New Moon Found Orbiting Neptune

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Moon Found Orbiting Neptune

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @07:46PM from the welcome-to-the-party dept.

Dave Knott writes "A tiny, previously unknown moon circling Neptune has been spotted by astronomers using the Hubble telescope. The moon, which is currently known as S/2004 N1, was found on July 1 by Mark Showalter of the SETI Institute in Mountain View, Calif., NASA announced Monday. It is less than 20 kilometres wide and its orbit is 105,000 kilometres from Neptune, between those of Larissa and Proteus, two of Neptune's other 14 known moons. It circles Neptune once every 23 hours."

120 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

But wait... by ls671 · 2013-07-16 20:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since Pluto is not a planet anymore, we shouldn't be allowed to call a 20 km wide rock a moon. Let's have a big convention to decide how we should call it.

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
1. Re:But wait... by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-07-16 20:05 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  A space station?
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:But wait... by dltaylor · 2013-07-16 20:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The dividing line between "moons" and "rings" seems to be shared orbits, otherwise every little rock and/or ice ball in the outer planets' rings would have to be a "moon". A 20 km rock (or whatever) has enough gravity to sweep the space through which it passes, either clustering smaller bits into rings, adding them to its mass, or ejecting them from the planetary system.
  Remember, Pluto was only a "planet" because we didn't realize it was an instance of a much larger class of KBOs. Now it appears to be more like a cluster of bits orbiting a mutual center, different from the planets and their moons, which have an orbital center deep inside the respective planets. Even without the companion bits, though, it's still a KBO.
  We had already separated the "asteroids" from the 8 planets.
3. Re:But wait... by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-07-16 20:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  A cheek?
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
4. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 20:20 · Score: 0
  
  So what you are saying is ... that's no moon?
5. Re:But wait... by Sockatume · 2013-07-16 20:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The IAU uses "moon" and "natural satellite" synonymously, which in this context refers to any natural body in a bound orbit of Neptune. I'm not sure why you think a 20km rock would fail to meet that definition.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
6. Re:But wait... by BrentNewland · 2013-07-16 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  How about specifying it must have enough gravity to make it round to be called a moon and not just a satellite?
7. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 21:14 · Score: 0
  
  How about specifying it must have enough gravity to make it round to be called a moon and not just a satellite?
  First specify round.
8. Re:But wait... by ls671 · 2013-07-16 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  So you are saying it is a no-go? Damn it, I had a lot of fun last time I was at the assembly in Prague. Since I am solar system specialist, for sure I would have had budget from my employer to go to Honolulu in 2015 but I guess you just ruined everything...
  http://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/
  http://www.iau.org/science/meetings/future/general_assemblies/1024/
  http://astronomy2015.org/
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
9. Re:But wait... by evilviper · 2013-07-16 21:38 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Too small to call it a moon, huh? Well... how about a "planet-orbiiting object" or "poo" for short?
  As in, Neptune has a bit of poo right over there... Scientists suspect it came out of the moon.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
10. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Moon shaped!
11. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 23:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Remember, Pluto was only a "planet" because we didn't realize it was an instance of a much larger class of KBOs. Now it appears to be more like a cluster of bits orbiting a mutual center, different from the planets and their moons, which have an orbital center deep inside the respective planets. Even without the companion bits, though, it's still a KBO.
  Also, we once found a "planet" (Ceres) between Mars and Jupiter, and then another (Pallas), and then came Vesta and Hygiea. And then we realized that what was in between Mars and Jupiter was an asteroid belt.
  We don't go around demanding Ceres be called a planet again because (a) it isn't, and (b) all the people who may have thought of it that was are now dead. This 'Pluto Restoration Society' will go away when those that can't adjust their mind to the reality of the universe die off. See Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
12. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 23:40 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  would have been MUCH better if it had been around Uranus...
13. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  It is a function of more than just gravity. Time is a pretty vital factor as well not to mention the substance the satellite consists of. Besides, not even the very planet we live on is particularly round so why should an orbiting object have to be "round" to be called a moon if the definition of a planet isn't that it should be round either.
14. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  There is a disturbance in the force.
15. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 00:17 · Score: 0
  
  The dividing line between "moons" and "rings" seems to be shared orbits, otherwise every little rock and/or ice ball in the outer planets' rings would have to be a "moon". A 20 km rock (or whatever) has enough gravity to sweep the space through which it passes, either clustering smaller bits into rings, adding them to its mass, or ejecting them from the planetary system.
  Remember, Pluto was only a "planet" because we didn't realize it was an instance of a much larger class of KBOs. Now it appears to be more like a cluster of bits orbiting a mutual center, different from the planets and their moons, which have an orbital center deep inside the respective planets. Even without the companion bits, though, it's still a KBO.
  We had already separated the "asteroids" from the 8 planets.
  The Earth and Moon are "a cluster of bits orbiting a mutual center".
16. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  Pluto is not planet not becaouse of the size. The change in the deffinition stated that planet is an object witch clears is orbith path / has clear orbith path (or something like that). So the reason for removing the planet status from Pluto was the eleptical orbit witch goes throu the Oort cloud...
17. Re:But wait... by ibwolf · 2013-07-17 00:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  How about specifying it must have enough gravity to make it round to be called a moon and not just a satellite?
  That would reduce the number of moons in the solar system rather dramatically. Mars, for example, would no longer have any "moons" as neither Phobos nor Deimos meet this definition. In fact both Phobos (11.1 km) and Deimos (6.2 km) are smaller than this newly discovered moon of Neptune (20 km).
18. Re:But wait... by arth1 · 2013-07-17 01:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Also, we once found a "planet" (Ceres) between Mars and Jupiter, and then another (Pallas), and then came Vesta and Hygiea. And then we realized that what was in between Mars and Jupiter was an asteroid belt.
  The asteroids were known long before Pluto was discovered, though. And classified as asteroids for over a century by then.
  As for which one was discovered first, Ceres was the first registered, but there are historic data hinting at Vesta having been known in earlier times - it's at times visible to the naked eye.
19. Re:But wait... by ShanghaiBill · 2013-07-17 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  The Earth and Moon are "a cluster of bits orbiting a mutual center".
  The center-of-gravity of the Earth-Moon system is inside the Earth. For the Pluto-Charon system, the COG is outside of Pluto.
20. Re:But wait... by arth1 · 2013-07-17 01:13 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Remember, Pluto was only a "planet" because we didn't realize it was an instance of a much larger class of KBOs.
  No, Pluto was a planet because it was a predicted discovery - it was named a planet before it was discovered. Percival Lowell calculated a possible path for "the missing planet" based on what looked like discrepancies in Neptune's orbit.
  Clyde Tombaugh then found "it", and was convinced it was Lowell's Planet X. That what he found near where the incorrect calculations pointed wasn't going to have any noticeable effect on Neptune's orbit didn't stop Lowell Observatory and the press from calling it a planet. Remember that this was Rah-Rah-Amerikah, and one shouldn't let pesky things like facts stand in the way of self-aggrandizement and national pride.
21. Re:But wait... by Beorytis · 2013-07-17 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Obvious but Necessary
22. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  The barycenter of the Sun-Jupiter system is outside the Sun also.
23. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  Remember, Pluto was only a "planet" because we didn't realize it was an instance of a much larger class of KBOs.
  No, Pluto was a planet because it was a predicted discovery - it was named a planet before it was discovered. Percival Lowell calculated a possible path for "the missing planet" based on what looked like discrepancies in Neptune's orbit.
  Clyde Tombaugh then found "it", and was convinced it was Lowell's Planet X. That what he found near where the incorrect calculations pointed wasn't going to have any noticeable effect on Neptune's orbit didn't stop Lowell Observatory and the press from calling it a planet. Remember that this was Rah-Rah-Amerikah, and one shouldn't let pesky things like facts stand in the way of self-aggrandizement and national pride.
  Cite please.
24. Re:But wait... by kryliss · 2013-07-17 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  As the title reads... New moon found orbiting Neptune.
  Not Pluto.
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
25. Re:But wait... by Sockatume · 2013-07-17 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  See if you can start an argument over whether "stable orbit" is properly defined given the many-body problem. I figure that's got at least one good weekend symposium in it.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
26. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying we should stop calling the sun a "planet"?
27. Re:But wait... by operagost · 2013-07-17 03:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There was no astronomical definition for "planet" at the time. Nationalism had nothing to do with it. I'm sure just about any nation is pleased when their scientists make discoveries, and with the knowledge at the time and high popularity of astronomy with the public the response was to be expected. You're looking at this through the lens of a modern elitist.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
28. Re:But wait... by arth1 · 2013-07-17 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Cite please.
  No. Do your own homework. Googling "pluto discovery" should give you boatloads of material.
  As for the part you bolded, you cited that just fine.
29. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  "That's no small moon, it's a space station..."
30. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  How about specifying it must have enough gravity to make it round to be called a moon and not just a satellite?
  If we use that criteria then we don't have a moon either. And if we extend the criteria of "round" to planets, the Earth is no longer a planet. In fact, the only thing you can reliably claim is "round" would be a singularity, everything else is deformed to some degree. The Earth, for example, is actually egg-shaped, not round.
31. Re:But wait... by zeroryoko1974 · 2013-07-17 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's no moon...that's your momma
32. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  It is not a space station you silly fool, it is an advanced scout ship for an alien invasion.
33. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Using the location of a barycenter is a rather poor definition to use for a double planet, as it depends not only on the relative mass, but also the distance between the two bodies, with larger distances making for an external barycenter. The Earth-Moon barycenter is already about 75% of the radius of the Earth away from the center of the Earth, and with the increasing distance, in a couple billion years would start to have a barycenter outside of the Earth. So if you prefer that definition of a double planet or something else, it comes with the idea that a system of objects could change from not meeting the definition to meeting it by just moving them further apart.
34. Re:But wait... by Muros · 2013-07-17 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Pluto was the eleptical orbit witch
  I always knew orbital mechanics was a dark art.
35. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Stable orbit is easy to define, as it is about timescales and such timescales are pretty obvious in several fields of science. The only problem is there would be more than one such timescale, but it would at least be a very small, finite number. It would probably come down to either "Stable orbit: an orbit that does not change significantly before the current IAU members retire," or "Stable orbit: an orbit that does not change significantly on the timescale of a PhD thesis."
36. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  The asteroids were known long before Pluto was discovered, though. And classified as asteroids for over a century by then.
  You're missing the point. At the time Ceres was discovered, the rest of the asteroid belt wasn't, and so it was considered a planet. Later, the rest of the asteroid belt was discovered, and so Ceres was downgraded to an asteroid. Similarly, at the time Pluto was discovered, the rest of the Kuiper belt wasn't, and so Pluto was considered a planet. Later, the rest of the Kuiper belt was discovered, and so Pluto was downgraded to a Kuiper belt object.
37. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 21:03 · Score: 0
  
  yo mamma
38. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-18 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, if we are following the IAU definitions, there are only 8 planets in the entire universe. At least by the horribly written qualifiers. Not Arguing the intent mind you, just the bad wording.
39. Re: But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-18 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Witch?..
40. Re:But wait... by BrentNewland · 2013-07-18 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm fine with that.
41. Re:But wait... by Kizul+Emeraldfire · 2013-07-18 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Let's have a big convention to decide how we should call it.
  It doesn't matter how you call it -- it's not gonna come. :p
42. Re:But wait... by ls671 · 2013-07-18 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Hehe ;-) you would be surprised on how good I am to call things.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1y_U4s6jfs
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
43. Re:But wait... by RockDoctor · 2013-07-18 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  The asteroids were known long before Pluto was discovered, though. And classified as asteroids for over a century by then.
  Perhaps more relevant ... Ceres (the first asteroid) was discovered in 1801, but the increasing number of bodies discovered in that region didn't lead to the proposal and implementation of the term "asteroid" until 70-ish years later after the introduction of photography as an astronomical technique (and several years more to become accepted practice) ; Pluto was discovered in 1930, and other trans-Neptunian objects started being added after advances in space telescopes and adaptive optics made them more visible, a bit over 60 years later.
  Some data: discovery years of asteroids (1801, 1802, 1804, 1807, 1847, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850 ...) ; discovery years of KBOs (1930, 1977 (Chiron, if you count it), 1979 (Charon if you count it separately from Pluto), 1992, 1993, 1993, 1993, 1993, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1994 ...).
  I'd say that "asteroids" became accepted as a class a couple of decades after their count started to accumulate substantially (following a change in observation technology), and the various classes of trans-Neptunian object (not all of them trans-Neptunian) became accepted a decade and a half after their counts started to accumulate (following several changes in observation technologies).
  I can't claim to be terribly happy about the demise of Pluto as a planet. I argued for a criterion of sphericity under self-gravity and a Sun-centred orbit, not this "gravitational clearing" guff. Which would give us probably a couple of hundred planets when the count is finally in. Large, but not un-manageable as a class. Possibly by then, you'd treat "icy", "rocky" and "gassy" planets as separate classes - on the grounds of different material properties and probably different histories and locations. But that wasn't the way the professionals went, and I'm content that the subject was battered around a lot.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
44. Re:But wait... by RockDoctor · 2013-07-18 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  That is rather dependent on the composition. Different materials have different strengths.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
45. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-22 18:25 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like to put forward the name:
  SOM (Small Orbiting Moon, for objects 100km in diameter)
Meh.... by yo303 · 2013-07-16 20:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I like our moon better.
But honestly I have not been to either.
1. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 20:39 · Score: 0
  
  I think Neptune's moon, or at least its surface, is cooler.
2. Re:Meh.... by mwvdlee · 2013-07-16 20:44 · Score: 2
  
  Our moon doesn't even have a name.
  Neptunes are called "Larissa", "Proteus" or even "S/2004 N1", ours is just called "moon".
  It's like living in "country" in the village of "village" in a house on "street" or naming all your offspring "child".
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
3. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's more like calling your city "Rome", and then discovering that there are other Romes in the world.
4. Re: Meh.... by BitZtream · 2013-07-16 21:29 · Score: 2
  
  ... Luna isn't proper enough for you?
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
5. Re: Meh.... by mwvdlee · 2013-07-16 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Same problem non-name in a different language.
  ""The moon is a moon" in English is "La luna es una luna" in Spanish.
  (I trust Google translate is good enough not to mess up the spanish in this simple sentence).
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
6. Re:Meh.... by ls671 · 2013-07-16 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  At least it has a dark side. I wonder how many moons have a dark side in the solar system. Meaning, rotation period around its planet equals rotation period on itself.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
7. Re: Meh.... by oobayly · 2013-07-16 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get the point you're making about the translation. Are you saying that google translate should be able to pick up the nuance in that sentence and return a different word for moon if the Spanish use different words for our moon and a moon?
  You're general point is interesting though - are there any languages that do use different words for the two?
8. Re: Meh.... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-07-16 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  You're general point is interesting though - are there any languages that do use different words for the two?
  That's not very likely, seeing as the generic term is derived from the original proper name.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
9. Re: Meh.... by PhilHibbs · 2013-07-16 22:30 · Score: 2
  
  Same problem non-name in a different language.
  ""The moon is a moon" in English is "La luna es una luna" in Spanish.
  (I trust Google translate is good enough not to mess up the spanish in this simple sentence).
  But, "Luna es una luna" is not just Spanish, "Luna" is latin, it just happens to be spelt the same way as a Spanish word.
10. Re:Meh.... by AlecC · 2013-07-16 22:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or living on a lump of earth called "Earth" orbiting a sun called "Sun" in a universe called "the Universe".
  
  --
  Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
11. Re:Meh.... by AlecC · 2013-07-16 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  Dark in "Dark Side of the Moon" means "unknown", in the same sense as "Darkest Africa" or "Dark Arts". Nobody thought the sun didn't rise in unexplored Africa - though there seems to be a convention that Dark Arts are practised at night in dark robes.
  Hey, if I do my Dark Spells on the beach in a Hawaiian shirt, maybe nobody will notice. World domination, here I come!
  
  --
  Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
12. Re:Meh.... by tbird81 · 2013-07-16 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  This phenomenon is called tidal locking.
  From Wikipedia:
  
  Most significant moons in the Solar System are tidally locked with their primaries, since they orbit very closely and tidal force increases rapidly (as a cubic) with decreasing distance. Notable exceptions are the irregular outer satellites of the gas giant planets, which orbit much farther away than the large well-known moons.
  Pluto and Charon are an extreme example of a tidal lock. Charon is a relatively large moon in comparison to its primary and also has a very close orbit. This has made Pluto also tidally locked to Charon. In effect, these two celestial bodies revolve around each other (their barycenter lies outside of Pluto) as if joined with a rod connecting two opposite points on their surfaces.
  The tidal locking situation for asteroid moons is largely unknown, but closely orbiting binaries are expected to be tidally locked, as well as contact binaries.
13. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  So how come we have a name for our galaxy?
  The Milky Way
14. Re:Meh.... by AlecC · 2013-07-16 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  Due to sitting inside it, rather than on or outside it, it had a name bases on its appearance seen from the inside long before we realised that there wer other similar things, which we saw from the outside. Though "galaxy" is only "Milky Way" in Latin.
  
  --
  Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
15. Re:Meh.... by RaceProUK · 2013-07-16 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  Our moon doesn't even have a name.
  Yes it does - it's called 'The Moon'! :)
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
16. Re:Meh.... by rossdee · 2013-07-17 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  There is no Dark Side of the Moon really...
  Matter of fact its all dark...
17. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  It's like living in "country" in the village of "village" in a house on "street" or naming all your offspring "child".
  It's been done.
18. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Though "galaxy" is only "Milky Way" in Latin.
  Only if Andromeda is also a Milky Way.
19. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  That is an interesting point. Many languages spell different words the same way, even in cases where the pronunciation is different.
  Since "Moon" means a different thing than "moon", is it really correct to claim that it is the same word or is it just a homonym the way bow can mean both an action and an object?
20. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  ...And everybody is there
21. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Our moon doesn't even have a name.
  Neptunes are called "Larissa", "Proteus" or even "S/2004 N1", ours is just called "moon".
  It's like living in "country" in the village of "village" in a house on "street" or naming all your offspring "child".
  In English we just call it the Moon, but the Scientific (aka- Latin) name is Luna. Selena is also acceptable, although less well-known and not often used these days.
  Along the same lines, in English we just call our star "the Sun", but its name is actually "Sol".
22. Re: Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  Right. Because Spanish isnt a Romance language or anything.
23. Re: Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  Same problem non-name in a different language.
  ""The moon is a moon" in English is "La luna es una luna" in Spanish.
  (I trust Google translate is good enough not to mess up the spanish in this simple sentence).
  That's because the Spanish word for "Moon" comes directly from the Latin, whereas the English word "moon" comes from Germanic roots.
  In Roman mythology, Luna was the goddess of the moon (Selene to the Greeks), so if we keep with astronomical naming traditions either of those would be correct names.
  And just FYI, google failed you. In order to properly illustrate the concept, the English version of "La Luna es una luna" would translate to "The Moon is a satellite".
  Or put another way, it's like if you named your dog "Dog" instead of actually coming up with a name for it.
24. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  but the Scientific (aka- Latin) name is Luna. Selena is also acceptable
  That isn't the scientific name, that is just at best a sci-fi name, as that seems to be the only place it gets regular use. The IAU recommends using whatever local language name for "moon," i.e. Moon in English, or Luna in Spanish. And this is what I've seen in astronomy papers, they use Moon and Sun. Selena is not an acceptable alternative, and neither is the slightly more correct spelling Selene, as that is just Moon in Greek. Just because there are adjective forms lunar, selenic, or solar does not mean their names have to be the same (Venus was not renamed when Cytherean became a popular adjective form).
25. Re:Meh.... by steelfood · 2013-07-17 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Me too. The tidal forces it creates makes Earth a far more diverse place. And interestingly enough, there are biological rythms based on it. There are no other planets in our solar system with such a significant moon.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
26. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  No. Our moon has a name: Moon. It was called Moon long before we knew of other moons. The word "moon" comes from the name "Moon", not the other way around. This would in fact be closer to calling all children "child" because the name of your first child was "Child".
27. Re:Meh.... by Immerman · 2013-07-17 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that the planets were named after various gods long before they were recognized as other worlds (the word planet originally meant "wandering star") Those names stuck (Neptune, Venus, Mars, etc), and by the same convention the Moon was named after the goddess Luna (or Selene, depending on the source mythology). The two remaining major celestial bodies, the Earth and Sun, get special treatment because from our perspective they are special. Earth is named after what we see of it: dirt, whereas the Sun...well I don't know, probably some god-name buried somewhere in the pre-recorded history of that name too, regardless of language.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
28. Re:Meh.... by Muros · 2013-07-17 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure it could very well be, if viewed from the correct position inside it. You missed the point; the word "galaxy" is derived from the latin for milky way.
29. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 12:32 · Score: 0
  
  Those names stuck... the same convention the Moon was named after the goddess Luna
  
  Except the whole name not actually sticking for the Moon. If you want to argue what is the scientific name for something, you could look to actual papers by scientists used for communicating to other scientists. I've seen some astronomers use Luna and Sol in public directed interviews, but not in journal articles (unless there is some massive variation between subfields). Most astronomers probably don't care that much, as either would be clear, but it is still a hypercorrection or worse to try to say the Latin forms are scientific and the English forms are not.
30. Re:Meh.... by Hognoxious · 2013-07-18 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Eventually the Earth will also become tidally locked to the moon, so a month and a day will be the same.
  Apparently builders and plumbers already operate on this calendar.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
31. Re: Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-18 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  Oh I didn't realize we could just assume it was Spanish. In that case Santa Clause is obviously the oldest known story about a trans-gendered saint.
32. Re:Meh.... by Hognoxious · 2013-07-18 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Neptunes are called "Larissa", "Proteus" or even "S/2004 N1"
  Neptune is singular, and it's called Neptune.
  
  Along the same lines, in English we just call our star "the Sun", but its name is actually "Sol".
  Stop making shit up, you idiot.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
S/2004 N1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 20:10 · Score: 0

"S/2004 N1" means the first Satellite of Neptute found in 2004.
So, this is more a confirmation than a discovery...
1. Re:S/2004 N1 by Sockatume · 2013-07-16 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  It was identified using data that was originally gathered in 2004-2009, but it was only found this year; it would appear that by convention the earliest data indicating its presence provides the discovery date, regardless of when the data was actually looked at.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Larissa... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 20:16 · Score: 0

cute name for a moon.
1. Re:Larissa... by viperidaenz · 2013-07-16 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  There was a moon in that search result?
Not a "new" moon at all.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 20:34 · Score: 0

I betcha it's actually quite old.
Re: it's a trap by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 20:42 · Score: 0

I came here to say "that's no moon!" but you beat me to it.
well by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 20:54 · Score: 1

Neil Armstrong commonly referred to it as 'Luna' and if anyone should know its proper name, it would be him
1. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't refer to the moon by name. He referred to it with the Latin word for it. In science, you know, Latin is pretty often used... :)
2. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  In science, you know, Latin is pretty often used... :)
  Latin is pretty common in science, except for when referring to the Sun and the Moon in English language journal articles...
New Moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 21:39 · Score: 0

In 13 days it will be full.
1. Re:New Moon by ringman8567 · 2013-07-17 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  The orbital period 23 is hours. so full in 11.5 hours.
Planets and moons are just objects by bytesex · 2013-07-16 22:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Thinking of 'planets' and 'moons' is all nineteenth century 'science' - the edge of ascribing to God's plan and capturing everything observable in orderly lists, so that school-children have something to recite in groups: five continents, five senses, five races, seven seas, seven wonders of the ancient world, order species genus family class kingdom, and nine planets.
In reality, things don't work out that way.

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
1. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-07-16 22:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Capturing everything observable in orderly lists (based on the mechanics of the underlying model) is science. Calling planets and moons "objects" is akin to discovering more and more kinds of atoms and particles and deciding to call everything just "stuff" because it doesn't fit your model anymore. The right answer is to rethink the definitions and perhaps alter the model. The distinction between planets and moons is still a useful one even if we found a few cases where we're not sure how we should classify them.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by CastrTroy · 2013-07-16 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but surely trying to classify everything into well defined groups comes up with some problem. Pluto is no longer a planet because we decided later to change the definition of planet to things that are actually big enough to clear out any other debris in their orbit. But when you compare on other traits, Pluto is more similar to Earth than Jupiter is to Earth. Jupiter doesn't even have a well defined solid surface. To put Jupiter and Earth in the same class but then leave out Pluto because of some certain criteria seems a little odd. This is the problem, we try to stick stuff in groups, but then those groups end up being hard to define because there's so much stuff out there that doesn't fit into any of the defined groups, or fits into what are supposed to be 2 or 3 distinct groups.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
3. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  Thinking of 'planets' and 'moons' is all nineteenth century 'science' - the edge of ascribing to God's plan and capturing everything observable in orderly lists, so that school-children have something to recite in groups: five continents, five senses, five races, seven seas, seven wonders of the ancient world, order species genus family class kingdom, and nine planets.
  In reality, things don't work out that way.
  Maybe, maybe not: but I'd rather have people memorize some basic facts so they have some data points to hang their sense of reality off of, rather than trying to teach them something more complicated that does not stick so they have no sense of reality whatsoever.
4. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-07-16 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit! People need something to relate to. You have to put fantastic phenomena in terms they understand. I'm wondering where your brain spends its time if the first thing you come up with is this sad idea. So schoolchildren can recite lists? WTF dude, you're wrong.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
5. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by bytesex · 2013-07-16 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  I remember having a discussion with my biology teacher: he claimed that humans don't have instinct - none, and why? Because the definition of 'instinct' involved stating that it didn't apply to humans. That's what these lists are: a way to win a discussion and if you can't win it, you just change the rules.
  Yes, people need something they can relate to. Sure. But I'm not so sure that it would hurt if things were taught a little bit more to their specific merits: I remember how distraught I was when I learned (on my own BTW) that you could never walk on the surface of Jupiter. Why not? It's a planet after all!
  
  --
  Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
6. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by bytesex · 2013-07-16 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Right then. So 'objects' are out. Does 'celestial bodies' work for ya? Oh, and you mention that 'the distinction between planets and moons is still a useful one' - can you give an example?
  
  --
  Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
7. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  Right then. So 'objects' are out. Does 'celestial bodies' work for ya? Oh, and you mention that 'the distinction between planets and moons is still a useful one' - can you give an example?
  To the Moon, Alice!
8. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by gl4ss · 2013-07-17 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  defining that it goes around another object in a trajectory that it goes is more useful than knowing if it's a planet, moon, asteroid, comet or what.
  just like it's better about a car to know how fast it is and how well it turns than it is to know if was labeled a sports car when it was sold.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
9. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  Why "celestial bodies?" How are they any different than Mount Everest or the hypothetical rock outside my window?
10. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, and you mention that 'the distinction between planets and moons is still a useful one' - can you give an example?
  Any modeling of solar system evolution after planet formation, e.g. being concerned with capture rates of moons by planets, or using that as a estimate of properties of things like KBOs, or studying orbital stability, or studying the environment around gas giants which can be largely influence or diagnosed by moons. Those would all function with out a word "moon" and instead just use "object orbiting a planet." But sometimes it is a lot more convenient to have concise, specific words, unless you are trying to advocate a minimalistic language like Simple English or New Speak.
11. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by Immerman · 2013-07-17 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  > Jupiter doesn't even have a well defined solid surface
  To be fair that is only speculation. Scientifically sound speculation perhaps, but until we can actually probe its depths there's plenty of room for surprises.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
12. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  That is fine when talking about a specific car, and you can spell out everything that is relevant. But if you are going to look at things collectively, for trends, or lack there of, you will create a category. It might not be the same as the label the people selling the car use, but it either has to be defined when you use to make it clear or have some reasonable default if used enough so that can be skipped.
13. Re:Planets and moons are just objects by RockDoctor · 2013-07-18 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  There is room for surprises, but the extension of high-pressure work on the structure of hydrogen under extreme pressures (well below the Earth's core) is reducing the room for surprises. IIRC the work was published from the HP lab at the Carnegie Institute in Washington, USA about 3 or 4 years ago, but I can't be bothered to dig out the citations.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
They made a mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 22:28 · Score: 0

It's actually just Uranus, but you lost a lot of weight so they didn't recognize it.
New Moon Found Orbiting Neptune? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 00:38 · Score: 1

Oh, god, not even the aliens are safe from Stephenie Meyer's literature!
I don't mean to troll but... by trickstyhobbit · 2013-07-17 00:52 · Score: 1

It's not exactly a "new moon." It's just that nobody knew it was there before. I saw another headline that said "Neptune has a new moon" but I'm sure it's been there for billions of years. I'm just sayin'...
1. Re:I don't mean to troll but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  What makes you so sure it wasn't recently captured by Neptune?
Re: it's a trap by jefe7777 · 2013-07-17 00:57 · Score: 1

That's no comment!
That's no moon... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 01:02 · Score: 0

It's a space station!
Trekkies by tverbeek · 2013-07-17 01:13 · Score: 1

No, it is not going to be called "Vulcan".

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
1. Re:Trekkies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  the Trekkies need to wait till we can do a planetary survey of Epsilon Eridani.
  That is where Vulcan is supposed to be in the first place.
new moon ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 01:36 · Score: 0

Thats not a moon.... Thats a Space Station !!!!
That's no moon... by JoshDM · 2013-07-17 05:12 · Score: 1

... almost 12 hours till someone said it? Really?
That's no moon... by eap · 2013-07-17 06:52 · Score: 1

well, maybe it is.
That's no moon... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 22:31 · Score: 0

Obi-Wan: "That's no moon. It's a space station."
Han Solo: "It's too big to be a space station."
Luke: "I have a very bad feeling about this."
Bender, is that you? by Hognoxious · 2013-07-18 01:39 · Score: 1

Being derived from != equivalence. You aren't your grandfather, are you?
Also, in Latin the word declines. In Spanish it doesn't.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."