New Horizons' New Target: Kuiper Belt Ice Chunk 2014 MU69 43
Vox reports on the next target destination for NASA's New Horizons probe, an ice chunk in the Kuiper Belt designated 2014 MU69. The plan is not yet final; like any space mission, complications are bound to come up. But if this selection sticks, New Horizons should reach 2014 MU69 in 2019. (Re/Code has the story, too.)
Still no word on if its discoverer gets to name it (Score:1)
IAU ruining everyone's fun.
Re:Still no word on if its discoverer gets to name (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to see naming rights to minor objects and surface features auctioned off to the highest bidder, the proceeds going to research in the field. Think of it as a star registry with official status. The human ego being what it is, naming rights on all the knobs and craters we just found on Pluto might possibly pay for the mission.
Re:Still no word on if its discoverer gets to name (Score:5, Informative)
Such a program already exists [nbcnews.com]. And guess what - shock of all shocks, the IAU is throwing a hissy fit about it. They're basically at war with NH's director Alan Stern and are planning to refuse a large portion of the NH team's feature names [geekwire.com] for Pluto.
Re: (Score:2)
Uwingu has the right idea, but it still has no official status, as your article explains. It's just another star registry like the ones in the back of magazines. We need the IAU itself, or some organization(s) it deputizes, to issue and manage the official names. Because IAU has traditionally named the important objects and features, it has to coordinate with whoever would be issuing the auctioned names.
One indicator of a need for auctioned names is that the IAU naming committee is that with today's prolife
Re: (Score:3)
No. As it happens, Sedna [wikipedia.org] is the Inuit goddess of the Sea.
Re: (Score:2)
You can make even more by auctioning the naming rights to the Earth. We can all live on Pepsi.
While we're on the topic... (Score:5, Informative)
... here's 19 reasons why the IAU's Pluto decision was ridiculous. But first, the definition
1. Nomenclature: An "adjective-noun" should always be considered a subset of "noun". A "dwarf planet" should be no less seen as a type of planet than a "dwarf star" is seen as a type of star.
2. Erroneous foundation: Current research suggests that individual planets do not necessarily cleared their own neighborhoods, and their neighborhoods may not always have where they are. Jupiter, and Saturn to a lesser extent, have cleared most neighborhoods.
3. Comparative inconsistency: Earth is far more like Ceres and Pluto than it is like Jupiter, yet these very dissimilar groups - gas giants and terrestrial planets - are lumped together as "planets" while dwarfs are excluded.
4. Poor choice of dividing line: While defining objects inherently requires drawing lines between groups, the chosen line has been poorly selected. Achieving a rough hydrostatic equilibrium is a very meaningful dividing line - it means differentiation, mineralization processes, alteration of primordial materials, and so forth. It's also often associated with internal heat and, increasingly as we're realizing, a common association with subsurface fluids. In short, a body in a category of "not having achieved hydrostatic equilibrium" describes a body which one would study to learn about the origins of our solar system, while a body in a category of "having achieved hydrostatic equilibrium" describes a body one would study, for example, to learn more about tectonics, geochemistry, (potentially) biology, etc. By contrast, a dividing line of "clearing its neighborhood" - which doesn't even meet standard #2 - says little about the body itself.
5. Mutability: What an object is declared at can be altered without any of the properties of the object changing simply by its "neighborhood" changing in any of countless ways.
6. Situational inconsistency: An exact copy of Earth (what the vast majority of people would consider the prototype for what a planet should be), identical down to all of the life on its surface, would not be considered a planet if orbiting in the habitable zone of a significantly larger star (harder to clear zone), or a young star (insufficient time to clear), a star without a Jupiter equivalent (no assistance in clearing), or so forth.
7. Ambiguous definition: There is still no consensus on what defines having "cleared the neighborhood" - in particular, what the "neighborhood" is.
8. Lack of terminology: Exoplanets - indeed, including any potential Earthlike planets - are arbitrarily declared to not be planets. This deprives those studying exoplanets of an IAU-acceptable term to refer to them by.
9. Inability to describe exoplanets even if not ruled out: There is no way that even if
They shouldn't have shown the images (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree fully with parent post.
Additionally, it should be pointed out that if the IAU was going to achieve any kind of consistency in their naming conventions, then Jupiter should not be classified as a planet, as it is either a "failed star", a "brown dwarf" or a "proto star". Which one depends mostly on your guess of what lies in Jupiter's future.
The IAU should really stick to astronomy and ask the experts to provide them with an appropriate classification scheme. Taxonomies are the proper subject of lang
Re: (Score:2)
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Of course considering placing Jupiter in some kind of stellar classification is inconsistent and absurd. That was part of the point. But it is no more inconsistent and absurd than the current IAU definition of "planet". Which was the other side of the point.
The IAU has a number of hobgoblins it should really muzzle before their antics further erode the IAU's standing among international bodies of science.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this
Re: (Score:3)
Re:While we're on the topic... (Score:4, Informative)
1. Is just a nomenclature problem. The key issue was whether Pluto belongs in the same category as Mercury through Neptune.
2. If a planet changes its orbit, one of two things will happen:
In both of these cases the new category that object will fall in is quite clear
3. and 4. In geological terms yes, but I think the IAU was correct in preferring to define planets through orbital characteristics over geological ones.
5. The neighborhood of a planet cannot be simply changed without significant consequences. If through some freak incident a formerly solitary planet ends up suddenly having a neighbor of significantly higher mass, that planet will not remain a planet for very long. Its "mutability" is then not even restricted to definition games, it will quite be literally destroyed or thrown away into deep space.
6. An Earth-copy that hasn't cleared its neighborhood yet won't be an Earth-copy due to frequent crust destroying meteorite impacts. Such a child solar system will probably not be described well by our current terminology but these systems are also very rare because that phase of life only lasts for a very short time.
7. There will clearly eventually be edge cases, but Pluto isn't. There is an object with 10000 times its mass within its perihel and apohel. Its orbital period is not independantly "chosen" but defined by Neptune
8. - 10. Those are all things that we are just now starting to discover. They might eventually change up the definition of the word planet again, such as when we do find the first binary pair of planets with similar mass in the same orbit. But for now it should be perfectly acceptable to delay that decision until we have solid data.
11+ are mostly political points where you can have an opinion either way. But scientifically the question is: Are Pluto, Ceres, Eris and the 100+ other yet to be discovered KBOs really similar enough to the big eight to be in the same category.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, the problem category was called "nomenclature". Secondly, you act like mercury has bloody anything at all in common with Jupiter and Saturn. It's far, far more like Pluto. It's not an "edge case" issue, it's a fundamental misgrouping issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Jupiter's Stern-Levison parameter is 1,38 million times larger than Mars's. No, Mars would not have "cleared its neighborhood"; it's well recognized in the literature that the majority of "neighborhood clearing" in our solar system was done by Jupiter and Saturn. There's lots of n
Re: (Score:1)
'I see into the future.' I see people still arguing about this is one hundred years...
Pretty much every point you make is valid - and they know it.. Especially point 6..
Like I said I see people still arguing about this in 100 years.
"clearing the neighborhood" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse than that. Compare Neptune's Stern-Levison parameter to Mars's. Neptune has at least two bodies that are each around 2-3% the mass of Mars in its "neighborhood" (quite possibly even larger ones), yet it has 290 times greater ability to "clear its neighborhood" than Mars. The concept that planets like Mars cleared their own neighborhood of bodies this size is not only unsupported by the research, but blatantly silly on the face of it. The IAU is attributing Jupiter's work at clearing the inn
Damned Revisionists (Score:5, Funny)
When I was in school, I was taught that 2014 MU69 was a full-fledged comet.
I'm never going to go along with these self-appointed revisionists attempting to demote it to a mere "ice chunk". It will always be a comet.
Re:Damned Revisionists (Score:4, Funny)
I think I'm going to take a cue from the IAU's attitude and go ahead and make my own definition for the IAU:
"The International Astronomical Union is defined as a member body of navel-gazing self-important wankers who use grant money to travel to exotic locales to get drunk and make shit up in the name of science."
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'm going to take a cue from the IAU's attitude and go ahead and make my own definition for the IAU:
"The International Astronomical Union is defined as a member body of navel-gazing self-important wankers who use grant money to travel to exotic locales to get drunk and make shit up in the name of science."
I'm sorry, your definition strays too far from the IAU's attitude...
It matches reality much too closely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After saying that you better not be wasting money on stuff like phones, computers, clothes, washing, makeup, cars, holidays - or any other pleasure that diverts money from those starving children.
And BTW feeding those starving children now without solving all the other issues is only making more starving children for the future.. If people are having children they cannot feed the solution is contraception not more food. I'm on the left but all the poverty in the outlying 'undeveloped' world is not out fault
sould reach (Score:2)
Ice, again? (Score:2)
Re:Ice, again? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ice chunk" is so dismissive. First off, it's not going to be 100% ice. Its surface will probably be mostly ices, of which water will most probably be the most common one, but maybe not. The body should also contain some rock. And while it's small compared to Pluto, it's still not "small"; its cross section is nearly the size of Rhode Island.
Pluto proved to be way more interesting than most people were expecting. While most people are setting the bar pretty low for this one ("Ice chunk", for example), while I certainly don't expect it to have the level of interestingness of Pluto, I think a lot of people will be surprised.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize nature has already figured out how to give mamalian infants propper nutition?
Re:Ice, again? (Score:5, Informative)
New Horizons has cost about $45 million a year on average during the 15 years it was under development and operation, not $18 billion. And it was not developed by private corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you only attacking space and science? what about the $150 billion+ every year spent on the military?, or the money spent on a hundred other things? What about the foreign aid so much of which ends up in the pockets of foreign governments or foreign local traders or various corrupt or criminal people?
Money spent at NASA ultimately goes to pay scientific workers and their families, and NASA makes a massive on-going positive contribution to Americas and humanities future.
Re: (Score:2)
But most importantly (Score:1)
What kind of shirts are the researchers wearing today?
until its power runs out (Score:2)
it'll just travel alone, advancing toward the outer reaches of the solar system until its power runs out sometime in the 2030s
and then it will just come to a stop and sit there for billions of years.
Nasty Mu cows! (Score:1)
You are all Kuiper Kows, say Mu, Muuu, MU69. Perv cows say Moo 69, MU69 MU69!
Tradeoffs (Score:2)
An alternative candidate appeared slightly larger, but would require a lot more fuel (propellant). If it's the last target, one could argue it wouldn't matter if you use up most of your fuel. It seems they want to keep their options open and have spare fuel for unforeseen situations or problems. Who knows, if they get lucky, the probe may be able to visit a 3rd system.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, the James Webb telescope is supposed to be launched in late 2018; this flyby isn't until 2019. With seven times the light collecting area as Hubble, it could be a nice addition to the arsenal for finding bodies along Pluto's projected route (especially now that we know better what that route is going to be :) ) Though it operates in mid-IR to low-frequency visible, while Hubble operates primarily in visible/UV... I'm not sure how that would affect the ability to find solid objects. I kn