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."

65 of 120 comments (clear)

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 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?
5. 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?
6. 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.
7. 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
8. Re:But wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Moon shaped!
9. 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".
10. 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...
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Re:But wait... by Beorytis · 2013-07-17 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Obvious but Necessary
16. 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.
17. 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?
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Re:But wait... by zeroryoko1974 · 2013-07-17 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's no moon...that's your momma
21. 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.
22. Re:But wait... by BrentNewland · 2013-07-18 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm fine with that.
23. 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
24. 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.
25. 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"
26. 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"
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 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?
2. 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
3. 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?
4. 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?
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. 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...
13. 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."
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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."
17. 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."
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?
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... :)
Re:Larissa... by viperidaenz · 2013-07-16 20:59 · Score: 1

There was a moon in that search result?
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 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!
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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"
Re:New Moon by ringman8567 · 2013-07-17 00:05 · Score: 1

The orbital period 23 is hours. so full in 11.5 hours.
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'...
Re: it's a trap by jefe7777 · 2013-07-17 00:57 · Score: 1

That's no comment!
Trekkies by tverbeek · 2013-07-17 01:13 · Score: 1

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

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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.
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."