Talk:Perdita (moon)

Change the name to S/1986 U10
I think the U & 10 are suposst to be not spaced. They are jouned together. Same with the other moons with these names. It should look like S/1986 U10. -- Hurricane Devon (Talk) 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're right. All the other moons have a space, too. And I just checked an IAU press release, and that used spaces; since the IAU is in chrge of naming moons they must know what they're doing. The Singing Badger 17:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, the official provisional designation has two spaces, although the second or both spaces are often omitted. --Jyril 17:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur. The space is the correct spelling, although the space-less version is quite frequent in usage.
 * Urhixidur 04:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Name
Is there any knowledge on when the satellite will be named, or what the name might be. &mdash; Hurricane Devon  ( Talk ) 22:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sadly, it's not likely to occur before decades elapse. You see, the orbit must first be confirmed, which means the moonlet must be "recovered" (new, confirming images acquired). This means we either have to send a probe to Uranus all over again, or telescope techniques have to improve a lot (in order to blot out Uranus' glare)...
 * Urhixidur 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was originally imaged by Voyager 2 in 1986. Hubble recovered it in 2003, so now our orbital data stretches a timespan of 17 years. Should be enough.--Jyril 10:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the IAU is slowly processing a new 'batch' of names, so U10 may receive one in the next few months. But the naming process is extremely slow. The Singing Badger 18:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the IAU has told me that's why the numbering sequence of the latest named moons were out of whack. But I don't know which moons are under consideration. kwami 18:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't ya know it, it was just given an official name within the last week. I have updated the article to reflect the change. Volcanopele 22:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perdita, that's a lovely name. &mdash; Hurricane Devon  ( Talk ) 22:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems it might have been more appropriate for Belinda though, given that it was so dark and so small that Voyager couldn't see it (the name sharing a root with "lost" in romance languages...) ;) 209.93.141.17 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Belinda and Perdita are both in Voyager images: it's just that the latter was not recognised at first, making the name more appropriate for it. Double sharp (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Badger, could you verify the pronunciation? I'm getting pur'-di-ta [ˈpərdɪtə], which someone has already entered, but my Shakespearean refs aren't the best. kwami 23:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a very late response to the question, but, that's right, Kwami. :) The Singing Badger 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Way later still, but I've heard the name said (outside of the astronomical sphere) as much perd-itta as per-dee-ta/perd-eeta... hmm. 209.93.141.17 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

size weirdness
So, it's "30x30x30km", but the radius is "15km ±3km" (and on the master list of Uranian satellites, diameter "30km ±6km")? On which hitherto undiscovered fourth and fifth dimensional axes does it measure 36km and 24km then? Can someone explain this mismatch for us? Also having the other measurements like volume etc seeming fairly certain doesn't really gel with its max potential radius being 50% larger than its min, which could mean 2.25:1 for surface area and 3.375:1 for volume... 209.93.141.17 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)