[X] My Assistant

[ljk4-1]

No.  But it's the IAU's business to make things neat and tidy (which of course they aren't).  Frankly, if you don't use names that are "already taken" by asteroids, that pretty much rules out using feminine names from Greco-Roman mythology altogether.
  Ah, but the "KB" just tells you where the object is ("real estate"), and the "O" just tells you that it is... an "Object".  Still leaving the question: what kind of Object is it?  What are Mercury, Mars, or the Earth?  CJOs? (Cis-Jovian Objects?). 

I consider them to be really big comets.

Or at the very most minor planets, like the big rocks between Mars and Jupiter.

Had Clyde Tombaugh not discovered Pluto in 1930, I predict there would be no major debate on what these KBOs are, at least in terms of being major planets or not.

If the IAU can't keep things tidy in the Sol system, then I guess it is up to me.

[dvandorn]

Even though it would never happen, I'd _love_ to see a "R'lyeh Planitia" on Pluto...

Heck, I'd be happy if they just named a small, run-down-looking Martian crater "The Thoat Barns"...

-the other Doug

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

That's from Niven, isn't it? (Alternatively, they could find a particularly steep-walled crater and name it "Deep Thoat"...)

[dvandorn]

Um, no, not Niven... Think of Deja Thoris riding one, you'll figure it out.



-the other Doug (aka John Carter of Mars)

[tty]

Um, no, not Niven...  Think of Deja Thoris riding one, you'll figure it out.



-the other Doug (aka John Carter of Mars)

Well ultimately we're bound to run out of classical myths so someday we may have the Artolian Hills and the Seroni highlands up there...

tty

[RockHoward]

I remembered this from the deep recesses of my memory, but it took Wikipedia to pin down the exact reference. Quoting:

In Robert Anton Wilson's Schroedinger's Cat trilogy, the tenth and eleventh planets are named Mickey and Goofy respectively.

[SFJCody]

Interview with Mike Brown (Planetary Society):

http://www.planetary.org/audio/pr20050815.html

Also features Emily Lakdawalla talking about Cassini data.

[Bob Shaw]

New Scientist (20 August 2005, P7) reports that the diameter of 2003 UB313 may have been underestimated, as the Spitzer Space Telescope's attempt to detect it's IR signature failed as it was incorrectly aimed due to human error. This spurious result led Mike Brown to estimate a Moon-sized maximum diameter of around 3,000 Km.

See his comments at:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/#spitzer

[SFJCody]

Spitzer observations should be complete now.

The abstract makes for interesting reading:

http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/geninfo/go/abs-go1/3283.txt

A page on Kuiper planetoids:

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/reach/planetoid.html

It looks like the famous 200" Hale telescope at Palomar will be pointed at it in a few days:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:7crNRgl...s%22+1583&hl=en

[Rob Pinnegar]

New Scientist (20 August 2005, P7) reports that the diameter of 2003 UB313 may have been underestimated, as the Spitzer Space Telescope's attempt to detect it's IR signature failed as it was incorrectly aimed due to human error. This spurious result led Mike Brown to estimate a Moon-sized maximum diameter of around 3,000 Km.

See his comments at:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/#spitzer

The last couple of sections of this article, which detail the circumstances of what went on behind the scenes just prior to the announcement of 2003 UB313's discovery, ought to be required reading for _anyone_ involved in scientific research as a career -- even if not all of it is entirely accurate, as is suggested at the top of one section.

I've been scooped before. Even when it's something that would only be of interest to a few dozen people worldwide, it is damned unpleasant. This is much more than that. I suspect that Brown's description of "letting out a gasp" is the understatement of the year. Ouch.

[SFJCody]

Fluff article with one new piece of information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/fashion/...ewanted=2&8hpib

the International Astronomical Union, which has the last word in naming celestial objects, has to decide if it is a planet, something that is unlikely to happen before 2006, Dr. Brown said.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0b5d85ec-1697-11d...000e2511c8.html

One suggestion that seems extremely sensible, at least to me, is to settle on a definition of "historical planets", which includes those we already call planets, and forget about naming anything else a planet. Apparently, this has been proposed by Iwan Williams, president of the IAU's planet definition working group.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

NO, NO!!!!! That [extremely bad word] proposal -- to call Pluto a planet but 2003 UB313 not a planet, despite the fact that it's BIGGER than Pluto -- has also been pushed by (I believe) Penelope Boston. NOTHING could confuse schoolkids and the general public more than this about the real nature of the Solar System. This proposal isn't just scientifically doubtful; it's flat-out INSANE!

[Bob Shaw]

NO, NO!!!!!  That [extremely bad word] proposal -- to call Pluto a planet but 2003 UB313 not a planet, despite the fact that it's BIGGER than Pluto -- has also been pushed by (I believe) Penelope Boston.  NOTHING could confuse schoolkids and the general public more than this about the real nature of the Solar System.  This proposal isn't just scientifically doubtful; it's flat-out INSANE!

Bruce:

Perhaps we're mixing up 'cultural' and 'scientific'. The Classical Planets (including the rather dim and difficult to see outer planets, and even Pluto) are at least within the bounds of normal human perception. Strange wee worldlets in the outer reaches are (literally) beyond our ken. Letting the world at large know that there are all sorts of planetoids out there in the dark reaches of the Solar System is a threat to nobody other than stamp collectors. We need to back off, and simply enjoy the new discoveries.

Bob Shaw

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

There was a time when there were only 8 classical planets -- or 7, or 6. Times change, including the public's view of the scientific world. Misleading people as to whether Pluto is the biggest KBO is NOT the way to change them.

[JRehling]

NO, NO!!!!!  That [extremely bad word] proposal -- to call Pluto a planet but 2003 UB313 not a planet, despite the fact that it's BIGGER than Pluto -- has also been pushed by (I believe) Penelope Boston.  NOTHING could confuse schoolkids and the general public more than this about the real nature of the Solar System.  This proposal isn't just scientifically doubtful; it's flat-out INSANE!

That would be about like calling Europe a continent. Europe is not only attached to Asia, the delineation is also broad and arbitrary, unlike the narrow isthmus borders of the Americas and Africa-Asia. And it's hardly larger than other possible candidate realms that are no more detached from larger landmasses (such as India+Pakistan+Bangladesh -- about the same size as Europe, but at best a "sub"continent).

Europe certainly has a lot more history than Pluto, but the same principles are at work there. It illustrates that "continent" is not a geographical term nearly so much as a cultural one, in which case, we needn't appeal to mathematical formulas.

There are people suggesting, I think, that "planet" should be divested of any scientific purpose, written off as a historical term, and then Pluto could get the same kind of breaks that Europe does. What I like about the proposal is it takes the fig leaf off the idea that "planet" is a term that drives any real scientific thought. But Pluto's planet status surely doesn't approach Europe's continent status if you weigh the paperwork.