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.

36 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 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
    4. 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)

  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_mad_linguist · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

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

      You surely meant to write "Stan shot first!"

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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!
  9. TMA-3?? by spoonist · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.