Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Astronomy & the Night Sky
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Astronomy & the Night Sky Astronomy news & discussions, Astrophotography, Telescopes, Star Charts, & more. Galaxies, Stars, Planets & Moons, discuss it all here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-26-2016, 02:51 PM   #1
RGClark
Mathematician
 
RGClark's Avatar
Default That ain't no asteroid, bud.

Pluto.
Imaged: Tuesday 14th July 2015.
Andrew R. Brown


https://www.facebook.com/Mercury.348...66?pnref=story


Bob Clark
RGClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-26-2016, 03:09 PM   #2
Lmoy
Donator
Default

Wouldn't this go in the New Horizons thread?
Very pretty image, either way.
Lmoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-26-2016, 09:00 PM   #3
RGClark
Mathematician
 
RGClark's Avatar
Default

I wanted to start a discussion of Pluto as a planet, hence the provocative title.

Bob Clark
RGClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2016, 09:35 PM   #4
Lmoy
Donator
Default

Ah, I see. It was kind of unclear. Honestly before New Horizons visited I never imagined Pluto could be as beautiful as it is. It makes me wonder what else we're missing out on in our own solar system because we don't have cameras looking at it.

Now I want to reread Icehenge with the new image of Pluto in mind.
Lmoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2016, 06:56 AM   #5
Michkov
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGClark View Post
 I wanted to start a discussion of Pluto as a planet, hence the provocative title.

Bob Clark
Will it change anything in the data if we call it a planet?
Michkov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2016, 10:29 AM   #6
PhantomCruiser
Wanderer
 
PhantomCruiser's Avatar

Default

Hasn't it been "officially" classed as a Dwarf Planet?
May wind up changed anyway http://theconversation.com/nasa-miss...t-status-36081
PhantomCruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-27-2016, 08:23 PM   #7
RGClark
Mathematician
 
RGClark's Avatar
Default

Thanks for that. Hadn't seen that article before.

Bob Clark
RGClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2016, 01:39 PM   #8
Lmoy
Donator
Default

The article implies that Pluto and Ceres should be considered planets, but doesn't seem to actually present any points in favour of calling Pluto and Ceres planets other than "I don't like the current definition". The argument that if the Earth were in the place of Pluto it wouldn't clear its neighbourhood is presented again, but only supported by "some astronomers would argue", and to my knowledge it would actually quite quickly disassemble the orbital structure of its neighbourhood, booting out or absorbing everything that doesn't end up stuck in a resonance or trojan orbit, and leave itself all alone again.

I dislike the argument on whether or not Pluto should be a planet. It's not, it doesn't affect planetary dynamics like planets do (the argument that location shouldn't matter is silly, if Ganymede wasn't gravitationally bound to Jupiter it would likely be considered a planet, but no one is arguing against calling it a moon), but it really shouldn't matter what we call it. It's still a remarkable celestial body just as worthy of study of any planet or moon, and continuing to dredge up this argument a decade later is just restricting conversations about Pluto to a single tired track.
Lmoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 02-29-2016, 05:33 PM   #9
Spacethingy
Multitasker
 
Spacethingy's Avatar
Default

If you zoom in on the horizon, is that a whisp of an atmosphere, or just a compression artifact?

Absolutely wonderful photo though...
Spacethingy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2016, 06:28 PM   #10
Lmoy
Donator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacethingy View Post
 If you zoom in on the horizon, is that a whisp of an atmosphere, or just a compression artifact?

Absolutely wonderful photo though...
It looks like colour bleed from the bright surface onto the dark sky. I don't think this image has a high enough exposure to actually pick up on the atmosphere. Most of the atmospheric images are long-exposure shots of the night-side. I could be wrong though.
Lmoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 10:01 AM   #11
garyw
O-F Administrator
 
garyw's Avatar


Default

Planet/Dwarf Planet/Big rock..... whatever it's called won't change the fact that it's a fascinating world. I look forward to seeing images of other fascinating worlds out past Pluto, Sedna especially.
garyw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 02:01 PM   #12
orb
O-F Administrator
Ninja
 
orb's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomCruiser View Post
Quote:
Here a planet, there not a planet. I’d argue that location shouldn’t matter; instead, the intrinsic properties of the objects themselves should matter more.
By this logic (location doesn't matter) I propose changing status of Luna and other spherical moons to planets, too.
orb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 02:27 PM   #13
birdmanmike
Orbinaut
 
birdmanmike's Avatar
Default

Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, maybe larger than Mercury, but surely at least one agreed definition (possibly only one) is that moons orbit planets, planets orbit a sun. No doubt some moon (or asteroid?) orbits another moon though.
Meanwhile the 3rd rock out is a moon of the sun . . . ?
birdmanmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 02:45 PM   #14
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by birdmanmike View Post
 Meanwhile the 3rd rock out is a moon natural satellite of the sun . . . ?

FIFY
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 03:07 PM   #15
TMac3000
Evil Republican
 
TMac3000's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyw View Post
 Planet/Dwarf Planet/Big rock..... whatever it's called won't change the fact that it's a fascinating world. I look forward to seeing images of other fascinating worlds out past Pluto, Sedna especially.
This is why I much prefer the study of Mercury: it's equally fascinating, much quicker to reach, and unless it somehow ends up orbiting Venus, we don't have to deal with all the semantic squabbles

But...wouldn't a simple minimum mass requirement have solved the whole Pluto issue without the need to demote her? Or are there KBOs more massive than Pluto?
TMac3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Astronomy & the Night Sky


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:32 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.