Top 5 Most Recent Articles
Top 5 Most Popular Articles
HOMEPAGE NEWS by Kelly Beatty
Pluto's Moons: Five and Counting
Within the past two weeks, astronomers used the Hubble Space Telescope to identify a fifth moon circling Pluto.
It's hard to believe, but the arrival of NASA's New Horizons spacecraft at Pluto is just three years away. The logistics of the high-speed flyby, already challenging, just got more complicated: Pluto turns out to have a fifth moon.
Although for now its official designation is S/2012 (134340) 1 — "134340" being the minor-planet number assigned to Pluto — the new find has been nicknamed "P5". (Easier to remember, don't you agree?) Its existence was announced last night by the IAU's Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams.
Long-time Pluto-watcher Mark Showalter (SETI Institute) led the nine-member discovery team. They took advantage of Pluto's opposition on June 29th, when this little world was a mere 31¼ astronomical units (2.9 billion miles) away, to image the system 14 times from June 26th to July 9th with the Hubble Space Telescope and its Wide Field Camera 3.
"Here's an interesting stat," Showalter notes. "P5 is 1 arcsecond from Pluto and fainter by a factor of 100,000. I continue to be amazed at what Hubble can do with fine-tuned observations."
Yet even with HST's powerful optics, P5 shows up as barely a blip. Its magnitude is just 27, which puts its diameter somewhere between 6 and 15 miles (10 and 25 km), depending on the reflectivity of its surface. The orbit is still uncertain, though the tiny moonlet appears to be circling in the same plane as Pluto's other satellites and roughly 26,000 miles (42,000 km) out. That puts P5 nearer to Pluto than Nix, Hydra, and the not-yet-named P4 (discovered last year) though not nearly as close as Charon.
It's no coincidence that all these moons orbit in the same plane as Pluto's equator. Most likely they formed from debris tossed out when a renegade object struck Pluto long ago. Collisions in this distant region of the solar system are typically so slow that most of the resulting fragments couldn't have reached escape velocity, which is a bit under 1 mile per second for Pluto. So most of it would have stuck around.
But that doesn't automatically lead to satellite formation. Ballistically speaking, any stuff that lingered should just have just fallen back onto Pluto itself. However, tidal interactions among the most massive chunks could have allowed enough of them to remain in orbit to form Charon and the other moons.
What's driving the search for Pluto's extended family is the possibility that such small objects or even rings might pose a danger to New Horizons as it zooms through the system at 32,000 miles per hour (14.3 km per second) on July 14, 2015. Plans now call for the spacecraft to pass well inside Charon's, at a point about 6,000 miles from Pluto.
"We have been searching for hazards because this is the last chance to observe Pluto before the team has to settle on the backup flyby trajectory," explains Showalter. "Searching for new, interesting targets is just a fringe benefit."
Here's the NASA/STScI press release describing the discovery of P5.
It's hard to believe, but the arrival of NASA's New Horizons spacecraft at Pluto is just three years away. The logistics of the high-speed flyby, already challenging, just got more complicated: Pluto turns out to have a fifth moon.
Three sets of 3-minute-long exposures, taken on July 7th with Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3, reveal the presence of "P5," Pluto's fifth known satellite. A dark vertical band was used to reduce the brightness of Pluto and Charon, and faint horizontal stripes are imaging artifacts.
NASA / STScI / M. Showalter & others
Long-time Pluto-watcher Mark Showalter (SETI Institute) led the nine-member discovery team. They took advantage of Pluto's opposition on June 29th, when this little world was a mere 31¼ astronomical units (2.9 billion miles) away, to image the system 14 times from June 26th to July 9th with the Hubble Space Telescope and its Wide Field Camera 3.
"Here's an interesting stat," Showalter notes. "P5 is 1 arcsecond from Pluto and fainter by a factor of 100,000. I continue to be amazed at what Hubble can do with fine-tuned observations."
Yet even with HST's powerful optics, P5 shows up as barely a blip. Its magnitude is just 27, which puts its diameter somewhere between 6 and 15 miles (10 and 25 km), depending on the reflectivity of its surface. The orbit is still uncertain, though the tiny moonlet appears to be circling in the same plane as Pluto's other satellites and roughly 26,000 miles (42,000 km) out. That puts P5 nearer to Pluto than Nix, Hydra, and the not-yet-named P4 (discovered last year) though not nearly as close as Charon.
The orbits of Pluto's five known moons. Just-discovered "P5," the smallest of all, might be in a resonance that carries it completely around Pluto once for every three circuits made by Charon. As now planned, NASA's New Horizons spacecraft will pass just 6,200 miles (10,000 km) from Pluto in July 2015.
Source: NASA / ESA / A. Feild (STScI)
But that doesn't automatically lead to satellite formation. Ballistically speaking, any stuff that lingered should just have just fallen back onto Pluto itself. However, tidal interactions among the most massive chunks could have allowed enough of them to remain in orbit to form Charon and the other moons.
What's driving the search for Pluto's extended family is the possibility that such small objects or even rings might pose a danger to New Horizons as it zooms through the system at 32,000 miles per hour (14.3 km per second) on July 14, 2015. Plans now call for the spacecraft to pass well inside Charon's, at a point about 6,000 miles from Pluto.
"We have been searching for hazards because this is the last chance to observe Pluto before the team has to settle on the backup flyby trajectory," explains Showalter. "Searching for new, interesting targets is just a fringe benefit."
Here's the NASA/STScI press release describing the discovery of P5.
Posted by Kelly Beatty, July 11, 2012
The following comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sky Publishing.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.
First comments (from 29)
name for new moon
Posted by Paul Vondra
July 11, 2012 At 04:08 PM PDT
I think the new moon of Pluto ought to be named "Goofy" in honor of the IAU bureaucrats who decreed that a perfectly round world in an independent orbit of the Sun that is well over 1,000 miles in diameter, has a sensible atmosphere and a set of five neatly coplanar moons is somehow not a planet.
pluto a planet?
Posted by john crawford
July 12, 2012 At 06:29 AM PDT
Paul has an excellent point-several in fact. But in 50-100 years how many other Kuiper belt objects will meet the same definition? 10? 50? 100's? When the first four asteroids were discovered they were counted as planets, then there just became too many of them. So when the true nature of the objects became apparent the first asteroid belt was discovered. By chance of Pluto being large and close (relatively speaking) it was considered a planet. Now with the realization that the second asteroid belt contains probably more bodies than the first, with perhaps many, many as large or larger than Pluto the definition of a 'planet' has become unwieldy.
Planet -- Reply
Posted by Paul Vondra
July 12, 2012 At 09:14 AM PDT
Replying to John, I don't think the number of items in a classification should affect the definitions that qualify for that classification. That's totally unscientific. There are something like 200 billion stars in our galaxy but that doesn't stop a self-luminous mass of gas powered by nuclear fusion from being a star. Why should planets be any different? And as many others pointed out, a "dwarf star" is still a star. A "dwarf galaxy" is still a galaxy. A "dwarf person" is till a person. Why would a "Dwarf planet" not be a planet? The whole thing is "Goofy."
multi-planets
Posted by john crawford
July 12, 2012 At 01:27 PM PDT
Well Paul are you comfortable with all the so-called dwarf planets being elevated to planets
multi-planets
Posted by john crawford
July 12, 2012 At 01:44 PM PDT
Nothing like having the keyboard freeze up. So if 1000 miles is the criteria that seems arbitrary too? Why not 500 miles? 1000 kilometers? Having moons? Asteroids smaller than 100 mile diameter have moons. Stars-what are Brown dwarfs? Super Jupiters? The problem is that eventually there will be no quick, easy and absolute criteria of what makes up a planet as opposed to a dwarf planet or asteroid (planetoid? Minor Planet?) What is the cut-off between meteoroids and asteroids-one foot, ten feet, a hundred feet? What is the cut-off between a Super-Jupiter and a brown dwarf? Size? Temperature? Eventually there is just going to be a long range of objects from micro-meteroids on up to stars and super-giant stars. The idea of lumping Pluto with Sedna, Eris, Makemake and the rest seems to be to not give it any special status as a Kuiper belt object. For me that works for now.
Room for argument
Posted by Peter
July 12, 2012 At 05:52 PM PDT
Between Charon and P5, it looks like Pluto may have its own asteroid-belt. In that case, it might have to be re-classified as a failed star.
Planethood
Posted by Paul Vondra
July 13, 2012 At 08:33 AM PDT
So John, your main problem with Pluto's planethood has nothing to do with Pluto itself, it has to do with "if we let one in we have to let them all in." Show me another dwarf planet in an independent orbit of the Sun, perfectly round, over 1,000 miles in diameter, with an atmosphere and a set of coplanar moons, and I agree, we'd have to let it in too. But the hypothetical exiatence of such a world is no reason to exclude Pluto now.
Name For Pluto's New Moon
Posted by Stan Kerns
July 13, 2012 At 12:44 PM PDT
In keeping with the naming of Pluto's satellites with names from the dark side I suggest the new moon be called "Lawyer"
small 'planet'
Posted by john crawford
July 14, 2012 At 05:19 AM PDT
Well Paul you could fit almost nine Plutos inside of Mercury (smallest official planet). To apply the Hulk's comment in the Avengers movie to Pluto-"Puny planet."
[dwarf] planethood
Posted by Phil
July 14, 2012 At 08:26 AM PDT
OK, there is a continuum of solid object sizes, from dust to Jupiters. They don't have natural gaps in the range to self-define groups. The dividing line between "dwarf" and "normal" planets is always going to be someone arbitrary. It needs to include size, shape, moon count, composition, and influence on its neighborhood. I can't help but note that if Pluto were an AU or two from the Sun, it would have lost most of its atmosphere and volatiles, and would be considered just a large asteroid. It might not even be able to hold on to its moons. Anyway, there will probably never be a definition of "full fledged" planet that will please everyone.
As @John pointed out, what we consider "minor planets" (the asteroids) has changed. At first they were counted as normal planets, but at 7 or so (IIRC) it was realized that things were getting out of hand, and they were demoted to minor planets. Pluto was initially thought to be Earth sized -- if its true size was known from the start, it probably would never been called a planet.
|
|
|
||
|
|
Date:
|



Other links: + digg | + reddit | + del.icio.us | + rss
comments (29)