Slashdot Mirror
Captured Comet Becomes Moon of Jupiter
An anonymous reader writes 'Jupiter's gravity captured a comet in the mid-20th century, holding it in orbit as a temporary moon for 12 years. The comet, named 147P/Kushida-Muramatsu, is the fifth body known to have been pulled by Jupiter from its orbit around the Sun. The discovery adds to our understanding of how Jupiter interferes with objects from the 'Hilda group,' which are asteroids and comets with orbits related to Jupiter's orbit.'
Did it moon Jupiter as well?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
The comet's shape was revealed to be rectilinear, with an aspect ratio comprising the squares of the first 3 non-zero positive primes.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"That's no moon!"
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
One can imagine that over billions of years Jupiter helped to clear-out our system from similar thrash pretty well.
"Whether they ever find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be considered an enemy planet." - Jack Handey
Squirrel!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or is it's a destructive influence?
Because we can send in Al Qaeda...
Take THAT you Jupiterian infidels!
Slashdot
History for nerds. Stuff that mattered.
I'll bet if I go back 50 years, I'll find a dupe in the archive.
Yeah, and it's been thrown around the table a few times, but we still haven't figured out what sort of payment Jupiter will accept (or how to get it there). Hiring out gas giants for protection turns out to be less easy than you'd expect.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
They already did: They created Jupiter!
With all due respect, I disagree. Yes, some resources should be directed at that problem. But there is so much more that can and should be done by NASA. The Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer telescopes are a good example.
But what is the point in surviving if all we are doing is treading water? Sure we could spend billions on monitoring near space for potentially dangerous objects, but IMO we're better off spending those billions on things that can advance technology.
And in the (very) long run, our currently feeble attempts at space travel may lead to the best defense against catastrophic collisions -- another colonized planet.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
'Jupiter's gravity captured a comet in the mid-20th century
Old news?
Er, no, actually, NASA should be spending most -if not all - of its budget preparing to colonise the galaxy. Nearly all comet/asteroid impacts would be survivable for humans as a species, but if a neutron star collision generated gamma ray burst or a supernova were to happen within minimum safe distance (quite a lot of lightyears) it would be game over, if we could colonise the whole galaxy then species survival would only be threatened by the heat death of the universe itself.
Who cares about the species? I want to detect the coming apocalypse and move before it happens. Frying all human life on planet earth will be game over for me, and I find very little comfort in the knowledge that humanity will survive elsewhere in the galaxy.
Yes, we both just watched Numbers, didn't we?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Sorry, but how is colonizing another planet going to prevent a catastrophic collision?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The dinosaurs saved it there for eventual revenge on the mammals. It's like a snowball in the freezer so that you can pound your enemy in the summer, when they least expect it.
Table-ized A.I.
Sorry, but how is colonizing another planet going to prevent a catastrophic collision?
Imagine when all of what would become the human race lived in one valley in Africa. One particularly harsh winter or dry summer could wipe out the whole species, right? If that happened today it might still be a catastrophe but humanity would go on. If we had self-sufficient colonies on other planets, an asteroid could destroy the earth without killing off humanity.
I'd just like to go on records as saying Numbers is painful to watch from a mathematical point of view. It most definitely does not earn you any geek points.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
It wouldn't prevent the collision, but it would prevent the catastrophe of eliminating all human life.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I meant Knowing. I haven't seen Numbers.
I can't believe I didn't remember that.
SPOILER (to explain why the movie is relevant to my post, if you haven't seen it and don't mind reading a complete spoiler):
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Maybe Jupiter is Mafia. It protects us, but expects some kind of payment. Maybe free planet pr0n? I hear Uranus has a nice...
Table-ized A.I.
The article says that the comet had an orbit around Jupiter of 12 years. Well Jupiter has an orbital period around the sun of almost exactly 12 years also. Does this mean that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter or that it was merely in an orbit that was very similar to Jupiter's (in relation to the sun).
I believe that there is a NEO that basically does the same thing around earth. It travels in an orbit around the sun just slightly different from the earth so that sometimes it is in front of the earth on it's path and sometimes it is behind. From our perspective it makes a complex lissajous (spelling?) track. But I seem to remember it is definitely NOT "orbiting" the earth.
The article doesn't specifically state whether or not the comet is gravitationally bound to Jupiter which I guess is the definition of "orbiting" (I'm not a professional astronomer). Even if it was orbiting Jupiter, with a period of 12 years it was very loosely bound. In any case, how was it brought into Jupiter's proximity? How did it get ejected? Where is it now?
It wouldn't prevent the collision, but it would prevent the catastrophe of eliminating all human life.
Not only that, but it would also allow the eventual re-habitation of the Earth. A few decades or centuries after a catastrophic event the Earth will probably be the easiest place, in this solar system, to support large numbers of human beings. Therefore, not would a self-sufficient colony prevent human extinction or the distruction of civilization, it also means that the will eventually be repopulated.
It won't help prevent a body from hitting the earth.
What it will do is lessen the relative damage caused by such an impact.
Instead of wiping out all of humanity, and drastically change the ecosystem humans live in, it will only wipe out part of humanity, and some of the ecosystems we live in.
You know that old adage about putting all your eggs in one basket (don't do it!) -- we currently have all our eggs in one basket, and it would be nice if we could change that situation.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
RTFA!
"between 1949 and 1961 two full revolutions around Jupiter were completed" (by the comet in question, around Jupiter)
Two revolutions is not much. It's an orbit, but not a steady orbit. Shoemaker-Levy 9 did 12 orbits in 50 years, a little bit more stable, but alas, it crashed into the planet.
assignment != equality != identity
Does this mean that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter or that it was merely in an orbit that was very similar to Jupiter's (in relation to the sun).
The astronomer in the article said that the comet was in orbit around Jupiter -- ergo moon, not simply an object in a similar orbit around the sun.
The enemies of Democracy are
NASA should be spending most - if not all - of its budget preparing to avert a comet/asteroid from hitting earth.
No! We should be concentrating on moving our entire solar system away from the galactic core at just under the speed of light. After we clear out all asteroids and comets. Signed, Hindmost
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I never really understood the whole "Hot Ice" thing (former jewel thief, maybe?) but Hilda was awesome. Pity she had to buy it early on in the series so Gene could be the star.
Bow-ties are cool.
If the comet started in a state with enough potential energy where it was not a moon of Jupiter, then how did it lose enough total energy for it to be captured? It seems that it would have to be slowed down by friction, or a loss of mass, or else the kinetic energy gained during its passing by would fling it back away from Jupiter... so what exactly is the process of capturing?
NASA should be spending most - if not all - of its budget preparing for the Sun's inevitable expansion into a Red Giant.
Everything else is moot if we let that happen.
mmkay, bit of a stretch as an example-- but it seems extremely shortsighted for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to be solely focused on potentially dangerous bodies. We wouldn't have the capability of deflecting asteroids and comets if it wasn't for the technologies we've developed for exploration.
+1 Disagree
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
by jove, another moon!
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Good point, but It's a Monday and all I can think of is a bad James Bond movie.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
I thought the "Jupiter Shield" myth was pretty much busted.
NASA should be spending most - if not all - of its budget preparing to avert a comet/asteroid from hitting earth.
Everything else is moot if we let that happen.
Unfortunately Congress is more concerned with steroids in baseball.
Sometimes I think we deserve to become extinct.
If we just gave enough steroids to the baseball players, they could probably hit any threatening meteors, asteroids, or comets out of the solar system, thereby solving both problems.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Sorry, but how is colonizing another planet going to prevent a catastrophic collision?
No need to be sorry, it's a good question. See, the aliens only have the resources to throw biosphere-destroying meteors at one planet, and if we spread to more than one they will save their resources for defense against our inevitable invasion and conquering of their own planets.
It makes perfect sense once you have all the data. See http://traipse.com/upgrade/index.html for another idea about averting a catastrophic collision.
We are the first and only known organism that has the ability to improve the state of it's species. We have the ability to make ourselves great and prosper and you propose we do nothing more than simply survive. Take about underachievement.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
We are the first and only known organism that has the ability to improve the state of it's species.
It'd be a great improvement if we had the ability to make you learn the rules of grammar.
We really should spend our budget searching for a weapons platform in the antarctic if we want to stop a comet from hitting earth ...
Don't worry, if Jupiter misses one, we've always got the moon as a back up.
If I can use saxon genitives for nouns I don't see why I can't use them for pronouns as well. I refuse to make exceptions for contractions.
Maybe Jupiter is Mafia. It protects us, but expects some kind of payment. Maybe free planet pr0n? I hear Uranus has a nice...
Shhh. It's a conspiracy. Remember how Pluto got reclassified as a "dwarf planet"? They did that because Jupiter's got a "little planet" fetish.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With all due respect, I disagree. Yes, some resources should be directed at that problem. But there is so much more that can and should be done by NASA. The Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer telescopes are a good example.
But what is the point in surviving if all we are doing is treading water? Sure we could spend billions on monitoring near space for potentially dangerous objects, but IMO we're better off spending those billions on things that can advance technology.
This must be one of the most useless comments I have ever seen marked +5 Insightful.
First, because you have rebutted a straw man- he didn't say "monitor", he said "avert". Spending billions of advancing technology is exactly what would follow from a serious effort to become prepared to avert a comet/asteroid from hitting earth.
Second, we do not know the point in surviving until we get there, but, it is reasonable to assume that there is no point in learning the wonders of the universe by building better and more expensive telescopes only to have all the knowledge, along with us, extinguished.
Mods, you are not using your thinking caps.
That's not really NASA's job. NASA usually gets criticized for performing commercial or military missions. NASA's job is to do the science: quantify the threat and find good ways to fix it. Their scope might be expanded to a one-off, prototype deflection mission, but a standing "Deflection Corp" would be a millstone about NASA's neck.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Feeding trolls is bad, but perhaps I should clarify regardless:
;)
NASAs goals and objectives are not solely to protect earth from dangerous rocks. It is a research and exploration agency. I can see that if you're terrified of dangerous space rocks, you'd want to see that mission changed. I simply think it's a bad idea to redirect all of your resources to fend off one threat which has a minuscule year to year statistical likelihood. Sure, don't ignore the threat, but don't give up on all the other exploration you're doing.
But then again, you stick to your priorities. I can respect that
+1 Disagree
If that had been a contraction, "it's" would be correct, but it's not. Ask yourself, does "...improve the state of it is species" make sense?
The possessive case of "it" is "its".
Troll? That was a joke, some people really have no sense of humor.
Asteroidophile, eh?
Table-ized A.I.
Jupiter has much less mass than the sun such that it's possible to have the same orbital period as Jupiter has around the sun, yet still be relatively close to Jupiter. A 12-year orbit around a small object is usually closer to the parent than a 12-year orbit around a large object.
However, at that far out, the comet risks being affected by other planets and bodies, such as Saturn. It's roughly comparable to sticking your head too far out of the car window: you risk getting womped about another car.
Table-ized A.I.
And I just bought the night sky atlas...'DOH'
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> "Positive prime" is redundant.
So is "non-zero prime" for that matter. Primality is all about division. You *can't* divide by zero! Well, not unless you want your mathematical system to devolve into a hopeless mess of illogic where you get absurdities and inconsistencies, anyhow. It doesn't stop people from trying, though...
Except it's not a 1% chance. It's not a 1 in 500 chance. Extinction level impacts are a once in tens of millions of years event. I'm no astronomer, so have no ideas the difficulties involved in finding and tracking all NEOs-- but I do know that the effort involved for that is compounded by any number of objects that don't regularly live in our space. Essentially, you can never be 100% safe. I'm not saying do nothing, it's a mitigation versus aversion discussion. You can mitigate risks substantially where completely avoiding the risk is impossibly expensive.
Additionally-- impact events are only one of a myriad of potential calamities that we might face. Destabilization of the atmosphere (runnaway global cooling/warming), supervolcanoes, nearby gamma ray bursts, clathrate methane release, velociraptors, etcetc. You can't protect against everything, spending everything you have attempting to do so is just silly. Face it - Life is risky.
+1 Disagree
Nice straw man yourself.
Actually - this almost happened...
At one point they think that the world population of humans was down to only 10,000 people.
Busy work week, so I only just checked back... The NEO Program Office FAQ says they work "to detect, track and characterize", and are "responsible for facilitating communications between the astronomical community and the public". Nothing else. Who does the "aversion"? I'm thinking that falls to the "DoD and international agencies" mentioned above. (Sorry about all the quotes.)