Asteroid or Planet?
April 2nd 2011 06:59
Category: Jupiter
My interpretation of what Vest may look like
CURRENT MOON
Vest as seen by the Hubble telescope
Vesta is classed as being an asteriod because it lies between the Mars and Jupiter. Most asteroids that orbit within the asteroid belt are relatively small.
Vesta, is a much larger object some 530 kilometers (330 miles) across on average. Fragmented bits of Vesta were ejected by collisions with other objects have been identified as being with the perimeter of the asteroid belt..
Olbers was a prolific comet hunter he also took a leading part in the discovery of other minor planets, re-identified Ceres, and detected Pallas in 1803.
Much like Pluto, Vesta is undergoing some scrutiny whether it should be classed as an asteroid because it is believed that the proto planet make up is vastly different to the normal run-of – the mill asteroids. The difference lays in the internal structure of Vesta namely the core, mantle and crust Vest displays similar attributes to how planets are constructed.
We will learn more about Vesta when the Dawn mission space probe encounters the asteroid. Vesta is officially classed as a "minor planet". It is estimated that there are over 500,000 “minor planets roaming our Solar System.
Perhaps Vesta was not destined to become a planet like Mercury of Venus. Although Vesta is yet to classed as a planet in its own right, its structure and make up are dense and multi layered, Vesta behaves much like a planet that orbits the sun.
Vesta is far too small and distant to be fully resolved by Earth based telescopes. When the Dawn space probe reached Vesta it may have some surprises for us. Dawn is expected to arrive and study Vest and Ceres in July 2011.
| 40 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by laurele
Comment by CarlCan
Astroearth
Camera Sense
My reference to them as minor planets is used in context to 19th century beliefs.
If you take Pluto defended by the International Astronomical Union as being a dwarf planet.
Although its size and elliptical orbit do differ from those of the solar system's other planets, these criteria are purely arbitrary traits that do not discount Pluto status as a planet.
Pluto has more in common with the comets and asteroids discovered in the Kuiper Belt.
Pluto was discover in 1930 when the orbit of Pluto was not yet properly defined.
With recent refinements in orbital mechanics Pluto does not fit the normal orbit parameters of other major planets.
The differences in the elliptical orbit of Pluto has raised questions about whether Pluto is "really" a planet, or one of the smaller, more numerous objects beyond Neptune referred to as Kuiper belt, or transneptunian, objects.
Part of the controversy is essentially semantic there is no rigid, formal definition of "planet" that either includes or excludes Pluto.
Comment by CarlCan
Astroearth
Camera Sense
Hi S.L
The reference to the colour is most likely to be
in the way the image was created by the Hubble software imaging team.
Colour hues are used sometimes to enhance the definition of any surface features.
Who knows what Vesta has in store for us, it may contain a body of water.
Comment by laurele
I don't--and neither do a significant number of astronomers. Only four percent voted in the controversial IAU decision, most are not planetary scientists, and the vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws. The IAU decision was immediately opposed by hundreds of professional astronomers in a formal petition led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern. Stern is the person who created the term dwarf planet, but he did it to indicate a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians--small planets large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium but not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. He never intended for dwarf planets to not be planets at all.
"Pluto has more in common with the comets and asteroids discovered in the Kuiper Belt."
This is not necessarily true. Most asteroids are tiny, shapeless rocks while most comets are largely composed of ice. Pluto is much larger than any of these; it is 75 percent rock, geologically differentiated, has weather, has nitrogen in its atmosphere, and has a large moon formed via giant impact. These all make Pluto more akin to the other planets than to asteroids and comets. Comets' orbits are far more elliptical than Pluto's, taking them into the inner solar system. This never occurs with Pluto.
"With recent refinements in orbital mechanics Pluto does not fit the normal orbit parameters of other major planets."
There are no "normal orbit parameters" for planets, as there is an incredible diversity, especially when one considers the 531 confirmed exoplanets discovered. Many of those have orbits far more elliptical than Pluto's; at the same time, many of these exoplanets are larger and more massive than Jupiter. Are they therefore not planets? Mercury has an orbital inclination of 7 degrees in comparison with Pluto's inclination of 17 degrees. If an object must orbit in the same plane as all other objects in its system, then Mercury should not be considered a planet either.
Comment by CarlCan
Astroearth
Camera Sense
I have heard all this B.S. diatribe before. I too was of the opinion that Pluto should remain as it was but I have since changed my mind. I find this debate is a product of different viewpoints. If you choose not to abide by the ruling body that’s your prerogative. To put it bluntly Frankly "Scarlett" I really don't give a dam either way. On this note lets agree to disagree.
Comment by laurele
Comment by CarlCan
Astroearth
Camera Sense
I must admit I have a fond admiration for poor old Pluto, it is easy to let sentiment get in the way sometimes.
At least we can agree that in time when the space probes have gathered their data all will be revealed.
Whether what I stated in my blog is correct or incorrect to me is immaterial. After all it is a matter of opinion, and their no need to sharpen our knives .
We can go on and further theorise, consensus has a tendency to change other alliances will be made and broken.
50 years in the business has taught me well, playing politics in science is not what I am about.
You have the advantage of youth and your conscience dictates and defend what to seems right and that's not a bad thing.
Like you I am still at age 69 very passionate about astronomy, old farts like me tend to get a little cynical with age, I wish well in your new book.
Comment by laurele
As for playing politics in science, that has been going on for a long time. Just look into the convoluted story of the discovery of Neptune.
In this day and age, 69 isn't old. I recently read an article that claims women view themselves as "old" at 29 and men at 58. Unfortunately, the article left no room for comments, and it gave no attribution for how anyone came by this data. They certainly didn't ask me. I don't do cynical, and I really don't do old, and you don't have to either. If you're passionate about astronomy, that means a part of you still has the same sense of wonder that kids have when they first learn about the universe.
Based on all the exciting exoplanet discoveries, I have a feeling the issue of what is a planet and how many types of planets there are will undergo many changes over the next few decades.
Thanks for the good wishes about the book. I'll keep you posted on its progress.
Comment by CarlCan
Astroearth
Camera Sense
As a scientist I have given way to the literal sense that meanings have a tendency to be compartmentalized. When people speak of age be aware of their culture with respect to their ways, try no to take things too literally. Western society puts to much emphasis on how age is perceived.
(There is no offense intended)
Think form the heart not just the mind.