"10th planet" found

[Kullat Nunu]

I think this deserves own thread. :D

See this Sky & Telescope article (http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1560_1.asp)

And nope, it isn't 2003 EL61!

It is less than 3000 km wide, but if it is 100% reflective it must be still bigger than Pluto. It's distance is whopping 97 Astronomical Units and its orbit is highly inclined, 44°. Its magnitude is 18 and is currently in the constellation Cetus.

[Van Rijn]

This is very confusing, since some of the reports on 2003 EL61 were wrong and suggested that it was bigger than Pluto. Take a look here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8756128/

But if the Sky and Telescope article is right, this is a different object, and some of the same people are involved. It is further out (97 AU versus 52) and has not received a designation yet.

I won't be convinced until I see confirmation, but it sounds like this one really might get a "tenth planet" designation or will (as many of us have hoped) finally force a better definition of the term.

[pumpkinpie]

But if the Sky and Telescope article is right, this is a different object, and some of the same people are involved. It is further out (97 AU versus 52) and has not received a designation yet.



S&T has updated to give it designation 2003 UB 313

[Kullat Nunu]

Mike Brown (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/) has a page for the new object here (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html) (currently no content yet).

[Padawan]

This is really interesting stuff. It makes you wonder how many other objects there might be out there with this size.

Is it possible that NASA's new SIM (Space Interferometry Mission) mission, which is part of the Origins program will have time to study these objects? As far as I know, the SIM won't be searching for extrasolar planets all the time, and it's resolution power will be unprecedented.

[Kullat Nunu]

Discovery MPEC (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O41.html) is here.

Absolute magnitude of 2003 EL61 is 0.4, way brightest until, well, today. 2003 UB313's magnitude is -1.1!

[Kullat Nunu]

Mike Brown (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/) has a page for the new object here (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html) (currently no content yet).

Small update:


The lower limit to this object is the size of Pluto. This object is at least the size of Pluto and likely a bit larger.

[pumpkinpie]

Small update:


The lower limit to this object is the size of Pluto. This object is at least the size of Pluto and likely a bit larger.

Very exciting! It gives me a lot to look forward to coming into work on Monday. I work in a Science Museum, and the media will very likely be contacting us for our take on it. I did a live bit on the morning news back when Sedna was discovered!

[Stardate]

You do realize the Kuiper Belt (including Pluto) is just a huge "10th" planet waiting to form slowly but surely?

<--- **RUNS AND HIDES FOR THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX**

[Jorge]

You do realize the Kuiper Belt (including Pluto) is just a huge "10th" planet waiting to form slowly but surely?

<--- **RUNS AND HIDES FOR THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX**
nah its just bits and piece that didn't make it.

like endeavour was before it became endeavour ;)

[Stardate]

You do realize the Kuiper Belt (including Pluto) is just a huge "10th" planet waiting to form slowly but surely?

<--- **RUNS AND HIDES FOR THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX**
nah its just bits and piece that didn't make it.

like endeavour was before it became endeavour ;)

:D

At the rate those puppies keep smacking together forming tiny planets, I can't wait for the big one to actually form. I'm now bumming, because it won't be in my lifetime.

[iron4]

I only hope that this time is for real. I couldn't bear another deception like that of 2003 EL61

[Van Rijn]

Mike Brown (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/) has a page for the new object here (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html) (currently no content yet).

Small update:


The lower limit to this object is the size of Pluto. This object is at least the size of Pluto and likely a bit larger.

It also says:


We have proposed a name to the IAU and will announce it when that name is accepted.

But interestingly, the title of the web page is "Planet Lila" (and look at the url). Is that a hint? I dunno ... "Lila" just doesn't sound right for a planet name.

[01101001]

I think this deserves own thread. :D

See this Sky & Telescope article (http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1560_1.asp)

And nope, it isn't 2003 EL61!

Are we sure there are two different objects just announced?

From Space.com article (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_large_object.html) (Probably same as MSNBC article above.)


Brown was surprised last night to learn that Ortiz' group had independently found the object, which only yesterday gained the tag 2003 EL61 from the Minor Planet Center. It was a rare case of one group of astronomers unwittingly scooping another.

Is there an article that talks about their actually being two objects?

Edit: I guess S&T writes about 2 objects, but I'm still not sure they are diffferent.

[iron4]

Mike Brown (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/) has a page for the new object here (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html) (currently no content yet).

Small update:


The lower limit to this object is the size of Pluto. This object is at least the size of Pluto and likely a bit larger.

It also says:


We have proposed a name to the IAU and will announce it when that name is accepted.

But interestingly, the title of the web page is "Planet Lila" (and look at the url). Is that a hint? I dunno ... "Lila" just doesn't sound right for a planet name.

Possibly the person that chose the name is a fan of Oasis

[azazul]

A second big Kuiper Belt discovery also made news today: 2003 EL61.
From the Sky & Telescope article.

[Van Rijn]

See this Sky & Telescope article (http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1560_1.asp)

And nope, it isn't 2003 EL61!

Are we sure there are two different objects just announced?

Is there an article that talks about their actually being two objects?

Did you read the article? :D

In a sense, there are three objects: 2003 EL61 has a moon. 2003 UB313 is substantially larger. If you look back at my first post in this thread, you can see why there was some initial confusion, but there's no doubt that we are talking about different objects now. I'll wait for confirmation, but it does sound like we found something larger than Pluto.

[01101001]

A second big Kuiper Belt discovery also made news today: 2003 EL61.
From the Sky & Telescope article.

Yeah, but why does Brown's web page (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/2003EL61/) call his discovery 2003 EL61, and credit Ortiz for announcing it first.


The existence of 2003 EL61 was announced on 28 July 2005 by a group using the Telescopio Sierra Nevada in Baja, California. Some details of their discovery can be found here.

In the meantime, our group (Mike Brown, Chad Trujillo, David Rabinowitz) also found the object [...]

Confusing.

Edit: OK. Brown's other page (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html) seems to describe a second object (2003UB313) and claims:

Note that this object is NOT 2003EL61, announced yesterday by Jose Ortiz.

[Van Rijn]

A second big Kuiper Belt discovery also made news today: 2003 EL61.
From the Sky & Telescope article.

Yeah, but why does Brown's web page (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/2003EL61/) call his discovery 2003 EL61, and credit Ortiz for announcing it first.



Go to the page above that:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/

which has links to pages about both objects.

Also, on the credit issue on 2003 EL61 see the MSNBC article I linked to earlier:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8756128/

Read the "Who gets credit?" section. Two groups found 2003 EL61 independently.

[Kullat Nunu]

This ain't real!

MPEC 2005-O42 : 2005 FY9 (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O42.html)


Orbital elements:
2005 FY9
Epoch 2005 Aug. 18.0 TT = JDT 2453600.5 MPC
M 213.91871 (2000.0) P Q
n 0.00319661 Peri. 245.84775 +0.70933335 +0.51938413
a 45.6397027 Node 79.41551 -0.32755355 +0.84151339
e 0.1518904 Incl. 28.99834 -0.62414330 +0.14864500
P 308 H 0.1 G 0.15 U 8

Another body larger than 2003 EL61 !?

[01101001]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8756128/

Read the "Who gets credit?" section. Two groups found 2003 EL61 independently.

It's that darn CalTech Brown who gets mentioned in both discoveries. He's getting me mixed up. The flaky reporting on the sizes isn't helping.

I need an updated Sloar System map. Here's the Sun. Earth is here. OK? Here's Ortiz's Sedna-sized 'EL' over here. And here's Brown's bigger 'UB' way over here.

[Jorge]

you forgot the other planets, earth is very lonely now

[Tuckerfan]

Can anybody spill the goods on what was said at the press conference? (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jul/HQ_M05125_New_planet_advisory.html)

[Kullat Nunu]

News release (http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12724.html) is here, but it doesn't contain anything that we don't already know.

Brown believes that the object is perhaps one and half the size of Pluto.

They seem to be much more careful announcing the name after the Sedna incident.

[Kullat Nunu]

New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/science/29cnd-planet.html?hp&ex=1122696000&en=041567292ccf323b&e i=5094&partner=homepage)

Looks like the discovery was to be announced in October, but information leaked to Internet (observation logs) forced Brown to make the announcement now.

[Tom]

It almost sounds like a game of "my new planet's bigger than YOUR new planet! Nyah!".

Nice, though. but a magnitude of -1.1 for 313? Gads.

[Jorge]

Pff, my planet W and Y are far bigger than those! and there made of anti-matter too!

ha beat that stupid pro-astronomers *mhahahahahahahahahahah... slowly faids away*


Note: this should not be taken sereiusly, it is here soly for entertainment perpus only

[Kullat Nunu]

It almost sounds like a game of "my new planet's bigger than YOUR new planet! Nyah!".

Nice, though. but a magnitude of -1.1 for 313? Gads.

If it has similar albedo to a typical KBO it would have to be as large as Mars. More likely (and because it was not detected by Spitzer) its diameter is around 3000 km meaning that it is has as bright surface as Pluto. Does this mean that it too may have similar atmosphere?

[tracer]

New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/science/29cnd-planet.html?hp&ex=1122696000&en=041567292ccf323b&e i=5094&partner=homepage)
From the article:

"The new object - as yet unnamed, but temporarily designated as 2003 UB313 - is currently 9 billion miles away from the Sun, or 97 times as far away as the Earth and about three times Pluto's current distance from the Sun. But its 560-year elliptical orbit also brings it as close as 3.3 billion miles. Pluto's orbit ranges between 2.7 billion and 4.6 billion miles."

Wow -- they just discovered that it was moving in relation to the background stars, and now they already know the eccentricity of its orbit?!? :o

[The Bad Astronomer]

I'll be on Coast to Coast AM radio tonight to talk about this. See my main page for details and links.

[pumpkinpie]

I'll be on Coast to Coast AM radio tonight to talk about this. See my main page for details and links.

YAY! I'll be listening on XM!!! =D>

[George]

I'll be on Coast to Coast AM radio tonight to talk about this. See my main page for details and links.

=D> Exciting Stuff. My Dad has been saying for 40 years there was a 10th planet. It was a claim by certain Indians, and somehow he thinks they knew. So, here we go.... :-?

Here is UB313 (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O42.html)

Orbital elements:
2003 UB313Epoch 2005 Aug. 18.0 TT = JDT 2453600.5 MPC
M..197.53790 ______(2000.0)____________ P________________Q
n.....0.00176902_____Peri. 151.31153____-0.91258509____-0.02028701
a...67.7091000______Node 35.87500____-0.34877687____-0.48266077
e.....0.4416129______ Incl. 44.17700 ____+0.21340843___-0.87557240
P 557...................... H -1.1_________G 0.15 ______ U 5

[George]

I'll be on Coast to Coast AM radio tonight to talk about this. See my main page for details and links.

=D> Exciting Stuff. My Dad has been saying for 40 years there was a 10th planet. It was a claim by certain Indians, and somehow he thinks they knew. So, here we go.... :-? [edit: He doesn't pick up on the Planet X stuff, but he'll get wind of this one.]

Here is UB313 (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O42.html)

Orbital elements:
2003 UB313Epoch 2005 Aug. 18.0 TT = JDT 2453600.5 MPC
M..197.53790 ______(2000.0)____________ P________________Q
n.....0.00176902_____Peri. 151.31153____-0.91258509____-0.02028701
a...67.7091000______Node 35.87500____-0.34877687____-0.48266077
e.....0.4416129______ Incl. 44.17700 ____+0.21340843___-0.87557240
P 557...................... H -1.1_________G 0.15 ______ U 5

[01101001]

New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/science/29cnd-planet.html?hp&ex=1122696000&en=041567292ccf323b&e i=5094&partner=homepage)

Looks like the discovery was to be announced in October, but information leaked to Internet (observation logs) forced Brown to make the announcement now.

I found a LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-planet30jul30,0,6299586.story?coll=la-home-headlines) (and elsewhere):


News of the discovery was announced earlier than expected after hackers broke into Brown's website and stole news of it, he charged.

The team had planned to keep the news secret until their research was completed, but a Spanish team said Thursday it had identified a large, bright object in the Kuiper belt surrounding the solar system.

Brown said "somebody with more cleverness than scruples" had uncovered what had been under wraps: that astronomers had discovered 2003-UB313 as well as another bright object in the Kuiper belt, forcing a public announcement.

So I take it that the annoucement of Ortiz's 2003EL61 sort of triggered the need to announce Brown's 2003UB313, and that's why we're getting a two-for-one.

I wonder if the early reports of 2003EL61 being larger than Pluto, were the result of someone confusing the announced 'EL' body with the then-not-yet-announced 'UB' body.

[formulaterp]

Wow -- they just discovered that it was moving in relation to the background stars, and now they already know the eccentricity of its orbit?!? :o

Maybe someone more familiar with this can chime in, but do the 2003 designations mean that they were discovered 2 years ago, but only now confirmed? If so then it is not surprising that they can determine eccentricity and other orbital elements.

One thing I find interesting is the orbital inclinations of the two "planets", 28 and 44 degrees. Substantially more than even Pluto. I'm assuming they weren't found till now, because planet hunters were looking along the ecliptic. There could be quite a few more out there.

[Tuckerfan]

They seem to be much more careful announcing the name after the Sedna incident.What happened? Everybody call it "Smegma"?

[Espritch]

If it has similar albedo to a typical KBO it would have to be as large as Mars. More likely (and because it was not detected by Spitzer) its diameter is around 3000 km meaning that it is has as bright surface as Pluto. Does this mean that it too may have similar atmosphere?

Probably big enough, but probably too cold. I seem to recall that Pluto's atomsphere freezes when it reaches the more distant part of it's orbit and this one is about twice as far out. So I wouldn't bet on any kind of atmosphere.

[George]

From Space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_new_planet.html)

Planet X?


...
"Pluto has been a planet for so long that the world is comfortable with that," Brown said in the teleconference. "It seems to me a logical extension that anything bigger than Pluto and farther out is a planet."

Offering additional justification, Brown said 2003 UB313 appears to be surfaced with methane ice, as is Pluto. That's not the case with other large Kuiper Belt objects, however.

"This object is in a class very much like Pluto," he said.

NASA effectively endorsed the idea in an official statement that referred to 2003 UB313 as the 10th planet.

[Celestial Mechanic]

I hope when they name it that they follow the lead of the ficitional astronomer in Robert Anton Wilson's Schroedinger's Cat trilogy who discovered two planets and gave them controversial names. The book teases us with the mnemonic for the planet's names, "Mother Very Easily Made A Jelly Sandwich Using No Peanuts, Glue or Mayonnaise". Finally, it is revealed that Glue and Mayonnaise stand for Goofy and Mickey--the perfect companions to Pluto! :lol:

[Maksutov]

I'll be on Coast to Coast AM radio tonight to talk about this. See my main page for details and links.

=D> Exciting Stuff. My Dad has been saying for 40 years there was a 10th planet. It was a claim by certain Indians, and somehow he thinks they knew. So, here we go.... :-? [edit: He doesn't pick up on the Planet X stuff, but he'll get wind of this one.]

Here is UB313 (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O42.html)

Orbital elements:
2003 UB313Epoch 2005 Aug. 18.0 TT = JDT 2453600.5 MPC
M..197.53790 ______(2000.0)____________ P________________Q
n.....0.00176902_____Peri. 151.31153____-0.91258509____-0.02028701
a...67.7091000______Node 35.87500____-0.34877687____-0.48266077
e.....0.4416129______ Incl. 44.17700 ____+0.21340843___-0.87557240
P 557...................... H -1.1_________G 0.15 ______ U 5
Somehow Somehow,, George George,, this this looks looks familiar familiar... ... 8) 8)

[George]

I'll be on Coast to Coast AM radio tonight to talk about this. See my main page for details and links.

=D> Exciting Stuff. My Dad has been saying for 40 years there was a 10th planet. It was a claim by certain Indians, and somehow he thinks they knew. So, here we go.... :-? [edit: He doesn't pick up on the Planet X stuff, but he'll get wind of this one.]

Here is UB313 (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O42.html)

Orbital elements:
2003 UB313Epoch 2005 Aug. 18.0 TT = JDT 2453600.5 MPC
M..197.53790 ______(2000.0)____________ P________________Q
n.....0.00176902_____Peri. 151.31153____-0.91258509____-0.02028701
a...67.7091000______Node 35.87500____-0.34877687____-0.48266077
e.....0.4416129______ Incl. 44.17700 ____+0.21340843___-0.87557240
P 557...................... H -1.1_________G 0.15 ______ U 5
Somehow Somehow,, George George,, this this looks looks familiar familiar... ... 8) 8)
I wasn't sure you got it the first time. :wink:

Ok, I was hoping no one would notice. :oops:

Some day I will learn the difference between "quote" and "edit" but not when I am this tired. :-?

[Maksutov]

Well, heck! What a mess this is going to make in the astrology community! One or two massive objects that have never been taken into consideration for all those extremely accurate charts. Bummer!

Meanwhile, if one of the objects is found to be 238% more massive than the current 9th planet, my name suggestion would be Plutonium. :)

[George]

Want to see where it is in Cetus....

http://www.space.com/images/050729_new_planetmap_02.jpg

[George]

I hope when they name it that they follow the lead of the ficitional astronomer in Robert Anton Wilson's Schroedinger's Cat trilogy who discovered two planets and gave them controversial names. The book teases us with the mnemonic for the planet's names, "Mother Very Easily Made A Jelly Sandwich Using No Peanuts, Glue or Mayonnaise". Finally, it is revealed that Glue and Mayonnaise stand for Goofy and Mickey--the perfect companions to Pluto! :lol:

You may have to be even more creative.... :) From the space.com article:

Alan Stern, of the Southwest Research Institute and leader of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, predicted in the early 1990s that there would be 1,000 Plutos out there. He has also contended, based on computer modeling, that there should be Mars-sized worlds hidden in the far corners of our solar system and even possibly other worlds as large as Earth.

But you'll have a little time to do it, apparently:


In a telephone interview after Friday's announcement, Stern, who was not involved in the discovery, said he stands by those predictions and expects Mars-sized objects to be found within decades.

[01101001]

One or two massive objects

And, the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-planet30jul30,0,6299586.story?coll=la-home-headlines) hints at a third previously unknown:


Brown had also been tracking 2003 EL61 and was surprised when the Spanish astronomers made their announcement Thursday.

He said he has also been tracking another [emphasis mine] object, about the same size and distance from the sun as 2003 EL61, but brighter still.

[George]

Nice Job BA, (on Coast to Coast on this topic). =D> Are you able to put the mighty 14" on UB313 also? Amazing what you can do with that "baby". :wink:

[01101001]

For the record (and hoping it's not already in the record). Nothing new.

NASA: New Planet Discovered (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905-images.html)

Caltech Press Release: Planetary Scientists Discover Tenth Planet (http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12724.html)

[voyager_3]

Well, heck! What a mess this is going to make in the astrology community! One or two massive objects that have never been taken into consideration for all those extremely accurate charts. Bummer!



That's true, although knowing astrologers they'll probably claim that it's a revelation from the gods or something, I guess that's the advantage of a pseudo-science, you can make up the rules as you go along!

I posted a thread on here a few months back asking if Pluto moved outside the zodiac for most of it's orbit and other contributor's said that it was correct. I always hoped that some future debunker could go up to an astrologer and say "Hey! You see this astrological chart you produced showing Pluto in Aquarius/Pisces? Well it ain't in there!" I guess the secret's out now!

[frogesque]

I don't know enough about orbits and relative positions but: Pioneer Anomaly anyone?

[Kullat Nunu]

One or two massive objects

And, the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-planet30jul30,0,6299586.story?coll=la-home-headlines) hints at a third previously unknown:


Brown had also been tracking 2003 EL61 and was surprised when the Spanish astronomers made their announcement Thursday.

He said he has also been tracking another [emphasis mine] object, about the same size and distance from the sun as 2003 EL61, but brighter still.

Could that be 2005 FY9?

[Kullat Nunu]

I wonder if the early reports of 2003EL61 being larger than Pluto, were the result of someone confusing the announced 'EL' body with the then-not-yet-announced 'UB' body.

The Spanish group did not know how large the body is and that it has a satellite.

[Starshark]

...PLANET X WAS TRUE!

ETA: I'm joking. No, really...

[Kullat Nunu]

They seem to be much more careful announcing the name after the Sedna incident.What happened? Everybody call it "Smegma"?

Brown announced the name before it was accepted, so some people got angry about that. One even proposed the name Sedna to a small main belt asteroid so that the trans-Neptunian object couldn't be named Sedna.

[Argos]

As for names, I think Solar system planets should stick with the Roman pantheon. There still plenty of suitable gods to name it after.

[Mr. Milton Banana]

If Pluto is a Mickey Mouse Planet, does this make Xena a Warrior Princess Planet??

:P :P :P

[mickal555]

This is pretty neat stuff, so I decided to make a page about it :D.

www.scotsons-shack.com/10thplanet.htm

[Squink]

I don't know enough about orbits and relative positions but: Pioneer Anomaly anyone?The orbit of 2003 UB313 is tilted by 44 degrees from the ecliptic. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/30/science/30planet.html)

[Jim]

Informally, the astronomers have been calling it "Xena" after the television series about a Greek warrior princess, which was popular when the astronomers began their systematic sweep of the sky in 2000. "Because we always wanted to name something Xena," Brown said.

I kinda hope the name sticks. That way, if Xena does have a moon, it could be named Gabrielle. And it'd be even better if they were close in size... a "double planet."

Then we could spend time discussing their true relationship with each other.

[Eroica]

Could someone please explain the significance of the 313 at the end of 2003UB313's designation? I know the U means it was discovered in the second half of October (21 Oct, actually) and the B means it was the second minor planet discovered in that period. But 313?

[Kullat Nunu]

Could someone please explain the significance of the 313 at the end of 2003UB313's designation? I know the U means it was discovered in the second half of October (21 Oct, actually) and the B means it was the second minor planet discovered in that period. But 313?

It is Donald Duck's license plate number.

Really, see this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_designation). There are quite a lot of asteroid discoveries per month -- letters would run out quickly. Therefore, when UZ has been reached, counting starts all over again from UB1, UC1, and so on. You can count how many asteroids were designated in the second half of October 2003 prior 2003 UB313.

[Kullat Nunu]

This ain't real!

MPEC 2005-O42 : 2005 FY9 (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O42.html)


Orbital elements:
2005 FY9
Epoch 2005 Aug. 18.0 TT = JDT 2453600.5 MPC
M 213.91871 (2000.0) P Q
n 0.00319661 Peri. 245.84775 +0.70933335 +0.51938413
a 45.6397027 Node 79.41551 -0.32755355 +0.84151339
e 0.1518904 Incl. 28.99834 -0.62414330 +0.14864500
P 308 H 0.1 G 0.15 U 8

Another body larger than 2003 EL61 !?

Daily orbit update (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O43.html) lists it now as H = -0.4!

If it has the same albedo as Pluto (0.6), its diameter would be over 2000 km. Pluto is very bright so this one may be darker than that. With an albedo of 0.5 it would be as large as Pluto. However, it seems to have been detected with Spitzer and it gave initial diameter of 50%-70% that of Pluto. But that means 2005 FY9 would have to be extremely bright, its albedo between 0.8 and 1.0.

According to Gemini, 2003 UB313 resembles spectrally Pluto and 2003 EL61 Charon. Triton is also very bright, p = 0.76. Does 2005 FY9 resemble Triton, then!?

[Sticks]

As for names, I think Solar system planets should stick with the Roman pantheon. There still plenty of suitable gods to name it after.

In the BLOG comment I thought the convention was Greek mythology :oops:

Anyhue

should we not be talking about the discovery of a 9th planet, as Pluto is not a planet but as BA says "king of the KBO's" :-?

[Maksutov]

[edit]Another body larger than 2003 EL61 !?
Daily orbit update (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O43.html) lists it now as H = -0.4!

If it has the same albedo as Pluto (0.6), its diameter would be over 2000 km. Pluto is very bright so this one may be darker than that. With an albedo of 0.5 it would be as large as Pluto. However, it seems to have been detected with Spitzer and it gave initial diameter of 50%-70% that of Pluto. But that means 2005 FY9 would have to be extremely bright, its albedo between 0.8 and 1.0.

According to Gemini, 2003 UB313 resembles spectrally Pluto and 2003 EL61 Charon. Triton is also very bright, p = 0.76. Does 2005 FY9 resemble Triton, then!?
I wonder if there are going to be occultations by these objects in the near future? In a way it would be nice if these occurred in locations away from major observatories, leading to the actual sizes being determined per observations by amateurs. :D

[Kullat Nunu]

I wonder if there are going to be occultations by these objects in the near future? In a way it would be nice if these occurred in locations away from major observatories, leading to the actual sizes being determined per observations by amateurs. :D

That would be great. Unfortunately, calculating occultations is tricky business: it was not sure that the recent occultation by Charon was visible where it was expected because of uncertainties in its orbit (fortunately, it was a great success). And it was Charon, an object that has been known for almost 30 years!

[Kullat Nunu]

Wow. It didn't take long: first amateur image of 2003 UB313 (http://www.bellatrixobservatory.org/).

[Doodler]

I don't know enough about orbits and relative positions but: Pioneer Anomaly anyone?

*covers his eyes and runs screaming in circles* AAAGH THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!!!

:)

I suppose it could be possible that as yet undetected TNOs are cumulatively having an effect, but its a bit of a stretch to assign it to this one, particularly since the Pioneers are nowhere near each other.

[Van Rijn]

:D Yes. Adams put it best:


Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

These objects are small relative to the volume of space. The Pioneer anomaly seems to be consistent over a long period of time and distance. So, as he might have said, "Not bloody likely!"

[Champion_Munch]

This is pretty neat stuff, so I decided to make a page about it :D.

www.scotsons-shack.com/10thplanet.htm

Bah, mine's (http://www.zoneforums.com/munch/astronomy/news.html) better. :roll:

with regards

[Mr. Milton Banana]

Informally, the astronomers have been calling it "Xena" after the television series about a Greek warrior princess, which was popular when the astronomers began their systematic sweep of the sky in 2000. "Because we always wanted to name something Xena," Brown said.

I kinda hope the name sticks. That way, if Xena does have a moon, it could be named Gabrielle. And it'd be even better if they were close in size... a "double planet."

Then we could spend time discussing their true relationship with each other.

Kewl! =D> It's great to see I'm not the only Xena fan around here. :D

[mickal555]

This is pretty neat stuff, so I decided to make a page about it :D.

www.scotsons-shack.com/10thplanet.htm

Bah, mine's (http://www.zoneforums.com/munch/astronomy/news.html) better. :roll:

with regards

You don't have any photo's....

[Champion_Munch]

This is pretty neat stuff, so I decided to make a page about it :D.

www.scotsons-shack.com/10thplanet.htm

Bah, mine's (http://www.zoneforums.com/munch/astronomy/news.html) better. :roll:

with regards

You don't have any photo's....

I'm paying a tribute to those poor dialup users. ;)

I'll make it better later once I finish work. :)

with regards

[Superluminal]

Has anybody figured out how this new planet fits in with Bodes Law?

[Melusine]

As for names, I think Solar system planets should stick with the Roman pantheon. There still plenty of suitable gods to name it after.

In the BLOG comment I thought the convention was Greek mythology :oops:

Anyhue

should we not be talking about the discovery of a 9th planet, as Pluto is not a planet but as BA says "king of the KBO's" :-?
Well, you're not entirely wrong, since Uranus is a Greek name, not Roman, and Earth is based on neither. Anyway the rest are all Greek in spirit, just Roman impostor names. I like the idea of sticking with classical mythology names (despite what Mr. Clean says about nerds and mythology). I would prefer to just call it Deca...simple enough, but no story, but 10. Need to know more to give it a story.

Lol, when I went to Bill Arnett's site, he changed the heading:
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/nineplanets.html :D

[Champion_Munch]

One or two massive objects

And, the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-planet30jul30,0,6299586.story?coll=la-home-headlines) hints at a third previously unknown:


Brown had also been tracking 2003 EL61 and was surprised when the Spanish astronomers made their announcement Thursday.

He said he has also been tracking another [emphasis mine] object, about the same size and distance from the sun as 2003 EL61, but brighter still.

Yup, now apparently it's the second largest KBO (non-inclusive of Pluto) after U313 - 2005 FY9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_FY9)


You don't have any photo's....


Happy now? (http://www.zoneforums.com/munch/astronomy/news.html) 8-[

with regards

[Kore]

i hope they name it Xena!

what a cool name!

[mickal555]

One or two massive objects

And, the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-planet30jul30,0,6299586.story?coll=la-home-headlines) hints at a third previously unknown:


Brown had also been tracking 2003 EL61 and was surprised when the Spanish astronomers made their announcement Thursday.

He said he has also been tracking another [emphasis mine] object, about the same size and distance from the sun as 2003 EL61, but brighter still.

Yup, now apparently it's the second largest KBO (non-inclusive of Pluto) after U313 - 2005 FY9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_FY9)


You don't have any photo's....


Happy now? (http://www.zoneforums.com/munch/astronomy/news.html) 8-[

with regards

No...

[Champion_Munch]

No...

Ah well....:(

Just thought I'd add this bit in, something I was reading on Dr. Mike Brown's site:


There is no question that the Spanish group is rightly credited with discovery. Even if they had found the object only this year and announced its existence they would still be considered the rightful discovers. The field of astronomy, like most fields of science, works by the system of priority where the first group to publish a result receives the discovery credit. We could have announced the object earlier, but we took a chance that no one else would find it while we were awaiting our observations from the Spitzer Space Telescope. We were wrong! And we congratulate our colleagues on a very nice discovery.


Although I guess his group found the other 2 objects, so he won't be too worried about it. ;)

with regards

[Kullat Nunu]

Yup, now apparently it's the second largest KBO (non-inclusive of Pluto) after U313 - 2005 FY9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_FY9)

So it seems -- yesterday's MPC Daily Orbit Update listed its absolute magnitude (H) as -0.4, which would have meant that it is considerably larger (or at least brighter) than 2003 EL61. Today's Daily Orbit Update put it back to 0.1. It is still probably a bit larger than 2003 EL61, whose H = 0.3.

I really hope that they image the new objects with Hubble as soon as possible, because it should resolve all the disks.

[Eroica]

Could someone please explain the significance of the 313 at the end of 2003UB313's designation?

See this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_designation). There are quite a lot of asteroid discoveries per month -- letters would run out quickly. Therefore, when UZ has been reached, counting starts all over again from UB1, UC1, and so on. You can count how many asteroids were designated in the second half of October 2003 prior 2003 UB313.
Thanks for the link. By my calculations 3757 asteroids were designated in that 16-day period! That's a lot. :o

[01101001]

So, just how thick is this Kuiper Belt, if something at a 45-degree angle to the ecliptic is a member of it?

[azazul]

Well the Oort cloud is a sphere so maybe it is just a very close member of the Oort Cloud. For some reason I had pictured the Kuiper Belt to be a sphere, but when looking around, everything referred to it as a disk, so I was wrong.

[Squink]

Perhaps everyone else already knows this, but the Samuel Oschin Telescope (http://www.astro.caltech.edu/%7Epick/survey.html) used in discovering 2003 UB313 is the venerable 48" Palomar Schmidt instrument.

[The Supreme Canuck]

So, here we are again. Any chance that a concrete definition of a planet will be forthcoming?

[Kullat Nunu]

So, here we are again. Any chance that a concrete definition of a planet will be forthcoming?

I doubt that. I fear the IMHO worst-case-scenario where Pluto is designated as a planet but 2003 UB313 &co. not. 8 or 10+ planets sound better.

[Jpax2003]

Well the Oort cloud is a sphere so maybe it is just a very close member of the Oort Cloud. For some reason I had pictured the Kuiper Belt to be a sphere, but when looking around, everything referred to it as a disk, so I was wrong.

I always thought of it as a toroid with an ID near Neptune and an OD farther out but not quite as far as the Oort cloud.

[George]

I vote we reinstate the name Herschel chose for the planet he discovered and was renamed to Uranus. [Consider all the distasteful phrases we have endured with this mythological name. :-? ] It's time we honored his work and wishes. Let the taxonomists struggle with it's planetary status, but let's give it a name with distinction and character. Let's break the bands of mythology and mysticism. Back-off astrologers! Away you imaginary gods!

Since it would also give honor to the "King" of America, it is even more fitting, IMO. It timing must be fate. It couldn't hurt, right?

Of course, this is just a humble, modest and gentle recommendation.

8-[

[frogesque]

I don't know enough about orbits and relative positions but: Pioneer Anomaly anyone?

*covers his eyes and runs screaming in circles* AAAGH THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!!!

:)

I suppose it could be possible that as yet undetected TNOs are cumulatively having an effect, but its a bit of a stretch to assign it to this one, particularly since the Pioneers are nowhere near each other.

The goggles are best worn on the front of your head :lol:

It was just a tangential thought that a previously undiscovered 'something' out there could be the unexplained influence but yeah, as Van Rijn says, Not .... likely! Too many other solar system objects (eg. comets) would also have purturbations.

[Darasen]

OK forgive my ignorance. I thought Sedna was the 10th planet did it not pass the palnet test and get deported ?

[pumpkinpie]

So, here we are again. Any chance that a concrete definition of a planet will be forthcoming?

This came to me from an astronomy listserve. It's from the IAU, post-Sedna, so I don't know if the information has been updated since Friday. But according to this, Since UB313 is more than 40 A.U. out, it isn't officially recognized as a planet.

I haven't gotten caught up on the various stories, so I don't know what the current debate is regarding whether or not it is a planet. But I see that NASA is calling it one. But as far as I can tell, it hasn't made the IAU website yet, so I don't know if they have made an official statement. Personally I think it's premature to be calling it a planet, but I know there will be a lot of debate forthcoming, and will be satisfied with whatever the IAU decides, as long as it's concrete.



> From http://www.iau.org/IAU/FAQ/sedna.html
>
>---
>Definition of a Planet
>
>The IAU notes the very rapid pace of discovery of bodies within the
>Solar system over the last decade and so our understanding of the
>Trans-Neptunian Region is therefore still evolving very rapidly. This
>is in serious contrast to the situation when Pluto was discovered. As a
>consequence, The IAU has established a Working Group to consider the
>definition of a minimum size for a Planet. Until the report of this
>Working Group is received, ***all objects discovered at a distance from
>the Sun greater than 40 AU will continue to be regarded as part of the
Trans-Neptunian population***.
>---emphasis mine

[Eroica]

So, just how thick is this Kuiper Belt, if something at a 45-degree angle to the ecliptic is a member of it?
It's an SDO (Scattered Disk Object). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattered_disk_object)

[Evalain]

... But according to this, Since UB313 is more than 40 A.U. out, it isn't officially recognized as a planet.


(Bunch of stuff snipped)
From http://www.iau.org/IAU/FAQ/sedna.html
***all objects discovered at a distance from the Sun greater than 40 AU will continue to be regarded as part of the Trans-Neptunian population***.

Why 40AU? That seems really arbitrary. And if I read correctly, Pluto is *on average* 39.5au away. Does this mean that if it goes beyond 40au then we don't consider it a planet then?

Personally, I *really* don't see why people have such a fuss about adding new planets to the solar system. I'm curious. Was there an increase in people wanting to know about astronomy after the discovery of Pluto? It would seem to me that there might have been. Perhaps the addition of a tenth planet would do much to snag people's interest in outer space again.

Eva, she who.. isn't lurking as much now.. Hm..

[Eroica]

Gemini Samples Spectrum Of 2003 UB313: Pluto-Like Surface (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/outerplanets-05k.html)


The NIRI spectra shows strong signatures of methane ice, remarkably similar to the spectrum of Pluto, which is also dominated by methane ice in near-infrared observations....

The presence of methane ice is unusual in that it indicates a primitive surface that has not likely been heated significantly since the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago.

"If 2003 UB313 ever got close to the sun, all the methane ice would have boiled off immediately," Trujillo continued.

"To date, no one has seen methane on any other Kuiper Belt Object, only on Pluto and Neptune's moon Triton."

[pumpkinpie]

Why 40AU? That seems really arbitrary. And if I read correctly, Pluto is *on average* 39.5au away. Does this mean that if it goes beyond 40au then we don't consider it a planet then?


I thought about that, too. Maybe they meant "average distance" of greater than 40 A.U. In that case, Pluto's in, UB313 I assume (without doing the math) is out. These are the numbers I have: it was *discovered* at 97 A.U., and comes as close as 36 A.U. But I can't remember reading how far away it gets. So I'm not sure what its average distance is.

But if you take what they said literally, "all objects discovered at a distance from the Sun greater than 40 AU," then UB313 is definitely out, since it was discovered at 97. Hmmm.....how far out was Pluto when it was discovered?

[The Supreme Canuck]

So, here we are again. Any chance that a concrete definition of a planet will be forthcoming?

I doubt that. I fear the IMHO worst-case-scenario where Pluto is designated as a planet but 2003 UB313 &co. not. 8 or 10+ planets sound better.

My thoughts exactly. Why all the fuss? Maybe we'll have a better idea when the IAU "working group" wraps up (thanks for the info, pumpkinpie).

[hhEb09'1]

Personally, I *really* don't see why people have such a fuss about adding new planets to the solar system. I'm curious.Actually, the fuss was about subtracting planets--the push was to demote Pluto. And no new objects have been discovered that were greater in size than Pluto (until maybe this last one), so they would not have wanted to include them too. One of the arguments against planet status for Pluto was that there was bound to be a whole slew of objects out there bigger than Pluto in the Trans-Neptunian area, and of course we wouldn't want to name those planets, so why Pluto...


But if you take what they said literally, "all objects discovered at a distance from the Sun greater than 40 AU," then UB313 is definitely out, since it was discovered at 97. Hmmm.....how far out was Pluto when it was discovered?Pluto was discovered on its way in, it spent about twenty years closer to the Sun than Neptune, even.

[Champion_Munch]

Why 40AU? That seems really arbitrary. And if I read correctly, Pluto is *on average* 39.5au away. Does this mean that if it goes beyond 40au then we don't consider it a planet then?


I thought about that, too. Maybe they meant "average distance" of greater than 40 A.U. In that case, Pluto's in, UB313 I assume (without doing the math) is out. These are the numbers I have: it was *discovered* at 97 A.U., and comes as close as 36 A.U. But I can't remember reading how far away it gets. So I'm not sure what its average distance is.

They discovered the object at pretty much it's furtherest distance from the Sun (and us). 2003 UB313 has a perihelion of 97AU and an aphelion of 38AU. :)

Thanks for the link pumpkinpie. :)

with regards

[Eroica]

... But according to this, Since UB313 is more than 40 A.U. out, it isn't officially recognized as a planet.


(Bunch of stuff snipped)
From http://www.iau.org/IAU/FAQ/sedna.html
***all objects discovered at a distance from the Sun greater than 40 AU will continue to be regarded as part of the Trans-Neptunian population***.

Why 40AU? That seems really arbitrary. And if I read correctly, Pluto is *on average* 39.5au away. Does this mean that if it goes beyond 40au then we don't consider it a planet then?
And what happens if they discover a gas-giant bigger than Jupiter out there?

[Champion_Munch]

And what happens if they discover a gas-giant bigger than Jupiter out there?

That is my greatest concern with the IAU deciding on what should and shouldn't be a planet. If they choose to demote Pluto to a KBO, what happens if they discover an object just less than Mercury's size further out? Or just less than Mars'? Where are they going to draw the line?

I think it would be difficult for the majority of the public to accept Pluto as no longer being a planet....so for me it is "anything larger than Pluto can henceforth considered a planet..."

The problem is, how many larger-than-Pluto-sized objects are out there?

with regards

[Laguna]

And what happens if they discover a gas-giant bigger than Jupiter out there?

The problem is, how many larger-than-Pluto-sized objects are out there?

with regards

I can already see the news:

387th Planet found.... [-(

[Champion_Munch]

And what happens if they discover a gas-giant bigger than Jupiter out there?

The problem is, how many larger-than-Pluto-sized objects are out there?

with regards

I can already see the news:

387th Planet found.... [-(

I think the public would be sick of hearing about planets after that... :P

with regards

[Kullat Nunu]

Maybe we'll have a better idea when the IAU "working group" wraps up

Which may not take long...


But the IAU, which oversees the naming of stars and asteroids, has no criteria for defining planets. An IAU committee has been working on the issue for around a year and had planned to publish its results next summer. Brown's discovery has made the debate more urgent, says Iwan Williams [...] He says a definition should be ready by the end of the week.

(emphasis mine)

Nature webarticle (http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050801/full/050801-2.html)

See also Space.com article (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050802_planet_definition.html)


A synopsis of Stern's thinking:

A planet is a body that directly orbits a star, is large enough to be round because of self gravity, and is not so large that it triggers nuclear fusion in its interior.

"I think there's a consensus moving in this direction," Stern said.
[...]
Stern favors calling the smaller objects dwarf planets, for example. Other astronomers prefer the term minor planet. Another term bandied about is Kuiper Belt planets. Some don't like the idea of applying the planet label at all.

[Champion_Munch]

Another term bandied about is Kuiper Belt planets. Some don't like the idea of applying the planet label at all.

Ummm.....we've been using the name 'minor planet' for years...why have they all started winging now? :-?

with regards

[mickal555]

Dawarf planet sound ok....

But it's a bit of a mouthfull...

[Jorge]

Dawarf planet sound ok....

But it's a bit of a mouthfull...

or KBO Plantes :) jsut small planets in the KBO

the we can habe Inner Plantes, Mecrury to Mars, Outer Planet, Jupiter - neptune, KBO plantes, pluto and the rest

[Champion_Munch]

Dawarf planet sound ok....

But it's a bit of a mouthfull...

or KBO Plantes :) jsut small planets in the KBO

the we can habe Inner Plantes, Mecrury to Mars, Outer Planet, Jupiter - neptune, KBO plantes, pluto and the rest

That's an interesting way to put it. :)

But where do we draw the line between "KBO planets" and "the rest." :(

with regards

[Donnie B.]

I think Jorge was suggesting that Pluto and any new objects would be classified as KBO planets.

[The Supreme Canuck]

A planet is a body that directly orbits a star, is large enough to be round because of self gravity, and is not so large that it triggers nuclear fusion in its interior.

Hey, good enough for me. But then, how spherical does it have to be for it to be considered spherical? :-k

And what would this definition bring the planet count up to? Sedna and Quaoar would be in. What about Orcus? Ceres? Are they spherical?

[Ara Pacis]

A planet is a body that directly orbits a star, is large enough to be round because of self gravity, and is not so large that it triggers nuclear fusion in its interior.

Hey, good enough for me. But then, how spherical does it have to be for it to be considered spherical? :-k

And what would this definition bring the planet count up to? Sedna and Quaoar would be in. What about Orcus? Ceres? Are they spherical?

Yes. Many people consider Ceres to be the lower limit of a "gravisphere".

[The Supreme Canuck]

Yeah, I thought so. This is going to get messy. And crowded. Imagine the Solar System diagrams in 50 years!

[pumpkinpie]

But the IAU, which oversees the naming of stars and asteroids, has no criteria for defining planets. An IAU committee has been working on the issue for around a year and had planned to publish its results next summer. Brown's discovery has made the debate more urgent, says Iwan Williams [...] He says a definition should be ready by the end of the week.
(emphasis mine)

I had missed this at the top of this page until The Supreme Canuck pointed it out elsewhere, thanks to both for the information.

Makes me wonder though. If they were going to wait another year to publish, but they say they can be ready by the end of the week, why was the year-long discussion period (if they haven't come up with the definition yet) or wait (if they have) necessary?

(edited to fix quoting)

[frolician]

The spin in this newslike article on "NASA's tenth planet discovey" made me laugh (but really it's a little sad).

http://unspun.mithuro.com/content/view/331/47/


NASA announced today the discovery of the "tenth" planet of the Solar system, but critics dismissed it as nothing but a rock meant to turn media attention away from the failure of the latest Space Shuttle mission.

...

"NASA's real discovery is the debris falling out of Discovery," said an astronomer on the condition of anonymity.

...

[Jorge]

I think Jorge was suggesting that Pluto and any new objects would be classified as KBO planets.

yes
sinds the inner plantes are all rocky till we get at jupiter, then the outerplantes start... untell we had all gas giants... and then pluto and on whill be KBO planets.

I personaly think this a reasonable and it will alowe pluto to keep its planet status.

This cassification will cruble once we find a new hidden dark gas giant though.

Any more input on this?

[parallaxicality]

That's true, although knowing astrologers they'll probably claim that it's a revelation from the gods or something, I guess that's the advantage of a pseudo-science, you can make up the rules as you go along!


Actually, there is a branch of astrology that deals with new astronomical discoveries. I first learned of it when I found out that Chiron has become a major astrological.. what's the word? Sign? Tool? Dunno... Kinda threw me, since it was discovered in the 70s. There's a webpage about the astrological implications of Quaoar somewhere.

Here it is: www.karmastrology.com/NewPlanets.shtml

Hell! They've even got a page up for the mythic implications of Xena! It's all a bit embarrassing really. Wait til they find out it's not actually going to be called "Xena."

[Kullat Nunu]

Actually, there is a branch of astrology that deals with new astronomical discoveries. I first learned of it when I found out that Chiron has become a major astrological.. what's the word? Sign? Tool? Dunno... Kinda threw me, since it was discovered in the 70s. There's a webpage about the astrological implications of Quaoar somewhere.

True. One day I searched information about one of the largest KBOs, 2002 AW197, which had been just reported. Except for the standard MPC pages only Google hit was a Russian astrology site.

[Kullat Nunu]

Hubble has finally observed these objects.

From today's Hubble Daily Report (#3919):


ACS/HRC 10545

Icy planetoids of the outer solar system

Early HST studies of satellites of Kuiper belt object focussed on the
50-200 km objects that were the largest known at the time. In the past
3 years we have discovered a population of much more rare and much
larger {500-2000+ km} icy planetoids in the Kuiper belt. These objects
are the largest and brightest known in the Kuiper belt and, in the era
when we now know of more than 1000 Kuiper belt objects, these few
planetoids are likely to be the focus of much of the research on
physical properties of the outer solar system for years to come. We
are currently engaged in an intensive program involving Spitzer, Keck,
and other telescopes to study the physical and dynamical properties of
this new population. HST is uniquely capable of addressing one
parameter fundamental to completing the physical picture of these
planetoids: the existence and size of any satellites. The detection
and characterization of satellites to these large planetoids would
allow us to address unique issues critical to the formation and
evolution of the outer solar system, including the measurement of
densities, internal properties, sizes and shapes of these objects, the
study of binary formation as a function of primary size, and the
context of the Pluto-Charon binary. For these bright objects, a
satellite search takes less than a full orbit, allowing the
opportunity for a new project on UV spectroscopy of the planetoids to
piggyback at no added time cost. This poorly explored spectral range
has the potential to show unique signatures of trapped gasses,
cosmochemically important ices, and complex organic materials.

[Squink]

cosmochemically
=D>
Does that have a real definition, or does it just sound cool?

[tracer]

Ummm.....we've been using the name 'minor planet' for years...
And several of the objects classified as "minor planets" aren't even round due to self-gravity. (Asteroid Ida, anyone?)

[hewhocaves]

Yeah, I thought so. This is going to get messy. And crowded. Imagine the Solar System diagrams in 50 years!

The solar system IS messy and crowded. Why should we oversimplify it just to soothe our puny ape-minds?

John

(I'm not trying to be mean.. I just wanted an excuse to use the phrase "ape-minds." Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drag my knuckles over to the TV to watch Battlestar Galactica.) :D

[Champion_Munch]

Hubble has finally observed these objects.

From today's Hubble Daily Report (#3919):



Here's the link:

http://www.spacebanter.com/q-t_60272-DAILY-REPORT-3899.html

(Thanks for the info btw, Kullat Nunu :))

with regards

[hhEb09'1]

Ummm.....we've been using the name 'minor planet' for years...
And several of the objects classified as "minor planets" aren't even round due to self-gravity. (Asteroid Ida, anyone?)I'd hazard "almost all"--Vesta and Pallas are non-spherical, most of the others are less than half their size (in radius)

[John Dlugosz]

Actually, the fuss was about subtracting planets

They already subtracted Ceres. Now the layman never even heard of it. So should they put it back?



Ceres was assigned a planetary symbol, and remained listed as a planet in astronomy books for many years. However, Ceres turned out to be disappointingly small, showing no discernible disc, and so Sir William Herschel coined the term "asteroid" ("star-like") to describe it.

[hhEb09'1]

Actually, the fuss was about subtracting planets

They already subtracted Ceres. Now the layman never even heard of it. So should they put it back?They also subtracted the sun and moon :)

[Champion_Munch]

They already subtracted Ceres. Now the layman never even heard of it. So should they put it back?



Ceres was assigned a planetary symbol, and remained listed as a planet in astronomy books for many years. However, Ceres turned out to be disappointingly small, showing no discernible disc, and so Sir William Herschel coined the term "asteroid" ("star-like") to describe it.


Cool, I never knew William Herschel coined the word "asteroid." :P


They also subtracted the sun and moon

Good point....but that was more of a revolution.

with regards

[Trivial Pursuit]

cosmochemically
=D>
Does that have a real definition, or does it just sound cool?

It just sounds cool. :lol:

[Mr. Milton Banana]

Dawarf planet sound ok....

But it's a bit of a mouthfull...

Dwarf planets?

Maybe they're occupied by Hobbits??

:P :P :P :P

:wink:

[Kullat Nunu]

Dawarf planet sound ok....

But it's a bit of a mouthfull...

Dwarf planets?

Maybe they're occupied by Hobbits??

:P :P :P :P

:wink:

Of course not! Hobbits live on hobbit planets, which are even smaller.

[01101001]

More likely (and because it was not detected by Spitzer) its diameter is around 3000 km meaning that it is has as bright surface as Pluto.

Oops. Spitzer wasn't pointed the right way when it looked for UB313, so maybe it will be big enough for Spitzer to see when it tries the right direction in late August.

Sky and Telescope: 10th Planet Bigger than Thought? (http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1567_1.asp)

[Wolverine]

This week's Planetary Radio (http://planetary.org/audio/pr20050815.html) features a most informative interview with Mike Brown. Good stuff.

[Champion_Munch]

This week's Planetary Radio (http://planetary.org/audio/pr20050815.html) features a most informative interview with Mike Brown. Good stuff.

Nice, thanks for the link Wolverine. :)

with regards

[01101001]

Actually, there is a branch of astrology that deals with new astronomical discoveries.

Heh. Coast to Coast AM (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/), August 25:


Astrologers in India are said to be mulling over the significance of the newly discovered planet that lies beyond Pluto. Tonight's guest, Mark Lerner (http://www.marklernerastrology.com/home/ml1/page_150_8) has studied a "provisional ephemeris" for the new planet and notes that anyone born April 10-12 currently has this object conjuncting their Sun.

[iron4]

The technical paper...at last

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Embrown/papers/ps/xena.pdf