Pluto has 4 moons
Last time I heard, admittedly long ago, Pluto only had one moon, and it was more of a double-planet kind of thing as Charon was basically half of Pluto's diameter.
Now this. Scientists spot Pluto's fourth moon
WTH! When did the news that Pluto had a 2nd and 3rd moon break?
Now this. Scientists spot Pluto's fourth moon
WTH! When did the news that Pluto had a 2nd and 3rd moon break?
Comments
WTH! When did the news that Pluto had a 2nd and 3rd moon break?
About three years ago.
I guess you could say...
...you were...
*sunglasses*
...lost in space.
(SIIIIIIIIIIIIIILEEEEEEEEEENCEEEEEEEEEE)
Last time I heard, admittedly long ago, Pluto only had one moon, and it was more of a double-planet kind of thing as Charon was basically half of Pluto's diameter.
It's been hiding behind Uranus for a while.
WTH! When did the news that Pluto had a 2nd and 3rd moon break?
Let's suppose it had 10 moons, is it really newsworthy to know which rocks are floating around billions of miles away? What is the immediate impact of such a discovery?
Let's suppose it had 10 moons, is it really newsworthy to know which rocks are floating around billions of miles away? What is the immediate impact of such a discovery?
If one's a naturally-occurring monopole, sure. Or if it's rich in something we could mine.
The immediate impact of the discovery of Eris (then 2003UB313) was the demotion of Pluto from its planetary status (COMPLETE FALLACY, SCREW YOU, IAU), so it's occasionally rather important.
... Or if it's rich in something we could mine.
...
Except the idiots in power on this planet can't even get back to the moon... they're even loosing ground on access to LEO. They'd rather throw chemical explosives back and forth at each other than to actually do something constructive for the long-term survival of the species. (Their ego's being more important than the society as a whole, of course!)
The lack of interest in this sort of thing by the masses is more a symptom than a cause (in my opinion.)
oops!... did that sound kinda jaded and cynical???
oops!... did that sound kinda jaded and cynical???
It's fine when it's agreeable.
It's been hiding behind Uranus for a while.
Let's suppose it had 10 moons, is it really newsworthy to know which rocks are floating around billions of miles away? What is the immediate impact of such a discovery?
It's rather cruel, isn't it. We've mapped out, what, an unfathomable distance of stars and galaxies, yet we can't even set foot on our nearest planet (which is actually Venus, not Mars, at their nearest distances... Though distances to Venus and Mars vary a lot because of their elliptical orbits).
That said, astronomy still lacks a decent ability to discern planets around even our nearest stars. However the beginning is promising with the Kepler mission:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...pler-nasa.html
So there's lots of space for astronomy to improve ie. what are the planets and their composition around our nearest stars.
And there's lots of space (wow, pun unintended) for travel to other planets and stars to improve.
But yeah if we can stop killing each other and wasting all those resources, that could help.
It's been hiding behind Uranus for a while.
Genius! Walked right into that.
Let's suppose it had 10 moons, is it really newsworthy to know which rocks are floating around billions of miles away? What is the immediate impact of such a discovery?
Sure its newsworthy. I'm actually rather surprised at the arrangement and wonder what the gravitational dynamics of such a system is.
Who knows what the immediate impact is. 99.9% of news of the world can essentially be reduced to no impact whatsoever, yet, here we are, drowning in it.
Genius! Walked right into that.
Sure its newsworthy. I'm actually rather surprised at the arrangement and wonder what the gravitational dynamics of such a system is.
Who knows what the immediate impact is. 99.9% of news of the world can essentially be reduced to no impact whatsoever, yet, here we are, drowning in it.
Saw a documentary the other day, part of it showed the theory and simulation of our moon forming due to another planet colliding with the Earth. That's pretty new to me. I wonder how many people have heard about it.
Saw a documentary the other day, part of it showed the theory and simulation of our moon forming due to another planet colliding with the Earth. That's pretty new to me. I wonder how many people have heard about it.
This has been the theory or hypothesis for the origin of the Moon since I can remember. A Mars sized body collided with the Earth, the ejecta formed a ring around the Earth and coalesced into the Moon.
Here is another interesting theory: some people think Venus was a rogue planet or a captured planet early in Sol system's life. Venus rotates in the opposite direction as Earth, so the sun will rise in the west and set in the east. All other planets rotate like Earth. (Have to double check with Neptune which is actually tilted almost 90 degrees I think.) So, some speculate, conspiracite that Venus was a captured rogue planet. Seems crazy to me. If the Moon was created when a Mars sized body collided with the Earth, I can easily imagine a significant chunk of rock hitting Venus in someway and flipping it upside down.
(Have to double check with Neptune which is actually tilted almost 90 degrees I think.)
Uranus. 92 degrees, I believe.
So, some speculate, conspiracite that Venus was a captured rogue planet. Seems crazy to me. If the Moon was created when a Mars sized body collided with the Earth, I can easily imagine a significant chunk of rock hitting Venus in someway and flipping it upside down.
I've never heard this before. I think that a large (meaning Ceres-size object on Ceres-size object) VERY early in the coalescing stage makes more sense, but we can't ever have any evidence either way anyway.
Uranus. 92 degrees, I believe.
Wikipedia says Uranus is tilted 97.77°. The jokes just write themselves! 97.77°! Accurate to two decimal places? Hmm...
I've never heard this before. I think that a large (meaning Ceres-size object on Ceres-size object) VERY early in the coalescing stage makes more sense, but we can't ever have any evidence either way anyway.
Since the rotational period on Venus is so long (243 days), some kind of complicated tidal locking between the planets and the Sun could explain the rotation. Amazing that it's surface temperature stays relatively the same all across the planet. Those clouds are thick.
For terra-forming Mars and Venus - and Earth even down the road - I always wonder if we could go direct lots and lots of comets and change their orbits and crash them onto the planets. Then, seed it with designer bacteria to eat the CO2, sulphur and generate O2. I'm not sure how we can get see level densities to be Earth-like.
For terra-forming Mars and Venus - and Earth even down the road - I always wonder if we could go direct lots and lots of comets and change their orbits and crash them onto the planets. Then, seed it with designer bacteria to eat the CO2, sulphur and generate O2. I'm not sure how we can get see level densities to be Earth-like.
Apparently comets didn't bring water to Earth, but asteroids. That's because when they landed (crashed) a probe into a comet they found the water to be different from Earth:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news008.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth
So there's an existing theory that lots of ocean water came from asteroids or "protoplanets". Which is a bit weird, to be honest, you'd have to have lots of asteroids or protoplanets with significant amounts of water to give you the massive and very unique amount of water on Earth.
But going back to whether we could direct comets into planets, would it matter then if it was heavy water not regular water? Could we instead find/direct these asteroids or "protoplanets" with water in them?
Apparently comets didn't bring water to Earth, but asteroids. That's because when they landed (crashed) a probe into a comet they found the water to be different from Earth:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news008.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth
So there's an existing theory that lots of ocean water came from asteroids or "protoplanets". Which is a bit weird, to be honest, you'd have to have lots of asteroids or protoplanets with significant amounts of water to give you the massive and very unique amount of water on Earth.
Nice info!
But going back to whether we could direct comets into planets, would it matter then if it was heavy water not regular water? Could we instead find/direct these asteroids or "protoplanets" with water in them?
One problem at a time. You could land a big asteroid onto Mars, but it will take a while. And by land, I mean crash. Send up an ion drive based pusher truck. You'll need to do something about stabilizing the rotation rates on the asteroid. Fire up the ion drive and put it into an orbit to crash on Mars. Also use the drive to slow it down as much as possible. Wait decades, maybe centuries, for it to arrive. Wait decades for things to settle down. Then, I don't know.
Then you'll have to figure out how to keep it there in a liquid state. Mars may not be big enough to hold a thick enough atmosphere to keep it from boiling away.
Then you'll have to figure out how to keep it there in a liquid state. Mars may not be big enough to hold a thick enough atmosphere to keep it from boiling away.
Harvest a cubic meter of neutron star, dig a hole to the center of Mars, plop it in. Instant extra gravity!
Harvest a cubic meter of neutron star, dig a hole to the center of Mars, plop it in. Instant extra gravity!
Well, I was thinking if you land enough asteroids on Mars, its mass would naturally go up, but it aint going to be pretty.
Read "Building Harlequin's Moon" by Larry Niven .. available in iBooks.
It's fiction, but an interesting treatise on terraforming.
Tallest Skil and Shrike ...
Read "Building Harlequin's Moon" by Larry Niven .. available in iBooks.
It's fiction, but an interesting treatise on terraforming.
Interesting. I love Niven's work; thanks for the suggestion.
Nice info!
Cheers... Two things I don't like about how water is currently viewed in planetary science and astrobiology:
A.
As mentioned, still no clear explanation how so much darn liquid water formed or came to Earth.
B.
Looking for "intelligent life" solely based on liquid water as a key ingredient of life. What about non-carbon, non-water-based liquid, gaseous or solid entities, etc. that may have formed more complex structures and somehow... sentience?
You can see where the Intelligent Design believers are coming from... They're smart enough to grasp theories of physics and planet formation but there's also not enough data to demonstrate Earth and sentient life as a definitive, logical, random, inevitable occurrence.
B.
Looking for "intelligent life" solely based on liquid water as a key ingredient of life. What about non-carbon, non-water-based liquid, gaseous or solid entities, etc. that may have formed more complex structures and somehow... sentience?
While we have the ability to speculate about non-water/carbon based life, we haven't ever observed such a thing. We have no idea what to even start looking for as indicators of such life. Especially difficult at interstellar distances
So we look for the things we know how to look for.
While we may not have enough evidence to demonstrate that life as we know it is definitive or inevitable, there is certainly plenty of evidence to show how it is possible withOUT divine intervention.
ID assumes something for which there is NO physical evidence whatsoever. That doesn't mean you aren't welcome to look for some evidence... But no-one's presented any YET.