That may be for a while in this financial climate
Imagine a NASA director asking in congress. "We need additional funds to explore Ur anus"
Probe boffins: Two balls deep in Uranus's ring
Data from the first and only time mankind probed Uranus appears to show two new moons hiding in the dark rings that encircle the gas giant. Back in 1986, Voyager 2 skimmed past Uranus and found 10 new moons encircling the gas giant. Two of these, named Cordelia and Ophelia, occur on the outside of Uranus' rings, and the …
-
-
Wednesday 19th October 2016 08:42 GMT allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
"... given the small predicted sizes of the α and β moonlets, a convincing detection may not be possible in the Voyager 2 images ..."
At 2 to 4 km probably not... Does anybody here know something about the resolution of the Voyager pics? Off the top of my head I'd say the moonlets will be hiding in the pixels, so to speak...
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Wednesday 19th October 2016 16:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Yes people seem to forget about Saturn and Uranus.
"...few opportunities to visit it as it rarely crosses the ecliptic plain [sic]"
Uranus's orbit is closely aligned with the ecliptic plane and is no more difficult to get to than any of the other outer planets. It's orbit around Sol is relatively eccentric though, by about 1.8 AU, which may be the result of whatever it was that tilted it over by 97.7 degrees.
The most curious thing about it, to my thinking, is that not only is the planet tilted over but that its moons and rings are also tilted and remain closely aligned with its orientation and axial rotation. The current thinking is that Uranus's axial tilt is the result of a collision with an Earth-sized protoplanet early in the Solar System's formation but this scenario doesn't really explain how its rings and moons were also tilted: an Earth-sized protoplanet hitting Uranus should certainly disrupt the moons and rings to some degree but its almost inconceivable that it would disrupt them in such a way as to maintain that close alignment.
If Uranus had a relatively large and very irregular rocky core then that might explain it: the irregularities in the core would result in slight variations in its gravitational field (as it rotates) which could 'drag' the moons and rings in to realignment after the collision. The trouble with this though, is that Uranus's core seems to be too small and is under so much pressure that it's unlikely to be irregular enough. An alternative is that the realignment could have been due to the influence of Uranus's magnetic field but the problem with that idea is that not only is Uranus's magnetosphere not aligned with its rotation (by about 57 deg) but it also doesn't even pass through the center of the planet, being displaced by about 1/3rd of Uranus's radius.
A very unlikely third alternative is that Uranus could be a captured planet and was already orientated the way it is when it was captured. However, its close alignment with the plane of the ecliptic is a very strong argument against a capture scenario.
Obligatory arse themed comment: Buggered if I know what happened.
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
