[meteorite-list] A sweet PLANETOID by any other name ...

From: Rob Matson <mojave_meteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:01:44 -0700
Message-ID: <GOEDJOCBMMEHLEFDHGMMIENEEKAA.mojave_meteorites_at_cox.net>

Hi Doug/List,

I know Doug has a special place in his heart for Vesta, as do many
of us who delight in HED meteorites. My only complaint is in the
unnecessary elevation of Vesta to some special naming status beyond
"asteroid" or "minor planet". Why do we feel the need to invent
pigeon holes for the one or two objects that reside at the end of
some arbitrary size continuum? (If we lived on Jupiter or Saturn,
would we say there were four planets, four subplanets, and a bunch
of mini-planetoids?)

If you plot solar system objects on an orbital inclination vs.
LOG(mass) graph, it's hard to make the argument that Vesta deserves
more than an honorable mention:

http://www.spaceobs.com/perso/textes/solarsystem2.gif

(This plot also shows why Pluto -- other than for historical
reasons -- has no business being lumped in with the eight solar
system planets.) Vesta, Ceres, Pallas and Hygiea are far more
like all the other asteroids than they are like any planet. (And
don't forget there are quite a few planetary satellites that are
far more massive than Vesta.)

"Protoplanet" suggests something that is ~nearly~ a planet or was
oh-so-close to becoming one: a woulda, coulda, shoulda planet. I
just think it's a stretch to say Vesta, Ceres or Pallas deserve
that label.

Best wishes,
Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com]On Behalf Of
MexicoDoug
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 10:23 PM
To: mojave_meteorites at cox.net; jl at hc.fdn.com;
meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] A sweet PLANETOID by any other name ...


"just an asteroid"

Awww, come guys,

VIVA PLANETOID VESTA!

  ... Remnant protoplanet is perfectly fine description and so what if
"just an adjective" is being dropped! They are not required in the
English language unless the context is obviously misunderstood. Agreed
that it is a little nutty to think Vesta would dynamically grow into a
planet at this point - but that is only one point of view on what a
protoplanet is and while a lot of people might insist they know better
what a protoplanet is because it sounds like a somewhat scientific
term, the definition is just, well, just not there unless someone wants
to massage the literature to create an upwelling of passion among
scientists that have nothing better to do than carve out new
definitions out of what we all have settled already, and then to
educate us on our improper usage which they work up in foolish,
ramrodded, not properly peer reviewed meetings by all interested
parties.

To NASA's credit, DAWN's stated mission is to make a trip back to the
point in history by hoping Vesta in fact is a remnant protoplanet in
the truest form. So in the context of Dawn, while it may serve NASA's
publicity, unless someone has an axe to grind against Vesta because of
the well-deserved passion and euphoria of all of the growing Vestal
crowd that just wants to have a good time, IMO, NASA is well within its
bounds.

That is not to say that that for every opinion there is not an equal
and opposite opinion, but this is not scientific; it is much less
scientific at least than the "Great Planet Pluto debate" garbage many
of us got caught up into and that wasn't scientific. Speaking of self
serving, if geologists ran the show, there would be no problem calling
Vesta a planet even. Astronomers somehow feel that when something is
far out in space that somehow makes it their exclusive domain.
However, though astronomy is my first true love, IMO it is time to
defer to those specializing in planetary geology, especially bodies
other than earth. Yeah, I know planetary geologists and astronomers
are now just like the delocalized mesomeristic electrons in Kekule
benzene diagrams ;-) Right.

Pure opinions ... Vesta, however, from a classical view is definitely
not "just an asteroid". Asteroids are those star-like things that
don't move much against the background and are most frequently just
points of light on photographic plates and these days in the domain of
patient and gifted people like Rob to pick out of noisy backgrounds.
Vesta is thought to be actively bombarding earth with fragments and is
brighter than planet Uranus at her best. So, just to be a little self
serving myself, I'll get ready to announce a new sale of Tatahouine's
at great prices, and I think I'll call Vesta a planet. It'd probably
be good for marketing, as if no scientist ever marketed his passionate
work in the history of the age of reason by selecting the words that
suited them! Nah. I love Vesta as a planetoid, but that is just my 2c.

Peace, Vesta has just graduated and is on its way to becoming the most
studied roundish, formerly volcanic, big object at 2.3 or so AU in the
Solar system ... my fingers are crossed that the mission goes well.

Kindest wishes
Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Matson <mojave_meteorites at cox.net>
To: John Lutzon <jl at hc.fdn.com>; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 23, 2011 12:19 am
Subject: [meteorite-list] Vesta is NOT a "protoplanet"


Hi John,

Just a gentle request to resist the urge to parrot NASA's erroneous
(and mildly self-serving) labeling of Vesta as a "protoplanet". Vesta
will never evolve into a planet via accretion, so while one might
have optimistically called it a protoplanet 4+ billion years ago,
that window of opportunity has long since closed. To label it as
such is simply an anacronism; it is an asteroid, and nothing more.

Cheers,
Rob
Received on Sat 23 Jul 2011 04:01:44 AM PDT