Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Planets Will Never Be Defined
Ad Astra, via Space dot com ^ | November 21 2006 | Robert Roy Britt

Posted on 11/21/2006 8:42:28 PM PST by SunkenCiv

Before the dust even settled after the Great Pluto War at the International Astronomical Union (IAU)'s General Assembly in Prague, one thing became clear: There will never be an accepted scientific definition for the term "planet." Rather than crafting an acceptable definition, the IAU alienated members, put the group's authority in jeopardy and fueled schisms among astronomers on theoretical grounds and even nationality. And the whole affair was scientifically pointless, many astronomers say..."It is a little-known fact that nearly 25 percent of the known extrasolar planets are in binary- or multiple-star systems," said Stephen Kortenkamp , a research associate at the University of Maryland. "That further complicates the notion of creating a universal definition of planet." ...The known setups are a tiny sample of what's out there. There are perhaps 250 billion planets in our galaxy, says Gregory Laughlin, an exoplanet hunter and planetary system theorist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Eventually, astronomers could find two Earth-size objects orbiting each other around a center of gravity in the space between them, Laughlin said. Other worlds might be accompanied by planet-size "Trojans" that move with them in a horseshoe-shaped pattern. The present IAU definition, requiring a planet to clear out the path of its orbit, is not set up to handle such offbeat configurations. It's also possible two planet-mass objects could be found orbiting each other with no star involved.

(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...


TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: astronomy; pluto; science; space; xplanets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: SunkenCiv

Yeah. I've heard astronomers also say comets are giant snow balls. However, NASA's has taken some close ups of some famous ones and they look to have a silicate nucleus.

I agree that Pluto is probably rocky just like all the moons out there. I even think the gas giants have a lot of rock (certainly more than the Earth) but that they just have so much gas that the mass of the gas causes gravity to keep the rock liquid. The gas giants most certainly have HUGE solid cores. The magnetosphere of Jupiter is WICKEDLY powerful and I doubt humans will ever be able to venture anywhere near it because of the ions.

How cool would it be (literally) to stand on Pluto though. First off, it would be pitch black except for the stars. No day whatsoever. The sun would simply appear to be the brightest star in the sky. You would have to bring lots of floodlights or night vision helmets. With night vision you would be able to see Charon, Pluto's moon easily. If you were on the Charon side it would never move.

Just this year we launched a probe to Pluto. It will get there in 10 years. Imagine being on that little world...ten full years away from Earth. You better have something faster.


21 posted on 11/22/2006 10:26:09 AM PST by spacecowboynj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: spacecowboynj

Good idea. There are three candidates for human exploration that come to mind as being pretty easy because they have very little atmosphere -- the Moon, Mars, and Mercury. Human landings on Pluto might be possible, depending on how the surface looks when the New Horizons probe gets there. Ceres, Vesta, and Pallas are also possibilities. The larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn appear to have atmospheres and nasty ones at that. The difficulty of landing and taking off has that added to it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1294934/posts?page=12#12

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1447339/posts?page=4#4


22 posted on 11/22/2006 10:36:12 AM PST by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Thursday, November 16, 2006 https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

O lord, I wasn't referring to actually landing on the gas giants, I was referring to getting near them period! We can't even put probes on the gas giants without them liquefying in minutes.

Planets with solid spinning cores, like the Earth, create a magnetosphere that acts as a shield against radiation. This is cool. Where these field lines are strongest particles in the field are ionized, or given an electric charge. When we look at the Aurora Borealis the lights we see are these ionized particles.

HOWEVER, when you have something the size of Jupiter with a spinning solid core, the ionization is much more severe and very deadly. These ions could kill you by frying cells in your brain. You would never see them or feel them, you would just drop dead. The gas giants have an invisible field of these ions whipping around. These things are not just deadly to humans, they're dangerous to probes and we've had to toughen the probes we've sent out there to account for this. They can fry circuits and cause all kinds hardware failures.

I believe Mercury and Venus are out of the question. Mercury is too close to the massively radioactive sun and Venues has a greenhouse gas effect that melted a Soviet probe in about two minutes. It's pretty much Mars, Pluto, and the asteroids and moons in between in terms of actually visiting and staying alive.


23 posted on 11/22/2006 11:03:15 AM PST by spacecowboynj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: spacecowboynj

I wasn't suggesting a landing on the gas giants (which probably don't have a solid surface per se), just their moon systems. Since a signal can be received from within Jupiter's magnetosphere, there shouldn't be any problem shielding a crew, but the difficulty (mostly toting the fuel) remains. Io at least probably can't be landed on.


24 posted on 11/22/2006 11:53:50 AM PST by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Thursday, November 16, 2006 https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Io is so close to Jupiter that the size facing the gas giant bulges 60 feet into the sky. It's the most actively volcanic body in the solar system and is literally hell on earth. There is a huge deadly cloud of ionized particles surrounding the little moon due to the particles it's volcanoes are shooting up that are getting charged by Jupiter's magnetosphere. Where radio signals can be sent and/or received is no determining factor as to human survival. There are many scientists today who think that human interplanetary travel just outside the Earth's magnetosphere is an impossibility because of charged particles from the sun. Shielding won't help because the particles pass through solids no problem. NASA did an exhaustive study of the hazards that can be found here:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/space_health_011205-1.html

And forget the radiation, just the loss of muscle mass and bone is a huge hazard to long term space travel. Exercise and a rotating g-chamber (as per 2001: A Space Odyssey) will not help you. Astronauts on a routine mission to the ISS lose 30 percent of their bone structure due to the lack of gravity. And you cannot simulate gravity waves. Scientist even doubt that a colony can be put on the Moon due to the onset of bone loss and the exposure to radiation. Mars may be out of the question because it has no magnetosphere and thus is bathed in radiation. We'll have to rely on the robots for the heavy stuff.
25 posted on 11/22/2006 12:16:46 PM PST by spacecowboynj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: spacecowboynj
Scientist even doubt that a colony can be put on the Moon due to the onset of bone loss and the exposure to radiation.
That's been a suspicion for a long while; Asimov included that in one of his short stories, prior to the lunar landings.
26 posted on 11/22/2006 12:40:09 PM PST by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Thursday, November 16, 2006 https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

It will matter after the Treaty is repealed.


27 posted on 11/22/2006 12:41:16 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
We would probably be ok landing on every other one but Io but the trip alone would probably kill us. Our fastest spacecraft take, what six or seven years to get out there? And frankly, Jupiter's charged magnetosphere would probably kill us anyway. Let me put it bluntly: Jupiter's magnetosphere is the biggest thing in the solar system. The sun could easy fit inside it. And actually, I just researched it. Sadly, here's the deal:

The intense radiation field that surrounds Jupiter is fatal to humans. If astronauts were able to approach the planet as close as the Voyager 1 spacecraft did, they would receive a dose of 400,000 rads, or roughly 1,000 times the lethal dose for humans.

No Jupiter trip for humans. Not even the moons.
28 posted on 11/22/2006 1:59:02 PM PST by spacecowboynj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Stop Plutonian Discrimination Now!


29 posted on 11/22/2006 1:59:40 PM PST by RockinRight (There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Yep. It's looking way bad for Mars too, which has no rotating core like the Earth and therefore no magnetosphere to block incoming radiation.

When asked where he would choose to land on Mars, former astronaut and senator John Glenn replied "In the highlands where there are caves so I can get shelter from the radiation."

Dude knows the deal.

If we're ever going to set up a colony on the Moon or Mars, I'm convinced that we're going to have to build super-sophisticated robots that we can operate from earth in order to make subterranean shelters for us when we get there. I think whatever humans travel to Mars in (if we ever do) it's going to have to duplicate the effect of Earth's magnetosphere and do it for years albeit on a much smaller scale. Essentially, the ship will need what sci-fi mavens have come to refer to as "shields." I can't even begin to imagine the power necessary for that.


30 posted on 11/22/2006 2:04:49 PM PST by spacecowboynj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I always believed they could simply declare two criteria for a planet:

1.They must be at least Pluto-sized or larger
2.They must not orbit around a larger body.


31 posted on 11/22/2006 4:41:43 PM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances ? and it advances relentlessly ? freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spacecowboynj

UV radiation risk:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/science/human/
http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/01858/text-only/colonization.html


32 posted on 11/22/2006 8:35:37 PM PST by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Thursday, November 16, 2006 https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

My point exactly. You just do not just send a team to Mars on some Edgar Rice Burroughs dream that it's your God-given right to do so. These individuals are not just in orbit for two years, they're in interplanetary space. No shield from Earth, no nothing.

I'm sorry folks. I do not mean to play the cynic. I'm the first who would want them to get their as ducky as could be. :-)


33 posted on 11/22/2006 10:42:52 PM PST by spacecowboynj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: spacecowboynj
My point exactly. You just do not just send a team to Mars on some Edgar Rice Burroughs dream that it's your God-given right to do so.
I made no such point.
These individuals are not just in orbit for two years, they're in interplanetary space. No shield from Earth, no nothing.
Ah, but there would be a shield from Earth, it would be artificial. Humans are able to survive on the Moon thanks to good planning and engineering.
I'm sorry folks. I do not mean to play the cynic. I'm the first who would want them to get their as ducky as could be. :-)
The only impediments to getting to Mars and back are technological (which can be overcome) and microgravity exposure (which will just have to be endured). My view about human missions to Mars is that remote robotic exploration are far cheaper, obviously less risky, and will be more autonomous in the future than they are now. Also I don't see any budget for that kind of mission, unless it's a one of a kind (land, plant the flag, grab some rocks, return home).

Also regarding this (I'm too lazy to hunt up the post), putting a space station in orbit around Mars would be a better approach, because it makes it possible to go to Mars and have an actual destination for longer stays. It allows NASA to build a group of astronauts with experience going to and from Mars, learning the steps of getting there in order to minimize risk. More probes could be dropped for surface exploration, remote controlled from the orbital crews.

After some period of time, a lander (actually, more than one, for safety) could be accumulated, docked to the station, for the descent to and ascent from the surface. Robotic exploration to find the best sites for surface installations would be followed by such landings.

I don't see colonization of Mars as practical. Mars has a surface atmospheric pressure about the same as found at 40 miles altitude on Earth, and liquid water doesn't ordinarily exist there. Terraforming using so-called greenhouse gases hasn't any feasibility. OTOH, a permanent human presence, analogous to bases on Antarctica (which also isn't a practical place to live per se) is feasible. But it will not be cheap.
34 posted on 11/23/2006 3:54:44 PM PST by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Thursday, November 16, 2006 https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Going to the Moon is not the same as going to Mars. The Moon, 300,000 miles away though it may be, is still bathed in the Earth's magnetosphere. A trip to Mars requires a trip into the zone where the Sun's radiation is not held at bay by Earth's field lines and an arrival point with no magnetosphere.


Transporting the oxygen, the water, the food. Landing on a planet that has been notoriously hard to hit even with probes...

I think it's going to have to be a stunt, same as the Apollo Moon landings. A very, very expensive, very risky adventure.

I would rather have a human somewhere than a robot any day. But going to Mars - you would have to have a flying Holiday Inn of oxygen, water, and food. The crew would have a skeletal depletion beyond anything on record for the ISS record-setter for months in orbit. They will arrive to Mars, each of them, with weak frames. I think the trip itself is the killer. But Mars has proven tricky to hit even with the latest technology. We've crashed a lot of probes there. Russia has never even managed to hit it for the most part.

It's a big job, an expensive job, and the people footing the bill (US taxpayers) simply have interest because it's not a pissing contest with our worst enemy anymore.


35 posted on 11/23/2006 8:12:38 PM PST by spacecowboynj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson