Kuiper Object Discoveries Formally Announced

ewhac writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the new Trans-Neptunian objects mentioned in the press earlier this year are being formally announced this week at a planetary conference in Cambridge, England. Bearing the extremely temporary names 'Xena,' 'Santa,' and 'Easterbunny,' the new objects are quite interesting in their own right (Santa is cigar-shaped, rotates end-over-end every four hours, and has a 60-mile-diameter moon). However, even more interesting is the intrigue behind the press conferences revealing Xena earlier this year. It seems that, using the astronomers' own observation logs (publicly available over the Web) and some key details inadvertently revealed in earlier announcements, someone was planning on 'discovering' the objects first and claiming credit. This was why the scientists 'pre-announced' the existence of Xena back in July, to establish priority. The conference in Cambridge represents the first formal, scientific disclosure of the objects."

Comments

Food Factory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe one is a Heechee Food Factory! We're saved!

Re:Food Factory?

[athomascr]

CHON? Is that you?

CHON? Is that you?
(Please forgive my Wan attempt at humor.)

Science is great

[ReformedExCon]

I don't care much for the whole pre-announcing subplot here, but I think that making this kind of discovery is great.

It's better than suspending tadpoles in a ziplock bag for an hour and then spending three days worrying about destroying all the evidence on re-entry.

So the question is what is the composition of these bodies? Are they rich in any materials that we may find useful to harvest in the future? If so, how can we get up there and bring those materials back?

Re:Science is great

[MoralHazard]

Are they rich in any materials that we may find useful to harvest in the future? If so, how can we get up there and bring those materials back?

These objects are in the Kuiper Belt... They are BEYOND THE ORBIT OF NEPTUNE.

I submit to you that there are no materials valuable enough to justify the energy required to move that much mass to the inner solar system, in any reasonable amount of time. For Christ's sake, we're barely at the point where we can get to Mars and back, let along move any significant amount of mass around.

Re:Science is great

[smashin234]

"I submit to you that there are no materials valuable enough to justify the energy required to move that much mass to the inner solar system, in any reasonable amount of time."

I believe you are making a point that is true today, but 10, 15,100 years from now, who knows? With better technology, you just can't tell.

Mining is all about return vs. investment, and with as much as some things increase in price you can not really predict when it will become profitable to mine something even that far out.

Its especially premature to knock the idea when we are unsure what the composition of these objects is. We still discover valuable resources here on Earth that we had no clue about....

Re:Science is great

[craXORjack]

So the question is what is the composition of these bodies? Are they rich in any materials that we may find useful to harvest in the future? If so, how can we get up there and bring those materials back?

Better question is how do we go out there and utilize those materials in-situ? I remember an idea where a shaft would be drilled in an asteroid then a big mirror would be used to melt the asteroid as it spins so it becomes a molten blob filled with gas which expands like a balloon. Once it cools it would be a big football shaped rock ready to build a city in. But Kuiper belt objects are the same as comets rather than asteroids and there's a lot less sunlight out there so this might not work. But wouldn't it be great to be inside Xena?

Re:Science is great

[CheshireCatCO]

Well, unless we find a vastly more efficent and cheap way to get objects into Earth orbit and then beyond, then no. It's simply a lot cheaper to mine things on Earth. Maybe if/when we start to run out of certain materials, it might make sense. But even then we would go to the asteroids, not comets. Asteroids are both closer *and* richer in metals. Comets are mostly ices, after all.

So I'd saying having any expectations of mining these objects is sort of a stretch right now.

Re:Science is great

[MoralHazard]

Yeah, and in 10, 15, 100 more years, monkeys might fly out of my butt. No, really--they might.

The argument that "this may become economical in the future, given better technology" is a nonsense argument because it's a truism, but it's a useless truism. We don't know what the future will hold, so any statement with "may" in it is perfectly valid, logically. But at the same time, making the statement is totally pointless because it merely states the obvious: that the future is unknowable.

If you have any arguments that tell us WHY or HOW this kind of mass transit may become economical in a reasonable time frame (less than 100 years, let's say), please enlighten us. Seriously, be a futurist and make an interesting point. I'll entertain it. Otherwise, you're just talking bullshit.

Re:Science is great

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I better pre-announce too. I've just discovered the Sansa-Belt and the first Sansa-Belt Object, which I shall call La-Z-Boy . And it looks like the Sansa-Belt's continuing to grow in circumference.

Re:Science is great

[1u3hr]

Comets are mostly ices, after all.

Which would be extremely useful to breathe, drink, or make fuel in orbital factories/colonies, the moon or even Mars, and much cheaper to bring in, if much slower, than hauling up from Earth.

Re:Science is great

[TheRaven64]

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

Getting into orbit is relatively hard. Once you are there, there are earth-orbiting asteroids. Capture one and build a solar sail. Your solar sail vessel can then get to the edge of the solar system. The next step is rather trickier. Use the solar sail to apply orbital drag on the target object and drop it back towards the sun.

Of course, this same technique could be used on objects closer to us, so there's not much incentive to go that far.

Re:Science is great

[LordSnooty]

Which would be extremely useful to breathe, drink, or make fuel in orbital factories/colonies, the moon or even Mars, and much cheaper to bring in, if much slower, than hauling up from Earth.

Are you advocating running round space and stealing stuff?

Re:Science is great

[Herschel Cohen]

RE: "that is true today, but 10, 15,100 years from now ..."

When a significant majority in one of the advanced space faring states believes the earth is no older than 7,000 years. where do you expect the financing of the basic science necessary to even contemplate the tasks you outline? Scientific reasoning and knowledge is being devalued continuously for more faith based "logic". Moreover, for the immediate future those following the latter, easier path will live the more comfortable life.

So give me one observable trend that might support your overly optimistic view? The Chinese and their will to awe the world with feats in space and the military? Unlikely, in an oppressive society where the elite holds power tenuously most of their efforts are very short term (more like five year plans). Their accomplishments may be more mass killings or their fading away, at best.

RE: "all about return vs. investment ..."

Would it not be wiser (and in some areas the trend) to do more with less? The throw away societies we have will burn out their energy supplies long before they are able to go elsewhere and do it again only bigger (and better?).

RE: "Its especially premature to knock the idea ..." Sorry, not when so little real thought or knowledge lies behind the blabber. Look at one of the responses just below your message. That person at least knows what s/he is talking about.

Re:Science is great

[Anonymous Luddite]

>>Mining is all about return vs. investment

Even if we had the means to get there, the pay-off would have to be breath-taking to justify mining something 3 billion miles from earth.

Unless we dig up a stargate somewhere in the desert, I think this one's out of bounds..

Re:Science is great

[Hungus]

I personally do not participate in moderation because of its many abuses. Including the "overrated" tag that should never be allowed to be used as an initial moderation IMNSHO. Of course the broken mod system is well known.

Re:Science is great

[CheshireCatCO]

Except that you'd have to extract the water from the methane and ammonia first. Not to mention the enormous difficulty in hauling that much water across the entire solar system. It's something we're utterly incapable of now and will be for the foreseeable future, so it's not really worth counting on.

Re:Science is great

[superflyguy]

Is running round earth stealing stuff that much worse? After all, that's how we get everything now.

Re:Science is great

[1u3hr]

Except that you'd have to extract the water from the methane and ammonia first. Not to mention the enormous difficulty in hauling that much water across the entire solar system. It's something we're utterly incapable of now and will be for the foreseeable future, so it's not really worth counting on.

"Hauling stuff across the solar system" is much easier than hauling it up to orbit (as long as you don't have any passengers). Space probes have been travelling to the outer planets for the last 30 years. You can use efficient low thrust rockets and take your time, even use some of the payload for fuel, use some orbital mechanics to steal momentum from planets and moons. As for the chemistry, methane and ammonia are carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, we can use them all with 19th C chemistry. It's pretty likely there is lots of water ice there as well.

See the B612 Foundation for one scheme to move asteroids.

Re:Science is great

[CheshireCatCO]

Actually, quite wrong. It takes about 10 times as much energy to haul something from Pluto's orbit to Mars's orbit as it does to haul it off of the Earth. Moving something from the Kuiper Belt to the Moon would be even more costly since Earth is nearer the Sun. Even with gravity assists to lose momentum (not gain it; you're going *in*, here), it's unlikely that it would be cheaper, especially since I can arrange for gravity assists leaving from the Earth as well as leaving from the outer solar system.

This is why space probes have been travelling into Earth orbit for two decades longer than to the outer solar system and why humans have never gone to the latter location. It costs way more.

Check your data before you post.

That aside, you miss the point. We can't haul that kind of water anywhere in the solar system, period. That capability isn't even on the horizon right now. Speculating about mining Trans-Neptunian objects, let along moving them in bulk, for terraforming is complete science-fiction right now and will be fore the foreseeable future.

Re:Science is great

[1u3hr]

Actually, quite wrong. It takes about 10 times as much energy

It's not the amount of energy, it's how expensive. You need a do-or-die blast to get into Earth orbit. If you're not fighting our gravity or air resistance, you can use slower and more efficient methods and take years rather than minutes. You can use nuclear power (a no-no for Earth launches), you can even use solar. From the payload you might use rocky matter in massdriver or volatiles in a rocket.

We can't haul that kind of water anywhere in the solar system, period.

Of course not. I'm not talking about tomorrow or next week. We were discussing the economics of mining asteroids and you claimed it was pointless because we could always get it cheaper on earth. My point is that these would be more useful elsewhere. A little research turned up this article, quoting an (old) NASA study on asteroid mining. Lots of relevant stuff there, among which:

The study determined that to retrieve half the mass of a million-metric-ton asteroid, some 10,000 metric tons of materials would need to be lifted into LEO at an assumed cost of $240/kg (1977 dollars). The total cost of the mission was put at $31 billion, including R&D costs. To ship the same quantity of mined materials from Earth's surface would cost a prohibitive $663 billion.

Even with gravity assists to lose momentum (not gain it; you're going *in*, here),

Closer orbits are faster. p=mv. You need to accelerate to move into a closer orbit. "Check your data before you post." So don't be so patronising when you get simple physics backwards.

Speculating about mining Trans-Neptunian objects, let along moving them in bulk, for terraforming is complete science- fiction right now and will be fore the foreseeable future.

The context was a discussion about asteroid mining. As for science-fiction, this is simple physics, chemistry and engineering that could be done in a few decades with no midichlorians needed. Terraforming is far away, but space & lunar habitats are not.

Re:Science is great

[CheshireCatCO]

Energy=cost, pretty much. Fuel is fuel, not matter how quickly or slowly you use it. And for TNOs you have to HAUL it out there to use it. Which costs... fuel.

"Closer orbits are faster. p=mv."
Apologies, I was not specific. *Angular* momentum. I had rather thought you knew that, though, since linear momentum is totally irrelevent here as is abundantly obvious. Apparently not. And while I didn't particlarly mean to patronize you, it's becoming clear that you don't have a very good grasp of orbital mechanics.

And the context was never asteroids. Kindly go back and check. Hell, read the title of this story. Don't waste my time if you can't be troubled to at least do the easiest fact-checking availible.

Re:Science is great

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies, I was not specific. *Angular* momentum. I had rather thought you knew that, though, since linear momentum is totally irrelevent here as is abundantly obvious. Apparently not. And while I didn't particlarly mean to patronize you,

That's an apology? You fucked up but I should have known what you should have said?

This is pointless. Bye.

Re:Science is great

[Herschel Cohen]

First let me explain the delay. I was composing a reply, that may have been harsher than this response when my keyboard lost its ability to render a significant set of characters needed to respond. I had spilled coffee earlier, after a trip where I purchased a new keyboard and other items, again my response was halted when a momentary power drop dimmed the lights and rebooted all our computers. Afterwards, I just had other activities. So that's the reason for my retarded answering.

I noticed several points you seemed to have missed in their inherent significance. Moreover, I sense too you have very little rigorous scientific training. You might be an engineer, but your real knowledge of how science works seems lacking. This is not an attack, it is an observation [also, very few will even see this note so no need to take offense - none intended]. First, let's take a portion of the quoting of my post.

"... where do you expect the financing of the basic science ..." You mentioned this and here I was referring to the break through(s) necessary to accomplish (or even to contemplate the possibility) the tasks you predicate. Setting a goal is applied science or engineering where most if not all the basics are pretty well solved. Here we have no real knowledge that the required efficiencies will ever be practical. [I saw your suggestion regarding the solar sails - it would take much, much more than that. Have you ever sailed, going against the wind? It is much harder (tacking).] Basic science research is not goal orientated, however, many times it can bring forth insights to seemingly unrelated problems. Break through insights are disruptive, at very least to those in that scientific field. The society we currently reside, has been suppressing findings that do not conform to their predilictions. Many of these are applied in nature. Moreover, this same elite has no use for other current, best scientific results. Tell me again how these people are going to finance really basic research that could undermine their most basic views on life and their role.

Human history is stewn with instances where society not only stagnated, but regressed from their former states. I am not talking about the problems the Greeks had when they looked back at their 'Golden Age', and ignored the one they were passing through. I have more in mind the theocracy that held sway in Europe to the point where they destroyed the vestige of the Roman Empire that persisted beyond the time theirs fell. Moreover, these same types pushed the level of knowledge further into regression.

So while you may not think that closed minds that ignore the best scientific knowledge, particularly when some have professed the goal to persist in space exploration, I think you are in error. Moreover, you should look at some of those speaking in your name that are pushing to the extreme views in concert with big business interests that would rather avoid "unnecessary regulatory" expenses.

You have no idea how difficult it can be to accomplish seemingly trivial tasks. Unless, you have done research, it is shocking to find how little reliable data points you can base you work upon. Moreover, earlier publications of results can simply be wrong or misguided.

Now combine the above with some radically different finding, it may be resisted fanatically by the "scientific community" (or specialty). Think about how some breakthrough is finally accepted by the evolved scientific community - that significant breakthrough could easily be suppressed by a political elite or the general population that's upset with its implications. Such a response is more likely where religious views hold a very significant role. [To name a few: non-centric univerise with the Earth as the center, biological evolution, geological age of the earth, and cosmology (blows biblical age of the earth even with "Inteligent Design").]

Regarding the last major point (theocratic control), let's consider a counter example: Islamic sci

Re:Science is great

[Hungus]

You make a great deal of assumptions about my background in your post., assumptions that are in fact quite wrong. Let me then also say that you further make assumptions about my argument that are very wrong. My background is virtually irrelevant, but let me assure you that an appointment to Imperial College London in 1990 , S1 levels in Physics, Math and Chemistry and a full research fellowship are part of my past. Further I have been a database developer on more than a small number of medical research projects where I was the statistician or worked closely with one and had to develop the reports and reporting system.

As to your assumptions about my statements, it should be noted that YECs allow for non empirical data, aka the supernatural in their systems, this does not preclude empirical data, but it does temper it. rather than go any further I would suggest that you take a look at a brief list of some things scientific that are mentioned theologically in scripture. please keep in mind that these writings are between 4,000 and 2,000 years old when reading them. rather than list them here is a quick link Ultimately, you are extremely off base in your assumptions.

Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[kyle90]

How, exactly, would an object that's larger than Pluto, form in the shape of a cigar? It doesn't even make sense...

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[vespazzari]

well, its only that shape when its near venus ;)

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[Wilson_6500]

It needs the streamlined shape to make it all the way out there and back in just 354 (Earth) days, not to mention all the hard work it does on the 24th itself.

It probably evolved into its current shape through some sort of intelligent gravity process.

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[Louisville_Clark]

maybe it wasn't formed, maybe it was created.

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that Uranus was a little bit gassy that day.

*poot*

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[truckaxle]

Good joke. However your sig needs some attention.

"Alchohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson

hmmm so it is the cause or solution to poor spelling?

The reminds me of a famous quote of a drunken friend of mine. "Alcohol may not solves life's problems but it does put them on hold"

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[Skybyte]

His sig is a joke, didn't the fact that it's attributed to Homer Simpson make it obvious?

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[truckaxle]

Homer Simpson can write?

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[adtifyj]

Next thing you know, those wacky astronomers will be naming a plutino Homer.

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[SD_92104]

maybe it wasn't formed, maybe it was created.

Don't we re-write all the text books only after the first version has been finalized?

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[wildsurf]

Next thing you know, those wacky astronomers will be naming a plutino Homer.

Appropriate, considering they're at least 400 feet from home plate.

(On the other hand, due to their eccentric orbits, one could construe that they're in foul territory.)

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol is not spelled correctly in the sig. That is what the GP is talking about.

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[sirdude]

It would have been a little more appropriate to christen it "Rama"..

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would actually read the article, it's definitely the angular momentum that's deforming its shape. It's spinning much faster than any other Kuiper belt object found.

Re:Santa *does* sound rather intriguing.

[Dark_Link2135]

I imagine what they mean is that the diameter of the new object is bigger than pluto's diameter or something along those lines. I don't know why something in a cigar shape couldn't be bigger than pluto. Its like asking how could a cigar be bigger than a marble. It just is.

Cigar Shaped?

[cosmotron]

A cigar shpaed planetoid, that's awesome!

Re:Cigar Shaped?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody call Monica!

Re:Cigar Shaped?

[flyingsquid]

A cigar shaped planetoid, that's awesome!

I would so love it if someone would name this one "Freud".

Re:Cigar Shaped?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would so love it if someone would name this one "Freud".

And the thing is, it really does circle Uranus.

Re:Cigar Shaped?

[ocelotbob]

Wait...cigar, moon/hanger on. I think we should name this orbital pair Clinton and Monica.

Re:Cigar Shaped?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would so love it if someone would name this one "Freud".

Hey, sometimes a Kuiper Belt Object is just a Kuiper Belt Object.

But a good Kuiper Belt Object is a Pluto.

Re:Cigar Shaped?

[dagr8tim]

A cigar shpaed planetoid, that's awesome!

Is this something new? Isn't that what Mars's satalites are?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/mars/moons .html

Re:Cigar Shaped?

[mhearne]

It sounds like a grain of rice, or some sort of egg, doesn't it?

Cigar shaped, eh?

[Lisandro]

Man, Arthur C. Clarke was ahead of his time...

Re:Cigar shaped, eh?

[Adelbert]

That's funny, when I read there was a "Trans-Neptunian Santa", the first thing I thought was "Man, Futurama was ahead of its time..."

Bill & Monica...

[__aaclcg7560]

A cigar-shaped object with a moon. Too bad it didn't have another moon and following a doughnut-shaped object. :P

Re:Bill & Monica...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes a cigar-shaped object is just a cigar-shaped object.

Re:Bill & Monica...

[Megamote]

"A cigar-shaped object with a moon"

That's no moon......

Wait a minute...!

[Serko92]

So Santa has a sigar and travels with a companion. I always knew those "Santa" guys from the mall were on to something!

Controversy

[Jazzer_Techie]

As the article points out, this brings the question Pluto's "planet" status to the fore. It never really fit in with the other 8 planets to begin with (compostion, relation to the ecliptic, etc.), but now that both a larger Kuiper Belt Obeject and one with a moon have been discovered, the pure scientist in me hopes that it would be possible to push everyone back towards the idea that there are only 8 planets in our solar system. Read the article. It's worth it just to see the term "plutinos" suggested as a common name for KBOs.

Re:Controversy

[idlake]

As the article points out, this brings the question Pluto's "planet" status to the fore.

Not particularly; we still don't have any more data to decide Pluto's status.

The best definition of "planet" I have seen is a body that orbits a star and is large enough to have assumed and retained a nearly spherical shape under its own gravity. According to that, Pluto is probably a planet, but we won't know until we get closer.

Re:Controversy

[m50d]

The conventional boundary is having enough mass to maintain a (near-) spherical shape, which Pluto certainly does. I say it's a planet, and so are any of these large enough to be spheres. Of course then we have to admit Ceres and Vesta, but that should have been done a long time ago, IMO.

Gravity

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering as a non-scientist but only a graphics hacker (so I'm not going to know the first thing about where to find the info!) - What size object made of something like iron would you need to have floating out there in space for a human to walk on without floating off just due to the normal exertions of walking, sneezing, running etc.

Santa doesn't sound very big, but I guess keeping an object 60miles across orbiting it must mean it's got a decent gravity

Re:Mod this down

[deglr6328]

Thing is, Newtonian mechanics aren't the ONLY rules they follow. They also follow the rules of chemistry, solid state physics and thermodynamics. And it is these things (and others) which appear to have the potential to lead to some very very weird things indeed. That's why people think these things are exciting.

Cigar Shaped?

[truckaxle]

Santa is cigar-shaped

They missed a naming opportunity. This new Trans-Neptunian object should have been named "Monica"

Ack!

[Saberwind]

(Santa is cigar-shaped, rotates end-over-end every four hours, and has a 60-mile-diameter moon)

Ack! It's the cheesy alien probe from Star Trek IV!

One thing you can say for sure...

[graveyhead]

One thing you can say for sure now about Xena, Santa, and the Easterbunny is:

they definitely exist. :)

Nope! 'twas the 11th planet discovered...

[Phil O. Sophy]

To be historically acurate here: The 10th planet was formerly what we now call the "Asteroid Belt". All ancient civilizations from Egypt to South America to China along the Equator, constructed pyramids detailing that original astrolonomical layout...

Re:Nope! 'twas the 11th planet discovered...

[saskboy]

I remember just a year or two ago, there was a planet discovered in the Kuiper Belt, given a name starting with a 'Q' if I recall correctly. Then the media started hyping a 10th planet just this year with a new KBO, forgetting the previous discovery.

The problem is that so many of these new KBOs could be larger than Pluto once we find them, even though they might not fit other criteria we'd been using for planetary designation. It actually makes more sense to downgrade Pluto to a simple KBO, and create a more rigid definition of a major planet.

Re:Nope! 'twas the 11th planet discovered...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking of Quaoar.

Also, don't forget Sedna!

(and I won't mention Earth has more than one moon while we're talking astronomy trivia. Who's heard of Cruithne?)

Re:Nope! 'twas the 11th planet discovered...

[peteremcc]

Cruithne isn't a moon of earth... it doesn't go around earth.

Re:Nope! 'twas the 11th planet discovered...

[huge]

Quaoar was discovered in 2002, it's diameter is over 1200km.

In 2003 scientists discovered Sedna, which has diameter between 1100 - 1800 km.

Re:Nope! 'twas the 11th planet discovered...

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> Quaoar was discovered in 2002
>> In 2003 scientists discovered Sedna

But those names aren't nearly as cool as "Easter Bunny" or "Santa".

Too bad they're temporary.

For You Marijuana Smokers Out There..

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats Blunt Shaped Planet!!!

Re:Scien(ce | tology) is great

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, Xena sounds very much like ... Xenu.

I, for one, welcome our new Scientology overlords.

sigh. that's SCIENCE reporting on /.

[efuseekay]

When, to the self-professed geeks of /., the "Science" is not as interesting as the "politics and intrigue" behind the discovery, you just wanna cry.

Xena?

[Vorondil28]

How the hell did Xena get put in the same group as Santa and the Easterbunny?!?

Re:Xena?

[Anonymous Coward]

Xena will kick your wimpy fucking ass you prick. I'm serious. Don't fucking be talking shit about Xena here, she is a FUCKING GODDESS you creep. Xena will annihilate your scummy slimeball ass. Go fuck off, jerk.

Re:Xena?

[Anonymous Coward]

THOH XI(thoh xi)

Re:Xena?

[AndroidCat]

What a shame that this Xena is a distant frigid body.

Xena?

[zephc]

"I thought Xena couldn't fly"
"I told you, I'm not Xena. I'm Lucy Lawless."

Re:Scien(ce | tology) is great

[drgonzo59]

Don't mess with Xenu , the mighty overlord copyrighted his name and you will get sued.

One Possible Short Answer: Angular Momentum

[BlackGriffen]

I don't have access to the necessary data and my training in this area is thin, but one possibility that springs to mind is that the object has too much angular momentum. I'm sure every slashdotter knows that the Earth is slightly flattened by its rotation. As you add more angular momentum you normally expect the object to just flatten more and more as it spins faster and faster. It turns out that after a certain point the body will be more stable as a tumbling elongated shape than a fast spinning disc. Continue to increase the angular momentum and the body will ultimately separate in to two.

Now, this won't result in a perfect cigar shape - especially the high length to width ratio and straight sides - so another theory may be necessary, depending on the data. This is what sprang in to my mind when they mentioned it, though.

Re:One Possible Short Answer: Angular Momentum

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the earth's flat... cool :)

Probably it's not really like a Cigar or only partially. I expect it is some kind of flattened 3d oval (rugby ball shape).

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Phil O. Sophy]

FTA: "In the case of the new planet, however, we know that even if it is extremely reflective (like fresh snow, for example) it still cannot be as bright as it is unless it is bigger than Pluto. Thus while we don't know for certain the precise size, we know for certain that it is bigger than Pluto."

How? I don't understand this logic here. What am I missing?

If one person holds a dirty 20 (cm) mirror in pitch darkness about a 100 meters away from me, another person holds a shiny 10 (cm) mirror about 200 meters away from me, and I shine a _powerful_ flashlight at them, I see the smaller mirror is brighter, yet it's NOT bigger, and both appear the same size relative to me...

What I miss?

This is bullshit...

[kurbchekt]

When will the scientific community agree on what constitutes a planet and what could pose an extintion-level-big-hunk-o-stuff? Just any mass-carrying chunk of detritus can pass as a planet nowadays...

so whaddya get with names like that

[Anonymous Coward]

'Santa,' 'Easterbunny,' and 'Xena,' (SEX) will be formally announced this week at a planetary conference in Cambridge, England.

Their own fault

[imsabbel]

I watched the discussions about the "hacking incident" on the minor planets mailinglist...

They discovered the first object, calculated the trajectory and didnt publish it for nearly a year.
If they dont want to get their discovery "stolen", they shouldnt monopolize observation time by not publishing.

And also, there is NO proof that those proposed methods were used. The re-discovery by the other team was absolutely legit, and they just wet their pants because they feared they would lose the fame for all those stuff they had been hording for ages.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[imsabbel]

Try putting them 1 and 2 km away, and you will see what the whole thing is about: they will only be points of light, so brightness and distance (and for a planet mass gained by observing multibody interactions) will be the only ways to determine the size.

Temporary names? Yeah right.

[dtfinch]

In 100 years, they'll still be known as Xena, Santa, and the Easter Bunny.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[marimbaman]

It's not that the new planet is brighter than Pluto, it's that it's brighter than a snowball at the same size as Pluto and the same distance as the new planet.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[scheme]

If one person holds a dirty 20 (cm) mirror in pitch darkness about a 100 meters away from me, another person holds a shiny 10 (cm) mirror about 200 meters away from me, and I shine a _powerful_ flashlight at them, I see the smaller mirror is brighter, yet it's NOT bigger, and both appear the same size relative to me.

At the distances the planets are from us, both objects look like specks. They will probably be larger on something like Gemini but there won't be a difference in sizes due to the distance.

In addition, we already know how far away the objects are due to measurements of it's position. E.g. once you get a few observations you can plug that information into Kepler's equations and get an orbit from it. Once we know that the object is further away from pluto and still brighter, we can figure out that the object has to be either larger than pluto or a perfect mirror. One of the pages gives various size estimates based on reflectivity.

Why the subplot matters

[G3ckoG33k]

No, I am not even an astronomer. But, stealing research results happens. It may happen unwittingly over a cup of coffee or it may be someone actively snooping. Anyhow, results published by the 'wrong team' may lead to less or even no funding. Several years of funding may dissappear in a puff and no editor would ever re-publish your 'scientific news'.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps to simplify things...

Knowing how far away the object and pluto are...

The object is brighter than something the size of pluto COULD be if it was completely reflective... meaning it must be larger.

Re:Temporary names? Yeah right. (No. Really.)

[beetlenaut]

No. Really. They aren't even real names. They are just the code names the discoverers have been using. (2003UB313 doesn't really trip off the tongue.) For Sedna, they used the code name "Flying Dutchman", and nobody remembers that.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Phil O. Sophy]

Ok. Well, then you are saying that the planet is a clean 10 (cm) mirror and pluto is a dirty 10 (cm) mirror. Right? You still cannot infer that a 10 (cm) mirror is bigger than a 10 (cm) mirror - since at that _vast_ relative distance they still appear to be the same size to us, only one's brighter than the other.

Reflectivity !-> Size

in other words, convince me a white dwarf star (the size of earth) 50 million light years away is bigger than a Gas Giant planet some 20 million light years away. Granted, I'm comparing a star to a planet here, but I'm using it to illustrate (my "apparent" lack of understanding) of associating reflectivity with size. It sounds like a leap of faith to me...

Garden of Ramma found!

[Tei]

This remind me a sci-fook about a alien space ship with a giganteous garden inside.

Re:Garden of Ramma found!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rendezvous With Rama - Arthur C. Clarke - 1973

Legal ramifications of using Xena

[OsirisX11]

Since Xena: Warrior Princess is a trademark of Universal TV Distribution Holdings LLC and a copyright of Universal Television Enterprises LLLP, could they potentially sue for usage of a refernce to Xena? I realize this is not going to happen, just curious as to the legal possibilities.

Re:Legal ramifications of using Xena

[1u3hr]

would they potentially sue for usage of a refernce to Xena

If it was another warrior princess, and not a planet(oid), maybe.

Re:Legal ramifications of using Xena

[imthesponge]

Simple: Universal TV Distribution Holdings LLC will own the planet.

Re:Legal ramifications of using Xena

[Anonymous Coward]

As the planet is unrelated to any of the following:
-contraceptive apparatus
-ingredient in nutritional supplements, dietary supplements and vitamins for weight loss and weight control.
-steel panel flooring
-restaurant services

No current trademarks directly cover it, nor do any of the following which cover terms with "xena" in them:
-dietary and nutritional supplements
-prescription ointment
-television series

They got the name wrong.

[Secret Agent X-9]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy dictates that the tenth planet will be called Rupert, and I won't refer to it by any other name. Xena can go to hell.

Oooh! My Horoscope!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was born under a Xena retrograde with The Easter Bunny in my Seventh House!

AWESOME!

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[pyrrhonist]

Look, it's really not that difficult.

Given:

• Bigger objects reflect more light than smaller objects made of the same substance.
• Objects appear dimmer the further away from the viewer they are.
• The reflectivity of Pluto is known (reflects 60% of sunlight).
• The size of Pluto is known.
• No substance known reflects 100% of the light that hits it.
• The orbit of the new object is known.

From this we can calculate the brightness of a perfect mirror the size of Pluto if it were in the new object's orbit.

From observations we know that the object is almost as bright as a Pluto-sized mirror would be at this distance.

Thus, the smallest the object can be is 97% the size of Pluto. Since the object cannot be a perfect mirror, it is bigger than Pluto.

Likewise, the reflectivity of other substances can be tried. If the object is made of snow (90% reflectivity) it will be 2% larger Pluto, and if the object has the same composition as Pluto it will be 25% larger than Pluto.

What about Rupert?

[Alioth]

In the honour of Douglas Adams, at least one of these objects should have been called Rupert.

Re:What about Rupert?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the honour of H.P. Lovecraft, at least one of them should have been called Shoggoth.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Phil O. Sophy]

> In addition, we already know how far away the objects are due to measurements of it's position...

Indeed. That's a given (I suppose). I think you even mentioned "estimates" (by accident or not). What I meant to convey by my mirror analogy is a direct translation of what the article is stating. It makes the following logical equivalence (in mathematically discrete terms):

Reflectivity [is logically equivalent to] Size

...and I disagree (or fail to understand) that statement in the article.

I am saying:

Reflectivity [infers] Size

...quite possibly, yes. I don't dispute that.

The article could have suggested it as so. However, it concluded since it is brighter than it should be, it must be bigger than pluto. I am not nit-picking at the article here. I am just trying to understand the factual scientific means by which we draw such conclusions. How do we accurately measure the size of a planet without actually measuring it, especially when so far away? Other than inferring it's size, based on reflectivity, in association with those near it?

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[imsabbel]

Dont be dense.

This planet is billions of km away, and only a few 1000km in diameter.

Its size when viewed from the earth is MUCH lower than the seeing from the athmosphere. In fact its so small that even the spitzer space telescope couldnt resolve it as anything more than a point.

So you have a pointsource.

brightness of the point= (light from planet)/(distance from earth)^2

light from planet=light recieved from sun*albedo

light recieved from sun= constant*(area of planet disc)/(distance from sun)^2

-> brightness oft the point= albedo*solar constant*(radius of planet)^2*pi/(distance from sun*distance from earth)^2

You know the solar constant, you know the distances, and you know that the albedo cannot bigger than 1 (perfect lambertian reflection).

If you just meassure the light recieved from the point, you have only albedo and radius left, which allows a minimum size estimate)

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Phil O. Sophy]

> Thus, the smallest the object can be is 97% the size of Pluto. Since the object cannot be a perfect mirror, it is bigger than Pluto.

97%? How did you reach that calculation?

> Likewise, the reflectivity of other substances can be tried. If the object is made of snow (90% reflectivity) it will be 2% larger Pluto, and if the object has the same composition as Pluto it will be 25% larger than Pluto.

Huh? Where'd you get those numbers? Actual calculations might help clarify your illustration. I'll try again by another (more practical) real life example...

Place a marble which is polished clear white, 1 inch in diameter, and 2 feet behind a brown marble 1.1 inches in diameter, and just stand 30 ft across a dark room and shine a light at it. Tell me which one reflects more light back. Brown marble 60%, polished white 90%. You already know the brown marble is bigger by .1 inch, yet you claim since the polished white marble is brighter it is bigger? You don't need any telescopes to perform this experiment. This _really_ isn't rocket science here. You can do it in your own house. Furthermore, if I move that polished white marble up next to the brown one, it gets brighter, right? So by your definition, that polished marble will GROW bigger in diameter. What I'm trying to convey to you is that there is NOT a 1:1 relation between reflectivity and size. I can move that polished clear white marble up to my feet as I shine the light on it. Has it gotten any bigger in diameter? And it's super bright now...

Unfortunately, and I guess you don't see it, you are making mathematical CONCLUSIONS based on mathematical INFERENCES.

I don't know how it can get any simpler than that. Maybe if you could provide a link to how these guys actually measure these distances and sizes WITHOUT actually being able to take a tape measure to them (or send a probe), I wouldn't be so inclined to believe it flys in the face of common sense (and practical real life examples), much less making a mathematically logical equivalence between reflectivity and size, when it's only an inference (especially when dealing in relative terms at vast spanses you cannot accurately measure)...

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Phil O. Sophy]

> If you just meassure the light recieved from the point, you have only albedo and radius left, which allows a minimum size estimate.

estimate? exactly.

In order to calculate the albedo of a planet, you NEED to know the surface area of that sphere. Do you? And do you know the radius?

Furthermore, in order to calculate the albedo, you must know something about it's atmosphere and temperature. Do we know that?

Mathematical conlusions based on mathematical inferences do not equate to logical equivalences.
:. reflectivity != size

It doesn't get any simpler than that. You sound like a broken google record. How about you actually fill in all the blanks next time, and don't presume copy/pasting google snipets supercedes accredited study. Me thinks you presume too much. How so "enlightened" we are...

Object naming because we're object-namers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we name one Xenu.

This armed and fully operational search engine

[AndroidCat]

"I insisted it was impossible. I was wrong. I myself went to Google late on the night after the Spanish announcement, typed K40506A into Google, and let out a gasp."

They're looking for and finding faint objects on the end of the solar system, and a little web crawling and db indexing was a shock to him. Hmm.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

I can move that polished clear white marble up to my feet as I shine the light on it. Has it gotten any bigger in diameter? And it's super bright now...

...but its intensity has not changed.

If you can wrap your head around that (from your posting, I doubt it), the parent's reasoning is fairly obvious.

Modern Legends

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the fact that they've been "temporarily" named Santa, Xenia and Easterbunny, can Toothfairy, Superman and HomerSimpson be far behind?

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

The numbers come from the link. Part way down there is a table of how large the object would be at differnt amounts of reflection.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Diameter = 1329/sqrt(p) * 10^(-0.2*H),

where p = albedo and H = absolute magnitude (-1.2 in the case of 2003 UB313)

Albedo (reflectivity) can be between 0 (no light is reflected) and 1 (all light is reflected). Pluto's albedo is 0.6.

So, if 2003 UB313 has the same reflectivity as Pluto, it would be about 3000 diameter. If it is somewhat brighter (albedo = 0.8) its diameter would still be 2600 km. If p = 1.0 it would be about the size of Pluto. In the unlikely case that it is very dark, it would be far larger than Pluto.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[vrmlguy]

OK, lets review the facts.

Place a marble which is polished clear white, 1 inch in diameter, and 2 feet behind a brown marble 1.1 inches in diameter, and just stand 30 ft across a dark room and shine a light at it. Tell me which one reflects more light back.

The amount of light reflected is proportional to the product of the diameter of the marble and its reflectivity, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the light source. The amount of light received by the observer is proportional to the amount of light reflected and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the observer.

Looking across the room, we note how much light we observe and multiply that by the square of the distance between us and the marbles. That gives us the amount of light being reflected. Then we multiply that number by the square of the distance between the marbles and the light source. That gives us the product of the diameter of the marble and its reflectivity. Reflectivity is always between 0 and 1, giving us a minimum diameter for the marble.

This leaves the question of how we can figure out those distances. For the marbles, it's easy. For objects in the solar system, you have to observe them for a while and calculate their orbits. Once Kepler figured out his laws of planetary motion (around 1600), it took very little time for him to figure out the relative locations of every object in the solar system; the only thing that he lacked was a scale. He didn't know, for example, if the moon was small and nearby or large and distant, and so everything was expressed in relation to Earth's distance from the Sun. However, if you can make three observations of an object orbiting a known object (like the Sun) then you can calculate its orbit and thus its distance (in A.U.) at any given time. Then in 1672, Cassini used a technique called parallax to measure the distance to Mars and all of the other numbers fell into place, without the need for space probes or really big tape measures.

See http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/phonedrmarc/200 2_november.shtml for more details.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking juvenile troll. You're seriously arguing with an academic study simply because you don't understand the concepts of albedo and intensity? Get a fucking life, and keep your cheetos stained hands off your dick.

Santa as an spanish finding, not american

[Anonymous Coward]

But the truth, is that it was discovered by spanish astronomers. They even called it informally "Santa" 2003 EL61, when the right to give it a definitive name belongs to that spanish astronomers.

If the american team didn't published their findings to the international scientific community to have more glory, and in that time, other people discovered it and give the notice to the rest of the world, the discoverers are the last ones.

More information:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/2003EL61/

My english is rusty and limited, I didn't want to be rude.

Have a Good day! lol

Astronomical Definition of "Planet"

[kcarlin]

The problem is that so many of these new KBOs could be larger than Pluto once we find them, even though they might not fit other criteria we'd been using for planetary designation. It actually makes more sense to downgrade Pluto to a simple KBO, and create a more rigid definition of a major planet.

Here is the cosmic red-herring: the planetary designation. Since Carl Sagan passed, the Oprah/Leno/Letterman Couch Lottery for debating "planetary designation" is open. You may be a winner! And because any designation may be based on incomplete or inaccurate hypotheses given the current state of theory on planetary formation new lotteries and redesignations may be held every few years. Elementary schools will, of course, be required to buy new posters properly identifying this week that there are three or six planets in the Solar System and next week fifty or a thousand. (Class, can you name 100 of the planets circling the Sun?) The fact is, as noted in the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet), there is no commonly accepted scientific definition of planet.

And none of the chatter will change the actual nature of so designated or undesignated objects one planck length, or the actual facts of their formation and characteristics (which are waiting patiently to be discovered). Let's have a round or two of working out the data before we settle on a new, scientific definition of "planet" based on too few facts. Given the distances involved, we have generations of data gathering before this plays out. Having just identified these key data points, it is a great time to hypothesize but a lousy time to pronounce definitively on the topic.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[pyrrhonist]

97%? How did you reach that calculation?

Pluto is 2274 km in diameter. You can get the estimate of the diameter of 2003 UB313 by:

• Getting the distances from Earth and the Sun.
• Getting the magnitudes from the discoverer's paper.
• Using these equations.

The smallest size calculated with this method is 2193 km (i.e. 96% the diameter of Pluto).

Or, you could just look on the discoverer's page and get 97%.

You already know the brown marble is bigger by .1 inch, yet you claim since the polished white marble is brighter it is bigger?

No, I claim that by knowing the distance, albedo, and brightness of the marbles, we can calculate their size. When we measure these quantities and run them through the equations, the brown marble will be shown to be bigger.

Furthermore, if I move that polished white marble up next to the brown one, it gets brighter, right?

Yes, due to the inverse square law.

So by your definition, that polished marble will GROW bigger in diameter.

No, it appears brighter due to the fact that it's closer.

What I'm trying to convey to you is that there is NOT a 1:1 relation between reflectivity and size.

I didn't make that claim.

Maybe if you could provide a link to how these guys actually measure these distances and sizes WITHOUT actually being able to take a tape measure to them (or send a probe)

OMG, are you for real? Did you even try to Google it?

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Phil O. Sophy]

Huh? The intensity DOES change, but the reflectivity does not. You need to go back and reread...

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Phil O. Sophy]

Yes. Everything you cited is well understood. However, you still (apparently) fail to understand the significance of what I was trying to illustrate by others drawing such a _conclusion_. Errors in reflectivity at such distances allow us only to conclude inferences (which is why we say estimates). But no conclusions may be drawn from them.

To illustrate, and hopefully this won't be lost on you, even pluto's albedo varies from 0.49 to 0.66. One object could be brighter than another because it is larger, more reflective, or some combination of both. To determine the size of a KBO requires astronomers to determine, or at least _estimate_, its albedo.

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[Phil O. Sophy]

>OMG, are you for real? Did you even try to Google it?

Indeed. My original hypothesis that you were a broken google record was correct. Now that you provided me that valuable insight as to your _real_ "enlightenment", maybe I can illustrate my caution about drawing _conclusions_ this way:

Pluto's radius is not well known. JPL's value of 1137 is given with an error of +/-8, almost one percent - in large part because Pluto's own albedo varies from 0.49 to 0.66. Now extrapolate that estimate while estimating the albedo of said discovered planet, and drawing _conclusions_ that it is bigger. Unfortunately, you fail to see the mathematical difference between an "inference" and a "logical equivalence". You by no means are an Astronomer, and at best a 3rd rate mathematician. In time, if you spend less time gathering your intellect off the net and more so from study, you just might...

Re:Science is great @ confusion

[pyrrhonist]

Indeed. My original hypothesis that you were a broken google record was correct.

Looks like my original hypothesis that you are a troll was also correct.

Pluto's radius is not well known. JPL's value of 1137 is given with an error of +/-8, almost one percent. Now extrapolate that estimate while estimating the albedo of said discovered planet, and drawing _conclusions_ that it is bigger.

The lower bound for the size of 2003 UB313 isn't determined by the albedo of Pluto.
Furthermore, a variance in Pluto's diameter of 16 km doesn't invalidate the statements of the discoverer.

Unfortunately, you fail to see the mathematical difference between an "inference" and a "logical equivalence".

Actually, you're the one who seems to be hung up on the concept.

You by no means are an Astronomer, and at best a 3rd rate mathematician. In time, if you spend less time gathering your intellect off the net and more so from study, you just might...

This opprobrium rings hollow coming from someone who makes little effort to understand simple high school physics.
It is universally apparent that your anterior consummately indwells your plenitudinous fundament.