[meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Aug 22 21:46:29 2006
Message-ID: <0a5301c6c655$eb659260$807cd745_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi, All,

    Give credit (here on the List anyway) to Darren, who
pointed out the confusion of terms days before the geologists
started squawking about having their word stolen to settle
somebody else's quarrel.

> "Plutonian object" was the least unpopular choice.

    I've been using the term "Plutonian" for worlds which
are largely a combination of two materials: silicates (rock)
and crystal-phase mineral volatiles (ice) here on the List
for a year and a half, but the geologists also use that term,
as in "plutonian process," and have been using the term
"plutonian" for almost two centuries to refer to any geological
process taking place or object formed at great depths in
the Earth, a usage so general and widespread that they are not
likely to be willing to give it up to the IAU and astronomers
just because they need a word and it was handy.

    The most correct technical term would be the jawbreaker
CRYOSILICATE object. It would apply to Pluto, Xena, and
Company, to the large satellites (Ganymede, Europa, Callisto,
Triton, Titan), and to the PLANET Ceres. Io and 2003EL61
would be altered Cryosilicate worlds that have lost their
volatiles by heating.


Sterling K. Webb
--------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Baalke" <baalke_at_zagami.jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "Meteorite Mailing List" <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets


>
> http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9818-astronomers-lean-towards-eight-planets.html
>
> Astronomers lean toward eight planets
> Stephen Battersby, Prague
> New Scientist
> 22 August 2006
>
> Finally, astronomers could be homing in on a definition of the word
> planet. After a day of public bickering in Prague, followed by
> negotiation behind closed doors, the latest draft resolution was greeted
> with a broadly friendly reception.
>
> If accepted on Thursday, it would be bad news for Pluto, which would no
> longer be a full-fledged planet.
>
> The crucial change in "draft c" is that a planet must be the dominant
> body in its orbital zone, clearing out any little neighbours. Pluto does
> not qualify because its orbit crosses that of the vastly larger Neptune.
>
> The planet definition committee is also stepping back from trying to
> define all planets in the universe, and sticking to our solar system - a
> slightly easier task.
>
> It is still a work in progress, however, and the wording will change by
> Thursday in part to simplify it and make the final result more palatable
> to the public.
>
> Least unpopular
>
> Terminology is still controversial. Objects that do not quite qualify as
> planets - because they are big enough to be round but not big enough to
> dominate their neighbourhoods - might become "dwarf-planets" or
> planetoids.
>
> These would include Pluto and Ceres, the largest asteroid. And the small
> fry of the solar system, such as asteroids, might be called small solar
> system bodies, or retain their current designation as minor planets.
>
> But a supplementary resolution would at least make Pluto the prototype
> of a class of icy outer worlds beyond Neptune. "The purpose of this is
> to give a nod to those people who are great Pluto fans," said Owen
> Gingerich of Harvard University in Massachusetts, US, who is chairman of
> the committee.
>
> It is not clear what they would be called, however - most early
> suggestions were rejected by an informal show of hands. Pluton, plutoid,
> plutonoid and plutid seem to be out of the running, as are "Tombaugh
> object" and "Tombaugh planet", which had been proposed in honour of
> Pluto's discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh. "Plutonian object" was the least
> unpopular choice.
>
> Multiple drafts
>
> The planet definition committee's first draft definition, released last
> Wednesday, had admitted Pluto, Ceres and probably dozens more objects to
> planethood by virtue of being round objects orbiting the Sun (see Planet
> debate: Proposed new definitions
> <http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9762>).
>
> Then another group of astronomers, many of whom study the dynamics of
> the solar system, responded on Friday by insisting that a planet must
> dominate its neighbourhood, which would admit only the eight fully
> formed planets (see Pluto may yet lose planet status
> <http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9797-pluto-may-yet-lose-planet-status.html>).
>
> At a fractious lunchtime meeting on Tuesday, the committee's first
> attempt at a compromise met a hostile response. "They have presented
> practically the same resolution as before," said Julio Fernandez of the
> University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay, lead author of
> Friday's proposal.
>
> Secret negotiations
>
> He was cut off when he tried to read his proposal aloud. When more
> questions were prevented, there was a cry of: "If there is democracy,
> listen to the questions. Let the people speak!"
>
> Now, although all is not quite sweetness and light, the main sticking
> point may have been removed, and there is now hope for a positive result
> at Thursday's vote.
>
> Andrea Milani of the University of Pisa in Italy had fiercely opposed
> the planet definition committee at the first meeting on Tuesday. But
> after participating in the secret negotiations that afternoon, he told
> New Scientist: "I'm very satisfied."
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Tue 22 Aug 2006 09:46:14 PM PDT