Slashdot Mirror
Vesta Is a Baby Planet, Not an Asteroid
astroengine writes "Vesta, the second largest object in the main asteroid belt, has an iron core, a varied surface, layers of rock and possibly a magnetic field — all signs of a planet in the making, not an asteroid (abstract). This is the conclusion of an international team of scientists treated to a virtual front row seat at Vesta for the past 10 months, courtesy of NASA's Dawn robotic probe. Their findings were presented during a NASA press conference on Thursday. As to why Vesta never made it to full planethood, scientists point to Jupiter. When the giant gas planet formed, nearby bodies such as Vesta found their orbits perturbed. 'Jupiter started to act like a spoon in a pot, stirring up the asteroid belt and the asteroids started bumping into one another,' said Dawn lead scientist Christopher Russell. 'If they're just out there gently orbiting and everything is going smoothly, then without Jupiter in the picture, they would gather mass and get bigger and bigger and bigger. But with Jupiter there, stirring the pot, then the asteroids start bumping into one another and breaking apart, so nothing grew in that region, but started to shrink.'"
So Pluto was deemed just another large chunk of space debris orbiting the earth, and hence not a planet. Vesta *is* just a large asteroid amongst a whole bunch of others, but it is a planet?
I'm confused now.
What a weird analogy, I've owned both a vespa and a jupiter and find both are like asteroids.
That would have turned Mars into an asteroid belt ... and Earth into an undersized Mars.
And since Venus is just too darn close to the sun to support life ... another lifeless solar system.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
You think this bone you're throwing to Vesta is going to make us forgive what you did to poor Pluto?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Vesta must be small if it fits into a Vesta case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesta_case
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaeton_(hypothetical_planet)
Chicken or the egg? Was there formerly a 5th planet or was the 5th not yet fully formed?
Numerous research grant applications to follow.... Got to prepare for corporate mining of the asteroid belt too...
You think this bone you're throwing to Vesta is going to make us forgive what you did to poor Pluto?
Neither Eris or Pluto have cleared their orbits of debris. Hence neither are planets.
Vesta is in the asteroid belt.
Pluto and Eris are KBOs.
Please don't tell Neil deGrasse Tyson about this or he will kill baby Vesta safe just like he killed its older sibling Pluto. This man is worse than the Pharaoh!
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on killing Pluto: 'All I did was drive the getaway car'
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/26/2903224/dr-neil-degrasse-tyson-killing-pluto-on-the-verge
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/EightTNOs.png
in the last decade, they started to find a lot more plutos. so the question is do we have 10, 16, 54 planets? or do we say "look, pluto doesn't really fit the idea of something large that controls its orbit, so it's not a planet" and so we only have 8 planets
it's a perfectly good decision
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it's a cynical quote, because it's not really true: principles actually define winners and losers
but it certainly applies to planet formation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Vesta has an orbital period of 3.6 years. (Ceres is 4.6 years). Jupiter takes 11.8 years. That means Jupiter has no effect for years ( more than 3.6 or 4.6, respectively) at a time. For comparison, models of the big impact moon formation show the moon coalesced in under than a year.
If it's good for the goose, why isn't it good for the gander?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
So.. if Pluto takes out Neptune.. can it be a planet.. seeing as it cleared its orbit ?
...the asteroid belt IS a failed planet after all?
If so, then it demonstrates why Real Scientists (not ones that kill cute puppies like Pluto for amusement) are wary of definitive statements.
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)
Yeah!
You, we go out on the town and swing, baby? Yeah!
I drank what? -- Socrates
The whole problem with finding a definition of 'planet' is that stuff in the solar system can either be defined by its composition or its location. Objects with similar composition that look like exactly the same sort of thing when seen in isolation are often found in very different locations. And the IAU decided in its infinite wisdom to use location as the primary means classification rather than composition. Unfortunately, that decision is at odds with both sentimentality (as is seen with the whole Pluto fiasco) and with scientific usefulness. As we study extrasolar planetary systems, it has become clear that objects orbiting stars are very likely to change locations over time. Objects move from higher orbits to lower orbits and vice versa, Objects are captured into orbit by other objects, and objects are ejected from orbit around other objects, etc. So when studying a solar system, classifying objects by where they are in the system is scientifically meaningless as the objects quite possibly did not form in that location, and certainly may not remain in that location for the lifetime of the system's star.
So I propose Harperska's planetary classification system:
Terrestrial dwarf - large enough to attain hydrostatic equilibrium and differentiation. Mantle/crust comprised of rock, with iron core. 6 objects in solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Luna, Mars, Vesta.
Asteroid - terrestrial dwarf like object, not large enough to attain hydrostatic equilibrium.
Ice dwarf - large enough to attain hydrostatic equilibrium and differentiation. Mantle/crust comprised of frozen volatiles (water, methane, ammonia), with rocky core. This class includes Ceres, the moons of the gas and ice giants, and Kuiper belt objects like Pluto and Eris.
Comet - ice dwarf like object, not large enough to attain hydrostatic equilibrium.
Gas Giant - comprised largely of hydrogen and helium. 2 objects in solar system: Jupiter and Saturn.
Ice Giant - comprised largely of volatiles (water, methane, ammonia) with a hydrogen/helium atmosphere. 2 objects in solar system: Neptune and Uranus.
Is this assuming that Jupiter was already formed and thus interrupted Vesta in forming? I never really thought about it but I always kind of thought the solar system formed sort gradually together, coalescing. Was it all forming at once? one by one? or in spurts? Is there is any research into which planet formed first and why? Like I said I have no clue myself, just curious as this post made me wonder.
This is really going to screw up the numbering.
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would all get bumped up from 5,6,7,8 to 6,7,8,9.
"When I was your age, Vesta was an asteroid"