Slashdot Mirror
Planet X Larger Than Pluto?
nova_planitia writes "The Minor Planet mailing list is buzzing with the discovery by an amateur astronomer of a 17th magnitude object 51 astronomical units from the Sun, tentatively designated 2003 EL61. For those not versed in astronomical lingo, this is an object several times brighter than Pluto even though it is 25% farther out from the Sun (the orbit vizualised by JPL). This means that barring a strangely reflective surface, this object is larger than Pluto, possibly Mars-sized! The debate whether Pluto is a planet is likely to get rekindled by this discovery."
The link to the BBC story in the summary is broken.
A functioning link can be found here.
So....the race is on to give this mysterious new planet a proper name! (Planet X is soooo Gen X...)
Please post your ideas below.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
This rock I have in my backyard is a mountain.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
From my inexplicably rejected story submitted hours ago:
The New Scientist reports:
On Thursday a new planet-sized object was found orbiting the Sun at a distance of between 35-51 AU (at different points in its orbit) and an inclination of 28 degrees to the plane of the inner planets. By comparison Pluto orbits at an average distance of 39 AU and an inclination if 17 degrees. (1 Astronomical Unit = the distance between the earth and the sun) If the object has a reflectivity similar to that of other Kuiper-belt bodies, it is approximately twice the size of Pluto. Jose-Luis Ortiz and his colleagues at Spain's Sierra Nevada Observatory discovered the object while reviewing data from 2003. The International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center (MPC) in Cambridge, Massachusetts verified the obsevations and designated the object 2003 EL61.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
In order to avoid confusion as to whether Pluto is a planet, call the new planet Pluto and rename old Pluto something else, like Herbert The Cow. Or Mr Gazpacho. Or Hellish Creamcheese.
It's Friday afternoon, and 5pm looks a LOOOONG way away. Can you tell?
"Pluto doesn't really exist, and we haven't landed on the moon."
Thats what they want you to think. We really have a super secret base on the moon. And Pluto is really our version of the Deathstar perched on the edge of the solar system in case any of the aliens on Mars get too far out of control.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
I, for one, welcome our new 2003-EL61ian overlords.
Sorry...I've never gotten to do one of those before.
OK, since most of the planets were named after Roman gods, here's a name for it:
Bacchus - the party planet! Party all night - and it's ALWAYS night!
www.eFax.com are spammers
it is.
Best Slashdot Co
Costello: "We could call it planet Y."
Abbot: "Y?"
Costello: "Because"
Abbot: "Because why?"
Costello: "I don't know"
Abbot: "Third Base!"
Actually, TFA mentions that astronomers discovered Sedna in 2004, and since this is 2005, this is a separate discovery.
from TFA: "The same team that found Sedna have designated it [the new discovery] K40506A after it was picked up by the Gemini telescope and one of the twin Keck telescopes in Hawaii."
The TFA mentions two teams of scientists who found the object independently of each other. It doesn't say anything about discovery by an amateur astronomer.
How about Vista? That has such a nice ring to it :-)
Pluto: Old and busted.
Planet X: The new hotness!
It came in about seven o'clock last night...
Hello MPML,
Jose Luis Ortiz of Sierra Nevada Observatory asked me to forward his message. Actually he sent it to MPML today but it looks as if he is moderated and so his message is delayed. As this is pretty urgent, to give anyone interested the chance to do science on it, I hope my message gets relayed faster!
----------
Hi there,
We found a very slowly moving object while carrying out a checking of some of our oldest images from the modest TNO survey that we started in 2002.
http://www.iaa.es/~ortiz/OSNTWeb/index.htm
The object was very bright in our images (m_V~17.6!!) so we were able to precover it, and also recover it.
According to our best orbit fit and using regular assumptions on phase angle correction, the H value es around 0.3. Unfortunately we do not know the geometric albedo but if below 0.25 (which is the case of all TNOs for which an albedo has been measured except Pluto), the object would be larger than Pluto. However, it may well happen that this object is abnormally bright (with a very high albedo), like Pluto. So, depending on the albedo, this object might be sort of a Pluto's brother or Pluto's father...
This object is beyond Pluto and almost reachable by most amateurs, which is the reason why we write here!. It is observable right after sunset for a while at a reasonable elevation. Maybe some decent science can still come out of your observations.
Enjoy it!.
Our findings have been sent to the MPC, but the object has not received a provisional designation yet. Some ephemeris are given here:
Ephems (geocentric) [Date, RA, Dec, r, delta, elongation, mag]:
20050728.00000 13 21 50.208 +20 7 53.62 51.605 51.239 68.32 17.47
20050729.00000 13 21 51.856 +20 7 14.56 51.619 51.239 67.49 17.47
20050730.00000 13 21 53.576 +20 6 35.29 51.632 51.239 66.66 17.47
20050731.00000 13 21 55.369 +20 5 55.81 51.646 51.238 65.84 17.47
20050801.00000 13 21 57.233 +20 5 16.13 51.659 51.238 65.01 17.47
20050802.00000 13 21 59.169 +20 4 36.26 51.672 51.238 64.19 17.47
20050803.00000 13 22 1.176 +20 3 56.23 51.685 51.238 63.37 17.47
20050804.00000 13 22 3.253 +20 3 16.02 51.698 51.238 62.55 17.47
20050805.00000 13 22 5.401 +20 2 35.67 51.711 51.238 61.73 17.47
20050806.00000 13 22 7.619 +20 1 55.17 51.723 51.238 60.92 17.47
20050807.00000 13 22 9.906 +20 1 14.54 51.736 51.238 60.11 17.47
20050808.00000 13 22 12.261 +20 0 33.79 51.748 51.238 59.29 17.47
20050809.00000 13 22 14.685 +19 59 52.93 51.760 51.238 58.49 17.47
20050810.00000 13 22 17.176 +19 59 11.97 51.772 51.237 57.68 17.47
20050811.00000 13 22 19.734 +19 58 30.93 51.784 51.237 56.88 17.47
The orbital elements are:
OSNT11 Epoch 2005 July 29.0 TT = JDT 2453580.5
M 197.97485 (2000.0) P Q
n 0.00345428 Peri. 239.53682 +0.91285785 -0.07597426
a 43.3408541 Node 121.89008 +0.13526717 +0.98332108
e 0.1887862 Incl. 28.19395 -0.38521856 +0.16524998
P 285.33 H 0.2 G 0.15 U 2
--
Jose-Luis Ortiz
Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, CSIC
P.O.Box 3004. 18080 Granada. Spain.
----------
Regards,
Jaime Nomen
620 OAM
When's the first astrologer going to sue because the discovery of this planet has deformed her horoscope?
Former US House candidate, TN-5
There are several reasons why this planet can't be detected gravitationally.
1) Although it is roughly the same distance from the Sun as Pluto the inclination is about 10 degrees off so they are actually not close at all.
2) Even if they were close, becuase the orbits are so slow at that distance (Pluto takes a few hundred years to orbit the sun) it would take a long time to notice pertubances in the orbit of Pluto.
3) Even though this planet is twice the size of Pluto, it is still really really small. Pluto is smaller then our moon so at the distances we are talking here the interactions are going to be so small as to be completely unnoticable with our current technology.
Save the whales... Collect the whole set.
Since this was found so easily, one has to wonder just how many of them there are out there. This might be only the first of many.
This, by the way, is an excellent reason to call these things TNOs (Trans-Neptunian Objects). Who wants to memorize the 85 planets of our solar system?
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Before Einstein explained the precession of Mercury's perihelion, many scientists believed there was a planet Vulcan inside Mercury's orbit. Some even "spotted" it. (For the "Some" link, search on "Vulcan".)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Someone suggested moving Uranus' name to this planet. I think there should be a contest! Possible new names:
Vaginus
Clitorum
Vulvus
I mean, why not. It's frigid and inaccessible to those who want to "study" it most!
Star: Any massive gaseous body emitting more energy due to nuclear fusion then by thermal radiation alone.
Planet: Any body orbiting a star which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation. (by this definition our solar system has 13 (14 now?) planets including Charon, Ceres, Sedna and Quaoar)
Planetoid: Any body not orbiting a star which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation. There is conjecture on this one. It once was just a synonym for asteroid, however now many call Ceres, Sedna and Quaoar planitoids or even minor planets, but I don't since they all meet my definition of a planet.
Planetesimal: Any celestial object that does not have suffecient mass to form into a spherical shape. All asteroids and comets are planetesimals.
Protoplanet: Any body in a solar nebula which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation and does not produce energy by nuclear fusion.
Moon: An object which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation which orbits a planet. By this definition Phobos and Demos are not moons.
Satellite: An object whose mass is not sufficent to form into a spherical shape which orbits a planet.
Double-Planet: Two Planets of comparable mass orbiting one another in a system orbiting a star, who are both tidally coupled so as to always show the same face to each other in a system with a center of gravity that is not within either body. The center of gravity of the Earth/Moon system is about 2900 km or about 75% of the radius from the center of the Earth. Also, the Earth doesn't always show the same face to the moon. The Earth/Moon system is NOT a double-planet. The Pluto/Charon system is a double planet as they always show the same face to each other and the center of gravity of the Pluto/Charon system does not lay within either body.
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
Could this large object out there possibly be responsible for the Pioneer Anomaly?
I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
The magnitude (really, the visual magnitude) is a measure of how bright the object appears in the sky, not the absolute brightness of the object. Think of it this way. The Sun has a magnitude of -26.7. Vega has a magnitude of 0. Vega is a much brighter star than the sun, but because of the differing distances from the Earth (and therefore, the observer) Vega appears much dimmer than the Sun.
You are thinking of the absolute magnitude. Typically, absolute mangitude is refered to as such while the visual magnitude is refered to as magnitude.
Pluto was once thought to be much more massive than it is currently known to be. When I was in high school, prevailing theories had it as being slightly larger than Mercury. Furthermore, it was first discovered due to its supposed perturbation on the planet Uranus (those perturbations were, in fact, due to incorrect calculations, IIRC). Additionally, we had very little information on other objects of similar ilk. So, why wouldn't it have been considered a planet?
The flip side of the question is, "should we change its status now?" I don't really care much, but I don't see why its so important whether its a planet or a KBO, from a labeling point of view.
Some might argue that it makes teaching about the Solar System easier, but I think the exceptions can help to make the system more interesting, and, hence, easier to learn about.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Pluto takes a few hundred years to orbit the sun
here in pluto we orbit the sun in one pluto year, you insensitive clod!
There could still be free-flowing water under the ice with life swimming around in it.
Highly unlikely...scientists believe that there may be liquid water under the ice of Europa (I assume that's the parallel you're attempting to draw here) because of the heating caused by the tidal action of Jupiter's gravity (don't take my word for it...here's an informative link).
As far out from the Sun as this planet is, it is certain that it recieves an insufficient supply of either radiation or tidal friction to warm water ice to the melting point.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Amongst professional astronomers (which includes me), Pluto is generally not considered a planet. It is the largest member of the Kuiper Belt. It is historical accident that Pluto was discovered almost 50 years before the second Kuiper Belt object, Charon, in 1978. The third KBO was found in 1993. Since then, over 700 other KBOs have been found, several of which rival Pluto in size.
What we have here is one that could be larger than Pluto. This is not unexpected, but has been predicted ever since we started discovering KBOs in serious numbers. There is always a distribution of sizes, and Pluto lies near the upper end, but it is unlikely that it is the largest, and even less likely that it would be distinctly larger than the rest of the population.
To call Pluto a planet is to create a category of "ice planets" which contains only one object. That is scientifically silly. To call it a Kuiper Belt Object fits it in with a family of other objects whose characteristics in composition, orbit size, orbit shape, orbit inclination, companions, etc are shared amongst the group. That is a scientific classification.
The solar system does not contain "the Sun and
9 planets" as so many of us incorrectly learned. Rather, it contains 6 families: a star, the rocky planets, the asteroid belt, the gas giant planets, the Kuiper belt, and the Oort cloud. Each of these families shares common characteristics that are the basis for this classification. Pluto, and this new discovery,
fit squarely in the Kuiper belt.
Now for the truth about planets. The IAU, which
governs these things, has no official definition of what constitutes a planet. There is a reasonable upper limit in mass (i.e., not so larger as to create fusion at it core), but there is no lower limit. Most astronomers would say that a reasonable idea would be large enough for gravity to make it spherical (or close to, like Earth). However, then other KBOs and asteroids qualify as planets. You simply can't come up with a rigorous definition that includes Pluto and excludes the others unless you work customize your definition in a manner that is not scientific.
This will not be the last big KBO. There will be several more. These are exciting times as we discover more and more about our own backyard.
Space.com has a clarifying article at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_large _object.html. 1. It apparently isn't larger than Pluto, regardless of how reflective its surface might be. It's mass is only about a third of Pluto. 2. It has a very small moon. 3. It was *just* too dim to have been found by Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto.
Rb
Could you now please define--with exclusivity--Lake, Pond, Brook, Stream, River, Sea, Gulf, Bay, Ocean, Hill, Mountain and Continent?
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
I made a heck of a typo when I submitted this story, 2005 EL61 is a about roughly eight times fainter than Pluto, not brighter. The latest information is that this object is more likely to be in the ballpark of Pluto's size and not bigger. This object also does not appear to be the same 17th magnitude outer solar system object observed by the Gemini telescope earlier this year that was going to be "announced" in September at the DPS meeting. So it looks like a few of these guys may be out there.
A man said to the universe "Sir, I exist!"
In a word - No.
Both Pioneer Spacecraft (as well as Voyager) measure the anomaly, and they are moving away from the Sun in different directions. A distant object has been ruled out as a potential source of the effect, since to produce a slowing of all the spacecraft you need a force acting towards the sun. Whatever is causing them to slow down, it's not a solar system body too far out for us to see.
-- IANAL, BIPOOTV
Call it "oid"
That way, the name will be informative, and will help alleviate future pointless debate over whether it is a planet (It is, and it's called Oid) or a planetoid (that's what I said... planet-oid). -nAP
So, should I throw away my Linnaeus classification of species and go back to using Aristotle's system of "air, land or water"?
Or maybe we should throw out the periodic table of elements and just go back to earth, wind, fire, water? After all, we did categorize things that way at one time.
As we learn more about the universe, we'll learn that our categorizations need and update to be more coherent and inclusive. While the original models might "work," as we add more variables to the system, there becomes the need to modify our system of classification.
It's happened with elements and species, so why not large objects in the universe as well?
What?
There does seem to be a point where Pluto's and EL61's orbits get rather close. I wonder if this could point to a potential common origin? Maybe Something Else (tm) passed by and flung 2003 El61 out of the little triad. (I would doubt Pluto and Charon would be the ones tossed because the odds of them staying together would be low) The distance between the orbits might be explained by precession.
Unfortunately the Java app only covers from Jan 1, 1600-2200 so I couldn't test this theory. Can someone else play with the app and look into the distant past for a near miss?
You nailed it with the 'night all the time' bit. But it's also: :)
(a) In a more eccentric orbit than any other planet.
(b) In a longer orbit than any other planet.
(c) In a more inclined orbit than any other planet.
So it's more eccentric, lazier, and tipsier than any other planet. Bacchus is therefore a perfect name for it.
Oh, and since it's so cold there should be plenty of ice for the alcholic beverages.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
Just when you thought that this couldn't be bigger news, Ron Baalke at JPL has pointed out that another object, 2003 UB313, resides at 96 AU and has a diameter from 4400 km to 9900 km, assuming its albedo is between 0.05 and 0.25. Though the inclination is a bit weird (44 degrees), this may be considered planet-sized.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O41.html
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/2003ub313.html
However, there's an even more interesting thing that Mike Brown has on his page, called 2003 UB313 (a.k.a. "Lila").
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.