Jump to content

Dawn at Ceres Thread


Frida Space

Recommended Posts

I am going to say that it likely is from the image. Other features jump and flicker it seems, too.

On Triton, geysers are guessed to arise from small sub surface pockets of ice, that are heated by the sun, and eventually sublimate and burst out. Still, without more information, I would personally be more inclined to suggest that it is a bright new impact crater, that seems more likely than a geyser at this point. Also the geysers of Triton were very, very slow moving, and it was possible to determine confidently that they were up above the surface from stereo viewing. I would be surprised if we could already see the changes so well on this feature. It would have to be moving really, really fast.

Ceres_Rotation.jpg

Older Hubble sequence showing possibly the same bright spot.

Edited by Newt
Added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could the white dot be a cryovulcano? I was reading some comments and a guy mentioned it. Not that I believe it (I personally think it's more likely to be a fresh crater, but it's way too early to know for sure), but I was wondering, it's a fascinating scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hypothesis - bright spot is a fresh crater. Centuries old, at most. Surface is covered in darker tholins, underneath is fresh icy material.

Great stuff. :)

Volcanism, hardly. It's too small and nothing is squeezing it.

Bolded for emphasis.

Ceres is too big and too far away from even Jupiter to have any form of naturally occuring volcanism. I remember Hubble taking pictures of a simillar white spot on Ceres a while back, and it's probably just a crater. Ceres is theorized to have a surface mostly covered in ice, and so impact craters turning white is not too far fetched.

Can't wait to see some higher definition pictures of it's surface though! Dawn delivered gracefully for Vesta.

Also, I'm pretty sure Ceres is considered the smallest of the Dwarf Planets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an asteroid.

According to the MPC, it has a dual definition. However, it is quite ambiguous as in 2006 the IAU didn't address whether its new classification as dwarf planet prevented it from being an asteroid, nor did they give a precise definition of asteroid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see that it's getting closer. They said that by the end of January the quality of the images taken by Dawn will exceed those of the Hubble space telescope, and thus become the best images ever taken of Ceres.

By the looks of the animation in the OP, it seems we are already at this point :) Go Dawn, go ion drives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if that white dot's some sort of recent crater.. or maybe it's some sort of geyser (since it is an icy body).

Oh well, if we get some color images closer up, that'd be cool.

My money is on "crater." There seems to be a C-shaped dark region on the right side, almost wrapped around the bright spot, which seems consistent enough to be the shadow cast by a crater rim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a heated discussion to be had about it being a planet of dwarf planet, but calling it an asteroid is just purposefully using confusing definitions.

The IAU actually accepts both. As a member of the asteroid belt, it is acceptable to call Ceres an asteroid. As per its size and physical features, it is acceptable to call Ceres a dwarf planet.

Vesta is in a similar position; it is both an asteroid and a protoplanet (a celestial body on the way to becoming a dwarf planet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IAU actually accepts both. As a member of the asteroid belt, it is acceptable to call Ceres an asteroid. As per its size and physical features, it is acceptable to call Ceres a dwarf planet.

Vesta is in a similar position; it is both an asteroid and a protoplanet (a celestial body on the way to becoming a dwarf planet).

I am not denying any of this, I am just saying that using the term asteroid is a bit sloppy - mainly due to its size and spherical nature. Calling Vestes an asteroid seems a lot less confusing, though there the term protoplanet is probably more accurate too.

- - - Updated - - -

Volcanism, hardly. It's too small and nothing is squeezing it.

As I read this it made me wonder. We all know Jupiter prevents planets forming in the asteroid belt by ripping them apart. I would imagine that this could also mean that enough energy is available for things like tidal heating and volcanism, albeit likely on a rather lower energy level than in other known places.

Edited by Camacha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not denying any of this, I am just saying that using the term asteroid is a bit sloppy - mainly due to its size and spherical nature.

A minor planet inside Neptune's orbit without cometary activity is an asteroid. Applying the correct definition rather than whatever the popular perception of it is the exact opposite of sloppy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A minor planet inside Neptune's orbit without cometary activity is an asteroid. Applying the correct definition rather than whatever the popular perception of it is the exact opposite of sloppy.

Only problem is, the IAU has no definition for "asteroid" :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...