Slashdot Mirror


Saturn's Moons Built From Ring Material

LiquidCoooled writes "Two of Saturn's small moons look eerily like flying saucers, new observations by the Cassini spacecraft reveal. The moons, which lie within the giant planet's rings, may have come by their strange shape by gradually accumulating ring particles in a ridge around their equators."

115 comments

  1. Actually relevant by explosivejared · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow, the "that's no moon" comments actually have some relevance now, as one can say "that's not moon... it's aggregated ring material that only looks like a moon!"

    --
    I got a catholic block.
    1. Re:Actually relevant by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The earth isn't a planet, it's aggregated stellar dust that looks like a planet!

      A planet/moon is just aggregated dust from something. Being aggregated ring dust doesn't make it less of a moon.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Actually relevant by explosivejared · · Score: 1

      The earth isn't a planet, it's aggregated stellar dust that looks like a planet! Which Star Wars was that one from? See I find Science hard so I have to orient it around things I do understand, like science fiction. See I didn't understand just how devastating being left out unprotected in space could be, you know black body radiation and lack of oxygen, until I read the Hitchhiker's Guide. I also didn't understand the dangers of a robot killing frenzy (a proven scientific fact!) until I read Asimov. So until George Lucas or Ray Bradbury proves your assertion from above, please just stick to the proven facts. ;)

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    3. Re:Actually relevant by blahlemon · · Score: 1

      Wow, the "that's no moon" comments actually have some relevance now, as one can say "that's not moon... it's aggregated ring material that only looks like a moon!"

      Yeah, but how would it sound with Alex Guiness saying it?

      --
      It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
    4. Re:Actually relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Bush had been claiming for a significant period of time that there was no ring dust on those moons.
      This finding just shows what a big liar Bush is.
      He is such a big liar that he even claims to have been speaking English to the American people these many years. He has, in fact, been speaking Etruscan. The impedence mismatch between the two languages explains the rather inept speeches Bush delivers.

    5. Re:Actually relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alec Guinness hated the film and would probably tell you to "sod off, you wanker".

      Can't say I blame him either.

    6. Re:Actually relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Saturn's moons built from ring material."
      They're built from shit?

    7. Re:Actually relevant by onion2k · · Score: 1

      Our moon isn't aggregated dust, it's a chuck of Earth that was knocked off by an impact with something early in the life of the planet.

    8. Re:Actually relevant by debianlinux · · Score: 1

      Considering that a moon is defined as a naturally occurring satellite orbiting a planetary body the phrase "that's no moon" is still irrelevant.

    9. Re:Actually relevant by jav1231 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bravo..no really...pounding the anti-Bush rhetoric into a completely unrelated thread is awesome...

      Okay, Folks, I'll hold him down, someone get his medication ready.

    10. Re:Actually relevant by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it came from a chunk of aggregated dust, doesnt that just make it a slightly more modified chunk of aggregated dust?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    11. Re:Actually relevant by morcego · · Score: 1

      Humm, who are you holding down, and who should we medicate ? The parent poster, or Bush ?

      --
      morcego
    12. Re:Actually relevant by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The earth isn't a planet, it's aggregated stellar dust that looks like a planet!

      Soylent Ring is People!

    13. Re:Actually relevant by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Everyone. It's safer that way. I'll go first.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    14. Re:Actually relevant by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      No, our moon was a moon of Minerva until Minerva's two warring factions destroyed the planet and the moon was captured by Earth.

      Inherit The Stars

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    15. Re:Actually relevant by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Make sure you save some for me. I wanna be sedated...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    16. Re:Actually relevant by dwye · · Score: 1

      I also didn't understand the dangers of a robot killing frenzy (a proven scientific fact!) until I read Asimov.

      But Asimov only had one robot killing frenzy in his entire Robot series (although one other story LOOKED like it might devolve into one, soon after). You must mean Robert Silverberg.

      Or else you are thinking of the movie version of I, Robot (version like The Thing was a version of Who Goes There?). But that would be silly.

    17. Re:Actually relevant by dwye · · Score: 1
      But the GP poster's joke went over your head, too. Bush hasn't been speaking English, but Etruscian? He was blaming everything on Bush with everything so broad as to ridicule those who just blame him for losing the regspect of the French Intellectual class, or the love of the Arab Street, or causing the Internet Bubble to burst.

      Very meta, that.

    18. Re:Actually relevant by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Props to you, dwye, for picking up the sardonic intent. Must friend you.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    19. Re:Actually relevant by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    20. Re:Actually relevant by __NR_kill · · Score: 1

      More actual things, or should I say zings? For zose who actually read-ze-fucking-article and played ze movie.. zis french guy should not be allowed to comment on ze movie.. I barely understood what he had to say.

  2. Built? by skeftomai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By god, right? How about a better word, like 'consists?'

    1. Re:Built? by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Built is a perfectly appropriate word. Consists simply tells what something is made of, built tells how. Since it didn't spontaneously pop into existence, built works fine.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Built? by blahlemon · · Score: 1

      -1 troll is bullcrap. The comment was never intended to be a troll (and yeah I'll happily burn some karma on this.) Just because you disagree with someones world view is no reason to mod them -1 troll.

      --
      It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
    3. Re:Built? by skeftomai · · Score: 1

      The Bible does, but whether science does is highly debatable.

    4. Re:Built? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Yep, the point of these papers isn't composition, it's process.

    5. Re:Built? by skeftomai · · Score: 1
      Google says the definition of built is:

      assembled: formed by fitting or joining components together
      Does "fitting or joining" imply a fitter/joiner?
    6. Re:Built? by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      no.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    7. Re:Built? by ardle · · Score: 1

      C'mon - you have to admit that referring to a document that alleges that the lump we live on was built by a person in a matter of days - particularly in the middle of a discussion about the formation of such lumps over more natural time-spans - at least looks like a troll ;-)

    8. Re:Built? by blahlemon · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but there wasn't any bridges close to it and the *language* wasn't angry. lol

      --
      It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
  3. Ring Material by CaseyB · · Score: 3, Funny

    Saturn's moons are made of Scrith?

    1. Re:Ring Material by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      heh, I made a comment about Louis Wu and Nessus in the original submission but it got removed.

      OT: have you read Nivens new book (Fleet of Worlds) yet - I thought it was good.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Ring Material by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      Saturn's moons are made of Scrith?

      darn you CaseyB, you beat me to it...

    3. Re:Ring Material by OK+PC · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is Niven the guy who ripped off Halo?

      (I kid, I kid!)

      --
      Did you get that thing I sent ya?
    4. Re:Ring Material by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's definitely "scrith": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrith#Scrith

      1970 comes before 1994. Imitators need not apply.

    5. Re:Ring Material by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Bastard! I was all ready with "So can we call them Ringworlds?"

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    6. Re:Ring Material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saturn's moons built from ring material. One of them was forged in the fires of Mount Doom and it has an inscription:
      One Moon to rule them all, One Moon to find them, One Moon to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

    7. Re:Ring Material by un1quen1ck · · Score: 1

      No,no! Everybody knows that Saturn's rings are made from LOST AIRLINE LUGGAGE :)

  4. Or Maybe... by nhstar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Saturn's Rings are made of moon material? Is this chick or egg?

    --
    --- no sig to see here... move along.
    1. Re:Or Maybe... by Liquidrage · · Score: 2

      FYI:

      The egg came before the chicken. That's just how evolution works. A non-chicken did not have all its DNA mutate mid-life turning it into a chicken. Instead, the zygote of the first chicken had all it's DNA intact at conception, passed along from two parents that were not quite chickens.

    2. Re:Or Maybe... by Wellspring · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does the mother create the egg? Or does it self-generate?

      This is actually a semiserious question

    3. Re:Or Maybe... by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      semi-serious answer: yes the mother and father hand down mutated genes to make a new and (hopefully) better creature. At least that's one theory.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    4. Re:Or Maybe... by Liquidrage · · Score: 1

      The egg "self-generates" if you're asking what I think you're asking.

      The egg is actually a sac around the fetus, and it grows with the fetus until it hardens and becomes an egg.

    5. Re:Or Maybe... by Wellspring · · Score: 1

      That was my question, thanks.

  5. There is a lord of the rings joke here by Martian_Kyo · · Score: 1

    I just can't to seem to find it.

    Moons are just LOTR spin offs

    One moon to rule them all.

    I hope they are better then The Silmarillion

  6. Toss another story into the DUH file by Farakin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ummm, no shit?

    1. Re:Toss another story into the DUH file by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      In as much as it was previously thought that the moons *couldn't* grow in the ring-region (what with tides), I'm a little curious as to how come you think their grown is obvious.

  7. Too much to ask? by Kintar1900 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it too much to ask that New Scientist stop using crappy CGI and start posting some of the actual photographs that the astronomers used to form their theories?

    1. Re:Too much to ask? by JonWan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought so too.So I googled and found this. May be redundant now tho.

      http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/saturn/atlas.html

    2. Re:Too much to ask? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since the data came from Cassini ISS and since we're the authors on the paper, I feel no qualms about suggesting visiting http://ciclops.org/view_event.php?id=73

    3. Re:Too much to ask? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it too much to ask that New Scientist stop using crappy CGI and start posting some of the actual photographs that the astronomers used to form their theories?

      Ideally you publish both. The actual photos are a bit hard for a non-expert to interpret. The stark lighting of space makes it difficult to see the full shape.

    4. Re:Too much to ask? by gillbates · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      They're selling science news, not making scientific discoveries. Important, subtle difference there.

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    5. Re:Too much to ask? by Kintar1900 · · Score: 1

      And, as a scientifically-inclined reader, I like my science news to have at least references to some of the original media involved in the discovery they're reporting on. Without that, there's no point in me looking at their news story, because I have nothing I can use to gauge how much spin and/or ignorance was present when the news story was created.

    6. Re:Too much to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am willing to bet that my eyesight is as good or better than any expert. We just want to see the real pictures, is that so much to ask for a news article to provide?

    7. Re:Too much to ask? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I am willing to bet that my eyesight is as good or better than any expert.

      1. You may not be representative of the target audience.

      2. It is more about knowing *how* to interpret space pictures, not so much "see" them on your retina.

  8. Moon with a wall by PresidentEnder · · Score: 1

    That moon with the big wall on it (can't remember which planet it orbits)- could it have a similar explanation? That is, an already-formed moon runs through a very thin ring for a couple of centuries, accumulating the ring material in one big long pile that ends up looking like a wall?

    --
    I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    1. Re:Moon with a wall by Tejin · · Score: 3, Informative
      The moon is Iapetus. It has a walnut shape and a massive equatoral wall. It's a possible explanation, though Iapetus orbits outside the ring system, and off-plane.

      Then again there could be a 'black ring' further out which explains the two-tone colouring of the moon and the equatoral wall. The only problem is that we haven't detected and rings out there.

      --
      The seekers do no need truth, the seekers do find truth and the finding do be painful
    2. Re:Moon with a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mod parent up informative. Also, I'd suggest checking out Richard Hoagland's hilarious batshit insane conspiracy theories about it ... there's some very interesting facts in there too if you filter out the crazy conclusions. It's a weird moon.

    3. Re:Moon with a wall by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      In short, no, we don't think that this mechanism explains Iapetus. Best guess there is that you have some tectonic effect due to its thermal history. There are some recent papers out there on the topic, although I'm very familiar with the details.

    4. Re:Moon with a wall by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The moon is Iapetus. It has a walnut shape and a massive equatoral wall. It's a possible explanation, though Iapetus orbits outside the ring system, and off-plane.

      But it's possible that in the past it may have been part of wider ring, such as a moon smashing up near its orbit. Over time the ring would dissappear, as some speculate Saturn's current rings would if not replenished. But the off-plane issue still need to be accounted for. Maybe it used to be on plane, but too was smacked by something, perhaps a peice of what caused the possible outer ring to begin with. There may have been a period of Billard Balls around Saturn as one hay-wire body caused yet more hay-wire bodies by pushing orbits into other orbits, overlapping them.

  9. Wow... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Fourteen posts and no "That's no moon..." jokes yet?

    Chris Mattern

    1. Re:Wow... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Kinda hard to work the joke in when the article has already stolen your thunder :'(.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Wow... by mrjb · · Score: 1
      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    3. Re:Wow... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      You read the article? Please turn in your /. UID at the door.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Wow... by ideonode · · Score: 1

      60 posts into a story about moons and rings, and no-one's mentioned Urectum.

    5. Re:Wow... by pklinken · · Score: 1

      They would pay the price for their lack of vision:
      http://xkcd.com/307/

  10. News? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Aren't the rings bashed up/unformed moons anyhow?

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:News? by Flagbrew · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the rings are made up of lost airline luggage.

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

      Probably. The problem is that the rings can't accrete into moons because of tidal forces. (They do form temporary aggregates, but those tear apart again in roughly one orbital period.) So the presence of moons in this region is a bit of a mystery. One possibility was that they were large shards of whatever body broke up and formed the rings. What we found in our research is that there are indeed seed-cores in the middles of the moons, but that the moons then accreted a lot more material into a mantle, lowering their densities to almost absurdly small values and reshaping them. The moons you have now are a hybrid of progenitor material and ring particles.

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

    Goddammit, it's:

    Bring them all
    and in the darkness bind them

  12. Re:That's no moon. by blahlemon · · Score: 1

    One moon to rule them all

    One moon to find them

    One moon to bring them all into the darkness

    and bind them!

    The problem is the ring overshadows the moon.

    --
    It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
  13. Wow by JKSN17 · · Score: 0

    That's no moon...wait...it was a minute ago...your telling me that it made out of...ahh I give up!!!

  14. Sedimentary moons . . . by SpeedyGonz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    . . . now that's a cool concept. Geeky, but cool.

  15. sigh :( by wwmedia · · Score: 1

    saturn's moons are not the only thing that are bulging in the middle

  16. More photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The linked article has 3D renderings of models. Actual photos of the moons are here. The real photos look distinctly weird.

    Clearly, we'll have to revise our "That's no moon!" filters.

  17. Obvious? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

    I thought it was obvious that the numerous moons of Saturn came about as a result of collections within the rings. That is why you see gaps in and around the orbits of the moons.

  18. According to the article by sanjacguy · · Score: 1

    According to the article, the scientists involved are saying the moon was formed in two phases and that the second phase had the moon pull in ring material and add it on top of the first phase. While it's general scientific consensus that the rings of saturn were probably caused by a moon breaking up, the use of 'probably' is important. We're still looking for that kernel of truth that will prove decisively one theory over another. This isn't a case of the whole evolution vs creationism debacle - there's more than one view on the creation of the rings of Saturn. It should tell you something that NASA doesn't mention the method of ring creation on their 'rings of saturn' page: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Saturn&Display=Rings

    1. Re:According to the article by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a ring scientist, I don't actually know of any other real contending theories for the origin of the rings. This isn't to say that we have the story all figured out, but as far as I've ever heard, people seem pretty comfortable with the break-up model. (For one thing, it's stochastic and therefore would reasonably explain why only Saturn has a really massive ring system.)

  19. In Other News.... by blahlemon · · Score: 1
    The Bush government has taken a strong anti-'Ring Material' stance. Bush was quoted as saying "Everyone knows all moons are made of cheese."

    The Homeland Security Department released a memo this morning citing the Moons of Saturn for "...devious and unnatural behaviour..." and warned that their actions could be taken as "...preliminary build-up for a terrorist strike against the hard working dairy providers of America."

    Osama Bin Ladin also released a tape stating that the Koran clearing shows that "...all moons are made of goat cheese..." and warned against the "...American cheese heresy that threatens good Muslims everywhere." A leak from the Mexican government showed they have plans to illegally bring jalopenos into the Saturn Moon/Cheese mix.

    The White House is expected to release a statement later today detailing a potential preemptive Wine and Cracker strike.

    --
    It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
  20. Obviously they look like flying saucers... by mrjb · · Score: 1

    ... because they ARE.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  21. Ring material? by karmaflux · · Score: 1

    Oh man, who would have thought! A source of scrith in our own solar system!

    Guys, I wasn't so sure about getting into a space race with China, but now I know we need to get there first. Anyone know how close we are to an actual cziltang brone?

    --

    REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

  22. So they can only be destroyed... by JamesP · · Score: 1

    by being thrown in the mountain of DOOM!! OMG!!

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  23. Real Images of Pan and Atlas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=2865 //and congratulations to New Scientist for the most annoying holiday ad ever.

  24. Like humans then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see - the moons in the rings (or more precisely in the divisions between rings generally) are called "Shepherd Moons" since they herd the ring particles. So, now we find that over time they add mass to their equators. Like human shepherds eating too much - these folks can also add mass at the equator - especially if they eat some of their flock like these shepherd moons are doing.

  25. Why not a "fluff ball" by endoplasmicMessenger · · Score: 1

    Someone explain to me how those ring particles got compressed into such a solid-looking moon. If these particles are just gradually coalescing due to gravity, that would result in a "fluff ball" of particles, not a solidly packed mass. By what force are these particles packed together into a solid mass?

    --
    Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
    1. Re:Why not a "fluff ball" by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "By what force are these particles packed together into a solid mass?"

      Ummm...gravity? At least, I think it works out in the rest of the universe the same way it works here (see Sedimentary Rocks).

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:Why not a "fluff ball" by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      They're not packed very tightly, in as much as the densities are around half that of liquid water.

      They're not compressed. They are probably sintered together thanks to repeated exposures to sunlight and then dipping into the planet's shadow, although the details of that we did not work out.

    3. Re:Why not a "fluff ball" by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Gravitational forces are way too weak. On the surfaces of these guys, the escape speed is (literally) zero thanks to tidal and centrifugal forces.

      They aren't compressed at all. That's why the densities are so incredibly low.

  26. RingWorld by griffo · · Score: 1

    Ok How many of you immedeately thought of RingWorld by Larry Niven?

    1. Re:RingWorld by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      A shitload of us, and you're late - the Niven post is above. Get moving - we haven't come up with nearly enough puppeteer jokes yet.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  27. Sailor Moon? by pdscomp · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who saw the article and read "Sailor Moon .... " ? I was thinking wow, I wonder why this is on the front page of /. And then when I re-read the title, I was disappointed :-(

  28. In other news.... by paintballer1087 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Astronomers have determined that the shape of the satellite determines whether it is classified as a moon or not. In an astounding landslide at the latest meeting, it was declared that saucer shaped satellites are to be labeled actual moons, while the spherical satellites are now called pseudo-moons. This in a new spree of reclassifications by astronomers has confused many people.

  29. Finally, PROOF! by R2.0 · · Score: 1

    One picture clearly shows a transmitter dish pointing directly at the Earth, which is the source of the navigational data for the black helicopters, as relayed by UFO's.

    Crater? That's what they WANT you to think.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  30. Shepherd Moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a nice tune, but I prefer Paint the Sky with Stars

  31. Luna by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    The moons, which lie within the giant planet's rings, may have come by their strange shape by gradually accumulating ring particles in a ridge around their equators. The dominating theory as to how the moon of Earth formed was a method much like this. The Earth actually had rings from a giant impact at one time and they all condensed into one big mass that we know and love as Luna.
    --
    The game.
    1. Re:Luna by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      No, the Moon formed in a notably different way: no dense seed was required to form it. In the rings, tidal forces keep things from building into moons. Our Moon almost certainly formed outside of Earth's Roche limit where it was able to coalesce without significant hindrance.

    2. Re:Luna by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      Note the word theory used.

      --
      The game.
    3. Re:Luna by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Yes? How is that relevant to my reply?

    4. Re:Luna by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      I presented a theory as a theory and you presented a theory as a fact.

      --
      The game.
    5. Re:Luna by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      I did no such thing, please re-read my message more carefully. I was simply pointing out the differences in the theories; there are major reasons why this new work is different from the models of lunar formation which is what necessitated this research in the first place.

    6. Re:Luna by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see the source of the confusion. My first sentence was not meant to suggest a definitive knowledge, I figured the fact that it was a theory was to be understood and wasn't the point in any case.

  32. Cheap for the contractors who built them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using cheap, local building materials is the way to go.

  33. Iapetus?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dosn't Iapetus also have a well defined (albeit less pronounced) equatorial ridge as well? I wonder if that is formed the same way?

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

      See above, but basically, no. Iapetus's ridge is a lot small, relatively speaking, and probably tectonic in nature. These bulges seriously alter the shapes of the ring-moons and are do to emplacement of material as it hits the moon.

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

    Okay, okay...hey! No hard fruits!

    Why would you want to ban sexually aroused homosexuals? What have they ever done to you?

    Oooooooh . . . that!!! Was it painful? Well, I'm sure, for you, it was a good kind of painful.
  35. Check out the movie by Cannelloni · · Score: 1

    The narrator has the most horrific Franglais ever! Barely intelligible. Why, why, why did they let a French guy narrate the story? But the strange moons are impressive.

    --
    Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
    1. Re:Check out the movie by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because he did the research and, more importantly, put the movie together.

      Honestly, Sebastien's English is so much better than my French, I would never complain.

    2. Re:Check out the movie by Cannelloni · · Score: 1

      His English is utterly horrible.

      --
      Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
  36. no 'duh' by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    c'mon now man...this does not belong in the 'duh' file

    since galleleo humans have seen rings around saturn and wondered how they got there.  these types of discoveries help answer that question.

    more specifically, according to TFA, many speculate that saturn's rings are the detritus from some sort of collision event in the early solar system, and that these moons are large chunks left over from that.  if that's true then examining a physical specimine from these moons could tell us alot about what the early solar system was like, which in turn will tell us more about our own planet

    this is science, not 'duh'

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  37. Dammit! This is just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Two of Saturn's small moons look eerily like flying saucers."

    More fuel for conspiracy theorists. I can't wait for the first accusations that the US built and deployed these fake moons to assist in the take-over of the solar system in 2012.