Slashdot Mirror


Bizarre Hexagon On Saturn May Be 180 Miles Tall (space.com)

Iwastheone shares a report from Space.com: The weird hexagon swirling around Saturn's north pole is much taller than scientists had thought, a new study suggests. Researchers have generally regarded the 20,000-mile-wide (32,000 kilometers) hexagon -- a jet stream composed of air moving at about 200 mph (320 km/h) -- as a lower-atmosphere phenomenon, restricted to the clouds of Saturn's troposphere. But the bizarre structure actually extends about 180 miles (300 km) above those cloud tops, up into the stratosphere, at least during the northern spring and summer, a new study suggests. The hexagon, which surrounds a smaller circular vortex situated at the north pole, has existed for at least 38 years; NASA's Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft spotted the sharp-cornered feature when they flew by Saturn in 1980 and 1981, respectively. Scientists started to get much more detailed looks at the hexagon in 2004, when NASA's Cassini spacecraft began orbiting the ringed planet. But Cassini's hexagon observations were pretty much confined to the troposphere for a decade after its arrival; springtime didn't come to Saturn's north until 2009, and low temperatures in the stratosphere continued to compromise measurements by the probe's Composite Infrared Spectrometer (CIRS) instrument for another five years.

The formation of a stratospheric hexagon appears to be tied to the warming brought on by the change of seasons, the research team wrote in the new study. Indeed, Cassini spied a vortex high above the south pole during its early years at Saturn, when that hemisphere was enjoying summer. (Saturn takes 30 Earth years to orbit the sun, so seasons on the ringed planet last about 7.5 years apiece.) But the southern stratospheric vortex wasn't hexagonal. And neither, for that matter, is the vortex that spins around the south pole lower down, in the tropospheric clouds, the researchers said. "This could mean that there's a fundamental asymmetry between Saturn's poles that we're yet to understand, or it could mean that the north polar vortex was still developing in our last observations and kept doing so after Cassini's demise," study lead author Leigh Fletcher, of the University of Leicester in England, said in a statement.

11 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Giant Bees by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 2

    Nice to see the giant bees have made a start on their honeycomb.

  2. American scientists are fine with SI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't a problem with US scientists, as the published paper uses SI units throughout, no "miles" anywhere. The problem is space.com, dumbing down its science reporting to prevent its readers' brains from exploding, or something like that.

    Well I beg to differ with that perception. American readers who are interested in the sciences can handle SI units just fine, it's only people with no STEM interest at all who curl up into a fetal position whenever their brains turn on. Don't paint everyone with that brush.

    The solution is simple: give space.com a wide berth, or send them negative feedback about their mishandling of science.

    1. Re:American scientists are fine with SI by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is no more "dumbing down" reporting than adjusting reported times for the current timezone. Insisting on times in UTC has some merit, but isn't necessary, and is just as arbitrary as demanding SI units.

      This!

      As l like to point out to our friends who pop a gasket every time someone dares to mention a non-metric unit of measure, The official metre id defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 second

      A freaking fraction! And tied to the freaking second!

      The second, by the way, is defined as The duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Most people shorten it to nine billion oscillations, but our Metric friends pride themselves on their accuracy and the universal logic of their system

      Rather arbitrary one might think, and a rather odd thing that it's adherents find it necessary to thump their chests like Gorillas in heat.

      When in fact, anyone with a bit of intelligence can seamlessly move between the two systems. I have a metric lathe and mill in my home shop, but I regularly make standard parts on it. And I can make metric parts on a standard device.

      So Chill, my homies, and we can get back to much more important issues, like who would win in a fight between Captain Kirk and Captain Picard.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:American scientists are fine with SI by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Surely you jest. I get to listen to how the metric system is so logical, so just right, so "we have ten fingers and ten toes, so it is perfect" when you folks who are simply not capable of using a differnt system use your inability to strut like you asre somehow superior.

      You know I did hear that. From a man. Made of straw.

      Brittle and maladaptive.

      Imperial measurements? Sure. I'll raise my 568ml (or is it 473) glass to that.

      In fact, if you came to me requesting a part made in grains, I would do it, maybe crack a smile, but not a word of bitching would leave these lips, because I can work in any unit of measurement provided.

      You're confusing "can" and "should". I can work in imperial and have done so many times. But it's full of the most inane conversion factors. So, it's basically more of a pain in the arse.

      Once again, give me units, and I'll work in them.

      Just because you're able to doesn't make the system good. You're probably able to walk to every destination you go to on a regular basis. Sure it might take days but you could do it. But I suspect you choose to drive a car where you can ond only walk when you must.

      Do not disrepect fractions - they are the very base of your unit of measure.

      Right so your argument is to simply ignore what I wrote. Good-o.

      That's nice. I have metric, Standard, and a few Whitworth even. The last was used on some British motorcycles. Not very adaptable are ya?

      You can't have it both ways. What do you think I needed that #7 drill for if not working in imperial. That by your rather silly definition makes me adaptable.

      But I'n not fitting your narrative, am I?

      Oh god you're the kind of nutjob who uses the word "narrative" when you're not talking about a word of fiction. No wonder this is so painful.

      I'm supposed to be the stupid 'Murrican,

      You seem to be doing your level best to appear so.

      and save the brain cells for more important things, not simple mindless things.

      And that's why I prefer the metric system. No need to remember or dig out the conversion factor between cubic feet and gallons. Or BTUs per hour, horsepower and foot-pound-force per second. Or what a #7 drill is in 1/32s of an inch and/or what that is in thou.

      understand that the metric system is just as arbitrary as anything else.

      Then you understand wrong and don't know either the metric or imperial systems as well as you claim.

      Metric has fewer arbitrary choices. You have the meter, second and kilogram. From that you get all lengths, areas, volumes, force, energy and power. That's a grand total of 3 arbitrary choices so far. Everything else is straightforward multiples which I'll discount even though there's a rather less rich variety of multiples than in imperial (that is an understatement).

      Imperial. Well it has the second (of course). And the inch based lengths. Two so far. But apparently those aren't sufficient and for sizes there's also the related drill bit and wire guage size which gives us 4 choices. Area's fine (even if acres are based on some rather perverse multiples). Volumes not so much. Cubic inches, sure. But then there's the unrelated floz based units. And we're on to 5 arbitrary choices so far.

      So on to mass. Well, we've got lbs. Fine. Force (lbf) is done via the Earth's grvity. Another arbitrary constant added in. That's 6. That gives us the rather natural unit of energy ft-lbf which is passable. And that gives power at er 550 ft-lbf/s. Except there's two more completely arbitrary ones, calories and BTUs. Because water is important and why stick to Farenheit anyway. That's now 8 arbitrary choices.

      So no, you're wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. There are demonstrably more arbitrary choices in imperial as opposed to metric.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. Re:We only Thought Stargates were Round... by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Any 12 year old will know the answer to this one: "Probably Uranus".

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  4. Re:We only Thought Stargates were Round... by Carewolf · · Score: 2

    It is a wargame "square".. The question is: Who is playing?

  5. THE MONOLITH!!! by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Queue Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra". Quick! Time is of the essence!

  6. Re:Sharp corners? Miles above clouds? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. If you look at the picture, it isn't a sharp corner. The curve radius is bigger then the earth.
    2. Hexagons are natural aspects of squishing circles together. We see it in bubbles forming together and what bees make. It appears that there is some sort of outward force fighting the inward forces.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  7. Re:Sharp corners? Miles above clouds? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

    How much experience do you have with methane winds at -180 degrees on a gas giant with high gravity? Just wondering.

    Is that a trick question to see whether he's an alien visitor?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. Hexagon's origin explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I saw a pot at a musuem filled with water and glitter. It was hooked up to a motor which would swirl the glitter water. At just the right amount of swirl, the pattern formed inside was hexagonal. Fluid dynamics, all natural, no aliens involved.

    Oh, and for all you foreigners on Slashdot: the US does not use "imperial" measurements. Only the countries that gained their independence from the UK in the 20th Century used those (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.), as well as the UK, obviously. The US uses "Customary" units which evolved from imperial units but had most of the weirdness removed (rationalized).

  9. Hexagon has been recreated in the lab by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    The origin of the hexagon is no real mystery. It was recreated in a laboratory tank 8 years ago. (Link includes a video showing a hexagon forming in the tank). It forms when the spin rates between the inner and outer fluid hit a certain ratio. Normally the speed differential creates a chaotic interface at the boundary layer. But at certain ratios it creates a standing wave which forms a hexagon (well, not really standing since it moves, but in a certain rotational frame it's a standing wave).

    It's impressive that the hexagon is that tall, since that implies the wind speeds are consistent through that height.