Skip to main content
Tweeted twitter.com/StackAstronomy/status/1346018534414049282
added 59 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
Source Link
uhoh
  • 30.7k
  • 9
  • 98
  • 313

What happened to the 2017 proposal on redefining planethood? Is this information available?

In 2017, Alan Stern et al. submitted a geophysical planet definition to the IAU for review which states

“A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters.”

Obviously, the IAU didn't accept it (as yet) but does anyone know what exactly the IAU stated about the draft and whether it is still being debated or entirely discarded etc.?

I'm just asking onif it is possible to know the IAU's reaction, I don't wanna discuss here. While users may have opinions on how reasonable the proposed definitionproposal is or isn't., please don't post opinions as answers.

What happened to the 2017 proposal on redefining planethood?

In 2017, Alan Stern et al. submitted a geophysical planet definition to the IAU for review which states

“A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters.”

Obviously, the IAU didn't accept it (as yet) but does anyone know what exactly the IAU stated about the draft and whether it is still being debated or entirely discarded etc.?

I'm just asking on the IAU's reaction, I don't wanna discuss here how reasonable the proposed definition is or isn't.

What happened to the 2017 proposal on redefining planethood? Is this information available?

In 2017, Alan Stern et al. submitted a geophysical planet definition to the IAU for review which states

“A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters.”

Obviously, the IAU didn't accept it (as yet) but does anyone know what exactly the IAU stated about the draft and whether it is still being debated or entirely discarded etc.?

I'm just asking if it is possible to know the IAU's reaction. While users may have opinions on how reasonable the proposal is or isn't, please don't post opinions as answers.

Source Link
Greenhorn
  • 397
  • 1
  • 7

What happened to the 2017 proposal on redefining planethood?

In 2017, Alan Stern et al. submitted a geophysical planet definition to the IAU for review which states

“A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters.”

Obviously, the IAU didn't accept it (as yet) but does anyone know what exactly the IAU stated about the draft and whether it is still being debated or entirely discarded etc.?

I'm just asking on the IAU's reaction, I don't wanna discuss here how reasonable the proposed definition is or isn't.