6:25 caused some confusion. My reasoning as to why Miranda isn't a captured moon isn't solely based on the fact that it is prograde in isolation (which in retrospect I should have emphasized that and explained that more clearly in the video) that is just one of the facts that strongly suggests that it isn't in the specific context, the assumption of it not being captured is also based on the fact that it's composition is very similar to the rest of the major moons of Uranus, meaning that it almost certainly to very likely formed in the same region as them along with Uranus which on top of that also predicts a prograde orbit. Essentially that means that you can be suspicious about an object almost certainly being a captured one only when it is retrograde, while when it's prograde the chances significantly drop off as then it can be either way in that case if that is the only piece of information that you have, since when the moons of an object form around the object they are orbiting they are prograde (the moons in the Solar System suggest that strongly), the similar composition on top of a not extremely deviating inclination but just a puzzling one and the direction of movement which is also prograde for the rest of the major moons of Uranus suggest the same region of formation for Miranda and Uranus. Of course, not all captured moons are retrograde, some of them can indeed be also prograde but in the specific context of Miranda the prograde orbit is just another piece of evidence that strongly suggests that it is not captured. To simplify this even further, all non-captured moons are prograde while not all captured moons are non-prograde. Now it makes even more sense to think that Miranda isn't captured when on top of the prograde orbit which every other major moon of Uranus has you factor in the similarity in the composition with the rest of the major moons, and then to top it off factor in that the orbital inclination is not even close to the range of the moons that are certainly captured, it just deviates from the average for a non-captured moon but not to the extent at which you can conclude with any certainty that it is captured, because of that the conclusion that Miranda is not captured is strongly supported.
A bit off topic but i have a question that was bothering me for a while. In the future when HOPEFULLY we will try to colonize other places in our solar system we would face extremely cold temp. Like on europa moon. So the question is, how can we shield a human from such low temperatures? The heat escapes in 3 ways and the main problem would be convection i guess. So if we will make suits well isolated with good materials will it help? Im only 15 and english is not my first language so, im sorry for any mistakes
Uranus and Neptune don't get enough attention. We give Jupiter and Saturn a lot of attention, while the two blue giants get ignored. Its likely that a lot of exoplanets are similar to Uranus and Neptune, so learning about them would be useful.
@Arnoldo Junkes The name stigma doesn't exist in languages outside English, and we still don't talk about Uranus more. The planet simply looks boring and has never been visited by an orbiter.
Neptune gets some more attention, because apart from its deep blue color Triton is an interesting moon, though it's likely a captured TNO. If it weren't for Triton, Neptune would be the most ignored. But right now, it's Uranus, even though it's exciting in its own right. It just looks very monotone in apparence and the lack of standout moons doesn't add to exitement. I don't expect any missions to the Uranus system in the near-future. Neptune could get a New Horizons 2 type mission to study Triton, but even that seems far-fetched at this point.
@Hei Dinglepop You make some good points, but Trident is a mission to mainly study Triton, not Neptune. A flyby mission of the moon kind of like when New Horizons flew past Pluto. It seems too much of a duplication of NH. Based of current knowledge alone, Triton is quite similar to Pluto in terms of composition, size and its thin atmosphere. Do we really expect to find something significantly different there to justify billions of dollars spent on a mission like that..
As others have said, proximity plays a big part in this. Mars is not the most exciting world in the solar system, but we send so many spacecraft there because it's close to us.
I love how Uranus's moons are ALSO on their sides, so we've just got this kinda mini-system floating along in the middle of the solar system, dum de dum, all spinning sideways together... Thank you for making an actual intellectual video about this planet and its moons, by the way. It's NOT just a butt joke. And that only works if you pronounce the name wrong on purpose anyway.
Standing on one of Uranus' or Neptune's moons would be glorious. You'd be standing on a rough ice terrain, looking up at the Sun that's a bit dimmer than here on Earth and right beside you, you'd see a gigantic blue planet.
Honestly that planet freaks me out for some reason. You have a bright pale, featureless blue sphere floating in the void and it feels like its staring at you like a giant eyeball.
@@nobbynoris It seems that folk have forgotten of didn't know that for years the pronunciation of Uranus was "you're a nuss" and a controversy came about and it became "your ain us". This only applies to the English language. A rough analogy would be the different ways to pronounce "data" or "Aries" etc. On the Strength 💪🗽✊🇺🇸
@@KC______ It's just a transliteration of the Greek word for "sky", Ouranos, which becomes Uranus in Roman spelling. When the planets were named, many more people had a classical education so were familiar with Greek and Roman language and mythology (from which all the planets were named). When I was in school everyone just said "your Ain us" and there were no raised eyebrows and I didn't even notice the jokes til much later. Then some people started saying "Urine us" instead, but that of course caused its own jokes. I think the former pronunciation is more natural for English. I've seen the jokes in Spanish too because that -us Roman ending becomes -o in modern Spanish, thus Urano still has an "ano" in it, as also with English, etc. speakers who say things like "Tengo treinta anos" and leave off the tilde (~) since "año" is from Latin annus (year), while "ano" is from anus (the Spanish letter ñ originated as a shorthand for a double n (nn) that had acquired that "ny" sound), with the root meaning a "ring" (cf. "annular eclipse" in English). In Portuguese too, we see the (~) used to represent a dropped "n" (e.g. são < santo < sanctus). In old manuscripts, a line on top of a letter was used generally as an abbreviation symbol. So we can laugh and and also appreciate the language issues and of course the wonders of the natural world. The planet's name Ουρανός is originally and still (in Greek) pronounced Oo-rah-NOS, meaning "sky", and there's no double entendres there, only with the Roman spelling of the last two syllables. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century the term "Uranian" was also used as a euphemism for gay (homosexual) due to Plato's discourse on "ouranios eros" in the Symposium, which was contrasted with "pandemos eros". As a result, Gilbert and Sullivan's plays could get a lot of laughs from saying that someone might be "a tad Platonic", where Platonic did not mean "platonic" in the modern sense, but the eros that Plato discussed. Things change over time. Probably only a few historians nowadays recall those former meanings. Just as it would seem that there is no controversy over the name Ganymede for Jupiter's largest moon.
I love the fact that I will never completely grow up and not read this title in the most childish way possible, while also having an absolute love and adoration for astronomy.
13:52 Obi-Wan Kenobi: That's no moon... it's a space station. Han Solo: It's too big to be a space station. (Gets a closer look at Mimas) Obi-Wan: No wait. That is a moon. Nevermind.
I hope they visit Uranus and Neptune again in my lifetime, it would be fascinating to find new discoveries. Even if they aren't groundbreaking it is still a good thing to gain knowledge of our own Solar System.
The space craft that went past Pluto took nine years to get there, so with Uranus and Neptune being closer to us, it SHOULD be possible to get there in well under a decade.
Lol I just came back Also, Titania has almost non-existent atmosphere, so as I said, it doesn’t have an atmosphere, the only such moons to have such an “air” atmosphere are, triton, titan, although triton have an extremely thin atmosphere compared to earth’s, but has the ability to generate winds and produce triton clouds, it’s atmosphere pressure is comparable to mars atmosphere Only titan have an earth-like atmosphere
Hello! I am a visitor from the year 2093, where time travel exists. I'm just here to say that in my year, they finally changed the name of the planet Uranus. *They changed it to Urectom*
I would like to see a comparison of magnetic fields between moons of solar system, It's afterall a very good thing to have such shielding even though it would be inadequate for humans.
@@Galaxius2117 yeah… they’ve been continuously lowering NASA’s budget. They’d rather spend trillions of dollars on the military instead of exploring the universe. It’s really sad to see.
The reason the retrograde orbits have nominally extreme inclinations is just a numerical illusion, because their inclinations are between 90° and 180° by definition, with 180° the inclination of a retrograde orbit perfectly aligned with the equator, that is the 0° orbit taken in the opposite direction. The angle between the equator and the plane of a retrograde orbit is 180° minus that orbit's inclination. With that in mind, the retrograde orbits are not extremely inclined any more. For instance XVII Sycorax with 159° orbital inclination has its plane only 21° (=180°-159°) tilted wrt the equator of Uranus: that's much less than the 57° of prograde XXIII Margaret.
If you were to jump off that 20 km cliff, Verona Rupes, you would spend almost 12 minutes in free fall until you hit the ground at 56 m/s, roughly the speed of a car driving on a highway.
Thank you so much for this wonderful work of yours. I find Uranus the most fascinating planet in our solar system and it deserves a lot of attention and study. I'm sure we can learn a lot from it. On top of the planet itself there are the Moons which need to be studied more thoroughly.
20:46 is why planetary scientists refer to Earth’s moon as Luna, so that it doesn’t get confused with “the Moon” of Earth and “the moon” they’re actually talking about. When talking about round moons, nobody mentions Uranus’ moons. When I try to list the names of spherical moons, many prominent examples come to mind. But I still forget that Uranus even has spherical moons because they’re so overlooked. Earth has one cool moon, Jupiter has a whopping four Galilean moons all being awesome, Saturn has two cool moons with Titan and Enceladus, Neptune has one cool moon with Triton, and Pluto has one cool moon with Charon. All of these moons stand out in one way or another. Uranus’ moons are all pretty bland. Saturn has some bland moons too like Rhea, Tethys, and Dione, and nobody talks about these either because Saturn has better ones. Many planets have at least one good moon, but Uranus really got slim pickings. Miranda is kind of cool, and having the steepest cliff in the solar system definitely earns it points. Even Uranus itself is probably the most ignored of the classical planets. It’s more interesting than Mercury in my opinion, but Mercury got more missions to it. Venus got a handful of missions, Mars got a dozen, Jupiter and Saturn both got a dozen, Pluto got only one mission, but it was the most popular mission in NASA history, and while Neptune only got one mission as well, it’s talked about more than Uranus, probably because of its significant relationship with the Kuiper Belt. But I think Uranus and Neptune both deserve more missions. I really like the topic of this video and the title fits the bill. I often forget about them, but as bland as they are, they-and Uranus-are still prominent members of the solar system and would be cool places to return to. Great video! 👍🏻
it's not funny. But sad. (i mean this generation of pervert and PH raised people, it's not funny at all, but annoying, disturbing, sad, and perverted, I hope these kind of people and generation ends, they are really like children in adult bodies)
Oh, man, this is great! Hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus. I don't get it. I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.. Oh. What's it called now? Urectum.
6:25 - Re: retrograde orbit Astronomical layman here, but wouldn't a captured moon's chances of having a retrograde orbit be roughly 50/50? I understand any rogue moon has a small window regarding angle of approach, in becoming a captured moon (instead of being flung out, or colliding). But even factoring this in, it seems like a retrograde orbit would mostly depend on whether a rogue moon crosses in front of, or behind, the planet's path before being captured. Am I missing something?
Quite a lot to explain here. My reasoning as to why Miranda isn't a captured moon isn't solely based on the fact that it is prograde in isolation (which in retrospect I should have emphasized that and explained that more clearly in the video) that is just one of the facts that strongly suggests that it isn't in the specific context, the assumption of it not being captured is also based on the fact that it's composition is very similar to the rest of the major moons of Uranus, meaning that it almost certainly to very likely formed in the same region as them along with Uranus which on top of that also predicts a prograde orbit. Essentially that means that you can be suspicious about an object almost certainly being a captured one only when it is retrograde, while when it's prograde the chances significantly drop off as then it can be either way if that is the only piece of information that you have, since when the moons of an object form around the object they are orbiting they are prograde, the similar composition on top of a relatively similar inclination and the same direction of movement which is always prograde suggest the same region of formation and that all non-captured moons are prograde as they always display that direction in those cases, but not all captured moons are retrograde, some of them can indeed be also prograde. To simplify this even further, all non-captured moons are prograde while not all captured moons are non-prograde. Now it makes even more sense to think that Miranda isn't captured when on top of the prograde orbit which every other major moon of Uranus has you factor in the similarity in the composition with the rest of the major moons, and then to top it off factor in that the orbital inclination is not even close to the range of the moons that are certainly captured, it just deviates from the average but not to the extent at which you can conclude with any certainty that it is captured, because of that the conclusion that Miranda is not captured is strongly supported. Now as for the chances being overall 50% of a captured object having a retrograde orbit I highly doubt it. Chances can predict the outcome of situations on a general scale, if the chances for a flipped coin to land tails is close to 50% (which it is) then the outcome of that will be that if I flip a coin enough times roughly 50% of it will land tails, if the chance is close to 70% landing tails (which in reality it isn't but for the sake of the argument let's pretend that it is) the outcome of that is that if I flip a coin enough times 70% of it will land tails, pretty simple. So if the chances for a captured moon having a retrograde orbit were 50% the outcome should be that 50% of the captured moons are retrograde or at least close to 50%, but the data doesn't suggest that even in a very generous calculation. Out of 205 known moons of planets, 121 are retrograde, already assuming that all 205 are captured (they aren't) that would put the percentage of retrograde moons at 60%. But in order to get a number closer to actually captured satellites, we are going to need at least some line, in my estimation, anything that is 20 degrees and above in orbital inclination is in the vast majority of the cases really far away from the object it is orbiting, irregular in shape, and generally suggests that it is captured, this line encompasses some prograde orbit objects as well because of that. In that case, roughly 144 moons are captured which means that 70% of moons of planets in the Solar System are captured, of those 144, 121 are retrograde, meaning that roughly 84% of captured moons are retrograde. Also pretty much all retrograde orbit objects have an orbital inclination above 20 degrees, meaning that all non-captured moons are then categorized as prograde. Let's do it with another line, irregularity, let's say that all irregularly shaped moons are captured (which is a stretch) on top of all retrograde orbit objects being captured (which is certainly true), then out of 185 irregularly shaped moons, 121 are retrograde, meaning that 65% of captured moons are retrograde. If we take the average between the two calculations with two differently posed lines, then it would mean that approximately 74.5% of moons are captured. No matter how you slice it the data always suggest that significantly above 50% of the moons that are captured are retrograde, meaning that the chance most likely isn't close to 50/50 for a moon to be retrograde, as the vastly different outcomes from 50/50 suggest more strongly rather that the chances are different not that it's a coincidence or a lucky succession of events, especially when you consider how it's sorted. This means that for some reason that the majority of the captured moons are retrograde, currently, the exact reason for this is not known, interestingly though all prograde orbit objects that seem to be captured are all in the inner part of the hill-sphere of the object they are orbiting, while all retrograde objects (all captured) are on average much farther away and seem to be on the outer parts of the hill-sphere of the object they are orbiting, suggesting that retrograde orbits are usually more stable than prograde orbit objects while on the outer parts of the hill-sphere and prograde orbit objects are more stable in the inner part of the hill-sphere, although that isn't known certainly that is what is being suggested by the data, still whatever the case is even if that is true the evidence for Miranda being non-captured significantly out-weighs the opposing evidence.
@@DrekslerAstral - I see. Very interesting. I wonder then, if it has to do with the angle of applied force in relation to the trajectory of the object being captured. If one were to visualize the angle of the two, that is the direction of gravitational pull of the captor and the the trajectory of an object, while that angle is constantly changing as both objects are in motion... it would seem that one approach (crossing behind the planet?) would have the angle wider for a longer span of time than the other approach (crossing in front of the planet). And with the wider angle for the longer duration, the more likely it is that a captured object's momentum can be sufficiently cancelled out to allow for its capture (instead of simply deflecting it's path). Thank you for the thorough and well-sorted response.
I get the feeling that the moon Miranda is actually the core of a planet. This hypothetical planet must have been impacted by a large object that ended up ejecting the outer core, mantle and crust of the planet leaving the small sphere we have now.
I was trying to figure out why the comparison of moons to other planets but I guess it was the spherical description. I was supposing spherical moons means they have been there longer and probably formed about the same time as the planet did.
@@peatmoss4415 I mean that already breaks apart with our own moon. While pretty damn old, it is still (probably) a result of a collision with protoplanet Thea
Great video, so much detail! It's so bizarre that even the moons maintain a perpendicular orbit... It would have to have been early on, to be knocked over...but why wouldn't some moons stay in orbit with the sun's plane?
Good reporting and i love your graphics. Very nice. A little help with your grammar. We use "farther" when we are referring to an actual distance. For example, "The moons farther from Saturn have more declination from the plane of ecliptic." Use "Further" for everything else, as in, "To further his education, Thomas signed up for an apprenticeship down at the machine shop." Or "Stranding my wife at the boat docks was the furthest idea from my mind."
Why would the moons also follow the axial tilt after a collision? I did a simulation and the moons remained in their same orbital plane, only the planets equator shifted. I probably messed up the simulation. I'm just wondering. I know it's a two year old video.
![Voyager 2's Discoveries On Neptune and Uranus [4K] | Zenith | Spark](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W0ly_BOLK48/mqdefault.jpg)
6:25 caused some confusion. My reasoning as to why Miranda isn't a captured moon isn't solely based on the fact that it is prograde in isolation (which in retrospect I should have emphasized that and explained that more clearly in the video) that is just one of the facts that strongly suggests that it isn't in the specific context, the assumption of it not being captured is also based on the fact that it's composition is very similar to the rest of the major moons of Uranus, meaning that it almost certainly to very likely formed in the same region as them along with Uranus which on top of that also predicts a prograde orbit. Essentially that means that you can be suspicious about an object almost certainly being a captured one only when it is retrograde, while when it's prograde the chances significantly drop off as then it can be either way in that case if that is the only piece of information that you have, since when the moons of an object form around the object they are orbiting they are prograde (the moons in the Solar System suggest that strongly), the similar composition on top of a not extremely deviating inclination but just a puzzling one and the direction of movement which is also prograde for the rest of the major moons of Uranus suggest the same region of formation for Miranda and Uranus. Of course, not all captured moons are retrograde, some of them can indeed be also prograde but in the specific context of Miranda the prograde orbit is just another piece of evidence that strongly suggests that it is not captured. To simplify this even further, all non-captured moons are prograde while not all captured moons are non-prograde. Now it makes even more sense to think that Miranda isn't captured when on top of the prograde orbit which every other major moon of Uranus has you factor in the similarity in the composition with the rest of the major moons, and then to top it off factor in that the orbital inclination is not even close to the range of the moons that are certainly captured, it just deviates from the average for a non-captured moon but not to the extent at which you can conclude with any certainty that it is captured, because of that the conclusion that Miranda is not captured is strongly supported.
A bit off topic but i have a question that was bothering me for a while. In the future when HOPEFULLY we will try to colonize other places in our solar system we would face extremely cold temp. Like on europa moon. So the question is, how can we shield a human from such low temperatures? The heat escapes in 3 ways and the main problem would be convection i guess. So if we will make suits well isolated with good materials will it help? Im only 15 and english is not my first language so, im sorry for any mistakes
@@lolfackingnaigjtfankin3741 what???
I actually used to think miranda is a moon of saturn
True 👍✔
Blah Blah Blah Blah
Uranus and Neptune don't get enough attention. We give Jupiter and Saturn a lot of attention, while the two blue giants get ignored. Its likely that a lot of exoplanets are similar to Uranus and Neptune, so learning about them would be useful.
@Arnoldo Junkes The name stigma doesn't exist in languages outside English, and we still don't talk about Uranus more. The planet simply looks boring and has never been visited by an orbiter.
Neptune gets some more attention, because apart from its deep blue color Triton is an interesting moon, though it's likely a captured TNO. If it weren't for Triton, Neptune would be the most ignored. But right now, it's Uranus, even though it's exciting in its own right. It just looks very monotone in apparence and the lack of standout moons doesn't add to exitement. I don't expect any missions to the Uranus system in the near-future. Neptune could get a New Horizons 2 type mission to study Triton, but even that seems far-fetched at this point.
@Hei Dinglepop You make some good points, but Trident is a mission to mainly study Triton, not Neptune. A flyby mission of the moon kind of like when New Horizons flew past Pluto. It seems too much of a duplication of NH. Based of current knowledge alone, Triton is quite similar to Pluto in terms of composition, size and its thin atmosphere. Do we really expect to find something significantly different there to justify billions of dollars spent on a mission like that..
yep why did we waste a probe on Pluto if its a dwarf planet anyway
As others have said, proximity plays a big part in this. Mars is not the most exciting world in the solar system, but we send so many spacecraft there because it's close to us.
I love how Uranus's moons are ALSO on their sides, so we've just got this kinda mini-system floating along in the middle of the solar system, dum de dum, all spinning sideways together...
Thank you for making an actual intellectual video about this planet and its moons, by the way. It's NOT just a butt joke. And that only works if you pronounce the name wrong on purpose anyway.
It's the correct modern pronunciation of Uranus. Things change over time, you know.
Nobody but me likes the sideways planet.
@@Darkfawfulxyour not alone bud
I agree. It's nice to see an intellectual video and not have to put up with silly jokes.
"So clearly, the competition for Uranus is very tough." you're absolutely right
Is it though?
@@jonnyroxx7172 bro... You just burnt that guy
@@user-ko3te7oy6d That was a guy?
@@jonnyroxx7172 damn bro
@@jonnyroxx7172 i can feel the heat of that burn from across the sea
If they don't invent immortality before I can stand on Miranda, I'm not going to my funeral.
I won’t go either 😠
*We are not going anywhere before punching Uranus in the rings.*
Sorry, but it will be awhile before the Miranda Class is built. Hope for the NX/Enterprise Class instead; you may yet stand on the bridge.
I loved your comment. But, of course, we shall all go to our own funeral, even if no one else attends.
I am not going to my funeral either. Elon will save me.
Standing on one of Uranus' or Neptune's moons would be glorious. You'd be standing on a rough ice terrain, looking up at the Sun that's a bit dimmer than here on Earth and right beside you, you'd see a gigantic blue planet.
Honestly that planet freaks me out for some reason. You have a bright pale, featureless blue sphere floating in the void and it feels like its staring at you like a giant eyeball.
Get Elite Dangerous:Horizons and you can land on the moons and see if your right.
The sun would just appear to be a big star in the sky brighter than anything else but any light would just be light no warmth
@@nobbynoris It seems that folk have forgotten of didn't know that for years the pronunciation of Uranus was "you're a nuss" and a controversy came about and it became "your ain us".
This only applies to the English language.
A rough analogy would be the different ways to pronounce "data" or "Aries" etc.
On the Strength 💪🗽✊🇺🇸
@@KC______ It's just a transliteration of the Greek word for "sky", Ouranos, which becomes Uranus in Roman spelling. When the planets were named, many more people had a classical education so were familiar with Greek and Roman language and mythology (from which all the planets were named). When I was in school everyone just said "your Ain us" and there were no raised eyebrows and I didn't even notice the jokes til much later. Then some people started saying "Urine us" instead, but that of course caused its own jokes. I think the former pronunciation is more natural for English. I've seen the jokes in Spanish too because that -us Roman ending becomes -o in modern Spanish, thus Urano still has an "ano" in it, as also with English, etc. speakers who say things like "Tengo treinta anos" and leave off the tilde (~) since "año" is from Latin annus (year), while "ano" is from anus (the Spanish letter ñ originated as a shorthand for a double n (nn) that had acquired that "ny" sound), with the root meaning a "ring" (cf. "annular eclipse" in English). In Portuguese too, we see the (~) used to represent a dropped "n" (e.g. são < santo < sanctus). In old manuscripts, a line on top of a letter was used generally as an abbreviation symbol. So we can laugh and and also appreciate the language issues and of course the wonders of the natural world.
The planet's name Ουρανός is originally and still (in Greek) pronounced Oo-rah-NOS, meaning "sky", and there's no double entendres there, only with the Roman spelling of the last two syllables. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century the term "Uranian" was also used as a euphemism for gay (homosexual) due to Plato's discourse on "ouranios eros" in the Symposium, which was contrasted with "pandemos eros". As a result, Gilbert and Sullivan's plays could get a lot of laughs from saying that someone might be "a tad Platonic", where Platonic did not mean "platonic" in the modern sense, but the eros that Plato discussed. Things change over time. Probably only a few historians nowadays recall those former meanings. Just as it would seem that there is no controversy over the name Ganymede for Jupiter's largest moon.
Here before *_the jokes_*
The hour of reckoning is upon us
🤔 the moons of Uranus.
Must.... Not..... Make..... Joke... 😬
no ur not bc this time the joke is in the title!
50% ice
50% rock
Yeah Exoplanets Channel it's not very smart to joke with Uranus's name.
I love the fact that I will never completely grow up and not read this title in the most childish way possible, while also having an absolute love and adoration for astronomy.
I’m always grateful for an in depth look at Uranus.
The things that have been discovered about Uranus will never be forgotten.
I love your channel, since I'm a huge space nerd. The video quality has also improved significantly, so that's a huge bonus
13:52 Obi-Wan Kenobi: That's no moon... it's a space station.
Han Solo: It's too big to be a space station.
(Gets a closer look at Mimas)
Obi-Wan: No wait. That is a moon. Nevermind.
*blows it up anyway*
Great video!
Uranus’s moons are very under-appreciated. We need a Uranus Orbiter. Great video!
i wonder how long it took voyager to get there?
@@sirbollocks5147 into Uranus?
@@ar9rnr no to get there from earth.
@@ar9rnr lol
I got one online! Comes in 4 different colours.
I love astronomy and just realized that I never hear about Uranus' moons. Thanks
I hope they visit Uranus and Neptune again in my lifetime, it would be fascinating to find new discoveries. Even if they aren't groundbreaking it is still a good thing to gain knowledge of our own Solar System.
The space craft that went past Pluto took nine years to get there, so with Uranus and Neptune being closer to us, it SHOULD be possible to get there in well under a decade.
@@BSNFabricating hopefully, the scientists could invent a faster spacecraft and cut down the time taken to the reach the planets by at least half.
"Uranus so big, there's moons orbiting it."
A Dreksler Astral and a John Michael Godier video released within hours of each other. Christmas came late but I welcome it.
ⁿ88ⁿ⁰∅⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰ⁿ00⁰ⁿ⁰⁰9⁰∅⁰0∅8⁰⁰0o⁰0⁰0ⁿ⁰0oⁿ⁰8⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰⁰0∅ⁿ∅0ⁿ⁰⁰⁰o⁰0⁰⁰⁰⁰∅09ⁿ88ⁿ⁰∅⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰ⁿ00⁰ⁿ⁰⁰9⁰∅⁰0∅8⁰⁰0o⁰0⁰0ⁿ⁰0oⁿ⁰8⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰⁰0∅ⁿ∅0ⁿ⁰⁰⁰o⁰0⁰⁰⁰⁰∅09⁰⁰ⁿ88ⁿ⁰∅⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰ⁿ00⁰ⁿ⁰⁰9⁰∅⁰0∅8⁰⁰0o⁰0⁰0ⁿ⁰0oⁿ⁰8⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰⁰0∅ⁿ∅0ⁿ⁰⁰⁰o⁰0⁰⁰⁰⁰∅09⁰ⁿ88ⁿ⁰∅⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰ⁿ00⁰ⁿ⁰⁰9⁰∅⁰0∅8⁰⁰0o⁰0⁰0ⁿ⁰0oⁿ⁰8⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰⁰0∅ⁿ∅0ⁿ⁰⁰⁰o⁰0⁰⁰⁰⁰∅09⁰ⁿ88ⁿ⁰∅⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰ⁿ00⁰ⁿ⁰⁰9⁰∅⁰0∅8⁰⁰0o⁰0⁰0ⁿ⁰0oⁿ⁰8⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰⁰0∅ⁿ∅0ⁿ⁰⁰⁰o⁰0⁰⁰⁰⁰∅09⁰
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one
Been watching godier's channels for years, as well as Astrum and SEA, but this one is new to me
Here's a man of taste
@@stevencoardvenice What about ParallaxNick?
Finally! Some attention to my favorite moon in the Solar System, Miranda.
Mine is pluto’s hydra
@@AyaansCornerYT That's an interesting choice, may I ask why? (Mine is Iapetus btw)
mine is the moon
mines thyone
@@mr.exploitsx.5696
Thyone is one of the irregular moons of Jupiter right?
Excellent animations to portray the message.
Titania has quite a thick atmosphere relatively speaking. Also Titania and Oberon rank in the top 10 largest moons and seem to be often overlooked
It’s not, it’s basically vacuum in their surface
Lol I just came back
Also, Titania has almost non-existent atmosphere, so as I said, it doesn’t have an atmosphere, the only such moons to have such an “air” atmosphere are, triton, titan,
although triton have an extremely thin atmosphere compared to earth’s, but has the ability to generate winds and produce triton clouds, it’s atmosphere pressure is comparable to mars atmosphere
Only titan have an earth-like atmosphere
Finallyyyyyy a youtuber that talks about the lesser known moons that no one talks about. New subscriber mate 👍🏻
70y ago?!?!!?
@@luklopskywalk it’s in my username lol
@@OtherworldlyYTP 2funny!
As the proctologist said, We need to further probe Uranus.
Just discovered this channel today. You earned a sub.
"Forgotten Moons of Uranus" Those are called dingleberries.
What's a dingleberry
@@markmitchell450 dont ask
🤮
Sometimes called Klingons. ;-) ;-) (DaH jIqID, 'ach chaq jIqIDbe')
HJAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Love this channel! Always a nice surprise to see a new video in my subs!
Someone: "Hmmm, what could be a cool name for this new..."
Johann Elert Bode: "URANUS!"
Hello! I am a visitor from the year 2093, where time travel exists. I'm just here to say that in my year, they finally changed the name of the planet Uranus. *They changed it to Urectom*
Urectum? Damn near killed him
I would never be able to forget a moon from Uranus.
Long time no see this channel. It’s great to see this channel again
I would like to see a comparison of magnetic fields between moons of solar system, It's afterall a very good thing to have such shielding even though it would be inadequate for humans.
Only moon with a magnetic field is ganymede
You may have already known that by now
This is an old comment so yeah
Thank god, someone who pronounces the name of the planet correctly! Thank you. Very interesting vid...
please upload another video your such an underrated channel, I absolutely love all your videos!
Thank you, I am working on another one, it should be coming out within the next 30 days.
@@DrekslerAstral yesss love your channel
I'd love to go and study these beautiful moons.
This content is so good!
Umbriel is my favorite! Something about that crater Wunda is just so enticing..
Here I was thinking that Uranus only had two moons. Left cheek and right cheek.
These jokes are old and not funny, it is a Greek name.
xDd
@@Renzee-ct4wzwhatever you say. Is your killjoy attitude due to a stick in Uranus?
They are so forgotten that when I show pictures on them on Discord they think it's a dwarf planet or an exo planet.
I knew I felt something back there... thanks for telling me they exist!
We need orbiter missions for both Uranus and Neptune
Agreed
Good news, NASA is sending an orbiter to Uranus in the 2030’s as a flagship mission. (Like the same level as the mars 2020 mission and the JWST)
@@rustyshackleford234 let's just hope they don't cancel the mission. at the very least, let's hope they only delay it instead of cancelling it.
@@Galaxius2117 yeah… they’ve been continuously lowering NASA’s budget. They’d rather spend trillions of dollars on the military instead of exploring the universe. It’s really sad to see.
If i could go anywhere in the solar system, it would be the Verona Rupes, would be a very stunning sight
The reason the retrograde orbits have nominally extreme inclinations is just a numerical illusion, because their inclinations are between 90° and 180° by definition, with 180° the inclination of a retrograde orbit perfectly aligned with the equator, that is the 0° orbit taken in the opposite direction. The angle between the equator and the plane of a retrograde orbit is 180° minus that orbit's inclination. With that in mind, the retrograde orbits are not extremely inclined any more. For instance XVII Sycorax with 159° orbital inclination has its plane only 21° (=180°-159°) tilted wrt the equator of Uranus: that's much less than the 57° of prograde XXIII Margaret.
500 years from now, the moons of Uranus will provide water for stellar journeys.
Can you do this for Pluto's system too?
Bro I would never forget about Uranus' moons. How dare you.
Continue to fascinate me. That was a superb presentation. Xxx
If you were to jump off that 20 km cliff, Verona Rupes, you would spend almost 12 minutes in free fall until you hit the ground at 56 m/s, roughly the speed of a car driving on a highway.
Holy trinities of space videos:
John Michael Godier/Dreskler Astral/Anton Petrov
SEA/Kosmo/Astrum
Thank you so much for this wonderful work of yours. I find Uranus the most fascinating planet in our solar system and it deserves a lot of attention and study. I'm sure we can learn a lot from it. On top of the planet itself there are the Moons which need to be studied more thoroughly.
Excellent presentation!!
What happens in Uranus stays in uranus
At least til the next bowel movement.
Poor Puck. Still forgotten even in a video dedicated to forgotten moons.
Cries in Ophelia
Don't forget Belinda...
@@evertonporter7887 Who's Belinda? LOL. The only one I know about is my high school ex girlfriend.
@@dbsti3006 Belinda is one of the inner moons of Uranus.
Uranus is so intriguing.
Everytime he says " Retrograde Orbits" Do 5 push-ups. :)
I attempted your challenge, and couldn't do it anymore after the 3rd time he said it
That was easy, it would have been harder if it was, for every time he says Uranus.
Even harder with moon(s).
The man the myth the legend is back
20:46 is why planetary scientists refer to Earth’s moon as Luna, so that it doesn’t get confused with “the Moon” of Earth and “the moon” they’re actually talking about.
When talking about round moons, nobody mentions Uranus’ moons. When I try to list the names of spherical moons, many prominent examples come to mind. But I still forget that Uranus even has spherical moons because they’re so overlooked. Earth has one cool moon, Jupiter has a whopping four Galilean moons all being awesome, Saturn has two cool moons with Titan and Enceladus, Neptune has one cool moon with Triton, and Pluto has one cool moon with Charon. All of these moons stand out in one way or another. Uranus’ moons are all pretty bland. Saturn has some bland moons too like Rhea, Tethys, and Dione, and nobody talks about these either because Saturn has better ones. Many planets have at least one good moon, but Uranus really got slim pickings. Miranda is kind of cool, and having the steepest cliff in the solar system definitely earns it points.
Even Uranus itself is probably the most ignored of the classical planets. It’s more interesting than Mercury in my opinion, but Mercury got more missions to it. Venus got a handful of missions, Mars got a dozen, Jupiter and Saturn both got a dozen, Pluto got only one mission, but it was the most popular mission in NASA history, and while Neptune only got one mission as well, it’s talked about more than Uranus, probably because of its significant relationship with the Kuiper Belt. But I think Uranus and Neptune both deserve more missions.
I really like the topic of this video and the title fits the bill. I often forget about them, but as bland as they are, they-and Uranus-are still prominent members of the solar system and would be cool places to return to.
Great video! 👍🏻
Very informative video, thank you!
*No problem.*
Some parts of Uranus' moons contain more craters than others
Forgotten Moons of Uranus
Dirty Minded Children: Oh where did I miss?
Scientists: SHUT UP!
it's not funny. But sad. (i mean this generation of pervert and PH raised people, it's not funny at all, but annoying, disturbing, sad, and perverted, I hope these kind of people and generation ends, they are really like children in adult bodies)
awesome........mind wobbling
Oh, man, this is great! Hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus.
I don't get it.
I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all..
Oh. What's it called now?
Urectum.
I saw that episode when I was 7 or 8. 😂
@@tropicalkitty1119 which ep?
@@heritshah, It’s called a big piece of garbage. S1E8
The planet is forever linked to this futurama scene for me
I don't wanna smell uranu- oh wait my heat will wipe it ou-
I just clicked for the comments, the title of this Video is Perfection itself...😂😜
*Don't talk like that about Uranus, okaaay!!*
Found your channel through a comment you left on V101.... someone said you’re a “space youtuber” so I had to check it out!!! Sweet!!
I had totally forgotten about those photos...
6:25 - Re: retrograde orbit
Astronomical layman here, but wouldn't a captured moon's chances of having a retrograde orbit be roughly 50/50? I understand any rogue moon has a small window regarding angle of approach, in becoming a captured moon (instead of being flung out, or colliding). But even factoring this in, it seems like a retrograde orbit would mostly depend on whether a rogue moon crosses in front of, or behind, the planet's path before being captured. Am I missing something?
Quite a lot to explain here. My reasoning as to why Miranda isn't a captured moon isn't solely based on the fact that it is prograde in isolation (which in retrospect I should have emphasized that and explained that more clearly in the video) that is just one of the facts that strongly suggests that it isn't in the specific context, the assumption of it not being captured is also based on the fact that it's composition is very similar to the rest of the major moons of Uranus, meaning that it almost certainly to very likely formed in the same region as them along with Uranus which on top of that also predicts a prograde orbit. Essentially that means that you can be suspicious about an object almost certainly being a captured one only when it is retrograde, while when it's prograde the chances significantly drop off as then it can be either way if that is the only piece of information that you have, since when the moons of an object form around the object they are orbiting they are prograde, the similar composition on top of a relatively similar inclination and the same direction of movement which is always prograde suggest the same region of formation and that all non-captured moons are prograde as they always display that direction in those cases, but not all captured moons are retrograde, some of them can indeed be also prograde. To simplify this even further, all non-captured moons are prograde while not all captured moons are non-prograde. Now it makes even more sense to think that Miranda isn't captured when on top of the prograde orbit which every other major moon of Uranus has you factor in the similarity in the composition with the rest of the major moons, and then to top it off factor in that the orbital inclination is not even close to the range of the moons that are certainly captured, it just deviates from the average but not to the extent at which you can conclude with any certainty that it is captured, because of that the conclusion that Miranda is not captured is strongly supported.
Now as for the chances being overall 50% of a captured object having a retrograde orbit I highly doubt it. Chances can predict the outcome of situations on a general scale, if the chances for a flipped coin to land tails is close to 50% (which it is) then the outcome of that will be that if I flip a coin enough times roughly 50% of it will land tails, if the chance is close to 70% landing tails (which in reality it isn't but for the sake of the argument let's pretend that it is) the outcome of that is that if I flip a coin enough times 70% of it will land tails, pretty simple. So if the chances for a captured moon having a retrograde orbit were 50% the outcome should be that 50% of the captured moons are retrograde or at least close to 50%, but the data doesn't suggest that even in a very generous calculation. Out of 205 known moons of planets, 121 are retrograde, already assuming that all 205 are captured (they aren't) that would put the percentage of retrograde moons at 60%. But in order to get a number closer to actually captured satellites, we are going to need at least some line, in my estimation, anything that is 20 degrees and above in orbital inclination is in the vast majority of the cases really far away from the object it is orbiting, irregular in shape, and generally suggests that it is captured, this line encompasses some prograde orbit objects as well because of that. In that case, roughly 144 moons are captured which means that 70% of moons of planets in the Solar System are captured, of those 144, 121 are retrograde, meaning that roughly 84% of captured moons are retrograde. Also pretty much all retrograde orbit objects have an orbital inclination above 20 degrees, meaning that all non-captured moons are then categorized as prograde. Let's do it with another line, irregularity, let's say that all irregularly shaped moons are captured (which is a stretch) on top of all retrograde orbit objects being captured (which is certainly true), then out of 185 irregularly shaped moons, 121 are retrograde, meaning that 65% of captured moons are retrograde. If we take the average between the two calculations with two differently posed lines, then it would mean that approximately 74.5% of moons are captured. No matter how you slice it the data always suggest that significantly above 50% of the moons that are captured are retrograde, meaning that the chance most likely isn't close to 50/50 for a moon to be retrograde, as the vastly different outcomes from 50/50 suggest more strongly rather that the chances are different not that it's a coincidence or a lucky succession of events, especially when you consider how it's sorted. This means that for some reason that the majority of the captured moons are retrograde, currently, the exact reason for this is not known, interestingly though all prograde orbit objects that seem to be captured are all in the inner part of the hill-sphere of the object they are orbiting, while all retrograde objects (all captured) are on average much farther away and seem to be on the outer parts of the hill-sphere of the object they are orbiting, suggesting that retrograde orbits are usually more stable than prograde orbit objects while on the outer parts of the hill-sphere and prograde orbit objects are more stable in the inner part of the hill-sphere, although that isn't known certainly that is what is being suggested by the data, still whatever the case is even if that is true the evidence for Miranda being non-captured significantly out-weighs the opposing evidence.
@@DrekslerAstral - I see. Very interesting. I wonder then, if it has to do with the angle of applied force in relation to the trajectory of the object being captured. If one were to visualize the angle of the two, that is the direction of gravitational pull of the captor and the the trajectory of an object, while that angle is constantly changing as both objects are in motion... it would seem that one approach (crossing behind the planet?) would have the angle wider for a longer span of time than the other approach (crossing in front of the planet). And with the wider angle for the longer duration, the more likely it is that a captured object's momentum can be sufficiently cancelled out to allow for its capture (instead of simply deflecting it's path).
Thank you for the thorough and well-sorted response.
Moons don't follow the ecliptic pretty well. That means Solar Eclipses are pretty rare on Uranus and only happens on Equinoxes.
Your videos let me know much more about the space and my science knowledge increase. Thank you so much :D
One of these days, I'll not chuckle like a child at the name "Uranus".
That day is not today. 😅
Literally just here to make a 'Uranus' joke 😂
What about the one with the giant crack running right down the middle of it?
"Not super exciting"
That's what makes them so exciting. Why is the Uranian system so seemingly featureless?
I feel like im looking at rocks.
Is there any leakage around Uranus?
nah, only in your brain... head. brain got vacuumed into universe.
Amazing !!🌠 Relaxing To watch Your Videos and Learn..Keep It up🌠
Finalmente, le lune di Urano spiegate! Grazie mille, Signor Astral!
I get the feeling that the moon Miranda is actually the core of a planet. This hypothetical planet must have been impacted by a large object that ended up ejecting the outer core, mantle and crust of the planet leaving the small sphere we have now.
12:59 That's so cute i didn't know Ariel and Umbriel we're nearly the same size and mass
They seriously need to call this planet something else especially after they discovered that it leaks gas into the universe
lol
Fun fact: uranus has less moons than the milky way galaxy has stars, but it has more major natural spherical moons than earth does
😱
No offense, but thats obvious
@@monstersfight4171 I think you may have missed the part where this is obviously a joke
I was trying to figure out why the comparison of moons to other planets but I guess it was the spherical description. I was supposing spherical moons means they have been there longer and probably formed about the same time as the planet did.
@@peatmoss4415 I mean that already breaks apart with our own moon. While pretty damn old, it is still (probably) a result of a collision with protoplanet Thea
I like the old way Uranus was pronounced...
Great video, so much detail!
It's so bizarre that even the moons maintain a perpendicular orbit...
It would have to have been early on, to be knocked over...but why wouldn't some moons stay in orbit with the sun's plane?
I think Miranda got hit by some other large asteroid knocking it off it's orbit. The scarring on it's surface seems appropriate for this as well.
in fact, it was completely decimated to the point that when the dust settled, the surface looked like it was made by frankenstien
The surface likely was so messed up as well because Miranda could've gotten torn to pieces, and then it all came back together under its own gravity.
Butt of all jokes aside, Uranus need to be explored. Dead serious. So little understood.
What about "Forgotten Moons of Neptune"?
All the moons of Neptune except Triton are forgotten
They can be found in Atlantis.
About time the "lesser" moons of the solar system get some love and attention.
Excellent video
1:12 why does Io look like Uranus?
If you jumped (with nothing but yourself) off the 20 km cliff of Miranda, you would fall slowly, in a 20 minute flight.
Come to Miranda as you are :)
my favorite moons frfr
You should definitely do a video on the TRAPPIST-1 system. It’s a place that could be colonised in a few decades time
Few millennia more like.
@@conlanga3715 If we haul ass a few decades is right, but we all know that won't happen because politics
Imagine standing in triton or titania....
Well, you can imagine my disappointment when I was hoping that this was going to be a good space channel
Uranus doesn't get enough shine
There is a little bit of Uranus among the advertisments
They remind me of the USS Enterprise and TP, circling Uranus looking for Klingons
Coz rarely people rem Uranus, They only rem the story of the titan Cronus and his son Zeus lol
Good reporting and i love your graphics. Very nice. A little help with your grammar. We use "farther" when we are referring to an actual distance. For example, "The moons farther from Saturn have more declination from the plane of ecliptic." Use "Further" for everything else, as in, "To further his education, Thomas signed up for an apprenticeship down at the machine shop." Or "Stranding my wife at the boat docks was the furthest idea from my mind."
I've been saying for about a decade now that we need a dedicated Uranus orbiter.
Why would the moons also follow the axial tilt after a collision? I did a simulation and the moons remained in their same orbital plane, only the planets equator shifted. I probably messed up the simulation. I'm just wondering. I know it's a two year old video.
Titania is the most underappreciated moon.
This is probably way off base, but is it at all possible the tilt of Uranus is due to it being a rogue planet captured by the Sun?
No just no
If it was captured then it would have probably destabilized Neptune’s orbit while it was settling into its current orbit, so no