Slashdot Mirror


Saturn's Moon Enceladus Has an Atmosphere

Dimentox writes "The Mercury News reports that the international Cassini spacecraft has discovered that Saturn's moon Enceladus has a significant atmosphere, NASA said Wednesday. The icy moon's atmosphere may be created by volcanism, geysers or gases escaping from the surface or the interior, the space agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said. Excluding Saturn's giant moon Titan, which was already known to have an atmosphere, it's the first discovery of an atmosphere on one of the more than 30 moons that orbit the ringed planet."

224 comments

  1. Well, for one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moon has one third less gravity than the Earth, I don't know if you can understand that, but our vertical leap is beyond all measurment.

    1. Re:Well, for one thing by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So? Mars has 2/3 less gravity than the Earth, and it has an atmosphere of sorts.

      The link doesn't seem to say, but anyone know how thick the atmosphere is, or what it's made of?

      --
      Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
    2. Re:Well, for one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and your three dimensions. They're cute.
      We have five.....thousand.
      Don't question it!

    3. Re:Well, for one thing by jbrader · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Just a guess based on what I know about Titan, but the atmosphere is probably composed of methane and other nasty hydrocarbons.

      As to how thick it is, since it wasn't detected until we got "close" to it, it's probably quite a bit thinner than Titan's atmosphere.

      Again,even though this is the field I'm in school for right now, I'm pulling all this out of my butt. So usue the usual grain of salt.

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    4. Re:Well, for one thing by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The link says that it's made of water vapor, but doesn't give a density. It's interesting, because Europa (a seemingly similar moon - it has the same sort of wrinkled surface) has a *very* tenative (about 1/100,000,000,000th of 1 atmosphere) water vapor and oxygen atmosphere from the sublimation of ice and the breakdown of water from interaction with the solar wind.

      I'd imagine that this atmosphere is notably more significant than Europa's, or they wouldn't have described it as they did. And, with less solar energy at these distances, they're speculating that the source is from internal heating causing water geysers. That's really rather fascinating, when you think of it - now we know of another moon with a likely subsurface sea. The moon is a lot smaller than Europa, but it probably has more significant internal heating for its size.

      Plus, the saturnian system has a lot of interesting organics - Titan is virtually a drifting mobile organic chemistry lab in its upper atmosphere. Even neglecting Titan, there's the unknown dark organics on Iapetus, Phoebe, and in the rings, among other places.

      --
      "Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    5. Re:Well, for one thing by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, it's almost definitely not organics. Encladeus is the most reflective large body in the solar system; it has to be almost pure ice and "gasses" (probably a tiny amount of oxygen from disassociation of water, maybe a little nitrogen, etc). In all likelyhood, it is geysers of water and/or steam that are creating the atmosphere.

      --
      "Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    6. Re:Well, for one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the passes was only 500km in height. Given that Enceladus is 500km in diameter, that leads me to think this is not a very thick atmosphere at all.

      For comparison, Titan's 1.5 bar atmosphere is over 500km in height, and Titan's gravity is something like 100x that of Enceladus.

    7. Re:Well, for one thing by jbrader · · Score: 1

      Fantastic. I thought I was forgeting something :-)

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    8. Re:Well, for one thing by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 1

      Wait, that didn't make sense as a reply. I think I replied to the wrong AC post.

      Or maybe that "AC" jackass has the magical "post editing" power that we mortals lack . . . . .

      --
      Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
    9. Re:Well, for one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...but the atmosphere is probably composed of methane and other nasty hydrocarbons...I'm pulling all this out of my butt.

      So it looks like we just found another rock that smells like farts.

      So usue the usual grain of salt.

      Or, considering all that methane, how 'bout "a hill of beans"?

    10. Re:Well, for one thing by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Europa... has a *very* tenative (about 1/100,000,000,000th of 1 atmosphere)

      To put this in everyday terms, this means that if your dumbass coworker in space yanks off your helmet without warning, you die in 1.0000000001 seconds instead of 1.0 seconds :-)

    11. Re:Well, for one thing by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      has a *very* tenative
      Tenuous?

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    12. Re:Well, for one thing by corngrower · · Score: 1

      One of the pics on the site said it was water ice. That would mean the surface is convered with snow or ice crystals.

    13. Re:Well, for one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMPOSSIBLE..noone has gotten past level 3 before.

      You are the moon master!

    14. Re:Well, for one thing by Various+Assortments · · Score: 1

      You should check out this animated show called "Aqua Teen Hunger Force". It's hilarious.

  2. Yeah for Enceladus by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    Titan who?

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    1. Re:Yeah for Enceladus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this pronounced Enchiladas? Mmmm. enchiladas...

  3. That's no moon! by kryogen1x · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's a space station!

    1. Re:That's no moon! by rob_levine · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a very bad feeling about this...

    2. Re:That's no moon! by LakeSolon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Apparently you get modded up for Star Wars quotes. Here's mine.

      ~Lake

    3. Re:That's no moon! by pyrrhonist · · Score: 4, Informative
      That's a space station!

      Wrong moon. You want Mimas.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    4. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I feel something, something that I have not felt...

      Moderators!

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

      Why does this quote come up with every celestial body discussed on /.? It's getting old....

      Actually, comedians often use the 3-7 rule: something is funny the first three times you repeat it, then gets lame, then gets funny again after the 7th repeat.

      Therefore I hereby christen a new /. meme. If any space station is discussed, it is instantly accused of being a moon. Also, any round object instantly becomes a space station, due to conservation.

    6. Re:That's no moon! by govt-serpent · · Score: 1

      Wrong moon too. Try Iapetus

    7. Re:That's no moon! by Diakoneo · · Score: 1

      I heard about this on Coast-to-Coast AM this morning. Richard Hoagland isn't joking when he says it is an artificial construct. And if you put on a tinfoil hat and look at it from askance, it does kinda look like the Death Star.

      --
      "Well..here I am..." - Jubal Early
    8. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most overused quote on this site, and it still gets modded as "funny". What the fuck?!?

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

      Only 20% Redundant?

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

      Hey - I've got two space stations in my pants!!

  4. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the enchilada's my mom made had an atmosphere, too. Steamy, spicy, delicious! So Saturn's moo... oh, never mind.

  5. Titan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought titan had methane storms and stuff?

    1. Re:Titan? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0

      It's black monolith fart actually...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  6. Enceladus has atmosphere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    but, alas, lacks ambiance. We give it one star.

    1. Re:Enceladus has atmosphere... by nxtr · · Score: 1

      I believe it says "has an atmosphere". No twisting words around for you!

    2. Re:Enceladus has atmosphere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang grammar-police! It's OK, officer, here's my comedic license.

    3. Re:Enceladus has atmosphere... by Rauser · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's sadly lacking in warmth as well.

      --
      The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load or unload go to the white zone. It's a way of life
    4. Re:Enceladus has atmosphere... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I was not aware that it could have more than one.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:Enceladus has atmosphere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I eat enchiladas I also create my own 'atmosphere' ;-)

    6. Re:Enceladus has atmosphere... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Sadly, most critics regard it as a failure at stardom.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  7. Second First by LakeSolon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excluding Saturn's giant moon Titan, which was already known to have an atmosphere, it's the first discovery of an atmosphere...

    Excluding the first it's the first? We have a word for that. "Second".

    ~Lake

    1. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "You're almost late!"

      "That's called on time."

    2. Re:Second First by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excluding the first it's the first? We have a word for that. "Second".

      People tend to think that the second isn't important, so they like to make stuff the first. It is the first that this probe has discovered. Titan having an atmosphere has been known for some time, this is the first discovery of one of Saturn's moons having an atmosphere in quite a while. This is also what the article meant.

      So while your comment has been marked interesting, it's really not. It's pedantic more then anything.

    3. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a lame excuse to make it sound like it's more important than it is. It's like "Columbus was the first to discover the Americas, excluding the vikings and the people already living there."

      It's an attempt to give credit where it isn't due and to inflate the importance of an event.

    4. Re:Second First by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      It's the first discovery of a moon around Saturn that has an atmosphere by the Cassini probe. There's 30+ moons around Saturn and the probe has just begun its mission. It's quite possible that it will find more and more moons with atmospheres.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Second First by weighn · · Score: 1
      It's a lame excuse to make it sound like it's more important than it is

      Huh? So if Enceladus was dicovered to have an atmosphere before Titan, then its atmosphere would be more important? Or the discovery?
      Credit isn't due? This is an important find and will shed much light on the formation of satelites in the solar system.

      Are you in the Spelling Nazi team too, or just the Pedantrists?

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    6. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So while your comment has been marked interesting, it's really not. It's pedantic more then anything.

      I second that!

    7. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The word you want is spelt "pedantist".

    8. Re:Second First by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      ... and people thought that Firefly's copious use of the word 'moon' was just a writer's fancy ... :)

      disclaimer: that link gets me five credits for each click ... click away! And don't forget to watch the movie in September! :)

    9. Re:Second First by LakeSolon · · Score: 1

      This is the first time since Cassini arrived in orbit around Saturn last summer that an atmosphere has been detected around a moon of Saturn, other than its largest moon, Titan.

      That's the actual quote from the article, which says what you said. But that's different from what the summary said. Which is what I was commenting on.

      And for the record I wasn't trying to be insightful, or interesting, just make a wise crack about the poorly written summary. I suspect the non-funny mods were simply an attempt to give Karma. Of which I am in no particular need.

      ~Lake

    10. Re:Second First by penguin341 · · Score: 0

      If you pulled the stick out of your ass and then a while later you pulled ANOTHER stick out of your ass, it would still be the second stick pulled out of your ass regardless of the time passed.

      --
      No sig. Never.
    11. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speaking of pedantic posts...

    12. Re:Second First by vettemph · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but if you wait 24+ hours the second stick would be the first stick you pulled out of your ass all day!

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    13. Re:Second First by weighn · · Score: 1
      >> Are you in the Spelling Nazi team too, or just the Pedantrists?

      > The word you want is spelt "pedantist".

      Oh, please mod this as funny!

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    14. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was supposed to be (and is) funny, not interesting. You may be right about people wanting things to sound more important, but that doesn't make it right to do so. Last, you used 'then' in the last sentence when you meant 'than'.

    15. Re:Second First by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the next first time we find a moon with an atmosphere!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    16. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm the first AC to second that since the last one!

    17. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also AFAIK the first moon this small found to have a significant atmosphere. (Enceladus's diameter is just about 500 km, while Titan's is 5150 and Triton's is 2700.)

    18. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "pedantic"

      There's that word again.

    19. Re:Second First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mother agrees. Today is the first anniversary of the 31st anniversary of her 29th birthday.

  8. blimey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Saturn's got a moon? It's called Enceladus? Blimey, you learn something new every day!

    Any other moons out there I should know about?

  9. lift a cheek... by caino59 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The icy moon's atmosphere may be created by volcanism, geysers or gases escaping from the surface or the interior, the space agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said.

    Gases escaping?

    It's the GNOMES!

    1. Re:lift a cheek... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For Gnomeregan!

      /train

    2. Re:lift a cheek... by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Gnomeregan truely sucks. I wonder why anyone would fight for that shithole ... stormwind on the other hand ...

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    3. Re:lift a cheek... by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      Trooper 1: Wait. What was that?

      Trooper 2: Nothing, just outgnoming. Hey, did you hear about the...

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  10. MOD UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mt. Dew through the nose!

  11. Nice discovery for the bad news by nsasch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's really great news for the mission especially after the wind measurement tool didn't function properly at first. 15 more years, and there'll be a space craft at this moon.

    --
    Make your computer faster: rm -rf /mnt/windows/
    1. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not necessarily. Is the surface obscured like Titan's? If not, then there isn't as much incentive. I think Europa would be much more important then this moon. Why not send a probe to Triton? After all, Triton may have been liquid for billions of years. It's also possible that Triton may have once harbored life (due to it once having liquid), and that if it did, such life would be COMPLETELY different to Earth's. That sounds more significant then Enceladus.

      Why this moon? Just because it's in the news today, doesn't mean it will be all that important tomorrow. Neptune isn't an impossible goal. We can send probes to places other then Saturn.

    2. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not likely. The next craft to Saturn is undoubtedly going straight to Titan (the highest priority target in the Saturnian system - hence, Huygens), and that will take 10-15 years between design, construction, launch, and transit (unfortunately, Jupiter won't be available to assist spacecraft to Saturn again for a while). Without Jupiter, you either need a JIMO-style nuclear electric propulsion mission (expensive - JIMO was cancelled, darn them!), or need to accept 100-200kg payload, so don't expect many craft, either.

      Perhaps in a 20-30 year timeframe, but for now the payloads are just too small for the investment to justify a trip to Enceladus when we could always go to Europa if we want to study an icy moon with subsurface liquids.

      --
      "Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    3. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The liquids on Triton are *nitrogen* (and we have no clue how much there is; it's atmosphere very thin, though). I wouldn't rule out life on Titan, but Triton is even colder, and unlike Titan we have no evidence of any organic chemistry there. Of all of the places in the solar system, why did you pick Triton?

      I mean, I can understand people arguing for life on Mars (it had past water, it's huge, lots of solar energy, etc). I can understand people arguing for life on Europa - it has an undersea, tidal heating as an energy source, etc. I can understand people arguing for life on Titan - it has extensive organic chemistry occurring in its upper atmosphere, has a known fluid (even if nonpolar) on its surface, seems to be a geologically active world (and thus has internal heat), etc. I could even understand speculation about life on Io, it being such an energetic world. But Triton? You might as well pick any body in the solar system. Heck, I'd give there better odds of having life in a gas giant than Triton. :P

      --
      "Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    4. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the parent is referring to speculation that the moon Triton, probably a captured Kuiper Belt object, may have been rendered liquid by the violent nature of its capture, and kept liquid by the energy derived from its degrading orbit for as much as a billion years.

      Life now, a frozen rock with nitrogen snow on it? No. Fossil life preserved in the ice? Not so unlikely.

    5. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      why did you pick Triton?

      The above AC is correct. Triton was once quite warm due to tidal heating.

      I can understand people arguing for life on Titan - it has extensive organic chemistry occurring in its upper atmosphere

      Got a link?

    6. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with case for life on Titan, aside from the fact that none has been directly observed, is that life of whatever form requires some sort of energy. That can come in a variety of forms: direct sunlight, leftover heat from a planet's formation, tidal heating, etc.

      The jury is still out on Titan, as it appears to have enough energy to get actively resurfaced, but at cryogenic temperatures, and with the only obvious source of energy being complex hydrocarbons raining out of the upper atmosphere in small amounts, life seems unlikely.

    7. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "Got a link?"

      I see he already posted some, but any 20-year-old astronomy book will also fill you in on the amino acids present on Titan.

    8. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by tkjtkj · · Score: 1

      i've never really understood the 'slingshot' process where a satellite is whipped around a planet to gain energy/velocity .. As i see it, the sat will accellerate as it approaches the 'slingshot planet' but then as it exits the planet's gravity field it will slow down again .. so , where is the gain? ..Or rather is it really just a trick to change the direction of the sat's travel, without energy expenditure?? Can any rocketscientist out there explain this to me? tkjtkj@charter.net

      --
      "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
    9. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by Rei · · Score: 1

      Well, there is what appears to be cryovolcanism on Titan, as well. This means liquid water, even if it is an "antifreeze" mixture. Plus, life is not necessarily water-based, although there is concern that liquid methane might not work because it's nonpolar.

      --
      "Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    10. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by Rei · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Heh, it took me a while to understand it too, don't worry :) The basic concept is that yes, the spacecraft's velocity relative to the *planet* will remain the same. However, the spacecraft's velocity relative to other bodies in the solar system (including the sun) will not be.

      Picture the following: draw the sun on a piece of paper. Straight up from there, draw a planet moving counterclockwise around the sun. Now, draw a probe heading toward a slingshot to the right of the planet - moving clockwise around the sun and outward, to pass right near the planet and get slung counterclockwise (draw this trajectory).

      Now, consider the velocity components of the planet before and after the spacecraft passes. In-plane/out of plane movement will be unchanged, because the spacecraft and planet are both moving in-plane. Toward the sun/away from the sun movement is also unchanged, because the craft is having to approach and then leave.

      But what about clockwise/counterclockwise motion? The spacecraft is approaching in a clockwise direction, but leaving in a counterclockwise direction with respect to motion about the sun. This means that the planet has reduced counterclockwise velocity with respect to the sun than before it encountered the spacecraft, and the spacecraft has gained that energy.

      In short, the spacecraft leaves the planet with the same velocity that it approaches (with respect to the planet), but with respect to the sun it has gained energy and the planet has lost energy.

      --
      "Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    11. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by tkjtkj · · Score: 1

      thanks ..perhaps we're getting there .. perhaps not! The planet, in your example, has also gained energy from the spacecraft, as the craft approaches it! Gravity between craft and planet is a two-way street, no?

      --
      "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
    12. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by Rei · · Score: 1

      First off, when you discuss gaining and losing energy, you need a context. Within the context of only each other, neither has gained or lost energy. The only difference is that the planet ends up moving a tiny bit more in one direction, and the spacecraft a lot more in the opposite direction, with both amounts of motion being worth the same amount of energy. However, without any further reference frame, that's all that happens.

      When you put this into the context of moving around the sun, however, there's a big difference. The bit of movement in one direction for the planet is into a lower energy orbit with respect to the sun. The large amount of movement in the other direction for the spacecraft is into a higher energy orbit with respect to the sun.

      Contexts like this are important, because everything is relative. Picture, for example, two balls, moving toward each other, and bouncing away from each other. The net energy change is zero. Now, change the context: both balls are in space falling toward, say, the moon. The second ball is falling faster and catching up to the first, then bouncing off. The first ball is left moving faster toward the moon that it was moving than when it started; the second ball is moving slower toward the moon than when it started. Can you see the energy transfer now that you've put it into a different context? One ball had greater kinetic energy with respect to the moon than the other; after the collision, the first ball gained that energy and the second ball lost it.

      In short: When two objects interact, their net energy with respect to each other must remain the same; however, their net energies with respect to a third object can change, as long as the sum of the energy of the two objects with respect to the third object remains the same.

      --
      "Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    13. Re:Nice discovery for the bad news by tkjtkj · · Score: 1

      thanks! i do think im cathching on ... " and officer, where does it say with what was my alleged speeding relative?? " maybe i wont say that to him! tnx again .. jon

      --
      "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
  12. Where's the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may not be kosher to ask on Slashdot, but where's the article?

    1. Re:Where's the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ar..ti..cle?

    2. Re:Where's the article? by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's right here. Why that page wasn't linked to in the first place is beyond me.

    3. Re:Where's the article? by Dimentox · · Score: 1

      Hey, When I submitted the article it had the link to the article. Dont know where it went, guess it got edited out or lost in the beam buffer of the /. article matrix. :P

      --
      string sig = llGetSig("dimentox"); llSay(0,sig);
  13. It's basically almost virtually the first one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excluding Saturn's giant moon Titan, which was already known to have an atmosphere, it's the first discovery of an atmosphere on one of the more than 30 moons that orbit the ringed planet.

    Why not just say it's the second discovery of an atmosphere on one of the more than 30 moons that orbit the ringed planet. ?

    1. Re:It's basically almost virtually the first one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      After this person you're the first person who has mentioned that.

  14. It would be nice to link to the actual article by PxM · · Score: 4, Informative

    Link It should be noted that this isn't an atmosphere in the common sense. The air is continually created and lost due to internal sources and weak gravity.

    --
    Want a free iPod?
    Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
    Wired article as proof

    1. Re:It would be nice to link to the actual article by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      But it's not really air, is it??

      (I RTFA, but couldn't find any info about atmosphere composition... strange, if they detected it, you'd think they'd have a clue what it consisted of too)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:It would be nice to link to the actual article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, cocksmoker, stop spamming slashdot with your bullshit .sig, okay? Nobody is interested in your fucking Xbox/Nintendo/PS2 scams.

      Fuckhead.

    3. Re:It would be nice to link to the actual article by Surazal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (I RTFA, but couldn't find any info about atmosphere composition... strange, if they detected it, you'd think they'd have a clue what it consisted of too)

      The two articles I've read on this subject both indicate the atmosphere is water vapor.

      --
      --- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
    4. Re:It would be nice to link to the actual article by Alsee · · Score: 1

      If they keep losing atmosphere, maybe they should change the combination? This isn't some idiot's luggage you know.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  15. I recently had Enceladus at a Mexican restaurant.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boy, did I ever have atmosphere after that!

  16. Excluding.... by jbum · · Score: 4, Funny

    Excluding the more than 30 moons that orbit the ringed planet, it's the first discovery of a moon orbiting the ringed planet!

    1. Re:Excluding.... by jd · · Score: 1

      Excluding thirty moons, a few billion tonnes of rock and ice debris in the form of a giant set of inexplicable rings, and a giant gas planet that is now considered likely to have a solid core, the press have finally discovered something interesting to talk about. Cassini!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  17. Ahh, the atmoshere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Oh Enceladus, how I love the atmoshere around you, it makes me want to slap uranus.

  18. significant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    *Any* atmosphere on a sub-500km wide moon would be significant. I'm looking forward to a more complete report as more information comes in.

    Why am I suddenly hungry for Mexican food?

  19. hmmm.... by shrewd · · Score: 0

    The Mercury News reports that the international Cassini spacecraft has discovered that Saturn's moon Enceladus has a significant atmosphere sounds like the start to a really bad sci-fi thriller.....

  20. If it turns out to be full of stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't go inside unless you want to be really confused.

    (OK, it's a really bad joke mixing the wrong moon from the book with the end of the movie. Mod me down if you don't like it - why do you think this is AC?)

  21. I wonder what else we're missing? by cubicle_cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know this argument is getting old, but this is a good example why we should be spending more money on unmanned probes instead of high-cost, low-science manned missions like the space station. There's little reason at the moment to spend large sums of taxpayer cash on things that provide little benefit. Imagine all the probes we could be sending instead. A whole fleet of Cassinis, Voyagers, and Mars Rovers combing the solar system! Let the private industry (ie. the guys with Scaled Composites and maybe even Virgin ;) take the baton on manned space flight. Hopefully the private industry will find ways to lower the costs so that when we finally need people in space, it'll be practical.

    1. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful
      and all the research that needs to be done to make living in space actually possible is going to happen where? Frankly, if we're ever going to go to Mars, we need to learn how to live in space for extended periods of time. Even with our best propulsion systems it will take at least 18 months to get to Mars. During that time astronauts need to live in the ship. That makes your space ship a space station. So how in the world are we supposed to build a self sustaining space station that we can fly to another planet if we can't even sustain one in low earth orbit?

      Excluding the creation of some buck rodgers form of space propulsion the ISS is the best bet we've got for space colonisation.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by Agarax · · Score: 1

      Manned missions wont crash because a doofus forgot to change something from metiric to imperial.

      But, more to the point, a manned mission allows tech support to tag along instead of doing it long distance.

      --
      Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
    3. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by houghi · · Score: 1

      If you have unmanned exploration, there is no need for us to learn how to live in space for a longer time, because we do not send manned ships.

      We do the exploration unmanned.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by cubicle_cowboy · · Score: 1

      Why can't we hold off on space stations and such until we're getting close to a Mars mission (which is probably decades away)? Also, we've already kept people in space for long periods of time (or at least as long as long as a trip to Mars would hopefully take), so we already know a lot of what happens. Is it worth spending billions of dollars just to be a little more confident? I don't mean to say postpone all manned spaceflight indefinitely (I know the whole point of all this is to put people up there), just do it at a time when it's more critical and less costly.

    5. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by chialea · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Also, we've already kept people in space for long periods of time (or at least as long as long as a trip to Mars would hopefully take)

      The longest stay in space seems to be 14 months (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/374456.stm), which is not quite enough for most trips. In addition, I seem to remember that people were pretty screwed up afterward. We need to either: a) figure out how to keep people up there that long and have them be useful in .38g on the other end or b) build a good rotating space station.

      It's my guess that we'll end up with option (b), just because of the bone decalcification effects, neglecting the cardiac, psychological, muscluar, and other physiological effects. I'm not aware of any sufficiently detailed research on the subject, however.

      Lea

    6. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Sigh. No-one who has stayed in space for longer than 12 months has ever been fit to perform the kind of mission that we'd need them to perform when they got to Mars. People who live in space for 12 months can't even sit up when they get back into gravity. When we can actually do that, and feed them, and keep them safe from radiation (remember, the ISS is inside the earth's magnetic field) then we'll be ready for a trip to Mars. Now, obviously, if we keep putting off the research needed to make us ready, we'll never be ready will we?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd probably be cheaper to focus on genetically engineering humans more suitable for spaceflight. Just adding the ability to hibernate and boosting our natural defence against radiation damage would make manned spaceflight much easier.

      btw, IANAGeneticEngineer but I am marginally involved in space technology, so this is only 75% bullshitting...

    8. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont they have to solve the problems such as loss of bone mass, psychological effects, systems that dont fail before we actually try space exploration?

      'we already know a lot of what happens'

      yes and knowing is only HALF the battle
      g.i. joe!

    9. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I said colonisation, not exploration. Besides which, if we had a manned base on Mars we could do a millions times as much science as we can by sending robots.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      and all the research that needs to be done to make living in space actually possible is going to happen where?

      Bigelow Aerospace seems to be making a good bit of progress in that arena. Granted, a lot of their technology came from the NASA-funded Transhab project.

    11. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by Woy · · Score: 0

      There is more to space than colonization, specially if it still takes 18 months to get to Mars.

      That is a good point, the propulsion system. Good for the unmanned probe side, of course. Engineers can be much more "daring" if their drive is pushing a computer rather than humans. The sheer number of propulsion systems built if funding were diverted to robotic exploration would make advances in the field much faster.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    12. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      Why are we wasting our time trying to figure out how to "live longer" in zero g? Spend the money on better propulsion technology, so we can get astronauts to Mars in under a month. Then we don't have to worry about long-duration living in a hard radiation environment.

      We've sunk over $100 billion into the ISS so far. $100 billion would fund a LOT of propulsion research.

    13. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      A lot more than $100 billion has gone into propulsion research over the years. We simply don't know how to make better rockets. We have some ideas. Like fusion rockets. But they require breakthroughs (like fusion) for which we've spent even more money on.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    14. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Besides which, if we had a manned base on Mars we could do a millions times as much science

      Then send a million robots! uh Duh! :P


    15. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then send a million robots! uh Duh! :P

      The costs of the hundreds of thousands of rocket launchs would actually make this plan much more expensive than sending human researchers.

    16. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      >We simply don't know how to make better rockets.

      Actually, we do. Nuclear fusion rockets, for starters. $100 billion would probably build quite a few of them. Ion engines would be another alternative for a Mars probe. Research involving the use of tethers and other alternative propulsion technologies also comes to mind.

      Or, we can continue to burn hundreds of billions parked in Earth orbit learning jack about practical means to reach other parts of the solar system outside of low Earth orbit.

    17. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by QuantumG · · Score: 1
      We've spent more than a $100 billion trying to make fusion man. Much more. And guess what? We still havn't done it! Betting the farm on better propulsion systems is stupid. If we wanna put humans on mars we need to figure out how to do it using today's technology. That means, slow chemical rockets and micro-gravity.

      Besides, say we did make a new propulsion system that could get us to Mars in a week without crushing the astronauts to death.. great, now how long will it takes us to get to Jupiter? Oh bother, we've still got all those problems with living in space.

      You might as well hope for someone to invent artifical gravity.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    18. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      >We've spent more than a $100 billion trying to make
      >fusion man. Much more. And guess what? We still
      >havn't done it!

      Whoops, meant to say fission, not fusion. We made prototype fission rockets back in the '60s. Actually test-fired them and everything. $100 billion would go a long way toward improving them and building new prototypes.

      >Betting the farm on better propulsion systems is stupid.

      No, spending money on developing anything BUT a better propulsion system is stupid. If we ever want practical access to space, we're going to have to develop better, faster, cheaper propulsion systems. Boldly floating where everyone has already floated before - in low Earth orbit - accomplishes zilch.

      >Besides, say we did make a new propulsion system that
      >could get us to Mars in a week without crushing the
      >astronauts to death.. great, now how long will it takes
      >us to get to Jupiter?

      Depends. If the thing can carry enough fuel (or rather, reaction mass), a couple of weeks more than that. But I'm not aware of any fission rockets quite that speedy. And accelerating at just a comfy 1g, you'd reach lightspeed in about a year (not counting for relativistic effects, obviously). Clearly, you only need to reach a tiny fraction of the speed of light to get to Mars pretty quickly.

      We already have the ability to build nuclear fission rockets which could easily cut the trip time to Mars down to under 4 months, maybe less if combined with techniques like aerocapture. We already know how to live in space for a year at a time. The only real challenges we haven't faced are the radiation environment and generating artificial gravity to keep astronauts' muscles from atrophying on the way. Floating in low Earth orbit teaches us squat about either problem. The ISS is a $100 billion plus waste of taxpayer money. It's crap like the ISS and the Shuttles that's preventing us from actually accomplishing something in space.

    19. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Dude, how does the ISS not teach us about keeping astronauts' muscles from atrophying. I can't believe you can put "we already know how to live in space for a year at a time" and "keep astronauts' muscles from atophying" in the same sentence. Yes, we can live in space for a year, but after doing so we're crippled for months of intensive care. If you send astronauts on a one year trip to another planet what are you going to have them do when they get there? Die on the surface.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    20. Re:I wonder what else we're missing? by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      >Dude, how does the ISS not teach us about keeping
      >astronauts' muscles from atrophying.

      Because the astronauts are still coming back from the ISS with atrophied when they spend an extended amount of time up there. That's the kind of time in zero-g that astronauts would have to endure if we tried to get to Mars using conventional rockets. So the ISS is teaching us what we already knew - that humans can't spend prolonged periods of time in zero-g and still function well immediately after returning to an environment with gravity.

      We haven't learned squat about dealing with that issue aboard the ISS, and we've wasted well in excess of $100 billion to learn NOTHING. $100 billion dumped into engine research would largely get you AROUND the problem in the first place, by getting your astronauts to Mars fast enough that prolonged exposure to zero-g would no longer be an issue.

      If our ancestors were this stupid, they'd still be standing on a shore somewhere trying to figure out how to swim across the ocean instead of spending some time and effort building boats.

      >If you send astronauts on a one year trip to another
      >planet what are you going to have them do when they
      >get there? Die on the surface.

      The solution isn't hard to figure out - build faster ships. If Columbus had tried to make it to the New World in a rowboat, he wouldn't have gotten here either, even if Queen Isabella had spent the 15th century equivalent of $100 billion developing a floating rowboat research platform off the Spanish coast.

  22. How unique is this? by jerkychew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Please bear with me, as I never paid any attention to astronomy-related stuff. I'm just curious as to how many other planets/ moons/ celestial bodies out there are known to have an atmosphere? Is this a really big deal, or is it a relatively common occurance?

    1. Re:How unique is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it'd be the 2nd moon ever with an atmosphere, and the 7th body in total with one (although Pluto probably has one, but that hasn't been proven).

    2. Re:How unique is this? by EccentricAnomaly · · Score: 1

      Triton also has an atmosphere... very thin... but probably as
      dense as Enceladus and denser than Pluto.

      --
      There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
    3. Re:How unique is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so common on moons--of Saturn's 30, only it and Titan have one, and it's rare on Jupiter's too (I'm not sure if any really has much of one there--maybe Io, and one or two of the icy moons might have extremely insignificant ones--correct me if I'm wrong guys!). For planets, we know Venus, Earth, and Mars are the only terrestrial "rocky" worlds with atmospheres for sure (Mercury does not, and Pluto is unlikely to, I think), while the gas giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are pretty much all atmosphere with no real known surface (but probably solid or liquid cores).

      So for rocky planetoids in general, it's relatively uncommon that we've seen so far. For terrestrial planets, it is more common, though.

    4. Re:How unique is this? by l810c · · Score: 2, Informative
      Could you name the ones you know of?

      I've done some googling and have come across conflicting answers. One site lists only Titan as having an Dense atmosphere. Another lists Io, Europa and Triton with Tenuous(require regeneration) atmospheres as well. This new moon would seem to fall in that category.

      And the planets?
      Venus, Earth, Mars and maybe Pluto?

    5. Re:How unique is this? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      All the planets have an atmosphere of some sort. Mercury is trace, but there is something, a little something.

      Venus to Pluto have atmo, so there are 8 bodies and Io, Callisto, Ganymede, Titan, Enceladus and Triton.

    6. Re:How unique is this? by erichill · · Score: 1

      Even the Earth's moon has something of this sort. If I remember right, there's very very thin gaseous Sodium and Potassium (ions?). I think it's heavy enough to stick around for a while.

      --
      Credo sim. - I think I am.
    7. Re:How unique is this? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Pluto has an atmosphere; the atmosphere actually freezes when Pluto is distant from the sun and thaws when it gets closer again.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    8. Re:How unique is this? by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The Gas planets have atmospheres. Well, if they didn't, they'd be a lot smaller.


      Europa has H2O in both ice and liquid forms, which is horribly unlikely at near-zero pressure, which means it almost definitely has an atmosphere.


      Any comet can be considered as having an atmosphere, whilst it is close to the sun and being frazzled. However, I think there are some who consider that cheating.


      Any object close to (or larger than) the size of Mars is going to have an atmosphere, provided at least one of the following conditions is met:


      • After the planet formed there was a liquid core capable of generating and sustaining geological activity such as volcanos, geothermal vents, etc.
      • Gasses or liquids start on the surface where the rate of loss into space is equal to or exceeded by the rate of replenishment. (Replenishment may include geological activity, meteorites containing suitable compounds, etc.)
      • After the planet formed, it encountered an atmosphere (most likely from a comet that didn't quite hit) that it could then capture and retain.
      • After the planet formed, it encountered the necessary compounds by actual impacts from cometary fragments, meteorites, etc.


      The gas giants can form either from a cloud that coalesces as per a rock planet, but never actually becomes solid, OR when a very large rock planet sweeps enough lighter material to build an atmosphere around it. Jupiter is now thought to be of the first kind, Saturn of the latter.


      There may be other ways an atmosphere can form, but these would seem to be a good start on a list.

      How can an atmosphere NOT form on a planet?

      • It started off with one, but
        • It escaped faster than it could be replenished (planetary spin too high, insufficient gravity and/or too high a temperature)
        • The source material or driving force used to replenish it ran out
        • It froze solid
        • It chemically reacted with something to become part of the surface
      • It didn't start with one and
        • There are no processes to generate one internally
        • There is nothing on the surface suitable and at the right temperature
        • It has never encountered suitable frozen material in cometary fragments that could supply one
        • It has never encountered free-floating gas molecules in sufficient quantity AND that is sufficiently massive to be captured and stay on the planet AND isn't moving fast enough relative to the planet to escape.

      I don't know what the odds are for any of these, but it would seem reasonable to suppose that 20-30% of all moons will have some sort of atmosphere, and maybe 60-80% of all planets do. We've not found many small extrasolar planets, so we can't tell from that. However, if you go by mechanisms, those percentages feel reasonable enough.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:How unique is this? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "Well, it'd be the 2nd moon ever with an atmosphere"

      Except for earth's moon, you mean, right? Come on, moderators, don't take random, ill-informed comments at face value.

    10. Re:How unique is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europa has H2O in both ice and liquid forms, which is horribly unlikely at near-zero pressure, which means it almost definitely has an atmosphere.

      Europa doesn't have H2O on the surface. Its atmosphere is barely detectable, by far insufficient for liquid H2O to exist. The liquid is supposed to exist beneath a thick layer of (mostly) water ice.

      [planet does not have an atmosphere if]
      It escaped faster than it could be replenished (planetary spin too high, insufficient gravity and/or too high a temperature)

      More precisely speaking, if the average speed of gas particles (which increases with temperature) is too high relative to the planet's escape velocity. For an atmosphere to remain there for some billion years without significant replenishment, the escape velocity has to be at least 5 to 6 times higher than the average speed of particles.

      Planetary spin has very little to do with that. While centrifugal acceleration caused by spin does reduce the average escape velocity, it's usually a quite small effect.
    11. Re:How unique is this? by RoLi · · Score: 1
      It escaped faster than it could be replenished (planetary spin too high, insufficient gravity and/or too high a temperature)

      AFAIK, planetary spin cannot cause a planet to lose it's atmosphere.

  23. Darn it... by nxtr · · Score: 1

    ...we aimed at the wrong moon.

  24. All your base are belong to us? by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Mercury News reports that the international Cassini spacecraft has discovered that Saturn's moon Enceladus has a significant atmosphere, NASA said Wednesday.

    Not only that, but I bet there's an entire rebel base there as well!
    NASA should better send down a probe there to check it out.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:All your base are belong to us? by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
      So umm... who plays the role of Vader?

      I kinda want it to be Dick Cheney, but how would he be named? Would that be Darth Cheney, or would we call him Darth Dick?

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    2. Re:All your base are belong to us? by daeley · · Score: 1

      Would that be Darth Cheney, or would we call him Darth Dick?

      Dick Sidious

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    3. Re:All your base are belong to us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the moon with the rebel base will be in range in 30 minutes.

    4. Re:All your base are belong to us? by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Enceladus is far to remote for an effective military demonstration.

      You may fire when ready.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    5. Re:All your base are belong to us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mercury News??? Holy shit, Mercury has newspapers and we're talking about a few wisps of gas on some Saturnian moon? Priorities, people! Priorities!

    6. Re:All your base are belong to us? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's no moon! It's a space station! (that's the other side.)

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    7. Re:All your base are belong to us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darth Cardios? :-)

  25. First? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Excluding Saturn's giant moon Titan, which was already known to have an atmosphere, it's the first discovery of an atmosphere on one of the more than 30 moons that orbit the ringed planet.

    So, you really mean that it is the second moon of Saturn found to contain an atmosphere? Why not say just that?

    1. Re:First? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Because Titan is in a class by itself in the Saturnian system. Titan is the only large moon there, so the rules are expected to be generally rather different.

  26. Obligatory Star Wars quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That's no moon!.."

  27. international? by minus_273 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i know bashing the US is cool, but isn't this a NASA project paid for by the US tax payers?

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:international? by BrianRaker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the Cassini project is a co-op by NASA and the ESA (European Space Agency).

      --
      As I walk through the valley of death I fear no one, for I am the meanest sonova bitch in the valley!
    2. Re:international? by boron+boy · · Score: 1
      From the NASA article

      "The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Cassini-Huygens mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. The Cassini orbiter was designed, developed and assembled at JPL."

    3. Re:international? by Zen+Punk · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's correct. But you didn't mention that the involvement of the ESA consisted of the "piggy-back" probe Huygens, which has already completed it's mission. Cassini was designed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I don't know about all of the instruments on Cassini though, I beleive that there are many nations represented in the various instruments on board.

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    4. Re:international? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, cassini was the NASA part of the Cassini-Huygens mission.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:international? by yivi · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck are there so many insecure americans these days? Get a grip, relax. USA is still the only superpower we have.

      And about the internationality of this mission...

      It was terribly hard to find, I know.

  28. The Saturn women are really cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to visit Saturn! Don't get your ass to Mars, it's just deranged dick and hotness over there. Our orbitting moon has excessive "gas", and I need warn you to not have saurkraut or kimchee with one of our Saturn women over dinner. It's getting gassy around here. Just come and visit, preferably Polish and US-ians need apply.

  29. Just to point out... by Agarax · · Score: 0

    Before anyone else starts...

    1) You cant make a beowulf cluster out of moons, so one wouldnt rock (or gas..).
    2) No moon has ever done anything to you in Soviet Russia.
    3) ???
    4) Bankruptcy.

    --
    Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
    1. Re:Just to point out... by Rii · · Score: 1

      All my cliche are belong to you.

    2. Re:Just to point out... by fmobus · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new Encelords. Cool, it has an atmosphere, but does it run linux? And, last but not least... is it Sweex specific?

  30. MMMM. Mexican Food! by levitater · · Score: 3, Funny

    Homer: Mmmmmm.... Moon Enchiladas.

    Comic Book Guy: For your information, my corpulent comrade, it's "Enceladus," who in Greek mythology was a giant who was defeated in battle and buried under Mount Etna by Athena.

  31. So. . . does that mean *I* have an atmosphere? by jafac · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...The icy moon's atmosphere may be created by ...gases escaping from ... the interior...

    That could describe a lot of people I know.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:So. . . does that mean *I* have an atmosphere? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Bet the methane levels in most malls are much higher than the ambient outside :-)

      Offtopic:

      Hunter S. Thompson, 1937-2005. RIP. "He stomped terra"

      Yeah. Damn.

      You might like this if you haven't seen it. I thought it was pretty fair.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  32. Enceladus Has an Atmosphere?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20 seconds ago I didn't know Enceladus had a moon!

  33. Yeah for Enceladus-TitanAE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Titan who?"

    Bombed at the box office.

  34. Atlanta Developers by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1

    Well, you know, half the developers in Atlanta are trying to figure out how to put their next development in place.

    And then justify the commute.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
    1. Re:Atlanta Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First Kenny Cresswell in Atlanta post! w00t!!
      Corn rules!

  35. fp! by rhennigan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Excluding the 100 posts before mine, this is the first post!

    Ok, maybe I went to far...

  36. First Post! by psychgeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excluding the posts above, I *finally* have a first post.....

  37. with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke... by jephthah · · Score: 0


    All these worlds are yours -- except Enchilada. Attempt no landing there.

  38. The Mercury News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shouldn't the Saturn News be reporting this?

  39. But more importantly... by mikael · · Score: 1

    ... have they found where the black obelisk is located?

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  40. Excludig all you who have posted before me ... by $0.02 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    this is the first post.

    --
    If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
  41. We need spinning space stations. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Is centripetal force sufficient to maintain the astronauts' bodies? is there something else to living in a planet's gravity well we have not considered? All of these questions and more will not be solved by Space Station Alpha. (aka MIR 2: America Helps).

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:We need spinning space stations. by QuantumG · · Score: 1
      Well, as far as I'm aware no-one has made a spinning space station. It's science fiction. Maybe that's just cause you need a really big wheel and that's a lot of mass to put up there. I've read there's other issues too, although at the moment I'm only remembering issues with the balance systems of humans.

      Needless to say, if spinning space stations was a practical solution we would be seeing spinning space stations in orbit.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:We need spinning space stations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Needless to say, if spinning space stations was a practical solution we would be seeing spinning space stations in orbit"

      You seem to think of manned spaceflight as a market full of competing products where practical solutions bubble up automatically. Quite the opposite is true: the Apollo design was a practical solution, yet it was scrapped in favour of a flying brick called the Space Shuttle. The current descision process to fund space projects doesn't lead necessarily to progress. This is true for NASA, but also for every other government-funded space program in the world.

      Let a few Bigelows and Rutans sort it out among themselves and then we'll see how practical rotating space stations will be.

    3. Re:We need spinning space stations. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget the russians who take space habitats very seriously. They've done dozens of experiments with spinning habitats and yet they've never chosen such a design for a perminate space station? That seems kinda illogical for our russian friends doesn't it? Unless, of course, that all those experiments led them to believe that spinning habitats just aint as useful as the science fiction would have us believe.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:We need spinning space stations. by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just in case you actually care. The reason spinning space stations don't work is called coriolis acceleration. Basically spinning results in horizontal as well as vertical acceleration. The vertical is what you want. The horizonal is what disorients and makes astronauts sick. Now, if you happen to have a really really big wheel you can reduce the effects of coriolis acceleration but yeah, you need all that mass. One solution to this is to use a tether and spin a small station around a very very long axis (like kms). That's great an all but 1) it doesn't work in low earth orbit and 2) if the tether breaks you've got a nice uncontrollable projectile there. Then there's the actual problem of getting it spinning in the first place.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:We need spinning space stations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Above Soviet Russia, station spins YOU!

  42. The ESA portion is sitting on Titan by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    The NASA portion was the Orbiter, which accounted for the vast majority of the mission.

  43. Mercury's atmosphere by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is more like a few of those super-ball thingies bouncing around a really roomy tank. The particles don't even interract with each other: the most prevalent collision is by far the particles with the surface. In fact, there's some question about solar pressure 'blowing' away the atmosphere. (though it would be replenished by solar wind particles) On earth would be very difficult to get a vacuum of the quality of mercury's "atmosphere." calling it a trace is extremely generous.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  44. International Cassini spacecraft? by i41Overlord · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cassini is NASA. ESA was the Huygens probe.

    If both NASA and the ESA want to share credit for the whole mission, fine, I'd go with that. But that didn't seem to be the attitude when the Huygens probe landed on Titan. When that happened, I recall the ESA being *very* specific that it was their probe- and their accomplishment, and not NASA's. I thought that was a bit rude. In other words they want to share partial credit for what isn't thiers, but they want to take total credit for what is theirs.

    1. Re:International Cassini spacecraft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

      So far, exploration of the outer solar system has been a NASA show with some contributions from other places. By far the bulk of it has been NASA though. It does a great disservice to NASA to pretend otherwise.

    2. Re:International Cassini spacecraft? by jalet · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're right, but who cares ?

      Let this bunch of space scientists fight each other on this "very interesting" subject, and let we mere mortals admire what they have done.

      Do you really believe space belongs to the USA, China, India, Europe or any other country or continent ?

      Let me tell you something : Space doesn't care.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    3. Re:International Cassini spacecraft? by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      The Cassini orbiter is almost only NASA but not entirely. I do think that if we're going to cooperate with NASA we should be more objective about who contributed with what. Luckily, media over here was pretty good in pointing out how Cassini was mainly a NASA project while Huygens was mainly a ESA project.

    4. Re:International Cassini spacecraft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the tools and instruments on Hyugens were researched, developed, and constructed at American unversities.

      The whole she-bang truly is a pretty international effort. If it makes the Europeans feel better about themselves by trying to hog the spotlight, fine.

      If it makes the Americans feel slighted that they're doing that, fine.

      Science is science.

  45. Thank goodness by deblau · · Score: 1

    Now we don't have to send that probe to Europa. We all know how bad that would be.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    1. Re:Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aliens are still planning to probe Uranus, however

  46. Mmmm, Enceladus. by ShagratTheTitleless · · Score: 0

    In addition to the atmosphere, Enceladus also has a mountain of rice and sea of beans on one side.

    --
    Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
  47. Re:Isn't Europa a moon of Jupiter? by d0st03vsky · · Score: 0

    I call shennanigans. The article says Europa is a moon of Saturn. Europa is a moon of Jupiter. I was simply adding a correction/clarification for everyone's edification.

  48. Let me know when the clouds clear over Perelandra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then we'll know the real shit is about to go down.

  49. It might. by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If, under the surface, you have a cavern, or network of caverns, of sufficient size, which are 100% isolated from the primary atmosphere and where the composition of the air is non-trivially different, it would be possible to argue the case for Enceladus having two atmospheres.


    Alternatively, since gravity appears to be insufficient to hold the atmosphere in, if the northern hemisphere's atmosphere and southern hemisphere's atmosphere never interact (eg: there's nothing left of either by the time you reach the equator) then you could again argue that they should be considered distinct and not part of a single whole atmosphere.


    Of course, these are highly improbable, but this IS Slashdot.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:It might. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Can someone mod this up as Interesting?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  50. Ah! New From Gratis! by Alpha_Traveller · · Score: 1

    FreeAtmospheres.com [FreeAtmospheresOnTheMoonsOfYourChoice.com]

    --
    "Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
  51. You do not understand what they are really saying by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    What they are really advoacting is that we NEVER send humans into space again. After all, why send anyone away from the earth when we can just always send a video camera on treads? Why not just keep developing better video cameras instead of going to all the trouble to actually set researches on-site?

    Or so the thinking goes. I fail to understand it either, as the thinking is as inherantly alien to me as martian microbes.

    There are many that would advocate complete abandonment of any manned space efforts. Happily there are still plenty of people with sound long-term vision.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  52. Anyone want to try my filters? by qualico · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's a good thing I'm *not* employed as a scientist.
    This way I can butcher the pictures.

    Here is the link to the Enceladus image I cooked up to bring out all those surface features instead of that drab grey.
    Enceladus Feature Contrast

  53. Coincidentally... by serutan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Our sysadmin's cube also has an atmosphere created by gas escaping.

    1. Re:Coincidentally... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Just be thankful he doesn't have geysers.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  54. Great picture by egosum · · Score: 1

    Amazing, a small moon orbiting Saturn that would fit in the state of Arizona, and we have pictures of this quality!

    1. Re:Great picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes its amazing what GIMP can do ;-)

  55. Yay mods! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to see the earlier post get modded down as redundant, and this one as +5 funny.

  56. wow by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    that was inspired

  57. Huygens was a disappointment too by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    We were promised spectacular pictures but all we got was some grainy poor quality B&W pics and one false colour one of the surface. Given this is probably the first & last landing on titan for decades I think they could have put in a better camera. Even viking managed better quality pictures back in 1976.

  58. What do they mean by "substantial" atmosphere? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Do they mean that if you stood on the surface you could feel a breeze, could you fly in it? Or do they simply mean that it has a measurable presense via a number of instruments? It doesn't even appear on the photos so it can't be that substantial.

  59. Immanuel Velikovsky would be pleased by leonbrooks · · Score: 0, Troll

    One more of his predictions gets a gold star. Wouldn't surpise him to see small amounts of heavier hydrocarbons too.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Immanuel Velikovsky would be pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft. Velikovsky was so full of shit, if you gave him an enema you could bury what's left in a Sucrets tin.

      Most of his life was squandered on attempting to scientifically validate Jewish mythology, amongst other mythologies that he picked on the basis of how well they agreed with his theories.

      His "science" bas been shredded by actual scientists. Why are you even bringing up his name?

  60. Not to start a flamewar... by nnappe · · Score: 1

    But surely it's the KDEs...

    --not only duck, but run away and hide in nuclear shelter

  61. ObSpaceBallsRef by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    For those who don't get it.

    Oh, help yourself to another can of Perri-air before you pass out.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  62. Who knows...? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Phobos' whacking great craters were made by outgassing too? If they were done by impacts, thees leetle moon, she's a history.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  63. Moderation hints .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to point out that the parent post obviously meant that its parent should be moderated "Interesting", when he said: vote this interesting. Who are you, mod-bots?

    1. Re:Moderation hints .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that is the joke.
      Please mod every eighth post as interesting.

    2. Re:Moderation hints .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, how lacking are you in humour? Try going outside and meeting people...

  64. mod up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no

  65. pressure, density? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately the important information is missing. At every larger body one will find an increase of the density of interplanetary gas (due to gravity) which can be called an atmosphere. The question is, what is the surface pressure at Enceladus?

  66. But by slapout · · Score: 1

    Yes, but is it a class "M"?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  67. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saturn was discovered to have a moon called "Enceladus".

  68. Liquid != Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many people make this unbelievable spontaneous generation claim still today!

  69. it has always bothered me by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    that scientists think alien life would need water, oxygen and heat to survive. there is life at the bottom of the ocean that survives on sulphur and the heat from vents - there's almost no oxygen down there. Who's to say life on another planet wont be more obscure?

    1. Re:it has always bothered me by DrinkingIllini · · Score: 1

      They don't say that it's neccessary, but we can be certainthat life can exist if these things are there, that makes it the best place to look for life first.

    2. Re:it has always bothered me by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      obviously finding a planet exactly like earth, hiding on the other side of the moon would be quite a likely candidate, but they never consider (at least on the news) the harsh climates that animals on *this* planet can *thrive* in

  70. From tinterplanetary spacecraft Tsein by narcc · · Score: 1

    There is life on Enceladus...There is life on Enceladus...

  71. Re:You do not understand what they are really sayi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, with the Earth only 8,000 years old, and the Rapture coming any day now, why bother with leaving the planet?

    -Munch "I glad some people have an active fantasy life, I just wish they wouldn't apply it to politics" Wolf

  72. You haven't read any of the books, have you? by leonbrooks · · Score: 0, Troll

    It shows. Big time.

    IV spends a fair few words shredding Jewish and other mythologies - at least, as they are normally interpreted.

    IV predicted that Venus would be hot (but still cooling measurably), with high-pressure hydrocarbon-containing atmosphere and odd rotation while everyone else was predicting Earthlike conditions.

    IV predicted that Jupiter would be a radio source, while everyone else said no.

    IV predicted much stronger magnetism in the Lunar rocks than anybody else.

    IV predicted that hydrocarbons would be found in comet tails, while everyone else was determined to stick with just dust and ice.

    There were many other successful predictions - and watch out for solid-sounding but unsuccessful debunkings, as well. Velikovsky did indeed get some things wrong (IMESHO a few of them very badly wrong), but not near as many as his critics have claimed.

    For example, the "Venus has no hydrocarbons" argument is based on measurement of the cloud tops, not of the body of the atmosphere. Would you expect to see heavy hydrocarbons in the could tops? The "Venus should have left footprints in the Greenland ice" argument was based on an ice dating system which mistook diffusion-based varves for annual varves (and is still widely accepted anyway, wooja bleev?). And so on.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing