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."

196 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Why am I not surprised :-) by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful


    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!
    1. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by ]ix[ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Its more likely to have had a moon that slowed its rotation but then the moon somehow got lost.

      Things can get messy out there in the kupier belt. Its not a place where you want to be alone late at night.

      --
      This is my sig, show me yours
    2. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by koody · · Score: 4, Informative
      There is also a very simple and possible explanation suggested by the article. The moon could be either behind or right in front of sedna.

      The object is not there, though there is a very small chance it might have been behind Sedna or transiting in front of it, so that it could not be seen separately from Sedna itself in the Hubble images.

      Granted the likelyhood of this isn't great, but I think it is a lot more probable than the explanations suggested in the parent posts.

    3. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by arvindn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, that won't work. Basic probability: even if it got hit by an asteroid, the chances that it had exactly the amount of momentum to slow down Sedna's angular velocity to near-zero would be infinitesimal. You could say that it's still not impossible, but then that's precisely what surprises astronomers: very-low-probability events. Of course such cosmic coindicences do happen, such as the moon's angular diameter being almost equal to the sun's when viewed from the earth, but far more often, it indicates a gap either in our observations or our theories.

    4. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by ComaVN · · Score: 1

      I'm still wondering why they didn't call it Rupert.

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    5. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You might want to look up the difference between "linear velocity" and "angular velocity" before you make a fool of yourself in public.

    6. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's no moon.....Look out Luke!

    7. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by Arker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The collision theory is extraordinarily unlikely, although of course in a sense possible. A few more likely scenarios strike me though.

      But Brown predicted that a satellite would pop up as a companion "dot" in Hubble's precise view. The object is not there, though there is a very small chance it might have been behind Sedna or transiting in front of it, so that it could not be seen separately from Sedna itself in the Hubble images.

      Remember that Sedna itself is so small the Hubble can't resolve it. So Sednas companion could be quite tiny and still large enough to affect it. If it has a very small companion with a very low reflectivity, would it be surprising if Hubble didn't pick it up immediately? I'm not an astronomer, and there may be something I'm missing, but that seems quite plausible to me.

      It also seems possible that it was part of a binary system earlier and lost its companion, or that it's rotation rate was affected by one or more near misses out in the kuiper belt. We don't know the history of this object at all, we barely even know it exists. It is cool that an initial prediction seems to be a failure here, because that indicates a potential to learn new things, but at the same time it's hardly surprising given how small and far away the thing is and how difficult this makes it to detect and measure.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    8. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the Solar System is not that big. In fact, not even close

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    9. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      My, have we forgotten our Theory of Improbability already? Well, I guess that's ok, then. Me, I'm still working on my Improbability Drive, and when it's done, I'm getting off this rock for good. ;)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    10. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by essreenim · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's that unlikely.
      In fact Sednas highly eliptical orbit is probably other evidence for a large collision

    11. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by ultranova · · Score: 2, Funny
      Things can get messy out there in the kupier belt. Its not a place where you want to be alone late at night.

      In the outskirts of the solar system it's always night...

      The inner system never sleeps. The oute system never wakes.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by bug_hunter · · Score: 1, Funny

      What about the chances of an asteroid knocking the missing moon out of orbit?

      --
      It's turtles all the way down.
    13. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by 56ker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which other Solar Systems would you be comparing it to? We can only notice the larger planets eg Jupiter size etc in other solar systems.

    14. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by protonman · · Score: 1

      Or even Persephone... :-)

      --
      The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
    15. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by iceborer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Eight moon in the corner pocket.

    16. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by Frantactical+Fruke · · Score: 1

      What brand of teabags are you using?
      Do you think the hangover is optional for the discovery? And are you reusing the teabags in your desktop fusion reactor?

      Mind, I'm still relying on the Pratchett theorem: "But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten."

      So I'm trying to reduce my probability of discovering the improbability drive to a million to one. So far I'm hovering at 1:900,000. Maybe if I stopped thinking about teabags...

    17. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Funny
      The oute system never wakes.

      Until the stars are right... Somewhere out there is Yuggoth.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    18. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by linzeal · · Score: 1

      It could also be a multiple moon system that are in part too small to detect. There are a lot of small objects out there and an object the size of sedna may be like a collector of sundry bits like jupiter is to the asteroid belt.

    19. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by Smallpond · · Score: 2, Interesting


      or perhaps the moon just has a low albedo. Maybe we can rename the moon "Krylon matte black"

    20. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by DrKayBee · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a theory that said the earth rotates when the sun rises in the East and the birds start flying towards it... which causes air currents westward that make the earth rotate... Have they checked if there are enough birds on Sedna?

      --
      Humans have such a good sense of humor!
    21. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really. A system of small moons wouldn't explain the slow rotation, because it takes a big moon relative to Sedna to produce enough tidal action to slow the rotation down.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    22. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by itsnotthenetwork · · Score: 1

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

    23. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by jpkeating · · Score: 1

      A collision that would slow Sedna's rotation down isn't unlikely in the least, and I was surprised that this isn't one of the top possibilities under consideration. Of the nine planets, Earth once got smacked by something the size of Mars, splatting off debris that formed the moon, and Venus got hit by something that knocked it right over on its side (its axis is tilted 177 degrees) and actually reversed the rotation it must have had before, so that it now has a retrograde rotational period of a creaking 243 days -- 10 days longer than its orbit around the sun, giving it longer days than years. By comparison, Sedna is whipping around. Out past Pluto there's plenty of big stuff still floating around, and as in the asteroid belts collisions must be common. Maybe Sedna has a moon, and maybe it had one but lost it, and maybe the periodic brightening isn't actually an effect of its rotation. But a rotation-slowing collision was easily possible.

    24. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      He's comparing the solar system to the universe, and he is completely correct. The solar system is significantly smaller than the universe.

      The chance of a collision doing that somewhere in the universe is quite high, the chance of it doing it in orbit around the same star as a species of intelligent (and I use the term lightly) beings is quite low. (And yes, of course I don't know the likely hood of intelligent beings, but I can guess the orders of magnitude involved reasonably well)

    25. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Given our sample size, the odds of a star with some planets orbiting it within the range we know life can exist and possibly begin in (a huge range) could be said to be 100%. We haven't really been able to investigate any others satisfactorily, although we are trying as hard as we can. Well, some people anyway. Regardless, we have no (well, little) idea how likely life is, let alone intelligent life, since our realm of experience is so limited. It could be that everywhere we go in the cosmos, should we manage to bring ourselves to that level of technology before we self-annihilate, we will find something as wondrous as ourselves, or perhaps our whole world.

      Or, we might run into some misprogrammed Slylandro probes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by dgatwood · · Score: 1, Informative
      It is also possible that Sedna is a recently-captured asteroid/comet, in which case it would likely have little or no rotation. The reason that most bodies in the solar system rotate is largely due to tidal effects from the sun and their moons, AFAIK. The smaller the object, the less impact the sun's tidal effects have on it. Ditto for larger distances from the sun and for heavier densities of matter (IIRC). This thing is smaller and more distant than pluto (6 day rotation), so a 20-day rotation doesn't seem that out of line, even without taking collisions into account.

      Add to that the fact that we don't know its composition or how long it has been in orbit (it could be a ball of plutonium that was captured from the Kuiper belt in 1976, for all we know), and I have a hard time seeing this as particularly unlikely. Interesting, perhaps, but not unlikely. At its size, the odds of it being able to capture and hold a moon of any size are remote, IMHO, so I would have been surprised if they -had- seen a moon.

      That having been said, IANAA.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    27. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      We don't have the sample to work out an experimental probability, but we do have the brains to work out a vague probability based on simple logical assumptions (The drake equation or something, IIRC).

    28. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by newhoggy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Of course such cosmic coindicences do happen, such as the moon's angular diameter being almost equal to the sun's when viewed from the earth, but far more often, it indicates a gap either in our observations or our theories.

      Maybe it's not such a coincidence. If the moon played a critical role in the evolution of complex life for instance, the observation of this supposed coincidence would be a case of an observer relative observation.

      Under this hypothesis, if the moon wasn't so, we wouldn't be here to observe it and likewise for any other alien lifeforms. It follows then that although such a probably for any arbitrary planet is very low, there is a high probability that such a moon orbits a planet that has evolved complex life capable of observing it.

      Doubtless, with me rambling on about aliens, I'm now sounding like an incomprehensible crackpot.

    29. Re:Why am I not surprised :-) by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Ohmygod! A moon with a low libido!

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
  2. When... by jb_davis · · Score: 4, Funny

    When will G.W. announce a manned mission to look for oil?

    --
    "Well, it took an hour to write, I thought it would take an hour to read."
    1. Re:When... by pzycho · · Score: 1

      That George Washington always was a damn fool...

    2. Re:When... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      seriously, chaps. you don't see this kind of stupid childishness from conservatives. every time someone makes another cheap, unfunny WMD joke, or fucking cheerlead for peace, it makes me ashamed to be anti-gwb.

      I suppose I imagined all of those cheap blow-job jokes from conservatives during the Clinton Administration?

    3. Re:When... by perly-king-69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:When... by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      When will G.W. announce a manned mission to look for oil?

      As soon as the spectral analysis comes back, and they discover that the "dark red" color is due to high levels of alien automatic transmission fluid

      (I know, I've made that joke before, but by golly it's a good one!)

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    6. Re:When... by perly-king-69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:When... by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Okay, how the hell can you say he didn't have them. He used them against is own friggin people and against the Iranians. Do you seriously think he just dumped them all down the toilet as soon as we said he couldn't have them? Sure he destroyed some of them, but there is no way he destroyed all of them.

      I'm almost positive that he moved them out of the country before we invaded to make Bush look bad. A madman like that doesn't give up a nice deadly toy like biological/chemical weapons. I bet if you snooped around Lebenon, Syria, or Iran you would fine they suddenly have some extra WMD's.

    8. Re:When... by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Nice answer for the Bio weapons. I'll even accept that. But he didn't use bio weapons on the kurds or the Iranians, he used chem weapons (type of blistering agent wasn't it?). I would venture to guess that he continued to maintain a stockpile of them.

      BTW could you please site a source for your information about the USA selling Iraq chem weapons? I've heard people say we did, and others say we didn't and was hoping that you could back up your stance on it.

    9. Re:When... by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      I love that, liberal distortion. Kinda like when ol' Bill O'Reilly says liberals want us to lose the war on terrorism because they vote against the Patriot Act. Don't get me wrong, there are crazies on both sides, but if you ever listen *objectively* to conservative radio, you would never consider what the liberals do as distortion. Let us consider some of the finer comments from our favorite drug addict conservative. Rush claims that not only are there more native Americans today than before the manifest destiny, he even claimed styrofoam was biodegrable.

      And for gods sake Bush, it is not "The Almighty's" intention for us to invade Iraq, to bring freedom - quit invoking God. Talk about distortion. There is no substance, so I will say "God" and the mindless will say "We gotta, cause God Said".

      Please, just look at things objectively with everyone's good in mind and you will see where the distortion lies.

      --
      ymmv
    10. Re:When... by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      Bodies of US soldiers (which we're not allowed to see)

      Seriously, why do you think the general public should be allowed to see the bodies?

    11. Re:When... by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      well jesus. those jokes ashamed me too -- not because i'm conservative (i'm not) but because i'm american and it bothered me anyone would want to drag someone thru the mud like that. what the fuck is your comment even supposed to imply, anyway? that i'm so immature as to make blowjob jokes and stupid, unfunny wmd jokes?

      don't get me wrong, i love a good jab at the pres. but jokes like the original poster are NOT FUCKING FUNNY. this joke only serves to make the left look like it has the sense of humor of a toddler, and i'm embarrassed to be associated with that. what's so fucking hard to understand about that?

    12. Re:When... by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      yes, exactly like that. neither gwb nor the immature left are funny. i'd be ashamed to support gwb, and i am ashamed to share the political views of idiots with a two year old's sense of humor like the original poster.

      sometimes i'll see someone who actually is funny, and my faith in the left is restored.

    13. Re:When... by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      so you actually laughed out loud at the original post? you found it sarcastic in an insightful and humorous way?

      gimme a fucking break.

    14. Re:When... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      So he lied to you, but he didn't "deceive you"? I'm not sure how to resolve that.

      Sure jokes can be funny in the right context. IF you're a stand-up comedian in a f*cking night club, moron, not if you're the damn president of the USA who has now led hundreds to their death you don't joke about it. God, I suppose you're one of those people who would think it funny to make anti-Semitic German Nazi jokes to relatives of victims of the holocause. No difference really, "as with any joke, some people will be offended", right?

    15. Re:When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      There is a very good Frontline episode about this, and I believe it to be well researched and balanced.

      I believe they address the selling of chemicals in one of the 'episodes' near the bottom.

      This was not a case of GWB senior or Reagan going "here's your mustard gas, wink, wink", but more of an american company that was breaking the law by providing known precursors to a country on a prohibited list. There were probably also some political officials at some level who turned blind eyes, received kickbacks, or were asleep at their post.

      So, it's not like we should blame GWB for it, but at the same time we have to own up to our responsibilities, as a nation, for often arming dangerous people, either as policy, or as a byproduct of greed by the few.

    16. Re:When... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      are there more native Americans today than before the manifest destiny

      That's true, no matter how you interpret "native American".

      If you use the word correctly, then it applies to each person born in North or South America. (Native means "born in"). Obviously, the America's population has been relentlessly increasing for centuries.

      The popular incorrect usage of the term is as a replacement for the older "American Indian" (which itself is obviously wrong). People descended from humans living in America prior to the European colonization should strictly be called aboriginal Americans. (Of course, popular misconception ties "aboriginal" to Australia, so using the right words will get you misunderstood too)

      Anyhow, the population of aboriginal Americans has in fact increased each year since 1550, and continues to slowly climb. The occasional massacres and other brutal treatment from European settlers was never enough to put a dent in the raw population numbers.

      However, the reason the population was able to climb so much post-1550 is that between 1495-1550, the large majority of aboriginal Americans died from imported diseases. So by the times the Europeans got around to exploring the continent, they found it less inhabited than it had been a few decades earlier, because influenza spreads faster than settlers.

    17. Re:When... by aled · · Score: 1

      Read the news, they were not prepared and still doing the wrong things, like closing newspapers and bombing civils. Thank the USA government for that. And what think Iraquis about turning their country into an explosive backyard? They don't like it.
      Some of them think of themselves as fighters against a foreign invader, not terrorists.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    18. Re:When... by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

      Yep. I'm a supporter of Bush, but that was some bad embarrassing joke.

      Not funny. Period.

  3. That's no absence of a moon ... by BabyDave · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's an absence of a space station!

  4. Sedna's Slow Spin by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... 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.
  5. it has to be aliens screwing with us by hellmarch · · Score: 4, Funny

    with all of my astronomical knowledge the only thing i can come up with is aliens playing some sort of april's fools day joke. but this begs to ask "do alien's celebrate april fool's day or some other weird alien day?" maybe they don't call it april

    1. Re:it has to be aliens screwing with us by m1kesm1th · · Score: 1

      On some planet somewhere, its probably celebrated, but their day could equal one of our months.

      That could either be really funny or become really annoying.

  6. news by name773 · · Score: 5, Funny

    any other interesting things that didn't happen today?
    the sun rose so it can't be that....
    water is still wet...
    i'm baffled.

    1. Re:news by ZigMonty · · Score: 5, Funny
      water is still wet...

      No it isn't.

    2. Re:news by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      you have no sense of humor do you?

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    3. Re:news by Radish03 · · Score: 1

      "First, one brief announcement. I just wanted to mention for those who have asked that absolutely nothing whatsoever happened today in sector 83/9/12. I repeat, nothing happened. Please remain calm."

  7. Rare Event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe Earth, Sedna and "Sedna moon" are co-linear?

    1. Re:Rare Event by colinleroy · · Score: 1

      Well, at first Hubble isn't on earth :) Not even counting the fact that moons do rotate around their planets.

      --
      blah
  8. Not an expert by BackwardHatClub · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They said there was a very small chance that it's companion rock could be behind or in front of it, what kind of percantage are we talking about? You have to figure that the "Sedna moon" would spend at least 20% of it's time in front of or behind the planet (relative to Hubble). Imagine trying to see the moon from a telescope on Sedna, it wouldn't always be on either side, sometimes the Earth would hide it. Maybe they just need to take another photo when Hubble has another oppurtunity.

    1. Re:Not an expert by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Informative
      They said there was a very small chance that it's companion rock could be behind or in front of it, what kind of percantage are we talking about? Not that much of a chance. If Sedna has been slowed by the presence of a moon, that moon ought to be a goodly distance away - as the planet slows, the moon drifts away, to conserve angular momentum. So the planet would spend the great majority of its time well away from its moon in the sky.

      The other issue is that the planet can only occult the moon if the moon's orbit is edge-on to the Earth. That's true of many moons - consider the Galilean satellites of Jupiter, which eclipse and are eclipsed by their primary on a regular basis - but is very unlikely to be true of such an eccentric object as Sedna. Objects that far out don't adhere well to the ecliptic - they tend to go their own way :-)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Not an expert by arivanov · · Score: 2, Informative

      20%

      Assuming its orbit is in the ecliptic plane. This is not a good assumption from Neptun onwards.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  9. A moon? by Scorillo47 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would be surprising that Senda has a moon. After all, Sedna itself is comparable in size with our own moon (Sedna has less than 1700 Km in diameter, and our moon has around 3500 Km in size).

    Now I am wondering if our Moon has another moon orbiting around :-) I am sure that somebody searched for it.

    --
    Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    1. Re:A moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh?

      Pluto is comparable in size with our own moon, and it has a moon of its own.

      Asteroid Ida has a moon. Ida is about 56 by 24 by 21 kilometers in size.

      Having a moon has nothing to do with size.

    2. Re:A moon? by frobisch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Hill sphere for the moon is around 60000km so it is possible, but I think in our solarsystem there is no moon known with a moon (don't know about the asteroid belt)

    3. Re:A moon? by cablepokerface · · Score: 1

      Pluto is comparable in size with our own moon, and it has a moon of its own

      That's true, but the mass of Pluto is just slightly larger then it's moon. That why Pluto is actually called a 'doubleplanet', because Pluto and it's moon (Sharon) revolve around each other.

    4. Re:A moon? by Xilman · · Score: 4, Funny
      because Pluto and it's moon (Sharon) revolve around each other

      Surely that's "Charon"?

      And don't call me Shirly

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    5. Re:A moon? by Xilman · · Score: 1
      Now I am wondering if our Moon has another moon orbiting around :-)

      It has had temporary (and artificial) ones in orbit around it at various times in the last few decades.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    6. Re:A moon? by geekwife · · Score: 1

      According to our morning newscast (Lopez on 98 Rock in Baltimore) the hypothetical size of the hypothetical moon is approximately 400 miles across.

      Oh, look, they finally found the planet that the Little Prince came from.

      --
      "Choosy browsers choose .gif!"
    7. Re:A moon? by cablepokerface · · Score: 1

      I did say 'Sharon' did I?

      Cablepokerface hopelessly checks keyboard to see distance between S and C to claim a typo.

      you're totally correct. I misremembered.

    8. Re:A moon? by Piquan · · Score: 1

      Cablepokerface hopelessly checks keyboard to see distance between S and C to claim a typo.

      Psst... tell 'em you're using a Maltron.

    9. Re:A moon? by Gyl · · Score: 1
      It might be suprising for a small object to have a moon, but as other posters have pointed out, it does happen.

      The reason astronomers thought there would be a moon, was it's rotation rate is quite slow. The best mechanism for doing this is to have a moon that uses tidal effects to slow the rotation of Sedna. This is happening on earth, and has happened to our moon.

    10. Re:A moon? by newhoggy · · Score: 1
      Now I am wondering if our Moon has another moon orbiting around :-) I am sure that somebody searched for it.

      Hey, I found it! I'll name it "Earth" in honour of my birthplace.

  10. Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum. by Anubis333 · · Score: 4, Funny

    'Astronomers were surprised by what they did not see, a moon. The hubble telescope helped solve the problem when honed onto Sedna itself. The planet's oddly erratic, eliptical orbit is due to a giant mass on it's far side. Colon Powell presented the Hubble photographs today in a speech before the United Nations. The photographs detail the until now, 'unknown mass' that was altering Sedna's orbit. "It is clear from these photos" he said "that we have found the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction".

    It is unclear how Saddam Hussein delivered and stockpiled the weapons on Sedna, but the blury photographic proof shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the administration was in the Right from the beginning. NASA was unavailable for comment.

  11. No, no, it has a moon! by heironymouscoward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's just had to change its name and location, due to an interstellar court action from Microsoft, which has claimed that the term "lunar" infringes on the term "Windows", given the obvious phonetic similarity.

    When Sedna's lu--r object has found a new name, and shaken off Microsoft's legal team, it will reappear.

    Except in Benelux.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  12. Lu-dash? by ites · · Score: 1

    Ho-y Sh-t! T-- Hu--le s---e te--sc--pe h-s obv------y b--n h-xor-ed by a gr--p of ha--y g--ks.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  13. Not so surprising... by shachart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 image sets an upper limit on Sedna's size of 1,000 miles in diameter.

    So if the so-called planet is the size of one pixel, how do they expect to see a smaller moon?

    And, yes, I'm quite aware of techniques such as extrapolations, anti-aliasing etc. which *may* help extract a smaller-than-1-pixel object using a series of 35 pictures, but I'd speculate that NASA's assertion that Sedna does not have a moon is premature.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, consult.
    1. Re:Not so surprising... by ]ix[ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Not so surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sedna is one pixel with RGB (255,255,255).

      You'd expect its moon to be one pixel, with RGB (50,50,50) maybe.

      How someone using the buzzwords "extrapolations" and "anti-aliasing" can miss this would be a better question.

    3. Re:Not so surprising... by ]ix[ · · Score: 1

      a blip would be the pixel registering somthing other than black in this context. I dont think its a word that has a scientiffic definition.

      blip in a pixel, a single pixel going blip, whatever, this is only slashdot you know. =)

      --
      This is my sig, show me yours
    4. Re:Not so surprising... by kill-9-0 · · Score: 1

      Amazing that with all the brilliant minds at NASA, and working on the HST, that here on /. we have the most brilliant man in the world, who by reading a single paragraph is able to announce that all those other guys are wrong. Sorry, but I think I'll believe the guys at NASA for now. (Unless you are Steven Hawking)

      --
      Liberalism...the next best thing to thinking.
  14. maybe it had a moon by Wellmont · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The slow rotation maybe due to the material the planet is made out of...haven't done enough research...but the limited work i've done on planetary rotation and gravity tells me two things.

    The slow rotation may account for a moon or child body which was able to escape the rotational cycle, or was flung off into space during its creation. Which is FAR FAR more likely given its distance from the sun

    The other reason maybe attributed to the fact that it is beyond the astroid belt, and is the furthest satellite we've discovered yet. Although it is a small target, it maybe the solar system's first line of defense (eg a riot shield) although not a good one. That could account for both slow/erratic rotation or a missing orbital body.

  15. Silly question from a non-astronomer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How can they be sure the moon isn't behind the planet?

  16. Maybe they call it.... by sunbeam60 · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Kill All Humans Day

  17. Re:It may sound silly... by Wellmont · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the pictures are taken using filters, not normal light, high intensity x-ray, microwave, IR...the whole deal....they are also taken in sequence, to produce multiple images of the object for sub pixel extrapolation....as a possibility described in an above post. They may have "missed it" in this round of pictures but it is highly unlikely...their guesses may have not accounted for some other gravitational body.

  18. In other news... by haxor.dk · · Score: 1

    ...France and Russia have allegedly negotiated a deal with the litte green men native to Sedna for rights to extraction of organic compounds and water for fusion fuel.

    Jaques Chiraq and Vladimir Putin were unavailable for comment.

    1. Re:In other news... by aled · · Score: 1

      In other news Donald Rumfeed told the press they were not negotiating with green men, they just will invade and take whatever they what, because God told GWB to do so.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  19. space.com by noselasd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Story also here
    Small info:
    * Sedna is about three-fourths the size of Pluto.
    * It takes 10,000 years to orbit the Sun.
    * Sedna spins on its axis once every 20 Earth-days.

    1. Re:space.com by jea6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here is a low bandwidth picture of Sedna: Thank you Hubble.

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    2. Re:space.com by Bozdune · · Score: 1

      Hilarious. Thanks for making my morning!

  20. Resolution by MoP030 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Resolution by Wellmont · · Score: 1

      focal distance may have a lot to do with it...imagine bringing a piece of your hair close to your eye...you can't see it until you bring it back.
      however if you read up on the pictures that are included on NASA's website and others you can find out that the pictures of bodies outside our solar system are HUGE, we can't see the small ones yet...the fac that we can see anything with the hubble given the distance we are from other solarsytems/galaxies is noteworthy in itself

    2. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well from this we deduce that 1 Hubble pixel corresponds to 1,000 miles at 8 billion miles, so 1/8,000,000 radians.

      According to the Google calculator = (1/8,000,000) radians = 0.0257831008 arc seconds.

      The field of view in the "pretty pictures of objects far away" is simply much larger than 0.025 arc seconds.

    3. Re:Resolution by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hubble can take pretty (for me as a non-astronomer) pictures of objects far away and in the past [...] and yet it can't take a picture of something within our system larger than a pixel.

      Now you may start to get a sense of just how mind-freakingly big some interstellar objects are. This logarithmic maps of the universe should help put things in perspective. Once you've got the image, start from the very bottom and work your way up. And keep repeating to yourself, "another order of magnitude... and another order of magnitude... and another..."

    4. Re:Resolution by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Caution! This is a explanation involving a astonomical unit called "Really", that astronomers often use when talking to laymen.

      Sedna is Really small and Really far away.

      The rest of the universe is Really Really far away, but is also Really, Really Big.

      Hubble's lenses, when imaging, take into account these Really's so that when you cancel out the Really's, Sedna ends up small and the rest of the universe ends up Big in hubble pictures.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    5. Re:Resolution by MoP030 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, that map is really interesting. I would have never guessed that the ISS was so close. The huge areas of nothingness are a bit dissapointing but I guess space is just that mostly.

      --
      the most sexp i get is my paren-mode.
    6. Re:Resolution by CGP314 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The graph to show me how big things are in the universe is too big to display in any meaningful way on my monitor. I like it.


      -Colin

    7. Re:Resolution by b4rtm4n · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Hitch Hikers Guide quote.

      "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

      --
      "goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
    8. Re:Resolution by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      +5 , informative!?

      God help us all if slashot is supposed to be a cross-section of the techno-elite.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    9. Re:Resolution by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  21. No moon, no Mars. by mezelf · · Score: 5, Funny

    I really pity the people on Sedna. Without a moon, how can they ever hope to get to Mars?

  22. Quality? by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How come Hubble can take wonderful pictures of distant nebulas and stuff, when the quality of these pictures is far from good?

    --
    Martin
    1. Re:Quality? by EvanTaylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Check the fine print. Those images are renderings.

      --
      Sleep is for the weak.
    2. Re:Quality? by api_syurga · · Score: 2, Informative

      Myabe because the distant nebulaes and stuff are actually billions times trillions times gazillions times larger than sedna...?

    3. Re:Quality? by d60b9y · · Score: 5, Informative

      I may not be a lawyer ;-) but I have just finished a Ph.D. in astonomy and I've worked with Hubble images (included ACS images) before.

      NaSa are wonderful at using Hubble to produce pretty publicity images. I'm not saying that the images of nebulae etc. are not without scientific justification, only that NaSa are very good at presenting them to the public.

      These images are more typical of the data taken by Hubble on a day-to-day basis; single filter images (presented in black and white) of faint objects pushing down close to the detection limit of the instruments.

    4. Re:Quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      How come Hubble can take wonderful pictures of distant nebulas and stuff, when the quality of these pictures is far from good?

      Easy, Hubble is farsighted.

    5. Re:Quality? by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      Is it true that the original nebula images are black & white, and colored afterwards to look prettier?

      --
      Martin
    6. Re:Quality? by mph · · Score: 4, Informative
      Is it true that the original nebula images are black & white, and colored afterwards to look prettier?
      That's true, in a sense, but a misleading way of putting it. It's not as if the people at Space Telescope are pulling out their Crayolas.

      The electronic detectors (CCDs) on HST, as on virtually all professional telescopes, are inherently monochrome detectors. During an exposure, the detector is behind one of several filters. There are filters that pass UV light, blue light, green light, red light, infrared light, etc. In many cases, the same bit of sky is observed in multiple filters, one after the other. If these happen to be red, green, and blue filters, you can put the three images in the red, green, and blue channels of a color image, and get something that's approximately true color. The filters are not designed to exactly mimic the human eye's color response; that's not an important concern from a scientific standpoint. If some other combination of three filters is used, they can still be placed in the RGB channels of an image, but the result will be a false-color image. That doesn't mean the color information is meaningless; parts of the nebula that look "blue" in the image probably have something physically different happening than parts that look "red."

      Many people have an unrealistic expectation that colors in astronomical images should be exactly correct. That's a hard thing to nail down. As I mentioned above, the filters are not designed for human-vision color fidelity, since that's not relevant to the scientific goals at hand. Also, if you look at a nebula with your eye, even through a very large telescope, you vision will be dominated by the color-insensitive rods, and the nebula will appear quite washed-out. So do you want the publicity pictures to mimic this shortcoming of human vision (that we don't see much color in faint things)?

      Back to the topic of the CCDs being monochrome detectors: This is true of the CCD or CMOS detectors in consumer digital cameras, too. But instead of putting the whole detector behind a colored filter, each pixel on the detector is behind a tiny red, green, or blue filter. Thus, each detector pixel is still only recording one of the three colors of light. (The new Foveon chips are an exception to this rule.)

  23. that isn't the planet in the picture ... by xlurker · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's the moon!
    (the planet is hiding behind it)....

    --
    ______________________________________________
    sigamajig...
    1. Re:that isn't the planet in the picture ... by ralmeida · · Score: 1

      ...that's no moon! It's the Death Star!!!

      --
      This space left intentionally blank.
    2. Re:that isn't the planet in the picture ... by MrPink2U · · Score: 1

      ..that's no moon. It's a space station.

  24. Define "won" by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Define "won" by CelloJake · · Score: 1

      In WWII we were not very discriminating in the buildings that were hit. Primarily because we didn't have any control. We just lobbed huge amounts of munitions into populated areas.

      And when we took over Germany and Japan we decided who ran the economies there too.

      -Jacobe

    2. Re:Define "won" by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      After WWII (the war's over, remember. We won - it's how we conduct the peace, or occupation, that's at issue) we were discriminating in the buildings that were hit; though, to be fair, there was very little (any?) German and Japanese opposition to occupation.

      We also didn't invite Allied companies to set-up shop in the occupied zones. We also enjoyed widespread support Internationally.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    3. Re:Define "won" by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      So instead of reading the survey, you're just going to put your hands over your ears and go "lalala"? That's real openminded. By the way, what makes you think there's no reliable census data for Iraq?

    4. Re:Define "won" by Cerv · · Score: 1
      Nope, no hands over my ears. Just a pinch of salt.

      And I never said anything about what I thought about the war, or what I think Iraqis think about the war. You objected when the AC put words in your mouth, so don't do the same to others.

      --
      sig
  25. Moon is not the issue by CikaVelja · · Score: 2, Funny

    If that's a planet start calling it Rupert, please...

  26. No more Hubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    We really need to replace Hubble with a telescope that won't challenge us so much.

    1. Re:No more Hubble by old+man+of+the+c · · Score: 1

      This may be more insightful than funny. I believe the real reason the Hubble is being abandoned is that it regularly challenges some folks' beliefs.

  27. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 1

    "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

    - Donald Rumsfeld.

  28. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  29. PICTURES of a MOON with a MOON by deathcow · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here you go. Asteroid Ida and it's little moon "Dactyl".

    Dactyl is about 0.75 x 0.8 x 1.0 miles in size. Imagine that!! Imagine sitting on Dactyl and orbiting Ida. Now, I'm not sure if a rock of 1 mile in diameter can even hold you down.

    Does anyone know how to calculate your weight on Dactyl? Size listed above and it's probably 2.2 - 2.9 grams per cubic centimeter.

    1. Re:PICTURES of a MOON with a MOON by ComaVN · · Score: 2, Funny

      OMG! Ida looks like a mummy sarcofagus! It must have been put there by the the same people who built the pyramids and the cydonia structures.

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    2. Re:PICTURES of a MOON with a MOON by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      OMG! Ida looks like a mummy sarcofagus! It must have been put there by the the same people who built the pyramids and the cydonia structures.

      Actually, it's Lore.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    3. Re:PICTURES of a MOON with a MOON by david.given · · Score: 4, Informative
      Assuming Dactyl is a sphere 1.5km in diameter, then the volume is (4/3) pi r^3 == 1.8x10^9 cubic metres. 2.5 g/cm^3 is 2500 kg/m^3 (standard units are your friend), which gives Dactyl a mass of 4.5x10^12 kg.

      The acceleration due to gravity is Gm/r^2. r, in this case, is the surface of Dactyl, 750m. That gives 0.5x10^-3 m/s^2, or 0.005% of an Earth gee.

      That is, of course, assuming I've managed to do all my arithmetic correctly...

      (Pity Slashdot doesn't support super, or I could make the above look much cleaner. MathML would be nice, too...)

  30. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by torpor · · Score: 1

    The world would really be a much better place if wisdom and common sense were a lot more common.


    The world would be a whole lot better if people like you weren't so easily led into drawing lines in the sand for people to spill their blood into ..

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  31. I think budget issues will determine... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... the future of that project. The absence of a natural moon which could have been modified a will certainly put a huge dent in G.W's budget since it forces him build from scratch the fortress-moon/deathstar needed to defend US intrests in the region. Then there is the matter of the pesky natives ....

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  32. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by AftanGustur · · Score: 1, Offtopic


    Exactly why do so many (or is it a vocal few?) people seem to have a problem with the fact that we went to war and WON?

    Uhhm, because it was an unjust war ? Because it was opposed by everyone (outside the USA) ?? Because it was done for OIL ? Because the USA is using Israeli tactics there now, punishing people for cellective guilt ? Do you need more reasons ?

    What if Bush creates funding for research that leads to a cure for cancer, is the left then going to complain about Bush's henchmen in lab-coats invading the soverign territory owned by the tumors?

    This is called the "straw-man" argument. You build yourelf a straw-man to attack. Please try to be more logical in your speach.

    They support terrorists because terrorists are useful to them. Terrorists attack the very people they most want to see done in, namely anyone ...

    There are no terrorists in Iraq .. Or at least there were'nt before the USA started bombing everything there and puting the country's future wealth in it's pockets. (In the form of reconstruction-contracts).

    Wasn't there some guy who once said "As you sow, so shall you reap ?"

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  33. Not a moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by AftanGustur · · Score: 1


    The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

    - Donald Rumsfeld.

    So Doland Rumsfeld thinks there might be a Moon there after all ??

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  35. Dr.Mike Brown gives four possible explanations.. by EqualSlash · · Score: 5, Informative
    Dr.Brown one of sedna's discoverers gives out the following expanation at his site

    We can think of 4 possibilities for why we do not see a moon around Sedna.

    • (1) Perhaps we got extremely unlucky and the moon is hiding directly behind Sedna. This possibility is unlikely (about 1 in 100 chance), but can't be ruled out completely.
    • (2) Perhaps the moon is fainter than expected. We think that the moon has to be quite large to explain the very slow rotation of Sedna, so we think that it should be bright. But it is possible that it is large but has a very dark surface and so is difficult to see. We believe that many objects (other than Sedna!) in the outer reaches of the solar system should be quite dark, so perhaps this suggestion is not unreasonable.
    • (3) Perhaps the moon is gone! It is possible that there once was a moon which slowed the rotation of Sedna but now the moon is gone. Moons can get destroyed by impacts with other large objects in space or they can be stripped away by close encounters with other planetoids. While we can't rule out this possibility, we do not think it is very likely.
    • (4) Perhaps our circumstantial evidence is misleading us. There are 2 ways that we can think of for this to have happened: Perhaps the brightening and faintening that we think we see are not real. Measurements in science are never perfect, and perhaps some of these imperfections have, by bad luck, led us to believe that we are measuring Sedna's rotation when we are really not. From our understanding of the measurements, we can estimate that there is about a 1 in 20 chance of this type of bad luck. We thus think it is unlikely, but, again, we can't rule it out. Perhaps the measurement is real, but we are being fooled. Imagine that you look at a clock once every twenty-five hours. How fast would you think the hands were turning? The first day the clock would say noon. The second day 1pm. The third day 2pm. You might think the clock only moved 1 hour per twenty-five hours. Perhaps the same thing is happening with Sedna: Our measurements were made approximately every 24 hours, so if Sedna rotates every 25 hours, then every time we look it appears to have only rotated a little, and we think it takes 24 days to make a full rotation. This possibility cannot be ruled out with the current data, though it would require the unusual coincidence that Sedna's rotation period would have to be unusually close to the earth's rotation period!
  36. +5 Mind boogling by palad1 · · Score: 1

    Most informative post on slashdot, ever. Thanks Civil, you opened my mind clogged with too much cheap space op

  37. Re:Dr.Mike Brown gives four possible explanations. by EqualSlash · · Score: 2, Informative


    BTW, his site has more information on Sedna.

  38. Re:Political Correctness even infects Astronomy! by salimma · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sedna is.. or was classified as, anyway, a Kuyper Belt Object (KBO) so it does not follow the naming system used for other objects. KBO objects are named after gods and goddesses of creations..

    Oh, and Inuits would be offended if you call them Red Indian. Any native Americans would, in fact, but Inuits are not even 'red'.

    --
    Michel
    Fedora Project Contribut
  39. Re:Marvel!!!! by krymsin01 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Brilliant! You figured it out when all others could not. It's so simple in retorspect: Superman ran backwards around Sedna, causing it to both go back in time and slow down it's rotation!

    --
    stuff
  40. Re:Political Correctness even infects Astronomy! by EqualSlash · · Score: 1

    According to it's discoverer, Sedna never enters the region of the Kuiper belt(farthest distance Kuiper belt extends to is 50 AU) and sedna never comes closer than 76 AU. So it's not a KBO.

  41. Re:It may sound silly... by Kyzia · · Score: 1

    It's interpolation, not extrapolation. They're infering detail between data points, not extending beyond them. :-)

  42. got hit by some other asteroid by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    Or the missing moon was hit....

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  43. Well duh by brunes69 · · Score: 1, Funny

    You think any respectable moon is going to hang around a mere planetoid???

    Sure, things were going great till we discovered her... Sedna had convinced the moon he was all that and a bag of potatoes. But as soon as the moon heard the word on the street that her man wasn't even big enough to be considered a planet....

    Its just like the saying goes... in some relationships, size *does* matter.

  44. hide 'n seek by Frambooz · · Score: 1, Redundant

    maybe the moon is *behind* sedna, playing hide 'n seek

    --
    No encryption can withstand the power of the Lucky Guess.
  45. The Truth About Sedna by Grail · · Score: 2, Funny

    The moon is a superdense glob, set in a special orbit around Sedna, specifically to attract our attention. We have to alter its orbit in order to indicate that we are ready to be inducted into the Federation of Sentient Planets.

  46. And this demonstrates! by cspenn · · Score: 2, Funny

    This clearly, totally demonstrates why we no longer need the Hubble! With our advanced Earthbound technology, we can resolve Sedna and its moons without the assistance of an orbital observation platform and....

    oh wait.

    Never mind.

    See more Sedna

  47. This is what happens.... by linuxrunner · · Score: 2, Funny

    When plants are completely extracted of all their dark matter...

    Has someone saved the animals yet? Nibbler?

    --
    www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
  48. Mercury never sleeps? by Kombat · · Score: 4, Informative


    The inner system never sleeps. The outer system never wakes.

    Sounds deep, but unfortunately, it is incorrect. Mercury (it doesn't get more "inner" than that) "sleeps" a great deal. Due to its eccentric orbit and bizzarrely-coordinated orbital period and rotational period, a single day on Mercury lasts as long as two of its years! That is to say, its rotational period is exactly two-thirds of its orbital period, meaning "nighttime" on Mercury lasts several Earth months. That's a lot of "sleeping" for a planet in the inner system which, according to you, never sleeps.

    Incidentally, while we generally presume Mercury to be a very hot place (and it is, during the day), the temperature on side of the planet that is in nighttime can drop to -150 degrees Celcius.

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    1. Re:Mercury never sleeps? by newhoggy · · Score: 1
      The atmosphere of Mercury is almost nonexistent, it contains light metals which are stripped from the planet's surface by the sun's radiation. Due to the short orbital period, Mercury's solar day is 176 days, even though the planet rotates once every 59 days.

      While a habitat and test mining station have been established on the surface, enormous problems are faced trying to colonise Mercury. Radiation from the sun is so intense that the surface is constantly being stripped by the solar winds. The most successful approach so far has been a moving base, which can stay on the far side of the planet near the pole. Due to the extremely long solar day, such a base only has to move an average of 10 to 20 kilometres per day to stay in the shade.

      - The Solar System

      I like the idea of building a base on ceramic train tracks that keep the base in the shade by pushing the base solely on the power of expansion of the ceramic material due to the Sun's heat.

  49. Re:Political Correctness even infects Astronomy! by salimma · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected, but perhaps the KBO naming convention applies to trans-KBO objects too? Certainly makes better sense than reverting to the standard planetary naming scheme.

    --
    Michel
    Fedora Project Contribut
  50. those are nice big.... pixels by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dyou guys think Richard Hoagland will manage to find some alien artifacts in those big pixels?

  51. Astrological significance? by The+Queen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are astrologers calling Sedna a "planet" or an "asteroid" - ? Since the 50's they've been waiting to ease the burden on Mercury and Venus, who currently have to rule two signs at once (Mercury rules Gemini and Virgo, Venus rules Taurus and Libra.) I've been reading an astrological course book from 1952, and they were absolutely convinced, since they'd just found Pluto, that there would be at least 2 more planets behind it, one to rule Gemini and one to rule Taurus. (Personally, I think new planets should take over for Virgo and Libra, but that's my modern opinion.)

    Offtopic? Only if you've never read a horoscope.

    --

    The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
    1. Re:Astrological significance? by ceswiedler · · Score: 1

      Seeing as Sedna has a 20,000 year orbit, it would cause some problems for horoscopes, wouldn't it?

      "And Sedna is still in Cassiopeia...lovers will have to wait another 19,000 years for their ruling planet to move into Draco..."

  52. Re:Dr.Mike Brown gives four possible explanations. by wizarddc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  53. unmanned to Titan Jan 2005 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Saturn's moon Titan is thought to be covered with a petroleum ocean. A probe will drop into it from the Casini orbiter in January 2005.

    1. Re:unmanned to Titan Jan 2005 by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Really? Perhaps simple hydrocarbons, such as ethane or acetylene, but petroleum?

    2. Re:unmanned to Titan Jan 2005 by Tongo · · Score: 1

      I just hope they get some pictures of it as it blows!

    3. Re:unmanned to Titan Jan 2005 by DjMd · · Score: 1

      Sir, I cannot confirm the existence of Titan.
      -Magnify.
      -Praxis? ^H^H^H^H^H Titan?
      What's left of it.

      --
      DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
    4. Re:unmanned to Titan Jan 2005 by aled · · Score: 1

      The aliens droped it there after making a treaty with Bush. The comunist vampires left the other moon all covered with pretzels.
      BTW the missing moon it's a Death Star class destroyer that is coming here right now. Aliens take seriously their privacity.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  54. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by ID_Roamer · · Score: 1

    So, by your definition, Germany never conquered France in WW2? Because the irregulars didn't give up. Hmmmm, I better have some one rewrite my history books.

  55. Cmon CmdrTaco by TehChubbz0r · · Score: 1

    CmdrTaco must be slacking again, he didn't even catch that 'suprise' was spelled wrong...

    --


    Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
  56. Crappy picture by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

    Amazing we can get the Hubble to take pictures of distant galaxies, but a picture of a planet in our Solar System comes out as crappy as my channel 57.

    --

    Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    1. Re:Crappy picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess you have no sense of scale. You see, a galaxy is very, very, very, very big, and Sedna is only sorta big. . . .

    2. Re:Crappy picture by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      "Objects may be closer than they appear in mirror?"

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  57. Why (sh)wouldn't it rotate so slowly? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful
    No one seems to be asking or answering that question...

    Any enlightened thinkers care to explain?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  58. Bad moon? by jtheory · · Score: 1

    Is THAT how the lyric goes?

    I always thought it was "there's a bathroom on the right".

    --
    There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
  59. 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme by jtheory · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Hubble Photo of Sedan Suprises Astronomers"

    I immediately pictured astronomers scratching their heads over Hubble photos of my former '86 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, named "Plum" (for the color, and short for "Plum Tuckered Out")... zooming through the far reaches of space.

    So it DID go to car heaven!!

    --
    There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
  60. Growl! by NetNinja · · Score: 1

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

  61. Suprise? by grahams · · Score: 1

    How hard is it to run a spell checker before posting a story.. It is one thing for quoted material inside a posting to have misspelling, but the headline? That's just sad.

  62. So, in Sedna years, I am only... by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    > * It takes 10,000 years to orbit the Sun.
    > * Sedna spins on its axis once every 20 Earth-days.

    So, in Sedna years, I am only 0.0273 years (498 days ) old! That explains a few things...

  63. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

    I'd like to see you prove you don't have any dual-use technology. Bold assertion is not sufficient reason to go to war.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  64. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    So, by your definition, Germany never conquered France in WW2? Because the irregulars didn't give up.

    In France, the Nazis did a pretty good job of pacifying the country - they were able to use France's industrial base to supplement their own. We can't seem to keep cities under our control, much less rebuild the place.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  65. Re:Political Correctness even infects Astronomy! by addie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hephastus hasn't been used (I don't think)

    You've obviously never heard of the planet Vulcan... duh.

  66. Maybe it's just shy by hayden · · Score: 1

    Or not drunk enough.

    --
    Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
  67. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 1

    No, by my definition, Germany sucessfully invaded France, but did not win the war.
    The successful invasion of a country and the overthrow of its government is not the same as winning a war.

  68. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by AftanGustur · · Score: 1


    I take it, by rest of the world, you would be refering to the French and Spanish speaking countries, as well as Russia (who were also buying oil extraction equipment from the French) and some other interested parties, mainly around the middle east.


    By "the rest of the world" I was referign to the people of the world.. There were protests on scales not seen since the Vietnam War almost everywhere in the World..

    I AM refering to the leaders of countries, not the punters, who really can't make all that much difference to a government if they have 12+ months before an election

    Leaders of countries participated many, not because they agreeded that the war was a good idea, but because, by not participating, would have ment punishment from the USA.

    The former financial minister of Pakistan, for example, was told by the USA that "If you don't do what we want you to do, we will destroy your economy." He revealed this on a "HardTalk" interview on BBC. Andm yes, he was refering to USA's "War on terrorism."

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  69. Save Hubble by ocie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't allow Hubble to fall back to Earth. It is still doing good science and can for years to come. New modules for Hubble have already been built and tested and only await a shutle mission to be installed. Call your congressman / woman today. Here is some info from the Mars Society on the work to save Hubble.

    --
    JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
  70. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 1

    Er, yeah. I think you got me the wrong way round. I was quoting Rumsfeld because I think that particular quote is one of the most self-evidently dumbassed things that he has ever said, and that says a lot.

    I mean, even if you agree with him that the mere possibility that Iraq might have had WMDs and that if so they might have donne something bad with them was enough reason to go to war, even if you go along with all that, his statement does rather lead one to question why we bothered with all those years of weapons inspections in the first place.

  71. Check this out by p3d0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Some facts I didn't know from that map...
    • 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....
    1. Re:Check this out by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      Something else that's pretty cool: if you notice, as you increase your distance substantially, you start having to think relativistically; that is, the things really far away are also really old, since it takes light all that time to travel to us. The top line is just great, though, because now you're not talking about distance any more, but cosmological theory itself. Keep heading out, keep going back in time to the start, and before that? "Comoving future visibility limit."

      Things like this make me wish I'd pursued astronomy more.

  72. Detailed explanation of what happened to the moon by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    http://www.space1999.net/~catacombs/main/tscript/z 01b.html

  73. Why does it have to rotate faster? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Maybe it just happens to be an object that doesn't rotate that fast. What am I missing here? If you throw a whole bunch of balls randomly into space, some will rotate fast and some won't, right? So they just happened to find one that doesn't rotate that fast. What is the *theoretical* argument that says such objects ought to rotate faster? Isn't the rotation just based simply on the sum of the angular forces imparted on the object?

    It seems to me that we should expect there to be a wide distribution of rotations, and that we should be surprised *not* to find the occasional object with a slower than average rotation.

    I would expect the rotation speeds to range all the way from zero to whatever speed they can handle before flying apart into smaller pieces.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  74. Re:Political Correctness even infects Astronomy! by NickRuisi · · Score: 1

    The scientific paper refers to the object as follows:

    The title of the paper is Discovery of a candidate inner Oort cloud planetoid

    And the first line of the abstract is We report the discovery of the minor planet 2003 VB12 (popularly named Sedna), the most distant object ever seen in the solar system.

    So, there you have it.. either a Oort cloud planetoid or a minor planet.. take your pick.

  75. How do the physics of that work? by lommer · · Score: 1

    Forgive what may be an ignorant question - but how does having a moon slow down a planet's rotation? You mention angular momentum, but I have trouble seeing how that applies given that the moon and the planet are not connected (i.e. can't the moon and planet each have separate angular momentums? How does angular momentum of the moon get attached to the planet's angular momentum so that they act as a system?). I'm pretty curious how this works.

    1. Re:How do the physics of that work? by mcfiddish · · Score: 1

      The satellite would raise tides in the primary and vice versa. The tides would dissipate rotational energy via Sedna-quakes. Over time, the rotation rates of Sedna and its moon would be such that each would present the same face to the other. So since Sedna's day is 20 earth days long, we might expect a moon with an orbital period of 20 days.

      If there's no moon, you have to lose the angular momentum Sedna had when it formed somehow.

  76. Dactyl escape velocity by barakn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Escape velocity would have been more informative, which using your values of r and rho comes out to .9 m/s or about 3.2 km/hr. Just trying to walk would cause you to fly off the surface, though I guess you'd still be stuck orbiting Ida.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  77. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
    Many years after WWII, isolated Japanese forces still fought on tiny Pacific islands ... or so I've read.

    There are several standards: The losing government surrenders. The losing government is wiped out of exitence (as in Iraq.) The losing government flees and disperses. There are probably others.

    Rogue guerillas and isolated fractions of a defeated army do not constitute a government still in power, or a war not yet won. We're fighting anarchy and new potential dictators now.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  78. That's no moon by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's a gas station.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  79. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  80. Just proves my point... by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

    I told you it was supposed to be called Mondas, which also doesn't have a moon. What will it take to rename this, a cyberman invasion?

  81. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    As any southerner can tell you, the yank's ideas about when a war has been won are pretty screwed up. We killed twice as many of them as we lost and they still ain't welcome. They think its over, but we'll send those carpetbaggers home yet.

  82. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

    You know, in the past, most people have waited until the other guys stopped killing them before claiming a victory.

    Just as a side tangent, I'm not sure the mass media world we live in even allows for a decisive victory like we've seen in the past. Usually, you bomb/raid/destroy the hell out of a place to the point where they're just 'done' and you step in and say "heya, here's your new constitution. let's get to work rebuilding you.". Sure, you can say "it just makes them madder" and "that just creates more hate..." Yeah, it does to a point, until you cross this ruthless threshhold and something breaks in the human mind where they are "done". IE, what was done to germany. What was done to japan. Those countries were "broken".

    And I don't care what you say about the iRaq war, and I in no way mean to diminish the horror of war, but that just isn't what was done there. For better or worse (i dont really have an opinion, just trying to form one) we are much more about trying to refactor countries instead of rewriting them, often for PR reasons and often for economic reasons.

  83. Re:Colon Powell releases Hubble photos in UN forum by Piquan · · Score: 1

    Sorry Jim Bob, I done tried that onced before, and tain't gonna stop them revenuers.

  84. Its not an asteroid or a planet by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    its a death star type thing that we left for ourselves when we left mars, and when we are able to visit it, it will tell us all our secrets. :)

  85. Lost moon? by Audacious · · Score: 1

    What if Sedna is the surviving moon of the planet which would make up the Kupier belt? Would that account for the slow rotation factor?

    Also, are the namers playing with words?

    From Webster's On-line Dictionary:

    One entry found for sedentary.
    Main Entry: sedentary
    Pronunciation: 'se-d&n-"ter-E
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle French sedentaire, from Latin sedentarius, from sedent-, sedens, present participle of sedEre to sit -- more at SIT
    1 : not migratory : SETTLED
    2 : doing or requiring much sitting
    3 : permanently attached

    Get the Top 10 Search Results for "sedentary"

    For More Information on "sedentary" go to Britannica.com

    --
    Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)
  86. Bullshit. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    That would mean that somewhere, someplace a politician has told the truth. :-9>

    Not going to happen./

  87. Are rings a possibility?? by bender_is_great · · Score: 1
    I am not an astronomer but could it be possible that orbiting debris is causing/could have caused the slowing down??

    I would appreciate any feedback into this as I don't have any idea myself....

  88. I suggest an alternative strategy, Artoo.... by chmod000 · · Score: 1

    Let the Wookiee make the lame Star Wars jokes.

    --
    Aptal soru yoktur; sadece merakli aptallar vardir.
  89. Re:Creating a democracy helps terrorists? by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1

    "democratizing Iraq is a powerful and positive paradigm shift for the Iraqi people and the entire region."
    The question is: What happens if, after giving these people democracy, they vote in Shia leaders who have a religous agenda?

    --

    --
    This sig is inoffensive.

  90. -1 Insightful lol by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    (Score:-1, Insightful)

    almost as good as +5 Troll

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.