And let me add, that Uranus is pretty big.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14364833/

We could use a planet called Charon in our system, I don't know about the other two, those are questionable as planets.

That's the thing though, they want to change the definition of planets.

Isn't Ceres an asteroid? When did it get upgraded?

they are voting to change the definition of a planet to "anything with enough to gravity to become round and orbits the sun." or something like that.
there is also a new class of planets called plutons that have a period on over 200 years orbitting the sun, I believe.

I can't wait for romance stories from 2003 UB313.

I like how it says "plan boosts solar system to 12 planets".

like saying "hey other solar systems look at us we have 12 planets, we're so cool"

who are they trying to impress with their 12 planets?

the only thing thats stupid is the name of 2003 UB313. they couldnt give it some cool name?

Yeti said:

Someone from Powerman 5000 probably named it...

I was readying that they were considering demoting Pluto from being a planet. I wish I got paid to decide which planets leave and which planets stay.

well i think the good names ship sailed when they named a planet uranus... dont ya think?

I thought they changed the name of that planet to Urectum? oh wait, that was in 2620.

the_reverend said:


Haha yes.

VoidExpression said:

It was actually down-graded from a planet about 150-200 years ago. They used to call it a planet, then an asteroid, and now they want it to be a planet again. I think its all pointless, pick something and move on.

in my opinion, if charon is gonna be called a planet, then our moon and every moon should be a planet as well. if my memory serves me correctly, charon is pluto's satellite. sucks for the kids who gotta memorize the planets in science class.

burnsy said:

This was the logic behind that choice:

"For two or more objects comprising a multiple object system, the primary object is designated a planet if it independently satisfies the conditions above. A secondary object satisfying these conditions is also designated a planet if the system barycentre resides outside the primary. Secondary objects not satisfying these criteria are “satellites”. Under this definition, Pluto’s companion Charon is a planet, making Pluto-Charon a double planet."

If you go to http://www.badastronomy.com there is a good write-up that explains a lot of the reasoning behind this whole shindig. Its in his blog, should be right on the main page.

Ceres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_%28asteroid%29

there are only 2 extra planets there. Charon is Pluto's moon, it's about a fourth the size of pluto or something.

It's not an additional planet, it doesn't have it's own orbit around the sun. Many consider it and pluto to be a dual planet. Ceres is in the asteroid belt, where probably a million more planetoids the side of it are located but haven't been found.

and UB313 is just past the oort cloud, and in the oort cloud there are probably some more masses bigger and more sphericle.

UB 313 is now known as XENA:WARRIOR PLANET

burnsy said:

they think that charon and pluto revolve around each other, much like a binary star. If that's the case it's not a moon at all.

then again what does it matter what you call it.

My_Dying_Bride said:


Ha, surprisingly not-terrible album.

charon and pluto revolve around each other, duh!
so does the earth and the moon, the earth and the sun, etc.
the difference with the gravitational effect of charon on pluto as opposed to the earth to it's moon is the rotational wobble from charon puts the center of pluto's rotation outside of the planet pluto.

the_reverend said:

by each other u mean charon around pluto and not pluto around charon right?... or did i miss something in asstronmee

If we're gonna recognize Pluto's moons we might as well recognize...

nope, 8 planets.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/tech/main1931722.shtml

poor Pluto.

Fuck pluto.. All alone back there... Too good to talk to the rest of the planets... YOU GET A JOB!