Twelve New Moons Found for Saturn

sebFlyte writes "Auntie is reporting that astronomers have found 12 new moons orbiting Saturn. Most of these are thought to be captured bodies, and they bring the total number of Saturn's moons up to 46, which is 17 short of Jupiter's total of 63. The new moons don't seem to have been named yet."

Comments

hmm, lots of moons there....

[Malor]

If they haven't already used it, at least one of these moons should be 'Sagan'. :-)

Re:hmm, lots of moons there....

[Scott7477]

If it is, how about "Butt head Astronomer"?

What defines a moon?

[turtled]

What is the smallest size before it is not concidered to be a moon?

Re:What defines a moon?

[feidaykin]

Both the terms "moon" and "planet" are very subjective and usually it falls to the whim of the particular astronomer that discovered the thing. There's no set of guidelines. For example many astronomers consider the Earth and Moon to be almost a twin-planet system, because our moon is so large relative to the planet itself, and many consider Pluto not to be a planet at all but perhaps an escaped moon of one of the gas giants. Also astronomers seem to be prejudice toward balls of ice, those usually will never be called a planet no matter how large. So, there is really no cutoff size for moons or planets, and the classification is really not an exact science.

Re:What defines a moon?

[TFGeditor]

Rules (arbitrary) for defining moon:

1. Natural space material (no man-made)
2. Visible with naked eye from surface of orbited plant
3. Interesting enough that people will pay to have it named for them
4. Profit!

Okay, 3 & 4 are lame, but if you get past the difficulty of determining visibility from the orbited plant, 1 & 2 seem reasonable.

OTOH, a simpler formula, such as minimum percentage of size relative to the orbited planet (10 percent?) would be more managable.

Re:What defines a moon?

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Looks like Jordan, aka Katie Price, has two very nice moons then.

Re:What defines a moon?

[Suppafly]

OTOH, a simpler formula, such as minimum percentage of size relative to the orbited planet (10 percent?) would be more managable.

how would that be a good system, if a body the size of earth was rotating around a larger planet, you wouldn't wont it to be considered a moon if it was less than 10% the size of the planet it was orbiting? That's crazy and just as subjective as any other means of determining what to distinguish as a moon.

Re:What defines a moon?

[Ayaress]

There are set guidelines, but not everybody uses the same ones.

One of the common things I've seen used (still not universal, though) is using orbit to define what something is, and not size, not composition, not even satellites (I've seen this from both those who consider Pluto a planet and a comet, as well, even though it definitely excludes Pluto from planethood).

For moons, it's mainly a matter of wether or not it's the dominant thing in its orbit. Ring material isn't considered moons, because no single object dominates any particular orbit, but there are also small objects which orbit in gaps in Saturn's rings that are otherwise empty. They're the primary thing in their orbit, so they're considered moons.

In the case of planets, orbital domination is used, but also orbital shape and spacing is used. All the major planets (Mercury out to Neptune) are effectively alone in their orbits. Small objects cross their orbits, others orbit them, but the planets comprise the vast majority of material in their orbit. Earth is the only exception, since a considerable portion of the mass in our orbit is also tied up in our moon, which is what is what brings the "double planet" opinion - when taken together, the rest of the material along their orbit can be statistically discounted, since it's only an invisible fraction of the Earth and Moon's combined mass. Jupiter is the only planet that actually shares an orbit with objects that don't orbit it (as opposed to simply having its orbit intersected by them), but even the trojan asteroids' movements are controlled by Jupiter. Everything else in that orbital area has been cleared out long ago.

In addition, all the planets orbit inside the approximate plane of the solar system, and have fairly circular orbits, and their average distances from the sun follow a pattern.

Ceres doesn't get planetary status in this system. It fits into the pattern of orbinearlyts, it's in the plane, and it has a circular orbit, but it's not the dominant mass in its orbit due to Jupiter's influence. It hasn't cleared the other asteroids the way other planets in the solar system did in their own orbits. Ceres may be a considerable fraction of the asteroid belt's total mass, but not to such an extent that the rest of the belt can be discounted for mass purposes.

In this definition, Pluto doesn't meet any of the requirements. It doesn't fit the orbital pattern, it has a classical trans-Neptunian cometary orbit and not a planetary one (far from circular, tilted dramatically out of the solar disk), and it's not unique in its orbit due to other large comets with simmilar orbis and even comparable size, like Sedna.

Getting caught up on size and composition clouds the issue, really. If a comet the size of earth were to come in from deep space, loop just inside the orbit of mercury, then zip back out into space not to return for thousands of years, I don't think there'd be any argument. Despite it's size, it has the orbit of a comet, so it's a comet. Pluto's orbit shares many things in common with trans-neptunian comets - it's eccentric, tilted out of the plane of the planets' orbits. It's size doesn't really matter, since many asteroids and comets in the outer solar system are much larger than those that pass through the inner solar system. They're beyond the grip of Jupiter's gravity, so many of the largest objects have survived where ones in the inner solar system were eventually sucked up by the major planets, and comets that pass through the inner solar system loose mass on every orbit, comets that don't approach the sun keep all of their material, instead increasing in size from collisions with other objects.

Re:What defines a moon?

[TFGeditor]

So, if we colonize Earth's moon, then what?

Besides, some of the races encountered by assort ST crews lived on moons of larger planets, so there is anecdotal precedent.

Re:What defines a moon?

[Madcapjack]

Both the terms "moon" and "planet" are very subjective and usually it falls to the whim of the particular astronomer that discovered the thing. There's no set of guidelines

So, everytime an astronomer makes the newspaper, she/he just announces the finding of a new moon around Saturn? Sounds pretty easy, lots of space rock around Saturn? Can I name some space dust? Please pretty please?

Re:What defines a moon?

[Anonymous Coward]

The size of the average slashdot user's brain.
Then it's called a 'pebble'

Re:What defines a moon?

[baadfood]

"If a comet the size of earth were to come in from deep space, loop just inside the orbit of mercury, then zip back out into space not to return for thousands of years, I don't think there'd be any argument. Despite it's size, it has the orbit of a comet, so it's a comet." What? Of course there would be argument. At least from me. Orbits change. Mass does not. Its a planet because, despite its odd orbit, its as big as a planet. And round. And might even have an atmosphere and stuff. Unless it was a ball of ice in which case Id say it was a big ****ing comet.

Re:What defines a moon?

[Ayaress]

That's basically the point. I said it would be an earth-sized comet. A ball of snow and dirt. That's also what Pluto is, by the way - it has the same composition of other large comets.

Re:What defines a moon?

[barawn]

Small objects cross their orbits, others orbit them, but the planets comprise the vast majority of material in their orbit. Earth is the only exception, since a considerable portion of the mass in our orbit is also tied up in our moon, which is what is what brings the "double planet" opinion - when taken together, the rest of the material along their orbit can be statistically discounted, since it's only an invisible fraction of the Earth and Moon's combined mass.

The usual claim that the Earth/Moon system is a double planet would be from the orbital dynamics of it, but that's not a good argument - the Moon orbits the Earth, not a point in space (like Charon and Pluto do). Charon is about 8% of Pluto's mass - in other words, they're about an order of magnitude apart. The Earth and the Moon are more like two orders of magnitude apart, and the next closest (Triton and Neptune, I think) are about 4 orders of magnitude apart (actually 3.5). If Triton was just a little bigger - say, Titan sized (factor of 5) - I doubt anyone would call the Earth-Moon a double planet system.

I've never bought the orbital inclination definition. That just defines "primordial planet". If a star captures a rogue planet in a very eccentric orbit, it'll still be a planet. Or if a Jupiter sized object perturbs a smaller planet into an eccentric orbit, it's still a planet.

The "majority of mass in orbit" is a pretty good definition, without even "vast". Ceres would still fail that, and I think even Pluto might just barely sneak in. Depends on how you calculate the "orbit", because Pluto is definitely quite massive - if you said "semimajor axis +/- 5%", Pluto is probably still fine (semimajor axis +/- eccentricity and it'd fail, though). You might pick up Sedna or Quaoar, though, but it's too early to tell.

I've always been fond of simply saying anything that can pull itself into sphere with its own gravity and orbits a star (and nothing else) is a planet. That makes Ceres a planet, though (along with several others).

and it's not unique in its orbit due to other large comets with simmilar orbis and even comparable size, like Sedna

Sedna, incidentally, does not have the same orbit as Pluto. Nowhere near. Sedna is obscenely farther away than Pluto (~500 AU +/- 400 vs. 39 +/- 10). Quaoar is close, but still mostly outside of Pluto's orbit (42 AU).

Oddly enough, Quaoar might win if you define it as "semimajor axis +/- eccentricity" as the region for mass exclusion, because it is very circular. I doubt there's much of anything within that ring, though Pluto is there for a portion of the time. Again, depends on how you calculate it.

Names

[youknowmewell]

Big rock 1, Big rock 2, Big rock 3...

Re:Names

[squiggleslash]

Don't you think we should ask the people who live there first what they want their moons to be called before we start imposing names on them?

Crap. Wrong day.

Re:Names

[Shag]

Yep! The orbit of the satellite needs to be known pretty well before they're willing to name it -- just to make sure it IS a satellite, and isn't going to A) fly off into space or B) crash into the planet after a few more orbits. :)

Names?

[El Icaro]

Can I name one first post?

My Suggestion

[tod_miller]

One should be called 'Sofia'. (with an f)

Sofia literally means 'wisdom' in Greek and I guess it is through our advancement as a society that we produce the technology to find these moons (or better classify them).

Now that might not be wisdom, but it is a nice name!

Lets petition it! who do we write to? :D

Re:My Suggestion

[gr8dude]

i'm sure you read "The DaVinci Code" ;-)

Re:My Suggestion

[shadowdata]

I suggest you read "Sophie's World" instead ... its much much more enriching than da vinci :P

Re:My Suggestion

[tod_miller]

I was puzzled as to which comment you were replying to. I have actually decided not to read the davinci code, and I think that guy is an arrogant piss head IMHO, and the last bit of the CIA encoded statue he did by himself, and he fudged it up so bad he is now embarrassed about it, and he cannot even give out the original message, because then people woudl realise he ballsed it up.

I do not like the guy.

Anonymous Coward

[NoSuchGuy]

How about we name 5 of them "Anonymous Coward"?

Re:Anonymous Coward

[weeboo0104]

Where's the Cowboy Neil option?

And the new names shall be..

[Mr Europe]

George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Gondoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney,...

Oblig. Simpsons names

[Jack Taylor]

Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Nixon, ... Comet, Cupid, Donna Dixon.

Ob starwars

[Elminst]

Except that last one....
That's not a moon! That's... ahh.. it's too easy.

Re:Ob starwars

[coachvince]

Those aren't moons; they're a giant cluster of modded Mac Minis!

At least I didn't put this as a reply to the original!

Previous 34 moons

[TripMaster Monkey]

Here's a list of the other 34 moons...these names are already taken:

Titan, Pan, Atlas, Prometheus, Pandora, Epimetheus, Janus, Calypso, Telesto, Helene, Methone, Pallene, Polydueces, Ymir, Paaliaq, Siarnaq, Tarvos, Kiviuq, Ijiraq, Thrym, Skadi, Mundilfari, Erriapo, Albiorix, Suttung, NarviMimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Hyperion, Iapetus, Phoebe.

Re:Previous 34 moons

[Monokeros]

... and Bob

Re:Previous 34 moons

[uniqueUser]

I hear that there is tons of oil on the surface of Ijiraq. Let's see if it's people whant to be free!

Re:Previous 34 moons

[rev_sanchez]

How about Rupert? Are we saving that for another planet?

Re:Previous 34 moons

[mbourgon]

I thought that was the name of a UT clan or something.

Cassini?

[Nuffsaid]

At first, I wondered why these moons were not spotted by the Cassini probe from its much closer point of view. The answer lies probably in their large orbital radius. These bodies are farther from Saturn than Phoebe, the first moon Cassini encountered while approaching Saturn for the first time. The main Cassini mission happens well inside their orbit, so that the probe should point outward in order to spot them. It probably will, now that their existence and position is known, but it would have been wasteful to do a survey of the open sky far from Saturn, with so many interesting things to see in detail around it.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld already in use

[NoSuchGuy]

George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney

These names are already in use by some slime-mold Beetles. Read more here

How in the world?

[kniLnamiJ-neB]

Are they all in a line, following each other around the planet? Or at different altitudes? Or what? Seems that with that many of them flying around, they're bound to crash into each other sometime.

Re:How in the world?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Well, there's quite a bit of room out there...I think Douglas Adams summed it up best:

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

What?! No obligatory names?

[Dark Coder]

What about "Vulcan"?

Zodiac, obviously.

[Markus Registrada]

12 moons, 12 signs. They'd better be careful not to find any more.

Does it strike anybody else as strange how close together
their orbits are, considering how far out they are? It suggests to me a single body that was broken up by a just- barely- sufficient blow.

Name one for yourself!

[bluGill]

There are 12 new moons to name. For $10000 I will register the name of your moon in a book with the US copyright office ($500 for each extra foreign country). You will also get a chart of the night sky, and instructions on how to find saturn, and your moon[1]. But wait, there is more, I will also send you a customized version of kstars with your moon name and orbit clearly marked, so you can keep track of your moon at anytime.

Better hurry, there are only 12 moons to name, once they are gone they are gone.

Don't be fooled my cheap name a star offers. There are millions of stars to name, but Saturn only has unnamed 12 moons - once they are named I will never make an offer to name them again.

[1]Telescope powerful enough to view your moon is available for an extra charge.

Re:Name one for yourself!

[denidoom]

I wish my boyfriend would do that for me, just like it says in the commercial. Now that's love

Re:Name one for yourself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying a star name in star registry: $50

Buying a telescope to look at the star: $300

Having a boyfriend stupid enough to fall for this scam: Priceless

Names

[Jarlsberg]

The new moons don't seem to have been named yet.

It often takes about a year from the discovery of the moon until it can be named. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) require detailed observations over time in order to recognize the moon as an unique object.

Have a moon sale.......

[stfvon007]

Aution off the right to name the moons, and use the money for better telescopes, funding research, maintaining hubble, ect. Though do we really want moons named "Bill Gates" and "Wal-mart"?

Re:Have a moon sale.......

[RockModeNick]

Wal-Moon - always the lowest gravity

Re:What?! No obligatory names?

[CanSpice]

That's the name of the planet orbitting inside of Mercury's orbit.

No, seriously!

asteroid belt?

[geo.georgi]

What's the point of having so many satellites?
Why don't we say, that Saturn (and Jupiter) have asteroid belt?

Re:asteroid belt?

[barakn]

Even asteroids have names.

Good point

[leonbrooks]

Naming each chunk in Saturn's rings should keep the hucksters busy for a while. Special on the 100m-500m range this week only.

I think that counts as man made

[leonbrooks]

The man in question being her Dad.

Oh, what a feeling!

[leonbrooks]

That will make at least one Western Australian business very happy.

Not twelve

[leonbrooks]

Apparently, the bag limit is now fifteen signs, limit of three per customer.