Comments on: Saturn's Rings May Be Billions of Years Old

By: Paul Eaton-Jones

Paul Eaton-Jones — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:55:18 +0000

Just as I always thought – science fiction leads and science fact follows. Niven rules. All we need to find now is a Ring World around a nearby star. [hint: look for a big IR signature guys!] )

By: DaveM

DaveM — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:43:25 +0000

..sorry about the typo's in the above – in a hurry!

By: DaveM

DaveM — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:42:23 +0000

Greg –

you don't need heay bombardment to break up a moon to form rings – a body spiraling towards a planet wll break up (if conditions are right) as the gravitational gradient accross the body breaks it up. This is supported by the fact that only massiver planets appear to have rings (the widyj of the rings is determined by the oblique-ness of tyhe parent planet and the mass of the moon which breaks up.

And while i agree that the rings happening to be here at the same time as us is unlikely if the rings are transient – ring systems formed in the manner I descibe could occour regularly – especially in systems such as Jupiter and its moons in which multiple moons interact in complex ways with each other and the host planet

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:48:14 +0000

A small thought. As scientists we tend to cling to the principal that we inhabit neither a 'privileged' location nor time in the Universe. Therefore the arguement goes, "Surely the rings of Saturn must be both long lived and a common formation in the Universe."

However, if some things in this Universe are transitory, as surely they are, then we would be living in a peculiarly privileged time if we saw the sum total of none of them. Examples here could include planetary nebulae, which have a very short life before they are no longer illuminated by their central white dwarf (the two part company very quickly on cosmological time scale).

The question is then, just how many short lived or rare phenomena would we expect to see in our perfectly ordinary corner of the Universe and how do we distinguish them from the commonplace?

Just a little thought to start off the day…

By: Astrofiend

Astrofiend — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:49:03 +0000

It never sat well with me that Saturn's rings were supposed to be short lived and that we just happened to be around to witness them at the right time by pure luck.

This is an interesting if not conclusive find…

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:25:08 +0000

This makes perfect sense. When other than the period of heavy bombardment could enough material be blown into orbit to create rings of this size? Since that event happened billions of years ago and nothing like it has happened since, it stands to reason that the rings are this old.

By: Kevin F.

Kevin F. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:40:15 +0000

This is good. I learned of the theory that Saturn's rings were volatile and temporary before I read Larry Niven's "World of Ptaavs", and I was bummed out that the part of the story where the Thrint saw Saturn with its rings a billion years ago couldn't happen.

Now it's scientifically accurate again!

By: Jon Hanford

Jon Hanford — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:47:56 +0000

These findings bring into question our knowledge and understanding of the ring systems of Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune. While the ring systems of Uranus and Neptune vary greatly in structure compared to Saturn and are also considered ancient, questions concerning their formation and mass should now be reexamined in light of these new findings.