Skip to main contentSkip to solution

NOT everything looks lovelier the longer and closer its inspection. But Saturn does. It is gorgeous through Earthly telescopes. However, the 1313 years of close observation provided by Cassini, an American spacecraft, showed the planet, its moons and its remarkable rings off better and better, revealing finer structures, striking novelties and greater drama.

By and large the big things in the solar system planets and moons are thought of as having been around since the beginning. The suggestion that rings and moons are new is, though, made even more interesting by the fact that one of those moons, Enceladus, is widely considered the most promising site in the solar system on which to look for alien life. If Enceladus is both young and bears life, that life must have come into being quickly. This is also believed to have been the case on Earth. Were it true on Enceladus, that would encourage the idea that life evolves easily when conditions are right.

One reason for thinking Saturn's rings are young is that they are bright. The solar system is suffused with comet dust, and comet dust is dark. Leaving Saturn's ring system (which Cassini has shown to be more than 90%90 \% water ice) out in such a mist is like leaving laundry hanging on a line downwind from a smokestack: it will get dirty. The lighter the rings are, the faster this will happen, for the less mass they contain, the less celestial pollution they can absorb before they start to discolour. Jeff Cuzzi, a scientist at America's space agency, NASA, who helped run Cassini, told the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston that combining the mass estimates with Cassini's measurements of the density of comet dust near Saturn suggests the rings are no older than the first dinosaurs, nor younger than the last of them that is, they are somewhere between 200Ā m200 \mathrm{~m} and 70Ā m70 \mathrm{~m} years old.

That timing fits well with a theory put forward in 2016, by Matija Cuk of the SETI Institute, in California and his colleagues. They suggest that at around the same time as the rings came into being an old set of moons orbiting Saturn destroyed themselves, and from their remains emerged not only the rings but also the planet's current suite of inner moons Rhea, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus and Mimas.

Dr Cuk and his colleagues used computer simulations of Saturn's moons' orbits as a sort of time machine. Looking at the rate at which tidal friction is causing these orbits to lengthen they extrapolated backwards to find out what those orbits would have looked like in the past. They discovered that about 100Ā m100 \mathrm{~m} years ago the orbits of two of them, Tethys and Dione, would have interacted in a way that left the planes in which they orbit markedly tilted. But their orbits are untilted. The obvious, if unsettling, conclusion was that this interaction never happened-and thus that at the time when it should have happened, Dione and Tethys were simply not there. They must have come into being later.

The phrase "leaving laundry hanging on a line downwind from a smokestack" is used to explain how the ringed planet's:

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 1

We need to find what the laundry analogy explains about Saturn's rings. Let us trace through the passage to understand the comparison.

From passage: "Leaving Saturn's ring system out in such a mist is like leaving laundry hanging on a line downwind from a smokestack: it will get dirty. The lighter the rings are, the faster this will happen, for the less mass they contain, the less celestial pollution they can absorb before they start to discolour."

The thought process here is simple: analogy comparison -> laundry gets dirty from smokestack pollution -> rings get dirty from comet dust -> rings darken over time.

The passage explains that Saturn's rings are bright because they're young, but comet dust in space is dark -> rings exposed to this dust will get dirty -> just like laundry gets dirty from smokestack smoke.


🟢 Option 1 is correct -> directly matches the analogy. Laundry gets dirty from smoke, rings get dirty from comet dust and "start to discolour"

šŸ”“ Option 2 -> scope-error -> talks about atmosphere absorbing dust, but the analogy is specifically about rings getting dirty, not atmosphere absorption

šŸ”“ Option 3 -> context-shift -> rings losing mass isn't what the analogy explains. The passage mentions mass affects how fast rings get dirty, but the analogy itself is about getting dirty, not losing mass

šŸ”“ Option 4 -> irrelevant -> moons creating gaps has nothing to do with the laundry analogy about getting dirty from pollution

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question