NEW Saturn S/2004 S1 S2 S5

[symaski62]

http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/append7.html


Methone (SXXXII, 2004 S1)

Code: Select all

"Methone (2004 S1)" "Sol/Saturn"
{
   Texture   "Asteroid-Dark.jpg"
   Mesh      "asteroid.cms"
   Radius   1.5

   EllipticalOrbit
   {
   Period      1.01
   SemiMajorAxis   194000
   Eccentricity   0.000
   Inclination      0.000      #
   AscendingNode   000.0      #
   ArgOfPericenter   00.0      # J2000.0
   MeanAnomaly        000.0       #
   }

   Albedo 0.7
}

----------------------------------------------------------------
Pallene (SXXXIII, 2004 S2)

Code: Select all

"pallene  (2004 S2)" "Sol/Saturn"
{
   Texture   "Asteroid-Dark.jpg"
   Mesh      "asteroid.cms"
   Radius   2

   EllipticalOrbit
   {
   Period      1.14
   SemiMajorAxis   211000
   Eccentricity   0.000
   Inclination      0.000      #
   AscendingNode   000.0      #
   ArgOfPericenter   00.0      # J2000.0
   MeanAnomaly        000.0       #
   }

   Albedo 0.7
}

------------------------------------------------------------

Polydeuces (SXXXIV, 2004 S5)

Code: Select all

"polydeuces  (2004 S5)" "Sol/Saturn"
{
   Texture   "Asteroid-Dark.jpg"
   Mesh      "asteroid.cms"
   Radius   ??

   EllipticalOrbit
   {
   Period      ??????
   SemiMajorAxis   ??????
   Eccentricity   0.000
   Inclination      0.000      #
   AscendingNode   000.0      #
   ArgOfPericenter   00.0      # J2000.0
   MeanAnomaly        000.0       #
   }

   Albedo 0.7
}

^^ je sais donne , merci

[Ynjevi]

Looks like Cassini has found 2 new satellites, S/2004 S 5 (Polydeuces here) and S/2004 S 6.
I found no other information (sizes, orbits etc.) anywhere.
Discovery IAUCs (or any other IAUCs) are no longer available to the public.

Also it seems that S/2003 S1 has been named as Narvi, S/2004 S 1 is now Methone and S/2004 S 2 is Pallene.

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

I really don't know why they bother naming these tumbling mountains. For starters, it's a waste of a good name in a scheme that you could use on a more significant body. Plus there's just so many of the damn things, you might as well use the "anything goes" system used for naming asteroids.

Maybe they'll start naming individual ring particles next

[Spaceman Spiff]

Maybe they'll start naming individual ring particles next

It'll get worse...

Date : Tea-time, 26 Jan 2055.
Post from Celestia User 1,295,596: "Hi. Can anyone tell me where I can download the latest database for the all the ring particles of Saturn. I have the 20PetaByte file, but I hear there's a 150PB one somewhere. Has anyone done textures for them?"



Spiff.

[Cham]

Maybe they'll start naming individual ring particles next

It'll get worse...

Date : Tea-time, 26 Jan 2055.
Post from Celestia User 1,295,596: "Hi. Can anyone tell me where I can download the latest database for the all the ring particles of Saturn. I have the 20PetaByte file, but I hear there's a 150PB one somewhere. Has anyone done textures for them?"



Spiff.

... and that will happens only two years before the coming out of the Atomic-Celestia version, special Gold edition, with a complete orbital map of the ring particles components. In the year 2057, we all use portable parallel quantum computers as an implant in our head. The "real" and "fantasy" worlds will not be discernable anyway, at that time.

[Michael Kilderry]

What's wrong with naming tiny moons or ring particles? If the people who find them want to, they should. The names could also be used for bigger worlds as well, eg. You could call a ringlet "Little Jupiter" while the bigger Jupiter shares the name. But I think they should give "anything goes" names to them, there's just not that much mythology to go around for all the ringlets.

Michael Kilderry

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

What's wrong with naming tiny moons or ring particles? If the people who find them want to, they should. The names could also be used for bigger worlds as well, eg. You could call a ringlet "Little Jupiter" while the bigger Jupiter shares the name. But I think they should give "anything goes" names to them, there's just not that much mythology to go around for all the ringlets.

You never see anything wrong with anything, do you...

The lack of mythology is exactly the problem. Before the mid-90s the names worked fine. Now there's so many little rocklets that have names and there are several totally different naming schemes from totally different mythologies used for all the bodies in one satellite system, where there was one per system before. It's starting to get ridiculous. We don't name every single asteroid or KBO, why should we name every single tiny insignificant rock around a planet? Especially ones that nobody can even SEE from Earth.

Frankly, I'd rather they just kept the discovery numbers and didn't assign names to them at all.

[Michael Kilderry]

You never see anything wrong with anything, do you...

I don't need to hear rude comments like that.

Michael Kilderry

[The Singing Badger]

Everything should be named. Just a few decades ago people might have questioned the worth of giving names to worlds like Enceladus, Miranda, Triton and, dare I say it, Ganymede. What's the point, they'd say, they're just boring spheres of ice, why try to give them a personality? But it turns out they do have very distinct personalities, and I'm glad we don't refer to them in a blandly scientific way as 'Saturn VII', or 'Uranus V'.

Who knows what wonders await us on Methene, Pallene, Polydeuces and Narvi? Don't write them off as mere numbers until we've seen them up close and personal!

(P.S. In Celestia, go to Narvi (2003 S1) and take a look at its view of Saturn right now - it's worthy of a name in itself!)

[Michael Kilderry]

Yeah, and just look at Jestr's small moon addon. It shows just how amazing these worlds could look.

Michael Kilderry

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

Everything should be named. Just a few decades ago people might have questioned the worth of giving names to worlds like Enceladus, Miranda, Triton and, dare I say it, Ganymede. What's the point, they'd say, they're just boring spheres of ice, why try to give them a personality? But it turns out they do have very distinct personalities, and I'm glad we don't refer to them in a blandly scientific way as 'Saturn VII', or 'Uranus V'.

Who knows what wonders await us on Methene, Pallene, Polydeuces and Narvi? Don't write them off as mere numbers until we've seen them up close and personal!

(P.S. In Celestia, go to Narvi (2003 S1) and take a look at its view of Saturn right now - it's worthy of a name in itself!)

Well I for one don't have a clue what or where Narvi or Methone, or Polydeuces are. I would however know what Saturn II or 2004 S1 are. But giving every damn rock a name is just not practical. For one thing, you run out of names pretty rapidly. For another, it just gets impossible to remember them all. As it is, people would remember the major moons of Saturn by name and just file the rest as "and a bunch of tiny rocks".

Fact is though, hardly anyone beyond the few scientists studying them will ever refer to these little rockballs by name anyway. At least the major satellites are likely to get referred to lots. If anything, they should stay as 'mere numbers' until we HAVE seen them up close and personal, because until then they're just insignificant lumps of rock. Most of these are barely bigger than a city on Earth, for crying out loud. Save the names for the important bodies, not the tiny rocks.

And also, the IAU actually is very conservative about naming features on worlds. I know because I and others have been trying for the past seven years to get a region on Ganymede named, to no avail. Their logic is that you should only name features that get referred to in publications. Yet they turn round and name every random lump of rock and ice in the outer solar system, it seems. But then the way the IAU decided things never made much sense in the first place really.

[Michael Kilderry]

I would however know what Saturn II or 2004 S1 are.

I wouldn't. Most people would find it easier if objects however insignificant they seem to be given a name. And why not? What would be the harm?

Michael Kilderry

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

I would however know what Saturn II or 2004 S1 are.

I wouldn't. Most people would find it easier if objects however insignificant they seem to be given a name. And why not? What would be the harm?

Michael Kilderry

Are you really telling me you'd find it easier to identify something by an obscure name than by some numbers that clearly indicate that it's the second moon out from Saturn, or the first object discovered around Saturn in 2004?

And also, this isn't about "people" or "giving moons personalities" - it's about practicality and science. Most planetary scientists - let alone anyone else - wouldn't even be able to tell you the names of the piddly little rocks around Saturn or Jupiter because they hardly ever refer to them anyway. The more names there are to remember, the less likely they're going to bother learning them all in the first place. I sure as hell gave up a while ago, and I don't know anyone else who'd use or remember those names either.

And just because there's "no harm" in doing something, doesn't mean that there's any useful purpose in doing it, or even that it has to be done at all. I find it odd that people want names given to every irrelevant tumbling mountain in the solar system, but barely any of the known worlds in the extrasolar systems have been named yet. You'd think the latter would be more important, somehow.

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

I would however know what Saturn II or 2004 S1 are.

I wouldn't. Most people would find it easier if objects however insignificant they seem to be given a name. And why not? What would be the harm?

Michael Kilderry

Are you really telling me you'd find it easier to identify something by an obscure name than by some numbers that clearly indicate that it's the second moon out from Saturn, or the first object discovered around Saturn in 2004?

And also, this isn't about "people" or "giving moons personalities" - it's about practicality and science. Most planetary scientists - let alone anyone else - wouldn't even be able to tell you the names of the piddly little rocks around Saturn or Jupiter because they hardly ever refer to them anyway. The more names there are to remember, the less likely they're going to bother learning them all in the first place. I sure as hell gave up a while ago, and I don't know anyone else who'd use or remember those names either. So I'm somewhat boggled that the IAU are even wasting time of these things in the first place.

And just because there's "no harm" in doing something, doesn't mean that there's any useful purpose in doing it, or even that it has to be done at all. I find it odd that people want names given to every irrelevant tumbling mountain in the solar system, but barely any of the known worlds in the extrasolar systems have been named yet. You'd think the latter would be more important, somehow.

[Michael Kilderry]

..numbers that clearly indicate that it's the second moon out from Saturn,...

It's not always clear. Sometimes it's a bit jumbled (eg. Juipter's moons in number order go Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Amalthea???) It's a little confusing sometimes because it was in order going out from Jupiter and then it goes back in to Amalthea.

So Saturn II is Atlas, is it?

I don't think extrasolar planets should be given too many names yet until we find out more about tem to give more suitable names. The numbering system of extrasolar planets is the only real astronomical numbering system I'm familiar with, and even then it gets a little confusing.

Michael Kilderry

[Ynjevi]

It's not always clear. Sometimes it's a bit jumbled (eg. Juipter's moons in number order go Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Amalthea???) It's a little confusing sometimes because it was in order going out from Jupiter and then it goes back in to Amalthea.

They are numbered after the date of discovery, except for the classical satellites which are numbered after increasing orbital radius.

I don't think extrasolar planets should be given too many names yet until we find out more about tem to give more suitable names. The numbering system of extrasolar planets is the only real astronomical numbering system I'm familiar with, and even then it gets a little confusing.

Well, it's very likely that soon there will be thousands of known extrasolar planets, so naming them would be impractical. However, a clearer designation system would be better. Of course, if another Earths are found, they probably are too exciting to have only designations.