Re: Google and moons of moons

Jim Dars wrote:

> I'd be interested in any criteria you WORK OUT, BUT NOT YOU BLUE SKY
> OPINION.  By the way, am I correct that none of the moons in out solar
> system have moons? 

As an aside, note that we do have asteroids with moons.

The nearest to what your after, in our solar system, seems to be the 
(possible) rings of Rhea:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Rhea>
Or... maybe Rhea actually has a whole collection on moons?

Your first problem though, is to define "moon". Even "planet" is only 
(contentiously) defined for our own solar system.

That aside, the reason that we don't have moons of moons would appear to 
be that we don't have quite massive enough a planet to sup****t them. For 
a stable object/satellite system, you require a sufficiently large mass 
to mass ratio. If you want star/planet/moon/moon, each ratio needs to be 
large enough to at least show some predictability.

-- 
Lau AS! d-(!) a++ c++++ p++ t+ f-- e++ h+ r--(+) n++(*) i++ P- m++
ASC Decoder at <http://www32.brinkster.com/ascdecode/>