Dátum: 1999. február 5., 18:04
Feladó:
Tárgy: (10000) Pluto?
Sziasztok!
Mint az alabbi angol szovegbol kiderult, kozeledik a 10000.
kisbolygo-sorszam kiadasa, ami tobbek szerint a Plutot illeti
meg, mint az elsokent felfedezett Kuiper-objektumot.
Holgyek, urak, itt az alkalom, lehet szavazni!
Udv,
Kiss Laszlo
MPEC 1999-C03: EDITORIAL NOTICE
The following Minor Planet Electronic Circular may be linked-to from your
own Web pages, but must not
otherwise be redistributed electronically.
Read MPEC 1999-C02 Read MPEC 1999-C04
M.P.E.C. 1999-C03 Issued 1999 Feb. 4, 16:04
UT
The Minor Planet Electronic Circulars contain information on unusual
minor planets and routine data on comets. They are published
on behalf of Commission 20 of the International Astronomical Union by the
Minor Planet Center, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
or
URL http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/mpc.html
EDITORIAL NOTICE
On 1801 Jan. 1 Guiseppe Piazzi discovered the object between Mars
and Jupiter that he called Ceres Ferdinandea, "the eighth planet".
Following the discovery a year later of a similar object, and in
subsequent years further objects in what might be termed the
"Cisjovian Belt", Piazzi's discovery eventually became known under
either the name Ceres or the symbol (1), where the numeral,
originally placed inside a complete circle, indicated that this was
the first object found in that region of the solar system. By 1849
the sequence of discoveries in the region had reached (10), and 1868
saw the discovery of (100). By 1923, when (1000) was announced, the
set of objects, while still mainly members of that Cisjovian Belt
(also known simply as the "Asteroid Belt", or "Main Belt" of "minor
planets"), also included objects that approached within 0.1 AU of the
earth or extended out to the orbit of Saturn.
Next month, we shall pass (10000) in what is a collection of small
objects that are not obviously cometary (although three members do
also have well-documented dual status in the Catalogue of Cometary
Orbits) and travel around the sun in independent orbits (i.e.,
satellites are excluded) that are well determined (i.e., with one
exception that will surely be eventually remedied, the positions of
the objects are very precisely predictable). Again, although the
vast majority of the objects are in the Cisjovian Belt, there are
members that are at perihelion significantly closer to the sun than
Mercury or are at aphelion beyond the orbit of Neptune. It has been
traditional to have a special celebration with each thousandth
numbering. For example, (1000) was named in honor of the discoverer
of Ceres, (2000) in honor of the discoverer of Uranus, (5000) in
honor of the International Astronomical Union and (6000) in honor of
the United Nations. Obviously, it would be appropriate to have some
very special celebration to acknowledge (10000).
Most readers of these Circulars will be aware of recent discussions
in the press concerning a proposal that the number (10000) should be
given to Pluto. The principal reasoning for this is the recognition
during the past few years that Pluto was the first discovered and
largest known member of the "Transneptunian Belt" (sometimes called
the "Kuiper Belt" or "Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt") of small objects beyond
Neptune that possess some similarity, at least dynamically, to bodies
in the Cisjovian Belt. Although as many as 95 members (or possible
members) of the Transneptunian Belt are now listed, most of the
orbital solutions are very weak, and none of the bodies has so far
been included in the collection of those with "guaranteed" orbit
determinations. A few of the discoveries from 1992-1994 are now
approaching this state, which will also allow them to receive
permanent names.
Although it is not unlikely that further Transneptunian Objects
as large as Pluto will be discovered in the future, Pluto obviously
holds a very special place in our appreciation of this new
population, and by assigning to it the number (10000), we should
guarantee that Pluto will be at the head of the Transneptunian list.
It is also very important to affirm that there is absolutely no
implied "demotion" or "reclassification" of Pluto from its position
in the list of the "planets" (or "major planets" or "principal
planets"). Unfortunately, many of the articles that have appeared in
the press have accidentally (or deliberately) misinterpreted this
issue. As with (2060) = 95P/Chiron, (4015) = 107P/Wilson-Harrington
and (7968) = 133P/Elst-Pizarro, where the choice of "minor planet" or
"comet" designation depends on the context, we are proposing that
Pluto would have dual status as a "major" and a "minor" body.
Readers of these Circulars, in particular, will appreciate that Pluto
is sufficiently fainter than the other major planets that it can be
confused with many other minor planets. We have in fact identified
observations of Pluto several times during the past couple of years
in data reported by the survey programs for Near-Earth Objects, and
some astrometric observers specifically report to us observations of
Pluto. There is currently no outlet for publishing these
observations. It should be emphasized that the number (10000) would
be used only in the context of publishing such observations or in
matters directly related to Pluto's place in the Transneptunian Belt.
Much has been made in the press that the IAU is "voting" on Pluto's
status, and at least one astronomical organization issued a press
release on the subject. Members of the public seem completely
baffled by this kind of attention. The question of relevance to the
readers of these Circulars concerns the numbering and naming of
(10000). Indeed, the IAU Small Bodies Names Committee has already
been working on this particular matter for the past month or so.
Progress is slow and uncertain, however, and there are some who think
that democracy would be better served by seeking opinions from a
larger, but informed community. The astronomers, amateur and
professional, who contribute material to these Circulars--astrometric
observations, identifications, orbit determinations--are such an
informed community.
Accordingly, any reader with an opinion on the subject is invited
to e-mail it to us at the Minor Planet Center, preferably using the
address Such a message could consist of a brief
statement such as "I approve (10000) Pluto" or "I do not approve
(10000) Pluto", although the value of the latter choice would be
augmented if an appropriate alternative suggestion were made for
(10000). Brief comments on the subject (preferably constructive)
would also be welcome, and writers are encouraged to identify
themselves. Modern bureaucracy rarely pays much attention to
comments from even an informed public, but since this issue is of
concern principally to our readers (more so, in fact, than to many
professional astronomers with little or no interest in solar-system
astronomy who just happen to be serving on a committee), we feel that
it is appropriate for us to solicit advice in this way. Your early
response is desirable. It is not necessary that you actually
subscribe to these Circulars in order to respond. Appropriate
responses will be examined and considered in connection with the
deliberations by the Small Bodies Names Committee by their deadline
of Feb. 26.
-- The above is the Editorial Notice that appears
on MPC 33615-33616, dated 1999 Feb. 2
Brian G. Marsden (C) Copyright 1999 MPC M.P.E.C.
1999-C03
Read MPEC 1999-C02 Read MPEC 1999-C04
Our Web policy. Index to the CBAT/MPC/ICQ pages.
MPC