Why all the hoopla about a Standard for Planets?

Question

I thought we had a Planetary Classification Standard, though what I'm thinking of is the one used in the storyline of the Star Trek Universe.

Its there, in the winepika encyclopedia. Just look up "Planetary Classification".

It makes sense, though it could be augmented or revised to be a little more specific. For the sake of science and the Astrometrics Community.

Any real astronomers out there actually at the confrence in Prague? Print it up and put it out for debate. At least its a viable foundation to work with.

Answer 1

It is a sticky problem. And astronomers have been rather bored lately since Mars went on vacation beyond the sun, so they need something to keep them awake.

But, it's not going to make a large difference at first.

I predict that no matter how they define 'planet', they will find some miserable, defiant, stubborn little glob of goo of some sort that simply refuses to comply with the rules and drive scientists batty in an attempt to classify it. Then back to the war room for more strategy. I'll get you my pretty, and your little moon too!

Eventually, as the search for extra-solar bodies continues, they'll have to amend the definition repeatedly until it finally ends up looking like a 36-volume legal codex of laws, rules, regulations, articles, subclauses, amendments and exceptions, etc.,etc., etc., that it will take a PhD in astrophysics to interpret it.

They may have opened a Pandora's box.

Oh, the evil that men do!
LOL

Answer 2

It is more of a question of the measure that is used to determine what classifies a planet. By many peoples viewpoint Pluto does not qualify as a planet, they feel it should be classified as an Kuiper belt object. Pluto is very small, smaller than some moons and it has an unusual orbit.

The fact that this question exists is the point of the discussion. The scientific community is not attacking Pluto, or trying to get us more planets, they are trying to better define the "Planetary Classification" process.

Answer 3

General question. What makes a planet a planet? Is it the mass? Diameter? Orbit? Distance from the sun?

I would say that the following are minimum characteristics of planets.1 & 2 below are arbitrary, you may prefer other variables.

1. Minimum Mass. 10^20 Kg. (about 1/100th the mass of Pluto).
2. Minimum Diameter. 1,500 Km (about 900 miles)
3. Orbit. Must be in orbit around a sun, and not a planet (therefore, Luna is not a planet, even though it's larger than Pluto).
4. Distance from sun. Not relevant, as long as it is clearly in orbit around the sun. Therefore, a massive sun may have planets dozen's of light-years away.
5. Is not itself a sun. That would be a binary or higher system.
6. Must not be in interstellar space, not associated with a sun or suns.
7. Not in a field of other bodies with the same approximate orbit. That would leave out anything in the Asteroid Belt and Oort Cloud.

So, I say that Pluto is a planet.

Now, how about "Xena" (aka, 2003 UB313)? To Hades (Greek God of the underworld) with conventions for naming planets. Xena is perfect. And Gabrielle for the moon.

Answer 4

well, since we are finding so many celestial bodies that can be planets due to our current definition. I think people just want to keep the planet special and highly ranked since the Earth is a planet. Its just that we humans can imagine Earth as part of 1000s of objects moving around the sun. It has to be part of a select few.

Answer 5

You know its a media age. They can start with anything and can make a small thing look bigger and vice versa. So lets concentrate on real problems instead of these discoveries. Once they would decide we would read the final conclusion and that would be enough for us.