Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, January 22, 2001 10:29 PM Subject: Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter I STILL MAINTAIN THAT AN ORBITING SPECK IS STILL JUST A SPECK. A MOON IS SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL. PERHAPS THE CRITERION SHOULD ASK: IS THIS ORBITING, NATURAL BODY LARGE ENOUGH TO IMPACT THE PARENT WORLD? EARTH'S LUNA WOULD QUALIFY. PLUTO'S CHARON WOULD QUALIFY. EVEN JUPITER MIGHT BE AFFECTED, IF THE VARIOUS GAS SWIRLS ON IT'S 'SURFACE' ARE DUE IN PART TO THE MOVEMENT OF THE FOUR MAIN MOONS. Well, if you're talking about tidal forces exerted by moons on their home planets: every moon, no matter how tiny, exerts some of that. Once again, you'll simply have to pick out some arbitrary limit -- either of size or mass -- and call everything bigger than that a "moon", and everything smaller a non-moon. - HERE'S A SIDE NOTE: I'M ALSO DISSATISFIED WITH BINOMIAL NOMENCLATURE. I SEE NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE SADDLED WITH AN 18TH CENTURY NOTION OF GENUS, SPECIES, ETC, PARTICULARLY WHEN THOSE EARLY NAMES WERE OFTEN SO RIDDLED WITH INCONSISTENCIES OR MISTAKES. GENETICALLY SPEAKING, THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO DISTINGUISH PAN TROGLODYTES (COMMON CHIMPANZEE) FROM HOMO SAPIENS (HAIRLESS, UPRIGHT CHIMPANZEE). CONSIDER THE ISSUE IF / WHEN SOMEONE COMES UP WITH AN ARTIFICIAL SPECIES... WHAT THE HECK DO YOU NAME IT? WHAT WOULD YOU NAME A GENETIC CROSS BETWEEN A HUMAN AND A BONOBO? GENUS HOMO OR GENUS PAN? WHAT / HOW SHOULD WE 'NAME' A EUROPAN OR MARTIAN MICROBE? There is, I understand, starting to be some wrangling about precisely this issue among biologists. While the definition of "species" seems to be fairly straightforward (two different species can't breed to produce fertile children), every bigger level of the tree by which we categorize living things is a largely arbitrary division. Bruce Moomaw == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
-Original Message- From: Larry Klaes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, January 22, 2001 7:43 AM Subject: RE: 11 New Moons For Jupiter I too am tired of the discrimination against the smallest members of our Sol system just because they are too small to stand on. Even this sounds oppressive! I say we write to the IAU and DEMAND that our tiny in size but giant in spirit space bretheren receive the proper respect that they have lacked since the days of Galileo! Who's with me?! Not me, I'm afraid. Being a silly old fogy, I'm much more concerned with more trivial issues, such as the fact that the Electoral College has just appointed the loser of our Presidential election to be the winner. Bruce Moomaw == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
In a message dated 1/23/2001 10:21:25 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what's the deal with the American Museum and the Rose Center removing Pluto from the planet list? In my humble opinion, 70 years of publishing tradition makes Pluto a planet. Aha! So you're against McDonald's too! == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
they might be categorized by their gravitaional effects on passing spacecraft. If it can withstand a free-fall of a Voyager-sized spacecraft, without any noticable change in orbit, it is a moon. If not, it is orbital debris --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if you're talking about tidal forces exerted by moons on their home planets: every moon, no matter how tiny, exerts some of that. Once again, you'll simply have to pick out some arbitrary limit -- either of size or mass -- and call everything bigger than that a "moon", and everything smaller a non-moon. Yes, I considered that: ie, that even a speck has a gravitational influence, no matter how small (echoes of Dr. Seuss running through my head). But, if you don't like my definition, perhaps you've got a better one? There is a problem, I think, with such a broad definition of 'moon' that you have to constantly re-assess just how many 'moons' a planet like Jupiter has. Clearly, there are two schools of thought here: one, that a moon is any natural, orbititing body. The other is that of traditional concepts: a moon is a little planet that orbits a big planet. Strict interpretation, or broad traditionalism? -- JHB - HERE'S A SIDE NOTE: I'M ALSO DISSATISFIED WITH BINOMIAL NOMENCLATURE. I SEE NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE SADDLED WITH AN 18TH CENTURY NOTION OF GENUS, SPECIES, ETC, PARTICULARLY WHEN THOSE EARLY NAMES WERE OFTEN SO RIDDLED WITH INCONSISTENCIES OR MISTAKES. GENETICALLY SPEAKING, THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO DISTINGUISH PAN TROGLODYTES (COMMON CHIMPANZEE) FROM HOMO SAPIENS (HAIRLESS, UPRIGHT CHIMPANZEE). CONSIDER THE ISSUE IF / WHEN SOMEONE COMES UP WITH AN ARTIFICIAL SPECIES... WHAT THE HECK DO YOU NAME IT? WHAT WOULD YOU NAME A GENETIC CROSS BETWEEN A HUMAN AND A BONOBO? GENUS HOMO OR GENUS PAN? WHAT / HOW SHOULD WE 'NAME' A EUROPAN OR MARTIAN MICROBE? There is, I understand, starting to be some wrangling about precisely this issue among biologists. While the definition of "species" seems to be fairly straightforward (two different species can't breed to produce fertile children), every bigger level of the tree by which we categorize living things is a largely arbitrary division. Bruce Moomaw == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ = Sincerely James McEnanly __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
Different issue: the IAF will only allow an object to be named when its orbit is known well enough to get a number - only just starting to happen with the big EKOs - with the discovers' reccommendation, approval /or consent. Most of these new objects are being found in bulk searches; which mean that the teams who discovered these objects (assuming they actually want to name their discoveries - the Czech group that decided that their asteroid no.9007 should be called JamesBond may not'ave been taking this process completely seriously) have some serious namecalling to do. Just like me Bruce All the best, Robert Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Bruce Moomaw [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:37 PM To: Icepick Europa Mailing List Subject: Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter The IAU is apparently trying to put off all these questions of nomenclature -- but they won't be able to do it much longer. (And then, maybe, all those unfortunate Kuiper Belt objects that are still unnamed despite the fact that they're huge will finally have their day.) Bruce Moomaw == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
-Original Message- From: Clements, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 6:51 PM Subject: RE: 11 New Moons For Jupiter Different issue: the IAF will only allow an object to be named when its orbit is known well enough to get a number - only just starting to happen with the big EKOs - with the discovers' reccommendation, approval /or consent. Most of these new objects are being found in bulk searches; which mean that the teams who discovered these objects (assuming they actually want to name their discoveries - the Czech group that decided that their asteroid no.9007 should be called JamesBond may not'ave been taking this process completely seriously) have some serious namecalling to do. Just like me Bruce They aren't the only ones. About 15 years ago, an American astronomer officially named an asteroid "Mr. Spock" -- after his cat. There was a certain degree of ruckus about that one -- but then, Charon's discoverer named it that (rather than "Persephone") only because his wife's name was Charlene, therby dooming astronomers for all time to come to confusing it with "Chiron". Bruce Moomaw == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
I too am tired of the discrimination against the smallest members of our Sol system just because they are too small to stand on. Even this sounds oppressive! I say we write to the IAU and DEMAND that our tiny in size but giant in spirit space bretheren receive the proper respect that they have lacked since the days of Galileo! Who's with me?! At 09:28 AM 01/22/2001 +1100, Clements, Robert wrote: The minor planet people have a smaller ( simpler) definition already: if you can stand on it, its an asteroid (effectively, this works out at about 10m; a bit larger than the object the AsterAnts proposal would attempt to collect). A ring object is in a different class simply because it's a part of a ring. Not that your definition isn't a bad cutoff; but does it really matter that Jupiter has 172 nonring moons? Only to cataloguers, i venture All the best, Robert Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From:Pam Eastlick [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent:Monday, January 22, 2001 9:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter I am in TOTAL agreement with this. If the criterion for 'moon' is 'orbits a planet' then Saturn has MILLIONS of moons. Is something the size of a football field a 'moon'? a school bus? a basketball? I really feel that someone (the IAU?) needs to set a lower limit on 'moon' size. I personally vote for 'moon' being something that has at least one axis that's over 1 km long. That's big enough to land a spaceship on. Anything smaller could be a 'moonlet' or 'Big Rock or Big Ice Ball'. How does everyone else feel? I'm getting tired of no longer knowing the answer when kids ask "How many moons are there?" Pam == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter -- Renaming Petition?
My Oxford defines a moon as a "natural satellite of any planet" Your Oxford was written in a time and place which had little comprehension of space studies. In any event, it still doesn't address asteroid dust or ring particles. For that matter, it wouldn't address the contents of the shuttle septic tank, if it were emptied out in space. Alright, let's take the bull by the horns: is it possible, by starting a petition drive, to get whomever is 'in charge' of space terminology to rethink the various terms for moon / moonlet / asteroid / particle / mote? I'd imagine that this Europa website probably has 50 scientists and space technologists. Each of them likely knows the email addresses of another 20 persons, who might be persuaded to mention a renaming proposal to 10 other people. That's 10,000 people, optimistically speaking, who might be in favor of redefining the term 'moon'. It's a small thing, perhaps not worthy of time, but it's also like a little pebble that gets stuck in your shoe... sure, you can walk with it, but it's sure uncomfortable. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
The minor planet people have a smaller ( simpler) definition already: if you can stand on it, its an asteroid (effectively, this works out at about 10m; a bit larger than the object the AsterAnts proposal would attempt to collect). A ring object is in a different class simply because it's a part of a ring. Not that your definition isn't a bad cutoff; but does it really matter that Jupiter has 172 nonring moons? Only to cataloguers, i venture All the best, Robert Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pam Eastlick [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter I am in TOTAL agreement with this. If the criterion for 'moon' is 'orbits a planet' then Saturn has MILLIONS of moons. Is something the size of a football field a 'moon'? a school bus? a basketball? I really feel that someone (the IAU?) needs to set a lower limit on 'moon' size. I personally vote for 'moon' being something that has at least one axis that's over 1 km long. That's big enough to land a spaceship on. Anything smaller could be a 'moonlet' or 'Big Rock or Big Ice Ball'. How does everyone else feel? I'm getting tired of no longer knowing the answer when kids ask "How many moons are there?" Pam == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that the definition of 'moon' needs a revision. I am in TOTAL agreement with this. If the criterion for 'moon' is 'orbits a planet' then Saturn has MILLIONS of moons. Is something the size of a football field a 'moon'? a school bus? a basketball? I really feel that someone (the IAU?) needs to set a lower limit on 'moon' size. I personally vote for 'moon' being something that has at least one axis that's over 1 km long. That's big enough to land a spaceship on. Anything smaller could be a 'moonlet' or 'Big Rock or Big Ice Ball'. How does everyone else feel? I'm getting tired of no longer knowing the answer when kids ask "How many moons are there?" Pam == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
Actually, in the early days of space exploration , we did refer to things like Sputnik and Vanguard as 'moons', even though they were small enough to be carried by one person. Classifying any old orbital body that circles a large parent mass as a 'moon' would really mean that we have to classify communications satellites, asteroid dust, and so forth as a 'moon', rather than what it really is, a piece of space detritus. = Sincerely James McEnanly __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
-Original Message- From: Pam Eastlick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, January 21, 2001 2:32 PM Subject: Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that the definition of 'moon' needs a revision. I am in TOTAL agreement with this. If the criterion for 'moon' is 'orbits a planet' then Saturn has MILLIONS of moons. Is something the size of a football field a 'moon'? a school bus? a basketball? I really feel that someone (the IAU?) needs to set a lower limit on 'moon' size. I personally vote for 'moon' being something that has at least one axis that's over 1 km long. That's big enough to land a spaceship on. Anything smaller could be a 'moonlet' or 'Big Rock or Big Ice Ball'. How does everyone else feel? I'm getting tired of no longer knowing the answer when kids ask "How many moons are there?" I fully agree, too. The dividing line between "moon" and "ring particle" is necessarily an arbitrary cutoff in size -- and we might as well make it big enough to limit the count of "moons" to a reasonable figure. (Keep in mind, though, that -- like the "Is Pluto a planet?" debate -- this is entirely word-chopping, with no scientific importance whatsoever. Maybe you should start pointing out to your kids that these question really ARE losing their meaning now when we talk about the Solar System -- that's a pretty interesting fact in itself. After all, a lot of the current confusion is due to the fact that we've discovered the Kuiper Belt -- a whole new major section of the Solar System that we didn't even know existed!) Bruce Moomaw == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
Classifying any old orbital body that circles a large parent mass as a 'moon' would really mean that we have to classify communications satellites, asteroid dust, and so forth as a 'moon', rather than what it really is, a piece of space detritus. Perhaps they could be termed 'moonlets' or something? Am I just being a semantic crank? My Oxford defines a moon as a "natural satellite of any planet". == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
