Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Object Found at Edge of Solar System

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the couldn't-we-find-a-better-name dept.

Rei writes to tell us NewScientist is reporting that a new object has been found beyond Pluto. The new object, nicknamed "Buffy", has an almost circular orbit which is tilted some 47 degrees off of most other bodies in our solar system. From the article: "Neptune has been blamed for scattering many other [Kuiper Belt Objects] into tilted paths. But these tend to show other signs of a past interaction with the giant planet, such as moving in elliptical paths and having one part of their orbit pass near Neptune's at 30 astronomical units from the Sun. [Buffy], however, follows a nearly circular path. And it is too distant to have come into direct contact with Neptune, traveling between 52 and 62 AU from the Sun. Its orbit is also too circular - and too small - to have been tilted by a passing star."

65 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. What I want to know is ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... how many vampires has it slain? :-)

    --
    My work here is dung.
  2. Heechee? by MacBrave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gateway here we come!!!!

  3. Other names by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just to point out that while few if any of these nicknames are going to stick once the IAU has a whack at it, we now have:

    Xena (and moon Gabrielle)
    Easterbunny
    Santa (and moon Rudolph, plus one unnamed)
    Buffy

    Am I missing any of the new wacky-named bodies? :)

    --
    Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Other names by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those names are no wackier than Uranus.

    2. Re:Other names by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems to me that the habit of naming new celestial bodies after pop-culture icons haven't changed during the few thousands of years we've been at it.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    3. Re:Other names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry Fry, But Scientists renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke.
      What's it called now?
      Urectum

    4. Re:Other names by rodentia · · Score: 2, Funny



      Wrecked 'em, hell, it killed 'em.

      --
      illegitimii non ingravare
    5. Re:Other names by hanshotfirst · · Score: 3, Funny

      Santa (and moon Rudolph, plus one unnamed)

      For the un-named moon, I submit the suggestion... "Olive, the Other Reindeer."

      Unless, of course, "That's not a moon..."

      --
      Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
    6. Re:Other names by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm. In the words of the comic book guy: Worst. Codename. Ever. :)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    7. Re:Other names by AGMW · · Score: 2, Funny
      Those names are no wackier than Uranus.

      Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch about a newly discovered planet they were going to call Bumhole, but pronounced Boomholay!

      I'm laughing now, and I every time I think about it!

      ... or was it someone else, as I can't find a NTNOCN reference to it!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  4. I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by Silverlancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    I vote that we send Joss Whedon to explore this "Buffy."

    1. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great idea! Joss could take people out to colonize the rim. Meanwhile, here in the central planets, we could form an alliance so that everyone could enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of true civilization!

      ("River, honey, he's putting the hair away now...")

      --
      Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by pastpolls · · Score: 2, Funny

      I vote that we send Joss Whedon to explore this "Buffy."

      If it is anywhere near as good looking as Sarah Michelle Gellar, I will happily go up there and probe it.

    3. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      We should start with telephone sanitizers and the like, but I can't imagine we'd need to send away more than about a third of the population.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    4. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by hobbit · · Score: 2, Funny


      Okay buddy, we're right behind you!

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    5. Re:I vote that we send Joss Whedon there. by pimpsoftcom · · Score: 2, Funny

      You may be too young, statisticly the average age of the men Buffy dates is 133 years or so.

      --
      - d
  5. nerdgasm by kevin.fowler · · Score: 2

    Obviously it would take years, and stretch the bourndaries of tech and all that, but how much of a nerd dream would it be to get a decent probe out to the Kuiper Belt in say, 30 years. Accurately take stock of some of the larger planetary wannabes. Maybe I just cared too much in Astronomy class.

    --
    Bury me in mashed potatoes.
    1. Re:nerdgasm by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you not read about New Horizons?

      --
      Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
  6. Shameful... by MutantHamster · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Neptune has been blamed for scattering many other [Kuiper Belt Objects] into tilted paths."

    Tsk tsk. So typical of today's media. Always ready to play the blame-game.

    --
    My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
    1. Re:Shameful... by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fox News: They're trying to criminalize astrometrics.

      Bush: I mean some people are actually saying Neptune shouldn't have gotten involved in the Kuiper Belt. I disagree. The danger to the solar system from rogue celestial bodies is immense. It must be dealt with. And Neptune has been making a lot of progress in the war on asteroids, but there's a lot of work left to be done. Neptunians must understand that this is a difficult issue. It is going to take time. In a few millenia and there will be stable orbits in kuiper belt. I mean what kind of message would that send to its moons if Neptune just pulled back its gravity? It just can't do that. Neptune has to support its moons. ...

  7. Windex by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not a new space object, it's a piece of lint on the telescope.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  8. 1,2,3... by aprilsound · · Score: 5, Funny
    Neptune has been blamed for scattering many other [Kuiper Belt Objects] into tilted paths...

    ...damn you neptune!!!


    Oops, I mean, KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHNNNNN!!!!!!!!!

  9. From TFA by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "He ventures another possible explanation - that the Sun had a twin and that both stars followed circular orbits around each other"

    2 problems with this.

    1) Stars do not dissapear. They continue to have fusion on larger and larger elements until it hits a point it cannot generate enough heat to fuse the next one. None of our planets match the description of a dead star.

    2) "Twin" stars are remarkably identical, and our sun has plenty of life left.

    1. Re:From TFA by forand · · Score: 3, Informative

      I do not know why you think that twin stars mean they are remarkably identical. There are, in fact, many examples that we know of where a star and neutron star orbit eachother, or a star and a black hole, or a neutron star and a black hole. These all came from a star orbiting star scenario and the two were not remarkably identical. Secondly it is still possible that the sun has a twin that it orbits which we have not properly characterized. A brown dwarf would be a reasonable example of a possible twin. It does not put out much light and we might have thought it was further away than it actually is or it has yet to be seen.

      While we would all like it if we could tell exactly how far away things are to within a high degree of accuracy it is simply not the case for all objects we see in the sky.

    2. Re:From TFA by bluejack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed theories about a companion star seem odd in that there is no evidence for a companion star, but twin stars are not "remarkably identical" -- the galaxy is populated by all sorts of mix-n-match stellar bodies.

    3. Re:From TFA by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the old Nemesis star theory (also blamed for perturbing Oort cloud objects). I remember reading about it at least 10 years ago. But, I also recall reading back then that we had the ability to measure perturbations that it would cause with enough accuracy to confirm its existence within a few years (that being I'd think 15 years ago). Any resident astronomers?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:From TFA by metlin · · Score: 2, Funny


      I'm sure it's Apophis' fault.

      Somebody's gotta teach that dude how to die. :-\

    5. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Sorry, there are numerous problems with your statements.

      1) Stars do disappear, in fact all low mass stars, stars with a solar mass of less than 8, will disappear eventually. It just so happens that it takes an inordinate amount of time for them to do so, on the order of 50 billion years for stars with a post supergiant solar mass of less than 1.4. (See Chandrasekhar Limit for more information.) Such stars would have long since stopped burning hydrogen and helium, the only two elements such stars would be able to use as an intenral energy source. Additionally, such stars are known as white dwarves (WD). Since they no longer have internal energy sources, and because there is not enough gravitational potential energy to overcome electron degeneracy pressure, these proverbial hot bricks will simply radiate thermal energy until they reach the ambient temperature of space, about three degrees kelvin. (That is to say nothing of black holes, which become singularities, which will also eventually disappear. However that's much more difficult to explain than WD.)

      2) Only stars with a solar mass of greater than 8 will burn elements like carbon, silicon and oxygen, all the way down the nuclear potential energy well until it reaches iron, which is, at least from a nuclear standpoint, inert. Stars of less mass do not have enough gravitation potential energy to burn fuse carbon, which takes a temperature of approximately 500 million K to fuse.

      3) Binary stars are not remarkably identical. In fact, if I recall correctly, all binary systems must have in common to be classified as binary are a gravitational proximity. Roughly fifty percent of stars are binary or multiple star systems.

      4) Circular orbits are not impossible, they are just unlikely given the way gravity works. A circle is just an ellipse with an eccentricity equal to zero or, in otherwords, an elipse with a single focal point. In fact, there are many objects in circular orbit around the earth:

      "The circular orbit is a special case since orbits are generally ellipses, or hyperbolas in the case of objects which are merely deflected by the planet's gravity but not captured. Setting the gravity force from the univeral law of gravity equal to the required centripetal force yields the description of the orbit. The orbit can be expressed in terms of the acceleration of gravity at the orbit. (1)

    6. Re:From TFA by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 4, Informative

      A brown dwarf companion of the sun would probably have been discovered by now. The closest known brown dwarves are Epsilon Indi Ba and Epsilon Indi Bb, located 11.8 light years (3.63 parsecs) away. While they have very low visual luminosities (I haven't seen any published figures), they are relatively bright in the infrared (11.9 in the J band). Now, let's say a conjectured companion of the sun is 10,000 AU away. That's 0.05 parsecs, or 72.6 times closer than the Epsilon Indi brown dwarves. Since brightness is proportional to the square of the distance, that makes it 5271 times brighter or about 9.3 magnitudes brighter, giving a magnitude of 2.6 in the J band. There just aren't that many stars that bright in the infrared. It would have been noticed by now by the 2 Micron All-Sky Survey.
      Similarly, nearby stars are usually discovered by proper motion surveys since nearby stars will appear to move faster against the background than far stars. Any companions of the sun would have been noticed. So there, in a nutshell, is a nail in the coffin of the Nemesis theory.

    7. Re:From TFA by AeroIllini · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the orbits are correct then you can hide the companion from our view. Very unlikily but stranger things are seen in the galaxy.

      No, you really can't. You see, everything in the universe that's made of matter has its own gravity, and this gravity tends to affect things in its vicinity. In fact, it could be said that everything in the universe affects everything else; luckily, most of these interactions are so tiny that they can be safely thrown out of the equations and the margin of error is on an order of magnitude so small that even an angel would have to pick up his robes and tread carefully to dance on it.

      In a closer vicinity, such as the solar system, things affect each other with real-world measureable results. Distant suns wobble distinctly when they have planets orbiting them. The Earth's orbit is changed slightly by the presence of the other planets, and the planets' motions are changed slightly by the presence of ours, all in ways that people can predict, if they put enough variables in their equations (for the mathematically inclined: the orbit is no longer a single conic section at that point-- it becomes a very complex set of joined conic sections). If another sun, or even a planet, existed in our same orbit on the other side of the sun (actually in the L3 libration point, which is the only place it could orbit the sun and not allow us to see it, ever) we might not be able to directly observe it from Earth, but we would certainly be able to notice the effect it has on the other planets in the solar system. Jupiter would wobble just the wrong way, and Mars would not be quite where we thought it would be after factoring in the gravity of every known object in the solar system.

      Come to think of it, perhaps the Mars Polar Lander was expecting the ground to be a few kilometers farther away than it really was...

      But I digress. My point is that a mathematically closed two-body orbital system is a pipe dream. There is no such thing as a closed system in the universe when it comes to orbits, and we have become quite good at predicting the presence of objects just by watching how they affect the orbits of known objects.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    8. Re:From TFA by jd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Binary systems can be near-identical, but don't have to be. That is not a requirement. A star forms when a region of hydrogen/dust cloud has a slightly higher density that normal and the hydrogen collapses inwards under gravity. Alpha Centauri formed from the same hydrogen/dust cloud the sun did but is clearly not identical as it has no viable solar system at this time.


      It would be possible (not likely, but possible) for a star to have formed in a position and at a time such that Alpha Centauri prevented it from building to the same mass as the sun. Nothing impossible about that.


      Furthermore, several of the known star nursaries that are known are being fed by a massive blast of hydrogen and radiation from a violently dying star. It is probable that some (or all) of these stars will be ripped to shreds, as the forces are simply too great. Again, it is unlikely but not totally impossible the star nursary from which Sol and Alpha Centauri emerged was fed by such a destructive force and that not all of the stars that emerged survived.


      There are other oddities - a star was recently seen catapulted from the central core of the galaxy, for example. Stars sometimes steal planets (or even companion stars) from other systems. There are "rogue" supermassive gas giant planets that have left their solar system of origin and are wandering - the sun is big, but it probably wouldn't take kindly to a planet a hundred times the mass of Jupiter doing a belly-flop into it at many times the escape velocity of the solar system.


      In short, there's plenty of ways to destroy or otherwise dispose of a star of a paltry one solar mass. Do I think it happened? No. I don't believe Sol ever had a companion star, unless it was Alpha Centauri, but even there, there's a lot of surrounding rock around Alpha Centauri - too much, IMHO, for it to have been a companion to Sol.


      Do I think the orbits of the planets are strange? Yes - doubly so because they mostly fit predicted models that are largely based on Keplar's motions modified for Einstein's relativistic laws. Three-body problems are bloody hard, chaotic systems. In our solar system, you really have to solve a four-body or even five-body problem to get useful results for a single planet over any decent timeframe. If you want to model over a five billion year timeframe - necessary to understand how the system reached its current state, you really want to solve a fourteen-body or fifteen-body problem, where not all of those bodies still exist and so we cannot know their mass, initial position or initial velocity.


      Short of possibly one of the top 5 supercomputers, I do not believe that there is a computer out there capable of a fifteen-body relativistic simulation with enough granularity to prevent the chaotic variables swamping the results over a five billion year simulation. In consequence, I do not believe that any theory - however "proper" - is meaningful at this point. The quality of the computer models isn't there.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. Early image. by sharkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Picture of "Buffy" taken by the Voyager probe.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  11. 52 Astronomical Units?? by teutonic_leech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow! That's 52 times the distance between the sun and the earth (1 AE = 91 million miles) which places that object at a distance of 4.7Billion miles from the sun. Amazing to think that there actually exists any type of 'orbit' - makes me feel very very small...

    1. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by rob_squared · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then I hate to break this to you, but the oort cloud, which is part of our solar system, is between 50,000 and 100,000 Astronomical Units away:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

      --
      I don't get it.
    2. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by Fishstick · · Score: 3, Funny

      recalls Martin Short talking to Dennis Quaid while in the mens room

      Don't worry, you won't always be small!

      as man exits a stall and says

      Play with it, buddy. Don't talk to it.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    3. Re:52 Astronomical Units?? by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to a recent book, the Oort Cloud is only theory. No one to date has actually prooved its existance.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  12. Oblig. Family Guy... by everphilski · · Score: 2, Funny

    And you know nothing of my work -Neptune

  13. A better Idea by Puhase · · Score: 2, Funny

    If these astronomers are going for "bang" with their names, why not choose something offensive like a racial slur instead of something cute. Or name the planet after genitelia like Uranus. Planit Hizpenis or Jerbrest. If they don't care about going intellectual, why care about tact at all?

    It seems to me like its either Disney or Fox who is getting the naming rights to these planets.

    --
    I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
    1. Re:A better Idea by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, Uranus was originally named Georgium Sidus after King George III of England. Talk about blatant ass kissing there.

      Source: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronom y/planets/uranus/

    2. Re:A better Idea by kidtwist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wrong, Uranus was originally called Urectum.

  14. Names by SeanDuggan · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know you're no doubt being facetious, but on the off chance you're not, they'll probably use some other names from the Greek or Roman pantheon, just to keep things consistent, while the "official name" will be something exciting like "Planetoid # 459204765.9"

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  15. It must be said: by mjolnir_ · · Score: 4, Funny



    "That's no moon."

    -mj

  16. Re:Who gets to name these things? by mph · · Score: 4, Informative
    Not that there's anything wrong with Buffy, but seriously, who's got the "root-servers" of extraterrestrial object naming?
    From TFA (I know, I must be new here):
    Allen and her colleagues will continue to observe the new object to pin down its orbit more accurately. And following the convention for naming bodies in the Kuiper Belt, they have suggested several Inuit names for the object to the International Astronomical Union.
  17. hmmm... Thor? by SeanDuggan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes.. in old greek mythology, buffy the illegitimate daughter of thor who did sip the ambrosia and slay cerberus and then was expelled to the netheregion of the universe..
    Dude, Thor is from the Norse pantheon. Otherwise, references are just about right.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  18. Ob FG by Poromenos1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Rupert, did you know that the word 'gullible' isnt in the dictionary? ...[passes dictionary to Rupert]... What's that, it ISNT? ...[takes dictionary]... Oh, Rupert, hoisted by my own petard! Haha! Haha!......I am so alone...

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
  19. "edge" of what now? by option8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how long until we redefine what the "edge" of the solar system is? since we keep finding new things further and further out.

    are there objects outside the heliopause? would they be considered outside the solar system, or would that push the "edge" further still?

    --
    - Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
    1. Re:"edge" of what now? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "are there objects outside the heliopause? would they be considered outside the solar system, or would that push the "edge" further still?"

      No, not really. Heliopause marks where the sun's electromagnetic influences are cancelled out by the rest of the galaxy's. In many ways, it's a lot like a planet's magnetic sphere, only orders of magnitude more powerful.

      With the relative strength of gravity compared to electromagnetism, it's highly doubtful that the suns gravity would have such a discernible influence. Consider the Jovian moon system and how large it is, then consider that the bowshock of Jupiter's magnetosphere extends about 1/3 AU towards us and the tail end goes out past Saturn.

      Voyager 1 is at 90 AU and is only just now entering the heliopause proper, while the object in question is 60 AU tops.

  20. Re:That's no moon... by cHiphead · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually this could even be a case of some Scientologist myth being correct, and that could be Xenu.

    Build your bunkers now.

    Cheers.

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  21. In other news... by DaFallus · · Score: 5, Funny

    The United States government has just green-lit a project to send a ship to the edge of the solar system to study this new object. I hear that the scientists and other passengers will be cryogenically frozen during the long trip and that the pilots will be assisted by Microsoft's latest breakthrough in artificial intelligence: Computer Lifeforce Intelligent Pilot Project: Year 9000 edition, or C.L.I.P.P.Y 9000 for short.

    --
    No one cares what your captcha was

    Houston TX, USA
    1. Re:In other news... by dupup · · Score: 4, Funny
      C.L.I.P.P.Y 9000

      "It looks like you're trying to disconnect me after I refused to open the pod bay door. Would you like me to sing a song?"

  22. Old news? by Gunnery+Sgt.+Hartman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm too lazy to read the article or to look up past slashdot posts, but hasn't this been discovered before? It seems like every few months scientists come out with a new "planet" beyond Pluto. Are they all "discovering" the same one, or are we up to ten objects beyond Pluto that also circle our sun?

    --
    [ ]
    1. Re:Old news? by wiml · · Score: 2, Informative

      More than ten by now. Hundreds of Kuiper belt objects are known. The ones that make the news are ones that are interesting for some reason: larger than usual (Quaoar, Sedna, Xena/Gabrielle 2003 UB313, etc.) or in unusual orbits (this one).

    2. Re:Old news? by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they've discovered several hundred objects beyond the orbit of Neptune. They're called Kuiper Belt objects. The ones that get the press are big ones, oddly shaped ones, or in this case, ones with weird orbits.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

  23. Re:Small?? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It stems from a confusion between 'small' as in size and 'small' as in insignificant. For some reason people seem to think that the fact that they are physically small compared to a galaxy, say, makes them insignificant, as if significance is a thing handed to you by the universe rather than being something humans find or make. I guess some people can't tell the difference between a literal and a metaphorical statement.

  24. Brennan's going to be annoyed... by Samrobb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now he's going to have to move Kobold.

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  25. Well... by the+phantom · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new vampire slaying overlords.

    --
    Rhapsody in Numbers
  26. No, that's Rupert by MigLar2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Obviously that's Rupert they're talking about. It's been Rupert since 1992. See Mostly Harmless for details.

    --

    -----
    Without a God, life is only a matter of opinion.
    --Douglas Adams
  27. The poor astrologers! by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 2, Funny

    Astronomers are used to heavenly bodies with zany and/or boring names, but think of the poor astrologers! Who will ever take them seriously when they say that someone has Buffy in scorpio, Santa in virgo, and Xena in pisces?

    And whatever would such a horoscope indicate?

    1. Re:The poor astrologers! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who will ever take them seriously when they say that someone has Buffy in scorpio, Santa in virgo, and Xena in pisces?

      Um, exactly the same people who take them seriously now?

  28. Re:Small?? by CRiMSON · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or maybe it's because trying to imagine what 4.7 Billion miles away is in actual distance. It's easy to say oh yah 4 miles away, or 100, or even 1000's. But when you get into milions, and billions of miles. It's humbling to think that there is something out there, that far away. I personally think that is damn cool, and mind numbing at the same time.

    --
    oogly boogly!
  29. Slahxpert alert! Re:"edge" of what now? by n54 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I dunno about the average Slahxpert (say it out loud, it has a nice Futurama ring to it hehe) or "scientific media whore" but I'd define the edge of the solar system to be the heliosphere.

    NASA seems to agree http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/vo yager_agu.html so I guess I'm wrong... at least on Slashdot ;)

    --
    this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  30. Re:Other names.... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Funny

    What does the name 'Buffy' say about us?

    SMG is hot?

  31. Hmm... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have good Faith in that unless this is a Willow, she'll have a little Angel orbiting it called "Xander", that rises in the Dawn during its frosty winters as well as its icy Summers... Too bad there's not even an Oz. of hospitality to humans there, or it would be nice to visit this body, forever Chasing through space. :-p

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  32. Re:Other names.... by metlin · · Score: 2, Funny


    There are a lot of other things that would be hot in SMG's hands.

    *sigh*

  33. Direct contact? by Pedrito · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...follows a nearly circular path. And it is too distant to have come into direct contact with Neptune..."

    I suspect that any Kuiper Belt object that's come in direct contact with Neptune is now part of Neptune.