Slashdot Mirror


Pluto's 3 Moons and a Probe to Study Them

It doesn't come easy writes "For those of you keeping score, Pluto now officially has three moons, with more possibly to follow. The newfound moons orbit about 27,000 miles (44,000 kilometers) from Pluto, more than twice as far as Charon, Pluto's other satellite. They are 5,000 times dimmer than Charon. The moons were found using the Hubble Space Telescope. For now, Pluto is the only Kuiper Belt object known to have satellites. Some nice images of Pluto and its moons are included in links. Enjoy!" Relatedly IZ Reloaded writes "NASA says the Atlas 5 rocket that will carry the New Horizons Pluto probe has suffered slight damage thanks to Hurricane Wilma. New Scientist reports: "The Atlas 5 rocket stands within a construction hangar at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on Florida's east coast. As Wilma rolled though the region on 24 October, fierce 122-kilometer-per-hour winds tore holes in the hangar's 83-meter-tall door and caused minor damage to the rocket inside.""

20 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Hey now! by rackhamh · · Score: 3, Funny

    There will be no moon probing while I'm around!

    1. Re:Hey now! by mctk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Those aren't moons. Those are space stations.

      --
      Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  2. No confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    So not official. RTFA. That's no moon....that's a canditate.

  3. Nice? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    some nice images of Pluto and its moons are included in links

    Nice? The photographs are a bunch of small white dots! Does anyone else see real photographs? I guess he is referring to the "artistic conceptual drawings"

    1. Re:Nice? by l2718 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A bunch of small white dots is very good, actually. The fact that both Pluto and Charon come out as extended objects in the short exposure picture is quite impressive in its own right. I wonder if the long exposure has better resolution or is smeared due to an imprefect correction for the relative motion of the telescope and Pluto. Any astronomers reading this?

    2. Re:Nice? by Black.Shuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Does anyone else see real photographs?

      The Wikipedia is currently exhibiting the best true-color image of Pluto to date:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

    3. Re:Nice? by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nice? The photographs are a bunch of small white dots! Does anyone else see real photographs? I guess he is referring to the "artistic conceptual drawings"

      I disagree. For those of us who get excited about these things, they are actually really cool. For anyone who spends much time in front of a telescope, these are quite exciting.

      Now, in terms of whether Pluto is a planet or not... It is clear that it did not form from the same planetary disk that spawned the planets from Neptune on in. It does not appear to be made of the same material, nor does it appear to be close to the plane of the ecliptic. Mars's moons are different and were clearly captured as well though probably from the asteroid belt where planetary formation was disrupted by the gravity of Jupiter (though I suspect that our moon was formed along with the earth in the same band-- the fact that the moon is a near perfect sphere, and that it is within a couple degrees of the ecliptic support this hypothesis I think better than the idea that either the moon was ejected from the earth or that it was captured). Pluto as the nearest of the large KBO's provides many opportunities to study issues involving comet formation and even the dynamics which may have brought the precursors of life to our planet.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  4. No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    For now, Pluto is the only Kuiper Belt object known to have satellites.

    My good friend UB313 would have to disagree.

    There are actually several known KBOs with moons. Or was the submitter being overly litteral and meant multiple moons?

    1. Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only does Xena have a moon (Gabrielle), but so does Santa (Rudolph). Yes, for those who didn't know, there are minor planets out there whose discoverers not only want to name them after fictional lesbian TV characters, but also Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

      I don't know what the submitter was thinking when they wrote that statement.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    2. Re:No other Kuiper Belt Objects have moons?!? by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was more than subtext. How about the episode where Gabrielle, at the end after much buildup, comes out as a "thespian"? Or how about the episode in which Xena has her mind in Bruce Campbell's body, and sleeps with Gabrielle? Or how about the episode where the reality show follows them around discusses the nature of their relationship? It was a running joke that they were lesbians, and there was no attempt to hide it - they played it up every chance they got (one character trapped underwater, another has to dive down and kiss to give air, etc). Check out this search. There was an interview that I ran into a while ago in which one of the creators explicitly stated (to paraphrase) "We've always tried to keep it vague... but yeah, they're lesbians.", but in my attempt to search for it, I ran into some pictures that I distinctly did not want to come across while at a work PC, and terminated my search promptly (you can look for it yourself).

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  5. Quite a few KBO have moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unlike what the poster said, Pluto is not the only one with a moon.
    Various other KBOs do, including Xena :
    http://www.planetary.org/news/2005/xena_moon_1003. html

  6. As usual, Lovecraft foresaw this by Yeechang+Lee · · Score: 3, Informative
    [A] new ninth planet has been glimpsed beyond Neptune, just as those influences had said it would be glimpsed. Astronomers, with a hideous appropriateness they little suspect, have named this thing "Pluto." I feel, beyond question, that it is nothing less than nighted Yuggoth - and I shiver when I try to figure out the real reason why its monstrous denizens wish it to be known in this way at this especial time. I vainly try to assure myself that these daemoniac creatures are not gradually leading up to some new policy hurtful to the earth and its normal inhabitants . . . Sometimes I fear what the years will bring, especially since that new planet Pluto has been so curiously discovered.
    "The Whisperer in Darkness" (1930)
    I hope we have our XK-PLUTO nuclear-powered bombers ready for the Old Ones. Me? I'm going to take a little trip to XK-Masada.
  7. Or by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pluto now officially has three moons

    More like "four big asteroids are gravitating around each other beyond the orbit of Neptune".

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  8. Pluto has 3 moons? by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does that mean we can call them "Cerebus" collectively?

    --
    "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
  9. Re:Actually... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...it's not even official yet

    Okay then: "two big asteroids are known to be orbiting around each other beyond Neptune, but two more are presumed to have joined the party, which incidentally pisses Neptune off to high heavens".

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  10. Classification by Da3vid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it really a big deal when we name something a moon? Its just a matter of relativity. A planet, a moon, an asteroid, a rock... they're all the same thing, that varies by degrees. I suppose the things orbital path is of interest, but how much can we really learn just by applying labels? We didn't learn anything about the true scientific nature of those bodies, we just named them. I think I'll name them Susanna, Melinda and Jim.

    -Da3vid-

  11. Re:Hubble by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny
    Yeah, I can see why too:


    Dubya: we need to kill Hubble. We have more, erhm.., pressing needs for money
    Hubble astronomers: No wait! We found another Pluto moon !
    NASA: come on, we can't kill the thing, it's useful
    Dubya: hmm, I dunno...
    Astronomers: Wait! wait! anOTHER moon!!
    NASA: Wow
    Dubya: stop that...
    Astronomers: Hold on... HOLY CRAP, TEN MORE MOONS! and a black hole inside Jupiter too!!!
    Dubya: We're closing guys, you need to go home now...
    Astronomers: NO REALLY! LOOK! ALL THESE MOONS!!! ...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  12. Re:Kinda small... by l2718 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    These "moons" are only 30 and 100 miles across. Mars' Phobos and Deimos, widely thought to be captured asteroids, are thousands of kilometers across.

    You are way out of the ballpark, I'm afraid. These two new moon are larger than Phobos (diameter approx. 22Km) and Deimos (diameter approx. 12Km). The Earth (and its moon) Mars, Venus, Mercury, the Galilean Moons and Titan are thousands of kilometers across, but everything else is much smaller. Ceres (the largest asteriod) is only 914Km across.

  13. You got the scale wildly wrong by geoswan · · Score: 3, Informative
    What!

    Even if you rolled all the rockets we have ever launched, and all the fuel we packed into them, I doubt it they would form a sphere even a single kilometer in diameter.

    A Saturn V was about 20 meters in diameter, and about 100 meters tall, more or less. Volume of a cylinder is pi r^2 * length. That would make the volume of a Saturn V about pi * 2500 meters^3.

    The volume of a sphere is 3/4 * pi r^3. The volume of a sphere one kilometer in diameter would be pi * 93,750,000 meters^3. That would be volumne of something like the prelaunch volume of 37,000 Saturn Vs. The payload of a rocket is a fraction of the mass of the entire thing. Let's say 1%. Most rockets are much smaller than a Saturn V. Payloads launched into low earth orbits decay within decades, like Mir, or Spacelab.

    It wouldn't surprise me if the volume of all the working satellites, and space detritus, that remain in orbit would be less than the prelaunch volume of a single Saturn V.

  14. Re:Nice? I am not a professional astronomer, but.. by Razor+Sex · · Score: 5, Informative

    1) The impactor, known alternately as Orpheus or Theia, has been modeled to have been about the size of Mars, and to have hit Earth at a very oblique angle. 2) The absolute best evidence we have for the theory is that the moon has essentially no iron core. All the other terrestrial planets do. As it turns out, the comosition of the moon is remarkably similar to that of Earth's mantle (oxygen/silicon). It is theorized that most of Theia's core merged with our own. Earth's mean density is, if I recall, something on the order of 5500 kg/m^3. The moon has a mean density of something like 3300 kg/m^3. If you were to take out the Earth's iron/nickle core and replace it with mantle material, it would have a mean density similar to that of the moon. 3) As an astronomy minor and having taken planetary formation courses, I've never heard anything about carbonaceous chondrite cores forming the basic building blocks of planets. Carbon, counterintuitively, isn't even too abundant on Earth. Or anywhere else for that matter. Or rather, there certainly is a lot of it, but not compared to oxygen, silicon, iron, aluminum, etc. 4) You can't compare the models of planetary formation in the inner solar system to the outer. Not on a 1:1 basis. The outer planets are significantly larger than the inner because they formed past the frost line (about halfway through the asteroid belt). After this line, ice stays in crystalline form, allowing the rocky starts of the other planets to aggregate much more mass, both planetary and gaseous (the rocky core of Jupiter, at least, is probably about 20 times the size of Earth). With this much more mass, they can more easily capture smaller planetismals, which become moons. It would be far, far easier for a Jupiter to capture Luna than for Earth. 5) As alluded to in the beignning of this post, computer simulations have been done on both the capture and impact theories (including many variations of). The impact theory works. The capture does not. 6) That we have plate tectonics, significant ocean basins, etc, could also be construed as evidence for the giant impact theory. Venus has no moons, and there is little evidence that it ever underwent plate tectonics. The same goes for Mars, and I assume Mercury, though I am not sure on the latter. But the most important thing here is #2. That's the smoking gun.