Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Photos of Ultima Thule Suggest Long-Ago Moons (jhuapl.edu)

"Scientists from NASA's New Horizons mission released the first detailed images of the most distant object ever explored," reports the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (which is operating the spacecraft). "Its remarkable appearance, unlike anything we've seen before, illuminates the processes that built the planets four and a half billion years ago."

Tablizer (Slashdot reader #95,088) shares their report: "The new images -- taken from as close as 17,000 miles (27,000 kilometers) on approach -- revealed Ultima Thule as a "contact binary," consisting of two connected spheres. End to end, the world measures 19 miles (31 kilometers) in length. The team has dubbed the larger sphere "Ultima" (12 miles/19 kilometers across) and the smaller sphere "Thule" (9 miles/14 kilometers across). The team says that the two spheres likely joined as early as 99 percent of the way back to the formation of the solar system, colliding no faster than two cars in a fender-bender...

Data from the New Year's Day flyby will continue to arrive over the next weeks and months, with much higher resolution images yet to come.

Space.com reports that astronomers are now hunting for moons near Ultima Thule. At a Thursday news conference, a New Horizons co-investigator from the SETI Institute explained that the rotation of Ultima Thule appears to have been slowed by orbiting moons, and the discovery of "Any moon at all, on any orbit at all, will tell us the mass and the density to pretty decent usable precision." Although it's also possible that the moons of Ultima Thule have since drifted away.

Space.com adds that the New Horizons spacecraft "has enough fuel and power, and is in good enough health, to potentially fly past a third object, if NASA grants another mission extension."

38 comments

  1. That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a +5 informative first post.

    1. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the moon landing (hoax) all over again!
      Come on, after all of these years you'd think people wouldn't recognize that this is a picture of a couple of cotton balls?
      Proof :: there are no background stars in the picture. And I'm pretty sure I see a can of Coke mostly obscured by the
      smaller cotton ball.

      CAP === 'likelier'

  2. It's a space station! by BeauHD-Cum+Dumpster · · Score: 0

    It's a +5 insightful first reply.

    1. Re: It's a space station! by nsmash · · Score: 0

      You the one die of "colera" on Oregon Trail whitey. Why you not just go ford a river and DROWN whitey.

    2. Re: It's a space station! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get the gist

    3. Re: It's a space station! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be full of co2

    4. Re: It's a space station! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say that again (and this)

  3. Were They Their Own Moons? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    With damn-all in the vicinity (I mean, where would those moons go, right?), one would think the two chunks orbiting one another over the eons until they finally slowed enough to gently ease together (that "fender bender" is a catching image) would've done the trick. With no need for mythological missing moons.

    1. Re:Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we haven't ruled out the need for mythological missing space stations just yet.

    2. Re: Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The standard model of physics makes a prediction far too easy. The danish scientists who studied this clarified how two objects of this type might have formed such a structure. Amusingly similar to problems in fluid dynamics and runway modeling - but I digress - scientists can form their own opinion

    3. Re: Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bet is that it is simply a replica of the IT janitor from San Jose brain. The probe caught some transmission from the structure, here it is:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    4. Re: Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be.
      I am not in your time zone so it is very late for me and slashdot has suddenly just stopped making sense (it is very late at night). Usually when this happens I get up and walk around apprehensively yet happy to finally be off the computer after such a long session. I lie in bed, wondering if I will sleep. My wife says do you need a pill or something? I give her a dirty look and drift off. When I wake up the TV is on showing a baseball game. My wife offers me a cup of coffee and a breakfast sandwich. NO! I throw them on the floor. The baseball game keeps changing in odd ways. The players are different. Even the guy at bat suddenly has a new uniform. Oh my god is this a football game? Why do they have bats? I collapse again and wake up to the test pattern on the TV playing the test tone we know so well, even though we might not realize it. I fumble for the remote and turn the sound down.

    5. Re: Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yo did u ripoff that from something or wrote it urself cuz that was p gud lmao

    6. Re:Were They Their Own Moons? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Why would they slow? Without friction, they would just orbit forever. You need to transfer energy to some other object to lose orbital velocity.

    7. Re: Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A million reasons why and why not. A million reasons followed by a million reasons. Our cosmos is a strange place. I am glad we are all on earth

    8. Re:Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea about actual orbital mechanics.

    9. Re:Were They Their Own Moons? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why would they slow?

      Why don't you ask someone with experience? Try that big white ball in the night sky. It's been there, done it and got the t-shirt.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't point masses so there are tidal forces that dissipate the energy as heat. Yes, it's slow but it does happen.

    11. Re:Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an ancient moron, not an astronaut. Next.

    12. Re:Were They Their Own Moons? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      That moon is in a considerably different situation - it is in orbit around something with a coating of liquid (that's Earth ; I'm depressingly sure that some Slashdotters will need telling that) which allows much more tidal coupling of the two bodies. So the rotational angular momentum of Earth is being transferred to the Moon, slowly. About 2cm/year slowly.

      That might have happened between these two - but only during a relatively small time slot when the decay of short-lived isotopes might have made the bodies pliable. The absence (or very low number, per imagery downloaded to date) of impact craters on either body means that impact heating could not be significant.

      (The low crater counts were predicted. I was reading papers discussing that a week before closest approach.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    13. Re:Were They Their Own Moons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The process that transfers the rotational angular momentum of Earth to the moon doesn't seem likely to have occurred in the case of Ultima Thule. First of all, as you pointed out, that process doesn't really work (or at least barely works) without liquid, and Ultima Thule is way, way out in the frozen reaches of the solar system. The objects themselves are about 1 order of magnitude larger than the largest mountains on earth. That's big, but nowhere near big enough to stay appreciably warm from either latent heat of formation or radioactive decay unless it was made of incredibly radioactive material (in which case, if it was molten, you would expect the radioactive material to end up at the center, forming a critical mass that would blow the whole thing apart). True, flexing of a solid mass could eke out an effect, but the objects that formed this structure seem to be way too small to be able to have that much gravitational influence on each other. Also, the moon is being pushed _away_ from Earth by stealing its rotation, not getting closer. So, overall, it seems really far-fetched that these objects could have once been a moon and its... co-moon? Planetoid? Not sure what to call it. If they were orbiting each other before collision, then it would pretty much have to be influence of a third massive object that directed them together.

  4. Alternative theory: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is an action shot of a asteroid giving birth. ;) #MyIgnoranceIsAsGoodAsYourKnowledge

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re: Alternative theory: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A memorable article although it used a more passive voice than some

    2. Re: Alternative theory: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the article was inaccurate (and it is) it was definitely the right time for a space article that was not about rockets.

    3. Re:Alternative theory: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it looks more like a decapitated Frosty the Snowman. Somewhere out there is a incredibly big broomstick and giant magic old silk hat floating free, a ~5mi diameter ball of snow with a giant corncob pipe, a massive button nose, and two blank doll-eyes eyes made out of coal. Thumpity thump thump.... look at Frosty go.

    4. Re:Alternative theory: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an action shot of a asteroid giving birth. ;) #MyIgnoranceIsAsGoodAsYourKnowledge

      I saw that Uranus has moons...

  5. Why is NASA taking photos of Uma Thurman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and her long-ago moons

  6. WHERE do the photos suggest the moons ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOWHERE in the linked FAs is it stated that the photos suggest moons.

    Because they do not.

    Did the poster just make that up and think they could get away with it, FFS ?

    1. Re: WHERE do the photos suggest the moons ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the angle of the attached photos did not show the lack of moons. I saw it very clearly tyvm

    2. Re: WHERE do the photos suggest the moons ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theories about binary object rotation periods suggest a moon to explain the now known rotation period of the main body pair.

  7. Those Are Pictures of my Testicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks /.! Now the users here know what my testes look like!

  8. Great, but is it? by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    This seems to be nothing more than what I call "busy tech." - lotsa fun, but what exactly is the resulting knowledge good for? Is it actually worth the effort?

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:Great, but is it? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Just like the moon landings, then.

      By the way, did you use a computer to post to /.? What exactly spurred on the development of the CPU in that machine? Or the project management practices used to develop it? Or the networks used to get the message off your machine and onto mine?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Great, but is it? by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      The moon landings were about beating the Russians into and for dominance of space and the moon. They were not science for science's sake.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    3. Re:Great, but is it? by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      Actually WW2. Semiconductors came out of German/American research and came about in the early 50s in a commercial use sense. Etc, etc, etc. The first cpus were contracted for by calculator makers. Nasa used primitive computers and core memory.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
    4. Re:Great, but is it? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The moon landings were about beating the Russians into and for dominance of space and the moon.

      So, a failure then. The Russians still have pretty much as much space activity as the USA. Russians plus ESA or the Chinese would out-activity the USA. And the Chinese and Indians are coming too.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    5. Re:Great, but is it? by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      It was a success for its time, the late 1960s during the cold war. It's myopic to suppose that any success (regardless of when it was done or why) would remain the dominant success for eternity.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.