[meteorite-list] 'Plutons' Push Planet Total Up To 12-- Mike Brown's view

From: Larry Lebofsky <lebofsky_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Aug 17 08:50:34 2006
Message-ID: <1155819027.44e466137b785_at_hindmost.LPL.Arizona.EDU>

Hi again Darren:

Mike Brown makes some interesting and valid points. Others have too. No system
is going to be perfect. We are dealing with Mother Nature and she has her own
rules.

However, I am confused by some of what he says. He says that he had nothing to
do with the writing of the resolution and disagrees with the committee's
report. Yet, his name is on the list of committee members. Did he not vote on
this (I was told the decision was unanimous)? Did he just get voted down and
is now going off to give his own personal view (happens all the time and is
acceptable)? Brown has always been a "rebel." He is the only asteroid/comet
discoverer (and there are hundreds) who has named his own asteroids without
going through official channels. And before you say "good for him," think what
this would do if even two or three major meteorite hunters were to come up
with their own naming/classification system without going through METSOC.

My biggest concern, personally (my favorite asteroid and the one that I
studied for decades is now a planet!) is how one is going to determine whether
of not something is or is not a planet based on the information available. One
needs to know its diameter, its mass (and density), and its shape. That will
not be easy for the KBOs. Will "large" KBOs remain in limbo (namewise) until
we get images and more information on them?

Unless it is buried in the resolution, what about rubble piles? It is easier
to make a rubble pile round than a solid body. I feel very uncomfortable with
rubble pile planets. One therefore needs good mass estimates in order to get
good density estimates: good luck.

As many of you have said, this, in part, is a science vs. public (education)
issue. People do not like change. Students have enough trouble with 9 planets,
let along 12 or 24 (the official added list) vs 53 (Mike Brown's list). With
stars, there are so many and most people do not worry about how they are
classified. With planets there are only 9 (at the moment) and we all (most or
at least some) can name all of them. Add a few more and it will get confusing
even for me (good at ten but then have to take my shoes off to get up to 20).

>From a scientific perspective, there HAS to be a scientific definition of
planet (no you cannot create a new word) so that, in the future, one can deal
with bigger KBOs, Oort cloud objects and "planets" around other stars.
Unfortunately, this is not something that the public can "ignor" (like a new
class of stars) and, again, as many of you say, the committee cannot ignor
when it comes to a final vote. Speaking to one member of the commmittee for
some time the other day and knowing some of the others on the committee, I
would think that they were well aware of this "problem" and that when the
details are worked out, things will become clearer.

I personally commend this committee in its ability to come up with something
that all could agree on. This is fra better than what happened in the previous
committee or what has happened when people just ignor the system and do their
own thing (name a new object or demote a planet).

Larry
Received on Thu 17 Aug 2006 08:50:27 AM PDT