Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Photo of Sedna Suprises Astronomers
waynegoode writes "Soon after the announcement of the discovery of Sedna, the solar system's furthest object and planet wanna-be, the Hubble Space Telescope was pointed at it to answer some of the many questions its discovery generated. The photos were released today and are surprising for what they don't show--a moon. Astronomers were certain it had a moon because of its slow rotation. "I'm completely baffled at the absence of a moon," says Michael Brown, Sedna's discoverer. Story and photo at Universe Today, hubblesite and NASA press release."
The planet that's not a planet has a moon that's not there!
Perhaps it used to rotate fast, but got hit by some other asteroid in an opposing fashion, so now it rotates slowly ? Space is big (!) so this is unlikely, but if Sedna is not too far from the Kuiper belt, perhaps it's less unlikely than one might expect...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
... Cue 'Hollow Sedna' theories. Oh, and a swarm of bad 'no moon, it's a space station' jokes.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
How can they be sure the moon isn't behind the planet?
At a distance of over 8 billion miles, Sedna is so far away it is reduced to one picture element (pixel) in the image taken in high-resolution mode with Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys.
This surprised me a lot. Hubble can take pretty (for me as a non-astronomer) pictures of objects far away and in the past (wasn't only recently something so old that it is almost the beginning of the universe?), and yet it can't take a picture of something within our system larger than a pixel... Anyone with some knowledge care to elaborate on that?
the most sexp i get is my paren-mode.
Just because its smaller than a pixel doesent imply that it is invisible. As long as there is light coming of it it wil register as a blip in a pixel.
So they are looking for a darker blip next to the gray blip that is sedna.
This is my sig, show me yours
How come Hubble can take wonderful pictures of distant nebulas and stuff, when the quality of these pictures is far from good?
Martin
Getting rid of Saddam was the easy part. What's left to accomplish is *very* similar to what was asked of our soldiers forty years ago in a certain little Southeast Asian country: winning the hearts and minds of the people after we've bombed the fuck out of them. It can't be done; it's never worked and never will, and our faithfully obedient soldiers are going to keep dying nasty for it until we throw in the towel and bring them home. If you think we've won, you're *really* not paying attention...
we went to war and WON
You know, in the past, most people have waited until the other guys stopped killing them before claiming a victory.
Maybe someone should go out there and tell all those Iraqi irregulars that you guys have WON, and so could they please stop blowing shit up?
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
Okay, so the planet is not a planet. Its an asteroid. That means surely even if there was a 'moon', it couldn't be called a moon, since it doesn't orbit a planet.
Maybe the article should say. Asteroid does not have satellite orbiting it. Still, I suppose that sounds far less interesting.
Maybe the slower rotation speed is just enough needed to keep it on a stable trajectory with earth. It's probably made of naquadria.
I want to say how refreshing it is in this day and age that a man can admit that he possibly made a mistake, or that even better, he doesn't really know. Taking some responsibility is nice to see nowadays. I know this scientist doesn't hold a publicly elected position, so he can say things off the cuff. I've probably just been watching too much c-span lately.
Th
Any enlightened thinkers care to explain?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I guess you have no sense of scale. You see, a galaxy is very, very, very, very big, and Sedna is only sorta big. . . .
You mean like the cheap, unfunny WMD jokes made by GWB?
What class. Bodies of US soldiers (which we're not allowed to see) being returned by the dozen, and the guy is laughing at his deception which sent the troops there in the first place.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
-
The space station and hubble are within the ionosphere.
-
Sedna is 90% of the way to the heliopause, which is the edge of the solar system.
-
Sedna is farther from us than any man-made device, including Pioneer 10 and both Voyagers.
-
The Oort cloud covers an entire order of magnitude, and then some. That means the far edge is over 10 times further than the near edge. Its volume absolutely dwarfs the solar system.
Fascinating stuff.Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
You know what helps terrorists? Creating an entire country (Iraq) for them to attack Americans. Seriously, number of terrorists in Iraq before the war: pretty damn near zero, number now: tens of thousands.
It's hardly the lefties who are distorting the issue. GWB told us for sure that Saddam Hussein had wmds, wasn't disarming them, and now had to face the consequences.
Turns out he didn't have wmds therefore couldn't disarm, therefore the invasion of Iraq was a fait accompli.
A little vignette which serves to illustrate the problem with the USA. In Baghdad there is a Burger King. Iraqis aren't allowed near it, it's in a 'secure zone'. Burgers are flown in from the USA. The staff have been flown in from Nepal, rather than staff it with Iraqis. There is a real disconnect between the US troops and Iraqi peoples that is only making it harder to win hearts and minds.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
Because Soviet Russia was a bigger threat than any third world country was. The US through it served their interests in containing the spread of communism to arm Iraq against Iran.
That's a new one. The way I always heard it was that Iraq was fighting a war against Iran, who was our enemy. And how do you think the Iraqis got MiG jets and Russian tanks? The russians didn't like the Iranians either! It wasn't the Russians we were trying to fight, it was the Iranians.
Becuase it was an election year, and he didn't want to have to deal with the bloodshed that is going on now back then. He would have been re-elected too, if it hadn't been for Perot.
Yes!!! Finally one of you admits that Bush is going down in November!
I don't see it that way, wars are usually struggles over resources. While left leaning people are saying Iraq is over oil, and the righties are claiming its about the freedom of the Iraqi people it's really about striking fear into leaders of other muslim states.
If it's about resources, then planning and equal distribution would prevent war. If it's about religion, it's a little harder, but appearing non-threatening and friendly is a great way to keep religions from not liking you. Maybe it's about fear, but if we have to make people afraid of us in order to be secure, we have big issues. Why not try to make people like us instead of being feared?
Yeah it sucks, but until resources are unlimited and all men and women are equal in every way, there will be violence. Religion also seems to be a driving factor twards war historically. Maybe one day we will get over the violence of ancestors, but I doubt it. I hoped after the cold war the world would see a few hundred years of peace, but no dice. Maybe someday.
No, when people see that violence is wrong, and when it is not tolerated by all societies, then war will end. People who claim that war is necessary provide justification. War is not necessary. The more people who think this, the less war will be an option, and the more peaceful the world will become.
As for resources: Greed causes shortage, and greed is rewarded under capitalism, therefore capitalism, just like Marx said, causes war.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.