Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Strange New Objects Seen In Saturn's Rings

Posted by Soulskill on from the cue-monolith-jokes dept.

Every 15 Earth years, Saturn has its equinox — the time during which its rotational axis is perpendicular to the rays from the sun, so that the sun is always directly "overhead" of Saturn's equator. This is significant because Saturn's rings orbit over the equator, so during the equinox, light from the sun hits them edge-on. This means that any objects wider than the rings, or orbiting above or below them, cast long shadows and are much easier to see. For the first time, we're able to get detailed images of these objects, thanks to Cassini. A moonlet, perhaps 1,300 feet in diameter, has been discovered in the B-ring, and the Bad Astronomy blog points out another object that seems to be bursting through the F-ring. Quoting: "The upward-angled structure is definitely real, as witnessed by the shadow it's casting on the ring material to the lower left. And what's with the bright patch right where this object seems to have slammed into the rings? Did it shatter millions of icy particles, revealing their shinier interior material, making them brighter? Clearly, something awesome and amazing happened here.

83 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Savages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    A moonlet, perhaps 1,300 feet in diameter

    Can we have that in perches, chains and furlongs please?

    --A. Luddite

    1. Re:Savages by simcop2387 · · Score: 3, Informative

      78.7877212121212 perches == 19.6969303030 chains == 1.96969303030303 furlongs

    2. Re:Savages by Informative · · Score: 2, Funny

      2.731 centigrade

    3. Re:Savages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you crazy? SI-Units should be used under any circumstance.

      "Reproducibility of experimental results is central to the scientific method. A standard system of units facilitates this." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement @ 2009-08-09]

      Some scientists or people with great affinity to science (eg.: me) are driven crazy by people using these obsolete units.

    4. Re:Savages by PPH · · Score: 1

      Well, lets see. The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 1.8x10^12 furlongs per fortnight......

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Savages by Co0Ps · · Score: 1

      I think the parent was joking... but I agree completley.

    6. Re:Savages by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      That comes out to 4 1/3 American football fields.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Savages by NoobixCube · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have no problem buying food in Imperial units (not that I have to, since I'm in Australia), since it works out the same in the end. I even say I'm 6 feet tall, despite it being all metric here. I just can't stand Imperial units in a scientific context. Mythbusters get points of starting out metric in their early days, but they lose them again for presumably caving to producers who decided Americans were too stupid to know what a Newton is.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    8. Re:Savages by hazem · · Score: 5, Funny

      producers who decided Americans were too stupid to know what a Newton is.

      Of course we know what a Newton is... you just have to decide if you're going to go with one of the newer fruit varieties or to stick with the classic Fig.

      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fig_Newton)

    9. Re:Savages by nametaken · · Score: 1

      You lost me.

    10. Re:Savages by Migity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but how many Library of Congresses would that be?

    11. Re:Savages by Loopy1492 · · Score: 1

      Oh we KNOW, we just don't give a shit. Of course, as the man said, if it is full of fruity goodness.

      --
      I deliminate with tabs. Get used to it.
    12. Re:Savages by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      What fraction of a Megagrade is that?

      --
      See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
  2. That's no moon by Linknoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a budong.

    1. Re:That's no moon by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or maybe a monolith...

      --
      http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
    2. Re:That's no moon by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe a monolith...

      Nice try, wrong planet. Besides, "1300 feet in diameter" isn't exactly how you'd measure rectangular parallelepiped.

    3. Re:That's no moon by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the original novel, the monolith was on a moon of Saturn.

    4. Re:That's no moon by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Saturn is the right planet, stupid movie be damned.

      And yes diameter is exactly how you would measure it until you got a high enough resolution image to atually see the shape.

    5. Re:That's no moon by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

      I actually love the movie. It just wouldn't have worked for my joke and I've read the book (which I also enjoyed, but I like the movie more). However, I'm a bit biased. One of my parents wrote a book about the film and it's the first movie I ever remember watching- projected across the living room wall with a 16mm projector with a Cinemascope lens for a group of graduate students. I was around two years old. I've seen it probably hundreds of times since.

      --
      http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
    6. Re:That's no moon by synthparadox · · Score: 1

      Silly people. Its obviously the Magic School Bus!

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

      But weren't budongs supposed to be extinct?

    8. Re:That's no moon by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the original novel, the monolith was on a moon of Saturn.

      Too bad the movie came first.

    9. Re:That's no moon by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      You surely meant to write "Stan shot first!"

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:That's no moon by Deuxsonic · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was changed to Jupiter for the movie because Stanley Kubrick couldn't find a good image of Saturn (this was 1968, so a lot of the great images we have today didn't exist.) The book retains the original planet of Saturn, yet strangely it gets changed to Jupiter in the later books (I guess to be canon with the movie?)

      --
      If you can talk brilliantly enough about a problem, it can create the consoling illusion that it has been mastered.
    11. Re:That's no moon by tsa · · Score: 1

      Indeed, for a start you would use SI units.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    12. Re:That's no moon by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Informative

      Technically, the book came first in that it was completed before the movie was released, but they were written together, so neither really came first.

      --
      http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
    13. Re:That's no moon by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Informative

      Douglas Trumbull, the man who created the effects for 2001, told Kubrick that Saturn was too hard to depict realistically. As for why the setting was different in the other novels, in an author's note in 2061, Clarke claimed that each novel took place in a different parallel universe. My personal reason is that Clarke's original novels are all terrific, but his sequels are all terrible. Especially those god-awful Rama books he co-wrote with Gentry Lee. And yet, I couldn't stop reading them. I hate myself.

      --
      http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
    14. Re:That's no moon by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the original novel, the monolith was on a moon of Saturn.

      Too bad the movie came first.

      The movie was originally shot to finish at Saturn but Kubrick changed his mind. The Saturn footage was recycled for Silent Running.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    15. Re:That's no moon by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Douglas Trumbull, the man who created the effects for 2001, told Kubrick that Saturn was too hard to depict realistically

      And then ripped the footage off for his own movie!

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    16. Re:That's no moon by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I was born in 1965 and I saw 2001 as a new release. The scene where Bowman disassembles HAL gave me nightmares for years afterwards.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    17. Re:That's no moon by Scarletdown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, take it back! It's only the best non-porn movie ever!

      Well, it would be if it was possible to watch it without falling asleep within less than an hour into the film.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    18. Re:That's no moon by BollocksToThis · · Score: 3, Funny

      The movie was originally shot to finish at Saturn but Kubrick changed his mind.

      I bet it was the commute that did him in.

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    19. Re:That's no moon by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Jupiter also looks better in the sense that it is a human ovum-shaped object which is encountering a sperm-shaped space craft. The symbolism of new life, new evolution is much clearer with Jupiter than Saturn.

    20. Re:That's no moon by DoninIN · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jvqPvDUEW8 It's a spaceship. It's here to bring our machines to life and wipe us out. No one else read Trucks?/Saw Maximum Overdrive?

    21. Re:That's no moon by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Seconded, but also in my case, it was the scene where Frank Poole's body is spinning off into space. The hibernauculum didn't help much either for the mental imagery.

      --
      C|N>K
    22. Re:That's no moon by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I would mod your post funny, had I not already posted in this discussion. After all, surely no one of any significant intelligence would seriously have a big meltdown over some random person in a forum saying anything negative about an old sci-fi flick.

      And for the record, Clarke was my favorite of the "classic" sci-fi authors. I did read 2001 way back when I was perhaps 13 or 14 (I'm 41 now and closing in on the ultimate answer), and I really enjoyed the book back then. The movie was simply lacking and not up to my expectations. The SFX and musical score were great of course, but the implementation of the story just shows that some things just don't translate well from book to screen.

      Guess I better not mention that I did enjoy 2010 when I first saw it a year or two later on the big screen. It was a double feature with Dune, and fortunately, it was the first feature (Dune was another big disappointment, and I fell asleep early on there).

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  3. Re:F-Ring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Except it.. uh... does.

  4. Dudes by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you don't know what caused it by now, go watch the new Star Trek movie already. It's actually good.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  5. stargate by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's just a Goa'uld mothership approaching Earth. No need for alarm at all.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  6. Obligatory Footfall by snowwrestler · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just let me know if they spot a ring that looks like it's been braided.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Obligatory Footfall by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here you go.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Obligatory Footfall by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Just let me know if they spot a ring that looks like it's been braided.

      Here you go.

      That's part of why I love slashdot. For so many people that ask for something seemingly impossible, there seems to be someone who either has the answer or knows someone that does.

      Bless you uber-nerds!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  7. radial distance? by N7DR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I haven't been able to find a reference that states the precise radial location of this object. Does anyone here have that information?

    The Voyager 2 photopolarimeter data from 1981 suggested the presence of a small object in Saturn's B ring at a radial distance of around 109,000 km.

    It would be interesting to know whether this is confirmation of that object, 28 years later.

    (I have a vested interest: I was the principal author on the Voyager paper: Icarus 54, 267 (1983).)

    1. Re:radial distance? by spacemandave · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to Ciclops it's 480 km inward of the outer edge of the B ring, which puts it at a radial distance of 117,100 km

    2. Re:radial distance? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Obviously I haven't read that paper, nor any related papers on the subject ...

      But wouldn't you expect to see pieces of the rings coalesces into larger objects (I'm guessing under the same forces that make planets) and then be destroyed by gravity continually?

    3. Re:radial distance? by N7DR · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to Ciclops it's 480 km inward of the outer edge of the B ring, which puts it at a radial distance of 117,100 km

      Thanks very much; that's a much better source of information than TFA.

    4. Re:radial distance? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IANAA, but I'd expect the bits of debris to settle into an equilibrium between clumping and breaking up: rings. What you describe suggests some form of hysteresis.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    5. Re:radial distance? by xilmaril · · Score: 1

      Obviously I haven't read that paper, nor any related papers on the subject ...

      But wouldn't you expect to see pieces of the rings coalesces into larger objects (I'm guessing under the same forces that make planets) and then be destroyed by gravity continually?

      No, while I haven't read the papers either, I can confirm that gravity will not be the force pulling objects apart, at least not directly, as it is an attractive force. Also, the forces that make planets are generally agreed to be massively more powerful than anything going on in the rings of saturn, although if they are also just gravity is beyond me.

      By simple logic, the rings will settle into something resembling an equilibrium, as they haven't all turned to dust or clumped into one piece over the many eons they've had to float around. Maybe asteroids are a significant force in breaking up the debris?

    6. Re:radial distance? by j-stroy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The rings are non-concentric at that point. Pushing the brightness levels to expand bright artifacts shows interesting "twisting" (look on each side lower on left, higher on right) The close-up views miss some details that a "big picture" shows, reductionism, feh.

      We assume an orientation of the anomaly parallel to Saturn's axis, but from the brightness of the reflected light on the "dark side" of it suggests an angle maybe closer to that of the ring plane... remember where the sun is. Although, it could be illumination of backscatter from Saturn, or by internal reflections between the particles.

      Ring particles could be caused to move by electrostatics, not just gravity or collision, so I'm thinking a long plasma trail behind a comet passing thru, or a slower moving (orbital?) charged object causing a ruction. Heck, why not a moving cloud of magnetic particles colliding with the ring bits, which are then drawn along Saturns magnetic field.

    7. Re:radial distance? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, no. Gravity WILL, in effect, pull objects apart thanks to tides. This is what keeps the rings from accreting into a single body, more or less. So gravity, while most simply an attractive force, *can* actual cause repulsion. (Another fine example is the F ring itself, which is shepherded by two moons. The moons push the ring back when it tries to spread toward the moons.)

      This is what keeps the rings from accreting, more or less. And collisions are so slow that grinding isn't a *huge* factor, although some amount of re-collection of dust onto macroscopic particles probably helps that significantly.

    8. Re:radial distance? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Nope, grandparent was basically right. You form temporary gravitational aggregates and then let tides destroy them on orbital timescales. It's seen in simulations all the time and the various data show strong indications that such structures must exist. (See, for example, the A Ring Azimuthal Brightness Asymmetry.)

    9. Re:radial distance? by SL+Baur · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, while I haven't read the papers either, I can confirm that gravity will not be the force pulling objects apart, at least not directly, as it is an attractive force.

      Maybe you should do some reading. Start with googling "roche limit". Tidal forces ripping an object apart are how the rings got formed in the first place.

    10. Re:radial distance? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      That's because it's the original source.

  8. Forecast: 6 more weeks of wierd science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Cassini sees its own shadow.

  9. Its the Fithp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Thuktun Flishithy has arrived. We have about 20 years until the attack. Better start building Michael right now

    PS: Don't get it? Read some Larry Niven.

    1. Re:Its the Fithp! by jegla932 · · Score: 1

      ++

      One of my favorite sci-fi books!

  10. Oh dear by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Could this be one of the few threads where the Goatse guy is on-topic? After all, numerous strange objects have been seen in his ring.

    --
    I write bullshit
    1. Re:Oh dear by Huntr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Strange New Objects Seen in Uranus

    2. Re:Oh dear by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Sort of, but it is kind of like the difference between micro-economics and macro-economics...

    3. Re:Oh dear by geoffball · · Score: 1

      Strange New Objects Seen in Uranus

      Saturn's strap on stuck in one of its rings. News at 11.

  11. Space dingleberries by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Funny

    Saturn has always been the least hygienic of the gas giants.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  12. TMA-3?? by spoonist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let me guess, it's about two kilometers long...

    1. Re:TMA-3?? by S-100 · · Score: 1

      Built in the exact proportions of 1, 4, 9 - the square of the first three integers. And of course this doesn't stop after just three dimensions...

  13. duh by Stinking+Pig · · Score: 1

    It's obviously the Thuktun Flishithy

    --
    "Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
  14. Monolith by philipmather · · Score: 1

    Well I was going to make the following joke...

    Is this "moonlet" curiously rectangular in shape with dimensions in the ratio of 1:4:9 per chance? ...but the picture in TFA does in fact bear an uncanny resemblance to a monolith reflecting light off it's thin side and I don't want labelled as a complete mad-hatter so I'll just pitch one up for the real fruit-loops to bat out of the park instead...

    --
    Regards, Phil
  15. UFO by pizzach · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why has no-one tagged this "ufo"? Is in Unidentified Flying Object? It would make me tingly on the inside with space dust if someone does.

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  16. Re:F-Ring? by jeepien · · Score: 1

    Rings were discovered around Uranus some years ago. Much to the surprise and delight of every 7th-grade astronomy student.

  17. Re:Skylark? by mustafap · · Score: 1

    I doubt many people under the age of 40 would get that :o)

    Over here in the UK, I can't find a bookshop or library that holds any of E.E. Doc Smith's work. As I kid I lapped his work up. I wonder why it is so out of fashion now?

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  18. Shit! by db32 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Haven't any of you read Footfall?! I for one welcome our new elephant overlords!

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  19. Gathering of the nerds... by X3J11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Farscape, 2001, SG-1 and Star Trek all in one article's first few comments. I doubt it's a record for /., but damn. Pity no one could work a Doctor Who reference in there somewhere.

    Yeah I'm off-topic, so sue... erm, mod me.

    1. Re:Gathering of the nerds... by pohl · · Score: 1

      Ok, if you insist...

      "Gosh, I wonder if these strange new objects are dimensionally transcendental, like a Tardis!"

      Happy now? ;-)

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    2. Re:Gathering of the nerds... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised this one hasn't been tagged vogonconstructorfleet yet.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  20. Is that...? by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    Jimmy Hoffa?!?

    --
    This sig is false.
  21. Re:F-Ring? by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

    The Fithp are coming! The Fithp are coming! Run for the hills!

  22. Re:PAUL IS SATURN by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    PAUL IS SATURN

    Hey, be nice. We all gain a little around the middle as we age.
         

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  23. Re:F-Ring? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    The Fithp are coming! The Fithp are coming! Run for the hills!

    We should just return to the trees. The Traveller Fithp will never think to look for us there.

    That book would make a great movie BTW.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  24. "clearly something awesome..." by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Please. This happens all the time, but now someone saw it. Who gives a crap? And don't decide what everyone thinks is 'clear' or 'awesome', thanks very much.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:"clearly something awesome..." by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      "all the time" isn't mutually exclusive with "awesome". Meteor impacts are happening in the universe all the time, but are awesome.

      But you're right, it was unfair of the author to assume everyone would think this was awesome, not accounting for the large populations of prats out there.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  25. Russell's Teapot by thespeech · · Score: 1

    It's bleeding Russell's Teapot. Search your feelings, you know it to be true!

  26. i know the feeling by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    i had some bean and cheese burritos Saturday night and blew out my O ring.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  27. Clone? by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

    I bet it was Jango Fett.

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  28. Re:Skylark? by mustafap · · Score: 1

    I know what you mean. That's probably why they are not P.C. any more.

    Made me feel a little uncomfortable too ( being a nerdy liberal ) but they were great ripping yarns :o)

    I've no need for amazon - I have most of them in my bookcase!

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  29. Re:F-Ring? by sjwt · · Score: 1

    better make sure that is the high hills.

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?