Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Strange New Objects Seen In Saturn's Rings

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the cue-monolith-jokes dept.

Space 113

Every 15 Earth years, Saturn has its equinox — the time during which its rotational axis is perpendicular to the rays from the sun, so that the sun is always directly "overhead" of Saturn's equator. This is significant because Saturn's rings orbit over the equator, so during the equinox, light from the sun hits them edge-on. This means that any objects wider than the rings, or orbiting above or below them, cast long shadows and are much easier to see. For the first time, we're able to get detailed images of these objects, thanks to Cassini. A moonlet, perhaps 1,300 feet in diameter, has been discovered in the B-ring, and the Bad Astronomy blog points out another object that seems to be bursting through the F-ring. Quoting: "The upward-angled structure is definitely real, as witnessed by the shadow it's casting on the ring material to the lower left. And what's with the bright patch right where this object seems to have slammed into the rings? Did it shatter millions of icy particles, revealing their shinier interior material, making them brighter? Clearly, something awesome and amazing happened here.

cancel ×

113 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LoL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29002977)

First

I like getting ripped off by my insurance co (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003025)

I like getting ripped off by my insurance company because I'm a fucking retard.

Obama is Hitler for valuing human life over insurance company profits.

I'm scared and dumb because I'm a fucking retard who listens to right wing hypocrites.

Re:I like getting ripped off by my insurance co (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003401)

I like getting ripped off by my insurance company because I'm a fucking retard.

Obama is Hitler for valuing human life over insurance company profits.

I'm scared and dumb because I'm a fucking retard who listens to right wing hypocrites.

the funny thing is you can see how the "other guy" or the "other side" is bought and paid for. well that's not the funny part. the funny part is that you think "your guy" is any different. look if it's a politician and it's identified with either major party, it's bought and paid for and it does NOT represent you. please stop feeding the lie that the fault is with the candidates. it is not. the fault lies with the entire system and THAT'S why we don't get good candidates who are willing to go back to a less powerful government.

Re:I like getting ripped off by my insurance co (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003829)

They're both bad, huh?

I don't buy it. The less Republicans we have in power, the better off we will be.

This has been proven over and over, even if some people never learn.

Re:I like getting ripped off by my insurance co (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004015)

This has been proven over and over [citation needed], even if some people never learn.

Fixed that for you.

Re:I like getting ripped off by my insurance co (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004303)

Let's face it - Obama doesn't give a shit about you. Congress doesn't give a shit about you. It is not their job. They give a shit about getting reelected. And they care about filling their pockets with money just as much as the insurance companies do.
Quote for today: "Government governs best when it governs least" - Thomas Jefferson

Re:I like getting ripped off by my insurance co (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004471)

The insurance companies don't give a shit about me. They take my money and then make me pay my own medical bills, as if I hadn't already been paying them.

Barack Obama cares a whole lot more about me than these stingy right wing lunatics ever will.

That's because liberals give a shit about their fellow man, while Republians just try to trick their fellow man in to voting against their own interests.

Re:I like getting ripped off by my insurance co (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29009653)

And here I thought I was a fucking retard who listens to left wing hypocrites. I would imagine that I'm more retarded than you, though, since I base my opinions on emotions instead of logic.

Savages (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003059)

A moonlet, perhaps 1,300 feet in diameter

Can we have that in perches, chains and furlongs please?

--A. Luddite

Re:Savages (3, Informative)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003353)

78.7877212121212 perches == 19.6969303030 chains == 1.96969303030303 furlongs

Re:Savages (3, Funny)

Informative (1347701) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003381)

2.731 centigrade

Re:Savages (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#29007197)

You lost me.

Re:Savages (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003763)

Are you crazy? SI-Units should be used under any circumstance.

"Reproducibility of experimental results is central to the scientific method. A standard system of units facilitates this." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement @ 2009-08-09]

Some scientists or people with great affinity to science (eg.: me) are driven crazy by people using these obsolete units.

Re:Savages (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003985)

I think the parent was joking... but I agree completley.

Re:Savages (2, Interesting)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004761)

I have no problem buying food in Imperial units (not that I have to, since I'm in Australia), since it works out the same in the end. I even say I'm 6 feet tall, despite it being all metric here. I just can't stand Imperial units in a scientific context. Mythbusters get points of starting out metric in their early days, but they lose them again for presumably caving to producers who decided Americans were too stupid to know what a Newton is.

Re:Savages (5, Funny)

hazem (472289) | more than 5 years ago | (#29006223)

producers who decided Americans were too stupid to know what a Newton is.

Of course we know what a Newton is... you just have to decide if you're going to go with one of the newer fruit varieties or to stick with the classic Fig.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fig_Newton [wikipedia.org] )

Re:Savages (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003875)

Well, lets see. The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 1.8x10^12 furlongs per fortnight......

Re:Savages (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004655)

That comes out to 4 1/3 American football fields.

That's no moon (4, Funny)

Linknoid (46137) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003069)

It's a budong [youtube.com] .

Re:That's no moon (3, Interesting)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003125)

Or maybe a monolith [wikipedia.org] ...

Re:That's no moon (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003351)

Or maybe a monolith [wikipedia.org] ...

Nice try, wrong planet. Besides, "1300 feet in diameter" isn't exactly how you'd measure rectangular parallelepiped.

Re:That's no moon (2, Informative)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003387)

In the original novel, the monolith was on a moon of Saturn.

Re:That's no moon (2, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003567)

In the original novel, the monolith was on a moon of Saturn.

Too bad the movie came first.

Re:That's no moon (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003593)

You surely meant to write "Stan [wikipedia.org] shot first!"

Re:That's no moon (2, Informative)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004087)

Technically, the book came first in that it was completed before the movie was released, but they were written together, so neither really came first.

Re:That's no moon (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#29005003)

In the original novel, the monolith was on a moon of Saturn.

Too bad the movie came first.

The movie was originally shot to finish at Saturn but Kubrick changed his mind. The Saturn footage was recycled for Silent Running.

Re:That's no moon (3, Funny)

BollocksToThis (595411) | more than 5 years ago | (#29006267)

The movie was originally shot to finish at Saturn but Kubrick changed his mind.

I bet it was the commute that did him in.

Re:That's no moon (5, Informative)

Deuxsonic (828456) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003849)

It was changed to Jupiter for the movie because Stanley Kubrick couldn't find a good image of Saturn (this was 1968, so a lot of the great images we have today didn't exist.) The book retains the original planet of Saturn, yet strangely it gets changed to Jupiter in the later books (I guess to be canon with the movie?)

Re:That's no moon (4, Informative)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004113)

Douglas Trumbull, the man who created the effects for 2001, told Kubrick that Saturn was too hard to depict realistically. As for why the setting was different in the other novels, in an author's note in 2061, Clarke claimed that each novel took place in a different parallel universe. My personal reason is that Clarke's original novels are all terrific, but his sequels are all terrible. Especially those god-awful Rama books he co-wrote with Gentry Lee. And yet, I couldn't stop reading them. I hate myself.

Re:That's no moon (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#29005053)

Douglas Trumbull, the man who created the effects for 2001, told Kubrick that Saturn was too hard to depict realistically

And then ripped the footage off for his own movie!

Re:That's no moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29008317)

Douglas Trumbull, the man who created the effects for 2001, told Kubrick that Saturn was too hard to depict realistically

And then ripped the footage off for his own movie!

According to IMDB: [imdb.com]

Originally the Discovery was to have traveled to Saturn, but the special effects crew was unable to make convincing-looking rings around the planet. Effects artist Douglas Trumbull eventually perfected a technique for making the rings after production was completed, and used Saturn's rings to great effect in his directorial debut, Silent Running (1972).

Re:That's no moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29009139)

I don't remember Clarke using the term 'Parallel' when refering to the books all taking place in different Universes. I thought his reasoning was that science had moved on between each book being written so the science was slightly different and updated.

I only remember him saying that they took place in 'different universes' due to the differences in science, which is a lot different to being set in different parallel universes.

Of course, I'm too lazy to go look for my copy of 2061 to see if the word 'Parallel' is in there, but that's my recollection.

Re:That's no moon (1)

whopub (1100981) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004121)

The book retains the original planet of Saturn, yet strangely it gets changed to Jupiter in the later books (I guess to be canon with the movie?

They should either change the whole thing (in all books, including 2001) to Jupiter, or stick with Saturn in all books (again, including 2001) since we know the reason why Kubrick couldn't stick to the original plan.

It's something that can easily be changed in a book in any new edition, but in the movie... well, not so much. Not to mention Kubrick would rise from the dead and destroy all manking if someone even thought about changing something in one of his movies. Covers and posters included!

Anyway, too bad slashdot wasn't around in the 60's so we could fix this. Now it's kind of too late.

Re:That's no moon (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#29006935)

Jupiter also looks better in the sense that it is a human ovum-shaped object which is encountering a sperm-shaped space craft. The symbolism of new life, new evolution is much clearer with Jupiter than Saturn.

Re:That's no moon (2, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003437)

Saturn is the right planet, stupid movie be damned.

And yes diameter is exactly how you would measure it until you got a high enough resolution image to atually see the shape.

Re:That's no moon (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003463)

I actually love the movie. It just wouldn't have worked for my joke and I've read the book (which I also enjoyed, but I like the movie more). However, I'm a bit biased. One of my parents wrote a book about the film and it's the first movie I ever remember watching- projected across the living room wall with a 16mm projector with a Cinemascope lens for a group of graduate students. I was around two years old. I've seen it probably hundreds of times since.

Re:That's no moon (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#29005087)

I was born in 1965 and I saw 2001 as a new release. The scene where Bowman disassembles HAL gave me nightmares for years afterwards.

Re:That's no moon (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 5 years ago | (#29009517)

Seconded, but also in my case, it was the scene where Frank Poole's body is spinning off into space. The hibernauculum didn't help much either for the mental imagery.

Re:That's no moon (1)

whopub (1100981) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004035)

Saturn is the right planet, stupid movie be damned.

Dude, take it back! It's only the best non-porn movie ever!

Re:That's no moon (2, Insightful)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 5 years ago | (#29005245)

Dude, take it back! It's only the best non-porn movie ever!

Well, it would be if it was possible to watch it without falling asleep within less than an hour into the film.

Re:That's no moon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003657)

Or maybe a monolith [wikipedia.org] ...

Nice try, wrong planet. Besides, "1300 feet in diameter" isn't exactly how you'd measure rectangular parallelepiped.

What's with the nigger notation? The better link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel) [wikipedia.org] .

Re:That's no moon (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004021)

Indeed, for a start you would use SI units.

Re:That's no moon (1)

synthparadox (770735) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003507)

Silly people. Its obviously the Magic School Bus [wikipedia.org] !

Re:That's no moon (1)

Sumbius (1500703) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003539)

But weren't budongs supposed to be extinct?

Re:That's no moon (1)

DoninIN (115418) | more than 5 years ago | (#29007761)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jvqPvDUEW8 [youtube.com] It's a spaceship. It's here to bring our machines to life and wipe us out. No one else read Trucks?/Saw Maximum Overdrive?

F-Ring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003085)

Is there an O-Ring?

Careful there buddy, you're going to blow out your O-Ring!

Too bad Uranus doesn't have rings- then it could show that turd who's boss!

Re:F-Ring? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003113)

Except it.. uh... does [nasa.gov] .

Re:F-Ring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003535)

Damn. My bad joke could have been even better! :)

Thanks, that's what I get for a lack of cosmological knowledge. The extent of my knowledge is that I'm a leo.

Re:F-Ring? (1)

jeepien (848819) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003759)

Rings were discovered around Uranus some years ago. Much to the surprise and delight of every 7th-grade astronomy student.

Re:F-Ring? (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004743)

The Fithp are coming! The Fithp are coming! Run for the hills!

Re:F-Ring? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#29005117)

The Fithp are coming! The Fithp are coming! Run for the hills!

We should just return to the trees. The Traveller Fithp will never think to look for us there.

That book would make a great movie BTW.

Dudes (2, Funny)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003151)

If you don't know what caused it by now, go watch the new Star Trek movie already. It's actually good.

stargate (2, Funny)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003161)

That's just a Goa'uld mothership approaching Earth. No need for alarm at all.

Obligatory Footfall (2, Funny)

snowwrestler (896305) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003167)

Just let me know if they spot a ring that looks like it's been braided.

Re:Obligatory Footfall (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003443)

Re:Obligatory Footfall (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#29006065)

Just let me know if they spot a ring that looks like it's been braided.

That's part of why I love slashdot. For so many people that ask for something seemingly impossible, there seems to be someone who either has the answer or knows someone that does.

Bless you uber-nerds!

radial distance? (5, Interesting)

N7DR (536428) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003189)

I haven't been able to find a reference that states the precise radial location of this object. Does anyone here have that information?

The Voyager 2 photopolarimeter data from 1981 suggested the presence of a small object in Saturn's B ring at a radial distance of around 109,000 km.

It would be interesting to know whether this is confirmation of that object, 28 years later.

(I have a vested interest: I was the principal author on the Voyager paper: Icarus 54, 267 (1983).)

Re:radial distance? (5, Informative)

spacemandave (1231398) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003269)

According to Ciclops [ciclops.org] it's 480 km inward of the outer edge of the B ring, which puts it at a radial distance of 117,100 km

Re:radial distance? (3, Informative)

N7DR (536428) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003553)

According to Ciclops [ciclops.org] it's 480 km inward of the outer edge of the B ring, which puts it at a radial distance of 117,100 km

Thanks very much; that's a much better source of information than TFA.

Re:radial distance? (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004831)

That's because it's the original source.

Re:radial distance? (3, Informative)

j-stroy (640921) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003967)

The rings are non-concentric [ciclops.org] at that point. Pushing the brightness levels to expand bright artifacts shows interesting "twisting" [photobucket.com] (look on each side lower on left, higher on right) The close-up views miss some details that a "big picture" shows, reductionism, feh.

We assume an orientation of the anomaly parallel to Saturn's axis, but from the brightness of the reflected light on the "dark side" of it suggests an angle maybe closer to that of the ring plane... remember where the sun is. Although, it could be illumination of backscatter from Saturn, or by internal reflections between the particles.

Ring particles could be caused to move by electrostatics, not just gravity or collision, so I'm thinking a long plasma trail behind a comet passing thru, or a slower moving (orbital?) charged object causing a ruction. Heck, why not a moving cloud of magnetic particles colliding with the ring bits, which are then drawn along Saturns magnetic field.

Re:radial distance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29005613)

I make it to be the shape of a barrel (or beer can if you like) ...
A few Differential Gaussians + compositing to get it so... let me know if this looks right -- dont know much about Sarturn.

http://i31.tinypic.com/2l3no5.png

Re:radial distance? (4, Interesting)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003349)

Obviously I haven't read that paper, nor any related papers on the subject ...

But wouldn't you expect to see pieces of the rings coalesces into larger objects (I'm guessing under the same forces that make planets) and then be destroyed by gravity continually?

Re:radial distance? (2, Insightful)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003601)

IANAA, but I'd expect the bits of debris to settle into an equilibrium between clumping and breaking up: rings. What you describe suggests some form of hysteresis.

Re:radial distance? (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004809)

Nope, grandparent was basically right. You form temporary gravitational aggregates and then let tides destroy them on orbital timescales. It's seen in simulations all the time and the various data show strong indications that such structures must exist. (See, for example, the A Ring Azimuthal Brightness Asymmetry.)

Re:radial distance? (1)

xilmaril (573709) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003903)

Obviously I haven't read that paper, nor any related papers on the subject ...

But wouldn't you expect to see pieces of the rings coalesces into larger objects (I'm guessing under the same forces that make planets) and then be destroyed by gravity continually?

No, while I haven't read the papers either, I can confirm that gravity will not be the force pulling objects apart, at least not directly, as it is an attractive force. Also, the forces that make planets are generally agreed to be massively more powerful than anything going on in the rings of saturn, although if they are also just gravity is beyond me.

By simple logic, the rings will settle into something resembling an equilibrium, as they haven't all turned to dust or clumped into one piece over the many eons they've had to float around. Maybe asteroids are a significant force in breaking up the debris?

Re:radial distance? (3, Informative)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004795)

Actually, no. Gravity WILL, in effect, pull objects apart thanks to tides. This is what keeps the rings from accreting into a single body, more or less. So gravity, while most simply an attractive force, *can* actual cause repulsion. (Another fine example is the F ring itself, which is shepherded by two moons. The moons push the ring back when it tries to spread toward the moons.)

This is what keeps the rings from accreting, more or less. And collisions are so slow that grinding isn't a *huge* factor, although some amount of re-collection of dust onto macroscopic particles probably helps that significantly.

Re:radial distance? (3, Informative)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004811)

No, while I haven't read the papers either, I can confirm that gravity will not be the force pulling objects apart, at least not directly, as it is an attractive force.

Maybe you should do some reading. Start with googling "roche limit". Tidal forces ripping an object apart are how the rings got formed in the first place.

Re:radial distance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003961)

No... You weren't.

I was.

Ridiculous.

Forecast: 6 more weeks of wierd science (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003197)

Cassini sees its own shadow.

Its the Fithp! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003213)

The Thuktun Flishithy has arrived. We have about 20 years until the attack. Better start building Michael right now

PS: Don't get it? Read some Larry Niven.

Re:Its the Fithp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003665)

People would've noticed if you weren't posting AC.
Enjoy your ignominy.

Re:Its the Fithp! (1)

jegla932 (148440) | more than 5 years ago | (#29006835)

++

One of my favorite sci-fi books!

Skylark? (1)

dan_the_heretic (260226) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003313)

No big deal, just Dick Seaton blowing off some steam.

Re:Skylark? (1)

mustafap (452510) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003891)

I doubt many people under the age of 40 would get that :o)

Over here in the UK, I can't find a bookshop or library that holds any of E.E. Doc Smith's work. As I kid I lapped his work up. I wonder why it is so out of fashion now?

Re:Skylark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29005303)

Try typing "Doc Smith" into Amazon UK, and you'll find no shortage of results.

I last read "Doc" Smith around 30(!) years ago, and I dimly remember it making me distinctly queasy. Something to do with the "good" guys wearing immaculate, well-pressed grey uniforms and nice shiny boots, ruthlessly despatching puny unenhanced humans with their Awesome Mental Powers. The overtones of a fascist ubermensch were too much for me to take at a young and impressionable age.

Edit: CAPTCHA: "killings" :-p

Oh dear (3, Funny)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003323)

Could this be one of the few threads where the Goatse guy is on-topic? After all, numerous strange objects have been seen in his ring.

Re:Oh dear (2, Funny)

Huntr (951770) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003499)

Strange New Objects Seen in Uranus

Re:Oh dear (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#29005499)

Sort of, but it is kind of like the difference between micro-economics and macro-economics...

Space dingleberries (2, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003347)

Saturn has always been the least hygienic of the gas giants.

Oblig (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003413)

I, for one, welcome our new Saturnian Overlords.

TMA-3?? (2, Interesting)

spoonist (32012) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003505)

Let me guess, it's about two kilometers long [wikipedia.org] ...

Re:TMA-3?? (1)

S-100 (1295224) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004873)

Built in the exact proportions of 1, 4, 9 - the square of the first three integers. And of course this doesn't stop after just three dimensions...

duh (1)

Stinking Pig (45860) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003515)

It's obviously the Thuktun Flishithy

Monolith (1)

philipmather (864521) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003533)

Well I was going to make the following joke...

Is this "moonlet" curiously rectangular in shape with dimensions in the ratio of 1:4:9 per chance? ...but the picture in TFA does in fact bear an uncanny resemblance to a monolith reflecting light off it's thin side and I don't want labelled as a complete mad-hatter so I'll just pitch one up for the real fruit-loops to bat out of the park instead...

UFO (2, Funny)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003609)

Why has no-one tagged this "ufo"? Is in Unidentified Flying Object? It would make me tingly on the inside with space dust if someone does.

Re:UFO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003669)

You mean Unidentified FALLING Object.

Shit! (2, Interesting)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004119)

Haven't any of you read Footfall?! I for one welcome our new elephant overlords!

PAUL IS SATURN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004365)

PAUL IS SATURN

Re:PAUL IS SATURN (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004917)

PAUL IS SATURN

Hey, be nice. We all gain a little around the middle as we age.
     

Gathering of the nerds... (2, Insightful)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004503)

Farscape, 2001, SG-1 and Star Trek all in one article's first few comments. I doubt it's a record for /., but damn. Pity no one could work a Doctor Who reference in there somewhere.

Yeah I'm off-topic, so sue... erm, mod me.

Re:Gathering of the nerds... (1)

pohl (872) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004977)

Ok, if you insist...

"Gosh, I wonder if these strange new objects are dimensionally transcendental, like a Tardis!"

Happy now? ;-)

Re:Gathering of the nerds... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#29005105)

I'm surprised this one hasn't been tagged vogonconstructorfleet yet.

Is that...? (1)

Landshark17 (807664) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004565)

Jimmy Hoffa?!?

"clearly something awesome..." (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#29006593)

Please. This happens all the time, but now someone saw it. Who gives a crap? And don't decide what everyone thinks is 'clear' or 'awesome', thanks very much.

Russell's Teapot (1)

thespeech (1335765) | more than 5 years ago | (#29008013)

It's bleeding Russell's Teapot. Search your feelings, you know it to be true!

OMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29008043)

Its' Heart of Gold

Zaphod

Death Star? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29008949)

"That's no moon. That's a space station."

Everybody knows⦠(0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29009395)

That the ultimate destination for all luggage lost by the airlines is the rings of Saturn. It's just one of those bags that weighed more than 50 lbs. on earth.

i know the feeling (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 5 years ago | (#29009401)

i had some bean and cheese burritos Saturday night and blew out my O ring.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?