General Discussions

[Lods]

What set me off was there was an MSN article on the newsfeed today that said Saturn had gone past Jupiter as the planet with the most satellites.

https://www.sciencealert.com/over-60-unk...ing-saturn

I just thought it was funny that 50 years ago we only had about a dozen

[kruddler]

What set me off was there was an MSN article on the newsfeed today that said Saturn had gone past Jupiter as the planet with the most satellites.

https://www.sciencealert.com/over-60-unk...ing-saturn

I just thought it was funny that 50 years ago we only had about a dozen

The kicker is this....

Interestingly enough, the criteria for defining a moon, or natural satellite, are fairly broad. There's no shape or mass or diameter or composition requirement; the object in question just needs to have a stable orbit around another, larger body that isn't a star

Given both planets have their own set of rings, which, obviously, orbit the moon, the number is more likely going to increase by several orders of magnitude.
Until they update what a moon is in terms of size, the numbers will explode. Similarly, thats what they did to poor pluto when the decided to define what a planet wise, Pluto didn't fit the bill.

[LP]

What set me off was there was an MSN article on the newsfeed today that said Saturn had gone past Jupiter as the planet with the most satellites.

https://www.sciencealert.com/over-60-unk...ing-saturn

I just thought it was funny that 50 years ago we only had about a dozen

Like the change in the definition of Pluto, you might want to investigate "What is a Moon, and how it is defined?"

Technically these bodies are satellites, whether a satellite is natural or man made makes little difference, nobody "in the trade" calls them moons, moon is outreach / media speak things that go around a planet.

It's a bit like when referring to stars the media call them suns, there is really only one moon, moon is a satellite of earth!

[madbluboy]

I prefer Luna.

[Lods]

Like the change in the definition of Pluto, you might want to investigate "What is a Moon, and how it is defined?"

Technically these bodies are satellites, whether a satellite is natural or man made makes little difference, nobody "in the trade" calls them moons, moon is outreach / media speak things that go around a planet.

It's a bit like when referring to stars the media call them suns, there is really only one moon, moon is a satellite of earth!

Moon Scientists can call them whatever they like.
We've already established scientists are not the font of all wisdom and are still learning.

Big M =Moon-Earth's one
Little m=moon

National Geographic
"A moon is an object that orbits a planet or something else that is not a star. Besides planets, moons can circle dwarf planets, large asteroids, and other bodies. Objects that orbit other objects are also called satellites, so moons are sometimes called natural satellites. People have launched many artificial satellites into orbit around Earth, but these are not considered moons."

[LP]

Moon Scientists can call them whatever they like.
We've already established scientists are not the font of all wisdom and are still learning.

Big M =Moon-Earth's one
Little m=moon

National Geographic
"A moon is an object that orbits a planet or something else that is not a star. Besides planets, moons can circle dwarf planets, large asteroids, and other bodies. Objects that orbit other objects are also called satellites, so moons are sometimes called natural satellites. People have launched many artificial satellites into orbit around Earth, but these are not considered moons."

So then I presume the must be a definition of when "a satellite" becomes "a moon", care to share, moons as a subset of satellites I presume?

The ambiguity is in the language not in the science, there are rules and definitions set by the Planetary Society and the IAU, they do not get used by mainstream media and publishing because editors think they are too confusing, the editors think the general public isn't apparently smart enough to deal with it, so press releases and announcements get dumbed down.

Because those definitions change with new knowledge, the counts can change accordingly, a bit like when a new species is found, we are finding new species every day faster than we find new sexualities apparently! :o

I surveyed the Astrophysics archives and found about 6:1 "satellite" versus "moon", most references to moon appear in the abstracts for reasons already discussed.

[kruddler]

Like the change in the definition of Pluto, you might want to investigate "What is a Moon, and how it is defined?"

Technically these bodies are satellites, whether a satellite is natural or man made makes little difference, nobody "in the trade" calls them moons, moon is outreach / media speak things that go around a planet.

It's a bit like when referring to stars the media call them suns, there is really only one moon, moon is a satellite of earth!

You didn't read my post before this one of yours, or the article highlighted.

But it's not sufficient just to spot an object near a planet and declare that you've found a new moon. The object needs to be tracked – ideally for several orbits – so that its path can be analyzed to determine if it's stable. So while shifting and stacking can reveal faint objects, taking many such observations is needed to confirm moon status.

The number of 'moons' is dependent on how many of them have been tracked and deemed stable enough to be a moon.

As i said earlier, given both Jupiter and Saturn have rings, obviously made up of rocks and/or ice, the number of 'moons' will increase exponentially once we work out how to track them properly.

All of them orbit a planet.
All of them would be deemed stable.
Size doesn't matter.
So all of them are essentially moons under the current 'definition'.
I suspect a new one will be made soon ala Drawf planets to exclude a lot of these recently found moons.

[northernblue]

All of them orbit a planet.
All of them would be deemed stable.
Size doesn't matter.
So all of them are essentially moons under the current 'definition'.
I suspect a new one will be made soon ala Drawf planets to exclude a lot of these recently found moons.

I see to recall a lot of conjecture about Phobos and Deimos, Mars two companions… Phobos (I think…) is potato shaped and as such (ie not spherical) was theorized as potentially being a captured passing space rock and therefore not a Moon (Earth like) but merely a moon in orbit.

[Gointocarlton]

So who's this then (from the HS):

Deadline: Troubled AFL star winning few friends with gangster routine

This troubled AFL star doesn’t seem to respond well to feedback on field, warning rivals who sledge him that he’s going to shoot them.
Mark Buttler
and
Andrew Rule
May 18, 2023 - 12:13PM
The footballer’s gangster routine would make Jules from Pulp Fiction proud.
Gun player shoots from the lip

A troubled footy star whose career isn’t going as planned would be better off looking for the Sherrin instead of trouble.

If rivals start gobbing off, it might be best for him to learn the value of turning the other cheek — as opposed to his present approach of telling them he’s going to shoot them.

This gangsta routine is more evidence that our AFL hero’s skinny possession stats are considerably higher than his IQ.

The article goes on...

[LP]

So who's this then (from the HS):

Firstly, you know whoever it is they are a fan of Tupac and Yeezy, a numpty who thinks the Monster Gangsta Rappers are the real deal, and not actually actors who are busy getting makeup and pedicures before a performance!