Not a manned craft, but it'll have to do for now.
Best picture of Pluto to date:
Posted on 07/07/2015 11:07:06 AM PDT by lbryce
Edited on 07/07/2015 1:26:39 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Very good observation. I usually do find a way to overcome such arguments with a bit of circumlocution and persuasion. But this time, you kind of got me. I just can’t come up with anything that would be intellectually satisfying or technically correct. (Yeah. How did that slip by me?)
I don’t know. I’m not an astronomer. However, I remain skeptical of their definition. First of all, given the distance from the sun, isn’t it possible that Pluto hasn’t “cleared its own orbit” simply because its orbit is so huge and its relative speed around the sun is so low? WHY does a planet have to “clear its orbit”? It sounds arbitrary to me.
Also, Pluto has managed to hang on to 5 moons. Inability to “clear its orbit” seems to contradict the ability to hang on to moons. If you can’t clear your own orbit, doesn’t that imply that other objects can strip you of your moons? To me, THAT would be cause for demotion, if you can’t hang on to your moons. The fact that Pluto does have so many moons, and hangs onto them DESPITE what else is in its path is (to me) a strong argument for planetary status, stronger than (to me) the arbitrary “must clear orbit” rule.
former ninth planet?....................it’s STILL NUMBER 9 TO ME!.......................
To me, the strongest “Pluto is not a planet” argument is one that is mentioned sometimes but not often highlighted:
Pluto does not seem to be part of the original dusty disk from which the other 8 planets formed. Mecury thru Neptune were all born in that same protoplanetary disk. Pluto and the other Kuiper objects were not.
That, do me, is the strongest argument for a distinction between Pluto (as well as other Kuiper objects) and the well-known Eight Planets.
But still, just because not of the same origin, how is a spherical rocky object with 5 moons not a planet? I keep getting back to that.
Great questions...
Astronomers have reported on hundreds of planets orbiting stars and yet it is impossible to say that these planets have cleared their orbits of debris. The use of that criteria to designate a planet is therefore bogus.
Right, the plane of the Kuiper belt is at some relatively sharp angle to that of the solar system.
Not a manned craft, but it'll have to do for now.
Best picture of Pluto to date:
Same here. I'm tired of the pronouncements about the probe to Pluto and all you get are stupid artist renderings. Where's the damn photos?
You’re right. Believe it or not, I’m more of a Grammar Nazi type. I’ve got a heavy work load today causing me to be uncharacteristically sloppy with my posts. Still, being called a “dope” was unfair and undeserved. But thank you anyway for pointing out the difference between “man” and “Man”.
That wasn't at you. It was at the ones you said changed it from "where no Man has gone before" to "where no one has gone before". :)
Too bad New Horizons can’t be put into orbit around Pluto, but is only only to make one pass by the planet. (Pluto is a planet in my books).
As far as I am concerned Pluto is a planet for the next few weeks. It was a planet when the probe was launched, and it was a planet when Voyager II went past Neptune. I’m not going to be cheated out of the chance of witnessing Mankind’s grand triumph of reaching the final planet at the edge the solar system.
There was a problem 2 days ago. The probe went into safe mode. They appear to have resolved the problem.
http://www.universetoday.com/121199/nasa-loses-contact-with-new-horizons-probe-now-in-safe-mode/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.