Timeline for What happened to the 2017 proposal on redefining planethood? Is this information available?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 2021 at 12:57 | comment | added | Greenhorn | @DavidHammen You're right, that statement got my attention too. | |
| Jan 4, 2021 at 12:27 | comment | added | David Hammen | Bouchard wrote nonsense with Charon is one of them and is nearly the same size as Pluto to begin with. Its size imposes a strong gravitational influence on Pluto that prevents it from meeting the final criteria of clearing its orbital neighborhood. One of the ways a planet can clear its orbital neighborhood is by capturing (or have been formed with) lesser objects as moons. | |
| Jan 4, 2021 at 10:37 | comment | added | Greenhorn | @planetmaker The geophysical definition considers all spherical moons 'planets' and I don't agree with it, just to make it clear. | |
| Jan 4, 2021 at 10:37 | comment | added | Greenhorn | @planetmaker New Horizons proved that Pluto is a very special body. Triton and Eris are similar, but I'd say they're all (respectively these types of bodies) very interesting bodies. What does 'purpose' have to do with what a planet is or not? For a long time it was clear what a planet is: a spherical body usually orbiting a star that is neither a star nor a moon. It's not like you'd be forced to learn all names of planets (just like you aren't forced to learn those of moons). Just the eight largest ones and, for historical reasons, Ceres and Pluto probably (and the hypothetical planet Nine). | |
| Jan 4, 2021 at 9:19 | comment | added | planetmaker | @Greenhorn yes... but what's the point? Pluto simply is not special. And there's no purpose served if we end up with dozens of planets. Dwarf planets is a useful category. | |
| Jan 4, 2021 at 9:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAstronomy/status/1346018534414049282 | ||
| Jan 4, 2021 at 7:03 | comment | added | Greenhorn | @planetmaker Evil tongues claim it would just serve the purpose to get Pluto back to planethood. | |
| Jan 4, 2021 at 7:02 | vote | accept | Greenhorn | ||
| Jan 3, 2021 at 23:33 | answer | added | Mike G | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 3, 2021 at 22:04 | history | edited | uhoh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 59 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Jan 3, 2021 at 22:01 | comment | added | uhoh | @JamesK to provide a mechanism by which an answer to "What was IAU's reaction to Alan Stern's 2017 proposal?" can be posted. Questions don't generally have "points", questions enable answers. | |
| Jan 3, 2021 at 21:56 | comment | added | planetmaker | They most likely were bored as there is little need and it just serves the purpose to get Pluto back to planethood. Evil tongues say that it's an endeavour to try and get back at least one planet discovered over in the new world. | |
| Jan 3, 2021 at 19:59 | comment | added | James K | What's the point of the question? | |
| Jan 3, 2021 at 18:57 | history | asked | Greenhorn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |