PDA

View Full Version : Names for KBOs



Caelus
2008-Jan-02, 02:05 AM
Does anyone have any idea when (136472) 2005 FY9 and (136108) 2003 EL61 will finally get proper names? Thanks.

parallaxicality
2008-Jan-02, 05:07 AM
I asked Mike Brown that, and he said that the IAU have kept the naming for EL61 held up for months, and he won't release his name suggestion for FY9 until EL61 is named. He didn't say what caused the holdup, but at a guess I'd say it had something to do with that whole "Spanish thing."

Dimension Dude
2008-Jan-02, 09:28 AM
I also e-mailed Mike Brown a couple months ago, he said the same thing - I suspect a sort of Mexican stand off between him and the IAU - I'm wondering if the IAU is awaiting FY9's name suggestion so both objects can be named together and given dwarf planet status, and Mike is waiting for the IAU to anounce EL61's name before giving FY9 a suggested name - is there anything that could be done to speed up this naming? - its been two and a half years now. Maybe we need a petition to give these things real names. :wall:

Kullat Nunu
2008-Jan-02, 09:08 PM
Your feelings mirror mine. Every time, since their discovery, when new numberings and namings are issued I check if they have been named...

KaiYeves
2008-Jan-02, 10:25 PM
What "Spanish thing"?

Kullat Nunu
2008-Jan-02, 11:52 PM
What "Spanish thing"?

A Spanish astronomer (Josť Luis Ortiz) saw a presentation abstract by Mike Brown's team. The abstract mentioned large KBOs and the internal designations the team had used. Using Google he was able to find telescope logs where that designation was mentioned, as Brown's team had used that telescope. That log also listed the location where the telescope was pointed at... Ortiz was able to locate 2003 EL61 from his team's own observations and went public which made his team the official discoverer. That was what happened, at least according to Brown. Ortiz claimed that he had found the object himself and only checked if the Brown's object listed in the abstract was the same. It's impossible to say if he was lying or not. If Ortiz had told Brown that he had seen the object, or if Brown hadn't been so careless this row would not have happened.

That event caused Brown to go public about Eris and 2005 FY9 prematurely.

PS. In addition Brown originally claimed Ortiz had got the logs by "hacking". In reality, they were available to all.

PPS. And this row is truly befitting to Eris... which, like Pluto is not a planet. ;)

KaiYeves
2008-Jan-03, 01:52 AM
Well, you could certainly say that Eris "caused" a lot of chaos, which fits its mythological name.

man on the moon
2008-Jan-03, 10:49 AM
I have no idea and less control over the question in the OP.

To answer the thread title though: since many of the "official" planets have names relating to mythologic gods, and the constellations a lot of characters from the stories, what if we decided to name the dwarf planets after early astronomers, philosophers, and scientists who we still talk about today? Greeks come to mind, but I'm sure there were others too.

By early I mean pre-BC or another arbitrary cut off date. Pre any modern government existed at least (I recognize some have been around a while, so it would take a little homework to determine a cut-off date).

A lot of more recent space related folk get their names on missions and equipment, so they aren't entirely left out. Comets are named after the discoverer. Were it up to me I could see myself voting for a "nomenclature" recognizing the early former of thought and science. That or choose other myth canons, but as long as we're changing classes, why not change names?

Kullat Nunu
2008-Jan-03, 12:07 PM
There are rules how trans-Neptunian objects are named, and luckily discoverer/astronomer names are out. Eris doesn't seem to fit the theme (creation and netherworld deities) so perhaps we will see more Greco-Roman gods or goddesses. On the other hand, Mike Brown has hinted that 2003 EL61 will get a Hawaiian name to honor the fact it was found there. Since Hawaiian names tend to sound usual for most Westerners, and given that the object is truly weird, I see the name fitting.

Since several of the TNOs are likely to be reclassified as dwarf planets (Sedna, Quaoar, Varuna, Orcus, ...) it is clear that the naming can't follow the Greco-Roman tradition despite the fact the three official dwarf planets all have Greco-Roman names.

laurele
2008-Jan-03, 05:29 PM
The category of "dwarf planet" is still very much in contention and is likely to be challenged at the IAU convention in 2009 by professional astronomers who believe all these objects, including Pluto and Eris, should be considered planets.

Caelus
2008-Jan-07, 03:12 AM
The category of "dwarf planet" is still very much in contention and is likely to be challenged at the IAU convention in 2009 by professional astronomers who believe all these objects, including Pluto and Eris, should be considered planets.

:sick:

If you are going to include Pluto and Eris as planets, you will also have to include 2005 FY9, 2003 EL61, Quaoar, Orcus, Varuna, Sedna, Ixion, Chaos, 2002 TC302, 1996 TO66, 2002 AW197, 1995 SM55, 2001 UR163, 2002 UX25, 2002 TX300, 1996 TL66, 2003 VS2, 2004 GV9, 2002 KX14, 2002 MS4, and 2003 AZ84, as well as the other several hundred large KBOs likely to be out there.

Neverfly
2008-Jan-07, 03:47 AM
:sick:

If you are going to include Pluto and Eris as planets, you will also have to include 2005 FY9, 2003 EL61, Quaoar, Orcus, Varuna, Sedna, Ixion, Chaos, 2002 TC302, 1996 TO66, 2002 AW197, 1995 SM55, 2001 UR163, 2002 UX25, 2002 TX300, 1996 TL66, 2003 VS2, 2004 GV9, 2002 KX14, 2002 MS4, and 2003 AZ84, as well as the other several hundred large KBOs likely to be out there.

Pluto was a planet almost all my life so far.

If the others want to be planets too- I'm cool with that...;)
But Pluto will always be a planet to me...

Caelus
2008-Jan-07, 04:07 AM
Pluto was a planet almost all my life so far.

If the others want to be planets too- I'm cool with that...;)
But Pluto will always be a planet to me...

If an individual wants to consider Pluto a planet for their own sentimental reasons, that is their decision. But when people want Pluto's scientific classification to remain a planet for unscientific reasons, I disagree with it. I know there have been plenty of these kinds of threads, but it is my opinion that there should currently be four classifications of large solar system objects: gas giants, ice giants, terrestrial planets, and Kuiper Belt planets. This seems to me to be the best way to categorize "planets".

Caelus
2008-Jan-07, 04:10 AM
To clarify my last post, what I am trying to say is that objects like Jupiter, Earth, and Pluto should not all be lumped in the same category.

Neverfly
2008-Jan-07, 06:11 AM
To clarify my last post, what I am trying to say is that objects like Jupiter, Earth, and Pluto should not all be lumped in the same category.

Jupiter and Earth and Pluto already were. Jupiter and Earth still are.

KaiYeves
2008-Jan-08, 12:35 AM
This is a case where I need to accept that my personal feelings are unscientific and that experts know better than me. And I'm cool with that.
I personally don't like looking at pictures of the Pioneer plaque, either, but I can accept that the experts knew better then, and I'm cool with that, too.