The Register Home Page

back to article Saturn runs rings around Jupiter

The International Astronomical Union on Tuesday ratified the recent discovery of 128 previously unknown moons orbiting Saturn, taking the gas giant’s count of known natural satellites to 274. The ratification means Saturn goes well ahead of Jupiter, which has a puny population of 95 known moons. The moons were discovered by a …

  1. herman Silver badge

    What is the lower mass limit for a moon?

    It seems to me that Saturn has a near infinite number of moons if you would count every clot of dirt circling it. There has to be an agreed lower limit to what is a moon, vs sand/dust for the counts to be meaningful.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What is the lower mass limit for a moon?

      I can see the conversations now.

      Astronomer 1: I've just discovered a new moon.

      Astronomer 2: What's it's mass.

      Astronomer 1: XXXX Kg.

      Astronomer 2 in an Alec Guinness voice: That's no moon.

      1. Version 1.0
        Pint

        Re: What is the lower mass limit for a moon?

        Monkeys on the moon, See how they bounce from dune to dune, Came a long way in a gold cocoon. All the way from a green balloon. Look out pa, there's monkeys on the moon! Saturn is blinking, Jupiter's winking, All the kids are singing a tune, "Look out pa, there's monkeys on the moon!"

        LOL, I've always loved that song, was this a Guinness voice?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Should we Pluto some of them.

    We need to draw a line somewhere. When we got too many planets, we invented a cut off point where anything smaller wasn't a planet anymore. If we don't do the same with moons, we'll get to a stage where every ice particle in Saturn's rings gets classified as a moon.

    1. David Harper 1

      Re: Should we Pluto some of them.

      Well, the next General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union is in August 2027. That should be plenty of time to come up with a definition of "moon" that will satisfy half the planet and annoy the other half.

      1. Kane
        Joke

        Re: Should we Pluto some of them.

        "That should be plenty of time to come up with a definition of "moon"..."

        Space Station

      2. HelpfulJohn

        Re: Should we Pluto some of them.

        Any object, however large or small, orbiting a bigger object is a "moon" of said larger object. Thus all planets are also moons. Also many stars, Globular Clusters and galaxies are moons.

        This would, of course, necessitate us finding obscure deities after whom we would name dustgrains, hydrogen atoms and water molecules but I'm fairly sure that Humanity has sufficient numbers of gods, demons, godlings, demi-gods and Marvel Superheroes to go around.

        Note: this defininition does not differentiate between "real" natural moons and artificial ones so dead space stations, lost spanners, drifting screws from assembly missions, dropped, dried bacon baps and elderly weather satellites would be included. That makes life easier, yes?

        What of edge cases where two objects of absolutely equal size orbit each other? We simply decide that *both* are smaller than the other and *both* are moons. That way, we save on bothering to measure them to any degree of precision.

        Yes, moons can have moons, too, so the moon, Saturn, can have littler moons.

      3. Blackjack Silver badge

        Re: Should we Pluto some of them.

        Big enough to land spacecraft on it and do a space walk at least?

    2. I am David Jones Silver badge
      Angel

      Re: Should we Pluto some of them.

      I think we should follow Earth’s shining example and permit a maximum of one moon per planet. Everything else is just space trash.

      That’d also give me a chance of remembering all their names.

    3. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: Should we Pluto some of them.

      There's a brand new XKCD for that: Planet Definitions

      1. Dante Alighieri

        Re: Should we Pluto some of them.

        preceded by water balloons which is also apposite.

    4. Is there anybody out there?

      Re: Should we Pluto some of them.

      Too many planets? Too many for what? To keep in a single garage, in the loft? I don't think it was because astronomers didn't like counting to 9 but I might be wrong. Is this a new unit of measurement?

  3. Roj Blake

    Re: too early to have killed the dinosaurs by at least 30 million years.

    Not if the rock ended up in an irregular orbit and took 30 million years to reach the Earth.

    1. DJO Silver badge

      Re: too early to have killed the dinosaurs by at least 30 million years.

      Absolutely, a rock can easily wander around the solar system for tens or hundreds of millions of years without intercepting anything, until it does.

      1. Version 1.0
        Alien

        Re: too early to have killed the dinosaurs by at least 30 million years.

        So a large rock wandering around our solar system is probably going to be attracted by the large gravity planets well away from us, so this is a good and very helpful discovery. It suggests that the chance of a very large strike on the inner planets (Mercury, Venus and our Earth) is lower because there are three very large, high gravity, planets further away. Since our solar system rotates around our galaxy every 200 million years there are occasional other risks if we pass another solar system.

        1. DJO Silver badge

          Re: too early to have killed the dinosaurs by at least 30 million years.

          It is as usual in space science a lot more complicated than that. While the gas giants may well deflect objects away from the inner solar system they can equally well deflect otherwise harmless objects into the inner solar system.

          Most of the harmful rocks were used up in the early bombardment phases of planetary history. A planet capturing a wandering rock into a stable orbit is incredibly unlikely, there has to be a combination of angle of interception and relative speed that is just right or the rock will alter course but whizz past or smash into it. The majority of these moons (moonlets?) are probably due to collisions of objects already in orbit.

  4. Bamba_RFW

    I take it this isn't the Edward Ashton who wrote Mickey 7 ( Filmed as Mickey 17 )

  5. lglethal Silver badge
    Trollface

    "Look everyone, I just discovered 125 new moons around Saturn!"

    "Well done. Now you have to go away and come up with 125 new names for each of those moons.

    Make sure you dont reuse already existing names.

    And they have to be mythical names.

    Oh and nothing rude, or that would upset anybody.

    And no names that are considered good in one culture, but bad in another.

    And absolutely no Moonie, McMoonfaces allowed.

    OK, off you go then...

    Oh and you're not allowed back on the telescopes until you've finished naming everything!"

    "Nooooooo!!!!"

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like