Asteroid Lutetia Revealed As a Protoplanet 102
astroengine writes "Asteroids visited by spacecraft have all turned out to be piles of rubble or chunks broken off of larger bodies, but that's not the case with 21 Lutetia, a 75-mile long, 47-mile wide body orbiting in the main belt of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter. Europe's comet-bound Rosetta probe flew by Lutetia last year and gave scientists a big surprise. With its dense body and an interior that seems to have survived intact, the large asteroid appears more like a protoplanet — a leftover building block from the formation of the solar system."
Soon to be ... (Score:3)
Demoted to "Dwarf-Protoplanet" by a minority of IAU in a meeting held after all the sensible people have left the conference ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Planet was never a scientific term in the first place. That's why there was such a stink about Pluto.
Re: (Score:2)
Planet was never a scientific term in the first place. That's why there was such a stink about Pluto.
Only because Mickey failed to paper-train him properly ... oh, wait you mean Pluto The Planet, well, that was still an astounding act of skullduggery and cowardice, for a minority of the IAU to define terms. Shabby. Very shabby.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was too cold for methane.
Re: (Score:2)
Methane is odorless. Methane can exist at absolute zero. Your joke was not funny in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See, if you actually worked in the medical field and weren't just full of shit, you would care. Politically correct or not, what we used to refer to as "mental retardation" actually encompassed of a wide variety of distinct medical conditions. Chronic non progressive encephalopathy is absolutely not the politically correct modern equivalent (that would be developmentally disabled) but in fact a specific term for a specific medical condition. It's pretty fucking important for a doctor to distinguish betwe
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer "developmentally delayed", in part because I think it is more accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"mental retardation" used to be the politically-correct term. over time, the association catches up with it, and it becomes the pejorative term.
same deal with racial terms. only a matter of time before abuse by people who simply have a bad attitude towards other colors of skin make any words assocaited with it sound like slurs.
the solution is to stop changing the name of it and start changing the attitude of those who observe it.
Re: (Score:1)
"mental retardation" used to be the politically-correct term. over time, the association catches up with it, and it becomes the pejorative term.
same deal with racial terms. only a matter of time before abuse by people who simply have a bad attitude towards other colors of skin make any words assocaited with it sound like slurs.
the solution is to stop changing the name of it and start changing the attitude of those who observe it.
Political Correctness seeks to validate Orwell, thinking that the words you use shape your thinking. But in a freer world, the road runs both ways.
Often, however, it isn't the words you say, it's the way you say them that make the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the same deal with racial terms - and it's not bad attitude on the part of the observer so much as it's that the association with other non-skin color aspects of the phenotype that catches up with whatever word you choose to call the rose. Propensity for criminality, for example.
We've had half a century or more of increased attempts to change the attitude of those who observe it. In 2011 it's impossible to turn on a television or open a newspaper without being hit with an attempt to modify the viewer'
Re: (Score:2)
Since dwarf is already used, wouldn't the IAU use "pixie" to denigrate it further?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then that opens up the whole field to "faerie" planets, and I have no idea what that would be. (But I bet it sparkles.)
"... we announce the faerie planet Tinkerbell."
Ummmm.
Re: (Score:2)
We know that gold arrived on Earth via asteroids and that dead white dwarf stars form diamond planets, so sparkly faery planets seems reasonable to me.
I hereby name the diamond planet that was announced recently on Slashdot "Tinkerbell" in honour of ackthpt's suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
We know that gold arrived on Earth via asteroids and that dead white dwarf stars form diamond planets, so sparkly faery planets seems reasonable to me.
I hereby name the diamond planet that was announced recently on Slashdot "Tinkerbell" in honour of ackthpt's suggestion.
As theorized by Ironequatorialmount Stronginthearm in his paper "Gold gold gold gold gold ... (246 pages later) ... gold gold gold." And yes, that was only the title.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually promoted when it's found there's nothing else near it's orbital path.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually promoted when it's found there's nothing else near it's orbital path.
Elf planet?
This is making my head spin...
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Is it tossable?
Let the Pluto wars begin (Score:2)
Pluto shouldn't be classified a planet, as it doesn't share a lot of properties with them. First it's not a celestial body but 2. Second, its orbit is elliptical, as opposed to the circular orbit of the planets, and not in the ecliptic. Also, it's very small, smaller than the Moon.
Re: (Score:3)
Renaming it a dwarf doesn't change the actual object that "The Planet Pluto" refers to, and somehow astronomers managed not to be confused about that latter point for a rather long time. Even now, if I call Pluto a planet, I'll bet you understand perfectly well what object I'm referring to. I think that is what was being sardonically observed in one of the comments earlier about the renaming not, actually, being science any more than ren
Re: (Score:1)
You're making fourth graders everywhere very sad with your hatin'.
I happen to have a fourth grader at home who has learned that there are 8 planets. Pluto is just another iceball out past Neptune as far as she is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like there are so very many objects out there orbiting our sun that we actually NEED more adjectives or taxonomic categories.
What about other stars? With all the exoplanets being discovered, we know of significantly more planets now and the number is increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are a worthy opponent. But there are, in fact, nine planets, as predicted by the Titus-Bode law [wikipedia.org], it's just that the one between Mars and Jupiter is a bit scattered. Also, if we are talking about Big Rocks, then there are only four.
Re: (Score:2)
Big rocks? What is at the core of the gas giants isn't well-understood, but they probably have rocky cores larger than the inner planets.
Besides, the chart in Titus-Bode article shows ten planets, you can't reasonably leave out Ceres if you want to call Pluto a planet. A few problems with calling Pluto a planet is it fits better as a TNO, KBO, or both. It crosses Neptune's orbit and its orbital plate is at an extreme angle to the planetary disc. If you want to keep Pluto, then we'd need to also count la
Re: (Score:2)
A few problems with calling Pluto a planet is it fits better as a TNO, KBO, or both.
That's what I was saying, read back.
Besides, the chart in Titus-Bode article shows ten planets, you can't reasonably leave out Ceres if you want to call Pluto a planet.
Yes, the "ninth planet" predicted by the law is not Pluto but the asteroid belt.
It crosses Neptune's orbit and its orbital plate is at an extreme angle to the planetary disc.
It does not cross Neptune's orbit exactly because of the angle to the ecliptic. It does get sometimes closer to the Sun though.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's a viable form for an argument. Let's examine your claims then.
Two bodies? Not four?
Let's try your criterion elsewhere :
Re: (Score:2)
Two bodies? Not four?
On a side note, I think there is also a fifth unnamed object, but that doesn't matter. The difference between Charon and a moon is that Charon is not much smaller than Pluto, in fact it doesn't orbit Pluto. Rather, the two bodies orbit their common centre of mass outside of Pluto.
Well, what is your line in the sand for Pluto being "too eccentric" (e=0.249)? If you draw the line at e>0.2 (in base 10 ; why do you choose base 10?), then you exclude Mercury (e=0.206) ; if you draw the line at e>0.05 then you exclude Mars and Saturn too. Choose a line to draw, then (this is the hard bit) justify it and persuade other people that your justification is good.
You got me here, I forgot about Mercury. But Pluto's orbit is such that there are times when it gets closer to the Sun then Neptune, which would make it hard to class it as the "ninth" planet.
We can examine the inclination argument too. Here the order of increasing inclination is Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, Earth, Ceres, Pluto, which would make the Earth the next of the planets to be discounted in a countdown.
I don't accept this as a valid criterion for rejecting Pluto as a planet.
You make a qualitative argument not a q
Re: (Score:2)
That the barycentre of the system lays outside either body is a fair point, but begs the next question : when you have 2 stars (say Alpha Centauri and it's secondary) which orbit their system's barycentre out
Re: (Score:2)
Asteroids can hurt. I say we can get rid of them with Prep H.
Re: (Score:2)
To my understanding, proto-planet is a clump of matter that hasn't been locked into being a planet yet, but it is about to.
As in proto-star: a blob of gas that is still contracting.
To the best of my knowledge, calling this a proto-planet is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Bring Back Firefly!
Like Legos... (Score:2)
You go stumbling around in the dark and end up stepping on a few. The damned things get everywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
FYI: It's just "Lego"
Re: (Score:2)
Might be, might not be. That's not something a company gets to decide; it's decided over time by the mass of English speakers. I suspect the vote is not swinging your way, though.
Dimensions? (Score:3)
21 Lutetia, a 75-mile long, 47-mile wide body orbiting in the main belt of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter.
This is a science article on a science website. Why is there only two dimensions listed for a three dimensional object, and why are those dimensions measured in miles?
Re: (Score:1)
This is a science article on a science website. Why is there only two dimensions listed for a three dimensional object, and why are those dimensions measured in miles?
It's an "educational" article.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously based on the information given in the problem the thickness is negligible so the body can be reasonably aproximated to a planar figure.
Re:Dimensions? (Score:5, Funny)
21 Lutetia, a 75-mile long, 47-mile wide body orbiting in the main belt of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter.
This is a science article on a science website. Why is there only two dimensions listed for a three dimensional object, and why are those dimensions measured in miles?
It's flat ... and carried on the backs of four enormous hippopotami (there were five, but one slipped and impacted into the surface of Lutetia) on the back of a giant newt.
Re:Dimensions? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying it has fat mines [wikipedia.org] vs fat ranches [wikia.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
That means there is an implied symmetry that was not mentioned. If you knew that all such objects were oval in shape then a third dimension would be redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
If you knew that an oval is a plane figure, then the third dimension would be nonexistent, not redundant.
I think you mean ovoid or ellipsoid or prolate or cylindrical or bonelike.
Which is what 99% of scientific and non-scientific minds would assume.
The other 1% would be smartasses who would try to slip oblate, flattened, or disclike past us, but we ain't buying any of that weak sauce today.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like that breaks symmetry, but I don't recall ever seeing an asteroid shaped like a flattened beachball.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they were only looking at a photo so could only measure 2 sides.
As for miles, well, I can't help on that one. Perhaps the rulers in their offices only had inches, and they had to scale up from that?
@Editor (Score:1)
Take note stupid editors : if you see ridiculous imperial units, you blew it.
95% of the world population does not know what the heck a mile is.
SI units for the win (and sanity).
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of Slashdot readers know what miles are.
Re:@Editor (Score:5, Funny)
Most of the world population doesn't read Slashdot.
The majority of Slashdot readers know what miles are.
Yes.
We are even familiar with Miles Statute, Miles Nautical and Miles Standish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Miles Cowperthwaite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as Slashdot is a US based site you will find that things are done using the US conventions
oh btw if you are all that smart then you have access to a convertor to metric units (or can do it in your head ) hint 1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers
Re: (Score:2)
Proper science is ALWAYS based upon SI units, not imperial units.
Interesting. I just learned tonight from reading /. that I have not been doing proper science this whole time. My notebook of organic reactions is full of measurements in minutes, hours, and days. In over a decade of organic chemistry research, measurements recorded in seconds account for under 1% of my time measurements. Indeed, my raw time data usually takes the form of hours and minutes from a clock. Quick... how many seconds into the day am I at the exact moment when the second hand reaches 12 o'clock (
Re: (Score:2)
Nice distraction. Nice try.
Minutes, hours and days are not imperial units, but are based upon SI units.
Inches, feet and miles are also based upon SI units.
There's nothing wrong with doing science using American units of measurement, as long as you don't expect to have to interact with crazy ferriners. Sure it's harder to do calculations in your head, but why do we need to be doing calculations in our heads anyway? Isn't that what phones are for?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, the kilogram happens to be the mass of a lump of metal in France. If the lump of metal would have been different, a kilogram would have been a different mass. In fact, the kilogram is a different mass than it used to be. Oops.
Molten core (Score:1)
Mine it. (Score:2)
It sounds like a prime candidate for asteroid mining.
Re: (Score:1)
Note description - is miles long and wide, but seeming very thin. Not practical for mining.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Great, more protomatter! (Score:2)
Standard Slashdottian Quip (Score:2)
Heh. We're not sure what a planet-planet is yet.
REINSTATE PLUTO! (Score:2)
If this thing got smaller, it's not nearly Pluto, so Pluto isn't nearly it (the reflexive property is how I roll), so those who campaigned to demote Pluto are full of retroactive spacecrap.
I want Pluto back where it belongs.
Leftovers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's got between a half an eon and five eons more, then the lights go out and it's going to have to find it's way around in the dark.
Heated by cold fusion and neutron ejection? (Score:2)
I had an idea, posted to Andrea Rossi's Journal site related to LENR cold fusion, that the core of the Sun is iron/nickel (as suggested in the "Iron Sun Theory" which says the sun only has hydrogen at the surface, like the Earth has water and oxygen at the surface but if hard underneath) just like the core of the Earth has a lot of nickel and iron, and the nickel is constantly ejecting neutrons at the boundary from quantum tunneling effects, which in turn then fuse back with the nickel via the Rossi/Focardi