally unstable. So, we are trying to understand how the moons can coexist with each other.'"

247 comments

  1. Too easy by mgebbers · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Moon System Around Uranus"? Why even bother thinking of something funny? :/

    1. Re:Too easy by kfx · · Score: 2, Funny

      "In Soviet Russia, Uranus moons you!"

      That might be just a bit funniert ;)

    2. Re:Too easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asteroids around Uranus turn out to be Moons.

    3. Re:Too easy by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      That's no moon.... ;-)

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    4. Re:Too easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You could've at least worked San Franscisco in there somehow.

    5. Re:Too easy by OblongPlatypus · · Score: 1

      I'm just surprised no one's made any comment about how the headline must be directed at J-Lo...

      --
      -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
    6. Re:Too easy by Chundra · · Score: 1

      No, no, no... "Klingon"

    7. Re:Too easy by di0s · · Score: 1

      well if your anus was as big as Uranus, you probably would discover something orbiting it.

    8. Re:Too easy by mechugena · · Score: 1

      But, what can you tell me about the gaseous clouds around Uranus?

    9. Re:Too easy by gblues · · Score: 1

      Beavis: "Hey Butthead! You think a man will ever land on Uranus?"
      Butthead: "Uhuhuh.. maybe on YOUR anus."

      Nathan

    10. Re:Too easy by mesach · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome my new moon overlords around Myanus

      --
      moo.
    11. Re:Too easy by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, no, no... "Klingon"

      What...are there Klingons around Uranus?

      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    12. Re:Too easy by MrTangent · · Score: 0

      They're not "moons" around Uranus, they're actually hemorrhoids.

    13. Re:Too easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because geeks don't care about pop stars.

    14. Re:Too easy by pyrrhonist · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Just hope scientists don't launch a probe to penetrate the crust of Uranus.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    15. Re:Too easy by sharkey · · Score: 1
      That's no moon....

      It's Roseanne!

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    16. Re:Too easy by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Moon and Uranus in a single headline? Goatse trolls to begin in 5, 4, 3...

      --
      How ya like dat?
    17. Re:Too easy by Nerd4News · · Score: 1

      How about this?

      Perhaps from now on, small asteroids should be called hemorrhoids.

      Yea, it was too easy.

    18. Re:Too easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think those are moons around Uranus? Ur nuts!

    19. Re:Too easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are the KLINGONS? (Star Trek == toilet paper)

  2. What Makes a Moon a Moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although the new moons are large in terms I can understand, they seem very, very small when comparing them to planets.

    Is there a definition of a moon? Must something be X miles/kilomters in size or volume?

    1. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by miodekk · · Score: 2, Informative
      > Is there a definition of a moon?

      Let's start from planet. Planet is a body orbiting a sun, which do not emit light on its own.
      A moon is a body orbiting a planet. It may be just a bigger rock, like Phobos and Deimos around Mars or a big one like our Moon. But of course it must be smaller than a planet.

      This is not a formal definition of course :-)

      Regards

    2. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I see, so it's a guess. Can someone answer my question without the usual Slashdot speculation?

    3. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by agent+provocateur · · Score: 2, Informative
      But of course it must be smaller than a planet.

      Really?

      Pluto is smaller than seven of the solar system's moon according to here( Moon, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan and Triton) and its a planet.

      --
      Siggy Sig Sig? Where is the sig?
    4. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by miodekk · · Score: 3, Informative
      Misunderstanding. English is not my first language.
      I mean comparing moon to the planet it is orbiting. Not planets among them. Pluto probably could have been some big planet's moon. But it is orbiting Sun, not any other planet, so it is a planet too.
      Well, it isn't very precise, because there is a lot of smaller rocks orbiting Sun, which are not called planets but planetoids or asteroids (sorry, I don't know proper English terminology). And astronomers are not sure, if Pluto should be treated as a planet or asteroid.
      But the term moon means a satellite of a planet.

      Regards

    5. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by agent+provocateur · · Score: 4, Informative
      Accoring to wikipedia all other natural satellites in the solar system are called moons (NB. no capitalisation).

      There are even moons associated with asteroids. So it seems that the definition of a moon is any natural satellite orbiting a body that orbits the Sun. (A second order planet as it were.)

      --
      Siggy Sig Sig? Where is the sig?
    6. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      i wonder this myself. you would think it obvious that they should just be referred to as rocks. a fly around my head is not a moon, nor something to because of interest or awe. maybe a moon should be X% in size of what it orbits to be a moon. Or perhaps someone could just better define "rock floating in space" so we dont have to keep inflating the number of objects we can call moons around planets.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    7. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by EnterpriseNCC-1701 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A moon is a natural satellite revolving around a planet. There definition of a Planet is still somewhat ambigious. This is because we have not been able to observe other planet systems with great detail and thus have not been able to formulate a good definition of Planet.

      --
      "Most interesting how often you humans seem to obtain that which you do not want" -Spock
    8. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a definition of a moon? Must something be X miles/kilomters in size or volume?

      As more and more "moons" are discovered, the minimum qualifying size will shrink as future scientists seek to claim credit for "discovering something".

    9. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... a metaplanet! Quick, which way to the trademark office?

    10. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, they better draw the line between an actual discovery and squinting real hard at a photograph.

    11. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by dotgain · · Score: 1
      Your fly is not a moon because you are not a planet, and the fly is not obriting. It's "fly"ing.

      Why bother trying to make a definition on something that we really have no idea how to define. Every new star or system we find doesn't usually have much in common with our own, and we'd have to constantly redefine it all the time anyway.

      Basically, you can call it a moon or a rock or whatever you like, at the end of the day it's a whopping great big chunk of something and probably doesn't care what you call it.

    12. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      Let's start from planet. Planet is a body orbiting a sun, which do not emit light on its own. A moon is a body orbiting a planet. It may be just a bigger rock, like Phobos and Deimos around Mars or a big one like our Moon. But of course it must be smaller than a planet. This is not a formal definition of course :-)

      Sorry, it is not quite that simple. A planet does indeed orbit the sun, but it must also have a certain size. Minor rocks orbiting the sun are asteroids. There is currently some controversy over exactly how big it should be in order to be called a planet; some use Pluto as the smallest possible size for a planet. But recently they have found quite a few rocks almost the size of Pluto, which has led some astronomers to the opinion that PLuto should lose its planethood, and a bigger threshold size established.

      As for moons, they must orbit planets and they must also have some minimum size; I think they typically are at least a few miles across before they are called moons. However, they do not need to be smaller than planets. There are several moons which are bigger than Pluto, for example.

      Tor

    13. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by bpd1069 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IANAA (I am not an astronomer), but as far as I can remember, a moon is defined as a celectrial body that orbits another "Planet" and whose "center of gravity" of the pair, lies within the volume of the planet.

      If you follow this definition then the moon (Luna) is not a moon but a planet. So this definition is not widely used. It makes sense to me but I have always thought of Luna as to big to be a moon relative to the earth.

      Oh well...

      --
      --
    14. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      I thought the difference between a planet-moon combination and a planet-planet combination was that winth in a planet moon combination the centre of gravity lay within the body of the larger body, whereas a planet-planet combination has it centre of gravity outside both bodies.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    15. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by WatertonMan · · Score: 1
      My understanding is that, given its orbit and size, whether Pluto is a planet is debatable. It exists as a planet more for historic reasons. There are those who argue Pluto ought to be considered a Kuiper Belt object and not a planet. If so it is certainly among the largest. And, of course, debates about what is or isn't a planet at a certain point seem silly.

      One should further point out that Pluto and Charon (it's "moon") are typically referred to as a planet system since Charon is so big relative to Pluto that calling it a moon is almost a misnomer. (Almost -- it is still often referred to that way)

    16. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by garbs · · Score: 1

      >whereas a planet-planet combination has it centre of gravity outside both bodies

      So that means our moon and earth is actually a planet-planet combination then.

      I do believe the centre of gravity between the 2 planets lay outside of both the earth and the moon.

    17. Re:What Makes a Moon a Moon? by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      even if the Moon is a very big moon for a planet our size, it's still a moon. the centre of gravity is within earth, 4700km from earth's centre.
      http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/mpaine/scie nce.html# moontide

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
  3. Fun Units by CGP314 · · Score: 1

    about the size of San Francisco

    Bah, that's 2D. How many VW Bugs is it?

    1. Re:Fun Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      about the size of San Francisco


      Bah, that's 2D. How many VW Bugs is it?

      San Francisco is 2D? You're confusing it with some city in the Midwest methinks...

    2. Re:Fun Units by cryms0n · · Score: 0

      I mean come on now, can we use some real units, like how many Libraries of Congress (LoC) would fit?

      Let's get with the program, people!

    3. Re:Fun Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bad mouth the midwest! We gave the world the light bulb, the phonograph, and the electric eel!

      Plus Richard Nixon! He's like 7 Bill Gates in one.

    4. Re:Fun Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richard Nixon was from Orange County Ca.

    5. Re:Fun Units by dotgain · · Score: 1
      "Bah, that's 2D. How many VW Bugs is it?"

      Laden or unladen?

  4. New unit of measurement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    After VW-Beetles, Libraries of Congress we have
    now the unit of "San Francisco" to describe huge
    masses. So how many Kilo-VW-Beetles is one
    San Francisco?

    johnboy

    1. Re:New unit of measurement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6.

    2. Re:New unit of measurement! by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      Who cares?

      I wanna know how many *elephants* that is.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    3. Re:New unit of measurement! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      How many San Franciscos to the Texas?

    4. Re:New unit of measurement! by saunabad · · Score: 1

      After VW-Beetles, Libraries of Congress we have now the unit of "San Francisco" to describe huge masses.

      No... Somehow that city seems to be suitable for describing just the huge masses around your... nevermind.

    5. Re:New unit of measurement! by GMontag · · Score: 1

      San Francisco units are used to describe anything near Uranis.

    6. Re:New unit of measurement! by psycho_driver · · Score: 1

      You can use "San Francisco" units to describe anything near Uranus. Anything that comes near mine is getting run through the salad shooter!

    7. Re:New unit of measurement! by kfg · · Score: 1

      "So how many Kilo-VW-Beetles is one
      San Francisco?"


      Stop, you're making my head hurt.

      I'm still just trying to figure out whether a San Francisco is larger or smaller than a Philidelphia.

      KFG

    8. Re:New unit of measurement! by Blacklist+Blacklist · · Score: 0, Informative
      The answer is 18,029,288 New Beetles per San Francisco.

      (The New Beetle is 161.1 x 67.9 inches in dimensions, or 0.00254 x 0.00107 miles. This is 0.0000027178 square miles.

      San Francisco is 49 square miles in area. So, dividing 49 / 0.0000027178 gets us 18,029,288 New Beetles, or 18.02 Mega-New Beetles, per San Francisco.

      --

      Fight the Troll Blacklist
    9. Re:New unit of measurement! by identity0 · · Score: 1

      So how many Kilo-VW-Beetles is one San Francisco?

      I belive a 'San Fancisco' corrensponds to 2,567 VB Beetles, or 578 gay bars ;)

  5. *sighs* by Pompatus · · Score: 3, Funny

    New Moon System Around Uranus

    I saw that headline on slashdot and immediately thought to myself, "this is definately one of those times to read the article and NOT the comments".

    --

    ----
    Squirrel ... It's not just for breakfast anymore
    1. Re:*sighs* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sniff* That was beautiful! you made me cry ...

    2. Re:*sighs* by waynelorentz · · Score: 3, Funny

      I saw that headline on slashdot and immediately thought to myself, "this is definately one of those times to read the article and NOT the comments".

      Strangely, I was thinking exactly the opposite.

    3. Re:*sighs* by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      and to think history will not know the true identity of the author of this beautiful poetry.

      My god, I'm touched. Which is synonymous with insane.

      Nicely done sir! You are a tribute to our submordern culture. Thank you.

      I shall always read the comment and never read the article, as you have said.

      PS: yes, I got that backwards... that's my satire... or is it irony? In soviet russia, joke asks you.

      --

      -pyrrho

  6. coolio by after · · Score: 0

    Well then! Kudos to you NASA!!!

  7. woohoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wonder how long it will take until i get a spam offering to sell me space on them for 20 dollars...

  8. This is really cool by Zrech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just think, if they are admitting to having this sort of technology facing away from the planet, what do they have looking down on us? Really though, cudos the the Huble, since they got the glitches worked out that while ago it seems to be working great and finding new things. But just how is this going to impact my daily life? Is it going to help the space elevator get built by the time I am 45? 65? So my great grandkids can see it when they are 45? (I am 20 btw) Sure this is cool, but work on the things that impact us first dont spend billions on a crappy shuttle program that is 20 years old and has had 2 major disasters.

    1. Re:This is really cool by Zrech · · Score: 1

      W()W This is soo sad, I had to reply to myself because nobody here is mature enough to get over the name of the system. Sooo sad so manny of us n3rd5 are that immature. =( Shame on you!! Reply to my post!

    2. Re:This is really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You suck!

    3. Re:This is really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gayboy

  9. Teenager detector by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Funny

    This article is a trap. it's not an article about planets, it's the yearly Slashdot teenagers counter : they post an article with "Uranus" in it, wait a bit, then count the number of people who made witty rectal comments.

    Seriously though, is it not possible to read an article about Uranus without seeing all those "uranus *lol* *giggle* *pffft!*" posts ?

    *sigh*

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Teenager detector by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 0, Troll
      Seriously though, is it not possible to read an article about Uranus without seeing all those "uranus *lol* *giggle* *pffft!*" posts ?
      Of course it's possible. I'm amazed at the discovery of this new moon system, and duly amazed that the two new moons evaded detection for so many years. I imagine it speaks to the quality of NASA's latest technologURANUS! lol *giggle* *pffft!*

      OK, maybe it's not possible, but you have to admit, it's a bit funnier than all those jokes about NO CARRI^ath0
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    2. Re:Teenager detector by DJTodd242 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seriously though, is it not possible to read an article about Uranus without seeing all those "uranus *lol* *giggle* *pffft!*" posts ?

      Don't worry. By the year 2620 scientists will rename Uranus to end that joke once and for all.

      Of course, renaming it Urectum won't help much...

    3. Re:Teenager detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a *MOON* around *URANUS*! That's funny and no, I'm not a teenager. I'm pushing 40.

    4. Re:Teenager detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moon Uranus in the same line ! Its a great line.

    5. Re:Teenager detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Goatse links please!

    6. Re:Teenager detector by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

      *looks around*

      OH MY GOD! URANUS! LOLOLOL!!!

      *coughs*
      ok, I'm done.

    7. Re:Teenager detector by cpopin · · Score: 1

      It's not even worth using my last mod point on. :(

      --
      -=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
    8. Re:Teenager detector by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      I'm pushing 40.

      I'm pushing turdy, er... I mean THIRTY!!!

      *sigh* ...stupid article headline.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  10. "Moons are unstable" by turkeyphant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If these moons are gravitationally astatic, stochastic motion could account for their motion in this deterministic system. We all know how complication three-body motion is, so with the number of objects affected by various gravitational fields out there, it would be incredibly hard to predict any movement at all. I wish them good luck in trying to precisely "understand how the moons can coexist with each other".

    Is it not possible that these moons are so unstable that they will have relatively short lifespans? Might they soon end up crashing into the planet's surface or interact together and get flung off out of the solar system?

    1. Re:"Moons are unstable" by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      We all know how complication three-body motion is

      Wrong : most Slashdot readers only know single-body motion and tissues.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:"Moons are unstable" by Tirel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      alternatively, they might eject of uranus orbit and become the next catalyzer of earthly protoplanet destruction killing every living creature and brining about a new cambrian era from which it would take millions of years to reinitialize suitable conditions for autogenesis. but then, who knows?

    3. Re:"Moons are unstable" by turkeyphant · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Your mum?

  11. Several Moons by NeoGeo64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Uranus is distinguished by the fact that it spins on its side.

    Uranus is a gas giant with no solid surface. Like the other gas planets, Uranus has bands of clouds that blow around rapidly.

    Uranus is sometimes just barely visible with the unaided eye on a very clear night; it is fairly easy to spot with binoculars (if you know exactly where to look). There are several Web sites that show the current position of Uranus.

    Sorry guys, I couldn't help but post some immature humor. ;)

    1. Re:Several Moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see a lot of "immature" but I don't see any "humor".

    2. Re:Several Moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you Sir.

    3. Re:Several Moons by NeoGeo64 · · Score: 0

      Can't please everyone. heh.

    4. Re:Several Moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't please anyone. Tell me how much Uranus weighs, that'll make me happy.

    5. Re:Several Moons by NeoGeo64 · · Score: 0

      I pose you the same question.

      A flying Dolorian! I haven't seen one of those in... 20 years!

    6. Re:Several Moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't accept those answers as they didn't contain the word "purple". As for your soul, I'm giving it to Bill Gates so he can turn it into a microwave or something.

    7. Re:Several Moons by NeoGeo64 · · Score: 0

      You would like the color purple.

    8. Re:Several Moons by EnterpriseNCC-1701 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uranus is not the only planet that spins on its side. It's equtorial inclination to orbit is 98 degrees. Pluto(in my opinion not worth of being called planet) has an angle of 122 degrees qutorial inclination to orbit. Venus is bizzare with an equtorial inclination to orbit of 177.4 degrees. Another ineresting fact about Uranus is that it was accidentally discovered in 1781 by the British astronomer Sir William Herschel and was originally named the Georgium Sidus (Star of George) Here are other facts about Uranus. http://kvtr.elte.hu/tnp/nineplanets/uranus.html

      --
      "Most interesting how often you humans seem to obtain that which you do not want" -Spock
    9. Re:Several Moons by EckRhino · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, there are also rings around Uranus

  12. Your mum units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the diametre of a (roughly) circular city is a length as is the diametre of a roughly spherical object. The units are perfectly fine.

  13. Scientist said by rf0 · · Score: 1

    "They were over the moon with joy with the discovery"

    Sorry I will get my coat

    Rus

  14. That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two moons, eh?
    I guess the imperium is starting to get smart for a change...

  15. New Moon System Around Uranus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Myanus begs your pardon!

  16. Why is NASA... by rexguo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...so eager to take Hubble down, when it's still contributing so much to astrophysics? The new space telescope isn't even ready for launch yet, and who knows if it will work at first go? I'd rather have Hubble as backup until the new one is working smoothly and flawlessly before even thinking about bringing it down. Capitalism and politics just don't mix well with science.

    --
    www.rexguo.com - Technologist + Designer
    1. Re:Why is NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're cutting Hubble's freedom of speech in order to satisfy new american security laws.. and I'm concerned about it!!!

    2. Re:Why is NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because NASA needs money. And well working equipment doesn't underline the need for money. Do you dig it?

    3. Re:Why is NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because NASA needs money. And well working equipment doesn't underline the need for money. Do you dig it?

      As an American it pisses me off to see NASA only get a $14 billion budget to explore space and research earth sciences and aeronautics awhile frivilous things like invading foreign countries gets a write-off for $89 billion. Where are the WMD President Bush? Where are they and why did you lie to us? President Clinton got impeached for a much less offensive lie.

      I really can't vote for a Republican again until the party clears itself of this god damn neocon war-mongering baggage. It pains me to think I'll have to vote for doddering moronic fucknut Democrats, but who else will there be without throwing my vote away? It sucks to be a social moderate and a fiscal conservative with the current political parties. I don't fit in anywhere anymore. I wonder if the libertarians would be a fit... hmm.

    4. Re:Why is NASA... by axxackall · · Score: 1
      Let me rephrase the original comment then:

      Why scientists do not pay NASA enough to supoort Hubble?

      --

      Less is more !
    5. Re:Why is NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather see the whole stinking NASA program shut down.

      The government has no constitutional authority to steal my property (in the form of taxation) to fund the exploration of space.

      I'm all for the exploration of space, just not by the government. It is NOT important enough to allow unconstitutional government expansion.

    6. Re:Why is NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW :
      The Hubble Space Telescope is a joint ESA/NASA project.

    7. Re:Why is NASA... by chavo+valdez · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, those damn rocket scientists have no idea what they're doing.

    8. Re:Why is NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe that taxation is stealing (which it obviously is) then I would have to assume that you believe in abolishing all taxation. In that context, and only in that context, would I agree with you. However, given the importance of human space exploration, I would hope that the space program would be the last to go, not the first.

    9. Re:Why is NASA... by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1


      Well, here's a conspiracy theory: ;)

      It costs money to run the Hubble space telescope. Taking it down will save money.

      Creating a new one will cost a lot of money... if you create a new one.

      My *conspiracy theory* is that they fill a 500 gallon drum up with various junkyard waste, spray paint "Hubble II" on the side, and have the rocket carrying it blow up half way to orbit.

      Thereby saving hundreds of millions of dollars which can be funnelled to the war in Iraq.

    10. Re:Why is NASA... by suitti · · Score: 1
      The real problem is that the Webb scope (NGST) does not replace HST. It is not a visible light instrument. NASA does not have the funds to keep HST going. No real surprise, it's expensive.

      We keep putting up very expensive things: HST, the Shuttle, ISS - it seems that a few expensive things are easier to sell than a bunch of cheap things.

      It costs about $250 million per service flight. Instead of servicing Hubble, send up a new scope every five years or so. How much scope can you get for $250 million? If you drop IR, then you don't need active cooling. This saves complexity and lots of weight. It also means that the mission does not degrade when you run out of coolant. The Webb (NGST) and SIRTF cover this spectral range. Use passive cooling. Use the solar panels to shade the instrument. Don't have them hanging out to wobble.

      Next, use a single camera. For example, use just an ACS like camera. This saves complexity and weight.

      Next, use the new lightweight mirror tech. It's going in space, you don't need a thick mirror because in microgravity, it won't bend under it's own weight. Remember that it's $10,000 per pound to get it into space. Anything you put there is worth more than platinum.

      Use an offset Newtonian design, to eliminate diffraction spikes.

      I'd bet that a 2 meter scope could be on orbit for under $200 million, mostly launch costs. It could out perform HST, and stay on orbit for a minimum of 5 years.

      Canada recently put up a cheap space telescope. MOST. Check it out.

      --
      -- Stephen.
  17. Moon System Around Uranus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's no moon...

  18. But I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Perhaps people finally just launched hilary rosen into space?

  19. Earth-based telescope? by ottawanker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The new moons, uncovered by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, are about 8 to 10 miles across (12 to 16 km) -- about the size of San Francisco.

    The two new satellites are the first inner moons of Uranus discovered from an Earth-based telescope in more than 50 years. "It's a testament to how much our Earth-based instruments have improved in 20 plus years that we can now see such faint objects 1.7 billion miles (2.8 billion km) away," says Mark Showalter.

    Is Hubble considered an Earth-based telescope somehow? I'm kind of confused. Can anyone explain this?

    1. Re:Earth-based telescope? by Zrech · · Score: 1

      Well, since it is made up of components and materials FROM earth then it could be considered earth based for the sake of the artical. However, I think it should not be, it is in orbit is it not? Dfn of an object in orbet is? (http://space.about.com/library/glossary/bldeforbi t.htm)

    2. Re:Earth-based telescope? by agent+provocateur · · Score: 1
      ...first inner moons of Uranus discovered from an Earth-based telescope in more than 50 years.

      Is Hubble considered an Earth-based telescope somehow? I'm kind of confused. Can anyone explain this?

      I think this is referring to that fact that Hubble is bound to the Earth ie. not mobile and flying through the solar system like the Voyager probe etc.

      --
      Siggy Sig Sig? Where is the sig?
    3. Re:Earth-based telescope? by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1

      So a telescope on the Moon would also be Earth-based? That must be what the conspiracy theorists mean when they say that the US hasn't been to the Moon...

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    4. Re:Earth-based telescope? by treat · · Score: 1
      So a telescope on the Moon would also be Earth-based? That must be what the conspiracy theorists mean when they say that the US hasn't been to the Moon...

      Can you provide some evidence for the moon landing that does not rely on the honesty of a government that has a strong history of lying to suit its purposes?

    5. Re:Earth-based telescope? by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp

    6. Re:Earth-based telescope? by treat · · Score: 1

      This debunks the claim that "A video clip shows a NASA studio-produced 'outtake' of the first moon landing.". It does not provide any evidence of the moon landing being real.

      I used to think the moon landing was real, but I now consider it unproven. It has been the tactics of those who insist it is real, who argue without giving any shred of evidence, that put the doubt in my mind.

    7. Re:Earth-based telescope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, did you not see the video?

    8. Re:Earth-based telescope? by Gatton · · Score: 1

      Dude, Buzz Aldrin is gonna kick your sorry ass when he sees this post!

    9. Re:Earth-based telescope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Telemetry for one was accomplished with multiple tracking stations around the world, so the Apollo spacecraft obviously did go to the moon and back.

      There were corner-cube reflector arrays that were left on the moon that can currently be seen by *anyone* with a moderately decent telescope and laser system.

      So... Yes, there's verifyable PROOF that spacecraft were sent to the moon and that they left equipment on the moon's surface. Some people still claim however that no astronauts were aboard... that the spacecraft must have been elaborate robotic probes that automatically landed and deployed their instruments.

      If so, the radio lag time would have prevented a remotely piloted landing, and if you know much about the state of computer/robotic technology at the time, you probably see that having a person on board to do the landing may have been the easier route to take than using a computer. (earlier lunar probes didn't land... they were designed to crash into the moon to end their mission.)

      Also, the delay time for two way communication shows that the voice communications received by telemetry stations around the world could not have been relayed through the spacecraft and must have originated on the spacecraft. From the skeptics' point of view, the messages would have to have been pre-recorded (not possible with live 2-way conversations unless very carefully timed and scripted), or computer generated. (well... we know how likely that is with the computers of the era.)

      I think the most persuasive argument that the skeptics are wrong is the sheer incompetance of their main arguments: "You can't see stars in the daytime sky", "the radiation would have fried them" etc.. The fact that the skeptics lack fundamental understanding of the nature of light, physics, camera techology, perspective, etc. is overwhelmingly obvious when you start looking at their claims (unless you're clueless yourself like 99% of the general public).

      I consider myself very openminded and try to get all the info I can about things so I've look at a LOT of the sited dedicated to the "moon landing hoax", and I have yet to see ONE shread of credible "evidence" for a hoax. All the claims you see are NEVER backed up with math/physics which would have immediately showed their errors, probably because in most cases, the simple math/physics required is beyond the comprehension of those making the rediculous claims.

      Think about it... Since we know for sure that spacecraft did go to and land on the moon, how much harder would it have been to put people on board? In my oppinion, probably much easier than trying to fake the whole thing with such huge ammounts of data and detail that resulted from the Apollo missions. Next, they'll be telling us the Shuttle missions are all faked too and that there is no International Space Station. ;)

  20. LAME COMMENTS by Zrech · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    First-off, no I am not. Secondly WTF can you NOT log in? To chickin shit to be a troll? I mean really, that just proves me correct. Slashdot is getting pretty bad and imature.... I really dont wana find a new homepage but with the general atitude leaning towards this anonymouse coward I just might have to.

    1. Re:LAME COMMENTS by flyboyait · · Score: 1

      yea, real lame, make the space elevator, wtf are you saying... you are dying for the space elevator for what? to go up.... to where? and the article explicitly says why this is a valid study, it has huge bearing on the laws of gravity and how the gravity of moons effect each other... lameness ensues...

  21. Re:Please, can you lighten up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's probably so cold and miserable where you live in Finland or Sweden or Denmark or whatever that any ole joke makes you laugh.

  22. Last I checked... by andreMA · · Score: 2, Informative
    Hubble was an orbital instrument, not "Earth-based"
    "It's a testament to how much our Earth-based instruments have improved in 20 plus years that we can now see such faint objects 1.7 billion miles (2.8 billion km) away," says Mark Showalter, a senior research associate at Stanford University.
    Or did it re-enter the atmosphere and I missed it?
    1. Re:Last I checked... by Zrech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yup last 4th of July, those wernt fireworks my friend. Them there perty lights in the skys was da hubble. The really neat thing is the way they managed to make it work after they got the remaining bits that made it through the landing.

    2. Re:Last I checked... by smellygeek · · Score: 1

      Hubble was an orbital instrument, not "Earth-based" The writer(s) are obviously not from around "here" (i.e., Earth). How else could you explain them being amazed at the improvement of Earth-basec instruments?

  23. Uranus is a Gas Giant? by SkiifGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Pardon my ignorance, but I thought that Jupiter and Saturn were the only true Gas Giants, and Uranus wasn't (irrespective of composition). Then again, I am not an Astronomer, so I could be wrong here. This seems pretty impressive for the Hubble, who knows whether it would have found them earlier if the optics had worked from day one?

    1. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by nagora · · Score: 3, Informative
      but I thought that Jupiter and Saturn were the only true Gas Giants

      No, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are classed as gas giants. I've never heard of the first two being distinguished from the other two.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good grief. Uranus is a gas giant. New moons found around Uranus. What next? Uranus penetrated with large alien projectiles???

    3. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by MrByte420 · · Score: 1

      Well... Nevermind...I'm just not going to do this..

      --
      If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
    4. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by isorox · · Score: 1

      J and S are bigger, and roughly the same size as each other. U and N are smaller, but also roughly the same size.

    5. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by nagora · · Score: 1
      J and S are bigger, and roughly the same size as each other. U and N are smaller, but also roughly the same size.

      True, but Jupiter is more massive than the rest put together.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    6. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 0

      Composed of Methane no doubt.

      --
      I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    7. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by isorox · · Score: 1

      Volume of planets (relative to Earth)

      Jupiter - 1400
      Saturn - 850
      Uranus - 65
      Neptune - 60

      Diameter
      Jupiter - 11
      Saturn - 9.5
      uranus 4.0
      Neptune - 3.9

      Mass
      Jupiter - 320
      Saturn - 95
      Uranus - 15
      Neptune - 17 (smaller, but denser, than U)

      Surface Gravity

      This is fun, as its proportional to mass, but inversly proportional to the square of the radius)

      Mercury - 0.39
      Venus - 0.91
      Earth - 1
      Mars - 0.38
      Jupiter - 2.6
      Saturn - 1.1
      Uranus - 0.88
      Neptune - 1.14
      Pluto - 0.05

    8. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by nagora · · Score: 1
      So you could argue there are three classes: J, S, N+U. Let's just stick to 1, then we can have fun when we discover a brown dwarf orbiting out past the Oort Cloud.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    9. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are classed as gas giants. I've never heard of the first two being distinguished from the other two.


      I think you're mistaken. Almost immediately after a large Mexican meal the other day, someone told me directly: "Uranus certainly is a gas giant."

    10. Re:Uranus is a Gas Giant? by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

      YOUR anus is a Gas Giant maybe... He who smelt it dealt it I always say..

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

  24. Other Moon related news... by goldmeer · · Score: 1
    It seems that discovering moons is all tthe rage now...

    Late-Working NASA Scientists Discover Moons Over My Hammy!

    It appears that the onion no longer has it in it's archives. Bummer.

  25. SW ref by AmoebafromSweden · · Score: 1

    Those are not moons those are...

    1. Re:SW ref by Exiler · · Score: 1

      You should be ashamed of yourself.

      "That's not a moon! That's a spaceship!"

      --
      Banaaaana!
    2. Re:SW ref by Exiler · · Score: 1

      uh... Space station*
      *is ashamed*

      --
      Banaaaana!
    3. Re:SW ref by 77Punker · · Score: 0

      ...starbases!

  26. and...my god...their full of stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's with the san francisco comparison ? is they saying all aliens are gay ?

  27. Obviously an error... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    San Francisco? Must be like that metric/english unit Mars screwup - I thought all orbiting objects and ice flows were measured in "Rhode Islands".

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Obviously an error... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a European I am not very familiar with the US units... how many San Franciscos make a Rhode Island ?

    2. Re:Obviously an error... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was article some time ago where some objects in space were measured to be "about the size of Philadelphia". Wonder if they have to use west coast units sometimes to keep the balance?

  28. old joke by andy666 · · Score: 1

    no no those weren't moons, those were klingons. capt. kirk will be there shortly to pick them up.

  29. Yo momma... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... well I'm sure you can fill in the rest.

  30. Possibilities by SkArcher · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The small moons are probably fragments knocked off one of the larger moons and may be in descending spiral orbits. If they are permanent, then I would suspect that they would be in some sort of synchonicity with the larger moons, using the gravitation to help maintain a stable orbit (if they were not synchroeous they would be unstable, IIRC)

    --

    An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
  31. Re:THERE IS ONLY ONE MOON by rjch · · Score: 1

    You really should see a doctor about that...

  32. Name proposal by posa · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Moons around Uranus... What do you think about the hemorrhoids?

  33. Well soon need more Shakspear. by EnterpriseNCC-1701 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are entirly too many moons. In the case of Uranus we will soon need more female Shakspearian characters to name them after.

    --
    "Most interesting how often you humans seem to obtain that which you do not want" -Spock
  34. ...about the size of San Francisco... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and similar to it in terms of living conditions.

  35. moron eXPlosive ?pr? ?firm? eye gassing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's how they do it. smoke&mirrors, uploaded into your .asp., until you can't see/think clearly.

  36. They're wrong. Links here to solution. by MickLinux · · Score: 5, Informative
    We all know how complication three-body motion is, so with the number of objects affected by various gravitational fields out there, it would be incredibly hard to predict any movement at all.

    What they said was correct at one time. It is no longer correct.

    It actually isn't all that hard to predict their motion. There's a new mathematical tool, the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard Iteration, that has made great strides in the ability to predict this.

    What's even better, this solution method is incredibly easy, conceptually simple, ideal for initial value problems, yields exact functional solutions, involves simple algebra [yes, that's right: simple algebra solutions to almost any set of partial differential equations] and turns out doubling precision for every iteration.

    Oh, yes: there is a version out for Maple, too.

    The solution that it turns out is a MacLauren series [functionally equal to the Taylor Series] dependant on as many variables as you need. However, for this you'd have everything dependent on time.

    Also, this method *has* been used to predict planetary, moon, and asteroid motion. It works.

    [PS: That last link has code for you code monkeys]

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  37. Re:THERE IS ONLY ONE MOON by crubb · · Score: 1

    Ur-ANUS?! You wish!

  38. Starwars :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats no moon, It's a spacestation!!

  39. The sixth panet on space.com .. by adeyadey · · Score: 3, Informative

    The story is also on space.com. they also have a article showing how to find Uranus in the sky - it is quite close to Mars at the moment. Perhaps we should start calling it the 6th planet at /. just to avoid tedious jokes..

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    1. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. by Exatron · · Score: 1

      Or we could just wait until 2620, when Uranus will be renamed to end that stupid joke once and for all.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    2. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would really be confusing, since it's the 7th planet.

    3. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      you are right, damn..

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    4. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > The story is also on space.com. they also have a article showing how to find Uranus in the sky - it is quite close to Mars at the moment. Perhaps we should start calling it the 6th planet at /. just to avoid tedious jokes..

      If you want to avoid tedious jokes, you can start by avoids phrases like "how to find Uranus".

      Fortunately you didn't say "with both hands"...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. by shivianzealot · · Score: 1

      Here is a trivia question: How many planets are visible without a telescope? Most people will answer "five" (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn). But if you answered "six," congratulations, you can go to the head of the class!

      -http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/uranus_moon s_030925.html

      Perhaps we should start calling it the 6th planet at /. just to avoid tedious jokes

      The other comments almost have it right. The space.com article isn't counting Earth as a planet visible without a telesceope, which strikes me as a bit absurd as it is most plainly seen in day to day life by a some slashdotters.

      The planets you CAN see with no magnification:

      Mercury (1) Venus (2) Earth (3) Mars (4) Jupiter (5) Saturn (6) Uranus (7)

      --

      Bored with karma, be a fan/freak

    6. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we should call it the 6th planet so we talk about Saturn instead.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    7. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      I was tempted to do just that, but thought I had better mention the U-word at least once so people had some idea what the heck I was on about. I was thinking afetrwards "why the hell did I call it the 6th planet" when I knew damn well it was the 7th? Then I remembered I had just been reading the article on space.com that calls it the "6th visible planet". Oh well..

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    8. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should start calling it the 6th planet at /. just to avoid tedious jokes..

      Yeah, THAT'D be a good idea. There aren't enough factual inconsistencies on slashdot to start.

      The planets are:

      Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto

      (though Neptune and Pluto switch sometimes)

      Making Uranus the 7th planet

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    9. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't they rename it UrRectum?

  40. "New Moon System Around Uranus" by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 3, Funny


    It's not a moon system, these are Haemorroids.

    --
    "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  41. Moon Uranus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot: "Please troll us. Please!"

  42. That sounds like a problem easier to solve... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...for a few thousand years than for a few billion.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  43. "incredibly easy, conceptually simple" by metamatic · · Score: 3, Funny

    I downloaded the "incredibly easy, conceptually simple" description in the PDF file.

    Now I remember why I switched to computer science. *sigh*

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  44. er by cca93014 · · Score: 1
    The new moons, uncovered by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, are about 8 to 10 miles across (12 to 16 km) -- about the size of San Francisco.


    Aha! But are they polyamorous out of work web designers?

    1. Re:er by isny · · Score: 1

      What does that translate to either (a) Philadelphias or (b) Volkswagen Beetles? I thought Philadelphia was the standard unit of measure for large planetary bodies, and the Volkswagen Beetles for smaller, minor asteroids?

  45. Re:Please, can you lighten up? by mubar · · Score: 1

    Worst troll i've ever seen. If something is repeated 1000 times it is definitely NOT FUNNY anymore. And if you think it is, and not only that but even insult people who think otherwise, then you are just a useless retard who shouldn't be posting on the net. The fact that there are many like you in slahdot won't make you any better.

  46. A scholarly look at Uranus by metamatic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, there's nothing funny about Uranus. let's forget the childish humor and take a serious, scholarly look at Uranus. To many people it's just a giant cloud of gas where the sun doesn't shine, but those of us who are enthusiastic about Uranus know that it has many secrets.

    Surprising as it may seem, we don't have all that many photographs of Uranus. Yes, the Pioneers sent back pictures of Uranus, lots of them. But there are very few images that are high enough resolution and quality to show the faint rings around Uranus. Perhaps the excitement around these new moons will give us the excuse we need to take another long, hard look at Uranus.

    Even if you have no idea how to find Uranus, you can still appreciate its unusual configuration. Scientists still don't understand why Uranus is tilted sideways. Also, while we know what's near the surface, we still aren't sure of the exact chemical mixture deep inside Uranus. Are the moons stable, or are they spiraling into Uranus?

    With so much to learn, we must hope that NASA will probe the depths of Uranus soon. Yes, there are many technical issues that will need to be resolved, and problems to be faced--but we put men on the moon, and I'm sure that given sufficient motivation, NASA's engineers can lick Uranus too.

    Oh, and yes, the size comparisons are silly, but can you think of a more sensible unit of size than San Francisco for an object in the vicinity of Uranus?

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:A scholarly look at Uranus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freaking hilarious!

      Mad props to you, my good man. Watch out, Conan and Kilbourne. There's a new kid on the block.

      Did somebody say goatse?

    2. Re:A scholarly look at Uranus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kilometers are good. At least they're of fixed size, compared to San Fransisco which is of variable size, depending when you look and how you measure it.

      It's a lot like Uranus in that respect.

    3. Re: A scholarly look at Uranus by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > With so much to learn, we must hope that NASA will probe the depths of Uranus soon.

      Ah, so those aliens who keep abducting people are astronomers!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. My Initial Thoughts by ellem · · Score: 1

    Dang frat boys

    That's because I wear boxers now

    You oughta see my wife's

    Just what Uranus needs another moon

    This is what I spent 87B USD on?

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  49. Obligatory quote.. by David+McBride · · Score: 1

    That's no moon.

    [Fired. -Ed]

  50. Moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry can't resist, I guess someone didn't wipe well enough. They're just little balls of **** afterall.

    1. Re:Moons by mlush · · Score: 1
      Sorry can't resist, I guess someone didn't wipe well enough. They're just little balls of **** afterall.

      Go on your an Anonymous Coward you can say shit in public... don't be so repressed

    2. Re:Moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant "you're" as in "you are an anonymous coward", and maybe they are balls of stars so there!

  51. What's that about my anus? by HalliS · · Score: 1

    I guess I better cut back on those hamburgers and fries :)

    --


    My other UID is 1337
  52. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. NOT! by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

    The sixth planet is Saturn. Uranus is the 7th planet.

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  53. Okay, here's the concept in plain English by MickLinux · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Okay, first of all, when you read that thing, know that IVP = "Initial Value Problem"; "ODE"=Ordinary Differential Equation.

    Now, here goes: Suppose you have a function that is a taylor series: y=a + bt + ct^2 + dt^3...

    Alternatively, I could write that y=cy(0)+cy(1)t^1 + cy(2)t^2 + cy(3)t^3... where cy(n) is the coefficient a,b,c,d...I'm going to switch back and forth a little, for convenience' sake.

    Now, at time t=0, what is the value of y? y=a. Suppose y measures position. At time t=0, what is the value of b? b is the initial velocity. That is because y'=b+2ct+3ct^2+4ct^3..., and at t=0, everything except b drops out. But the time derivitive of y is velocity. So b is equal to the initial velocity.

    That's the concept of the Picard iteration: it's incredibly easy to deal with differentials if you have a Taylor series.

    Let's stop here, and instead of calling the coefficients a,b,c,d... let's name them as mathematicians do: cy(0),cy(1),cy(2),cy(3)... That is, coefficient for y #0, #1, #2, and so on.

    Now, suppose I have three Taylor functions, f,g,and h, and I know two of them, and I have an equation f=g+h. How do I solve for g, for example, knowing f and h? Well, this one's easy from algebra. Each coefficient can be calculated from the relationship cf(n)=cg(n)+ch(n). So that one's easy. So is subtraction, same method, different sign.

    Now multiplication is harder, and division is incredibly hard, and so that's kindof where Picard stopped. So it didn't seem all that useful to him. But Parker and Sochacki got it past that.

    If we had f(t)=g(t)*h(t), well, for these to be functionally equivalent, then the coefficients for the g*h entries on the right should be equal to the coefficient for f, same power of t. So...

    power of t=0 (that's the a coefficient for each):

    cf(0) = cg(0) * ch(0).

    Everything else has a nonzero power of t, so that one's easy.

    power of t=1 (that's the b coefficient for f, but that's the a coefficient of g times the b coefficient of h, plus the b coefficient of g times the a coefficient of h):

    cf(1) = cg(0)*ch(1) + ch(0)*cg(1)

    That's the next one.

    Power of t=2:

    cf(2) = cg(0)*ch(2)+cg(1)*ch(1)+cg(2)*ch(0).

    Here, we're beginning to get a pattern.

    cf(n) = SUM (i=0...n) cg(i)ch(n-i)

    So if we have all the values 0...n for g and h, then we can calculate value n for f, as well.

    DIVISION

    Okay, up through this, picard got. He couldn't get division. However, Parker and Sochacki posited that you could take the differential of f=g/h, to get:

    f' = d [g*h^-1]/dt = (g'h - gh')/(h^2)

    so

    f'*h*h = g'*h - g*h'

    Now, if we have coefficients for g and h through n, and we want the f' coefficient #n, then we need to look at the coefficients that accompany t^(n-1), because on the left we have f', and if we know

    f=cf(0) + cf(1)t + cf(2)t^2 + ... + cf(n-1)t^(n-1)+ [unknown]cf(n)t^n

    then

    f'=cf(1)+2cf(2)t + ... (n-1)cf(n)t^(n-1)

    where cf(n) again is unknown.

    Looking at the rest of the left hand side f'*h*h, we note that since we have h through point n, we have the coefficients of h*h through point n as well. So calling k=h*h, we have

    f'k = g'h-h'g

    where it's the coefficients of the (n-1) powers of t that are of interest.

    However, when you multiply that lefthand side out, you quickly see that there is only one coefficient in k that multiplies against the (n-1) power of t, and all other values are known! So dropping our interest in all other powers of t, and just dealing with the coefficient of interest:

    SUM(i=0...n-1) cf'(i)k(n-1-i) = SUM(q=0...n-1)cg(n-1-q)ch'(q) - SUM (r=0...n-1)cg'(r)ch(n-1-r)

    but cg'(r) = (r+1)cg(r) so

    I'm going to stop it here, because I'm doing this in my head, and rather than give you a wrong answer, I'm going to say it should be really obvious if you take the

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:Okay, here's the concept in plain English by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1

      Mr. MickLinux, may I be excused? My brain is full.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    2. Re:Okay, here's the concept in plain English by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      What throws me off all the time is the use of different letters to represent certain things, but what they represent isn't usually explained. Does "c" always mean the same thing to everybody in all problems? (isn't it the speed of light?) And y, and b, etc...

      Is there some generally understood meaning for certain letters if not specified? Such as a programmer could use variables "i" and "s" and people would probably assume that they are an integer and a string, respectively.

      BTW, your post was very informative.

    3. Re:Okay, here's the concept in plain English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Does "c" always mean the same thing to everybody in all problems? (isn't it the speed of light?)

      If it's surrounded by a, b, and d, probably not.

      And y, and b, etc...

      y is usually a dependent variable if there's no z, w, or f. Context will make it obvious.

      Is there some generally understood meaning for certain letters if not specified?

      Early letters (a,b,c,d,e) are usually unknown or arbitrary constants. (unless it's e as in d(e^x)/dx=e^x)

      f,g,h are almost always functions (aka dependent variables)

      w,x,y,z tend to be used as independent variables.

      i,j,k are usually used to index a matrix or terms in a sum or something.

      l,m,n are used as upper bounds on an index.

      u,v are usually used for "alternate" parameters, for example when some transformation is applied.

      t is almost always time.

      o,p,q,r,s.... I don't think have general meanings, but keep in mind that none of these are strict rules, in case somebody runs out of letters in one context and needs more. (of course if they're really serious they'll just use subscripts as MickLinux did(ish) with cy(0), etc.)

      Now if you're talking physics, things are different. There's a whole scad of letters that are used for constants.

    4. Re:Okay, here's the concept in plain English by MickLinux · · Score: 1
      f,g, h, and k were functions.

      i,q, and r were iteration variables.

      In this, also, a,b,c, and d were coefficients. An alternative naming convention for the same coefficients, but generalized to functions f,g, and h were

      a for function f is "cf(0)". That is, [c]oefficient for [f] number zero.

      a for function g is "cg(0)". That is, [c]oefficient for [g] number 0.

      b for function f is "cf(1)" that is, [c]oefficient for [f] number 1.

      and so on.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    5. Re:Okay, here's the concept in plain English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > t is almost always time.

      Not for 1337 h4x0rs like me!

      10 FOR T = 1 to 100000
      20 PRINT "I RULE!!!@!"$£!"
      30 NEXT T
      40 GOTO 10

  54. Say whut? by MasTRE · · Score: 1

    "New Moon System Around Uranus"

    Around my anus? Damn, and I thought I was eating healthy.

    --
    Must-not-watch TV!
  55. And now for the translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New Moon System Around Your Anus

    An anonymous reader writes "Astronomers have discovered two of the smallest moons yet found around Your Anus. The new moons, uncovered by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, are about 8 to 10 miles across (12 to 16 km) -- about the size of San Francisco.

    Are they talking about "the boys"? They're not that big!

    The two moons are so faint they eluded detection by the Voyager 2 spacecraft, which discovered 10 small satellites when it flew by the gas giant planet in 1986. The newly detected moons are orbiting even closer to the planet than the five major Your Anian satellites, which are several hundred miles wide. The two new satellites are the first inner moons of Your Anus discovered from an Earth-based telescope in more than 50 years. "It's a testament to how much our Earth-based instruments have improved in 20 plus years that we can now see such faint objects 1.7 billion miles (2.8 billion km) away," says Mark Showalter, a senior research associate at Stanford University. 'The inner swarm of 13 satellites is unlike any other system of planetary moons,' says co-investigator Jack Lissauer.

    They even have a Dick on My Anus?

    'The larger moons must be gravitationally perturbing the smaller moons. The region is so crowded that these moons could be gravitationally unstable. ...'

    Time for some Preparation H, perhaps?

    '... So, we are trying to understand how the moons can coexist with each other.'"

    Yeah, whatever Mr. Ko-ter.

  56. Yo momma... by diablobsb · · Score: 1

    Hey Momma.....
    Yo ass so big, that your gravity pull has a moon orbiting uranus....

    --
    I for one, welcome our new hot grits... PROFIT!
  57. And..... by bondjamesbond · · Score: 1

    Your anus is a gassy planet. Stop it! You're killing me!

  58. Re:The only good news... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The time on the Hubble is FREE from STSI (Space Telescope Science Institute, in Baltimore MD) NASA pays them to operate HST, as a scientist you just have to submit a good experiment to STSI, get approved and wait in line for years for your observation. If the HST is down or croaks during your observation window, too bad, you go back to the end of the line and wait. Hubble will soon be upgraded (SM4) to have better "eyes" when the Shuttle is back up. I have worked some on the SM4 software, its a LOT of very very old C code on an old 286 processor, plus some one of a kind processors from 25 yrs ago that no one else but NASA uses. Several of the instruments have NO software. But it gets the job done. If Uranas has the two Moons, I would have thought HST would have found them by now as they DO look at the planets and not just the neato nifty nebulas and stuff sveral Sagans ("billions and billions") of light years away

    JWST (James Web Space Telescope) is just now reaching the requirements definition phase, expect 7-10 yrs before launch. It will be stationed at L-4 or L-2 (the Earth Sun Lagrange Points where the gravity pull of the Earth and Sun are equal, so the object kinda just sits there with very litte station keeping needed) which is a LONG way from Earth, so the JWST better work right the FIRST time cuz there ain't no way to get there to put glasses on it!

    Any other questions?

  59. HST... by joebeone · · Score: 1

    Hubble is hardly Earth-based... tell that to the astronauts that routinely have to service it at amazing price and effort!

    1. Re: HST... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Hubble is hardly Earth-based... tell that to the astronauts that routinely have to service it at amazing price and effort!

      Ah, but the conspirators just slipped up and admitted that the space program is a fraud, with the simulations filmed right here on earth, probably in Studio 51.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  60. Ughh... by resignator · · Score: 1

    gosh, you guys are funny. *yawns* So many searching for the perfect anus joke.

    --
    "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
  61. With the distances of space... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...land-based telescopes would be looking through a dirty window (the atmosphere), orbiting earth is like sticking your nose out the door, while the alternative is to send a probe which would be to walk over and examine it. The point is, we're observing this "from home", which is Earth. So I don't see a big problem with that statement.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  62. Yep, I think we should do like in Futurama by Kjella · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...and rename it to Urektum to stop all those stupid jokes. Oh, wait...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  63. Re:New babe system around FreeBSD! by uplinkpriest · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I've been looking for new picts to mas......Sorry, I can't go through with it. You're an ass to post such things. Either stick to the subject at hand. Or don't post. Is there a to kick you in the nuts instead of taking away points?

  64. It looks like it's returning to that moon... by damiena · · Score: 1

    "That's no moon, It's a space station!"

  65. Too many Moons! by cylcyl · · Score: 1

    How's a student to keep up with them? everyone will fail astronomy because they can't remember all 12 moons' names and the names of the 20+ around saturn.

    I say that we launch a solar system cleanup mission and destroy those moons! There can be only ONE!!

  66. Let's hope... by The_Real_MrRabbit · · Score: 1

    ...the bugs don't send these moons our way.

    =8-)

  67. Well... by jabber01 · · Score: 1

    The idea that half of San Francisco is running circles around Uranus is funny. Not "news" per se, since we've known this since the 60's, but still funny.

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

  68. Jerry Springer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't this what a chick named Hubble would do for her Jerry beads, use Uranus to moon the audience...?

  69. Weeehooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fucking worked with Mark Showalter before --- he's an excellent coder!

    I'm fucking famous!!!!!!!

    now if I had only logged in.

  70. Re:They're wrong. Links here to solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It actually isn't all that hard to predict their motion. There's a new mathematical tool, the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard Iteration"
    Is that anything like the Riker maneuver on TNG?
  71. rumor has by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    they are going to name the moons after hercules great grandfather - testucles

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  72. Not unique at all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...everybody's anus has a full moon around it.

  73. *My* Annus?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wondering :-P

  74. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    useful conversion info.

  75. haha great title! by Unreal+One · · Score: 1

    in like, what, 10 years of /. reading, that was simply the best title ever. lol

  76. What Makes a Planet a Planet? by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

    Pluto is smaller than seven of the solar system's moon according to here( Moon, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan and Triton) and its a planet.

    Pluto is small than many moons but it's still a planet, if only because it has a Sailor Senshi assigned to it.

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
  77. This article would have been golden... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

    .. if they had just found a way to use the word Klingon in it.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:This article would have been golden... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "This article would have been golden..... if they had just found a way to use the word Klingon in it."

      Golden is not the color I would have suggested.

    2. Re:This article would have been golden... by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

      What does the enterprise and uranus have in common?

      They both circle around uranus and knock off klingons!

  78. who the hell even cares? by rootyard · · Score: 1

    who the hell even cares?

  79. Re:The sixth panet on space.com .. NOT! by adeyadey · · Score: 1

    Yeah yeah I know.. I was thinking afterwards "why the hell did I call it the 6th planet" when I knew damn well it was the 7th? Then I remembered I had just been reading the article on space.com that calls it the "6th visible planet". Oh well..

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  80. Re:Please, can you lighten up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm... If it's repeated a thousand times it's not funny any more?
    Take Uranus ... Please.
    No soup for Uranus - One year.
    Who's on first? Uranus!

    Yep. Your right. Definately not funny.

  81. Nah.. by indros · · Score: 1

    That's just a dingleberry.