Moon count Jumps to 58!

http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html

Haven't seen this posted anywhere yet. Will it ever end?

[added] Will there be a jump in the moon count of the other gas giants as well?

Just wait till Cassini gets to Saturn!

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Cassini might not neccessarily discover new moons. Remember, all of the new moons being discovered around Jupiter are being found by the Canada-France-Hawaii telescopes atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Although, I look forward to the vist to Saturn and Titan by the Cassini space craft and the Huygens probe which will be landing somewhere on Titan. It would be cool if it found new moons too

Moons around moons--that would be interesting.

Of course, we're getting into the controversy of determining if it is actually moons we've found.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Personally, I think 1 km should be the lower size limit and perhaps a mass too. And skip the 'minor moon' designation and call chunks of rock satellites or something else.

Just imagine the trouble figuring out the composition of all of them!

I agree that the size limit for moons should be 1 km. But then again, what would objects smaller than 1 km be? I think the problem is that there are probably hundreds of moons around Jupiter, and it would be ridiculous to try to find them all.

Also, I think that Cassini will boost Saturn's moon count to at least 60. While it is true that Mauna Kea is finding new moons all the time, that doesn't mean Cassini won't find any. Remember how many moons the Voyagers found? Virtually all of our knowledge of Neptune's and Uranus's moons comes from Voyager 2, and Cassini, with better instruments, should be able to find more.

Personally, I like a size of about 180+ km for a true moon since that is about the radius above which most most moon's in the solar system have enough mass to take on a spherical shape. But that's just my preference. I can certainly see why some would be upset to have the 100 km radius objects not be considered moons. Why not save the "moon" designation for the natural spherical objects orbiting planets and call all the other objects "satellites".

The public often takes the term "satellite" to mean artificial satellite. 1 km is fine with me, but whatever the consensus turns out to be I'm fine with too.

I agree: "Satellite" would be a good distinction, although unfortunately the already confused public would simply get more confused.

7-9 more

Though I note these are being called "space rocks" (is that a technical term?) rather than full-fledged moons.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

O.K. thats it...I've officially given up tring to keep up with Jupiter and it's ever growing number of satellites.

“Sixty! Count 'em, 60! Let's see some other **** do that!” -- Babe Ruth

I think it's time to invoke the simpletons approach to counting jupiter's moons:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, lots......

Is that like, "How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll in a tootsie roll pop?" :P

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Some rocks have been discovered near one of Jupiter's moons? Would these count as moons or not?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ks_030410.html

Other people have asked why each of the components of Saturn's rings don't count as a separate moon.

You want to count them?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Will all the little pieces of rock and ice that form Saturn's rings all be classified as moons?

That's what grad students are for.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.