Two More Moons Discovered Around Pluto

[Mr. Anderson]

This will just further increase the debate on whether or not Pluto can be classified as a planet (seems it might weigh in favor now).

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051031_pluto_moons.html

But still very cool stuff. I hope they give them better names soon - P1 and P2 just don't work.

D

 

[2nyRiggz]

cool, i havent heard much of the new planet they discovered(or thought they did) behind pluto.


Bless

 

[clayj]

I propose the names "Cerberus" and "Mine!" (Because the second one is mine... )

I think it's reasonable to assume that the general public will continue to regard Pluto as a planet, even if some parts of the scientific community do not.

 

[mad jew]

I hope they give them better names soon - P1 and P2 just don't work.

Unless they've got blue and white stripes and sing children's songs...

Nice find Mr. Anderson. I wonder how big they are relative to Pluto. I can't seem to find dimensions in the article.

 

[~Shard~]

It's neat to see that our solar system seems to keep getting bigger and bigger as we discover more about it.

 

[clayj]

Unless they've got blue and white stripes and sing children's songs...

Nice find Mr. Anderson. I wonder how big they are relative to Pluto. I can't seem to find dimensions in the article.

Ya gotta read more carefully:

The two new moons are between 30 and 100 miles (45 to 160 kilometers) in diameter, Weaver said. There is not enough data to pin their size down exactly, however. Pluto is 1,430 miles wide and Charon's diameter is about 730 miles.

 

[mad jew]

Ya gotta read more carefully:

Thanks, I do.

 

[Whyren]

This will just further increase the debate on whether or not Pluto can be classified as a planet (seems it might weigh in favor now).

Especially considering that these moons are significantly smaller than Pluto, not somewhat similar like Charon. As for names, how about Thanatos/Orcus/Februus or perhaps Hermes? (Cerberus sounds good as well, clayj) This should lend a bit more interest to the Pluto Express mission as well.

I guess this just goes to show you that the Hubble Space Telescope is outdated technology not worth maintaining.

 

[EricNau]

OK...
Here's what bothers me about some (not all) scientists. Why don't they make up their minds about Pluto? If they considered it a planet at one time, why are they now deciding that it isn't? It's not like they discovered it was half the size they originally thought it was. So really, what these scientists are arguing about is what the definition of a planet is...And fact is, they have no idea, because everyone has their own oppinions. So we will never know if Pluto is a Planet because we will never know what a planet really is!
Soon - they'll decide these aren't moons either
PS - the definition of a moon would mean it has to be orbiting around a planet. So if these really are moons, then this just solved the debate whether or not Pluto is a planet.

 

[mcarnes]

They'll name them after Roman Gods like all the other heavenly bodies. Pagan scientists.

 

[joepunk]

Cool news.

I do hope that they get better names though. I kind of like Norse God/Goddess names. A bit different from the usual naming nomenclature of Roman names. Or how about using some Native Aboriginal American names

 

[MacSA]

Cool news.

I do hope that they get better names though. I kind of like Norse God/Goddess names. A bit different from the usual naming nomenclature of Roman names. Or how about using some Native Aboriginal American names

Not all celestial objects are named after figures in Roman mythology. For isntance the giant Kuiper Belt object named "Quaoar" comes from a figure in Native American mythology, there is also "Sedna" - the Inuit Goddess of the Sea.

Newly discoeverd objects are given provisional names which denote the time of their discovery. If these objects found around Pluto are confirmed they will be given names.

The "Tenth Planet" still has the provisional title of 2003 UB313.
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html

 

[Sun Baked]

Thanks, I do.

Don't worry every now and then everyone misses the obvious.

Those days you try looking for that bruised spot on your ass, and you can't find your ass.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Fascinating stuff. Keep those space articles coming.

As for name: I would like to see them named Chip 'n Dale...

 

[MongoTheGeek]

I vote for Lethe and Styx. The rivers around Hades.

As for Pluto being a planet I say no... It doesn't match Bode's law, It crosses the orbit of Neptune and after the discovery of Sedna its not even an unusual KBO...

 

[mad jew]

I say call one iMoon and the other PowerMoon. iMoon can be whiter than PowerMoon but it won't orbit nearly as fast. PowerMoon will be prone to denting from flying asteroids whereas iMoon will be nearly indestructible.

Both moons will be converting to a different mineral base some time in the next year, the iMoon doing it first.

 

[EGT]

I say call one iMoon and the other PowerMoon. iMoon can be whiter than PowerMoon but it won't orbit nearly as fast. PowerMoon will be prone to denting from flying asteroids whereas iMoon will be nearly indestructible.

Both moons will be converting to a different mineral base some time in the next year, the iMoon doing it first.

Ahhh very good

 

[Thomas Veil]

Since they're the farthest away and take the longest time to reach, I propose we name them Longhorn and Vista.

 

[jayscheuerle]

OK...
Here's what bothers me about some (not all) scientists. Why don't they make up their minds about Pluto? If they considered it a planet at one time, why are they now deciding that it isn't? It's not like they discovered it was half the size they originally thought it was. So really, what these scientists are arguing about is what the definition of a planet is...And fact is, they have no idea, because everyone has their own oppinions. So we will never know if Pluto is a Planet because we will never know what a planet really is!
Soon - they'll decide these aren't moons either
PS - the definition of a moon would mean it has to be orbiting around a planet. So if these really are moons, then this just solved the debate whether or not Pluto is a planet.

Categorizing is what humans and scientists in particular do. Sometimes the universe doesn't fall into nice little pockets.

The more we learn, the less we know, and Pluto isn't going to care less if it's a planet or a trans-Neptunian object. It'll still be the same icy world, orbiting the same orbit it has since we discovered it.

Pluto is Pluto.

 

[jsw]

I am just amazed - even knowing how it's done - that we can detect something that small that far away. Light takes an average of, what, 8 hours to get here from there, and we detect objects as small - potentially - as 30 miles across at that distance.

Stunning.

 

[emw]

This is very fascinating. You've got to think there are probably more moons out there in our own solar system that we have yet to find. It's a big area.

As for the size, finding something that small is wild, but considering we've identified planets around suns that are light-years away, this is probably pretty "easy".

 

[jayscheuerle]

I am just amazed - even knowing how it's done - that we can detect something that small that far away. Light takes an average of, what, 8 hours to get here from there, and we detect objects as small - potentially - as 30 miles across at that distance.

Stunning.

I'm not sure what's more amazing, that we can focus on an object so far away and so tiny, or that the sheer emptiness of space doesn't pack enough dust in 3 billion miles to obscure something so tiny and far away.

8 hours away riding piggyback on a photon... Speeds and distances such as this are so difficult for the average person to visualize and that is why so many people believe in UFOs and think that we'll be traveling to other stars in the next couple of centuries.

 

[jayscheuerle]

This is very fascinating. You've got to think there are probably more moons out there in our own solar system that we have yet to find. It's a big area.

As for the size, finding something that small is wild, but considering we've identified planets around suns that are light-years away, this is probably pretty "easy".

Jupiter and Saturn continue to give up moons. We have at least 139 in our solar system right now!

We've inferred the existence of planets around distant stars by the wobbles they create, but I don't think we've actually imaged any... yet.

 

[wordmunger]

OK...
Here's what bothers me about some (not all) scientists. Why don't they make up their minds about Pluto? If they considered it a planet at one time, why are they now deciding that it isn't? It's not like they discovered it was half the size they originally thought it was. So really, what these scientists are arguing about is what the definition of a planet is...And fact is, they have no idea, because everyone has their own oppinions. So we will never know if Pluto is a Planet because we will never know what a planet really is!
Soon - they'll decide these aren't moons either
PS - the definition of a moon would mean it has to be orbiting around a planet. So if these really are moons, then this just solved the debate whether or not Pluto is a planet.

If that's what bothers you about scientists, you may as well give up on science. Science is constantly changing as our awareness of the universe changes. I think the original discoverers of Pluto just got excited that they found something new orbiting the Sun, and made a mistake by categorizing it as a planet. We're all used to thinking of nine planets, so it's been a tougher task for scientists to convince us that Pluto isn't a planet.

It's kinda like how the guy who named the "brontosaurus" made a mistake and didn't realize there was already a name for it -- "apatasaurus." But "brontosaurus" was already in all the textbooks, and we still have a tough time convincing people that the real name is "apatasaurus."

 

[jayscheuerle]

It's kinda like how the guy who named the "brontosaurus" made a mistake and didn't realize there was already a name for it -- "apatasaurus." But "brontosaurus" was already in all the textbooks, and we still have a tough time convincing people that the real name is "apatasaurus."

The brontosaurus didn't just have the wrong name, it had the wrong head!

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2055