To: RightWhale
Should bigger then Pluto be the standard for Planetary status?
To: Names Ash Housewares
Planets should have moons. Either that or planets should appear on astrological charts. Something arbitrary we can argue over forever.
5 posted on
08/23/2005 4:46:56 PM PDT by
RightWhale
(Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
To: Names Ash Housewares
"Should bigger then Pluto be the standard for Planetary status? "
6 posted on
08/23/2005 4:48:00 PM PDT by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: Names Ash Housewares
I would change the solar system models at this point. Especially with Xena and Sedna, it looks like it's time to update the Almanacs.
Odd question to other Space Buffs:
What is the current location of Voyager 1 (the one which left the Solar System), and is it possible for it to get photos/info on the proposed planetary bodies mentioned in the article.
Unlikely, I'd bet. But on the off chance it's close enough for a photo....
8 posted on
08/23/2005 4:51:50 PM PDT by
TitansAFC
("It would be a hard government that should tax its people 1/10th part of their income."-Ben Franklin)
To: Names Ash Housewares; TitansAFC; RightWhale
Planets should be in orbits with low eccentricity near the ecliptic plane or be Pluto. Pluto fails the test, but will be retained for reasons of tradition. Pluto will be the only planet which is also (read: realy just) a Kuiper belt object.
14 posted on
08/23/2005 5:14:30 PM PDT by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(Lonesome's First Law: Whenever anyone says it's not about the money, it's about the money.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson