Posting Much Later -- And More on Pluto

I'm running about like a madman today with the errands and the tasks and the foiling of supervillains and what have you, so I'm dropping in this note to let you know that, uh, I'll mostly be updating rather later in the day today, probably late afternoon. I hope you'll find ways to amuse yourself until then.

In the meantime, I leave you with the latest about Pluto and the solar system: It might be getting bigger:

Our solar system would have 12 planets instead of nine under a proposed "Big Bang" expansion by leading astronomers, changing what billions of schoolchildren are taught about their corner of the cosmos.

Much-maligned Pluto would remain a planet -- and its largest moon plus two other heavenly bodies would join Earth's neighborhood -- under a draft resolution to be formally presented Wednesday to the International Astronomical Union, the arbiter of what is and is not a planet.

"Yes, Virginia, Pluto is a planet," quipped Richard Binzel, a professor of planetary science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Athena will be pleased. Go Pluto!

Are you ready to live in a solar system with a dozen planets? Let me know your thoughts.

Written by johnmscalzi Blog about this entry

This entry has 6 comments: (Add your own)

#6 Comment from plittle
8/18/06 4:38 PM | Permalink

That is a proposed planet beside Pluto. It is currently known as Pluto's moon, Charon. Under the new definition, it would become Pluto's "planetary companion." Geez, we're even using euphemisms in Science, now.
-Paul
#5 Comment from monponsett
8/17/06 12:45 AM | Permalink

If that ends up being a planet next to it, Walt DIsney should give NASA whatever $$$ they ask for to name it "Daffy."
#4 Comment from plittle
8/16/06 4:58 PM | Permalink

Karen,
It's not the "tiny" objects I'm worried about. Astronomers estimate that there could be several million Kuiper belt objects, and probable several tens of thousands as big as, or bigger than Pluto.
-Paul
#3 Comment from mavarin
8/16/06 4:36 PM | Permalink

I was listening to a story on this on the way in this morning. The new definition sounds like it's going to be "planets are round." I personally think it should be, "Planets are round, orbit a star rather than another planet, and are larger than Rhode Island." Well, okay, I'm kidding on the Rhode Island part, but a minimum radius of 900K to 1000K would let in the planet Xena (go, Xena!) but keep out the tiny Kuiper Belt Objects Paul is rightly concerned about.

Karen
#2 Comment from plittle
8/16/06 3:22 PM | Permalink

I have no problem with a dozen planets, but as your 'friend' Scott Westerfield pointed out, the number of TPOs or KBOs - or whatever you want to call them - that fall under the proposed new definition, could be in the thousands. In fact, Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer ( http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog ) postulates that number could even be several orders of magnitude higher. We're gonna run out of Roman Gods.
In fact, if we use up every name for a God ever used in human history or literature, we'll still come up short, probably before the end of this century. Do we really want our elementary school text books to have a twenty page section that is nothing more than a list of 'official' planets?
Of course, you guys down in "The States" won't have to worry about that. The way things are going down there, Athena will one day be telling her grandchildren, "when I was your age, I had to walk fifty miles to school...uphill...both ways...in a blizzard...even in summer...and they made us study science, too."
"Science? What's that, Grandma?"
The only up side I can see is the fact that there will eventually be a series of planets named, "Hendrix," "Page," "Vaughan," and "Clapton." You know, the Guitar Gods.
-Paul
http://journals.aol.ca/plittle/AuroraWalkingVacation/

Show all comments (1 more)

By The Way... Public Journal
Back to Journal	Archives \| Alerts x Entry Alerts Comment Alerts \| Feeds

By The Way...

Posting Much Later -- And More on Pluto