Plutos 5th moon? Why didnt EA*RTH cosmic observers see PLUTOS p4-p5 moons in the near past?

Why didnt EA*RTH cosmic observers see PLUTOS p4-p5 moons in the near past?

A tiny new moon has been discovered orbiting Pluto, scientists announced today (July 11).

Researchers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope found the moon, bringing the number of known Pluto satellites to five. The discovery comes almost exactly one year after Hubble spotted Pluto's fourth moon, a tiny body currently called P4.

P5 appears to be irregularly shaped, with a diameter between 6 and 15 miles (10 to 24 km). It zips around Pluto at an average distance of 29,000 miles (47,000 km), in an orbit thought to be coplanar with the dwarf planet's other satellites, researchers said.
Charon was first spotted in 1978, 48 years after the discovery of Pluto. Nix and Hydra were found by Hubble in 2005.

What is attracting these moons to Pluto. Why do they seem to get stuck in its orbit and not pass it as if it has a heavier mass? Or IS something PUSHING THESE CELESTIALS OUT OF THE OORT CLOUD?

Is this related:

A massive dark object may be lurking on the edge of our solar system, according to scientists.
Most comets that fly into the inner solar system seem to come from the outer region of the Oort cloud - a region of icy dust and debris left over from the birth of the solar system.

The cloud starts from a point about 93 billion miles from the Sun and stretches for around three light years and contains billions of comets, most of them small and hidden.
-----------
A Nasa graphic which illustrates how the Oort Cloud surrounds our solar system. Scientists believe that an object with a huge mass may be pushing comets towards Earth from the cloud

image of oort cloud representation below


SO IS THERE SOMETHING OUT THERE CAUSING THINGS TO MOVE/LAUNCH/BE DIRECTED ECT?
thoughts ATS?

NAMASTE*******

links:

www.space.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Earth observers did see Pluto's moons P4 and P5 in the near past...they were spotted in the past year.
The reason: they're so small that we need powerful and highly refined instruments to detect them.

Also, all of Pluto's moon's are well within the radius at which Pluto can capture objects. In fact, an object could orbit Pluto at a distance 20 times greater than any of its currently known moons. The Pluto system is highly compact.

There is no need for anything to be knocking rocks in Pluto's direction. Pluto is fully capable of capturing objects on its own...especially given the fact that its moons likely formed from some sort of collision. And, given such a collision, it's also possible that Pluto has a thin ring of dust and small debris.

New Horizons should find out more about Pluto's moons and the potential ring when it flies by in 2015.

I just cannot understand WHY these moons as they are called were not detected by Hubble in 2005 w/ Nix & Hydra, where were they @?

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

Earth observers did see Pluto's moons P4 and P5 in the near past...they were spotted in the past year.

Yes I know this CLPrime, but why were they not detected by Hubble that can see other Galaxies in 2005, why is that where were they??

Originally posted by CLPrime
New Horizons should find out more about Pluto's moons and the potential ring when it flies by in 2015.

1 will be checking the data. Also in the article this caught my eye :

"We're finding more and more, so our concern about hazards is going up," he added, referring to the collision risk New Horizons will face when it cruises by Pluto in a few years.

So hopefully there wont be any issues when it gets there. Thanks for responding CLprime

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


They were there...just a little too small to notice. P4 and P5 are around half the size of Hydra and Nix.
We can't detect everything all at once.

Aliens did it!

haha, tell you what, from that pik it looks like 2 of Plutos moons are similar sizes to its self

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

They were there...just a little too small to notice. P4 and P5 are around half the size of Hydra and Nix.
We can't detect everything all at once.

But how can Hubble see other galaxies further away??? And not see them atleast near Pluto. This is somehting that makes 1 wonder?

Originally posted by Sinny
Aliens did it!

haha, tell you what, from that pik it looks like 2 of Plutos moons are similar sizes to its self

ALIENS! WHERE lol, I remember seeing a (possible) asteriod that had other celestials with it I think LOVE JOY had 2 whatevers flying with it, not to mention ANOTHER celestial before comet LOVE JOY that was also suspected to be carring with it DEBRIS... thanks Sinny

Here's the real question....why the hell do you spell Earth like EA*RTH? Just curious and I'll post something relevant next, lol.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Specifically, in the case of P4, the post on the Planetary Report blog says:

P4, is only 10% as bright as Nix

To make the discovery, Showalter and his team pointed Hubble at Pluto and took very long, eight-minute exposures. (These long exposures are what permitted them to make the discovery -- previous observations that yielded up Nix and Hydra had shorter exposures.)

I imagine the reasons would be similar for P5.

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
Here's the real question....why the hell do you spell Earth like EA*RTH? Just curious and I'll post something relevant next, lol.

AHHH yes this question again good that its on the first page---

I do it in respect to EA or LORD ENKI. Dont you think its odd you live on a planet with the first 2 letters being a NAME of a ANNUNAKI who is said to of visited EA*RTH?

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
Why didnt EA*RTH cosmic observers see PLUTOS p4-p5 moons in the near past?

A tiny new moon has been discovered orbiting Pluto, scientists announced today (July 11).

What is attracting these moons

to Pluto. Why do they seem to get stuck in its orbit and not pass it as if it has a heavier mass? Or IS something PUSHING THESE CELESTIALS OUT OF THE OORT CLOUD?

SO IS THERE SOMETHING OUT THERE CAUSING THINGS TO MOVE/LAUNCH/BE DIRECTED ECT?
thoughts ATS?

edit on 7/11/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

Either:
A. There is a conspiracy and we are all being slowly drip fed info for the amazing revelation that is coming.
OR
B. It was so small that it was missed until now. You know the same reason why 20 years ago we knew of no planets outside of our solar system but now have identified over 700. The same reason why we have not yet found the remaining 100 billion planets. The same reason why we have not yet identified all the moons orbiting all the extrasolar planets so far discovered.

I'll go for A because B is too obvious and boring

P.S. Mods, I know its more than 6 lines quoted but I have clipped and re-quoted in order to keep context for the reply and thus prevent me being docked ATS points.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
Here's the real question....why the hell do you spell Earth like EA*RTH? Just curious and I'll post something relevant next, lol.

AHHH yes this question again good that its on the first page---

I do it in respect to EA or LORD ENKI. Dont you think its odd you live on a planet with the first 2 letters being a NAME of a ANNUNAKI who is said to of visited EA*RTH?

Hmmm...very interesting. I've seen it a few times in other threads but never saw an explanation. Thanks for sharing and it provides great intrigue!

reply to post by yorkshirelad


Or option C they were cloaked But I get what your saying. It doesnt make sens that Hubble is/was able to see other galaxies and not see those right next to the SOL system @tleast going in the direction of Pluto. Thanks for your input yorkshirelad, all views are welcome here..

reply to post by HawkeyeNation


Your welcome HawkeyeNation

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by yorkshirelad

 

Or option C they were cloaked

But I get what your saying. It doesnt make sens that Hubble is/was able to see other galaxies and not see those right next to the SOL system @tleast going in the direction of Pluto. Thanks for your input yorkshirelad, all views are welcome here..

edit on 7/11/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

Or better yet...Pluto really isn't a planet or whatever they want to call it but rather a mother ship waiting for it's other ships to come back from gathering resources. Nibiru (Pluto) is not a planet but yet a ship and it's moons are other ships in it's fleet. This would explain why Pluto itself is the same size or similar in size to it's moons. I think Nibiru was believed to have 6 moons so they are waiting for 1 more to arrive.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
But how can Hubble see other galaxies further away???

Galaxies are much brighter objects, and even the very far and faint galaxies Hubble observes involves exposures that are very, very long. Planetary observations from hubble don't normally involve exposures that long for if they did the planet itself would tend to drown out the signal.

And not see them atleast near Pluto. This is somehting that makes 1 wonder?

That's not how it works. Very small objects like the moons of Pluto are very hard to detect.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
It doesnt make sens that Hubble is/was able to see other galaxies and not see those right next to the SOL system @tleast going in the direction of Pluto.

Again, that's not how things work in astronomy. It's not automatically "harder" to see something simply because it's light years away; it's also a matter of how much light is coming from each object. Galaxies emit a ton of light, so even though they're very far away, many still have apparent magnitudes that are much brighter than Pluto's small moons. Pluto's moons, being quite small and deep in the solar system, don't reflect much light back to us simply because they don't have a whole lot of surface area and sunlight itself is quite a bit dimmer at that distance in the solar system. It's easier to find a whole slew of galaxies than it is to see pluto's moons.

reply to post by ngchunter


Thanks ngchunter for your input also. Its just hard to accept, not saying your wrong or im right its just hard to accept a object like Hubble seeing galaxies billions of miles away and miss them. I get what you mean though. Question DO YOU THINK THERE ARE MORE?

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Thanks ngchunter for your input also. Its just hard to accept, not saying your wrong or im right its just hard to accept a object like Hubble seeing galaxies billions of miles away and miss them. I get what you mean though. Question DO YOU THINK THERE ARE MORE?

There probably are, simply below Hubble's ability to detect with the images it's taken so far. I'm speaking from first-hand experience observing more galaxies than I can remember, but I still haven't even seen most of Saturn or Jupiter's moons; most are too faint to easily detect from earth, and many were found with the aid of probes that actually travelled there.