BREAKING NEWS - IAU Vote

www.brunching.com/morepluto.html


Another Brief Conversation with the Planet Pluto
by David Neilsen

A couple of years ago, we caught up with the planet Pluto for a quick word on the occasion of its passing Neptune to once again become the farthest planet from the sun in the solar system. As Pluto is once again in the news, we are able to reach the celestial body for another chat.

Brunching Shuttlecocks: Hello there, Pluto, nice to see you again.

Pluto: Yeah yeah, hurry up. Time is money.

BS: Well, we're all abuzz here on earth with the discovery of 2001 KX76, do you have any thoughts on this historic occasion?

P: What discovery? You act like it hasn't been sitting here all along. I mean if you guys ever bothered to aim your damn telescopes out my way, you'd discover all kinds of floating junk out here. I've known 2001 KX76 for decades. Cocky bastard, never sends a Christmas card. What's the big deal?

BS: Well the big deal is that 2001 KX76 is being heralded as the largest minor planet in the solar system.

P: Really? From the way you guys treat me, I could have sworn I was a minor planet.

BS: No, no. You're a full-fledged planet. For now. But 2001 KX76 is the largest of the so-called 'Kuiper Belt Objects', which orbit the sun out past your neighborhood.

P: Yeah, there are a bunch of KBOs out there. Not the nicest things in space, let me tell you. Just as soon crash in to you as give you the time of day.

BS: There are some on Earth who think you ought to be classified as a Kuiper Belt Object.

P: Me, a damn KBO? Blow me! Your Mom's a KBO!

BS: Well, you would go from being the smallest planet to the largest KBO. Any joy in the big fish / small pond theory?

P: I'm a planet. Read me lips. Pla-net. You got a problem with that?

BS: I was just making a point.

P: I've got a point to make. Bite me.

BS: So you're content being known as the smallest planet in the solar system?

P: As a planet, I get my props. When was the last time a bunch of 3rd graders stood in a line and recited the names of the 10,000+ KBOs?

BS: So this is about ego, not scientific truth.

P: Who has time for truth? I'm a solid ball of frozen rock that circles the sun every 248 friggin' years. Lot of good it does me. Don't get much use for sun tan lotion out my way, know what I mean?

BS: OK, let's get back to the KBOs.

P: Oh! Sure! By all means! Much more interesting than a real, damn planet, huh? You're probably already planning on sending a probe out there. Meanwhile, my crystalline gardens and abundance of silicon-based ice creatures twiddle their thumbs, waiting for you to pay attention to us.

BS: You have life?

P: Sure. Life. Plants. Strip malls. Whatever. Like you care. Prove me wrong.

BS: Yes, well. Anyway. KBOs are thought to be pristine relics of the formation of the solar system. Any thoughts?

P: They're about as pristine as your uncle's left tit after a good hog slaughtering. Know what they do with all their spare time? Plot against you. They hate Earth, they're planning on taking you down.

BS: They're just rocks.

P: Fine. Don't say I didn't warn you.

BS: Pluto, we have time for one more question before we go. Now that 2001 KX76 has made history, astronomers will likely give it a name similar to other named objects in the Kuiper Belt. The tendency has been to assign mythological names associated with creation, such as Varuna, a large object named for the Vedic god of oceans and water. Any suggestions?

P: Phallus.

Class

The decision makes sense.
At the time Pluto was discovered, it was initially thought that it was the ninth planet. Calculations at the time indicated that there was a large planet beyond Uranus and Neptune. From this, a hunt started to find the next planet. If was from this search that Pluto was found and immediately hailed as a planet.

However, as time progressed, results indicated that it was not anywhere near as large as they expected. In fact, it's mass is only 0.002 times that of Earth. It turned out that the previously developed calculations were apparently incorrect.

However, when an earlier attempt was made to demote Pluto from it's planetary status, it was rejected - which some people claim was done by the Americans.

As for the current definition, it has it's problems.
Firstly, it applies only to our solar system and no other.
Secondly, how does one accurately measure hydrostatic equilibriumm for a very faint distant object in the outer fringes of the solar system? How "round" is "nearly round". The fainter an object is, the more difficult it is to get accurate measurement of it's physical properties.

This definition however does at least define something and will influence the search patterns and technologies used for planet/solar system object hunting. From this point of view, it is certainly welcome.

Regards,

Secondly, how does one accurately measure hydrostatic equilibriumm for a very faint distant object in the outer fringes of the solar system? How "round" is "nearly round". The fainter an object is, the more difficult it is to get accurate measurement of it's physical properties.

Thats not too big a problem. The definition doesn't hinge on it being round it hinges on hydrostatic equilibrium. Once a planet has enough mass it will natuarelly fall into a spherical shape. What we therefore need to know is just how big it is. There is still plenty of room for error in measuring that but from observations of its orbit, brightness and possible effects on other bodies this can be estimated without needing to actually 'see' its round disk. The flippant answer is that anything that we see beyond pluto will have to be pretty big for us to spot it and therefore will probably be reasonably massive and round anyway!

This definition however does at least define something and will influence the search patterns and technologies used for planet/solar system object hunting. From this point of view, it is certainly welcome.

How is it going to influence search patterns?

Cheers,
~Al

I'm confused. Are we still allowed to use the words asteroid, KBO and comets or what? Or are they all just lumped in together now under SSSBs?

And is Ceres still an asteroid as well as a dwarf planet? As in is there still an asteroid numbered 1? Or does it now start at 2 Pallas?

This definition has raised more questions than it has answered in my opinion.

The flippant answer is that anything that we see beyond pluto will have to be pretty big for us to spot it and therefore will probably be reasonably massive and round anyway!

Cheers,
~Al

Thats an assumption Al, When it comes down to it, the definition is too loose and causes other problems.
For one, Ceres is an asteroid, aka minor planet as every asteroid is, we dont need dwarf planets, the KBOs are also asteroids, the fact that some guy called Kuiper came up with the idea (he wasnt the first as it happens) that the area beyond pluto is populated with "asteroids" doesnt change the fact that they are asteroids.

When you think about it, what are objects ?? . For consistancy, a better definition would have been Kuiper Belt Asteroids (KBA) and Kuiper Belt Comets (KBO) and so on...

Sentimentality has no place in scientific definitions, if you want to be sentimental, go do astrology.