Slashdot Mirror


Hubble Discovers 5th Moon of Pluto

Stirling Newberry writes "This image shows 'P5,' the placeholder name for a fifth natural moon of Pluto, a tiny sliver that orbits ~29,000 miles from its primary in a circular orbit. Other than Charon, Hubble has been the means by which astronomers have found all of the known moons of Pluto. 'The new detection will help scientists navigate NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft through the Pluto system in 2015, when it makes an historic and long-awaited high-speed flyby of the distant world. The team is using Hubble’s powerful vision to scour the Pluto system to uncover potential hazards to the New Horizons spacecraft. Moving past the dwarf planet at a speed of 30,000 miles per hour, New Horizons could be destroyed in a collision with even a BB-shot-size piece of orbital debris.'"

26 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Not a planet by eedwardsjr · · Score: 2

    So it has five moons, but they still do not classify it as a planet?

    1. Re:Not a planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor-planet_moon

      Lots of asteroids have moons.

    2. Re:Not a planet by marcosdumay · · Score: 2

      One'd expect thing that don't clear their orbit to have more moons...

    3. Re:Not a planet by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which is a pretty damn hokey and arbitrary distinction. The Earth's orbit is significantly affected by the Moon's gravitation: its path around the Sun is sinusoidal, quite far from a true elipse, far enough that the locations of perihelion and aphelion shift from year to year depending on the Moon's phase in early January and early July, and these points cannot be predicted without accounting for the Moon's influence.

      The points of perihelion and aphelion of the barycenter of the Earth - Moon pair can be predicted using the same simple formula that works for all the other visible planets, plus Uranus and Neptune. But the Earth itself is sometimes faster, sometimes slower, sometimes closer to the Sun, sometimes further away than the barycenter, all due to its partner's influence. That is the mark of a double planet, not a planet that has a Moon.

      That the most unique feature of the Earth, the presence of our kind of life, could not have come about without the Moon's action as a constant stirring rod is an entirely separate and equally valid argument for regarding the Earth and Moon as parts of a binary planet system.

      --
      Will
  2. ORLY? by yt8znu35 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's no moon.

  3. So let me get this straight by kiriath · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA is going to drive a 650 million dollar spacecraft through a system @40AU away at 30,000 miles per hour - and that spacecraft could be destroyed by a BB.

    The phrase "That thing could put your eye out" brings on a whole new meaning...

    1. Re:So let me get this straight by Jhon · · Score: 2

      New Horizons should be named the "Ralphie Probe"?

    2. Re:So let me get this straight by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      The typically positioned the space shuttle so that debris would impact the tiles rather than the windshield after a micrometeorite left a pinprick in the 1"+ thick windshield and embedded itself in the pilot's headrest durring a mission. Shit happens. Stuff is flying everywhere at absolutely insane speeds. Luckily, once you get beyond the asteroid belt, you're generally good to go. We've had a couple of probes die randomly in transit, about half of them are chalked up to human error, the other are suspected to have been hit by something nasty that we didn't see ahead of time. Still jumping up and down to get that one way ticket to mars? ;)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:So let me get this straight by Cuddlah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You hit ANYTHING with a BB at 30,000 miles an hour, it's a catastrophic collision.

  4. Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by MarioMax · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to Wikipedia:

    A natural satellite or moon is a celestial body that orbits a planet or smaller body, which is called its primary.

    Technically, Pluto fits the definition of "planet or smaller body". A moon doesn't necessarily need to orbit a planet; it can orbit a very, very dense hunk of rock that doesn't fit the definition of planet, but has a sufficiently strong gravitational pull to keep it in orbit.

  5. Four by bazald · · Score: 4, Funny

    There... are... four... moons!

    --
    Insert self-referential sig here.
  6. Re:I'm incredibly jealous by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Funny

    2 isn't enough?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  7. Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by zill · · Score: 5, Funny

    A moon doesn't necessarily need to orbit a planet; it can orbit a very, very dense hunk of rock that doesn't fit the definition of planet, but has a sufficiently strong gravitational pull to keep it in orbit.

    Must... resist... urge... to make yo mama joke.

  8. Future headline: by cvtan · · Score: 4, Funny

    "NASA's New Horizons spacecraft was unexpectedly destroyed today when it crashed into a previously unknown 6th moon of Pluto..."

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  9. Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

    Conservadroids

    o.O Is that a new phone?

  10. Flyby nice, but we need a probe in Pluto orbit by Morgaine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A probe in orbit around every planet or dwarf planet in the solar system would seems like a fairly basic NASA objective to me.

    I know that New Horizons will be using its velocity to also attempt flybys of one or more other Kuiper belt objects after it shoots through the Pluto system, and that is very worthwhile indeed, but we also seriously need a probe in orbit around Pluto itself.

    I hope that they're working on such a mission already, so that when New Horizons returns Pluto data in 2015 they just need to tweak a few parameters and be ready to launch an orbital mission. Such new data could even be sent to an orbital mission that's already en route to Pluto.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Flyby nice, but we need a probe in Pluto orbit by burnttoy · · Score: 2

      I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      But seriously, Mankind really needs to take a leap into a deep space network seriously.

      Automated drones (lots of technology, blasted into space) sent on crazy-long orbits through the Solar System (and beyond?) bringing multi-scopic, n-D views of the heavens in every colour of radiation for less than a round of bankers KY errr... Quantitive Easing. Pfft, write it off as Job Creation.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  11. Re:BB sized debris by jnaujok · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because space is big...

    Imagine there were only 19,000 people on Earth, roughly evenly distributed. What's the chance you'd ever run into another person? Now, instead of just the land area, make sure that 3/4ths of those people are on the ocean. What are the odds of running into one of them now?

    Now, imagine that, instead of just the surface of the Earth, you stack up about 500 layers, each one of them the surface of a sphere wrapping the entire Earth, each one a mile higher than the last and starting about 160 miles up. Now instead of just the surface of the Earth, spread those 19,000 people across those 500 spheres evenly and evenly spread them around the surface of the sphere they're on. And all of those spheres have more area than the surface of the Earth.

    Now, would you consider that area "dangerously heavily populated?" On top of that, you need to shrink the people down for most of the debris.

    Now, to be fair, the real test is that many of these "people" are moving really, really fast, although most of them are moving in roughly the same direction. But a few of them are going in different directions. And some of those are jumping between spheres. But it's still areas larger than the whole surface of the Earth. There have been only a tiny number of collisions between these objects. (I think the number is actually -- one.)

    Like I said, space is big. Really big. Bigger than the biggest thing you can imagine. You may think it's a long way down to the pharmacy, but that's peanuts compared to space. (With apologies to Douglas Adams)

    --
    Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
  12. Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Conservadroids

    o.O Is that a new phone?

    Could be! A phone that dials the same number over and over again without any algorithms to determine why that number is disconnected from reality. Or a phone that automatically orders and pays for stuff with your credit card that is never delivered or is delivered to rich people that don't need it. (Oh ya, I'm going to get flamed...)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  13. Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Kilobit and kilobyte and Kb (and kb) and KB are correct, and mean 1024 bits (or bytes).
    Kibibit and kibibyte and Kib and (kib) and KiB are incorrect, and mean you're a fucking dipshit.

    FYI,, a 64kbps telecommunications channel is 64,000bits/sec, not 65536bits/sec (it derives from 8kHz (8000, not 8192) sampling at 8 bits/sample). Just like 10/100/1000Mbps Ethernet is 10,000,000, 100,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 bits/sec, respectively.

    Same as your 2.6GHz CPU - it's 2,600,000,000 Hz.

    Not using the right prefix is the same as not using the right units - you're going to screw up something somewhere.

    You're a technical person, use precise language. If there's a chance of confusion, drop the prefix and use scientific notation, or define something across the board so places where the meanings can get messed up, are resolved and be consistent.

    E.g., globally declare in your source code that "Kilo means 1024 throughout" so 1km in your program is 1024m, and if you use 64,000b/s channel, it's a 62.5kbps link.

  14. Re:Flyby nice, but we need a probe in Pluto roxy by Necron69 · · Score: 2

    This is a technology problem, not a policy problem. The New Horizons probe is doing a flyby because that is currently the _only_ way to get a probe near far away Pluto. The probe is going extremely fast and in order to decelerate into orbit of such a small planet, you'd need to be taking along a lot more fuel than that probe has on board. Alternately, you could take a much slower and longer (decades if not hundreds of years) lower energy transfer orbit.

    This isn't Star Trek. NASA has to deal with real physics. Start here: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/whereis_nh.php

    Necron69

  15. Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by RenderSeven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or you could buy the iLiberal that also automatically orders and pays for stuff with your credit card that is never delivered or is delivered to poor people that don't need it. It's all fun and games as long as its someone else having their money taken. Any one else bloody sick of the primary difference between liberal/conservative being whom you think its OK to steal from? And the only person they both agree its OK to steal from seems to be me.

  16. Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    primary difference between liberal/conservative being whom you think its OK to steal from? And the only person they both agree its OK to steal from seems to be me.

    I think it boils down to two different groups of people:

    1. Those that have more than they need.
    2. Those that need more than they have.

    I am one of the first and I give to the second. In the six years since my wife died, I have given $50+ K to my friends in need and another $15+ K to charity - and I plan to keep on giving as needed. My conscience is clean.

    Oh, and I don't hide money in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland, like Mitt (potential Weasel in Chief) to avoid paying my fair share of taxes...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  17. Re:An Historic? by Toonol · · Score: 2

    Just because you silence the H doesn't mean you can add an N.

    It does, actually. The a/an selection is based entirely on pronunciation, and has nothing to do with how the following word is spelled. It's one of the rare cases where correct grammar is based on the accent of the speaker.

  18. hide the money. by Hanzie · · Score: 2

    You may sleep soundly, knowing that the money isn't being hidden in the Caymans or Swiss banks to avoid taxes. The US has very generous agreements with both of those country's banking systems to track funds.

    Given that his chief opposition owns the IRS, and that a successful finding of concealed funds in an audit = felony = instant ineligibility to run for US President, there is about a 0% chance that there's any monkey business in his accounts.

    He does, after all, give 14% of his income to charity. I don't think mindless greed is much a problem with him.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
    1. Re:hide the money. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      I don't think mindless greed is much a problem with him.

      ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.

      Your sig is hilarious is this context.

      I'm sure the greed of Mitt and his friends is anything but "mindless". If he's got nothing to hide, he should release more than his 2010 tax returns (and 2011 estimate). Hell, his father released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for Governor of Michigan.

      Perhaps you should read the NYT and Vanity Fair articles and then wonder how much he could possibly care about middle-class and poor people instead of the rich - and those other people known as corporations. They've had 12 years of the lowest personal and corporate tax rates in history and have so far failed to fulfill their self-anointed roles as "job creators", yet (amazingly) have done really, really well for themselves and their personal wealth. Sure, perhaps more tax cuts will help - them.

      Republicans have publicly stated that their #1 priority is removing President Obama from office.

      ...asked him if he stands by his previous statement that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” [Republican Senator] McConnell confirmed that his goal remains unchanged.

      I believe they're willing to purposely tank the economy to achieve that end. The Tea Party Nation even urges business owners to pledge to *not* hire anyone in order to hurt Obama:

      I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

      While both parties are far from perfect, I'm constantly amazed how people who are *not* white, rich, straight men think the Republican party actually cares about them.

      Cheers.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .