Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Unmanned Spaceflight.com _ Pluto / KBO _ Pluto Top Ten Contest

Posted by: SigurRosFan Jan 6 2006, 12:29 PM

Planetary Society press release:

http://www.planetary.org/about/press/releases/2006/0104_Is_Pluto_a_Planet_or_Is_It_Not__The.html - Is Pluto a Planet or Is It Not? The Planetary Society Seeks Top Ten Lists

--- In honor of the launch of the New Horizons mission, the Society announces a call for the public to speak up and tell us:

The Top 10 Reasons Pluto IS a Planet, or
The Top 10 Reasons Pluto IS NOT a Planet

Even The Planetary Society's own Board of Directors is split, with Chairman Neil deGrasse Tyson wanting to demote Pluto from the planetary ranks and other members of the Board staunchly defending Pluto's status. In the interest of impartiality and public engagement, The Planetary Society is calling for reasons on both sides of the issue. For the next eight days, visitors to the Society's website can share their reasons why Pluto should or should not continue to be ranked as one of the solar system's nine planets. The deadline for submissions is Thursday, January 12, 2006. The final Top 10 Lists will be released prior to the launch of the New Horizons mission. ---

http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/topten/ - Pluto Top Ten

http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/topten/enter.html - Enter the Contest!

Posted by: PhilCo126 Jan 6 2006, 03:43 PM

Of course ... Clyde TOMBAUGH found PLANET X back in 1930 biggrin.gif

Posted by: mars loon Jan 7 2006, 09:05 PM

Some more good tidbits, is that this battle is not completely serious but also open to WIT and HUMOR!

To quote some additional relevant paragraphs from The Planetary Society:

The Top Ten Reasons Pluto IS a Planet
The Top Ten Reasons Pluto IS NOT a Planet

"Although the debate within the planetary community about Pluto's status is serious, the Top 10 Lists on our website do not have to be," said Bruce Betts, The Planetary Society's Director of Projects. "We will be looking for humorous rather than scientific reasons, although reasons that combine both would be a bonus."

That's right, in the interest of impartiality, we are calling for reasons on both sides of the issue. Don't be shy -- tell us why! Be creative, be silly, be witty, you can even be scientific, but that's not required.

The call for entries begins today, Wednesday, January 4 and ends on Thursday, January 12, 2006 at 12:00 noon Pacific time (20:00 UTC). Submissions are limited to five reasons per person per day for each list. A secret panel of judges will compile the final lists, which will be posted on our website prior to the launch of the New Horizons mission".

Posted by: elakdawalla Jan 11 2006, 07:42 PM

Just pointing out that this contest closes tomorrow...I DEMAND that you guys go BE FUNNY NOW!!! mad.gif biggrin.gif Seriously, please do your part to help reduce the net number of groans that the final top ten lists will inevitably elicit...

--Emily

Posted by: akuo Jan 11 2006, 08:12 PM

But its a serious issue!

Posted by: Bill Harris Jan 11 2006, 09:30 PM

<ben_stein>
But we are planetary geologists. Humor is not an option.
</ben_stein>

biggrin.gif

--Bill

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jan 12 2006, 10:47 AM

QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jan 11 2006, 08:42 PM)
Just pointing out that this contest closes tomorrow...I DEMAND that you guys go BE FUNNY NOW!!!  mad.gif  biggrin.gif Seriously, please do your part to help reduce the net number of groans that the final top ten lists will inevitably elicit...

--Emily
*



Emily:

You want silly? You got silly!

Mostly of the 'Pluto floats, so it is a duck, therefore it must be a witch, not a planet' variety!

For the culturally challenged, I also pointed out that Pluto is a dog, not a planet (the Voices told me to say that, though!).

These are not far off some of the 'real' arguments, IMHO.

Bob Shaw

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Jan 12 2006, 01:11 PM

According to Alan Stern, it's a planet because it doesn't look like Bizarro World.

Posted by: Chmee Jan 12 2006, 03:27 PM

Pluto is a planet because changing all the text books, encyclopedias, and references from the "9 planets of the solar system" to the "8 planets" would be cost-prohibative.
biggrin.gif

Posted by: odave Jan 12 2006, 04:10 PM

My entries on both sides of the issue are in.

Here's another that I couldn't get under the 128 character limit and have it make sense:

It IS a planet because we'd want to avoid hearing http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0047296/ from Pluto: "You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a planet. I coulda been somebody, instead of a KBO, which is what I am. Let's face it. It was you, IAU. "

smile.gif

Posted by: The Messenger Jan 12 2006, 06:33 PM

QUOTE (Chmee @ Jan 12 2006, 08:27 AM)
Pluto is a planet because changing all the text books, encyclopedias, and references from the "9 planets of the solar system" to the "8 planets" would be cost-prohibative.
biggrin.gif
*

Astronomy's archane nomenclature is one of my pet peeves - Star types, Saturns rings, galaxy types, numbering systems that were orgininally designed to help put things in order are wrot with confusion. Don't even get me going on astronomical units, and I have the same complaint about icons: how do you index and reference them? I have no way of knowing what my camera is telling me without plowing through a two-hundred page book, all in 8 pitch. I just aim and hope.

So rather than create a plethoria of new planets, I would propose classifying all Kuiper belt objects as "Plutonian moons", including Pluto. Give the grade school kids a break - by the time they are adults, they will have learned to identify more icons than there are characters in the Chinese alphabet.

Posted by: David Jan 12 2006, 07:49 PM

The first discovery of a "new" planet was in 1781. The second, 1846, 75 years later. The third, 1930, 84 years later. If 2003 UB313 is considered a planet, then 73 years would have elapsed between the third and fourth new planets. That's an average of 77 years between "new planets". I think that's a nice sedate pace I think we could keep up for a while.

Posted by: elakdawalla Jan 16 2006, 08:18 PM

The results are in...

http://planetary.org/explore/topics/topten/

A very strong showing from the UMSF folks, especially Lyford! Thanks guys!

--Emily

Posted by: djellison Jan 16 2006, 08:31 PM

Weh hey smile.gif

I love "It doesn't appear to be so inclined. " - That's GENIUS

Doug

Posted by: exobioquest Jan 17 2006, 05:37 AM

Pluto is not a planet, and I'll tell you why cause “plutonians are teh suck!” (private joke for ATHF fans)

Its to small and to far and if we add it in we have to add in alot of other KBO that including pluto are nothing but oversize comets in badly need of some sun.

F the grade school books, the USA school system is already teaching them kids misinformation: why stop at sex ed and evolution lets get astronomy in there to!

Posted by: djellison Jan 17 2006, 08:37 AM

QUOTE (exobioquest @ Jan 17 2006, 05:37 AM)
Its to small and to far
.......already teaching them kids misinformation


And not teaching them that it's TOO small and TOO far, not TO smile.gif

The real argument is one that will doubtless cause many a conference-argument for decades, personally, I think Pluto deserves it's title as it 'got there first' so to speak, and then the similar bodies out at that sort of range with that sort of composition should be refered to as Plutonian's or part of the Pluto 'class' of bodies.

Doug

Posted by: odave Jan 17 2006, 02:05 PM

Seems like the term "ice dwarf" is catching on. Though I really like http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=1456&view=findpost&p=36444 "giant cosmic dust bunnies". Think the IAU would go for that? wink.gif

Posted by: djellison Jan 17 2006, 02:51 PM

QUOTE (odave @ Jan 17 2006, 02:05 PM)
Seems like the term "ice dwarf" is catching on.  Though I really like http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=1456&view=findpost&p=36444 "giant cosmic dust bunnies".  Think the IAU would go for that?  wink.gif
*


Well - if they'll go for 'Xena'......

Doug

Posted by: lyford Jan 17 2006, 05:56 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jan 17 2006, 06:51 AM)
Well - if they'll go for 'Xena'......

Doug
*

I'd go for Xena! No wait, I don't think that's what you meant....

I agree with Doug about considering them the "Pluto Class" of bodies..... bodies.... um, just got distracted there for a minute... What was that about http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/moon/

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jan 17 2006, 10:39 PM

QUOTE (odave @ Jan 17 2006, 03:05 PM)
Seems like the term "ice dwarf" is catching on.  Though I really like http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=1456&view=findpost&p=36444 "giant cosmic dust bunnies".  Think the IAU would go for that?  wink.gif
*


The IAU won't accept *that* term, due to it's Political Incorrectness.

Thet *might* go for 'Thermally-Disadvantaged Planet of Restricted Growth' or TDPG - see, it trips off the tongue, doesn't it!

Bob Shaw

Posted by: helvick Jan 17 2006, 11:30 PM

QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jan 17 2006, 11:39 PM)
The IAU won't accept *that* term, due to it's Political Incorrectness.

Thet *might* go for 'Thermally-Disadvantaged Planet of Restricted Growth' or TDPG - see, it trips off the tongue, doesn't it!

Bob Shaw
*

Exploring the acronym idea and considering the difficulties the IAU and others are having I propose:
ODDS - Outer dim and Distant Systems (For objects with satellites)
SODS - Solar Orbiting Distant Spheres. (For solitary planet like objects)
and perhaps at a stretch
DEMONS - Distant Embarassing Minor Orbiting Natural Spheres

Posted by: MizarKey Apr 25 2006, 04:13 PM

Sorry to dredge up an older topic...however, there was talk of the 'is Pluto a planet' in another forum that I wanted to respond to but it would have been off topic.

According to the wikipedia entry for 'Planet'...The name comes from the Greek term πλανήτης, planētēs, meaning "wanderer", as ancient astronomers noted how certain lights moved across the sky in relation to the other stars.

So therefor only Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are 'Planets'. Since 'Planet' already has such a definition, let's move on. We need a word or words for rocky worlds and gaseous worlds. There should be a lower size limit to exclude debris. Our asteroid belt, and now TNOs/KBOs, make this more difficult as there's such a range within a given volume of space.

I'm sure whatever the IAU does decide it will be unpopular with one group or another.

I'm in favor of the word "Orbiter", as in "The orbiter Earth", "Third orbiter from the sun".

Posted by: Bob Shaw Apr 25 2006, 04:17 PM

Planet - classical planet
Planetoid - planet-like
Asteroid - star-like
Comet - classical comet
Cometoid - comet-like

Bob Shaw

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)