Pluto — a Complex and Changing World 191
astroengine writes "After 4 years of processing the highest resolution photographs the Hubble Space Telescope could muster, we now have the highest resolution view of Pluto's surface ever produced. Most excitingly, these new observations show an active world with seasonal changes altering the dwarf planet's surface. It turns out that this far-flung world has more in common with Earth than we would have ever imagined."
High res? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me, or do the photos look like a big blob of yellows and grays?
Re: (Score:2)
By jove you're right! These photos need to be "enhanced".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty easy. Find a definition that makes Pluto a planet without making too much other bodies in the solar system planets too.
For instance you could define "solar planet" as "celestial body other than the sun in the solar system with more than 2000 km in diameter which was discovered by mankind before 1990" :)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes the 8 real planets less special.
Re: (Score:2)
Astronomy is a science and, not to anthropomorphize, but science doesn't like having vague, undefined terms or concept. It can deal with them (just look various TOEs or even psychology) but a lot of effort goes toward specifying meaning. It doesn't serve our understanding to classify an apple as an orange for sentiment's sake.
Re:High res? (Score:5, Informative)
Considering it normally looks like this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100204-pluto-hubble-best-pictures/ [nationalgeographic.com], those blobs of yellow and grays are pretty impressive.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think there's a matter of interpretation as far as "sharpest picture yet". The image you reference is "over-exposed" to bring out Pluto's multiple moons. They meant it's the best pic of Pluto's *system*, not Pluto's disk. In other words, "best" depends on what you want to emphasize. The world ain't black and white (pun semi-intended).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True, but it was the closest thing I could find on short notice. The point is that Pluto isn't very many pixels across. Also, I think when they said "best" they were actually talking about the new images, even though they didn't show a picture.
There are a few more pictures here, both from Hubble and ground telescopes: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/pluto.htm [solarviews.com]
It's not quite as simple as "the image is over-exposed." Pluto is dim and small enough to be right at the edge of telescopes' resolving power. Intens
Re: (Score:2)
Considering it normally looks like this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100204-pluto-hubble-best-pictures/ [nationalgeographic.com], those blobs of yellow and grays are pretty impressive.
But the normal picture looks shiny.
Pluto is one of those chicks that looks better from a distance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is it just me, or do the photos look like a big blob of yellows and grays?
Based on my experience, all planets look like that from space. And on the surface they all look like southern California.
Re:High res? (Score:5, Funny)
Is it just me, or do the photos look like a big blob of yellows and grays?
Based on my experience, all planets look like that from space. And on the surface they all look like southern California.
Based on my experience of watching Doctor Who, Blakes 7, etc; all planets look like the quarry next to the BBC studios.
Re: (Score:2)
That quarry is time locked. It's a fixed point in time and space, it's a fact !
Unless Rassillon has a backup plan involving finding a ring in a quarry ... no, wait ... they already did that one.
Re:High res? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Adds variety away from the Los Angeles hills look.
Re: (Score:2)
Why you hatin' on the Gorn rocks?
Mm hmm.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me, or do the photos look like a big blob of yellows and grays?
Blurry photos.... I feel like I'm watching an episode of "In Search Of"
Pluto = Asteroid WIth Attitude and Ego! (Score:4, Funny)
the amateur astronomer understands that Pluto is noting more than an asteroid with a big ego
The attitude gets even bigger when its closer to the sun than Neptune.....
How would you like to be demoted?
Re:Pluto = Asteroid WIth Attitude and Ego! (Score:4, Informative)
the amateur astronomer understands that Pluto is noting more than an asteroid with a big ego
"That's no planet... it's an asteroid with a big ego.."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Pluto replies:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/sciencemath/8964/ [thinkgeek.com]
Can't wait for a good picture! (Score:5, Informative)
Five more years until we have a GOOD picture of Pluto. July 14, 2015...can't wait!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can't wait for a good picture! (Score:5, Informative)
Compressed pictures should be available to the public a few days after the flyby. They are expecting the full data set to take nine months.
So for decent pictures you had best revise your estimate:
July 2015
Re: (Score:2)
Well, poo! I'm still excited, though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very cold out at Pluto's distance, which slows down particles in the atmosphere and makes them easier to keep. That's why Titan has such a thick atmosphere, too, despite its small size.
Re: (Score:2)
James Webb Space Telescope might beat it in giving us "good" pictures of Pluto; assuming it will be launched in 2014, as planned currently. And who knows what Herschel Space Observatory might give us soon, if pointed at Pluto...
At the same time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFS it's a world. That's something, at least.
Pluto having seasonal changes is well known (Score:2)
These new high-resolution views no doubt provide important new information about Pluto's seasons, but the fact that Pluto undergoes significant seasonal cycles has been known for quite a while. (Here's [google.com] one randomly chosen mention.)
Re:Pluto having seasonal changes is well known (Score:5, Funny)
the fact that Pluto undergoes significant seasonal cycles has been known for quite a while.
Yeah, don't mess with Pluto. She's been in a bad mood for awhile now. Must be that time of the orbit.
News Flash (Score:3, Insightful)
Pluto IS a planet. It was a planet when I was in school, so it will always be a planet, dadgummit.
i'll grant you pluto is a planet (Score:5, Insightful)
if you grant me the other seven dwarves are planets: eris, makemake, haumea, sedna, orcus, 2001OR10, and quaoar
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/EightTNOs.png [wikimedia.org]
and the other 100 or so such objects of pluto size likely to be found in the coming decades in the oort cloud
or keep it easy and say its not a planet
your choice, but the third graders of 2080 who have to memorize 80 planets might not be too happy with you
face it, pluto is chump change
Re: (Score:2)
if you grant me the other seven dwarves are planets: eris, makemake, haumea, sedna, orcus, 2001OR10, quaoar, and the other 100 or so such objects of pluto size likely to be found in the coming decades in the oort cloud
Sure, why wouldn't I be willing to call them planets? Toss in Ceres and Pallas as well.
Re: (Score:2)
if you grant me the other seven dwarves are planets: eris, makemake, haumea, sedna, orcus, 2001OR10, and quaoar
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/EightTNOs.png [wikimedia.org]
Interesting picture.
Pluto is already so small, I suspect that its smaller satellites (Nix and Hydra) are about the size of a golf ball, if that large.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is important you'll know... if not? Meh.
How many of the 117 elements can you name?
How many C-List Hollywood celebrities can you name? How much SF trivia do you know?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:i'll grant you pluto is a planet (Score:5, Insightful)
The solar system does not exist to make things easier for third graders. If there are 80 planets, then so be it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But our language and terminology exists to facilitate exchange of ideas. Any term which encompasses so many so different bodies looses most of any usable meaning.
Re:i'll grant you pluto is a planet (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So Mercury, Venus and perhaps Mars are not planets?
Re: (Score:2)
According to this graph [wikipedia.org], doing non-satellites by mass puts only Eris ahead of Pluto. Maybe we could just throw Eris in, and cut it off at Pluto.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not trying to make a rubric for determining what is or isn't a planet; I'm trying to figure out some set of rules whereby we could keep the canonical nine planets. According to this graph [wikipedia.org], doing non-satellites by mass puts only Eris ahead of Pluto. Maybe we could just throw Eris in, and cut it off at Pluto.
Ceres was a canonical planet for 50 years, nobody minds it being a dwarf planet now, after having been called an asteroid. The masses are uncertain of all objects that have had no fly by. It is expected that other dwarf planets larger than pluto are out there anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:i'll grant you pluto is a planet (Score:5, Informative)
Once upon a time, students had to memorize only four elements (earth, air, fire, and water). Nowadays we recognize over a hundred, and there are a bunch of theoretical ones we can predict but have a hard time detecting. I don’t think “but people will have a hard time remembering them all, so we have to add arbitrary limit so that we don’t have so many” is a very good way of defining terms.
I can see a good argument for saying that the solar system contains four planets and some rubble. I can see an argument for saying that it contains over a dozen planets, probably way over. I can see a good argument for saying that it consists tens of thousands of planets. I can see a good argument for saying that “planet” is not a piece of scientific terminology and letting lay usage define it.
I can see an argument, although not a great one, for coming up with a definition that keeps the number down to a dozen, but I think the definition the IAU came up with is pretty ambiguous, since “cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit” is clearly relative, and you could define “cleared”, “neighbourhood”, and “around” in such a way that Ceres has done it (admittedly a stretch), or that Jupiter hasn’t. (There’s also the matter of “has” — do things that weren’t planets early in the history of the solar system become planets as time passes and they collect impacts?) And the IAU definition explicitly excludes anything that orbits around any star other than our sun, which to my mind makes it just silly, and means that a sizable fraction of the astronomical community is concerned with studying planets (and publishing papers calling them planets) that do not meet the IAU definition.
Incidentally, once upon a time, any new thing discovered in orbit in the solar system other than the sun was considered a planet, so the moon, the moons of Jupiter, and the asteroids (the few then known) would all have been considered planets. If you exclude dust particles and the like, that’s still a reasonable definition for the sorts of things that “planetary scientists” study, and personally I kind of like that approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Too broad a definition and it looses any meaning.
Besides, don't forget so conveniently that, apart from "planet" and "dwarf planet" distinction, there's also "terrestrial planet", "gas giant planet", "ice giant planet"...
once upon a time (Score:5, Informative)
ceres was considered a planet FOR HALF A CENTURY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet) [wikipedia.org]
they got over it WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS FOUND TO BE FULL OF SUCH MIDGETS
sound familiar? when the deluge of asteroids came in, people thought "uh, its going a little crazy with these planets here, lets lop off the pretenders". now, as they search and catalog the oort cloud, they find that pluto's experience is like ceres's experience in the asteroid belt: planet, until the deluge of neighbors, then demotion. its happened before, its happening again. there's no claim to pluto's status except nostalgia. they got over it in the 1800s, you can get over it now
pluto was discovered in in 1930, and kicked out of the club in 2006. that's a nice 75 year run, 50% more time than ceres
the only thing you have going for your clinging to pluto is adherence to tradition. that's not a good reason to say everything and its uncle is a planet, just to preserve pluto's status. its far easier to lop off pluto, consider us to have 4 (rocky) +4 (gas) planets, and be done with it. everything else is dwarf planet/ comet/ asteroid/ etc.: detritus, flotsam and jetsam, left over rocks, of lower import than the main 8
simple, easy, case closed
Re: (Score:2)
If this is addressed to me, I think you misunderstand me. I fully agree that there's no more reason to call Pluto a planet than Quaoar, Sedna, Ceres, and lots of other stuff. Tradition (of the last 75 years) would call Pluto a planet but not Sedna, and I agree that makes no sense. I think, though, that the thing to aim for in a definition of "planet" (if it needs to be defined at all) is "the sort of thing that planetary s
that's lame! (Score:2)
what?!
it would be a shame to go to pluto JUST BECAUSE it is mistakenly considered a "planet." the shame would be making visitations based on historical nostalgia, rather than sou
you draw the line somewhere (Score:2)
the line between the 4 gas giants and the rest is a big one. that would work
the line between the 4 gas giants + the 4 (major) inner rocky planets and all the rest is another big obvious cut off point. that would work too
below that, it gets very murky very quickly in terms of valid, easily defined criteria
so your logical choices are:
1. 4 planets
or
2. 8 planets
or
3. 482,419 planets and counting
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/ArchiveStatistics.html [harvard.edu]
you choose. i'm going with 8
no (Score:2)
the cut off between mercury and all other planets is a severe drop off
likewise, if it doesn't orbit the sun, its a moon. completely different issue
and yes people have constant arguments over what constitutes a mountain, in fact it spilled over into farce because of national pride in one case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/19/wales [guardian.co.uk]
they even made a movie about it starring hugh grant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Englishman_Who_Went_Up_a_Hill_But_Came_Down_a_Mountain [wikipedia.org]
so what you do, to avoid all this
Re: (Score:2)
My personal definition of a planet would be "something big enough that scientifically interesting things on it happen that only happen on big objects". This would define Pluto as a planet, and probably not define most of the smaller Kuiper belt objects like Makemake as planets (Eris probably should be one).
Re: (Score:2)
That would also catch things that are definitely moons, such as Europa and Titan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you're perfectly willing to accept that the definition of a "dwarf planet" is not a subclass of the defintion of a planet???
I have no issue with Pluto being reclassified as an object other than a planet, but the IAU's resolution was abysmal and inconsistent. By annoying those who wished to hold onto the view that Pluto is a planet, defining a planet as a body that orbits our sun (so technically an extrasolar planet isn't a planet) and making a mess of th new term they introduced (dwarf planet not a type
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for defining it as a body which orbits our sun is that the definition is basically a rule which states the reason why some astronomers don't want Pluto to be a planet, the "clearing the neighborhood" definition. It's impossible to tell whether something in another solar system has cleared the neighborhood of smaller objects (unless you travel there), so they had to exclude other solar systems to get the preferred definition in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or keep it easy and say its not a planet
What's the scientific justification? I could care less about the troubles of third graders of 2080. May their tongues freeze on the 2080 analogue of the ice-cold flag pole.
Here's my complaint with the 2006 IAU definition.
1) "Planet" is poorly defined. "Clears the neighborhood" needs to be defined and should have been back in 2006.
2) It abuses the English language. For some odd reason, "dwarf planets" are not considered "planets". That is not how adjectives in the English language are supposed to be u
Re: (Score:2)
The "clearing the neighborhood" definition doesn't count anything in a resonance, so that would be fine. However, you'd still have to worry about normal planets since you just can't see objects smaller than a certain size, so you can't tell if the neighborhood has been cleared.
What would really make the definition look silly is if anyone finds a Kuiper Belt object in our solar system bigger than Mercury. It's certainly possible, and they'll then have to say that Mercury is a planet and the larger Kuiper B
Re:i'll grant you pluto is a planet (Score:4, Insightful)
They are nowhere near "considerably" smaller than Pluto. Than Earth, maybe.
The "cleared its neighborhood" definition is absurd, since by that definition Earth is not a planet.
And that is simply not true (have you even read the definition?). Earth very much cleared it's neighbourhood; bodies in its vicinity are completelly dominated by its gravitation.
trolled (Score:2)
chill out hyper boy
unfortunately i only caught one hysteric with my stilted wording, but its a good one
i consider myself a moderate. of course liberals and conservatives have equal claim to adequacy, and idiocies abound in either direction. duh. you don't need to defend the obvious truth to every moron and troll you see on teh intarwebs, relax
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A dwarf planet is not a type of planet.
Re:News Flash (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ceres [wikipedia.org] was classified as a planet for 50 years, but we got over that--we can probably get over this, too.
When can we have google pluto (Score:2)
Nuf said
Classification (Score:4, Funny)
It turns out that this far-flung world has more in common with Earth than we would have ever imagined.
Should we maybe think of classifying Pluto as a real planet?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Awesome! That means my desk is a planet as well!
Another Earth(like)? (Score:5, Insightful)
"...more in common with Earth than we would have ever imagined."
If this is going to be along the lines of the the "Earthlike" exoplanets, it means something like Pluto has a surface, and probably some elements.
Why is it every planet that's not obviously entirely unlike Earth is "Earthlike"? Are we really that desperate for a refuge should we ruin this planet completely?
Hell no. Most people with even a slight interest and modest education know better, and don't try to make a point anything like that. No, these asinine statements are almost invariably made by 'science journalists' which are rapidly becoming less and less of both of those. They know they can't keep your interest recounting the bare facts so they have to come up with some bullshit that they're probably not even aware how bag of hammers stoopid it sounds. Pluto has an axial tilt, therefore it has seasons... like Earth. Sure, seasons with an average summer of 60 degrees Kelvin and winters at 30 Kelvin. How very Earthlike.
See, there's a downside to all these magazines and other media making stuff available on the net. Since they're making it available for free, they're not making anything directly from them, so they have nothing to lose by making them crap. Then they can get you to subscribe for the better stuff. In theory. Rather than paying some real and knowledgeable science journalists, or even specialists in that field, to write better material, they go the cheap route and use the same mediocre hacks for their print versions as for their e-versions.
So, naturally Pluto is Earthlike. It's because the source is Sciencelike. Sure, and those writers' and editors' asses are Hatlike.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know any of this surprises you. Media outlets are very Businesslike. Like businesses, they are driven to be Profitlike. You make profit by maximising your income (none, or maybe banner clicks) while minimising your expenses (lights, power, reporters' salaries).
Thus, we have "no truth in advertising - nor in news media."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know any of this surprises you. Media outlets are very Businesslike. Like businesses, they are driven to be Profitlike. You make profit by maximising your income (none, or maybe banner clicks) while minimising your expenses (lights, power, reporters' salaries).
Thus, we have "no truth in advertising - nor in news media."
Surpised, no. If I were I wouldn't have provided my take on the origin and nature of the problem. Not surprised at all, because I've seen far too much of it for too long. Just to pissed to keep letting it go by.
I don't just throw a tantrum here over them. I write the author, editor or other suitable recipient at the source. And I don't intend to just leave it at that. I'm also reading up on science journalism so I can compete in that marketplace for positions where the journalism could actually be appreciat
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Minor nitpick, Pluto's seasons are primarily driven by its highly elliptical orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Minor nitpick, Pluto's seasons are primarily driven by its highly elliptical orbit.
TFA credits both eccentricity and obliquity equally. I don't claim to know enough to say which is more accurate, but I do claim to be able to correctly use these alternate terms which the writer of TFA would probably scratch their head and dictionary pages over. Now that's not to blow my own horn over it, since many others know those terms also, but the following is intended as such a toot: I can name a musical piece that uses those and others correctly and explicitly enough to serve as an educational devic
Re: (Score:2)
an average summer of 60 degrees Kelvin
Nitpick, but you don't say "degrees Kelvin". I suspect that this was a typo though, as you use it correctly further on.
What about Makemake ? Eris ? Haumea ? (Score:2)
Pluto is not the only large body out there - Makemake, Haumea and Eris, among others, are just as large or larger [wikipedia.org], and also have signs of changes on their surface, but don't have the "planetary" history and don't get nearly the attention.
Re: (Score:2)
So did they find... (Score:2)
the alien base [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
No no, that's on Rupert (er... wait, I'm mixing future histories aren't I?)
Eh...hem... (Score:2)
Is that the first surface detail on pluto (Score:2)
---
Solar System [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed distiller [feeddistiller.com]
There are four planets. (Score:4, Insightful)
The solar system only has four planets worth distinguishing, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The rest of the objects in the solar system are too small to retain significant hydrogen and can be dismissed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. You could also say that the Solar System consists of one star, one failed star, and a bunch of other junk.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right... Because Earth is WAY to small to hold any of that hydrogen stuff...
Re:There are four planets. (Score:5, Informative)
You're right... Because Earth is WAY to small to hold any of that hydrogen stuff...
Jupiter: 89% Hydrogen
Saturn: 96% Hydrogen
Uranus: 83% Hydrogen
Neptune: 80% Hydrogen
Earth: 0.0021% Hydrogen
Yeh, pretty much.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen's actually about 0.9% of the earth's total mass, though you're right that it's only 0.0021% of the atmosphere (most of earth's hydrogen is locked up in water or ice).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I checked a number of sources and it put it at 0.14% of the crust, and about 0% of the mantle and core. The crust is about 0.015% of the volume of the Earth (and less than that by mass). Multiply it out, you get 0.0021%. My bad for forgetting the oceans. Still, it's really a negligible percentage either way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In ancient times, astronomers noted how certain lights moved across the sky in relation to the other stars. Ancient Greeks called these planetes asteres: wandering stars or simply planetoi: wanderers, from which today's word "planet" was derived.
Now you want to change the definition of what a "planet" is while the actual meaning of the word hasn't changed. Imagine "planets" were called
Re: (Score:2)
Now you want to change the definition of what a "planet" is while the actual meaning of the word hasn't changed.
Not me, it was the IAU. Well, some of the IAU.
Imagine "planets" were called "wanderer stars" and then I told you that the definition of a "wanderer star" has nothing to do with movement but with size and whether the object produces hydrogen.
Oh, oh, oh, let's add that to the table!
Jupiter: 89% Hydrogen
Saturn: 96% Hydrogen
Uranus: 83% Hydrogen
Neptune: 80% Hydrogen
Sun: 75% Hydrogen
Typical star: 70-80%
Re: (Score:2)
Earth isn't worth distinguishing?
Nah. Boring. And mostly harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
For being where we live and containing a huge amount of life, yes.
As a planet, depends on the criteria used.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole scheme is arbitrary. The term "planet" was only nailed down [wikipedia.org] in 2006, and of course it's going to take people time to adjust to the rigorous definition.
I'm not sure how useful the classification is anyway. The differences between Mercury and Jupiter are greater than the differences between Mercury and Pluto. Earth is more different still than any of the three with its complex and varied forms of life.
I think the astronomers should use their definition, and I suppose it ought to be taught in schoo
Re: (Score:2)
The key definition to me is that planets orbit in the plane of the ecliptic, all in the same direction.
Pluto does not orbit in the plane of the ecliptic. It's orbit also crosses the paths of existing planets. It's clearly an Oort cloud object. And not even the largest one. It has more in common with a comet than with any of the other planets, in both orbit and composition.
I don't understand why there's even a controversy here. Even as a child, when I looked at the diagram of the planets, Pluto stood ou
Re: (Score:2)
You raise a good point--Pluto is an oddball. At the time of its discovery Pluto was thought to have a mass similar to Earth's; it was too far out to identify much about until the tech caught up to the science. I wonder if we'd be having this discussion today had optics made a leap forward before Pluto's discovery.
The Pluto change makes sense for the purposes of astronomy, but you can't ignore the social impact that it has. Whenever new planets were discovered back in the day, people got excited about it-
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, killer.
I decided against bothering with the controversy because the rest of my post is about how little it matters, and most people here respect the opinions of acronymed scientific groups. If it makes you feel better, you can skip that whole sentence.
You lost me in that last paragraph, but I have a feeling you lost yourself long before that so I'm not too broken up about it.
The real question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
If Pluto's a dog, then what's the deal with Goofy?
Re: (Score:2)
If Pluto's a dog, then what's the deal with Goofy?
Goofy's the "Dog Star".
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. He's certainly not Habilis (handy).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have a proof!
Re: (Score:2)
(This goes without saying on /. but) If that's what you're noticing in those pictures then you REALLY need to get laid.