2003 Ub 313: The Incredible Shrinking Planet?, No bigger than Pluto? |
2003 Ub 313: The Incredible Shrinking Planet?, No bigger than Pluto? |
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Jan 31 2006, 09:20 PM
Post
#1
|
Guests |
|
|
|
Jan 31 2006, 09:36 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Jan 31 2006, 01:20 PM) Actually SigurRosFan deserves the credit! I must get half of my blog entry material from the sharp-eyed people on this site... http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=39115 Since I posted that, I've gotten an email from someone saying that there will be a publication in Nature tomorrow that flip-flops again on the size of UB313 -- hopefully another sharp-eyed watcher will post that link here as soon as it appears! --Emily -------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 12:19 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 8-February 04 From: Arabia Terra Member No.: 12 |
QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jan 31 2006, 09:36 PM) Actually SigurRosFan deserves the credit! I must get half of my blog entry material from the sharp-eyed people on this site... http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=39115 Since I posted that, I've gotten an email from someone saying that there will be a publication in Nature tomorrow that flip-flops again on the size of UB313 -- hopefully another sharp-eyed watcher will post that link here as soon as it appears! --Emily There's a post on the badastronomy forums saying that the orbital period of the satellite has been found to be 15.42 days. Not sure what the source was. |
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 02:12 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 509 Joined: 2-July 05 From: Calgary, Alberta Member No.: 426 |
QUOTE (SFJCody @ Jan 31 2006, 06:19 PM) There's a post on the badastronomy forums saying that the orbital period of the satellite has been found to be 15.42 days. Four significant figures already, and with those fuzzed out images? Guess it could be true -- but it sure sounds like bad astronomy, alright. |
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 10:32 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 156 Joined: 18-March 05 From: Germany Member No.: 211 |
I just read that the Max-Planck-Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn has confirmed a size of 3000 km. That was announced yesterday and can be read here (German). On the institute's website I could not find a press release, though. So I don't know any more details...
Michael |
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 01:19 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 531 Joined: 24-August 05 Member No.: 471 |
Here's the detailed press release:
- http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=39431 --- Note on reports of an HST size measurement (31.1.) Mike Brown gave a public talk recently where he presented some preliminary results [Albedo 0.92 news] on an attempt to measure the size of UB313 with the Hubble Space Telescope. A journalist picked this up and reported it, against Mike Brown's explicit request. In response to this report Mike Brown stated on Jan 31: "Contrary to rumors otherwise, we're just in the preliminary stages of analyzing the HST data. When we are done we should have a very precise measurement. The study that is coming out in Nature is the best info that we have for now about how big and reflective it is. The uncertainties are large, but it seems a solid result to me. I hope that we will have the HST analysis done within perhaps a month, and I'll be able to say more then." --- -------------------- - blue_scape / Nico -
|
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 01:34 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 809 Joined: 11-March 04 Member No.: 56 |
QUOTE (SigurRosFan @ Feb 1 2006, 01:19 PM) Then: "The so-called "tenth planet," announced last July to much fanfare, is a "smidge" bigger than Pluto rather than earlier estimates of 25% to 50% larger, a planetary scientist reported here on 25 January." Now: "Here we report observations of the thermal emission of 2003 UB313 at a wavelength of 1.2 mm, which in combination with the measured optical brightness leads to a diameter of 3,000±300±100 km; here the first error reflects measurement uncertainties, while the second derives from the unknown object orientation." If 2003 UB313 is 3000 km in diameter, then it is 30% larger than Pluto, which is a bit above the going rate for smidges these days. If it is at the lowest end of the given range (2600 km) it is still 14% larger than Pluto. |
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 02:46 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 509 Joined: 2-July 05 From: Calgary, Alberta Member No.: 426 |
QUOTE (SigurRosFan @ Feb 1 2006, 07:19 AM) A journalist picked this up and reported it, against Mike Brown's explicit request. Yeah, you can always trust the discretion of the media. Hey, they wouldn't deliberately misinform the public just to sell newspapers! |
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Feb 1 2006, 05:48 PM
Post
#9
|
Guests |
QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jan 31 2006, 09:36 PM) Since I posted that, I've gotten an email from someone saying that there will be a publication in Nature tomorrow that flip-flops again on the size of UB313 -- hopefully another sharp-eyed watcher will post that link here as soon as it appears! From the February 2, 2006, issue of Nature: One over the nine. |
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 07:17 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
Incidentally, don't forget that Pluto "shrank" throughout its lifetime, too, in at least two steps. I can remember when it was bigger than Mercury, and maybe bigger than Mars.
It would be interesting if size estimates consistently shrank for newly-discovered objects, as though there were a regression to the mean effect, or a pro-big bias on the part of the early researchers... Who wants to think that they discovered something tiny? PS: Titan has shrunk a bit, too... |
|
|
Feb 2 2006, 12:27 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 288 Joined: 28-September 05 From: Orion arm Member No.: 516 |
QUOTE (JRehling @ Feb 1 2006, 09:17 PM) Incidentally, don't forget that Pluto "shrank" throughout its lifetime, too, in at least two steps. I can remember when it was bigger than Mercury, and maybe bigger than Mars. It would be interesting if size estimates consistently shrank for newly-discovered objects, as though there were a regression to the mean effect, or a pro-big bias on the part of the early researchers... Who wants to think that they discovered something tiny? PS: Titan has shrunk a bit, too... ...as Triton did. As child I read in an old astronomy library book from the '50s - I think it was from Otto Struve - Triton's diameter should be ~6000 km: 'Wow, a moon nearly as large as Mars...' I'm not quite sure what it was before Voyager II - maybe about 3500 km, but at the the end it came down to poorly 2720 km, probably the same size as UB313 now. If we get more cases like Pluto, Triton, UB313, we'll find a 'shrinking law' from 'detection-diameter' to real diameter at the end... Bye. |
|
|
Feb 3 2006, 11:01 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 8-November 05 From: Australia Member No.: 547 |
I have heard a rumour that one of the Mormons secret beliefs is that Heaven is not on another plane of existance but is on a hidden planet past the orbit of Pluto. Yeah, I know sounds kinda wierd, but who am I to judge
Anyway, with 2003 UB313 being discovered, what is the opinion of the good folks from Salt Lake City? At least they can have the certainty of knowing they have somewhere to go, though I don't think they need to pack sunglasses and tanning lotion. A nice warm jacket might be well advised. |
|
|
Feb 3 2006, 01:24 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
QUOTE (Big_Gazza @ Feb 3 2006, 12:01 PM) I have heard a rumour that one of the Mormons secret beliefs is that Heaven is not on another plane of existance but is on a hidden planet past the orbit of Pluto. Yeah, I know sounds kinda wierd, but who am I to judge Anyway, with 2003 UB313 being discovered, what is the opinion of the good folks from Salt Lake City? At least they can have the certainty of knowing they have somewhere to go, though I don't think they need to pack sunglasses and tanning lotion. A nice warm jacket might be well advised. Do you think they'd like to sponsor some KBO missions, or would that take the fun out of things for them? Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Feb 3 2006, 03:35 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 279 |
|
|
|
Feb 3 2006, 07:18 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 509 Joined: 2-July 05 From: Calgary, Alberta Member No.: 426 |
QUOTE (TritonAntares @ Feb 2 2006, 06:27 AM) As child I read in an old astronomy library book from the '50s - I think it was from Otto Struve - Triton's diameter should be ~6000 km. If I recall right, that was because of Triton's unexpectedly high reflectivity. The 6000-km figure was still around in the 1970s; I'm pretty sure it was included as an upper limit in Ludek Pesek's book "Solar System" which was from about 1979. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 16th June 2024 - 02:12 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |