[meteorite-list] Pluto is Now Just a Number: 134340
Larry Lebofsky
lebofsky at lpl.arizona.edu
Wed Sep 13 09:03:09 EDT 2006
Hi Michel:
Before I respond to you,
Sterling:
I am surprised. I thought that you would have an opinion on this issue! :o)
Everything you say I agree with. Thanks for saying it for me!
And you are right. Technically, the Monor Planets Center (or whatever it
morphs into) technically does not have the authority to reclassify Pluto. It
is not a minor planet (or Small Solar System Body) and as such is not under
the authority of the MPC.
Back to your question Michel:
Yes, introduce SSSBs and dwarf planets. I think that is a done deal. But there
are still (under SSSB) asteroids and comets (though no longer an asteroid 1
Ceres since Ceres is not an asteroid).
I think that the intent of the resolutions (trying to read their minds) was to
create three distinct classes: planets, dwarf planets, and everything else
that orbits the Sun. By getting rid of the term minor planet, it puts more a
wall between the first two and the third. Why? My guess.
There is a chance (though not the intent of the vote since they could have
used the term Classical Planets for the big eight) to consider dwarf planets
as a class of planets (this is the way many of look at it). Time will tell how
this works out.
Now back to Small Solar System Bodies. This is the new term for Objects
Formally Known as Minor Planets. Under this are comets and asteroids.
Therefore, asteroids and comets still exist and are named the old way (I would
assume), but they are no longer minor planets. As Sterling pointed out, the
Minor Planet Center numbers and names minor planets (now SSSBs) so they should
continue to name asteroids and comets (differently). But, at the moment, there
is no group with the authority to name planets or dwarf planets.
All I have to say before my morning coffee.
Larry
Quoting Michel FRANCO <michel at caillou-noir.com>:
> Hi Ron, Sterling and list
>
> TKS for your analysis and comments.
>
> Shall we understand that there not any more asteroïds in the cosmos ? but
> SSSB & Dwarf Planets!
>
> In lecture about our beloved meteorites shall I introduce SSSB and Dwarf
> Planet to the audience.
>
> As non member of the IAU and member of the Met Soc, I'll wait to have our
> society comments. And keep on with "asteroïds orbiting between Mars and
> Jupiter orbits." Yes there are some others Amor Athen, etc. but let's make
> it easy for the public.
>
> A recent poll in France showed that one third of the population was
> believing that the Sun was orbiting Earth! No comments.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Michel FRANCO
> www.caillou-noir.com
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com]De la part de
> Sterling K. Webb
> Envoyé : mercredi 13 septembre 2006 05:24
> À : Meteorite Mailing List
> Cc : Ron Baalke
> Objet : Re: [meteorite-list] Pluto is Now Just a Number: 134340
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Nice headline: Pluto is now just a number.
>
> I'd imagine The Planet Pluto is feeling a little
> blue about now. (Anybody checked its UVB
> magnitude lately?) Having the blues usually calls
> for a song. Here it is. (Adapted from "Secret
> Agent Man," by P.F. Sloan and S. Barri, 1966.)
>
> PLANET PLUTO MAN
>
> There's a world that leads a life of danger;
> To the inner system it stays a stranger.
> With every move they make,
> Another chance you take;
> Odds are you won't be a planet any longer.
>
> Planet Pluto Man, Xena, Ceres, too:
> They've given you a number
> And taken away your name.
>
> Beware of IAU'ers that you find;
> Bad science hides an evil mind.
> Ah, be careful what you do
> Or they'll get rid of you;
> Odds are you won't be a planet any longer.
>
> Planet Pluto Man, Xena, Ceres, too:
> They've given you a number
> And taken away your name.
>
>
> Meanwhile, what is this "Minor Planet Center"?
> There is no such thing as a "minor planet." That
> old term was submerged and terminated by IAU
> Resolution 5A. I quote item (3) All other objects
> [footnote 3] orbiting the Sun shall be referred to
> collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies" and
> [footnote 3] These currently include most of the
> Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian
> Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.
> (Notice the "most"?)
>
> Since there's no such thing as a "minor planet,"
> doesn't Brian have to change the name of his fine
> recording organization first, to "The Small Solar
> System Body Center"? Of course, the old name
> has a long and honorable history. On the other
> hand, that argument didn't cut much ice for the
> Planet Pluto.
>
> Additionally, the IAU passed Resolution 6A,
> which states "The IAU further resolves: PLUTO
> IS A DWARF PLANET by the above definition
> and is recognized as the prototype of a new category
> of trans-Neptunian objects." Not AS an TNO, but
> as a prototype for more trans-Neptunian dwarf planets.
> TNO's are SSSB's, unless they're Dwarf Planets,
> in which case they are NOT SSSB's.
>
> Obviously, Pluto is classified as a "dwarf
> planet," NOT a small solar system body (nor
> minor planet, of which there are none). Marsden's
> saying that Pluto can be included in "other"
> catalogs is disingenuous. Pluto (by Resolution
> 6A) has already been designated as a Dwarf
> Planet and, as such, has been excluded from
> the Small Solar System Body category (and
> catalog), and listing Pluto as such is flatly
> contradictory to and violates Resolution 5A.
> To do so is just unprofessional conduct.
>
> Resolution 5A's [footnote 2] says "An IAU
> process will be established to assign BORDERLINE
> objects into either dwarf planet and other categories."
> But the subsequent Resolution 6A (which followed
> 5A and further refines it) assigns Pluto to Dwarf
> Planet status, specifically and by name (not number).
>
> Resolution 5A creates THREE SEPARATE
> AND DISTINCT categories of solar system bodies:
> PLANETS, DWARF PLANETS, and SMALL
> SOLAR SYSTEM BODIES (hereinafter abbreviated
> as SSSB). Despite the more than evident desire
> of many parties to have only two categories: Eight
> Planets and Space Junk, that is NOT what Resolution
> 5A does. What it does do is to define THREE
> classifications on a totally EQUAL footing. The
> previous drafts of the resolution ennumerated
> two Dwarf Planets under the criteria of Resolution
> 5A: Pluto and Ceres (and, as a double planet,
> Charon too, but Charon is out now).
>
> Originally, the term "dwarf planet" was
> proposed as "merely" descriptive, or so said
> the FAQ issued by the IAU at the time of the
> first version of Resolution 5. However, the
> resolution that actually passed (5A) makes
> Dwarf Planet a technical classification and
> a solar system body category completely
> independent of and distinct from either
> Planet and SSSB, a definition of a specific
> class of solar system object.
>
> ==> Clearly, IAU Resolution 5A raises
> "Dwarf Planet" to an equal and equivalent
> TAXONOMIC status as the term "planet."
> (Look at the outline structure of Resolution
> 5A, given below.) One presume the IAU is
> composed of "scientists" and are (or should
> be) aware of Taxonomy (tassein = to classify
> and nomos = law, science,), as applied in the
> widest sense, refers to either a classification
> of things, or the principles underlying that
> classification. Almost anything, animate objects,
> inanimate objects, may be classified according
> to some taxonomic scheme, which is what the
> IAU did in Resolution 5A, which created three
> classes of solar system bodies.
>
> [Footnote 2] only refers to "borderline"
> objects (Vesta and "Santa," or 2003EL61).
> Presumably, as soon as Sedna, Orcus,
> Quaoar, "Zenn," and of course "Xena,"
> and the company of all spherical TNO's
> have their sphericity reasonably shown,
> they are Dwarf Planets also. And [Footnote
> 3], about the SSSB's, refers to them as
> "MOST of the Solar System asteroids,
> MOST Trans-Neptunian Objects," thus
> explicitly recognizing that at least one
> "asteroid" (Ceres) and at least one TNO
> (beside Pluto, already defined as a Dwarf
> Planet) is NOT an SSSB, recognizing that
> Dwarf Planet and SSSB are mutually exclusive
> categories. Interestingly, the resolution uses
> an utterly illigitimate term, "asteroid," which
> the IAU long ago replaced with "minor
> planet," which has now been replaced by
> SSSB. How unprofessional can you get?
>
> The IAU says "Xena's" discoverers will
> have exclusive right to propose a name
> during a ten-year window that begins with
> its permanent number (136199), subject to
> the approval of the Committee on Small
> Bodies Nomenclature of the IAU's Division
> III.
>
> Where is the authority or logic that assigns
> SBN jurisdiction over the category Dwarf
> Planet, a separate and equal category having
> nothing at all to do with SSSB's?! Resolution
> 5A does not make Dwarf Planet a subcategory
> of SSSB; it separates the categories completely.
> Where is the Committee on Dwarf Planet
> Nomenclature? And why has the IAU not created
> one yet? Again, assigning SSSB numbers are flatly
> contradictory to and violates Resolution 5A,
> and is just more sloppy unprofessional conduct.
>
> There have been reports of astronomers,
> chiefly US planetary scientists, who have talked
> of organizing wide discussions of planetary
> definition. Fine. However, years will pass before
> another IAU General Assembly. What needs to
> be done is to insist that the IAU operate on the
> basis of the resolution that they did pass. Whatever
> IAU committees exist to deal with planetary
> questions, definitions, nomenclature, cataloging,
> and jurisdiction, the IAU must now establish
> committees exist to deal with dwarf planetary
> questions, dwarf planetary definitions, dwarf
> planetary nomenclature, dwarf planetary cataloging,
> dwarf planetary jurisdiction, committees with
> equal staffing, authority, funding, staff time.
> And so on down the line through all aspects
> of the IAU's solar system "administration."
>
> As for the propects of an IAU vote of the
> entire profession, 10's of 1000's of professional
> astronomers, by mail or internet, forget it. The
> new president of the IAU says of the voting
> process: "Our Statutes state that Resolutions
> can only be passed by a majority of those IAU
> members present and voting. Resolution 5A was
> passed with a wide majority. There is therefore,
> from our perspective, little reason to question the
> authority of the IAU."
>
> In other words, these "scientific" matters will
> be decided, as they were this August, by a zealot
> majority among 400-odd European and Latin
> astronomers and computer dynamicists prepared
> to shout and intimidate from the floor (watch the
> video). It would be much better to hound the IAU
> to live up the resolution as worded and passed.
> Don't question the authority of the IAU, force
> them to exercise it to implement the (unintended?)
> consequences of Resolution 5A, to the letter.
>
> This would be the proper approach for those who
> favored the original 12-planet definition. Embrace the
> definition of Dwarf Planet, as an equal category. Force
> the IAU to treat it as they've defined it. If the original
> Resolution 5 would have produced 22 or 24 planets,
> as Brian Marsden suggested, then there are now 14
> or 16 Dwarf Planets, more than there are conventional
> planets. Organize the Dwarf Planet Group. Push.
>
> The beauty of this truly idiotic term, Dwarf Planet,
> is in its linguistic attributes. I have a soft hearted cousin
> who has too many dogs: six. Suppose I tried to explain
> to him that he has two completely different and distinct
> species of animals as pets: Dogs and Small Dogs. What
> the heck are you talking about, he asks? Sure, Jack and
> Omar are kinda little, but they're still dogs, fer krissake!
> In the long run, millions of people will operate logically,
> in the same way, in the matter of the "distinction"
> between planets and dwarf planets...
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> For the space lawyers among us,
> here's the text of the IAU resolutions:
>
> Resolution 5A
>
> The IAU therefore resolves that planets and
> other bodies in our Solar System be defined
> into three distinct categories in the following way:
>
> (1) A planet[1] is a celestial body that
>
> (a) is in orbit around the Sun,
>
> (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
> rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic
> equilibrium (nearly round) shape,
> and
>
> (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
>
>
> (2) A dwarf planet is a celestial body that
>
> (a) is in orbit around the Sun,
>
> (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
> rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic
> equilibrium (nearly round) shape[2],
>
> (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit,
> and
>
> (d) is not a satellite.
>
>
> (3) All other objects[3] orbiting the Sun shall be referred to
> collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".
>
> {Footnotes}
> [1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars,
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
> [2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline
> objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.
> [3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids,
> most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other
> small bodies.
>
>
> Resolution 6A
> The IAU further resolves:
> Pluto is a dwarf planet by the above definition and is
> recognized as the prototype of a new category of
> trans-Neptunian objects.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Baalke" baalke at zagami.jpl.nasa.gov
> To: "Meteorite Mailing List" meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:46 AM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Pluto is Now Just a Number: 134340
>
>
> >
> > http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060911_pluto_asteroidnumber.html
> >
> > Pluto is Now Just a Number: 134340
> > By Ker Than
> > space.com
> > 11 September 2006
> >
> > Pluto has been given a new name to reflect its new status as a dwarf
> > planet.
> >
> > On Sept. 7, the former 9th planet was assigned the asteroid number
> > 134340 by the Minor Planet Center (MPC), the official organization
> > responsible for collecting data about asteroids and comets in our solar
> > system.
> >
> > The move reinforces the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) recent
> > decision to strip Pluto of its planethood and places it in the same
> > category
> > as other small solar-system bodies with accurately known orbits.
> >
> > Pluto's companion satellites, Charon, Nix and Hydra are considered part of
> > the same system and will not be assigned separate asteroid numbers, said
> > MPC director emeritus Brian Marsden. Instead, they will be called 134340
> > I,
> > II and III, respectively.
> >
> > There are currently 136,563 asteroid objects recognized by the MPC;
> > 2,224 new objects were added last week, of which Pluto was the first.
> >
> > Other notable objects to receive asteroid numbers included 2003 UB313,
> > also known as "Xena," and the recently discovered Kuiper Belt objects
> > 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9. Their asteroid numbers are 136199, 136108 and
> > 136472, respectively.
> >
> > The MPC also issued a separate announcement stating that the assignment
> > of permanent asteroid numbers to Pluto and other large objects located
> > beyond the orbit of Neptune "does not preclude their having dual
> > designations in possible separate catalogues of such bodies."
> >
> > Marsden explained that the cryptic wording refers to the future
> > possibility of creating a separate astronomical catalogue specific to
> > dwarf planets. There might even be more than one catalogue created, he
> > said.
> >
> > The recent IAU decision implies "that there would be two catalogues of
> > dwarf planets - one for just the trans-Neptunian Pluto type and the other
> > for objects like Ceres, which has also been deemed a dwarf planet,"
> > Marsden told SPACE.com. "That's why that statement was put there, to
> > reassure people who think there would be other catalogues that this
> > numbering of Pluto doesn't preclude that."
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
--
Dr. Larry A. Lebofsky
Senior Research Scientist
Co-editor, Meteorite "If you give a man a fish,
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory you feed him for a day.
1541 East University If you teach a man to fish,
University of Arizona you feed him for a lifetime."
Tucson, AZ 85721-0063 ~Chinese Proverb
Phone: 520-621-6947
FAX: 520-621-8364
e-mail: lebofsky at lpl.arizona.edu
More information about the Meteorite-list
mailing list