Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid From Another Star System Found Orbiting Wrong Way Near Jupiter (theguardian.com)

Astronomers have spotted an asteroid orbiting our sun in the opposite (retrograde) direction to the planets. The 2-mile-wide asteroid, known as 2015 BZ509, is the first "interstellar immigrant" from beyond our solar system to remain, according to the study published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The Guardian reports: Further work on the asteroid revealed it takes the same length of time to orbit the sun as the planet Jupiter at a similar average distance, although in the opposite direction and with a different shaped path, suggesting the two have gravitational interactions. But unpicking quite where the asteroid came from was challenging. Asteroids that orbit the sun on paths that take them between the giant planets -- Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune -- are known as centaurs, and it is thought that many might come from distant bands of material within the solar system such as the scattered disk or the Oort cloud. Several, like BZ509, are known to have retrograde paths, although how they ended up on such orbits is unclear.

But there was a clue there was something unusual about BZ509: while previous studies suggested retrograde centaurs stay gravitationally "tied" to planets for 10,000 years at most, recent work had suggested this asteroid's orbit had been linked to Jupiter for far longer, probably as a result of the planet's mass and the way both take the same time to orbit the sun. The discovery provides vital clues as to the asteroid's origins. [Dr Fathi Namouni from the Observatory de la Cote d'Azur said] that the model suggests the most likely explanation is that the asteroid was captured by Jupiter as it hurtled through the solar system from interstellar space. "It means it is an alien to the solar system," he said.

84 comments

  1. it's going the other way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    oooW

  2. Re:First! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, they have do idea if it is the first extra-solar visitor or not. It is simply the first one they have noticed, and that was only because of its peculiar orbit. There could be a hundred others that either orbited with the planets, or that crashed into a planet or the sun. We'll never know.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  3. Re:First! by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

    Why does it especially have to come from outside to be "captured" by Jupiter?

    --
    No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  4. Ah ha! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now we know how our Octopodian Overlords got here.

    The only remaining loose end to this mystery is whether they consider Pluto a planet.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Ah ha! by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      The only remaining loose end to this mystery is whether they consider Pluto a planet.

      I thought Pluto was a cash cow that could never die*.

      Oops .. wrong Pluto

      ---

      *Hmm .. now I am wondering if the Zombie apocalypse will actually be financial in nature as the world is consumed by un-dead copywrite laws

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Ah ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we know how our Octopodian Overlords got here.

      The only remaining loose end to this mystery is whether they consider Pluto a planet.

      They do, but they call it Yuggoth.

  5. British by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you sure it isn't just a British asteroid?

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:British by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn tourists, driving on the wrong side of the road.

    2. Re:British by houghi · · Score: 1

      I am driving on the right side of the road. It is these bloody locals who have no idea how to drive. Can't even speak proper English. Not sure if it is French, Welsh, Scottish or American, but it sure isn't English.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:British by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      If you're driving on the left side of the road then by definition you're not driving on the right side of the road.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:British by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an Englishman living in the US. In my first year of living in the US I had multiple people tell me they were impressed with how well I spoke the language for a recent immigrant. One went even further and told me "wow, it's like you're almost fluent".

    5. Re:British by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an American living in London. I can't find any English speakers.

    6. Re:British by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I should have learned Arabic before coming to England? I'm still a bit confused by it all.

    7. Re:British by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I'm an Englishman living in the US. In my first year of living in the US I had multiple people tell me they were impressed with how well I spoke the language for a recent immigrant. One went even further and told me "wow, it's like you're almost fluent".

      Are you sure they didn't call you a potty mouth? AS in you speak affluent ?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:British by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, you could have tried to fake a german accent?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:British by houghi · · Score: 1

      An American once told my Brittish friend that he liked his accent.
      "It's not an accent. That is how it is supposed to be spoken."

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re: British by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol fake pretend posh accent from 18th century is fake

    11. Re:British by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what point in history was the "correct" pronunciation? Because the brits pronounce words VERY differently now than they did 200 years ago. Like, for example, the great vowel shift that happened after colonizing the US but before colonizing Australia, which leads to one of the major pronunciation differences.

    12. Re:British by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      affluent

      That's a pretty rich joke, but I think you meant effluent.

    13. Re:British by bobbied · · Score: 1

      affluent

      That's a pretty rich joke, but I think you meant effluent.

      I do love puns... Spelling though? Not so much. Thanks for both the pun and correction.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:British by houghi · · Score: 1

      There never was a point in history, There still isn't. That is part of the joke.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  6. Jumping to conclusions = unscientific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can just as well be, that it merely got turned around by getting too near to Jupiter and swinging around.

    It is a well-known hypothesis that Jupiter protects the inner planets from asteroids coming from the outer solar system.

    1. Re:Jumping to conclusions = unscientific by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      It can just as well be, that it merely got turned around by getting too near to Jupiter and swinging around.

      It is a well-known hypothesis that Jupiter protects the inner planets from asteroids coming from the outer solar system.

      I see no conclusions being "jumped to".

      A Differential hypothesis is the bedrock of science. Make the hypothesis, then try to disprove it.

      In fact, your first sentence is a hypothesis. Your second sentence is in defense of it

      Now, you need to look at orbital periods, work your way backwards.

      Where it falls apart is you trying to use your first and only defense to disprove any other hypothesis. You rent there yet - you need to be proving your hypothesis with as much data as you can muster.

      And something tells me these astronomers might have done the science here.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not captured by (not in orbit around) Jupiter. It is the fact that it orbits the Sun in opposite direction that is a clue that it likely comes from outside the solar system.
    Within the solar system all orbits around the Sun are in the same direction because of how the planets etc formed: from a dust/gas cloud that has some residual orbital motion.

  8. False alarm. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    A journalist just caught the tail end of an epic diss-fest between two astronomers asserting that "your mama so fat..." ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  9. Re:First! by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1
    Did you not read the summary?

    Several, like BZ509, are known to have retrograde paths, although how they ended up on such orbits is unclear.

  10. So let's send a probe by Zorpheus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In any space game this unusual object would certainly be an important artifact.
    In reality it would still be quite interesting to analyse its composition.

    1. Re:So let's send a probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The science would be more interesting by sending a probe to an asteroid that we are confident formed in this solar system. Whatever we find out about BZ509 tells us absolutely nothing about how the sun and planets formed. Sending a probe to this asteroid, while it would not be without scientific value, would be a waste of limited resources.

    2. Re:So let's send a probe by slashdice · · Score: 1

      Probe it? fuck no. We need to capture and enslave that mother fucker. Let's send a crack commando team -- led by Bruce Willis, Marky Mark and Michael Bay -- to recover it.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    3. Re:So let's send a probe by thomst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Zorpheus observed:

      In any space game this unusual object would certainly be an important artifact.

      In reality it would still be quite interesting to analyse its composition.

      I don't disagree about the scientific importance of this body. OTOH, "send a probe" is a non-trivial undertaking, when that probe will have to overcome the Earth's orbital velocity, then further accelerate to the orbital velocity of this retrograde object.

      That's a helluva lot of delta vee.

      I'm not saying it's impossible. Taking advantage of carefully-calculated gravitational slingshot trajectories ought to permit it - but it's going to take a more powerful launch system than currently exists, regardless. So we're talking about needing the SLS, or SpaceX's BFR, or Blue Origin's New Glenn booster to make it happen.

      The first one won't be operational until no earlier than 2026 (assuming it hits its development schedule, which I don't think is at all a safe assumption). New Glenn might be launch-ready by, say, 2022 or so. Or it might not. The BFR? I'm guessing late 2020 at the earliest. And all three of those systems will have a LONG list of payloads lined up ahead of any at-this-point-theoretical probe to this admittedly-interesting destination - for which there's certainly no room in NASA's budget at the moment.

      New, multiple-billion-dollar, 10-year or more NASA projects don't just appear AIBFM - and the current Congress seems to have little appetite for pure science projects. Or were you expecting the ESA, Roscsmos, or the CNSA to tackle it?

      Because I don't think any one of them has the capability. Or the mandate ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    4. Re:So let's send a probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're only a few years away from being able to save ourselves and all life on Earth by sending a quantum nuclear bomb to destroy humanity's greatest threat that will ever be - but we won't do it "because money".

      We are all doomed.

    5. Re:So let's send a probe by careysub · · Score: 1

      Helluva a lot easier than trying to catch another Oumuamua which we will only detect near the Sun (i.e. shortly before exiting), and has a solar velocity excess of 26 km/s, or 2.6 times more kinetic energy than any rocket boosted object in human history (which was the New Horizons probe).

      This one is staying here on a known orbit, gravitationally bound to the Sun. An ion drive or Hall Effect thruster is a good candidate for this mission as it can reach much high velocities than chemical rockets, and the long boost time is no handicap. These can achieve the necessary velocities with these to rendezvous with any object the is gravitationally bound to the Sun regardless of orbital inclination.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re:So let's send a probe by careysub · · Score: 1

      Whatever we find out about BZ509 tells us absolutely nothing about how the sun and planets formed.

      We have lots of material to study that was formed in this solar system, and have obtained virgin, uncontaminated material from both asteroids and comets, with more samples and sample missions in the pipeline.

      But aside from seven interstellar dust particles recovered in the Wild II mission we don't have anything from outside the solar system to compare our solar system samples with.

      Being able to study material formed in other star systems is absolutely going to help us understand how our sun and planets formed.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    7. Re:So let's send a probe by phantomfive · · Score: 0
      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:So let's send a probe by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Budgets and launch schedules aside, unless you are actually planning on a landing or matching orbits the most likely mission profile is likely to be a flyby, and to get the maximum mission value that would most probably be in conjuction with visiting other Centaurs or Kuiper Belt Objects, similar to New Horizons. That seems like it may be far more achievable (and saleable), even allowing for Earth's orbital speed having a mean velocity of 30km/s and Jupiter's being around 13km/s, giving combined Delta V of 43km/s between Earth and this asteroid. Admittedly, that's not going to provide a lot of time for observation given that it's only 2km or so across, but that window could increase considerably if it's possible to enough velocity en route through the slingshots you suggest, or maybe even some aero-braking at Jupiter since there's a good chance any potential probe will be close to it at some point. Better still would be to approach Jupiter from "behind" and pull off a 180 to enter a retrograde solar orbit and burning off as much of the excess velocity in the process as possible.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    9. Re:So let's send a probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says the probe has to orbit retrograde? Let it go prograde and do science on the flybys. Hell, even a single flyby would be something.

    10. Re:So let's send a probe by AndyG314 · · Score: 1

      First off, there is nothing saying that a visit to the thing would be the best course of action right now. Further study from ground based and space telescopes are probably a better place to start. We could map it's orbit and find the best spot to intercept it, and possibly find out what it's made of. Secondly, given it's retro orbit, a flyby mission makes much more sense, probably on the way to something else.

      --
      If it's dead, you killed it.
    11. Re:So let's send a probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why even mention Blue Origin? Have they even achieved orbit with anything? Besides, the "New Glenn" 2-stage is only going to have a payload 3,000 pounds heavier to GTO than the actually-exists-and-flew-successfully Falcon Heavy. Sure, the 3-stage will be able to boost more... when it actually exists... and has test flown... someday...

    12. Re:So let's send a probe by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

      two part probe: Once in the orbit of the asteroid, they detach from each other, and one will collide with the object, and the other will scoop up debris as it passes immediately after to return or analyze. No need to actually match speeds.

    13. Re:So let's send a probe by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      "send a probe" is a non-trivial undertaking

      How hard can it be. Have you seen the type of people ET's probe? There isn't even any mass transit systems in those places. If you turn on the History channel these days you'd think half of the people in the mid-west have been probed.

    14. Re:So let's send a probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question: can’t a probe get into a reverse orbit around Jupiter with basically the same delta-V as a normal orbit?

      Depending on whether the probe arrives at the leading (“left”) or trailing (“right”) side of Jupiter, it will go into an orbit either way, won’t it?

      Is the delta-V for the reverse version actually much higher?(Numbers welcome).

    15. Re:So let's send a probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That’s correct. The delta-V for inserting a probe into a retrograde orbit around a different planet (different from the launch planet) is almost identical.

      Apart from slight differences due to geometry of entry (which are trivial due to small angle approximations because the target planet is so for from the launch planet), the delta-V needed enter the Jupiter system in forward (matching planet rotation) or reverse (opposite planet rotation) is almost identical.

      Insertion into retrograde orbit is only a major problem if doing it for the launch planet, because the initial boost from planet rotation needs to be neutralised and reversed.

    16. Re:So let's send a probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A probe to a retrograde object is going to require a lot of delta-v.

    17. Re:So let's send a probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, "send a probe" is a non-trivial undertaking, when that probe will have to overcome the Earth's orbital velocity, then further accelerate to the orbital velocity of this retrograde object. [...] That's a helluva lot of delta vee.

      Absolutely! This asteroid's orbit isn't quite circular, but let's approximate it as being roughly in the same orbit around the sun as Jupiter, but retrograde. Jupiter's orbital velocity is 13 km/s. So a probe to rendesvous with this asteroid, from low Earth orbit, would take a delta-v of 7 km/s (to Jupiter intercept), use a Jupiter flyby to (roughly) cancel out its remaining orbital velocity, then accelerate 13 km/s to get into a suitable retrograde orbit. That's a total delta-v of 20 km/s.

      Chemical rockets with storable propellants get an exhaust velocity of about 3 km/s. The rocket equation tells us that the fuel ratio required for our probe is exp(20/3) = 786. So, if we want a 100-kg probe to reach the asteroid, we need a 78.6-tonne transfer vehicle in orbit. Plus the mass of tankage, engines, etc.

      Damn - that's huge. Around (a bit above) the capacity of a Falcon Heavy. But it's not as absolutely infeasible as I expected. Sending a 100-kg probe to an asteroid in a retrograde orbit is, just about, feasible with current technology.

    18. Re:So let's send a probe by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      As you imply, you just do what probably happened to the object itself, and use a couple of gravity assist swings to reverse direction.
      Why would it need a powerful launch system? we sent probes much MUCH further a long LONG time ago..

      Orbital mechanics dont work the way you seem to think they work. Its pretty much energy OR time to get somewhere.. a heavy launch can
      reduce time, but not have a great effect on possibility..

      There is a LOT of assumptions in this 'analysis', because there is actually little real reason why it could not have just been randomly slung in to such an orbit late in planet formation..

  11. Re:First! by DavenH · · Score: 2

    This is speculation, but in principle we can get retrograde orbits if an asteroid -- even one on a "normal" orbit direction -- passes in front of a planet (relative to its path in orbit) and gets slingshot back around exiting at a ~200-300 degree angle. Whether this is possible in practice depends on the relative asteroid speed and mass of planet.

  12. Nessus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch out for the Vex.

  13. BUILD THE WALL!!! by link-error · · Score: 2, Funny

    "interstellar immigrant" ? They can be stopped!

    --
    -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
    1. Re:BUILD THE WALL!!! by burningcpu · · Score: 1

      Make the solar system great again

  14. Go home asteroid - you are drunk. by tonywestonuk · · Score: 2

    .fff

  15. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking immigrants, again!!

  16. So we know where to find the proto-molecule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From outside the solar system you say. And reasonably easy to find and locate. Yep, that is where the proto-molecule is.
    ((The Expanse reference))

  17. It's not an immigration. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop making everything about immigration.

  18. But astronomer ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm only going one way!

  19. Re:First! by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lets build a Dysonsphere along the Oort Cloud and have the Alpha Centorians pay for it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  20. Bullshit assumption, run a sim, see for yourself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run any gravity sim with a bunch of masses around a central mass. You'll get some going one way, some going the other way. Add some initial spin and you'll still get the oddball object that rotates the "wrong" way.

    TL;DR: Jumped to conclusions, there's zero evidence the object is from outside our system. In fact, I'd bet my life that it isn't...

  21. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking immigrants, again!!

    No. no.. It's not immigrant objects you fool, everything isn't from here originally.. It's the UNDOCUMENTED objects we need to fear. Always going the wrong way, don't know the local laws or language and crashing into things...

  22. Re:First! by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Isn't that what the Ort Cloud is? Or at least the beginning of?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  23. Illegal immigrants breaking orbiting laws by sinij · · Score: 1

    Illegal interstellar immigrants breaking orbiting laws. We need to build a Dyson Sphere (and make Mexico pay for it!).

  24. Re:First! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Much like how we already have a border checkpoints on roads, and fencing and a wall along the more populated areas of the border?
     

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  25. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much like how we already have a border checkpoints on roads, and fencing and a wall along the more populated areas of the border?

    Works just like gun control.

  26. TK7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TK7 spends half its time retrograde as it shares the Earth's orbit around the sun. I don't think retrograde necessarily has to imply extra-solar. Run a multi-body simulation of the early solar system ... you will see pure chaos and many masses of different sizes being ejected and nearly ejected on odd trajectories. Having one small mass come out of that chaos retrograde does not seem implausible.

  27. Thatâ(TM)s not an asteroid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Itâ(TM)s a space station!

  28. Oh please! ... Go meet some people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you seriously not get that I said that the hypothesis is a retarded one, given far more obvious ones,or did you just /have/ to grab that straw-man, just to attack something?

    Please go meet some actual humans, and learn some common sense and common implications.

    1. Re:Oh please! ... Go meet some people. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Did you seriously not get that I said that the hypothesis is a retarded one, given far more obvious ones,or did you just /have/ to grab that straw-man, just to attack something?

      Please go meet some actual humans, and learn some common sense and common implications.

      Hi there random AC on Slashdot. You really missed the part where I said you have to defend your thesis.

      So defend it, its not my job, because I accept the science here.

      In the meantime, simulations running back to the origin of our solar system indicate that the object was always in a retrograde path, not an orbit forced by Joopidur. It didn't go "too near" other than to go into orbit, and in the same direction it was already going. Merely captured into orbit in the directrion it was already going.

      So are you going to prove that the simulations are faulty? You have made the differential claim, so it's your job to prove it. Show your math while you are at it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Oh please! ... Go meet some people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, a single simulation/study does not make it anywhere close to "accepted science". Anyone who has ever written a scientific simulation can tell you there are many assumptions that get built into these models which may or may not end up being correct.

      In fact, the burden of proof still remains with the researchers as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In fact, they should now come up with multiple other ways to confirm their hypothesis. Only once one or two of these other methods of confirmation are shown to work would we begin to accept this as established.

      Still, even though this article way over-hyped it, it's interesting work.

  29. Re: Bullshit assumption, run a sim, see for yourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, that was exactly my point above.
    Plus, Jupiter is well-known (well, at least well-hypothetized) to do exactly that, protecting us from inbound asteroids.

  30. Driver comment by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    Asteroid driver D. Duck was heard to say, "Oopf! Put the silly thing in reverse!"

  31. Old drivers by PPH · · Score: 1

    Think the laws don't apply to them.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. Orbital Tag? by Toad-san · · Score: 0

    One has to wonder how long it can cross Jupiter's orbit (in the opposite direction, no less) before the two eventually meet?

    I'm sure the encounter will be more detrimental to the asteroid than to Jupiter.

  33. Now we know where it is... by whitroth · · Score: 1

    And when we send a probe to it, we know what we'll see... don't we, Mr. Clarke?

    #insert "ThusSpakeZarathustra"

  34. Send a probe! by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think such probes should be mass-produced because there's no shortage of stuff in the solar system to go explore. Fire out a craft to land on the surface, deploy a small core sampler, and analyze its composition, comparing it to other "native" neighbouring asteroids...

    This small rock will provide some lucky astronomers with an entire career's worth of knowledge and investigation. Gotta say, I'm kind of jealous.

  35. Remaining So Not British by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Are you sure it isn't just a British asteroid?

    Yes. If it were it would be brexiting the solar system not remaining.

  36. Quick! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Grab the harpoon!

    /s, seriously, fuck the ESA but we should check this out.

  37. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That it's retrograde doesn't tell you it's extra-solar. But it does tell you "hey, this this is weirdly anomalous and you should look at it harder than more mundane objects." And its chances of being extra-solar are higher than the chances are for the gazillion objects that are orbiting in the "right" way.

  38. Re:First! by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    Thats hardly fair.
    The Alpha Centorians worked hard to build their Oort fence around us..

  39. Ummm...Triton by pr0f3550r · · Score: 1

    Triton also orbits in retrograde and could just as easily have originated from a different solar system. Sure the popular theory is that it is a Kuiper Belt object, but we don't know that for sure...do we? Also, just because something is in prograde doesn't mean that it must have exclusively formed during the accretion of the solar system. Just give us the science please and stop with the conclusions as fact. Amazingly, this article seems to conclude all the facts in evidence to the point of being a religious mandate. "No more science to be done here, we know what happened because we removed all the variables that we choose to consider...move along pleebs."

  40. Is Jupiter a planet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this asteroid similar enough to Jupiter in its distance from the Sun that Jupiter can be said to have not fully cleared its orbit?