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!

Cassini Confirms New Moon of Saturn

samzenpus posted more than 9 years ago | from the made-of-cheese dept.

Space 207

pipcorona writes ""In a spectacular kick-off to its first season of prime ring viewing, which began last month, the Cassini spacecraft has confirmed earlier suspicions of an unseen moon hidden in a gap in Saturn's outer A ring. A new image and movie show the new moon and the waves it raises in the surrounding ring material."

cancel ×

207 comments

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

"Name That Moon" Contest (4, Funny)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506338)



From TFA:



The new body has been provisionally named S/2005 S1.



Well, that just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

Looks like it's up to us...please post your suggestions for the new moon's name below.

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (5, Funny)

Dan Up Baby (878587) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506352)

S/2005 S1, as you know, was the Roman god of awkward names.

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (3, Funny)

sik0fewl (561285) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506480)

I don't know, it's all Greek to me.

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506355)

That's no moon...

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506369)

So is it going to hit the Earth? And how many megatons would that be?

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (3, Funny)

pv2b (231846) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506391)

Britannia.

Why, after all, it rules the waves in Saturn's belt. Britannia rule the waves. Get it?

Besides, what more fitting tribute to the decline of the British Empire than naming an insignificant 7 kilometer wide hunk of rock(or whatever it's made of) after it. :-)

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506423)

Is it time to destroy the Shadowlords again? Will the moongate be red or blue this time?

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (5, Funny)

Meetch (756616) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506413)

Ok so consensus would have us leaning toward a really cool name like "Deathstar". Sorry for stating the obvious!

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (1)

qurk (87195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506498)

That is extraordinarily appropriate.

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12507158)

that's no moon... it's a space station.

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506418)

goatse
lollercaust
omg ror
cmdrtaco
stallman2

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (5, Funny)

pv2b (231846) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506445)

goatse
I'm sorry. We can't name it Goatse. I think that award should be reserved for the Goatse Stellar Nursery (A.K.A. NGC 604) [nasa.gov] .

You can't tell me that doesn't look like goatse. I swear! It does!

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506565)

Oh my god, that DOES look like it.

God, you wacky bastard, you've been reading too much slashdot.

Seriously.

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506603)

Holy shit, God's fucking with us.

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (2, Funny)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506627)

Another day, another proof of goatse's transcendent relevance to the physical world. Brett

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506632)

Can I quote you on that?

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (2, Funny)

Wizarth (785742) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506685)

Oh My... $DIETY really does have a sense of humour!

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506818)

$DIETY - Geek political correctness hits a new low (high?)

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (1)

MerlynEmrys67 (583469) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506769)

You made me click on it...

Thank god I am running firefox and don't have to worry about not having a status bar at the bottom to display where the link REALLY goes to - was afraid you were going to sneak it in

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest... and in other news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12507029)

In other news Cassini has spotted more previously unseen dark redish brown rings around uranus [seti.org] !

And in further news Michael Jackson denies reports that he misunderstood the term "star gazing at minor moons" in relation to McCauley Culkin.

Missing Option . . . (1)

Gabrill (556503) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506426)

Saturnian Moon "Cowboy Neil", the Slashdot god of "None of the Above"!

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (1)

DoraLives (622001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506509)

The new body has been provisionally named S/2005 S1.

It's in the Keeler gap. So name it Keeler. Duh.

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (2, Funny)

mbrewthx (693182) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506531)

With a name like s/2005 S1 I wonder if there is a Stargate on it? Probably not wrong type of naming convention.

Let's call her Sheila.

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506546)

Eslashzusi

breaking news announcement (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506577)

f
i r e fo x

1.0.4

i

s

ou
t.

The Fithp are coming (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507178)

Thuktun Flishithy

(or Message Bearer)

From Niven & Pournelle's Footfall)

Re:"Name That Moon" Contest (1)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507235)

I vote for Danae [wikipedia.org] .

3 Simple Suggestions for Slashdot (-1, Troll)

The_Fire_Horse (552422) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506340)

1. Images in Posts
There have been many times when posting that I have needed to include a diagram, or a picture to show context to what I am saying. Images give the entire site a more up to date and professional look

2. Emoticons
Sure, they can be a bit silly at times, but a strategically placed smiley face in an insightful post can clear up if the poster is being serious or joking - this can only improve slashdot.

3. More HTML tags allowed in posts We really should be able to choose our own theme of posting - I myself like the latest Outlook style and (background of leaves on a brown page with gently scrolling text) and it would enhance the readibility of some posts - it would even make identifying posters easy.

Would it be possible to get these features implemented in the next release?

Re:3 Simple Suggestions for Slashdot (0, Troll)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506468)

Dear Fire Horse,

I will be glad to implement your suggestions just as soon as I am done with my faggotry.

Sincerely,
CmdrTaco

P.S. I will never be done with my faggotry. Sucker.

Re:3 Simple Suggestions for Slashdot (2, Insightful)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506762)

Oh please god no!
What are you on? That would make /. look like a gay christmas tree. All of your suggestions are horrible.
1. If you need images, post a link. If you don't have your own webserver or atleast host space to put images on, please hand back your /. UID.
2. Emoticons are plaque of messageboards. I want to strangle someone each time I use MSN after fresh install and haven't turned them off. What ever happened to the good old smileys?
3. Ok, you just have to be trolling...

Re:3 Simple Suggestions for Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12507010)

This is an obvious troll, but god damn....

I'm not even gonna touch on the idiocy of the HTML tags or in post images, just the fact that you want emoticons is fucking retarded. It already has emoticons you goon. :) :( :\ >:]

Boycott Microsoft! Fight liberal garbage! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506341)

Microsoft MUST "crash" for supporting the Gay Agenda!

MAKE MICROSOFT GET OUT OF GAY POLITICS OR MAKE THEM CEASE TO EXIST! SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERY OTHER CORPORATION IN AMERICA THAT SUPPORTING HETEROPHOBIA WILL BE THEIR END!

http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=ar ticle&sid=293 [nodnc.com]

There's a VERY easy way to stop MUCH of the Microsoft supported liberal garbage, simply notify Microsoft that because of their financial and name support of liberal corruption that you are going to openly publicize and promote freeware replacements to their software products.

FREE OS - Linux (to replace Windows)
http://www.linux.org/ [linux.org]

MS Office replacement (to replace MS Office)
http://www.openoffice.org/ [openoffice.org]

WEB Server products (to Replace MS IIS Server)
http://www.apache-asp.org/ [apache-asp.org]

Linux Applications (many are free) (additional free applications)
http://www.linux.org/apps/index.html [linux.org]

Web Mail replacement for MS Exchange
http://www.squirrelmail.org/ [squirrelmail.org]

PHP-Nuke Content Management System
http://phpnuke.org/ [phpnuke.org]

Combatting Microsoft Liberal Media Corruption through MSNBC, NBC, and MSN

Let Microsoft know that because THEY have their name associated with NBC / MSNBC / MSN that you will stop buying their products in the future, but that many of the great opensource (i.e. FREE) products below that work as Microsoft replacements will be promoted to friends, family, and businesses everywhere.

U.S.-based news media needing information on topics not specifically addressed in the list below should contact the Waggener Edstrom Rapid Response Team at
rrt@wagged.com
or 503-443-7070.

Additional PR contacts can be seen here (do NOT accept any excuses, THEY SUPPORT MSNBC AND NOTHING BUT STOPPING THE LIBERAL RANTS IS ACCEPTABLE. PERIOD!!)

First negative karma post! (0, Offtopic)

Wisgary (799898) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506342)

Yes! Maybe someone will lift me up from this horrible -1 hell!

Not a movie! (1, Informative)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506349)

It's not a movie! Geez! It's an animated GIF image!

Re:Not a movie! (1)

degraeve (780907) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506409)

A more accurate description would be that old-timey term "motion picture".

Re:Not a movie! (0, Flamebait)

Gabrill (556503) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506410)

Enlighten us with your refined definition of "Movie"?

Re:Not a movie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506415)

Nasa stopped making movies after appolo mission was criticized as hoax, and costliest sci-fi movie :P

Re:Not a movie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506478)

So you're saying that instead of a rapidly changing series of still pictures it's actually a rapidly changing series of still pictures? Dammit!

Re:Not a movie! (1)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506489)

The pictures....they're....coming.....alive!

Re:Not a movie! (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506557)

I don't have any music CDs. I have a bunch of a uncompressed PCM waves on disc.

Re:Not a movie! (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506570)

Why the parent comment isn't +5 Funny is beyond me.

Re:Not a movie! (2, Funny)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506654)

"It's not a movie! Geez! It's an animated GIF image! (Score:2, Informative)"

*Sigh*

Remember when these debates were fun? Now I worry a chick will see me.

Re:Not a movie! (1, Informative)

sik0fewl (561285) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506735)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=movie

Just because something doesn't use a video codec doesn't make it not a movie.

Re:Not a movie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12507048)

It's not a movie! Geez! It's an animated GIF image!

And there was me looking forward to George Lucas's latest film. I won't bother now. :(

Apologies in advance... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506359)

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

Re:Apologies in advance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506547)

I knew it was coming. I laughed anyway.

Re:Apologies in advance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506640)

Yes, It's not moon.... It is MORON... I clearly heard the scientist say "I found moron somewhere in the king station".

Re:Apologies in advance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12507085)

Stay in India. Don't get on the Internet. Immediately cease all attempts at creating jokes.

Re:Apologies in advance... (1)

daemonenwind (178848) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506740)

Damn straight.

Bush keeps the Major League Baseball mind control operations there. You think he got that last win only because his opponent was made by Dr. Frankenstein?

What's so special about a new moon? (4, Interesting)

psetzer (714543) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506376)

I mean, really? Every time they find a new one, the things just keep getting smaller. What's next, a piece of ejecta from another moon the size and shape of a '74 Chevy Impala? Might as well start naming the debris in the rings.

Re:What's so special about a new moon? (5, Funny)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506465)

The impala is not recognised as a unit of measure. Please use Volkswagons, or ISO Standard Bathtubs.

I'm not sure where the exact cutoff is. I'd assume anything in the decivolkswagon range would simply be considered as flotsam unworthy of a name, unless somebody wants to try to catalogue everything in the rings! You'd need a lot of mountain dew.

Re:What's so special about a new moon? (1)

psetzer (714543) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506504)

You'd need a lot of grad students.

Changed for clarity.

Re:What's so special about a new moon? (1)

dickeya (733264) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506532)

They would be bigger but that damn Rebel fleet keeps blowing them up. They've been reduced to building on the Spaceballs "Winnebago" scale.

Test for grav. pertubation (2, Interesting)

helioquake (841463) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506554)

I'm repeating myself here (see my post below)...

This satellite is actually interesting since it may hold a key on how to retain a gap in the A-ring. It has to do with this small body of a satellite perturbing the neighboring, smaller dusts and removing them from the region effectively.

Somelike that can be studied numerically (n-body problems) to prove the ring's composition, etc. A nice test case for n-body problem.

[I really should be moderating today but...oh well.]

Re:What's so special about a new moon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506706)

Well, it seems you didn't RTFA, which is expected, but you didn't even look at the Fing picture!

The new moon is in the middle of the rings. In a section with no ring in fact. This means that:
-The pause in the ring might be caused by the moon plowing through it.
-(see above) this moon would have a lot of crater impacts from ring material. Say, water?
-The gravity from the moon might have had something to do with riing formation to begin with, so if you want to know about rings you have to study this moon (at least in terms of mass, composition and orbit)
-There are some weird effects you can get from moons in debri rings (ever read the integral trees?)

So, normally I'd agree with you, but this one moon seems pretty special.

Re:What's so special about a new moon? (1)

core plexus (599119) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506976)

It may be a way to fund science.

Think about all the people that 'buy' a name for a star for their loved ones, or purchase a claim for land or minerals rights on the moon, Mars, or elsewhere? Yes, I have read the international conventions stating no one can own this or that, but is naming something a claim to ownership? Alfred Brooks [alaska.edu] (the late geologist and explorer for the U.S.G.S.), nor his decendants, lay any claim to ownership of the Brooks Range in Arctic Alaska.

I might be inclined to give $100 to have a chunk of rock named after someone or something, especially if I knew the money was going to further scientific research.

-cp-

Alaska bear-mauling victim survives rare second attack [alaska-freegold.com]

Re:What's so special about a new moon? (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507171)

I mean, really? Every time they find a new one, the things just keep getting smaller. What's next, a piece of ejecta from another moon the size and shape of a '74 Chevy Impala? Might as well start naming the debris in the rings.

Well, everybody could get something named after them that way.

You know what would be a good business model? Selling people small moons, made to order. You could get them made out of whatever you wanted- say, silver, or gold or steel or marble, although something you could polish would be good because then you might actually be able to see it whiz overhead like you can with satellites. You could carve the name on it... name it after yourself, or name it after your significant other (hey baby, I bought you a moon, happy anniversary). They'd be inconspicuous unless you knew when and where to look.

If expendible rockets cost 3,000-6,000 dollars to get a pound into orbit, you could sell people moons for 10,000 dollars per pound, plus cost of materials and work, and make a damn nice profit. Of course, NASA has enough junk in orbit to track already so maybe they wouldn't take kindly to this idea.

So everythings a moon now? (4, Funny)

mnmn (145599) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506384)

7km across? Compared to Saturn thats tiny. Thats like saying the ISS is a moon.

So how do you draw a distinction between a moon, a natural satellite, asteroids and space junk? You can either say the moon Earth has an asteroid orbiting it... or that Earth has many moons orbiting it, only one of which is large enough to see.

So if I pay the Russian space program to launch my 1kg rock in lower orbit, do I get to name my moon, or will they just name it
S/2005 SR26GC3.14159265357?

Which makes me wonder, have we named or numbered our own moon yet? Can I call shotgun and call it 'fp!'?

Re:So everythings a moon now? (5, Informative)

Daedalus-Ubergeek (600951) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506416)

I do believe our own moon is named Luna, which would be where you get the word "Lunar", although you rarely ever hear anybody call the moon by its actual name.

Uhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506430)

The moon is named... Moon! Duh!!!

man, where do they get these guys...

Re:So everythings a moon now? (2, Informative)

ag0ny (59629) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506476)

Well, at least in Spanish-speaking countries we always call it Luna.

Re:So everythings a moon now? (1)

xlv (125699) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506491)

Luna is the goddess of the moon according to the Romans (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luna [reference.com] for reference). So that gives you Lune in French and Luna in Spanish/Italian.

Re:So everythings a moon now? (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506786)

The 'bear in the big blue house' calls it 'Luna' - ok ok, so you probably don't watch early morning childrens television....

Re:So everythings a moon now? (2, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507008)

"actual name"?

Hmm, I thought the actual name was "the Moon", and Luna a term rarely used to distinguish it from other moons whenever necessary. Why would people rarely use an actual name?

That it's the actual name is as debatable as Sol is the actual name for the Sun, something I also can't really say, even if we have "solar".

I guess both these names can be said to be occasionaly used to personify these celestial bodies though.

Re:So everythings a moon now? (5, Informative)

metroplex (883298) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507071)

Actually, in all Romance Languages (those derived by latin), the Earth's moon is called something like "Luna".
  • Italian: Luna
  • French: Lune
  • Spanish: Luna
  • Portuguese: Lua
  • Romanian: Luna

Re:So everythings a moon now? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12507092)

You actually used a bulleted list. Holy crap, that's amazing!

Re:So everythings a moon now? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12507086)

I do believe our own moon is named Luna, which would be where you get the word "Lunar"

Thanks this explains a lot. Here in the UK many people refer to Tony Blair as a Lunatic, so I guess that must mean he's a blood sucking parasite from outer space :)

Re:So everythings a moon now? (4, Interesting)

helioquake (841463) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506460)

I'd usually agree with your sentiment. But this finding is rather important and scientifically useful (for some, not really for me).

The significant thing is this: this moon, how small it is, may regulate the way a gap in the A-ring evolves (or stay clear of smaller rocks),

The effect of the moon's gravity is small, but not small enough to be ignored by the material nearby. Some smart guys can run some numerical analysis to study what the rings are made of, and how a single massive (relatively) body can perturb its surrounding smaller particles.

Easy definition to determine when it's a moon (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506494)

To distinguish when a moon is a moon and not, say, a large orbiting asteroid is easy. It occurs at the same time when bread becomes toast.

Ask that question (Bread -> toast) to some people who's IQ lies on the wrong side of the bell curve - you'll be amazed at the looks you'll get.

Re:Easy definition to determine when it's a moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506528)

Maybe you are on the wrong side of the sense of humor bell curve.

Re:Easy definition to determine when it's a moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506817)

Ask that question (Bread -> toast) to some people who's IQ lies on the wrong side of the bell curve - you'll be amazed at the looks you'll get.

Ask them about apostophe placement, on the other hand, and that's a whole 'nother matter.

Re:So everythings a moon now? (5, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506529)

Thats like saying the ISS is a moon.

That's not a moon. It's a space station.

Re:So everythings a moon now? (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507077)

Why is that post funny?! It should be informative!

This post should be funny!

Re:So everythings a moon now? (2, Informative)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507120)

It's an old joke, it's been posted 3 times in the thread already, and yet you still can't get the line right? That's *no* moon.

Drag that moon back to Earth (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507167)

With nuclear rocket technology, I wonder how hard it would be to attach such a rocket using a grapple-hook to the moon and drag it back to Earth. It would be nice to have a second moon ;)

Earth only has one. Adding a second moon would be like the modern day version of building the pyramids

Re:So everythings a moon now? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506559)

Earth actually has multiple moons apart from just 'The Moon', our second largest moon is Cruithne (5km across). Doesn't really mean anything though.

Re:So everythings a moon now? (2, Informative)

frakir (760204) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506759)

Cruithne is not a moon; it is not bound by Earth gravitation. It is an asteroid (number 3753).

Re:So everythings a moon now? (1)

never_cry (883448) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506631)

I think you'v made a mistake!

Roche limit? (4, Interesting)

Gangis (310282) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506424)

I'm no astronomer, but I remember hearing in Astronomy class about the Roche Limit, the absolute minimum distance that an orbiting body can be from a planet before it'd be disintegrated by the gravity. I also remember hearing that Saturn's rings could have been developed as a result of objects falling within the Roche Limit and disintegrating, thus adding to the ring. This object seems much larger than most of the ones in the ring structure, though. I find that really odd. But then again, IANAA. :P

Re:Roche limit? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506633)

The Rings are inside the Roche limit, which is the point where tidal forces will destroy a satellite. However, the Roche limit assumes a liquid body. A small solid body has enough physical strength to hold itself together even inside the Roche limit.

Re:Roche limit? (4, Informative)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507217)

The Roche limit only works for large bodies, when you assume that the moon is only held together by its own gravity.

For very small, rocky moons, the tensile strenght of the rock itselv enabls them to exist nearer than the roche limit. Its nothing extremely longtime-stable, but otoh, the tidal forces on a small moon arent very large.

Also, the roche limit is only a contant (2.xxx*R_bigplanet or so) if the bodies have the same density. If the objects is, for example, a captured iron asteroid, its roche limit can be VERY close to a not very dense saturn.

Images! (2, Informative)

Roland Piguepaille (883190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506472)

Cool images and data:
Map and Images of Titan [arizona.edu] from Hubble Space Telescope
Nasa Titan Photojournal [nasa.gov]
Saturnian Satellite Fact Sheet [nasa.gov]
Phoebe [space.com] best image so far, from Voyager2 in 1981!

Re:Images! (2, Interesting)

darenw (74015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506602)

A post about non-S/2005 S1 objects seems a bit off-topic, and so probably deserves no response, but i must point out that the Phoebe image referred to is hardly the "best image so far"! We have 10000000000 times better resolution (it's too late at night to count digits... ;-) from Cassini in June 2004. Just crawl out from under fuzzy little rock where you've been living, and have a look at, for example: http://ciclops.lpl.arizona.edu/view.php?id=198 [arizona.edu] or http://ciclops.lpl.arizona.edu/view.php?id=203 [arizona.edu] - the smallest craters you see are about the same order of size as football stadiums.

Re:Images! (-1, Troll)

Roland Piguepaille (883190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506624)

Hmmm that's true of course

I just read an interesting book [amazon.com] about Titan and wanted to share what I found from surfing around afterwards :)

Good use of science money (3, Insightful)

qurk (87195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506518)

At least this money is going to find new and useful things. Unlike my state (Kansas) which seems to think that the board of education needs to make us all a laughingstock and put their damn religion in our schools in every science textbook. Why not just require a class, like "Majority religion/philosophy-science indocrination". Look, I learned a LOT from reading Isaac Asimov essays, is there a reason I had to go the the library and check out books of essays from a science fiction author to learn about science? Ya! My state board of education is really badass, getting the job done, and is really cool!

Interesting that... (4, Interesting)

vikstar (615372) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506524)

the waves caused are asymetric, as if the moon is moving faster than the immediately surrounding debris. But thats impossible, because it would move the moon to a higher orbit, or the debris to a lower one, right? Can anyone explain this seemingly wierd phenomenon? Also notice the waves caused on the inner darker ring, what is the cause of that?

Re:Interesting that... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507180)

How about some form of static charge?

Keeler Gap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506533)

I figure since the moon was found in the center of the Keeler Gap of Saturn's rings, it might as well be formally named "Keeler." Heck, it probably made the gap in the first place.

prime ring viewing? (0, Offtopic)

weighn (578357) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506540)

and no goatse reference in the 1st 30 posts!?

What is going on with you people...

Does anyone else find that the slightest bit odd? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12506728)

There is a large particle moving through the gap, disturbing the rings and raising waves, yet the whole thing is stable??? Wouldn't the perturbations from the other particles in the ring eventually knock that particle out of its orbit???????? I'd swear it looks just like there is some kind of active feedback maintaining the system, ;-)

yeah but (1)

fux0r (867489) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506792)

does the moon run linux?

Re:yeah but (1)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506883)

No, but Iapetus might.

Re:yeah but (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12507101)

does the moon run linux?

No, it runs Lunix!

Wonderful Whitebox Enterprise Linux News (0, Offtopic)

wbel_pimp2 (882475) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506860)

this is good news.

Seems the egotistical owner of the whiteboxlinux.net [whiteboxlinux.net] and whiteboxlinux.com [whiteboxlinux.com] domains has decided to offer them on ebay [ebay.com] as a peace offering between wbel and himself.

This is really great news so lets hope someone with WBEL enthusiasm steps up to build a respectable community site.

Re:Wonderful Whitebox Enterprise Linux-off topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12507129)

mod parent down. despite being accurate post is off topic.

That's not a moon! That's a... (2, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506964)

... unsually large particle in Saturn's ring system??

In space no one can see your color? (2, Insightful)

cnschulz (883471) | more than 9 years ago | (#12506996)

umm... can anyone explain why they dont send color cameras into space? every picture seems to be either black and white or post-processed into some wierd infra-something false color. give us real color! the truth is out there!

Re:In space no one can see your color? (5, Interesting)

Mikey-San (582838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507161)

Imagine being in England for a moment. It's 3 a.m., and you're sitting on one side of the Thames River.

Your friend Bob is perched in his chair on the other side.

Your camera's all set up and ready to snap a picture. Just when you're about to snap, you realize that the nearest streetlight is three miles to Bob's left. Seeing that the Thames isn't a sneeze's distance across, you know that the dinky flash on your camera is pretty useless.

You whip out your trusty imaging spectrometer camera lens and line up the shot with Bob again. Bob's giving off some good x-ray emissions, and those come across just fine.

You could've used a really, really awesome lens and captured a bad photo of Bob--he still reflects some light, though it's a ridiculously small amount--but the IR lens gave you a more descriptive picture of Bob. Why? Mr Bob the Planet Man doesn't give off his own visible light, but he certainly emits x-rays on his own.

This scales higher:

In this new-but-similar scenario, you're flying over England. You're trying to take a picture of Bob and his lazy ass, but all you can see, no matter how much light you shine down onto the city below, are the lights from the buildings, bridges, and streetlamps. There's just too much noise to find ol' Bob in that galaxy of lumens.

You've got all these lights shining on Bob, but unlike the first scenario, there's /too much/ light to see Bob; all you see are stars, so to speak, drowning out the nearby planets. Well, in x-ray mode, your camera can see that while those stars are emitting x-rays, so is Bob, just like before. You're not seeing a faint image of Bob drowned out by the only light illuminating him, you see Bob's x-ray signature approximately ten feet to the right of that cluster of streetligts.

The universe is a dark place, but sometimes it can be TOO bright! It's a good thing I remembered a towel!

Re:In space no one can see your color? (4, Informative)

bcwright (871193) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507179)

Resolution. Most space cameras work by detecting light falling on a CCD (Charge-Coupled Device); if the camera was full color, then the resolution would be cut by at least 2/3 because you'd have to devote 1/3 of the CCD to each of the primary colors. (It might be even worse than that if your imaging system wasn't 100% efficient at directing the color components to the proper pels on the CCD). You can obtain the effect of a color camera by using different lens filters and taking multiple pictures and then composing them into a single image - this is what's usually done when a color photograph is desired. By doing that you can produce an image that's exactly what you could obtain with a color camera, but at a higher resolution and without having to use a higher resolution CCD. Also, that way your pictures aren't limited to using a selection of color components that are compatible with those the human eye sees - you can use the filters to "see" parts of the spectrum outside the range that's visible to the human eye.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>