Slashdot Mirror


Saturn's New Moons Named

sebFlyte writes "The BBC is reporting that three new moons found orbiting Saturn at the end of last year have been named. 'Two moons detected in August have been given the names Methone and Pallene, while another found in October has been provisionally named Polydeuces.' Polydeuces is also reported as being a very strange object-- a trojan moon. It sits in a spot near a larger moon where the gravitational pull of the other moon (Dione here) and the planet cancel each other out."

165 comments

  1. I can see it now... by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 2, Funny

    Polydeuce bigalow.

    Planet Gigolo

  2. It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's no Trojan moon...

    1. Re:It's a trap! by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 0

      Ironic considering that one of Saturn's moons, Mimas, bears a striking resemblance to the Death Star.

    2. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it's Olympus Moons?

    3. Re:It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No that moon's already been discovered. It's called Mimas

    4. Re:It's a trap! by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Trojan MOOOOOON! *sound of horse neying*

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    5. Re:It's a trap! by Nelsinho · · Score: 1

      who know!! trojan moon hmm LOL

  3. Lagrange Points by dj42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hadn't ever really thought about Lagrange points before I read that article. They are both interesting and intuitive to me. That there is a spot between two gravitational bodies that creates a "dead" spot, around which an object can orbit in a tug of war. Neat stuff. I find that more interesting than what names they have chosen for the moons.

    --
    We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
    1. Re:Lagrange Points by TheKidWho · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well thats just because your slow

      That's like taking an article on gravitational wave theory and saying the tensor mathematics are more interesting because you have never been exposed to that kind of math before.

    2. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you!

      My own personal troll!

    3. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot, and that song... well, you know....

    4. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lets get married and make more songs like that one!

    5. Re:Lagrange Points by zackrentwood · · Score: 3, Funny

      I find that nerds are always using phrases such as:

      "Yes, that's quite intuitive to me."

      Don't they know that these phrases convey no useful information and only serve the purpose of making the nerd seem even more self-centered and arrogant?

      Sure, you can impress us and show us how smart you are, but please don't do it by telling us "golly, i'm so smart."

      It's quite obnoxious.

    6. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'd better hurry up before my IP gets banned again....

    7. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no stable Lagrange points that are "between" two gravitational bodies. The stable L4 and L5 points are in the same orbit as the smaller moon/body, but 60 degrees ahead or behind of it.

    8. Re:Lagrange Points by dj42 · · Score: 1

      "I find that nerds are always using phrases such as: "Yes, that's quite intuitive to me."
      Don't they know that these phrases convey no useful information and only serve the purpose of making the nerd seem even more self-centered and arrogant? Sure, you can impress us and show us how smart you are, but please don't do it by telling us "golly, i'm so smart."

      I felt saying it was "intuitive" conveyed useful information: the fact that I don't any real understand of the mechnics involved, but that it "feels right".

      Isn't it a bit ironic for you to read into my comment and berate me for being arrogant in an inflamatory and aggressively ignorant post?

      --
      We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
    9. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's got a point about the song though.

    10. Re:Lagrange Points by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      "Isn't it a bit ironic for you to read into my comment and berate me for being arrogant in an inflamatory and aggressively ignorant post?"

      No, stupid people need to be keeped in check.

    11. Re:Lagrange Points by Eosha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are five Lagrange points between any two bodies. L1,L2 and L3 lie inline with the bodies and are unstable (i.e., the slightest perturbation and you fall off). However, L4 and L5 are located off to the side, where the point and the two bodies form an equilateral triangle in the plane of the orbit. L4 and L5 are stable (you can have stable orbits around them). Trojan asteroids have been found at the Jupiter-Sun L4 and L5 points, but I believe this is the first planet-moon case.

      --
      I have a girlfriend whose name doesn't end in .JPG
    12. Re:Lagrange Points by zackrentwood · · Score: 1
      Isn't it a bit ironic for you to read into my comment and berate me for being arrogant in an inflamatory and aggressively ignorant post?
      I'm not quite sure what was "aggressively ignorant" about my post. It is true that I often find nerds using such phrases. My personal experience is something about which I'm not ignorant.

      That you think the mechanics "feel right," isn't really useful or even very interesting. Most people think that it "feels right" that heavier objects fall faster--many of their other intuitions are correct.

      People are like that, they live in this world and make intuitions, some are right, some wrong. The obnoxious part is that nerds disproportionately seem to think that other people are interested in hearing when their intuitions were correct.

      Perhaps you weren't trying to be arrogant, but my point was that the language you used sounds arrogant and that I sure hear the phrase used often among us /. types. Anyway, it looks like I'm not the only one who feels this way judging from my mod points.
    13. Re:Lagrange Points by zackrentwood · · Score: 1
      No, stupid people need to be keeped in check.

      Oh, be nice. I'm sure the parent wasn't written by a "stupid person." Actually, I suspect it was written by a /. nerd with a higher than average IQ. My only point was that his language sounded arrogant and that I hope people will stop using that particular phrase. No need for unfounded ad hominem attacks.
    14. Re:Lagrange Points by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      It's exactly that, the arrogance of not having any clue about the actual math involved, but still claiming to be able to tell which statements "feel right" and which don't.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    15. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I consider overly arrogant people stupid.

    16. Re:Lagrange Points by Storlek · · Score: 1

      Keeped, huh?

      Funny that the quote you copied has the word "irony" in it.

      --
      Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
    17. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, stupid people need to be keeped in check.

      I'd love to believe the irony here is intentional.

    18. Re:Lagrange Points by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I find that morons are always using phrases such as "Don't they know that these phrases convey no useful information and only serve the purpose of making the nerd seem even more self-centered and arrogant?" Next time you don't "get it", just stay quiet. As they say, "it is better to remain silent and appear a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Lagrange Points by Eosha · · Score: 1

      Find a pretty picture (and math) here

      --
      I have a girlfriend whose name doesn't end in .JPG
    20. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These Lagrange Points are very interesting
      for "parking" probes or satelites in space.

      The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO)
      is parked between the gravitational field of
      the sun and the one of the planets.

    21. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trojan asteroids have been found at the Jupiter-Sun L4 and L5 points, but I believe this is the first planet-moon case.

      Aren't those moons bigger asteroids anyway?

    22. Re:Lagrange Points by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

      Intuitive. But wrong. Libration points (or Lagrange points) are a dynamical balance between the gravitational forces of the two primary bodies, and the centripetal acceleration of the rotation of the three-body system. That's why there are libration points on the outside of each of the two primaries (L2 and L3), as well as one between them (L1). Plus two points located equidistant from both primaries (usually labelled L4 and L5).

    23. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The L4 and L5 points are also unstable. However, if the masses involved are very different, the L4 and L5 are, for all practical purposes, stable. Eventually, the orbits will drift, but that can take a very long time.

    24. Re:Lagrange Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, for a sufficently large mass ratio (greater than about 30:1) and provided you're not creating a resonance in the libration frequencies, they are stable by the usual meaning of the term in physics.

    25. Re:Lagrange Points by Unclaimed+Mysteries · · Score: 1

      The basic veracity of your remark should be obvious to even the most casual observer. The rest is left as an exercise for the student. HTH HAND.

      --
      -- It Came from C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    26. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people think that it "feels right" that heavier objects fall faster--many of their other intuitions are correct.
      Depends on your definition of "fall." If you are referring to the acceleration of a body due to gravity from Earth then yes they "fall" at the same rate. However, that would ignore the acceleration of the earth towards the second body. This would only be applicable where M(earth) >> M(object). If you had a large enough object then you would be able to detect the difference in the rate of falling between heavy and light objects.

    27. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what?

  4. Can you say... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

    ...Zero G manufacturing?

    1. Re:Can you say... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, and thank you for rubbing it in. *shame*

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  5. Trojan Moon! by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yikes better update my anti-virus. Don't want to get infected by W32.Polydeuces.A@mm now.

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
    1. Re:Trojan Moon! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you are immune from infection as long as you dont use Internet explorer to view the page ;)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  6. About the names by bossesjoe · · Score: 3, Funny

    ....Methone and Pallene, Polydeuce? Where's the cowboy neil option?

    --
    There is no replacement for displacement.
    1. Re:About the names by archen · · Score: 1

      That's obviously absent because NO ONE wants to be mooned by cowboy neil.

  7. Stability? by Ulric · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "It sits in a spot near a larger moon where the gravitational pull of the other moon (Dione here) and the planet cancel each other out."

    How can that possibly be stable? Wouldn't the slightest deviation lead to the moon coming crashing down in either direction?

    1. Re:Stability? by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Same thing as normal moons.

      Linky goodness.

    2. Re:Stability? by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 3, Informative
      RTFA it has a 55 deg. deviance (give or take) over the course of two years.

      The lagrange spot isn't an absolute, just as with any field, there will be areas of decreasing influence. The moon can safely deviate within these grey areas, with no fear of crashing down. Seeing as how it's in orbat withing this lagrange area, it is fairly stable, because as per what that means, it's kinda stuck there by opposing forces.

      Should some (fairly large) foreign space object crash into it, then you may have cause to worry about it crashing into either the other moon or the planet.

    3. Re:Stability? by zackrentwood · · Score: 1
      Should some (fairly large) foreign space object crash into it, then you may have cause to worry about it crashing into either the other moon or the planet.

      Oh, I'm not worried. I've taken the precaution of being nowhere near that death trap.
    4. Re:Stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can that possibly be stable? Wouldn't the slightest deviation lead to the moon coming crashing down in either direction?

      First google result about "Lagrange Points" :-p :
      http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lag range.html

      The key here is that we're not talking about two static objects, but about two orbiting masses.

      This leads to not one, but five Lagrange Points.
      The one between the 2 masses (L1) is indeed unstable (like L2 and L3),
      but L4 and L5 are both stable. That's where you'll find trojan objects.

      And they are called "trojan" because of Jupiter's Trojan asteroids.

      That's all folks.

    6. Re:Stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though it's more likely it will just fly off into space if a sufficiently large impact event occurred.

    7. Re:Stability? by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1

      depends on the angle of the crash, I guess.

    8. Re:Stability? by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nope - to give a quick and easy understanding, the Lagrange-points act as "virtual centers of mass", an empty point between or around two large masses that are gravitational wells.

      You can orbit around a stable L-point, and an object "floating" (i.e., little acceleration relative to the point) near it will tend to be attracted to it - and thus be stable (there are unstable Lagrange points as well, which are points in the gravity interaction that don't function like this, but are still usable).

      L-1 between Sol/Earth is used by solar telescopes. I don't know that there are any in use in the Earth/Luna, but the classic one for space stations back in the 50s and 60s was L-5 (Didn't Carl Sagan's station in Cosmos use L-5?).

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    9. Re:Stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it fuck, idiot.

  8. Why Greek / Roman names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Almost all the solar bodies have been (in English) named after Greek and Roman gods. Since English is a Germanic lanaguage, why not name some new ones after figures closer to home?

    1. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, the next moon will be named Hitler!

      No that's not a death star! It's just Hitler!

    2. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by derrith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because we're more than likely to get into pissing contests over who or what to name the planets after. I certainly wouldn't like to have to visit Planet Nixon or the moon Roosevelt.

      --
      why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?
    3. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, and the first planet that has signs of intelligent life, shall be now known as Planet Bush!

    4. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot, and that song really sucks.

    5. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're a fucking idiot, and that song really sucks.

    6. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      My dreams of becoming a succesful artists of the likes of Justin Timberlake and The Hanson Brothers has just been shattered.

      Excuse while I go sit in a corner and cry.

    7. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by mickyflynn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because 'planet' is a greek name meaning 'wanderer.' Thte planets were thought to be the gods. Therefor, they named them with those names. Western civilization is largely inherited from the Greeks and the Romans. We kept the names. Besides, why the hell would we call Jupiter Lugh or Woden? It'd be weird.

    8. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the people of Woden would think that it was cool that you named a planet after them (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&a ddress=&city=Woden&state=IA)

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    9. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by borkus · · Score: 1

      Well, we've named all the planets in THIS system after greek mythological characters. What about the next system and the system after that?

      Unfortunately, if space travel becomes common, I shudder to think of who'll be naming distant planets. Corporations would be bad enough (Planet Starbuck). However, I wonder if it will end up like streets in a suburban sub-division (which generally are just made up by the contractor). A friend of mine lives on a short street called Bobbiedell Lane. What if there was a Planet Bobbiedell?

    10. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by peragrin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Planet Starbuck? It's better than the

      System Microsoft. Where the Sun BSOD's once a year.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by mickyflynn · · Score: 1

      Starbuck is a character in Melvill's Moby Dick. It'd not be so bad. At least no worse than plant Lord Jim, which is a really crappy book (I really don't like Conrad).

      However, I think a more pressing issue is getting better names for hurricanes.

    12. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      Starbuck is a character in Melvill's Moby Dick.

      And Mountain's Nantucket Sleighride. He sharpens his harpoon.

      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    13. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what this 'Western civilization' you speak of is meant to be, but the Romans never conquered the Germanic peoples. The Romance peoples are the legacy of the Empire. The whole notion of Europe = Roman Civilization Extension came from haughty renaissance theorists and pompass 19th century imperialists who thought the Romans' big stone constructions and ways of conquest, theatre and apartment blocks were great and manly, and the culturally legacy of the ordinary Germanic people was unkempt, lower-class and therefore inferior.
      So, Greek and Latin was taught to children rather than the likes of Old English and Old Norse, and the belief in the cultural superiority and supreme importance of the Romans, which you just repeated, was ingrained in the educated classes to the point where they saw their own history through Roman eyes, of a world of civilization and worthless barbarians.

      Tolkein tried to go against this tide by writing Lord Of The Rings.

      Why would calling Jupiter "Woden" be weird? Are you going to start calling the sun "Sol", the moon "Luna" and the earth "Terra"?

    14. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by Exatron · · Score: 1

      The planets are named after Greek and Roman gods, but their moons have naming conventions that don't always follow that rule. Uranus's moons, for example, are normally named for characters from Shakespeare's plays.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    15. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      That's not true, for starters. There are a lot of other names. Uranian moons are named for sprites on Pope or Shakespeare works. Saturnian moons already are starting on Nordic and other pantheons. Anyone paying attention to the recent discoveries in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt has seen American Indian names crop up. Asteroids are named for people, for the most part.

      In the case of planetary moons and surface features, rules are followed about the nomeclature to make it easier to figure out what belongs where. Saturnian moons are named for Titans or other old gods in other cultures. Jovian moons are named for paramours of Zeus (although I think that we might be running out, suprising although that is). Surface features on Venus are named for women and/or female gods. Mercury's fatures are named for artists. Etc.

      We're not restricting outselves to the Greco-Roman world, but there is a method to the madness.

    16. Re:Why Greek / Roman names? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Since English is a Germanic lanaguage

      This is a gross oversimplification. English is *partly* a Germanic language,
      but it is also partly a number of other things. In brief, the history of the
      English language goes something like this: People who spoke a Germanic
      language (Angles and Saxons and Danes and Jutes so on and so forth) moved into
      an area where there were also other people who spoke Celtic and Gaelic. Note
      that the Germanic language was already using a Latin alphabet, and the Celtic
      and Gaelic folks had had significant contact with the Romans also. Mixing of
      these languages was initially rather limited due to cultural factors, but over
      time both languages did take quite a few constructs on loan from the other.
      Meanwhile, these folks called Normans introduced a lot of French into the
      language, while simultaneously the Roman Catholic Church introduced copious
      amounts of Latin. These bits of French and Latin were mostly Anglicised --
      i.e., the spelling and pronunciation were adjusted to more closely match those
      of the Germanic language. Then along came this Gutenberg dude with a thingy
      called a printing press, and a thing called the Renaissance, which introduced
      positively enormous amounts of French, Greek, and Latin into the language,
      increasing the total available vocabulary more than tenfold over the space
      of a couple hundred years. These new additions were not anglicised to nearly
      the same extent as the earlier ones. Meanwhile, all along, the grammar has
      been changing: while most Germanic languages are fairly inflected, carrying
      sentence semantics in word features, English has almost entirely abandoned
      that and adopted sentence semantics based very heavily on word order. In
      the modern era, additional features (both grammatical and vocabulary) have
      been introduced into the language from a wide variety of languages and other
      sources.

      Something you'll notice is that the language that comes up most frequently
      in any history of English is -- look for it -- Latin. Germanic languages
      had a very important role in the early formation of the language, but Latin
      has shaped its development at every stage along the way, to a much greater
      extent than German. Greek has contributed next to nothing to the _grammar_
      of English, but it has contributed an enormous amount of vocabulary, perhaps
      more than Latin and _certainly_ far more words than all Germanic languages
      combined. If you ever study the Greek language, you will discover that most
      common Greek words have numerous English words that derive from them; going
      the other direction, if you browse through a dictionary looking at where it
      says different words come from, you'll see Greek, French, and Latin origins
      overwhelmingly more often than Germanic and Old English ones.

      Old English (the language of Beowulf, which is totally unreadable for the
      English-speaking modern world) is a Germanic language. Modern English,
      however, is best thought of as only distantly related to Old English.
      Even Middle English (the language of Chaucer) has almost as much French as
      it does Old English, and Modern English has, from a vocabulary perspective,
      quite a bit more Latin and Greek in it than it does Middle English.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  9. Trojans schmojans by edittard · · Score: 1, Informative
    a trojan moon. It sits in a spot near a larger moon where the gravitational pull of the other moon (Dione here) and the planet cancel each other out
    A trojan doesn't "sit" anywhwere. What's more, it's elementary calculus to work out that a point where gravitation pulls cancel out is unstable; any perturbation towards one object will, by the inverse square law, increase the attraction to that object, thus moving it even closer.
    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:Trojans schmojans by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 0, Troll
      perhaps, but where elementary calculus fails us, making up numbers lets us fly!

      Maybe it shouldn't work the way it does, but then again, Helicopters (according to physics) can't fly.

    2. Re:Trojans schmojans by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Helicopters (according to physics) can't fly.

      WTF? Yeah, you're right, they were engineered using imaginary equations. Maybe according to the physics you took (and probably didn't understand) in high school, they can't fly, but to claim the most fundamental science we as humans can grasp can't explain helicopter flight is both incredibly stupid and incredibly closed minded. Spend five seconds googling and you can see the variety of books that exist solely for studying the dynamics of helicopter flight. It really blows my mind to believe that people think there's some kind of magic in products being designed. All of these wonderful modern things work BECAUSE we are able to understand equations and model their behavior, not because we kept guessing until we figured it out.

    3. Re:Trojans schmojans by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      You end up librating about the triangular trojan points, provided the mass ratio between the planet and moon (or Sun and planet) is large enough. So you don't exactly sit in a stationary sense, but the L4 and L5 points are stable.

      You can either prove this with a little calculus or just look up. There are clusters of asteroids in Jupiter's trojan points (that's where the name comes from, in fact). They've almsot certainly been there for millions, probably billions, of years. It seems likely that they're stable.

  10. What? No law passed? by amaline · · Score: 3, Funny

    Naming them Ronald and Reagan?

  11. "sits" is misleading Re:Stability? by dj42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I believe the way the Lagrange points work (from what I read) is that the object "in it" orbits the lagrange point by being tugged back and forth... it's not just "sitting there at some fixed distance relative to the 2 bodies.

    --
    We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
  12. No, not at all, really TheKidW. Re:Lagrange Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you even read the article?

  13. Lagrange point by kbonapart · · Score: 4, Informative

    The point between to celestial bodies (usually a planet and it's moon) where the gravity of one is equal to the gravity of the other is called the Lagrange point.

    Usually closer to the smaller of the two bodies, this point is a common location of sci-fi space stations, as there is no need to use an orbit to keep the station from decaying back into the larger bodies atmosphere.

    --
    There are no gods but ourselves.
    1. Re:Lagrange point by ornil · · Score: 1

      Usually closer? I'd say it has to be closer to the smaller body, otherwise the forces won't cancel out.

    2. Re:Lagrange point by C+Siren · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's not where the gravity of one large object equals the gravity of the other. The five Lagrange points in a two object system are points where the forces from the two objects add together to result in a centripetal acceleration, which cause a third object place there to orbit at the same rate as the smaller of the original two.

      See my other post in this thread:
      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140724 &threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=160&tid=14&mode=thr ead&pid=11786996#11787170

    3. Re:Lagrange point by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0, Informative
      I'd say it has to be closer to the smaller body
      Then I'd say you're a 'tard. Ever held a beachball? Ever held a shot (the kind that you putt)? Size isn't mass.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    4. Re:Lagrange point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, as another post points out, there are five Lagrange points, some of which are not closer to the smaller body. The cancellation of forces involves more than just gravity.

    5. Re:Lagrange point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, you're now twice wrong. For a different reason each time. Your main usefulness in this thread is as an object lesson for the phrase "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

  14. Yikes! by Chris+Kamel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I claim Godfather!

    --
    The following statement is true
    The preceding statement is false
  15. Re:On the moon by Stalyn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    damn i wish i had mod points.. +1 ATHF reference

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  16. Whoever named Methone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    must have been on drugs!

    1. Re:Whoever named Methone by js7a · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hear Rush Limbaugh will be broadcasting from there for a while.

  17. Dione by magarity · · Score: 1

    (Dione here)

    Me too, cya.

  18. Naming & Mythology by ornil · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was a bit surprised about the name Polydeuces, because he (the mythological character) had little to do with Troy. However, it turns out that there's another Trojan moon called Helene (now this makes sense!), and Polydeucues is Helene's brother.

    1. Re:Naming & Mythology by sarastro_us · · Score: 1

      The moon is named for Helene, the goddess not Helen of Troy

    2. Re:Naming & Mythology by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Saturnian moons are named for Titans or Titan-like gods, not Trojan War characters. It's not clear to me that this name will actually be accepted by the IAU, but we'll see. (I don't see that the IAU has actually accepted the names, so the headline is a rather misleading.)

  19. All depends on your point of view by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Funny
    SATURN (Galactic News Agency) - The inhabitants of Saturn have announced that they have finally named the moon orbiting the third planet from the sun in their star system. The moon, named Xkeysdy, orbits the blue planet widely known as !3kd8dgh, which renders in Standard Galactic as "that wreteched place full of pushy peons."

    When asked why they had named the moon now after millenia of observation, one student from Saturn's top university said, "Why not, you know? I mean, like, we had named everything else of importance, dude. Even the unimportant places. So like this was all that was left."

    No comment could be received from inhabitants of !3kd8dgh, since they don't speak Standard Galactic. Moreover, they laughably think they are the only inhabitanted planet in the system, and it's considered taboo to disabuse them of this ignorance.

    1. Re:All depends on your point of view by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 1

      At least we're mostly harmless to the lot of you.

    2. Re:All depends on your point of view by Random832 · · Score: 1

      we did manage to goad them into breaking their taboo against telling us, though

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  20. Who named them? by northcat · · Score: 1

    Named by whom?

    1. Re:Who named them? by eomnimedia · · Score: 1

      People.

  21. This looks like a job for... by catisonh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh Saturn, I love your rings. They make you look so beautiful. I just love being around them for all this time.

    Oh moon, the way you circle around me makes my weather patterns get all disrupted. You are just the perfect little moon, I love you.

    Oh Saturn, I think its time for some gravitational pull...

    ...TROJAN MOON.

    --
    This post has been filtered for sanity.
  22. IBM Stellar Sphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have chosen the IBM Stellar Sphere

  23. Some references on Lagrange points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Wikipedia article, a nice summary by mathematician John Baez, and another summary and a proof of L4/L5 stability (PDF) by astrophysicist Neil Cornish.

  24. Fun with Newton & Lagrange by C+Siren · · Score: 5, Informative
    Ok -- Newton's 1st & 2nd laws tell you that if you have unbalanced forces acting on an object (like a moon), that will result in an acceleration on that object. Acceleration is change in velocity, i.e. speed and direction. A moon going around in an orbit is constantly changing direction and needs a particular centripetal acceleration to stay in that orbit.

    In celestial mechanics, Lagrange points come up in the three-body problem, where you have two large bodies (eg Sun and planet, planet and large moon) and one small object (a Trojan asteroid, spacecraft, new Saturn moon).

    Lagrange points are the five places relative to the two large objects, where the third object will be held at the same position - relative to those two objects - in its orbit. In other words, there will be a net force on the third object that will result in it accelerating around the largest object at the same rate as the second largest object.*

    A Lagrange point is stable if an object near by the L point will tend to be pulled towards or orbit around that point if it's a bit off the exact point. The L point is unstable if the object tends to be pulled further away from it once it wanders a little away.

    The L1 point (in between the two large bodies), L4 and L5 points (60 deg ahead and behind the orbiting large body) are stable, the L2 and L3 points are unstable. Many of our solar observing spacecraft get sent to orbit the L1 point.

    *(Center of mass discussion left out for relative simplicity)

    1. Re:Fun with Newton & Lagrange by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      The L1 point (in between the two large bodies), L4 and L5 points (60 deg ahead and behind the orbiting large body) are stable
      Misinformative, the L1 point is not stable. Yes, satellites orbit the L1, but orbiting it != at it.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    2. Re:Fun with Newton & Lagrange by mybecq · · Score: 4, Informative
      The L1 point (in between the two large bodies) ... are stable.
      Actually the L1 point is unstable.
    3. Re:Fun with Newton & Lagrange by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      Correct. But wasn't Discovery parked in the Jupiter/Io L1 at the beginning of 2010? It must have been using some station-keeping thrusters governed by a secondary (HAL was offline) computer.

    4. Re:Fun with Newton & Lagrange by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      It was fiction. It may not have been 100% accurate. Get over it.

    5. Re:Fun with Newton & Lagrange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bowman parked it at the Lagrange point but the electrical and thermal drag as it passed through the ion flux tube brought it closer to Io. That's why they had to team up with the Russians on Leonov instead of waiting for Discovery II to be finished.

      Another thing to keep in mind, only HAL's higher cognitive functions were disabled. It is curious that the orbit decayed in the fashion it did since the gravity field being a saddle function, it is increasingly unstable the farther you get from the magic spot or torus.

    6. Re:Fun with Newton & Lagrange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, but Darth Vader used the Force to keep it stable.

  25. How are moons still being found? by glrotate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We can see lightyears and lightyears away with Hubble, and other large telescopes. So how is it were still finding moons in the solar system?

    1. Re:How are moons still being found? by at_18 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because these new moons are very small, and moreover they are very close to a large and bright planet like Saturn, that would outshine it in any telescope field of view.

    2. Re:How are moons still being found? by IO+ERROR · · Score: 4, Informative

      We can see light from lightyears away. Moons in our solar system don't give off light, and reflect very little. It's the difference between looking around in full daylight, and trying to find a lost marble in the near total blackness of your bedroom.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    3. Re:How are moons still being found? by rcw-home · · Score: 1
      We can see lightyears and lightyears away with Hubble, and other large telescopes. So how is it were still finding moons in the solar system?

      Because we can only see light (well, electromagnetic radiation, to be more precise). While stars give off incredible amounts of light, moons only (poorly) reflect the light from those stars.

    4. Re:How are moons still being found? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      trying to find a lost marble in the near total blackness of your bedroom.
      Are you saying you can find moons simply by walking round with bare feet?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:How are moons still being found? by Exatron · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying he lost his marbles.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    6. Re:How are moons still being found? by dizee · · Score: 1

      We can see lightyears and lightyears away with Hubble, and other large telescopes. So how is it were still finding moons in the solar system?

      i read that as: "so how is it were still finding morons in the solar system?"

      my first reaction was, DOOD ARE YOU CRAZY? THEY'RE EVERYWHERE, YOU DONT NEED A TELESCOPE TO FIND THEM!

      all work and no play makes mike see words that are not there...must have nap...

      -mike

    7. Re:How are moons still being found? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In addition to what others have said, Saturn has another fun problem with locating moons: some of them are embedded in the ring system. The rings are bright. It's hard to see a small moon in there, unless you get close up and can resolve the gaps the moons clear out (and the moons within them). Or you could wait for a ring-plane crossing, but that's still not a sure-fire method.

      Also, it should be noted that people only started doing CCD-based searches about 7 or 8 years ago. It's sort of a case where astronomers got whizzo new technology, and then forgot that there were things close to home to look for because we'd stopped looking years ago. (Poor telescopes, film, and what with having spacecraft fly by... is it entirely shocking that people didn't think to do telescopic surveys?)

  26. mod parent up Re:Fun with Newton & Lagrange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the info.

  27. Lagrange by ProgramZeta · · Score: 1

    And all this time I thought the ZZ Top song was titled after a city in Texas...

  28. Didn't take long. by CABAN · · Score: 1

    Didn't take long for the domain name scavengers to pick up these names. I managed to snap up methone.com. The easiest to remember in my opinion.

  29. Moon = Name of Earth's Satellite by tvadakia · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apparently not many people paid attention to this in high school.

    The title of this article should be: Saturn's New Satellites Named.

    --
    Unique.
    1. Re:Moon = Name of Earth's Satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apparently a lot of astronomers didn't "pay attention" in high school either; if you search the Harvard ADS database, you will find plenty of references to planetary moons other than our Moon. (Of coures, the majority of them are to our Moon.)

    2. Re:Moon = Name of Earth's Satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually satelitte is a general term for a small body orbiting a larger one, hence you could technically call all planets satelittes of the sun, but the reason moons are called moons is that is the standard nomeclature, hence we call planets planets and therefore moons; moons, but only when they are of a certain size. the moon is just what we named our own moon, also like our star is called the sun, we don't call stars suns, we call them stars, like the controvesy with pluto and charon at the moment, are they a double planet, or a planet and a moon??

    3. Re:Moon = Name of Earth's Satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our Sun's name is Sol. Often time, while discussing other planetary systems, their star is called their sun. For example, in discussing Superman, it's often said that Krypton had a red sun. Or in movies where people are on different planents, they call their stars suns, and have sunrises and sunsets.

    4. Re:Moon = Name of Earth's Satellite by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      actually satelitte is a general term for a small body orbiting a larger one
      No it isn't.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Moon = Name of Earth's Satellite by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Sun is only called "Sol" in science fiction, in my experience. Astronomers (and I am one) call it "the Sun", with capital letters, usually. Similarly, the Moon is our big orbiting body, "a moon" is a natural satellite in general. It's just a case of the specific name being used to describe other things in a similar class.

      (You can find other cases of this: "T Tauri stars", "hot Jupiters", "plutinos", etc.)

    6. Re:Moon = Name of Earth's Satellite by drxray · · Score: 1

      But, astronomers use "Solar Masses", not "Sun Masses". Basically, the problem here is that English is pointlessly crufty. I can't imagine how much thought must be wasted producing "correct" English.

      --
      Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
    7. Re:Moon = Name of Earth's Satellite by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Aye, and we say "Jovian" rather than "Jupiterian". The English languge is a chimeral beast. Sometimes, it's best to smile and nod and not worry about it too much.

  30. Explanation, clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may find explanations of this here. Theoretically, the object does orbit at a fixed distance relative to the two bodies -- forming a rotating equilateral triangle them, in fact, for the case of the stable L4/L5 points -- although in reality, a small perturbation will cause the object to be "tugged back and forth" in little wobbles around that rotating equilateral point.

  31. L1 point is not stable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Some spacecrafts are in orbits around L1 and L2 point of the earth-sun system, but those orbits are only semi-stable. The spacecrafts use some of their fuel to stay in those orbits longer than they would without propulsion, but eventually they will drift out of their orbits.

    One can calculate a gravitational-rotational pseudopotential for the system (see e. g. here). In this pseudopotential, L1, L2 and L3 are saddle points (pseudopotential increases along one axis in both directions and decreases along another axis in both directions), L4 and L5 are maxima - one would expect that a body would move away from them. But the potential cannot include forces which depend on velocity and not on position - in our case the coriolis force - therefore it's called pseudopotential. Coriolis force causes an object to orbit the L4 or L5 point in a complicated path. If the object has more kinetic energy it can get from L4 to L5 via L3 and back again - this is called a horseshoe orbit.

  32. Who decides? by slasho81 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who decides on the names of these moons?

    1. Re:Who decides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trilateral commission on naming meets for 2 hours (with a 45 minute lunch break) 4 times each week on the second and third weeks of every month that contains the letter 'A', and twice a week the first week of every other month, unless the number of days of the month is a prime number, in which case the normal schedule is followed but without the lunch break.

      The commission is responsible for naming all extraterrestrial objects and new Pokemon cards. They give each item on their agenda a common name which they publish, and a true name which they keep secret so that only they may hold power over it.

    2. Re:Who decides? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the end, the International Astronomical Union. Which has not approved these names, as far as I can see. Until they do, it's just the Cassini team suggesting things.

  33. Our moon has a name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Luna. Lunar, Lunacy, etc are all related to it.

  34. Same gods, but... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    " Well, we've named all the planets in THIS system after greek mythological characters."

    Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc, are all Roman names. Greek names would've been Zeus, Aries, Aphrodite...

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  35. Moon = a common term for natural satellites by Tonik,+the · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_(disambiguation) :

    The term Moon refers, among other things, to:

    1. The Earth's only natural satellite, the Moon.
    2. A common term for other natural satellites.

    1. Re:Moon = a common term for natural satellites by tvadakia · · Score: 0, Troll

      Tard eh? You're so awesome at putting people down. I wasn't being cleaver, was just recounting what I've learned from the days of HS, which the proper terminology for calling the "moons" around other planets is satellites. Yay for Wikipedia, I'm glad it's always 100% accurate. Put me down again, it shows how cleaver YOU are...

      --
      Unique.
    2. Re:Moon = a common term for natural satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Satellite" is also correct but not as good as "moon" since we know that the satellite is natural and "moon" means exactly that.

    3. Re:Moon = a common term for natural satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put me down again, it shows how cleaver YOU are...

      Yes, his wit is cutting.
    4. Re:Moon = a common term for natural satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? You were being an ass in your original post, and wrong. The parent poster corrected you, without any hint of insult, and now you're offended? Please enlighten us -- next time you're wrong, how can we point this out to you while not offending your delicate sensibilities?

      Jeez, talk about projecting...

  36. Dust to your knees? by mattr · · Score: 1

    That Polydeuces must be covered with dust and crap that got stuck in the Trojan point no? I mean you've got a big mass *and* a gravitational well strolling through this area full of dust and ice particles, maybe it's like the way they thought our moon might be - covered with dust so thick you could sink right into it! Maybe the whole thing's electrically charged? You could fuel a whole lot of science fiction with this, but I'd like to find out more of the real side of the moon before the sf authors have time to dream anything up.

  37. other Saturnian trojans by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    Telesto and Calypso share an orbit with Tethys. Helene is a Trojan in Dione's other coorbital Lagrange position.

  38. When I first read that... by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

    I thought it said "Satan's New Moons Named". I never knew the prince of darkness was so massive.

  39. Cosmic Commercialism by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 1
    Polydeuces is also reported as being a very strange object-- a trojan moon.
    Those damn Trojans, just not satisfied with the territory they had they had they conquered other moons too? Khaaan! Khaaan!
  40. Hang on... Who Named them? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As far as I can see from the article and from the IAU website, the International Astronomical Union hasn't approved these names. By common agreement in the astronomical community, they have the final word on approving names. So until they meet and approve this, all that is being reported is that the Cassini team is *suggesting* names for the moons *to* the IAU. The IAU has the right to shoot down their suggestins. (I'm a bit skeptical of Polydeuces being accepted since it doesn't fit the usual scheme. But what do I know?)

  41. Re:Huey, Dewey and Loui by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 1

    Whoa. Lowest-rated post for a(n arguably uninteresting) reference to the story's "dept."? *shrug*

  42. Re:What? No law passed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're still angling to rename one of the planets after him.

  43. hmm by JonDavies205 · · Score: 0

    yeaaah nice name, really origional.... it doesnt matter what its called really.. its just the same as the others.

  44. What ? No CowboyNeal moon ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, what's it going to take ?

  45. Naming of moons by clueless+idiot · · Score: 2, Funny

    For some reason these names are starting to remind me of the names of worlds in Populous.

    Scoqazpert
    Methone
    Bileapert
    Pallene

    Not that different, really.

  46. Seconded by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    IMESHO (yes, you're on /.) ad hominem falls under the debating equivalent of "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

    Mr dj42 hardly even rates on the pomposity scale compared to many others here. To me he sounded kind of whimsical rather than elitist.

    Lagrange points might have been carefully designed to enable random cool stuff to happen in scifi stories.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  47. This one I like by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Definite points for classically understated dry humour there.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  48. Take a leaf out of a Terry Pratchett book by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Planet Bilious, named after the Oh God of Wine (the antithesis of Bacchus - or Dionysus, depending on your preference for mythologies). Planet Verucca, named after the Verucca Gnome. Planets Death, Pestilence and so on, after the Four Motorcyclists. Planet Hogfather, after the Discworld's pig-propelled sleigh driver. The Soul Cake Duck asteroid belt, with asteroids named after cakes - "Welcome to the Pavlova Uranium Extraction Facility!" - or ducks - "We will be landing at Daffy Station in five minutes, please seal your pressure suits and check your safety webbing". Planet Violet, after the tooth fairy of the same name (or possibly Bob and Helen Parr's daughter, but let's not open that film-can of worms).

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  49. Nancy and Hilary by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...or Barbara and Laura?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  50. Freudian slip? (-: by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    I wasn't being cleaver
    The Queen of Hearts trolling under a pseudonym? (-:

    <whock!> Right! Sure sorted that argument out...
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  51. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trojan moons are nothing new. Telesto and Calypso were discovered more than twenty years ago...... a new trojan moon isn't really news anymore...