
Hubble Finds New Neptune Moon - japaget
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2013/30/full/
======
mkhaytman
With Earth-like planets being discovered in far off star systems and HD
cameras roving about on Mars, it's easy to forget how much of our own solar
system is still an unexplored frontier. It may not be a ground breaking
discovery, but the fact that there are Moons we haven't found as of yet, is
really exciting to me!

~~~
melling
When you consider that the solar system is the only part of the universe that
humans will explore for many generations, if ever, I'm not really sure why its
exploration really isn't a higher priority. Everything else is too far away.

~~~
CodeCube
As soon as we can make some new advancements in energy generation and storage,
I think that we'll see this happen. Think about it, we're already practically
bursting at the seams here on earth; I can totally see the human race
expanding to other parts as soon as it's sustainable (food, acquisition of new
materials for fabrication, etc.)

Who knows if it'll happen in my lifetime, but I'm pretty pumped about it :)

~~~
brigade
_we 're already practically bursting at the seams here on earth_

Not especially - developed countries have had declining birth rates for a
while now, with several below the replacement rate.

Plus you have to consider that both Antarctica and the Sahara Desert are more
habitable than any known extraterrestrial location, yet hardly anyone is
living in either.

~~~
ekianjo
> Plus you have to consider that both Antarctica and the Sahara Desert are
> more habitable than any known extraterrestrial location, yet hardly anyone
> is living in either.

WHat's the incentive to live there where there are better places to live,
still available ?

~~~
andyhmltn
That's the point. We aren't nearly at the point where we can no longer sustain
growth here on earth. I think in the event that that _did_ happen, we'd soon
explore living in Antarctica than on Mars.

------
nostromo
This little guy has a width less than the length of Manhattan, so I was
surprised to hear it being called a moon.

But Wikipedia says there isn't really a lower limit to the size of a moon --
if it orbits a planet, it's a moon. Unless we put it there, in which case it's
a satellite.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_satellite#The_definitio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_satellite#The_definition_of_a_moon)

~~~
hkolek
> This little guy has a width less than the length of Manhattan, so I was
> surprised to hear it being called a moon.

Phobos and Deimos are far smaller.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_\(moon\))
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deimos_(moon)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deimos_\(moon\))

------
stephengillie
_Many of the moons now seen orbiting the planet probably formed after Triton
settled into its unusual retrograde orbit about Neptune._

Or they were captured out of the Kuiper Belt as well. Maybe Neptune keeps
losing and capturing new moons, rotating rocks into and out of the Kuiper
Belt.

------
anusinha
Really cool.

Also possibly of interest:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Pluto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Pluto)

I had no idea Pluto (not a planet) had five moons.

~~~
waster
There are even asteroids with moons: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor-
planet_moon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor-planet_moon).

Ida and Dactyl are possibly the best-named pair, IMHO.

------
donohoe
That's no moon...

(Only 12 miles!?)

~~~
Sharlin
See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6048898](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6048898)

------
print
That's no moon!

~~~
ChuckMcM
Ah, you are testing the assumption that the moon was there when Voyager flew
by :-)

~~~
taylorwc
I think it's actually a Star Wars reference.

~~~
inafield
Definitely a Star Wars reference, but I also thought for a second it could
also be alluding to one of the Voyagers having become a "moon" and therefore
in actuality being a satellite.

