#1  
Old 12-07-2012, 12:08 AM
jjjnettie's Avatar
jjjnettie (Jeanette)
Registered User

jjjnettie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Monto
Posts: 16,738
Pluto's New Moon

It's official, Pluto now has 5 moons.

Breaking News.....NEW SATELLITE OF PLUTO: P5 - new Moon

M. R. Showalter (SETI Institute), H. A. Weaver (Applied Physics Laboratory,
Johns Hopkins University), S. A. Stern, A. J. Steffl, M. W. Buie, W. J. Merline
(Southwest Research Institute), M. J. Mutchler, R. Soummer (Space Telescope
... Science Institute) and H. B. Throop (NASA Headquarters) report the discovery of
a fifth satellite of Pluto. The object, provisionally designated S/2012 (134340)
1 and referred to as "P5", was detected in 14 separate sets of images taken by
the Hubble Space Telescope WFC3/UVIS. Each image set comprises 11-12
three-minute exposures. Upon co-adding, S/N = 5-8 in five sets and S/N = 3-5 in
nine sets where the detection was somewhat degraded by P5's close proximity of
Pluto II (Nix). Times and positions are as follows:

June 26.51-26.67 UT, 3 sets, 1".99 from Pluto at p.a. 158 deg
June 27.78-27.94 UT, 3 sets, 1".71 from Pluto at p.a. 182 deg
June 29.64-29.80 UT, 3 sets, 1".44 from Pluto at p.a. 219 deg
July 7.42- 7.58 UT, 3 sets, 1".76 from Pluto at p.a. 352 deg
July 9.41- 9.51 UT, 2 sets, 1".42 from Pluto at p.a. 31 deg

The satellite's mean magnitude is V = 27.0 +/- 0.3, making it 4 percent as
bright as Pluto II (Nix) and half as bright as S/2011 (134340) 1. The diameter
depends on the assumed geometric albedo: 10 km if p_v = 0.35, or 25 km if p_v =
0.04. The motion is consistent with a body traveling on a near-circular orbit
coplanar with the other satellites. The inferred mean motion is 17.8 +/- 0.1
degrees per day (P = 20.2 +/- 0.1 days), and the projected radial distance from
Pluto is 42000 +/- 2000 km, placing P5 interior to Pluto II (Nix) and close to
the 1:3 mean motion resonance with Pluto I (Charon).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-07-2012, 08:20 AM
spacezebra's Avatar
spacezebra (Petra)
Lost in Namibia

spacezebra is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albury NSW
Posts: 3,119
This is great news - just saw the Hubble images!

Cheers Petra d.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-07-2012, 08:54 AM
Varangian's Avatar
Varangian (John)
Registered User

Varangian is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 599
Man other than the ability to clear its orbit this thing is turning out to be more planet-like than Mercury!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-07-2012, 04:26 PM
Dave2042's Avatar
Dave2042 (Dave)
Registered User

Dave2042 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varangian View Post
Man other than the ability to clear its orbit this thing is turning out to be more planet-like than Mercury!
I suspect (intuitively) that distance from the sun is a big driver of the ability of a small 'planet' to retain moons. Here's my (Newtonian) reasoning.

Remember that while a 2-body system (ie one planet, one moon) is stable, any more is not. In the long term, non-linearities eventually build up to large effects.

Now consider putting a 2-body system (planet and moon) in orbit around a larger body (the sun). The 2-body system 'sees' the sun as a changing gravitational field, getting weaker away from the sun. That change is the 3'rd body distortion which ulitmately destabilises the system.

Now, the closer the 2-body system is to the sun, the more dramatic the change in that back-ground field, and consequently the more pronounced the distorting effect and consequently the faster instabilities develop and potentially the 2-body system is disrupted. In a sense the further from the sun, the more the planet and moon look like an isolated 2-body system.

Intuitively I'd say this has to hold for more than one moon.

On this basis, I'd say it is unsurprising that despite their similarity Mercury has no moons and Pluto has a bunch. Pluto is so much further away from the sun.

Obviously that's a pretty rough and ready analysis. Anyone able to either poke a hole in my reasoning, or alternatively point to someone having produced a more rigorous version?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:10 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,581
Dave,
your intuitive reasoning is quite correct.
See more on this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

However, it also the influence of other (bigger and closer to Pluto) planets, that play role in Pluto's ability to hold/acquire moons, as well as the availability of moons that can be captured
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:23 PM
Dave2042's Avatar
Dave2042 (Dave)
Registered User

Dave2042 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
Dave,
your intuitive reasoning is quite correct.
See more on this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

However, it also the influence of other (bigger and closer to Pluto) planets, that play role in Pluto's ability to hold/acquire moons, as well as the availability of moons that can be captured
D'oh! Here's me with an Honours degree in Astrophysics forgetting the Roche limit, which is indeed a specific example of exactly this.

Just goes to show what 15+ years in finance does to you.

Much obliged.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23-07-2012, 10:04 PM
Zhou's Avatar
Zhou (Mick)
Fun in water

Zhou is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 130
Dave said:
"I suspect (intuitively) that distance from the sun is a big driver of the ability of a small 'planet' to retain moons. Here's my (Newtonian) reasoning."

Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_sphere

Even though the gravitational attraction of Pluto is far more feeble than even our moon it is able to hold on to more orbiting bodies due to the simple fact that the gravitational effect of the Sun is also weaker in the outer periphery of the Solar System compared the inner Solar System.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25-07-2012, 01:40 PM
Dave2042's Avatar
Dave2042 (Dave)
Registered User

Dave2042 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhou View Post
Dave said:
"I suspect (intuitively) that distance from the sun is a big driver of the ability of a small 'planet' to retain moons. Here's my (Newtonian) reasoning."

Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_sphere

Even though the gravitational attraction of Pluto is far more feeble than even our moon it is able to hold on to more orbiting bodies due to the simple fact that the gravitational effect of the Sun is also weaker in the outer periphery of the Solar System compared the inner Solar System.
Thanks. This is fascinating. I've made a decision in the last few months to revisit my old physics texts and get back up to speed for my own amusement, and this is a great addition to the program.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement