benjaburns Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Astronomers claim discovery of solar system's 10th planet Saturday, July 30, 2005; Posted: 6:39 a.m. EDT (10:39 GMT) PASADENA, California (CNN) -- A group of astronomers announced Friday that an object they discovered in the distant reaches of the solar system is large enough to be classified as the 10th planet -- a claim likely to reignite a debate over just how many objects should really have the title of planet. The object -- located 96 times as far from the Earth as the Earth is from the sun, or nearly 9 billion miles away -- was first photographed in October 2003 by astronomers at the California Institute of Technology's Palomar Observatory, north of San Diego. While researchers say they aren't yet sure of its actual size, they have determined the object is bigger than Pluto, currently the smallest planet and the one most distant from the sun. "If Pluto is a planet, it seems reasonable that something that's bigger than Pluto, and further away than Pluto, should be called a planet, too," said Mike Brown, a Cal Tech planetary scientist who made the discovery with colleagues Chad Trujillo of the Gemini Observatory and David Rabinowitz of Yale University. However, a number of astronomers dispute whether Pluto, discovered in 1930, should really be classified as a planet, because it is so dissimilar from the other eight. Instead, they believe it should be classified only as a Kuiper Belt object, part of an array of icy debris in the outer reaches of the solar system. Thousands of Kuiper objects have been discovered, and more are being found all the time. Brown concedes that both Pluto and his new planet are Kuiper objects -- but he argues they are also both big enough to be classified as planets. The International Astronomical Union, the official arbiter of such disputes, has classified Pluto as a planet and recently declined to demote it. Brown said resolving the argument over whether the object his team found is a planet will take years. Brown's team has submitted a name for its proposed planet to the IAU, which won't be announced until the astronomy group hands down its ruling. While the object was first photographed in 2003, its motion was not detected until January because it was so far away. Since then, astronomers have been studying the object to estimate its size and motion. Brown said the planet-sized object probably wasn't discovered earlier because it was in a location where planets aren't expected. "All of the planets are in a disc around the sun, and this object is 45 degrees out of that disc," he said. --CNN Producers Sara Weisfeldt and Kate Tobin contributed to this report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Every so often a claim comes out of the astronomy community about a 10th planet being discovered. But every other time the object in question is smaller than pluto. It's interesting that this time the object is larger than pluto, which IS [considered] a planet. It will be interesting to see what the International Astronomical Union rules on whether or not to call it a planet in the next couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Broke Free Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 My vote is for eight planets. If they ever find a planet as large or larger than Mercury orbiting in the same plane as the first eight planets, then I might reconsider. My $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I saw this and blogged about it. I think they might reconsider Pluto's status as a planet now. Besides, whatever happened to Charon? Or did they eventually vote that one down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I think they might reconsider Pluto's status as a planet now. Besides, whatever happened to Charon? Or did they eventually vote that one down? Pluto's reconsideration as a planet went up for debate to the IAU in 1999, and they voted not to demote it's status. So it is still officially considered a planet, but mostly for historical reasons. And as for Charon, are you referring to Pluto's moon Charon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 And as for Charon, are you referring to Pluto's moon Charon? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Niburu! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendybabe Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 It is obvious that Pluto got planet status before they really new what it was, I hope this settlesw the issue! btw I am a member of Orange County Astronomers, any other members out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinfmct87 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I'm for 9 planets myself. Pluto is an oddball, but we shouldn't discount it simply becouse it is strange. IMO, it has a valid claim for being a full planet. I'm curious to see what this '10th planet' turns out to be. Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Here's a proposed definition from the IAU Working Group specifically set up to develop the definition of "planet": 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. If adopted, the wording would bring our solar system's tally of known planets to about two dozen. Here's a link to the rest of an article in space.com that addresses this question. The article argues that "planet" is more of a cultural (pop) term rather than a scientific one - I thought it was a good summary of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 They should call it Mondas. (The Cybermen live there.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Yes, we are related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofspong Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 In my opinion, Pluto shouldn't even be called a planet. They should just call it a extra large moon. (then again, there are probably moons around jupiter larger than pluto) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 In my opinion, Pluto shouldn't even be called a planet. They should just call it a extra large moon. (then again, there are probably moons around jupiter larger than pluto) As a matter of fact, there are moons around jupiter that are larger than pluto: Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, and Io. Also Earth's Moon is larger than pluto, and Triton (one of Neptune's moons). And Titan, Saturn's moon that the ESA just landed their Huygens probe on earlier this year. But Pluto has a moon of it's own: Charon. Since it has a moon, maybe it's not so bad to consider it a planet, even if it's a really small one. Just my $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 But Pluto has a moon of it's own: Charon. Since it has a moon, maybe it's not so bad to consider it a planet, even if it's a really small one. Just my $0.02 And they thought Charon was the 10th planet at first, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Helmet Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 But Pluto has a moon of it's own: Charon. Since it has a moon, maybe it's not so bad to consider it a planet, even if it's a really small one. Just my $0.02 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some asteroids have been found orbiting bigger asteroids. Yet we do not consider them planets, having a moon is probably not a good criteria to define a planet... mercury and venus don't have moons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Some asteroids have been found orbiting bigger asteroids. Yet we do not consider them planets, having a moon is probably not a good criteria to define a planet... mercury and venus don't have moons. Well, that a planet (or any solar satellite) doesn't have a moon wouldn't mean it couldn't be a planet. Just that it does have a moon might speak for some kind of planetary status. But then I'm not a professional astronomer and wouldn't necessarily know all the ins and outs of these things anyway. Anyway, that's interesting about the asteroids; I didn't know there we asteroids orbiting asteroids. Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokudo Ningyou Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 It's Nemesis. Takeuchi-san figured it out years ago.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Helmet Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 But then I'm not a professional astronomer and wouldn't necessarily know all the ins and outs of these things anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm just an amateur, very curious about astronomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Close-up of the new planet. Who'da thunk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Close-up of the new planet. Who'da thunk it? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 I'd like to name the planet Rigel Alpha. Just loved the name. Or Planet Prosperine. You remember? The Ceres was mother of her and she got kidnapped by Pluto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinfmct87 Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Close-up of the new planet. Who'da thunk it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ROFL! What the hell is THAT?! Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 How about Vulcan? We don't have any planets named after him yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 ROFL! What the hell is THAT?! Merlin It's Cybertron! The planet of the Transformers from the classic series back in the 80s. It was the funniest fictional planet I could think of. And the most immediately recognizable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts