Saturn reclaims 'moon king' title from Jupiter with 62 newfound satellites
space.com
space.com
You need to stop.
145 moons? This is Pluto levels of disrupting my comprehension of the nearest spec of a spec of a spec of the cosmos. What’s next? Are you going to replace the cosmological constant with a complex series of equations? Are you going to change your minds on the entropic fate of the universe?
You identify that Pluto hasn’t cleared its orbit of asteroids and so you demote it. You know what engineers would do? Engineers would go help Pluto tidy up.
145 moons? Inelegant. It’s time for some refactoring.
Spatially yours,
Me
That wasn't really why it was demoted. Eris was discovered, and it was more massive than Pluto, so a decision was to be made about whether we were going to say there were more than nine planets (and admit we don't know exactly how many planets there are in our solar system), or kick out Pluto and just say there are 8. The IAU made a decision about this, not for scientific reasons but for naming conventions (they have a different naming convention for planets and non-planets).
Keep in mind that though some planetary scientists are in the IAU, most members of the IAU aren't planetary scientists, and my understanding is that most planetary scientists aren't members of the IAU (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). But the IAU is responsible for naming things in the night sky.
The initial definition that was suggested didn't include the criteria for clearing the neighborhood, add a bunch of new planets to our solar system, and say we didn't know how many planets there were in our solar system. Members objected, and went with the simpler solution of just kicking Pluto out and saying there are now 8 planets (the definition with the vague "clearing the neighborhood" part of the definition).
I have to say I prefer the original suggestion for the definition of planet; it does a much better job of conveying to people how much cool stuff is in our solar system and how much we still don't know. As far as I can tell planetary scientists aren't fond of the IAU definition and tend to ignore it (though Alan Stern has lead apublic campaign to get rid of IAU's definition).
Reading https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/#dwarfplanets, it says
“The name is intended to reflect the characteristics of the body itself, and be an appropriate moniker derived from mythology. Objects, including dwarf planets, far beyond the orbit of Neptune are expected to be given the name of a deity or figure related to creation”
Pluto is a Greek god related to the underworld, not to creation, so it doesn’t fit that pattern, does it?
I also don’t see how Eris (the Greek goddess of discord and strife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology)) fits that pattern.
Also, it’s not “non-planets”, it’s “dwarf planets”. Pluto still is considered a planet in the terminology of the IAU, but not a ‘planet planet’ (my term, not an IAU one)
> The 2006 IAU Resolution means that the Solar System officially consists of eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. In the same resolution, a new distinct class of objects, called dwarf planets, was also defined.
Dwarf planets not being considered planets is just one of the reasons why the current definition is viewed by some as less than ideal.
I love the internal conflict contained in that statement. In any other context it would be ridiculous. Dwarf dogs aren't considered dogs. Dwarf humans aren't considered humans.
The entire controversy isn't about definitions or scientific accuracy. It is about reclaiming history. It is about a small group of today's scientists wanting to assert their power through language. It is about asserting dominance by redefining language to create a break between those who are educated in the modern lexicon and the ignorant who came before. It is about declaring all previous works about the solar system wrong, or at least old hat, not through argument but by decree. It is the exact opposite of scientific pursuit.
Is this the unit of measurement space.com readers are most familiar with?
(yes, yes, shamelessly stolen from: https://old.reddit.com/r/BrandNewSentence/comments/tv9yv6/a_... )
But I think it was a typo, and they meant to say "A large boulder the size of a small car"
‘Real’ astronomers like to use the parsec, too (about 4.2 light years, IIRC)
NSFA (not safe for Americans, at least Americans at work).
> All of the newfound moons of Saturn fall into one of these three currently existing groupings. Three of the new moons belong to the Inuit group, but the majority fit in the Norse group.
TIL Saturn's moons are named after various human groups.
I like that the moons of Uranus are names after Shakespeare characters.
Space must be really really massive, even in our so called cosmic backyard we continue to discover new moons. Incredible.
Saturn has thousands of those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Saturn
Plenty of larger rocks in Saturn's ring.
Back then, Jupiter had 11 moons and Saturn had 9 “plus the doubtful Themis” which was discovered by an American astronomer in 1905 but never seen again…
Not quite the same (and not updated) but here's a simulation of the view from Mimas and Iapetus:
So what?
This is more of an article about the “shift and stack” method than a semantical distinction of zero relevance.
I guess taking the lead from being named Roman gods. Earth Venus female, and the rest male.
> Venus is the second planet from the Sun. It is a rocky planet with a mass and size narrowly second in the Solar System to Earth
This is pretty neat. I wonder if we will identify more from Jupiter over the years.
We need more moons! Just think of the night views.
Against a background with other stuff, that might be brighter, also moving etc etc.