NASA Scientists Propose New Definition of Planets, and Pluto Could Soon Be Back

[DamianTV]

https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...d-soon-be-back

After several years of publicly complaining about the "bull$#@!" decision at the IAU redefining what comprises a planet, New Horizons program head Alan Stern and fellow planetary geologists have put forth a new definition which they seek to make official, basing planethood on hydrostatic equilibrium. Under this definition, in addition to Ceres, Pluto and other Kuiper Belt objects, large moons like Titan and Europa, as well as our own moon, would also become planets; "planet" would be a physical term, while "moon" would be an orbital term, and hence one can have a planetary moon, as well as planets that orbit other stars or no star at all (both prohibited under the current definition). The paper points out that planetary geologists already refer to such bodies as planets, citing examples such as a paper about Titan: "A planet-wide detached haze layer occurs between 300-350 km above the surface; the visible limb of the planet, where the vertical haze optical depth is 0.1, is about 220 km above the surface."

The Politics at NASA appears to be much more complicated than the Science at NASA.

[oyarde]

Pluto is a planet because Oyarde says so . Next subject .

[oyarde]

In other news this week , the Cleveland Cavaliers have Flat Earthers on the team .

[otherone]

The Politics at NASA appears to be much more complicated than the Science at NASA.

Identity astronomy.