[meteorite-list] Pluto is Now Just a Number: 134340

From: Larry Lebofsky <lebofsky_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed Sep 13 13:06:07 2006
Message-ID: <1158167155.45083a73898c9_at_hindmost.LPL.Arizona.EDU>

Dear Herbert:

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this.

I have known Brian for years and I have a great respect for the work he and
the Minor Planets Center have done and are continuing to do.

However, Brian has been a proponent of demoting Pluto for nearly a decade. By
making Pluto asteroid 10,000, this would have in one way made its demotion
official long before the IAU vote. It was premature then and what they have
done is premature now.

Yes, the Center archives the obsevations, yes, they oversee the numbering and
naming of asteroids and comets (and satellites). However, as Sterling has
pointed out, they do not have any jurisdiction over naming of planets (other
than a provisional number at the time of discovery) and with the IAU vote, it
is not at all clear that they have any jurisdiction over dwarf planets. That
is yet to be determined by one of the IAU commissions.

If we would have followed Brian's suggestion in 1998. That would have
effectively ended the debate right then. Pluto would have been a minor planet,
end of story.

Larry

Quoting Herbert Raab <herbert.raab_at_utanet.at>:

>
> Sterling K. Webb wrote:
>
> > Marsden has been trying to get jurisdiction over Pluto for a
> > long time. If it isn't a planet, why does he want it so badly?
>
> As a matter of fact, the MPC already collects all available
> astrometric observations for Pluto for many yeras now, as it
> does for all minor planets (and that includes those which are
> now called dwarf planets), all comets, and all the outer, irregular
> satellites of the major planets. As you can see, the work of the
> MPC is not strictly limited to minor planets.
>
> Marsden suggested to award numer 10'000 to Pluto in late 1998. Not
> because he wanted to have "jurisdiction" over it, but because he
> foresaw the many discoveries of large TNOs we have now, and that
> we have either the choice to classify Pluto with the minor bodies
> of the solar system, or the end up in a sloar system with dozens of
> planets.
>
> Marsden wrote: "Although it is not unlikely that further Transneptunian
> Objects as large as Pluto will be discovered in the future, Pluto
> obviously holds a very special place in our appreciation of this new
> population, and by assigning to it the number (10000), we should
> guarantee that Pluto will be at the head of the Transneptunian list."
>
> Now we have Pluto numbered as 130-thousand and something. Not very
> easy to remember, and far behind a bunch of many fainter and smaller
> objects in that region of the solar system. Oh, I wish that the
> astronomers would have followed Marsden's sueggestion in 1998....
>
> Marsden continued: "It is also very important to affirm that there is
> absolutely no implied 'demotion' or 'reclassification' of Pluto from
> its positionin the list of the 'planets' (or 'major planets' or
> 'principal planets'). Unfortunately, many of the articles that have
> appeared inthe press have accidentally (or deliberately) misinterpreted
> this issue. As with (2060) = 95P/Chiron, (4015) = 107P/Wilson-Harrington
> and (7968) = 133P/Elst-Pizarro, where the choice of 'minor planet' or
> 'comet' designation depends on the context, we are proposing that
> Pluto would have dual status as a 'major' and a 'minor' body."
>
> So much about the "backdoor invite to demote Pluto".
>
> Greetings,
>
> Herbert Raab
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Wed 13 Sep 2006 01:05:55 PM PDT