More proof Pluto is not a planet

So they've found another ice ball way out there. This should help
convince more people Pluto is an ice ball to, from a large collection
of ice balls called the Kuiper belt. I hope this is use to bolster
the argument against sending a probe to Pluto. We can learn more important
and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two
planets that matter; Mars and Europa.
Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to.
-Rich

This old bone has got a lot of teeth marks on it, but,
I think Pluto should be the reference standard for a minimim Planetary
size...
Orion

"Richard" wrote in message
om...
So they've found another ice ball way out there. This should help
convince more people Pluto is an ice ball to, from a large collection
of ice balls called the Kuiper belt. I hope this is use to bolster
the argument against sending a probe to Pluto. We can learn more
important
and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two
planets that matter; Mars and Europa.
Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to.
-Rich


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 3/11/2004

On 15 Mar 2004 20:27:18 -0800, Richard wrote:

So they've found another ice ball way out there. This should help
convince more people Pluto is an ice ball to, from a large collection
of ice balls called the Kuiper belt. I hope this is use to bolster
the argument against sending a probe to Pluto. We can learn more important
and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two
planets that matter; Mars and Europa.
Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to.

What an asinine thing to say. Regardless of whether or not Pluto should
be called a planet, it's the largest such object out there that we've
found. It's the best candidate for close examination (though Charon is
included implicitly, I would think), which would tell us a great deal that
we really don't know about Kuiper Belt objects. Some of the information
collected over the course of the mission may even be of proximate
practical value, given the fact that the next large object to strike earth
(it's only a matter of time) stands a good chance of being a KBO.

--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.

"Troller" Anderson wrote:
[snip]
I hope this is use to bolster the argument against sending a probe to Pluto.
[snip]

To quote an all too frequent contributor to this newsgroup, "IMO, anyone who is
human and has no desire to explore, no curiosity about things ... ought not to
have been born."

Regards,

Bill Ferris
"Cosmic Voyage: The Online Resource for Amateur Astronomers"
URL: http://www.cosmic-voyage.net
=============
Email: Remove "ic" from .comic above to respond

jerry warner wrote in message ...
Europa a planet? You've been watching too much t.v.
Jerry



Richard wrote:

So they've found another ice ball way out there. This should help
convince more people Pluto is an ice ball to, from a large collection
of ice balls called the Kuiper belt. I hope this is use to bolster
the argument against sending a probe to Pluto. We can learn more important
and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two
planets that matter; Mars and Europa.
Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to.
-Rich

How do you want to define "planet?"
IMO, a round object not composed mainly of ice of a specific size.
I think 1500 miles in diameter might be a good minimum, but planetary
scientists will have to REALLY define what a planet is.
-Rich

On 16 Mar 2004 06:34:59 -0800, (Richard) wrote:

How do you want to define "planet?"
IMO, a round object not composed mainly of ice of a specific size.
I think 1500 miles in diameter might be a good minimum, but planetary
scientists will have to REALLY define what a planet is.

Any definition agreed upon is still going to be arbitrary. There is no _natural_
boundary between object types to make that definition clear. I think it is safe
to assume the Europa would never qualify under any likely definition, since that
definition is pretty sure to require that planets be in their own orbit around
the Sun. Beyond that, it is going to come down to an arbitrary combination of
size, shape, composition, and presumed origin. The definition isn't really
important- the objects are as they are, after all. IMO, Pluto will continue to
be considered a planet in any case, for historical reasons if nothing else.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:27:47 GMT, John Steinberg wrote:

Would the eccentricity of the orbit of the newly found object further
disqualify it from any consideration as a planet?

I don't know how accurate the depiction of same was - BBC 4 am here -
but the orbit looked a bit more like that of a comet than a planet.
I'm not implying it's a comet, of course.

It is interesting to imagine that we are from another star, exploring the Solar
System for the first time. As we approach the Sun we would pass many large,
orbiting bodies like Sedna, eventually reaching the gas giants and then the
rocky interior objects. To my mind, there should be one word for all these
objects- a "non-scientific" word perhaps, like "planet", defined by nothing more
complex than orbiting the Sun and having enough gravity to be largely spherical.
It is clear that such objects have many different properties and origins
(consider just the terrestrial planets and the gas giants- vastly different yet
all considered "planets"). Those differences will naturally lead to qualifiers
and refined terminology, but there remains the convenience of a single word that
generally describes them all.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Richard wrote:

(SNIP) We can learn more important
and interesting things by concentrating NASA's meagre funds on the two
planets that matter; Mars and Europa.
Let the Europeans send a probe to Pluto if they want to.
-Rich
I must have missed an announcement of a planet called Europa.......???

Hi Chris. You posted:

Any definition agreed upon is still going to be arbitrary. There is no _natural_
boundary between object types to make that definition clear. I think it is safe
to assume the Europa would never qualify under any likely definition, since that
definition is pretty sure to require that planets be in their own orbit around
the Sun. Beyond that, it is going to come down to an arbitrary combination of
size, shape, composition, and presumed origin. The definition isn't really
important- the objects are as they are, after all. IMO, Pluto will continue to
be considered a planet in any case, for historical reasons if nothing else.

Actually, there was an attempt at coming up with a definition which wasn't all
that arbitrary. It defined a planet as a "planetary body" in independent
orbit around a star. A planetary body would be defined as a body which is
large and massive enough so that its own gravity would be able to force its
shape into a spherical one. Thus, while the largest moons in the solar system
would be classified as planetary bodies in scale, they would not be classified
as planets since they are bound to a larger planetary body (namely a a
planet). This definition would be inclusive rather than exclusive, as it
would include bodes such as Ceres and the very largest Kuiper belt objects,
but would leave out most of the rest of the main-belt asteroids as well as the
smaller bodies in the Kuiper belt (even if they happened to be spherical by
some accident of formation). We would have more than 9 planets orbiting the
sun, but we would also have a more consistent definition of what makes a
planet and what does not. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

It is interesting to imagine that we are from another star, exploring the
Solar System for the first time. As we approach the Sun we would pass
many large, orbiting bodies like Sedna, eventually reaching the gas
giants and then the rocky interior objects. To my mind, there should be
one word for all these objects- a "non-scientific" word perhaps, like
"planet", defined by nothing more complex than orbiting the Sun and
having enough gravity to be largely spherical.

How about the word "planet"? I think it has a nice 'ring' to it. I remember
asking Michelle Thaller at a lecture about Quaoar. I'm terrible at pronouncing
words, since I've usually only read but not heard them. I'm glad that her
pronunciation was just as bad as mine! Sedna is a refreshing change from
the recent tongue-twisters.