Who's in favor of Planet Pluto...

[beenherebeforeagain]

...as opposed to keep calling it a dwarf planet...

Pluto should be reclassified as a planet, scientists argue

Thoughts?

Personally, I'm opposed to the IAU's redefinition of planet, but I'm not entirely convinced that the definition offered in this article is adequate, either...

 

[Twilight Hue]

...as opposed to keep calling it a dwarf planet...

Pluto should be reclassified as a planet, scientists argue

Thoughts?

Personally, I'm opposed to the IAU's redefinition of planet, but I'm not entirely convinced that the definition offered in this article is adequate, either...

I thought it was. A dwarf planet.

 

[sun rise]

It's a real planet

 

[The Hammer]

I'm a real boy.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I thought it was. A dwarf planet.

Well, the scientists quoted in the article want to drop the 'dwarf' designation for a large number of objects, especially Pluto. They apparently think that the dwarf category is not a useful distinction for studying objects that orbit the sun or the larger planets.

edit: or orbit other stars

 

[Valjean]

It is what it is, whatever you call it.
If an 'official' definition of something is changed, some things might no longer 'officially'
qualify, and others may find themselves included. As long as everyone agrees on terms and understands the thing being discussed, there's no barrier to effective communication.

 

[Viker]

Only issue is that if it's reclassified as a regular planet, there are other dwarf planets in the solar system. Maybe they should be considered as well.

Overview | Planets – NASA Solar System Exploration.

 

[icehorse]

...as opposed to keep calling it a dwarf planet...

Pluto should be reclassified as a planet, scientists argue

Thoughts?

Personally, I'm opposed to the IAU's redefinition of planet, but I'm not entirely convinced that the definition offered in this article is adequate, either...

Maybe I missed it, but the article didn't seem to discuss the pros and cons of the different definitions, I'd like to understand those.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...as opposed to keep calling it a dwarf planet...

Pluto should be reclassified as a planet, scientists argue

Thoughts?

Personally, I'm opposed to the IAU's redefinition of planet, but I'm not entirely convinced that the definition offered in this article is adequate, either...

The trick is to classify what kind of planet. Just say "Pluto is a weird planet, not like other planets and here is why." Our moon is a type of planet, is it not? It orbits a larger object in planetary fashion. You could build a house on it. Its so big that if asteroids hit it, it just sits there and takes the pain. Its not going to bounce off of an asteroid.

I think Saturn's moons and Jupiter's moons should be called planets, too, so why not Pluto? Lets call everything big enough to block asteroids a planet, everything with enough gravity to be of concern. I think Vesta should count as a planet. Its out there, has an orbit, and it would take a long time to dig through to the other side of it. That means planet to me. Planet. Planet. Planet.

If you fail to planet you planet to fail.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Maybe I missed it, but the article didn't seem to discuss the pros and cons of the different definitions, I'd like to understand those.

I agree, but based on the article and what I've heard before, it's technical stuff that I'm not sure I quite understand...clearing an orbit, for example...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Only issue is that if it's reclassified as a regular planet, there are other dwarf planets in the solar system. Maybe they should be considered as well.

Overview | Planets – NASA Solar System Exploration.

the article says that there might be about 150 such bodies in the solar system...

 

[We Never Know]

I agree, but based on the article and what I've heard before, it's technical stuff that I'm not sure I quite understand...clearing an orbit, for example...

"So, the three criteria of the IAU for a full-sized planet are:

1. It is in orbit around the Sun.
2. It has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape).
3. It has “cleared the neighborhood” around its orbit.

Pluto meets only two of these criteria, losing out on the third. In all the billions of years it has lived there, it has not managed to clear its neighborhood.

You may wonder what that means, “not clearing its neighboring region of other objects?” Sounds like a minesweeper in space! This means that the planet has become gravitationally dominant — there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its own satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence, in its vicinity in space."

Why is Pluto no longer a planet?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The trick is to classify what kind of planet. Just say "Pluto is a weird planet, not like other planets and here is why." Our moon is a type of planet, is it not? It orbits a larger object in planetary fashion. You could build a house on it. Its so big that if asteroids hit it, it just sits there and takes the pain. Its not going to bounce off of an asteroid.

I think Saturn's moons and Jupiter's moons should be called planets, too, so why not Pluto? Lets call everything big enough to block asteroids a planet, everything with enough gravity to be of concern. I think Vesta should count as a planet. Its out there, has an orbit, and it would take a long time to dig through to the other side of it. That means planet to me. Planet. Planet. Planet.

If you fail to planet you planet to fail.

as it is, at least in the astronomy magazine and science news I find on the web, there are rocky planets, and gas giant planets, and ice planets, and water planets...that seems like a much more useful distinction than basing it on whether it's orbit has been cleared...although that may need to be part of a criterion...part of the argument for dwarf planet is because Pluto hasn't cleared it's orbit of Neptune; but if that's true, then Neptune hasn't cleared it's orbit of Pluto...

 

[Brickjectivity]

as it is, at least in the astronomy magazine and science news I find on the web, there are rocky planets, and gas giant planets, and ice planets, and water planets...that seems like a much more useful distinction than basing it on whether it's orbit has been cleared...although that may need to be part of a criterion...part of the argument for dwarf planet is because Pluto hasn't cleared it's orbit of Neptune; but if that's true, then Neptune hasn't cleared it's orbit of Pluto...

Daydreaming here:

What specific impulse would be required to clear the orbit pushing Pluto away from Neptune, and if we converted that specific impulse to an equivalent in rocket fuel what mass fraction would we get?

What I mean is if we installed a giant rocket in the side of Pluto and pushed it away from Neptune enough to clear the orbit, how much fuel would be spent and what would be the fraction of the mass of fuel to the mass of Pluto? I'm assuming the way to do it would be to speed Pluto up such that it moved further from the Sun, giving it a permanently larger orbit.

We'd need to know the average radius of the orbit, the amount that orbit would have to change and from that calculate the necessary higher velocity around the Sun. Then from that higher velocity to expand the orbit enough we'd find our answer: the specific impulse needed to push the planet clear. Then we'd convert that to an equivalent in rocket fuel mass and find our fraction.

I think it would require less than 1% of the mass of Pluto, but I am guessing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reminds me of the song from The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

The river was deep but I swam it, Janet
Demoted from being a planet, Janet
So please don't allow them to can it, Janet
I've one thing to say and that's
Dammit, Janet, I love you

The orbit was long, Pluto ran it, Janet
With 5 little moons, they can cram it, Janet
If there's one fool for it then I am it, Janet
No mere Kuiper belt object, it's a
planet, Janet, I love you

Spoiler: For the unfamiliar

 

[Rival]

Planet Pluto.

 

[Augustus]

Maybe I missed it, but the article didn't seem to discuss the pros and cons of the different definitions, I'd like to understand those.

Planet Pluto

Pros: It was a planet when I was little and so I want it to be a planet now
Cons: None

 

[exchemist]

...as opposed to keep calling it a dwarf planet...

Pluto should be reclassified as a planet, scientists argue

Thoughts?

Personally, I'm opposed to the IAU's redefinition of planet, but I'm not entirely convinced that the definition offered in this article is adequate, either...

I can't say this exercises me greatly. In fact, not at all. Scientific nomenclature does tend to change with time.

 

[icehorse]

Daydreaming here:

What specific impulse would be required to clear the orbit pushing Pluto away from Neptune, and if we converted that specific impulse to an equivalent in rocket fuel what mass fraction would we get?

What I mean is if we installed a giant rocket in the side of Pluto and pushed it away from Neptune enough to clear the orbit, how much fuel would be spent and what would be the fraction of the mass of fuel to the mass of Pluto? I'm assuming the way to do it would be to speed Pluto up such that it moved further from the Sun, giving it a permanently larger orbit.

We'd need to know the average radius of the orbit, the amount that orbit would have to change and from that calculate the necessary higher velocity around the Sun. Then from that higher velocity to expand the orbit enough we'd find our answer: the specific impulse needed to push the planet clear. Then we'd convert that to an equivalent in rocket fuel mass and find our fraction.

I think it would require less than 1% of the mass of Pluto, but I am guessing.

I sometimes worry that the solar system is very fragile in terms of the various orbits and gravitational forces in play. To some degree, the sun and all the planets interact with each other gravitationally. So I wonder if such a project could create a (albeit very slow to develop), sort of domino effect that would ultimately perturb the earth's orbit - which seems like a very bad idea for us humans.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I sometimes worry that the solar system is very fragile in terms of the various orbits and gravitational forces in play. To some degree, the sun and all the planets interact with each other gravitationally. So I wonder if such a project could create a (albeit very slow to develop), sort of domino effect that would ultimately perturb the earth's orbit - which seems like a very bad idea for us humans.

A worst case scenario would be to move our own moon. Moving the moon would be immediately disastrous, however we have the tools to calculate how much it would affect our planet. We could predict the changes in the tides and even changes in the weather.

Moving Pluto could only affect us if there were a domino effect. Assume that gravity is the only connector that affects the dominoes, that no collisions occur. If gravity following the laws as we understand them is the only actor, the only connector; then we are safe.

I think. Maybe there is some other connection we are unaware of or a tickspring or gear we haven't accounted for. Its possible.