Hubble Discovers 5th Moon of Pluto

I'm incredibly jealous by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:04 · Score: 0

The Earth needs a few more moons.

Re:I'm incredibly jealous by oodaloop · 2012-07-11 07:21 · Score: 3, Funny

2 isn't enough?

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:I'm incredibly jealous by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 23:13 · Score: 0

Stupid Earth with only one stupid moon.
Re:I'm incredibly jealous by RaceProUK · 2012-07-12 00:11 · Score: 1

Depending on how you define 'moon', there's at least four or five orbiting Earth.

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:I'm incredibly jealous by RaceProUK · 2012-07-12 00:12 · Score: 1

See my reply to GP

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:I'm incredibly jealous by luis_a_espinal · 2012-07-12 00:37 · Score: 1

2 isn't enough?
Of course not. Celestial Ménage à trois dude. That's how Pluto rolls.

Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:05 · Score: -1

Only a planet can have a moon...

How much more do you expect from Pluto, people!

CAPTCHA = arguable (I swear, you can't make this stuff up)

Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by MarioMax · 2012-07-11 07:13 · Score: 4, Informative

According to Wikipedia:
A natural satellite or moon is a celestial body that orbits a planet or smaller body, which is called its primary.
Technically, Pluto fits the definition of "planet or smaller body". A moon doesn't necessarily need to orbit a planet; it can orbit a very, very dense hunk of rock that doesn't fit the definition of planet, but has a sufficiently strong gravitational pull to keep it in orbit.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by DarthBling · 2012-07-11 07:17 · Score: 1

And Mercury and Venus don't have any moons and they still classify them as planets?! Obviously, moons are not a requirement for planetary status.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by zill · 2012-07-11 07:30 · Score: 5, Funny

A moon doesn't necessarily need to orbit a planet; it can orbit a very, very dense hunk of rock that doesn't fit the definition of planet, but has a sufficiently strong gravitational pull to keep it in orbit.
Must... resist... urge... to make yo mama joke.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by fahrbot-bot · 2012-07-11 07:35 · Score: 0

A moon doesn't necessarily need to orbit a planet; it can orbit a very, very dense hunk of rock that doesn't fit the definition of planet, but has a sufficiently strong gravitational pull to keep it in orbit.
Must... resist... urge... to make yo mama joke.
... or Romney joke. (Take it easy Conservadroids. It's all in fun.)

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by SJHillman · 2012-07-11 07:37 · Score: 1

I believe he was arguing that oribiting a planet is a requirement for it to be called a moon... not having a moon as a requirement for being a planet. Not that he was correct, but his argument wasn't that easily defeated.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:39 · Score: 0

Seriously? Please go make me a Big Mac.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-07-11 07:47 · Score: 2

Conservadroids
o.O Is that a new phone?
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by fahrbot-bot · 2012-07-11 08:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Conservadroids
o.O Is that a new phone?
Could be! A phone that dials the same number over and over again without any algorithms to determine why that number is disconnected from reality. Or a phone that automatically orders and pays for stuff with your credit card that is never delivered or is delivered to rich people that don't need it. (Oh ya, I'm going to get flamed...)

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by sexconker · 2012-07-11 08:30 · Score: -1, Troll

According to Wikipedia:
This was your first mistake.
Pluto is a planet. The new definition of a planet is an arbitrary change from the old definition. There was zero reason to change the definition, there were many reasons not to. People who fuck around with language, even with technical definitions, need to wisen up.
Inflammable and non-inflammable are correct.
Flammable and non-flammable are incorrect.
Kilobit and kilobyte and Kb (and kb) and KB are correct, and mean 1024 bits (or bytes).
Kibibit and kibibyte and Kib and (kib) and KiB are incorrect, and mean you're a fucking dipshit.
Hexagon and Hexadecimal are incorrect. Say it with me, kids: Sexagon! Sexadecimal!
Now please continue to post loads of bullshit about how I'm wrong and you're right. If you're under the age of 30 your opinion is invalid because you indoctrinated by utter morons.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by tlhIngan · 2012-07-11 08:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Kilobit and kilobyte and Kb (and kb) and KB are correct, and mean 1024 bits (or bytes).
Kibibit and kibibyte and Kib and (kib) and KiB are incorrect, and mean you're a fucking dipshit.
FYI,, a 64kbps telecommunications channel is 64,000bits/sec, not 65536bits/sec (it derives from 8kHz (8000, not 8192) sampling at 8 bits/sample). Just like 10/100/1000Mbps Ethernet is 10,000,000, 100,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 bits/sec, respectively.
Same as your 2.6GHz CPU - it's 2,600,000,000 Hz.
Not using the right prefix is the same as not using the right units - you're going to screw up something somewhere.
You're a technical person, use precise language. If there's a chance of confusion, drop the prefix and use scientific notation, or define something across the board so places where the meanings can get messed up, are resolved and be consistent.
E.g., globally declare in your source code that "Kilo means 1024 throughout" so 1km in your program is 1024m, and if you use 64,000b/s channel, it's a 62.5kbps link.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Beorytis · 2012-07-11 09:11 · Score: 1

Must... resist... urge... to make yo mama joke.
Why you an yo mama so close? GRAVITY!
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by sumdumass · 2012-07-11 09:29 · Score: 1

They had moons at one time. It's just that when Pluto got declassed as a planet, Mercury and Venus sent the moons to Pluto to help it get over the shock and disappointment for being treated poorly through no fault of his own.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-07-11 09:39 · Score: 1

<quote><p>Conservadroids</p></quote>

<p>o.O Is that a new phone?</p></quote>

No

o.O Is that a new tablet?

No... ...it's a Phablet!

It is a Conserphablet to be precise! :-)

--
rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 09:51 · Score: 0

Inflammable and non-inflammable are correct.
Flammable and non-flammable are incorrect.
The only thing worse than a negative is negating a negative. My feeble mind is only capable of processing "non-inflammable" on the slow path.

Kilobit and kilobyte and Kb (and kb) and KB are correct, and mean 1024 bits (or bytes).
Kibibit and kibibyte and Kib and (kib) and KiB are incorrect, and mean you're a fucking dipshit.
1024 decisively lost the battle for title of "KB". I would rather be labled a dipshit than deal with ambiguous bullshit. Have enough problems without adding every other customer having a different expectation as to what KB means.

Hexagon and Hexadecimal are incorrect. Say it with me, kids: Sexagon! Sexadecimal!
Thats hot.

If you're under the age of 30 your opinion is invalid because you indoctrinated by utter morons
Language has never been a static affair. Meanings drift over time. Take the text of the US consitution forinstance.
What is upsetting to me is when someone or something feels the need to unecessarily turn universally accepted and understood terms into ambiguous and contested ones (IAU)
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by RenderSeven · 2012-07-11 10:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or you could buy the iLiberal that also automatically orders and pays for stuff with your credit card that is never delivered or is delivered to poor people that don't need it. It's all fun and games as long as its someone else having their money taken. Any one else bloody sick of the primary difference between liberal/conservative being whom you think its OK to steal from? And the only person they both agree its OK to steal from seems to be me.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 10:51 · Score: 0

Pluto is a planet. The new definition of a planet is an arbitrary change from the old definition. There was zero reason to change the definition, there were many reasons not to.
There was an extremely good reason to change the definition.
By your definition, aka the old one, there are millions of planets in our solar system. Pluto and the other millions of Kuiper belt objects equal in size to Pluto are clearly of a different class than the other eight planets, and by you lumping them all together there is no meaningful distinction.
Using your definition, we have no way to single out huge rocky bodies within the solar system, which are of a different type of interest than millions of tiny rocks.
With the new definitions, we now have one name for the large bodies, and another name for all the other teeny tiny rocks barely in orbit around Sol.
Plus by either definition, there are not 9 planets in our solar system. There is either eight, or millions.
Why do you not feel it is worth while to give a name to the eight large planetary bodies, while having a method to exclude rocks, comets, and asteroids (Most of which are also planets by your definition)?
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by skids · 2012-07-11 10:56 · Score: 1

A moon doesn't necessarily need to orbit a planet; it can orbit a very, very dense hunk of rock that doesn't fit the definition of planet
That may be, but I'd still vote for calling it a moonoid, just because it's fun to type.

--
Someone had to do it.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Artifakt · 2012-07-11 11:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

You left out a 'were' in the last sentence, ergo your argument is invalid. (Not really, I'm well over 30 and, looking back on my public school education, I was often indoctrinated by utter morons. I suspect it's gotten worse, not better, but perhaps that's an observer bias).
Pluto is now counted as a dwarf planet. By proper English, that means Pluto is still a planet, just as dwarf humans are still humans. The IAU can't get very basic English rules correct, so why does their opinion carry so much weight? If the US supreme court announced that they reviewed all four amendments and can't find any reason to support the concept of privacy, would you still respect the court's decisions? If your doctor didn't know how many kidneys you were supposed to have, wouldn't you find another doctor? So if the IAU thinks dwarfs in the real world are a species from Tolkien's Middle Earth, maybe it's time to start ignoring them until they at least learn how to speak at the eighth grade level or thereabouts, and understand that a modifier is not automatically, or even usually, a negating prefix.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by fahrbot-bot · 2012-07-11 11:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

primary difference between liberal/conservative being whom you think its OK to steal from? And the only person they both agree its OK to steal from seems to be me.
I think it boils down to two different groups of people:
1. Those that have more than they need.
2. Those that need more than they have.
I am one of the first and I give to the second. In the six years since my wife died, I have given $50+ K to my friends in need and another $15+ K to charity - and I plan to keep on giving as needed. My conscience is clean.
Oh, and I don't hide money in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland, like Mitt (potential Weasel in Chief) to avoid paying my fair share of taxes...

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Toonol · 2012-07-11 14:01 · Score: 1

1024 decisively lost the battle for title of "KB". I would rather be labled a dipshit than deal with ambiguous bullshit. Have enough problems without adding every other customer having a different expectation as to what KB means.

We only have that problem because busybodies tried to change the meaning away from the natural binary scale. The battle is not lost; I think that, if you are talking to at least half-way computer-literate people, they mean 1024 when they say KB.
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-12 02:11 · Score: 0

And I'll bet you wrote off every donation on your taxes as well. Not paying your fair share it would seem.
I'll bet Mitt's given more of a % of his income to charity than you have.
Good news though-- you've given more to charity than Slow Biden (as a % and in raw $).
You know Nazi Pelosi has overseas investments? Why she made over 2 Million on a single Asian fund. Debbie Wasaman Schitz, she's got money overseas too!
The latest Libtard attack is going over like the Romney Dog carrier attack... (OOps... ObaFail ate a dog!)
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by sexconker · 2012-07-12 07:40 · Score: 1

FYI you are completely and totally wrong.
A 64 kbps telecom line is 65536 bits per second. You multiplied bits by baud rate and fucked up when you labeled your shit, just like the telecoms.
My 1 Gbps ethernet port does in fact transmit/receive with a throughput of 1 Gbps, not 1,000,000,000 bps. As does every fucking one I've ever fucking seen.
2.6 GHz is indeed 2,600,000,000 Hz. No one ever said otherwise.
The UNIT IS KB OR Kb. If you see a K without a B then it's K and means 1000. If you see a K with a B or a b then it's KB or Kb and means 1024. This isn't hard.
Do you see a fucking B in GHz? Do you? You fucking shitless wonder?
I don't understand how you fucking dipshit morons can't get something so fucking simple through your fucking skulls. You end up inventing the confusion and ambiguity that you complain about when you invent new bullshit terms to replace perfectly valid and correct terms that are already in use in countless published works. If the world were to ever accept the "kibi" horse shit, then the world would never know what an author meant when writing "KB" unless they explicitly defined it. And since works from the 50s, 60, 70, 80, 90s, and the majority of the 00s were written before this fecum came about, they did NOT define it because the term already had a well-known definition - 1024 fucking bytes.
LEARN SOMETHING YOU PIECE OF SHIT
Re:Only a planet... (Sqore 200,000), Astromical! by Tim+the+Gecko · 2012-07-12 08:54 · Score: 1

Inflammable and non-inflammable are correct. Flammable and non-flammable are incorrect.
The only thing worse than a negative is negating a negative. My feeble mind is only capable of processing "non-inflammable" on the slow path.
Hi, Dr Nick!
Inflammable means "capable of being inflamed" (i.e. to be set on fire). It's not a negative.

Not a planet by eedwardsjr · 2012-07-11 07:05 · Score: 2

So it has five moons, but they still do not classify it as a planet?

Re:Not a planet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:07 · Score: 4, Informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor-planet_moon
Lots of asteroids have moons.
Re:Not a planet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:07 · Score: 0

So it has five moons, but they still do not classify it as a planet?
True.
Re:Not a planet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:08 · Score: 0

Yep. Moons don't have anything to do with that.
Re:Not a planet by marcosdumay · 2012-07-11 07:10 · Score: 2

One'd expect thing that don't clear their orbit to have more moons...

--
Rethinking email
Re:Not a planet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:22 · Score: 0

So Jupiter and Saturn have failed to clear their orbits?
Re:Not a planet by oodaloop · 2012-07-11 07:24 · Score: 0

Neptune didn't clear out its orbit either (Since Pluto is in it), and it has 5 (currently known) moons too.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:Not a planet by Meumeu · 2012-07-11 07:41 · Score: 1

Neptune didn't clear out its orbit either (Since Pluto is in it), and it has 5 (currently known) moons too.
Next to Neptune, Pluto is a speck of dust, so yes Neptune cleared its orbit. You can't say the same for Pluto.
Re:Not a planet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:50 · Score: 1

Neptune didn't clear out its orbit either (Since Pluto is in it), and it has 5 (currently known) moons too.
Next to Neptune, Pluto is a speck of dust, so yes Neptune cleared its orbit. You can't say the same for Pluto.
Not to mention, Pluto is not even in Neptune's orbit, so yeah. (Sorry oodaloop, but because of how the orbit of Pluto is inclined, when it "crosses" Neptune's orbit, it's so far out of the orbital plane of the 8 planets that it doesn't matter.)
Re:Not a planet by myth24601 · 2012-07-11 08:19 · Score: 1

Yeah but those all have names that start with random numbers while Pluto is just Pluto. Having a cool name should count for something.

--
No matter where you go, there you are.
Re:Not a planet by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-07-11 08:48 · Score: 1

Its not a moon.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Re:Not a planet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 09:05 · Score: 0

Pluto is most definitely not in Neptune's orbit. It doesn't cross Neptune's orbit, either, although you might get that mistaken impression from looking at 2D images -- in a proper 3D representation, though, you can clearly see their orbits do not intersect (during the two times Pluto is roughly the same distance from the Sun as Neptune, it's further from Neptune's orbit than Mars is from Mercury's orbit, and you wouldn't say Mars and Mercury are in each other's orbits, despite being far, far closer to being co-orbital than Neptune and Pluto).
Re:Not a planet by Carewolf · 2012-07-11 09:45 · Score: 1

Actually Pluto & Co. only has 4 moons, Charon is not a moon, it is co-dwarf planet, in that Pluto orbits around Charon just as much as Charon orbits Pluto.
Re:Not a planet by techno-vampire · 2012-07-11 10:05 · Score: 1

To be accurate, both Pluto and Charon orbit their common center of gravity. Just like the Earth and Moon orbit their common center of gravity, or like any two other orbiting objects.

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Re:Not a planet by Carewolf · 2012-07-11 10:29 · Score: 1

To be accurate, both Pluto and Charon orbit their common center of gravity. Just like the Earth and Moon orbit their common center of gravity, or like any two other orbiting objects.
Yeah, but the common center of gravity of the Earth and the Moon, is _inside_ the Earth, which means the Moon orbits a point inside Earth (just not the center), which is what makes it a satellite or moon of Earth.
In the case of Pluto and Charon the common center of gravity is between them and not inside either of them, which means none of them is a moon to the the other, but they share a common co-orbit.
Re:Not a planet by arth1 · 2012-07-11 12:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, but the common center of gravity of the Earth and the Moon, is _inside_ the Earth, which means the Moon orbits a point inside Earth (just not the center), which is what makes it a satellite or moon of Earth.
In the case of Pluto and Charon the common center of gravity is between them and not inside either of them, which means none of them is a moon to the the other, but they share a common co-orbit.
By that measure, Jupiter isn't a planet either, because the barycenter between Jupiter and the sun lies above the surface of the sun.
Also consider this: The moon is slowly expanding its orbit and decreasing its speed accordingly. Which means that the barycenter of the Earth/Luna system slowly creeps towards the Earth's surface, and one day it will be above it. Will that elevate Luna from moon status to co-planet?
Re:Not a planet by Will.Woodhull · 2012-07-11 15:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Which is a pretty damn hokey and arbitrary distinction. The Earth's orbit is significantly affected by the Moon's gravitation: its path around the Sun is sinusoidal, quite far from a true elipse, far enough that the locations of perihelion and aphelion shift from year to year depending on the Moon's phase in early January and early July, and these points cannot be predicted without accounting for the Moon's influence.
The points of perihelion and aphelion of the barycenter of the Earth - Moon pair can be predicted using the same simple formula that works for all the other visible planets, plus Uranus and Neptune. But the Earth itself is sometimes faster, sometimes slower, sometimes closer to the Sun, sometimes further away than the barycenter, all due to its partner's influence. That is the mark of a double planet, not a planet that has a Moon.
That the most unique feature of the Earth, the presence of our kind of life, could not have come about without the Moon's action as a constant stirring rod is an entirely separate and equally valid argument for regarding the Earth and Moon as parts of a binary planet system.

--
Will
Re:Not a planet by mrmeval · 2012-07-11 19:38 · Score: 0

It's not a planet by scientific consensus so it can't have moons. Nasa is wrong, that's just debris.

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Re:Not a planet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-12 00:49 · Score: 0

Except the common center of gravity lies below the surface of the Earth.
Re:Not a planet by Carewolf · 2012-07-12 01:58 · Score: 1

Will that elevate Luna from moon status to co-planet?
It would if it was actually possible. The moon will leave Earths orbit when it gets far enough away, at that point it becomes a huge motherfucking asteroid.
Re:Not a planet by arth1 · 2012-07-12 03:29 · Score: 1

It would if it was actually possible. The moon will leave Earths orbit when it gets far enough away, at that point it becomes a huge motherfucking asteroid.
I think you missed the part where it slows down. It gets further away, but also loses speed, which means it doesn't get to break away until long after the barycenter is outside earth itself, and pulls from other solar system masses can pull it away.
At the present speed, it will take around 6 thousand million years for the moon to recede enough that the barycenter is outside the earth's surface, while the moon is unlikely to run away for more than 40 thousand million years.
(Granted, something else will likely happen before then, like the sun expanding and boiling away large parts of the Earth, or the Earth or moon colliding with massive objects. But that doesn't change the principle - whether the barycenter is above or below the surface depends on the mean orbital distance as much as anything else.)
You can have two identical planets with two identical orbital satellites and the only difference is the orbital distance. If that distance is large, it's suddenly a double-planet, but if it's close, it's a moon? That doesn't make sense to me - in fact, I'd say it's the other way around - the closer the two are, the more inclined I would be to call them a binary system instead of a planet/moon.
Re:Not a planet by b4dc0d3r · 2012-07-14 15:23 · Score: 1

Best nerd fight in recent memory. I had nearly given up on slashdot, but I keep finding gold like this.
Disagreeing informatively is by far the most enlightening discussion for my taste.
As you were, sorry for the interruption.
Re:Not a planet by Carewolf · 2012-07-16 05:57 · Score: 1

No, it won't slow down. Moons in orbits further out moves more slowly not by some magical force, but because they wouldn't have that orbit if they didn't have the exact necessary speed for it. A moon or satellite moving to an outer orbit will not slow down to a matching slower speed, it will be flung away. Similarly any moon or satellite moving to an inner orbit will not magically accelerate to a new stationary orbit, it will instead crash into the planet.
Our moon is not a stable orbit, we are just lucky enough that it will fly away and not crash into us.
Re:Not a planet by arth1 · 2012-07-16 08:08 · Score: 1

No, it won't slow down. Moons in orbits further out moves more slowly not by some magical force, but because they wouldn't have that orbit if they didn't have the exact necessary speed for it. A moon or satellite moving to an outer orbit will not slow down to a matching slower speed, it will be flung away. Similarly any moon or satellite moving to an inner orbit will not magically accelerate to a new stationary orbit, it will instead crash into the planet.
You're wrong.
Just as a figure skater slows her spin when extending her arms, the moon slows down as its orbit increases.
For the moon/earth system, this is explained in Another wikipedia article:
"The gravitational torque between the Moon and the tidal bulge of the Earth causes the Moon to be promoted in its orbit, and the Earth to be decelerated in its rotation. As in any physical process within an isolated system, total energy and angular momentum are conserved. Effectively, energy and angular momentum are transferred from the rotation of the Earth to the orbital motion of the Moon (however, most of the energy lost by the Earth is converted to heat (-3.321 TW), and only about 1/30th (+0.121 TW) is transferred to the Moon). The Moon moves farther away from the Earth (+38.247±0.004 mm/y), so its potential energy (in the Earth's gravity well) increases. It stays in orbit, and from Kepler's 3rd law it follows that its velocity actually decreases, so the tidal action on the Moon actually causes a deceleration, i.e. a negative acceleration (-25.858±0.003 "/cy), of its motion across the celestial sphere. Although its kinetic energy decreases, its potential energy increases by a larger amount. The tidal force has a component in the direction of the Moon's motion, and therefore increases its energy, but the non-tidal part of the Earth's gravity pulls (on average) slightly backwards on the Moon (which on average has a slight outward velocity), so the net result is that the Moon slows down. The Moon's orbital angular momentum increases."
(Emphasis mine)
In short, the earth/moon barycenter will be outside the Earth's surface while the moon is still orbiting Earth.

Can't be a moon...only planets have moons. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:06 · Score: -1

Nuf. Said.

ORLY? by yt8znu35 · 2012-07-11 07:06 · Score: 5, Funny

That's no moon.

Re:ORLY? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:16 · Score: 0

That's no moon.
It's a Mass Relay.
Re:ORLY? by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-07-11 07:45 · Score: 1

Is it a red, green or blue one?
Re:ORLY? by Cro+Magnon · 2012-07-11 09:32 · Score: 1

That's no moon.
That's Uranus!

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:ORLY? by SageMusings · 2012-07-11 15:59 · Score: 1

OBI WAN: That's no moon....

--
-- Posted from my parent's basement

So let me get this straight by kiriath · 2012-07-11 07:10 · Score: 5, Funny

NASA is going to drive a 650 million dollar spacecraft through a system @40AU away at 30,000 miles per hour - and that spacecraft could be destroyed by a BB.

The phrase "That thing could put your eye out" brings on a whole new meaning...

Re:So let me get this straight by Jhon · 2012-07-11 07:17 · Score: 2

New Horizons should be named the "Ralphie Probe"?
Re:So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:29 · Score: 1

Dude, after the cornering and hairpins of the Cassini mission, 30,000 mph through a debris field 40 AU's away is a walk in the park for these guys.
Re:So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:30 · Score: 0

13km/s? Yeah, that's got to hurt.
The story wasn't really any different for the 2 Voyager spacecraft or for Cassini, both of which went through the ring plane of Saturn pretty close to the rings themselves, and were more expensive (I think Cassini was >$1 billion). So it's a "normal" hazard for this type of outer Solar System interplanetary probe. If I recall correctly, they did get higher rates of impact of dust-sized particles in the ring planes, but no BB-sized ones.
Heh. At that kind of speed, a mosquito would probably be deadly if it hit the windshield of your car (you knew the car analogy was coming, right?).
Re:So let me get this straight by Hadlock · 2012-07-11 07:54 · Score: 2

The typically positioned the space shuttle so that debris would impact the tiles rather than the windshield after a micrometeorite left a pinprick in the 1"+ thick windshield and embedded itself in the pilot's headrest durring a mission. Shit happens. Stuff is flying everywhere at absolutely insane speeds. Luckily, once you get beyond the asteroid belt, you're generally good to go. We've had a couple of probes die randomly in transit, about half of them are chalked up to human error, the other are suspected to have been hit by something nasty that we didn't see ahead of time. Still jumping up and down to get that one way ticket to mars? ;)

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:So let me get this straight by Cuddlah · 2012-07-11 08:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

You hit ANYTHING with a BB at 30,000 miles an hour, it's a catastrophic collision.
Re:So let me get this straight by cusco · 2012-07-11 08:24 · Score: 1

Still jumping up and down to get that one way ticket to mars?

Hell yes, in fact I'd settle for one-way to Luna. Not many places on Earth where one can still be a true pioneer any more, and all of those are completely explored anyway.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 09:45 · Score: 0

Will it be equipped with any sampling technology that could be even remotely described as performing a scissors-like function?
Re:So let me get this straight by wonkey_monkey · 2012-07-11 10:35 · Score: 1

a micrometeorite left a pinprick in the 1"+ thick windshield and embedded itself in the pilot's headrest durring a mission.
[citation needed]

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:So let me get this straight by science_gone_bad · 2012-07-12 03:36 · Score: 1

Before my father retired, he was doing research into hypervelocity impacts. It's really intense and pretty scary. He showed me the results of a glass bead the size of a grain of rice that had been shot out of a magnetic rail gun at 17,000 kph (around the orbital velocity of the shuttle, etc.). The glass bead was shot into a steel plate 1 inch thick and ~1 sq foot in size. The entry hole was the size of a quarter, and the exit hole (yes it went all the way through) was the size of a baseball with frozen metal in a splash pattern heading out of the plate.
So, yea, small things can do a LOT of damage at high speeds. That's one reason that sattelites are covered in ~50 layers of mylar. Each layer takes some of the energy out of the micrometerite, so hopefully it will slow down enough before getting to the sattelite itself

--
"I never get lost because everybody tells me where to go"
Re:So let me get this straight by wonkey_monkey · 2012-07-12 08:38 · Score: 1

Thanks - although to clarify, I wasn't questioning that tiny things can do huge damage at high speed. I was looking for some more info on the "micro meteorite puts hole in shuttle windshield and ends up in headrest" story. I just would have naively thought that, y'know, all the air'd blow out and stuff.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Four by bazald · 2012-07-11 07:13 · Score: 4, Funny

There... are... four... moons!

--
Insert self-referential sig here.

Re:Four by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:18 · Score: 0

I see what you did there.
Re:Four by In+hydraulis · 2012-07-11 16:08 · Score: 1

Then you are a better man than I.

Was it a quote from "Malcolm in the Middle"?
Re:Four by Cristofori42 · 2012-07-11 16:27 · Score: 1

It's a Star Trek: TNG reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU

--
"Is that dad? Either that or Batman's really let himself go."

BB sized debris by sl4shd0rk · 2012-07-11 07:17 · Score: 1

Nevermind the 19,000 man-made objects larger than 10 centimetres in LEO. I wonder how anyone navigates past this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_Debris_Low_Earth_Orbit.png

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

Re:BB sized debris by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:25 · Score: 1

*debris not to scale :)
Re:BB sized debris by jnaujok · 2012-07-11 08:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Because space is big...

Imagine there were only 19,000 people on Earth, roughly evenly distributed. What's the chance you'd ever run into another person? Now, instead of just the land area, make sure that 3/4ths of those people are on the ocean. What are the odds of running into one of them now?

Now, imagine that, instead of just the surface of the Earth, you stack up about 500 layers, each one of them the surface of a sphere wrapping the entire Earth, each one a mile higher than the last and starting about 160 miles up. Now instead of just the surface of the Earth, spread those 19,000 people across those 500 spheres evenly and evenly spread them around the surface of the sphere they're on. And all of those spheres have more area than the surface of the Earth.

Now, would you consider that area "dangerously heavily populated?" On top of that, you need to shrink the people down for most of the debris.

Now, to be fair, the real test is that many of these "people" are moving really, really fast, although most of them are moving in roughly the same direction. But a few of them are going in different directions. And some of those are jumping between spheres. But it's still areas larger than the whole surface of the Earth. There have been only a tiny number of collisions between these objects. (I think the number is actually -- one.)

Like I said, space is big. Really big. Bigger than the biggest thing you can imagine. You may think it's a long way down to the pharmacy, but that's peanuts compared to space. (With apologies to Douglas Adams)

--
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Re:BB sized debris by Artifakt · 2012-07-11 11:35 · Score: 1

Imagine there were only 19,000 people on Earth, roughly evenly distributed. What's the chance you'd ever run into another person? Now, instead of just the land area, make sure that 3/4ths of those people are on the ocean. What are the odds of running into one of them now?
A quick back of the envelope calculation shows that the odds of running into one are, to three significant digits, 29.2/70.8 of the chance of swimming into one. I hope this helps.

--
Who is John Cabal?

That's no moon.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:23 · Score: 0

I'm sorry, let me hike my pants back up...

It's a space station! by mat.power · 2012-07-11 07:24 · Score: 1

Damn you beat me to it :(

Monetized Crane Game by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:25 · Score: 0

Someone should send a space shuttle up and throw out a mega net and catch some of those 19,000 objects, you could even charge to have a crane claw attached to a commercial spaceship and charge people $100 per try to get thier own crane claw game piece of space junk. That's a win-win, money for the commercial spaceship and a cool momento for the people paying to "fly into space"

The fifth moon? Surprised. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-07-11 07:26 · Score: 0

I am surprised the count is that low.

Pluto does not wear any clothes and I don't think it is just the fifth time they found it walking away from the camera. Surely it has done it many more times and it is not Pluto's fifth moon.

Sorry I called you Shirley.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

From the article.. by Grave · 2012-07-11 07:38 · Score: 1

"The Pluto team is intrigued that such a small planet can have such a complex collection of satellites."

They call it a planet. Is this a case of NASA getting confused again, ala English/Metric, or is this a subtle acknowledgement that calling it a planet makes more sense than not calling it one?

Re:From the article.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:51 · Score: 1

The official classification is "dwarf planet" which would likely be shortened to "planet" when there is no need to be precise (on account of "dwarf" being even more ambiguous.)

Future headline: by cvtan · 2012-07-11 07:41 · Score: 4, Funny

"NASA's New Horizons spacecraft was unexpectedly destroyed today when it crashed into a previously unknown 6th moon of Pluto..."

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.

Re:Future headline: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:47 · Score: 0

"NASA's New Horizons spacecraft has been repurposed as Pluto's 8th moon after a quick series of discoveries involving the previously unknown 6th and 7th moons of the dwaf planet."
Re:Future headline: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 08:29 · Score: 0

The plutonians tell a slightly different version of these events.

Well, shoot... by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-07-11 07:44 · Score: 1

...it's just a bigger shame with each discovery we couldn't field a proper orbiter to Pluto to poke around for months. Yeah, I know all the problems in accomplishing that, but still...

Next up: Snow Whites and the Dwarf Planet by cruff · 2012-07-11 07:47 · Score: 1

I propose to solve the naming conundrum for the satellites of Pluto. Presumably as they are somewhat close to white in hue, just call them Snow White 1, Snow White 2, etc. Since Pluto is merely a dwarf planet, this seems fitting. If one is found to be reddish in hue, it can be called "The Poison Apple".

Re:Next up: Snow Whites and the Dwarf Planet by element-o.p. · 2012-07-11 08:10 · Score: 1

Excellent observation, good sir. In fact, perhaps we could take things one step further and rename Pluto to Grumpy...or Sleepy...or perhaps Dopey?

--
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Re:Next up: Snow Whites and the Dwarf Planet by iztaru · 2012-07-11 08:54 · Score: 1

>> to solve the naming conundrum for the satellites of Pluto.
Which one? Of all the Roman gods, Pluto is the one not short of lackeys.
Charon -> Used!
Nyx -> Used!
Hydra -> Used!
Allecto
Tisiphone
Megaera -> For the 6th

maybe not a good idea to flyby pluto by circletimessquare · 2012-07-11 07:48 · Score: 1

or any other far out solar system object

i bet we find that most of these objects are more like swarms of loosely coupled rocks

way out there, there's no sun or gas giant to sweep the area, and nothing grouped together in the earlier part so the solar system: too much distance. so it is accretion in slow motion, and, being mostly solid and cold, bits of junk that never really gelled, just sort of banged together

these cloudy wobbly grainy agglomerations are going to smash any probe we send to them

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:maybe not a good idea to flyby pluto by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-12 00:33 · Score: 0

I'm sure you know more than NASA scientists.

No Star Wars Reference by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:52 · Score: -1

30+ comments and not one "That's no moon, its a space station" reference...are slashdotters growing up? They were even on TV the other day *sigh*

Re:No Star Wars Reference by KhabaLox · 2012-07-11 08:08 · Score: 1

I was two minutes late.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:No Star Wars Reference by KhabaLox · 2012-07-11 08:09 · Score: 1

Or 15.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.

Flyby nice, but we need a probe in Pluto orbit by Morgaine · 2012-07-11 07:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

A probe in orbit around every planet or dwarf planet in the solar system would seems like a fairly basic NASA objective to me.

I know that New Horizons will be using its velocity to also attempt flybys of one or more other Kuiper belt objects after it shoots through the Pluto system, and that is very worthwhile indeed, but we also seriously need a probe in orbit around Pluto itself.

I hope that they're working on such a mission already, so that when New Horizons returns Pluto data in 2015 they just need to tweak a few parameters and be ready to launch an orbital mission. Such new data could even be sent to an orbital mission that's already en route to Pluto.

--
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra

Re:Flyby nice, but we need a probe in Pluto orbit by burnttoy · 2012-07-11 08:39 · Score: 2

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
But seriously, Mankind really needs to take a leap into a deep space network seriously.
Automated drones (lots of technology, blasted into space) sent on crazy-long orbits through the Solar System (and beyond?) bringing multi-scopic, n-D views of the heavens in every colour of radiation for less than a round of bankers KY errr... Quantitive Easing. Pfft, write it off as Job Creation.

--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Re:Flyby nice, but we need a probe in Pluto orbit by houghi · 2012-07-11 09:57 · Score: 1

A probe in Pluto's orbit?
Why not a probe in Uranus'.
(I did not really type that, did I?)

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Pluto, dwarf planet ? by cooperaaaron · 2012-07-11 07:53 · Score: 1

These scientists call it a "dwarf planet" yet, it has several moons orbiting around it.... I think it is time to move Pluto, give it back the rank of FULL PLANET....

Re:Pluto, dwarf planet ? by sconeu · 2012-07-11 08:33 · Score: 1

"Dwarf Planet" is damaging to Pluto's self-esteem. It prefers the term, "Gravitationally Challenged"

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:Pluto, dwarf planet ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-12 01:24 · Score: 0

"Dwarf Planet" is damaging to Pluto's self-esteem. It prefers the term, "Gravitationally Challenged"
Absolutely. Also, it is also no longer the 9th planet. It is the 1st-equal planet along with all the others. Everyplanet is a winner! Yay!

Pluto is a planet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 07:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

The word planet dates back to antiquity.
IAU was founded in 1919.

What gives IAU the authority to muck with definition of something prediating itself by thousands of years?

Scientists are free to develop their own definitions and language to help convey concepts with necessary precision. I however refuse to accept their self granting of authority to redefine the meaning of popular terms. Languages belongs to everyone not just members of IAU. Internal votes conducted mostly to whore attention don't cut it.

Pluto will always be a planet to me for as long as I exist. Anyone who feels the need to correct me can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Pluto is a planet by epine · 2012-07-11 09:05 · Score: 1

Anyone who feels the need to correct me can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.
You can't correct a statement like that. You can mock, but not correct.
Sure, define a long string of dental floss as a "one piece" because it's physically contiguous, if that fills your love glove. Your other topological suggestion I'll not take up.
One small question though: if the string bikini top and the string bikini bottom are connected together only at brass rings, does it still count as a one piece, or is continuity beginning to crumble? What if the brass rings pierce the belly skin, so that the two halves are difficult to remove ensemble? Still a one piece? Now I've seen some arrangements of brass rings I'd have to classify as a three piece, if the rings were water soluble. So many categories, so little time.
Re:Pluto is a planet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 10:33 · Score: 0

The word planet dates back to antiquity.
IAU was founded in 1919.
What gives IAU the authority to muck with definition of something prediating itself by thousands of years?
Well, Pluto was discovered in 1930, and thousands of years ago, no one knew that objects like Pluto existed. To be pedantic, they never really defined this type of object

Pluto will always be a planet to me for as long as I exist.
I won't get upset with the scientists for reclassifying it, I understand why they did it, and I even think it was the correct decision, but in my heart Pluto is and shall ever remain a planet.
Re:Pluto is a planet by dissy · 2012-07-11 11:02 · Score: 1

Pluto will always be a planet to me for as long as I exist. Anyone who feels the need to correct me can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.
So when discussing large bodies in space we might have an interest in sending probes to, how do you single out those eight bodies from the millions upon millions of planets you think our solar system has?
We changed the definition because instead of 9 interesting objects in one group, the old definition means we have millions of planets and no way to distinguish the rare few large ones.
The new definition separates the eight large bodies we are interested in, from the millions upon millions of rocks out there.
There can not be nine planets, ever, under either definition. There are either eight, or millions. The former definition is not useful at all to us, while the newer one is.
What possible benefit do you get by claiming there are millions of planets and Jupiter is in the same group as this 2" diameter rock in my yard?
Do you honestly think we will find any life at all living on dust in space? Then why group the dust together with objects like Earth and Mars?
Re:Pluto is a planet by TapeCutter · 2012-07-11 12:42 · Score: 1

What gives IAU the authority to muck with definition of something prediating itself by thousands of years?
This implies you still believe a planet should keep it's original definition of "wandering star", so it follows you must also have an interseting definition of "star" - can you tell the rest of us what it is?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Pluto is a planet by Will.Woodhull · 2012-07-11 16:14 · Score: 1

First, you could, and probably should, have coined some new word to distinguish your eight "interesting" objects from everything you do not find interesting. That is what most scientific confabs do, and it would have been the sensible thing for a bunch of astronomers to do. But instead you chose to do the stupid thing and muck about in a field of study that not a single one of you have any degrees or expertise or even experience in. I am quite confident that there were no astronomers who know anything at all about linguistics involved in the decision to redefine "planet". Nor had any of you stupid stupid yokels bothered to bring in a linguist (or any other language expert) as you decided to alter the language.
Second, you also got the thing wrong. If you were going to be self-consistent, then as you excluded Pluto from your list of planets, you would also have had to elevate the Moon to planet status and accord the Earth - Moon pair the unique distinction of being a binary planet system. For not only does the Moon have a significant effect on the Earth's orbital mechanics (try calculating the date and time of perihelion without taking into account the Moon's phase in early January), anyone who has spent a day at a beach knows that the Moon is also a stirring rod that has a profound influence on a multitude of Earth's systems.

--
Will
Re:Pluto is a planet by dissy · 2012-07-11 22:20 · Score: 1

Are you serious? Pretty sure you're just trolling, but wow.
So yea, they did actually reference linguists. That's why one group of objects is called "Planet" and the other group is called "Dwarf Planet", being a subset and all.
Also, since when did the Earths moon orbit the Sun alone? It's sorta part of the definition, of both words. The moon is a satellite, not a planet or dwarf planet.
If you can't even bother to learn the definitions of the new terms, you don't have much right to complain about them.
Re:Pluto is a planet by Will.Woodhull · 2012-07-13 02:26 · Score: 1

So yea, they did actually reference linguists.
Meaning, apparently, that "they" (interesting that there has been a change from "we" to "they") used a dictionary or thesaurus or some other tool developed by linguists. Or perhaps "they" (probably means the IAU) even phoned a linguist or maybe emailed one and asked a question or two. In any case, either "they" did not pay the linguist enough to get him to bring his full attention to the matter at hand, or "they" did not get their money's worth. Or perhaps "they" did get good advice, but with their lofty far-seeing view of things, "they" decided to ignore such miniscule details.
How hard would it have been to construct a neologism for "big thing orbiting a star that is kind of interesting" and leave the word "planet" alone? Apparently that is much more difficult to reason out than the IAU is capable of handling.
I cannot reconcile the rest of the post with what I know about the way this new proposed terminology came into existence. There are however a couple of things that are very clear:
1. The Moon has contributed considerably to clearing the orbital path of the Earth - Moon pair, as anyone with binoculars can see just by looking at the craters;
2. The evidence is clear that the Moon would have been capable of clearing its orbit around the Sun if it had been alone, so it meets the major new criterion for being listed as a planet;
3. If the Earth was not present, the Moon would continue in its present orbit about the Sun, so it meets the other major criterion for planet status.
The Moon meets all the appropriate tests for being a planet in its own right. Additionally, any observer outside of the solar system who is capable of resolving Venus and Mars would recognize the Earth - Moon pair as a binary planet: each one being a planet in its own right. IAU is not only wrong-headed in its efforts to pervert the common language, it is logically inconsistent in applying its new terminology.
As an aside: in our quest for exoplanets that might harbor life, we should pay particular attention to any other binary planets we find, especially if they are within or near the Goldilocks zone. Life is much more likely to develop if there is a stirring rod mixing the brew.

--
Will
Re:Pluto is a planet by dissy · 2012-07-13 04:05 · Score: 0

The only thing even close to correct is your #3.
If the Earth was not present, the Moon would continue in its present orbit about the Sun, so it meets the other major criterion for planet status.
You have some 'tense' mistakes near the end.
Yes, if the Earth was not present, then yes the Moon would then be a planet.
But that isn't the case. The Earth is present, so the moon does Not match either definition of planet right now.
The detail you refuse to accept is that the Earth DOES exist, and the moon is in orbit around Earth. That means it does not match "In orbit around the sun" part which is currently required to be called a planet.
The correct term is Satellite. That is what we call a large body in orbit NOT around the sun, but which is orbiting a larger body which itself is in orbit around the sun.
The Earths gravitational pull on the moon is MUCH stronger than that of the sun, purely due to the distances involved. THAT is the definition the moon fits as it is now.
I never once argued how important the moon is/was for the Earth to be in the place it is today. I agree it played a very large role in our place in the solar system, as well as a very large role in the development of the Earth itself. Personally I even suspect the moon was very important for life on Earth, although there is no solid proof of that yet.
I also have no doubt at all that if the Earth was not present, but the moon was, then the moon would have become a planet.
But the fact remains, that isn't how things turned out. The Earth is here, which the moon orbits, and thus the moon turned out to be a satellite and not a planet.
.
As for the rest of your post, you are arguing for this:
A) Leave planet as the 2nd definition, and thus make the word meaningless and useless for any human communications.
B) Have no word to reference the eight large bodies orbiting the sun.
WTF would you want that? How is that useful or helpful?
If you reply to any part of this post, please reply to this: Name ONE useful situation where you would want to refer to millions of rocks in our solar system by a common term, at the expense of being able to refer to the large bodies orbiting the sun? How does this definition make your communications easier or better?
If the word "Planet" was left alone, then there are millions of planets in our solar system, and scientists would only very rarely have any reason to use that term. We simply don't have a need to refer to the millions of rocks in orbit around the sun!
But due to telescopes, space probes/landers, and gravitational wabble observations, we DO quite frequently need a word to reference the big things out there that do orbit the sun that would be useful for us to explore and potentially utilize the resources of.
Might as well use the word "Planet" for that.
Even if you want to ignore our current 3rd definition of the term, why would you want to stick with definition #2?
People who are hungup on the original definition of a word generally expect that definition #1 is and always will be the only definition that matters, and ignore ALL future changes.
Definition #1 of Planet is "any body in the heavens that orbits the Earth".
Under that definition, the Earth is NOT a planet, but the Sun, Moon, Mars, etc all the way out to the tiny rocks such as Pluto Eris and the millions of bodies larger than both of those, are all planets.
We changed away from definition #1 when it was proven the Sun is the center of the solar system, not the Earth.
Doing so brought the word "Planet" back in line with it's original intent, which was to reference the things we see out there in orbit.
We changed from #2 to the current 3rd definition to keep that same tradition.
With our new knowledge about exactly how many objects are in orbit around the sun (millions), it became pointless to refer to all of that using a term where the spirit was to define the bodies with some size that we cou
Re:Pluto is a planet by Will.Woodhull · 2012-07-14 06:14 · Score: 1

If the Earth was not present, the Moon would continue in its present orbit about the Sun, so it meets the other major criterion for planet status.
You have some 'tense' mistakes near the end.
Yes, if the Earth was not present, then yes the Moon would then be a planet.
But that isn't the case. The Earth is present, so the moon does Not match either definition of planet right now.
The verb tenses in the sentence of mine that you quoted above are precisely correct. It is the failure of the reader to grasp the concept described that has caused him to regard them as mismatched.
Either a planet is a planet or it is not. If it is a planet when some external conditions exist, then it cannot miraculously change to not being a planet if those external conditions are not present. Much as the IAU would like that to be the case.
What the IAU have come up with is an absurd logic where you can make direct measurements of any object in relation to its nearest star and be unable to say whether that object is a planet until you have also looked at its potential relationships with every other object that is also near the same star. Any clauses in a definition of planet that make reference to objects other than the object in question and its nearest star have no place in determining whether the object is a planet or not. Such matters are definitely important in describing the object's relationships with other objects in that star system, but that is an entirely different matter. That is a thing of celestial mechanics, with no direct impact on the planetary sciences (geology, chemistry, biology, etc).
Returning to the point at hand, the Moon's intrinsic properties are sufficient to have cleared its orbit about the Sun even if the Earth did not exist. That is the only part of the IAU definition that stands up to serious scrutiny. So the tenses as I used them in the above quote are in fact correct: since the Moon would be considered a planet if it had no relationship with the Earth, it is, under the only parts of the IAU definition that have validity, still a planet (that happens to be in a binary relationship with another planet).
This suggests that several of the larger satellites of Saturn and Jupiter are probably also planets under the valid parts of the IAU definition. That might actually make sense in terms of the planetary sciences: these objects are massive enough to have layers-- atmospheres, oceans, stratified lithospheres-- with active geologic and chemical systems. And it might even make sense with regard to Jovian moons, since as we learn more about what is happening within Jupiter, we may want to drop it from the list of planets and put it in the category of dwarf brown stars. Which would make the Solar System a binary star and the Jovian moons planets of Jupiter (under any definition).
But my basic point is that the IAU has not advanced science at all with its self-serving venture out of its area of expertise in its attempt to change the common language. Someday this will be used as a classic example of the errors of hubris that happen when a group that has been educated beyond the level of their intelligence attempts to impose its limited point of view on the wider community.
Would it have been so hard for these guys to come up with some brand new label for their new scheme of classification? Physicists were able to get away with absurd labels like "quarks"-- both "charmed" and "strange"-- are astronomers suddenly lacking in that kind of vision? There was once a time when astronomers enriched the common discourse with excelllent new terms like black holes, blue stellar objects, quasars, and a bunch of other neologisms. Can they not do that any more? Can they no longer come up with something new to label the "large objects orbiting stars that we think are interesting" group?
Or perhaps the IAU thought that redefining the common language would get them more publicity. Everyone knows

--
Will
Re:Pluto is a planet by dissy · 2012-07-14 08:49 · Score: 1

I have neither the time nor feel the need to respond to the rest of parent post.
Then enjoy rambling to yourself, instead of having a civilized conversation. I'll leave you to it.

I cant believe it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 08:06 · Score: -1

How can Hubble see object of size 5mm from 4.3 billion kilometers distance ?

Obligatory? by KhabaLox · 2012-07-11 08:07 · Score: 0

Hubble Discovers 5th Moon of Pluto

That's no moon.... that's a battle station.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.

An Historic? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 08:07 · Score: -1

Is the poster British?

Just because you silence the H doesn't mean you can add an N.

Re:An Historic? by Toonol · 2012-07-11 14:09 · Score: 2

Just because you silence the H doesn't mean you can add an N.

It does, actually. The a/an selection is based entirely on pronunciation, and has nothing to do with how the following word is spelled. It's one of the rare cases where correct grammar is based on the accent of the speaker.

Please explain. by glrotate · 2012-07-11 08:16 · Score: -1

How is it that we're finding planets dozens to hundreds of light years away, yet we still don't know how many moons the planets in our own solar system have?

Unnamed? by Antipater · 2012-07-11 08:22 · Score: 1

How is this and the other (the 4th one from last year) still unnamed? One would think they'd just have a sheet of names ready to go at this point, like they do with hurricanes. Nyx is already up there as a moon of Pluto, we can't name her brother Erebus? Why not some of Pluto's assistants: Aeacus, Minos, or Rhadamanthus?

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.

Re:Unnamed? by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-07-12 03:55 · Score: 1

The IAU only meets every three years. The 28th meeting was 2009, the 29th will be in August this year. The fourth moon of Pluto was only discovered last year.
You can suggest Erebus for the 5th moon, to the Committee on Small Body Nomenclature. (Although it may be too late to have it considered for the 29th meeting, presumably they already have a name chosen for the 4th moon.)
You should also suggest your idea about having a prepared list of names for obvious future discoveries. Such as inevitable future moons of Pluto and the gas giants. Future TNO's above a certain size. Etc. It's a good idea. Try the CSBN's current secretary, Gareth Williams. gwilliams (at) cfa.harvard.edu or via the Minor Planet Centre (mpc (at) cfa.harvard.edu).

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:Flyby nice, but we need a probe in Pluto roxy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 08:37 · Score: 0

Yes! A flyby to Pluto is like taking weeks to cross the U.S. from Ohio to California to see the beach, and only spending an hour or two there. What a waste of a trip and money. Some have said it would be too costly to orbit. Then how about a jettisoned lander like Hugyens or the comet impactor? Even if they couldn't hit it, they could get some really close photos. How about they strap on some solid fuel to slow it down and try to orbit? Even if they failed to orbit, they would learn and see more than a whizzing fast probe. Unfortunately, I'll be dead before they orbit or land on most of these planets and moons. Oh yea, good luck finding a Kuiper belt object. At least we know the orbit of Pluto, we don't even know how to find a Kuiper belt object, let alone navigate to one.

If they would just give me 5% of the NASA budget and access to their resources, I would create a independent, wholly-owned space exploration subsidiary that would orbit and land everywhere possible. Sample returns, too. Stop making one-offs, we've already got all the research to create barges to deliver anything we want. Sell space to other nations and companies. NASA provides the barge to get several probes, etc. to the planets and moons. Politics are the only thing impeding this. Oh yea, sending men to Mars to pick up rocks is dumb.

Dear Pluto, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 08:59 · Score: 0

Fuck you Pluto, you're not even a planet, asshole!

Sincerely,

IAU

Re:Flyby nice, but we need a probe in Pluto roxy by Necron69 · 2012-07-11 09:14 · Score: 2

This is a technology problem, not a policy problem. The New Horizons probe is doing a flyby because that is currently the _only_ way to get a probe near far away Pluto. The probe is going extremely fast and in order to decelerate into orbit of such a small planet, you'd need to be taking along a lot more fuel than that probe has on board. Alternately, you could take a much slower and longer (decades if not hundreds of years) lower energy transfer orbit.

This isn't Star Trek. NASA has to deal with real physics. Start here: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/whereis_nh.php

Necron69

FUCK?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 09:15 · Score: -1

milestones, teeling fucking market Serves to reinforce go find something

Woot Woot! by morian97 · 2012-07-11 09:46 · Score: 1

But any signs of water?

Re:Woot Woot! by Robert+Zenz · 2012-07-11 19:29 · Score: 1

Well, they found water on Mars recently.

not a moon by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 11:05 · Score: 0

Dont you mean newly equired space rock.
How big is it, when was it first identified?
Pluto will always be a cast out moon, as thee others hahaha, nice try. :0

mod down by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 11:38 · Score: -1

BSD sux0rs. Wh4t atround return it formed his own

Comets by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 12:23 · Score: 0

I suspect that the slew of newly discovered moons over the last few years is in fact an indication that our solar system is currently passing through a big cluster of debris and that these news moons are in fact comets which have been newly captured in planetary gravity wells.

Why do I think this? Several reasons, one of which being that the Earth has been seeing a great deal more crap falling out of the sky than even five years ago.

I don't know Hubble was that good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-11 14:22 · Score: 0

I am amazed that Hubble could see somthing a couple dozen miles in diameter from 3 1/2 billion miles away.

hide the money. by Hanzie · 2012-07-11 16:05 · Score: 2

You may sleep soundly, knowing that the money isn't being hidden in the Caymans or Swiss banks to avoid taxes. The US has very generous agreements with both of those country's banking systems to track funds.

Given that his chief opposition owns the IRS, and that a successful finding of concealed funds in an audit = felony = instant ineligibility to run for US President, there is about a 0% chance that there's any monkey business in his accounts.

He does, after all, give 14% of his income to charity. I don't think mindless greed is much a problem with him.

--
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.

Re:hide the money. by fahrbot-bot · 2012-07-11 16:43 · Score: 2

I don't think mindless greed is much a problem with him.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Your sig is hilarious is this context.
I'm sure the greed of Mitt and his friends is anything but "mindless". If he's got nothing to hide, he should release more than his 2010 tax returns (and 2011 estimate). Hell, his father released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for Governor of Michigan.
Perhaps you should read the NYT and Vanity Fair articles and then wonder how much he could possibly care about middle-class and poor people instead of the rich - and those other people known as corporations. They've had 12 years of the lowest personal and corporate tax rates in history and have so far failed to fulfill their self-anointed roles as "job creators", yet (amazingly) have done really, really well for themselves and their personal wealth. Sure, perhaps more tax cuts will help - them.
Republicans have publicly stated that their #1 priority is removing President Obama from office.

...asked him if he stands by his previous statement that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” [Republican Senator] McConnell confirmed that his goal remains unchanged.
I believe they're willing to purposely tank the economy to achieve that end. The Tea Party Nation even urges business owners to pledge to *not* hire anyone in order to hurt Obama:

I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.
While both parties are far from perfect, I'm constantly amazed how people who are *not* white, rich, straight men think the Republican party actually cares about them.
Cheers.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

god it sucks by Nyder · 2012-07-12 00:54 · Score: 1

that we spend 100's of Billions of dollars in some stupid ass war we don't need or want, when we could be spending money on something valuable, like learning more about our solar system.

We spend $20 billion on air condition in Iraq & Afghanistan, and spent just over $18 Billion on Nasa. (http://theweek.com/article/index/216786/the-militarys-20-billion-air-conditioning-bill-by-the-numbers)

fuck you US Government, fucking corporate fuck toys.

--
Be seeing you...

my suggestion by slashmydots · 2012-07-12 01:53 · Score: 1

New Horizons could be destroyed in a collision with even a BB-shot-size piece of orbital debris

Then perhaps they should raise shields :-P

Raw source by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-12 02:49 · Score: 0

Anyone know where one could find the original data? The black stripe indicates that the original data may have had more bits per pixel, and had part of the data clipped for public display. It'd be fun to see what's in the original bits.

Re:Flyby nice, but we need a probe in Pluto roxy by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-07-12 03:12 · Score: 1

Oh yea, good luck finding a Kuiper belt object. At least we know the orbit of Pluto, we don't even know how to find a Kuiper belt object, let alone navigate to one.

Do try to keep up.

List of trans-Neptunian objects

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Slashdot Mirror

Hubble Discovers 5th Moon of Pluto

137 comments