The Most-Distant Solar System Object Discovered (cnn.com)

Rick Zeman writes: Astronomers in Hawaii have discovered the furthest object in our solar system, a dwarf planet aptly named "Farout." This planet is 100 times farther than Earth is from the sun (120 AU from the sun) and is thought to be composed of ice. The object is so far away that researchers estimate it probably takes more than 1,000 years to make one trip around the sun. For reference, Pluto is 34 AU away and takes about 248 years to orbit the sun. Eris, the next most distance object know, is 96 AU from the sun.

Comments

Farthest post

[Anonymous Coward]

Farthest post!

Re:Farthest post

[Anonymous Coward]

You lose, old bitch

Re:Farthest post

[Anonymous Coward]

Farthest post!

Then we can expect the next one in about 1000 years?

Voyager 2

[hcs_$reboot]

Voyager 2 is also at 120 AU from earth, and is said to have left our solar system. So "farout" is outside?

Re:Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

I think when you find new planets orbiting our sun at some distance our solar system is by definition expanded out to that distance.

Re: Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

It has entered intersellar space (beyond the heliopause) but is still within the solar system. There are likely objects part or the solar system that are as far as 1,000 au away from the sun, almost 1/4 of the way to the nearest star.

Re:Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

The going theory from what little I've read about this is there's possibly a large gravity source out there in the hundreds of AU's that is stabilizing the as-yet unknown orbit of some of these far-out bodies. We'll know in a few years, exciting times.

Re:Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

that far out large gravity source is CmdrTaco !

ymmv

proof : brightly

Re: Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a 1000 of australias!!!
Thatâ(TM)s huge.

Re: Voyager 2

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Not really; we already knew that space is hostile to life.

Re:Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Voyager 2 is also at 120 AU from earth, and is said to have left our solar system. So "farout" is outside?

yes... it is indeed... farout...

Re: Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

The nearest star is over 24 trillion miles away. 1000 AU is just shy of 100 billion miles, not even half a percent of that distance.

Re: Voyager 2

[hcs_$reboot]

livescience begs to differ,

The end of the solar system is about 122 astronomical units (AU) away from the sun

Re: Voyager 2

[hcs_$reboot]

Wow, a 1000 of australias!!!

Indeed, half of their population.

Re: Voyager 2

[hcs_$reboot]

Thanks, but that does say how large is the solar system? No.

Re: Voyager 2

[hackertourist]

That depends on your definition of "solar system". The 'end' Livescience are talking about is the heliopause, where the environment is no longer dominated by the solar wind. The gravitational influence of the Sun reaches much further than that. The Oort cloud is thought to stretch out to about 1 ly from the sun, beyond that the Sun is no longer the dominant gravitational force.

This discovery shows it's silly to use definitive statements like "end of the solar system" when objects that are clearly part of our solar system are found beyond 122 AU.

Re: Voyager 2

[hcs_$reboot]

That depends on your definition of "solar system"

"My definition" of the solar system actually depends on what is found on the Internet. Like that site. Heliopause or not, "their" solar system ends there.

Re:Voyager 2

[Chris Mattern]

Voyager 2 is also at 120 AU from earth, and is said to have left our solar system. So "farout" is outside?

All depends on your definition of where the boundary of the solar system is. The traditional definition is the heliopause, where the solar wind dies out in the interstellar medium, which happens at about 120 AU. However, it's long been known that there are planetoids orbiting the sun beyond the heliopause, referred to as the Oort Cloud. By the traditional definition, those are outside the solar system.

Re:Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

This "outside" nonsense is a bit of media hyperbole.
The oort cloud is part of our solar systems, or more specific, part of our stars "significant influence".
The oort cloud is so big it touches the nearest stars oort cloud. It's essentially doing the dirty deed with it, it is so close.

The supposed end these people were talking about was the termination of the solar winds, which doesn't define THE end (it shouldn't!), just the end of one particular facet of the solar system.
The better actual end of the solar system is when the suns gravity is no longer the dominating force, which puts it anywhere up to half-way between here and Alpha Centauri. The exact value isn't known for obvious reasons (not been there, barely discovered bodies, etc.)
At this distance, objects cease Sol orbit and instead just intermingle with other objects in the outer oort cloud regions, probably ending up smashed at some point, if not hurled towards the inner solar system and becoming an orbiting body over the next few billion years depending on speed.
The big issue on the exact termination point inside of the oort cloud is determining where gravity is still, overall, the defining force. Given there is so much crap out there that was pushed out in the early solar system, it could be that stuff is just slowly moving away from us at speeds we can't reliably measure. Or, it could be that gravity is pulling in some of these smaller objects all the time but the solar winds can overpower that when they get in far enough. Where that ends is the real question.
The inner oort cloud is still (and should be) very much considered part of our solar system, just like the very far reaches of our atmosphere are considered part of it, beyond a certain density of air where it is then considered space and particles just fly off from the solar winds because gravity can no longer hold on to it.
You'll certainly not be breathing at the far edges (inner solar system edge), but it is still our atmosphere.

Re:Voyager 2

[icejai]

Voyager 2 left the heliopause, but technically, things can be in interstellar space and still be gravitationally bound to the/our sun.
"Being part of the solar system" might depend more on gravity, instead of being in the heliopause.

Re:Voyager 2

[in10se]

That's a question of semantics. Voyager has left our heliosphere. This new planet is still held by the sun's gravity, so it would be part of our solar system even if it is outside the heliosphere.

Re:Voyager 2

[AlwinBarni]

Voyager 2 is also at 120 AU from earth, and is said to have left our solar system. So "farout" is outside?

Voyager 2 (recently) and 1 (some time ago) are said to have left the Solar System in the meaning that they have crossed Heliopause and entered Interstellar medium - as a space where solar wind is not a dominating force, they still are, however, far withing the gravitational influence of the Sun, which reaches estimated 1ly (which is about 65700AU), where it is speculated that the spherical Oort cloud stretches out.

Re: Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa. What?
I thought the Heliopause was what determined the boundary of our solar system, and thus marking the beginning of interstellar space

While that boundary does fluctuate as one would expect, at some point particle direction confirming can be confirmed.

If 120 AU is beyond the Heliopause, or what we know it to be, wouldn't this just be an 'extrasolar' object, who happens to be orbiting our solar system at an exaggerated orbit?

I'm guessing there may be some miscommunication with what this is precisely being described as in context to orbiting body inclusion.

Re: Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing, he just likes holding things against Uranus.

Re:Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

You write "That's a question of semantics", but the rest of your post supports the alternative that people were just plain wrong when they called the heliosphere "the solar system".

Re: Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

The heliopause is not a gravity based phenomenon.

The distance at which the Sun's gravity stops being the dominate force and it becomes impossible for an object to be "in orbit" around the Sun is quite a bit further out than the heliopause.

Re: Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

1/4 of the way can't be right.

An AU is distance from sun to Earth which at lightspeed is 8 minutes. 1,000 x 8 minutes is 133 hours or 5 1/2 days. Much less than the 365 days of a light year.

Re:Voyager 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Exciting indeed, my friend.

! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[Crashmarik]

Not to get picky here but if it's 120 AU away from the Sun that 120 times the distance of the Earth from the Sun not 100

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so you think you slightly picky now? Newsflash Miss Picky, you just entered a WOOOORL of picky mothafuckas, mothafucka. Oh, it's bout to get picked fasho.

Yes, you're right. 1 AU is 1 AU. 120 times is 120 AUs. Someone did some stupid "must round to nearest American dollar figure" error or something. Since we picky.

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. And you are correct.

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[hcs_$reboot]

Maybe because we're in winter soon.

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly 120 AU you say?

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[hcs_$reboot]

and in Winter (North hemisphere) Earth is at its farthest from the Sun...

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

EDITORS ! EDIT !

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[ls671]

Hehe, interesting but I think you have this backward. Earth seems closer in North hemisphere winter right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Also, I think this might change through the eras since I can't figure out a relation between the axis of the Earth and its orbit position so it seems random to me so far.

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[MaryannG]

That would depend on where you measure "Earth" from. The middle or the edge.

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[kamakazi]

Thank you. There is someone else who has trouble reading past this type of blatant error. That is like someone saying something is "3 yards long, that's 10 feet"

In proper news speak, isn't 120 AU actually "OMG! OVER 100 TIMES FARTHER FROM THE SUN THAN EARTH!!!"

Or possibly just use "further" insted of "farther", then the whole thing will fall into an etymological debate and the actual definition of AU will be overlooked.

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

That difference between middle or edge amounts to 0.00004 AU, or, at 100 times, 0.004 AU.

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

First, the Earth is in a nearly elliptical orbit so it generally isn't at 1.00000 AU from the Sun except twice a year. (if you want to be picky). [The orbit is perturbed (significantly) by Venus, Mars, Jupiter (and Saturn) so isn't quite an ellipse.] An Astronomical Unit is a defined length and is slightly different than the average Sun-Earth distance. But anyone who makes the asinine and unprovable (as well as almost certainly false) claim that astronomers have discovered the "furthest" object should have his keyboard confiscated on the grounds of terminal stupidity.

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

should have his keyboard confiscated on the grounds of terminal stupidity.

Did you mean to say their monitor should be confiscated?

Re:! AU = Distance Of The Earth To The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

That would depend on where you measure "Earth" from. The middle or the edge.

Strictly speaking it's to the average, so you need to measure both the closest point and the furthest.

Of course those two AU values are the same out to 3-4 decimal places so it rarely matters.
But when it does matter and all those ten thousandths will multiply up quickly, it's the average value that is used.

Even then it is typically a rounded version of the average, a nice clean even 93 million miles or 150 million kilometers.

If you're out there using a yard stick, you're either doing something very very wrong, or very very awesome :P

If they find another

[Anonymous Coward]

...farther out, you know they're going to name it Fartherout.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Perhaps nothing significant out there

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity is so weird, there is nothing in space there that is not gravitionally bound. I expect more objects will be found much further until the point where gravity of nearest star tramples of sun gravity.

Re:Perhaps nothing significant out there

[Anonymous Coward]

What about muons?

Re:Perhaps nothing significant out there

[stealth_finger]

You write like creimer... He's so big the universe is gravitationally bound to HIM!

So what you're saying is, he is the center of your universe? Thought so.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Aptly named?

[fahrbot-bot]

... discovered the furthest object in our solar system, a dwarf planet aptly named "Farout."

Now when they find something else more distant, they'll have to name that "Farther Out" ...

Re:Aptly named?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally Far Out?

Further Out?

Dwarf Planet At the Edge of the Solar System?

Re:Aptly named?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brussels Sprout would be the more obvious choice

Editorial quality dipping severely

[Anonymous Coward]

>Eris, the next most distance object know, is 96 AU from the sun.

Mistakes? Who, me? Never, I use a spelchekker.

Have we got a rocket ...

[Alain Williams]

that is powerful enough so we can send all our politicians there and thus the rest of us get on with peaceful & productive lives ?

Re:What's with the random hyphenation these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

EDITORS ! EDIT ! FFS !

Fartherout ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the next one that is discovered to be even farther out will be called "Fartherout" or "Farout2" ?

Re:Fartherout ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There could be loads of planets in the farscape!

Sedna?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely this is wrong. Sedna orbits out to 900 AU doesn't it?

Re:Sedna?

[SqueakyMouse]

From space.com:

To be clear: The record Farout now holds is for the most-distant solar system body ever observed. That doesn't mean no other objects gets farther away from the sun than 120 AU. In fact, we know some that do. The dwarf planet Sedna gets more than 900 AU away on its highly elliptical orbit, for example, and there are probably trillions of comets in the Oort Cloud, which lies between about 5,000 AU and 100,000 AU from the sun.

120AU?

[The Grim Reefer]

This planet is 100 times farther than Earth is from the sun (120 AU from the sun)

The last time I checked the definition of an AU was the mean distance of the earth from the sun. Which makes the earth 1AU from the sun. If the planet is 120AU from the sun that would make it 120 times farther not 100.

Re:120AU?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, AU is the gold standard of astronomical distances.

Re:120AU?

[Anonymous Coward]

you've forgotten to account for inflation.

Re:120AU?

[Anonymous Coward]

120 AU is currently 120/0.9839186 = 122 times farther than Earth is from the Sun.

Re:120AU?

[Bengie]

I see what you did there

Math is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

"This planet is 100 times farther than Earth is from the sun (120 AU from the sun)..."

Wouldn't that make it 120 times farther than Earth is from the sun, not 100 times?

1x100=120

[Anonymous Coward]

"100 times farther" (120 AU)
OH, so the Earth must be 1.2 AU from the sun.

Wait-

Re:1x100=120

[mcswell]

Yes, the Earth was moved further away as a means to control climate change.

And before anyone mentions this, Jules Verne (IIRC) actually wrote a story about moving the Earth closer to the Sun, to make up for the fact that the Sun was (in some future) outputting less light/ heat.

Why send them there?

[MiniMike]

The Sun is much closer. Just tell them it's the biggest, and that they'll be landing at night.

Not to be pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

But this would not be quite half the distance it would be the barycenter composed of the mass of the various suns. e.g. if one star was 1000 weightier than the other, I would not expect the gravitational influence to be at half, but rather at 1000/1001 where it would roughly equalize. Thus I would expect the distance to be actually 1/2.1 about half but not quite