PDA

View Full Version : Jupiter has 39 MOONS!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?


Calhoun07
05-17-2002, 10:51 PM
I love astronomy, and I am drawn to stories like this, so when I saw this head line, I reeled.

Eleven More Jupiter Moons Discovered

By JANIS L. MAGIN
.c The Associated Press

HONOLULU (May 16) - Astronomers at the University of Hawaii have discovered 11 more moons orbiting Jupiter, bringing the number orbiting the solar system's largest planet to 39.

The discovery by the team led by astronomer David Jewitt and graduate student Scott Sheppard was announced Thursday by the International Astronomical Union. The group, which first identified the moons in December, discovered 11 other moons orbiting Jupiter in January 2001.

``It's pretty exciting to find these,'' Sheppard said. ``When you're actually up there observing, it's very time consuming, very rigorous.''

Astronomers used a telescope atop Mauna Kea and one of the largest digital imaging cameras in the world to find the moons, the astronomers said. The moons are between 1.25 miles and 2.5 miles in diameter, the astronomers said.

``The technology is improving now to the point that the number of moons in the solar system has doubled because of the new technology,'' said Donald Yeomans, senior research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. ``It's really quite extraordinary - the number of moons in the solar system has doubled.''

The discovery is also significant because the moons rotate in the opposite rotation of Jupiter, astronomers said. Satellites typically rotate in the same direction as the planet they orbit.

The unusual rotations indicate the moons were formed in another place and captured by Jupiter's orbit, Jewitt said.

``They must have been captured at some very, very early time when things were different,'' he said.

With 39 moons, Jupiter has the most of any planet in the solar system. Its four largest - Io, Europa, Calisto and Ganymede - were discovered by Galileo in 1610.

Sheppard said more moons could also be discovered the next time the planet can be clearly observed from Earth. He said the new moons won't be named for some time because astronomers must observe one full orbit rotation, which takes 600 days.

``We've recently discovered so many new moons we're going to run out of names,'' Sheppard said.

05/16/02 23:27 EDT

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.



I mean, why didn't these get discovered before? This is just so fascinating to me, don't know exactly why, but it's quite interesting news. I guess we don't know as much about our own solar system as we previously thought. That we can still find new moons in our solar system is interesting to me in this world where you would think we already found what we need to know here. At least as far as counting and accounting for all the planetary bodies in our solar system and their moons.

39 moons....wow. I wonder what their night sky looks like!

Buck Tudrussel
05-17-2002, 10:57 PM
yeah,i recently heard about that.very intriguing

Alaskanbullworm
05-17-2002, 11:06 PM
I want to be an astronomer when I'm older and this is very interesting to me. Wow, 39 moons is a lot, but Jupiter is a huge planet so it would seem logical.

Calhoun07
05-17-2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Patrick Star
I want to be an astronomer when I'm older and this is very interesting to me. Wow, 39 moons is a lot, but Jupiter is a huge planet so it would seem logical.

If I had my life to live over, I would have studied to be an astronomer when I was youger. So good luck on your choice for career!

Yes, Jupiter is large. I read once when I was a kid that it could hold 13 Earths inside if it was hollow.

Lightwave
05-17-2002, 11:10 PM
geez....i leave for a min and look whats discovered.this is cool!

Buck Tudrussel
05-17-2002, 11:15 PM
um...bro....this was discovered like yesterday or last night

Alaskanbullworm
05-17-2002, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Calhoun07
Yes, Jupiter is large. I read once when I was a kid that it could hold 13 Earths inside if it was hollow.

I think it could fit way more earths in it because I heard we could fit 2 and a half earths in the red spot on Jupiter, so I'd say a hundred or so could fit in Jupiter. The sun is told to fit thousands and thousand of earths in it.So I guess it is a small world after all.

Zechs
05-18-2002, 12:12 AM
Wow that intresting I'll have to find out more. Wonder if Saturn has any more moons?

Lucky Bob
05-18-2002, 12:26 AM
Wow! Cool!

39 moons, imagine if Earth had that many. Nasa would never run out of stuff to do!

Sir Gatts
05-18-2002, 02:16 AM
:eek: Cool. I wonder if any of them contain ice for terraforming.

Mattashell
05-18-2002, 03:35 AM
My guess is that their orbits are so wide tho go around the whole planet, it takes them years and years to do it, they probably didn'[t get around to the side where they could be seen before. It's also possible, that being very small and very far away, nobody picked them up before.

I'm sure you know jupiter is gas so it would be impossible to stand on it and look at the night sky, but I'm sure you were speaking retoricly. You may notice that in science fiction, it is very popular to speculate about the future settlement and population of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter. I bet you'd have a great veiw from there.

Calico
05-18-2002, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Calhoun07

I mean, why didn't these get discovered before?

Probably because they're only 1.25 to 2.5 miles in diameter, quite literally specks of dust in comparison to Jupiter and the other moons. They're probably just some asteroids that got caught up in Jupiter's gravity.

Parallax
05-18-2002, 09:52 AM
You think Jupiter might have even more moons?

Karkull
05-18-2002, 10:07 AM
Ha! Take that, Saturn!

:p

Neat. I can understand why they were only discovered recently...after all, Jupiter is very far away, our telescopes are small (but getting more powerful), the moons are very small, and Jupiter can block many of them from our vision.

I wonder how many rings Jupiter has now. Last I heard it had two and a half.

Maxie Zeus
05-18-2002, 12:13 PM
1 1/4 miles in diameter? That's pretty dang small -- basically a rock.

Honestly, if you're going to count this thing as a "moon" you might as well count something the size of a softball as a "moon." And Jupiter has millions of those. :rolleyes:

Lucky Bob
05-18-2002, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
1 1/4 miles in diameter? That's pretty dang small -- basically a rock.

Honestly, if you're going to count this thing as a "moon" you might as well count something the size of a softball as a "moon." And Jupiter has millions of those. :rolleyes:


Doesn't it have rings, too?

Maxie Zeus
05-18-2002, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by luckybob1985



Doesn't it have rings, too?

Yeah, that's why it would have "millions" of moons.

I guess I'm just reacting to the fact that it becomes more and more clear that there is no sharp distinction to be made between a planet and a planetoid, or between a moon and a rock. If an irregular chunk of rock a few thousand yards across can be dignified with the label "moon," why can't a spherical asteroid several hundred miles wide be dignified with the label "planet"? In which case the asteroid belt holds several dozen "planets" and the Solar System just got exponentially bigger.

There actually is a serious move afoot in astronomical quarters to get Pluto de-classified as a planet. The current theory holds that it is merely the largest object in the hypothesized "Kuiper belt" of planetismals in the trans-Neptunian orbits; the suspicion is that once telescopes get more powerful we'll discover dozens, and maybe hundreds, of similar-sized and similar-composed chunks out there. But why dignify these things, which are basically debris left over from the creation of the Solar System, on the same plane with the major bodies?

Lucky Bob
05-18-2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


Yeah, that's why it would "millions" of moons.

I guess I'm just reacting to the fact that it becomes more and more clear that there is no sharp distinction to be made between a planet and a planetoid, or between a moon and a rock. If an irregular chunk of rock a few thousand yards across can be dignified with the label "moon," why can't a spherical asteroid several hundred miles wide be dignified with the label "planet"? In which case the asteroid belt holds several dozen "planets" and the Solar System just got exponentially bigger.


Hmmm, maybe that was the problem in Star Wars. Maybe that asteroid that housed the creature was actually a small planet....

zero zero nine
05-18-2002, 01:50 PM
I just hope they don't give them dumb-sounding names. They should name one "Anakin." :p

Calhoun07
05-18-2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
1 1/4 miles in diameter? That's pretty dang small -- basically a rock.

Honestly, if you're going to count this thing as a "moon" you might as well count something the size of a softball as a "moon." And Jupiter has millions of those. :rolleyes:

That's what I think, too. Shouldn't there be a requirement for it to be considered a moon? A size requirement of some sort? If it's not a certain size, it's just a rock that got caught in their gravity. I'd hate to see an asteroid strike one of these mile diamiter rocks. Suddenly Jupiter would have 139 moons!

Parallax
05-18-2002, 10:13 PM
Yeah if you didn't you could just throw a rock in Space and say look I have discovered a moon!Note-This is fantasy

The Mad Hatter
05-19-2002, 02:04 PM
I had heard of the Pluto movement. Very interesting.

And I'd also like to hear a sharper definition of what it means to be a "moon." A regular orbit doesn't cut it... what about the asteroid belt? What about Halley's Comet? Sure, its orbit is huge, but it's still an orbit.

Then again, I think scientists just think it's cool to blow people's minds and say that a planet has 39 moons. :p

Maxie Zeus
05-19-2002, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
I had heard of the Pluto movement. Very interesting.

And I'd also like to hear a sharper definition of what it means to be a "moon." A regular orbit doesn't cut it... what about the asteroid belt? What about Halley's Comet? Sure, its orbit is huge, but it's still an orbit.

Then again, I think scientists just think it's cool to blow people's minds and say that a planet has 39 moons. :p

Yeah, I agree totally with everything you just said.

I think a moon should have a circular orbit (roughly speaking; there are no perfectly circular orbits out there), revolve in the same direction as the majority of other moons, and be large enough to maintain a roughly spherical shape. Basically, it should look/behave like our Moon, just differ in size.

I guess that makes me awfully geo-centric, huh? :rolleyes:

Singin' Stray Cat
05-19-2002, 03:56 PM
But isn't there a moon of Neptune that has a retrograde orbit? I can't remember the name of it, but it has an atmosphere and... dang. I can't think of anything else about it...never thought I'd get so confused just thinking about what defines a moon... :o