# NASA says  our moon is a planet. (poll)



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 19, 2017)

A top NASA scientist who led a mission to send a spacecraft to photograph Pluto has said the moon should be upgraded to planet.

Alan Stern, who headed the New Horizons project, which beamed back amazing photographs of the tiny planet which was first identified in February 1930.

In a lecture due to be delivered today in Boston, Massachusetts, Stern said the Earth's moon should be upgraded to a planet, as well as two moons which orbit Jupiter and a further two circling Saturn.









Stern will tell the American Association for the Advancement of Science that Pluto should also be returned to planetary status after it was downgraded by the International Astronomical Union in 2006.


According to Stern: 'In the mind of the public, the word "planet" carries a significance lacking in other words used to describe planetary bodies... many members of the public assume that alleged "non planets" cease to be interesting enough to warrant scientific exploration.

'A common question we receive is, "Why did you send New Horizons to Pluto if it is not a planet any more?" To mitigate this unfortunate perception, we propose a new definition of planet.

'In keeping with both sound scientific classification and people's intuition, we propose a geophysically based definition of planet that emphasises a body's intrinsic physical properties over its extrinsic orbital properties.'

Stern and his team believe that orbiting other planets - not just orbiting the sun, could be used as a method of determining whether a moon could be upgraded.They say the moon, along with Europa and Ganymede, which orbit Jupiter, plus Titan and Enceladus, which orbit Saturn, have all the features of planets and should be upgraded as part of a modernisation of the entire solar system. The same reorganisation would see Pluto regaining its status as a planet.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 19, 2017)

gl there.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 19, 2017)

WELL DONE MR STERN


CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Stern will tell the American Association for the Advancement of Science that Pluto should also be returned to planetary status





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> According to Stern: 'In the mind of the public, the word "planet" carries a significance lacking in other words used to describe planetary bodies.





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> we propose a geophysically based definition of planet that emphasises a body's intrinsic physical properties over its extrinsic orbital properties.'





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Stern and his team believe that orbiting other planets - not just orbiting the sun, could be used as a method of determining whether a moon could be upgraded.They say the moon, along with Europa and Ganymede, which orbit Jupiter, plus Titan and Enceladus, which orbit Saturn, have all the features of planets and should be upgraded as part of a modernisation of the entire solar system. The same reorganization would see Pluto regaining its status as a planet.



"Pluto has since its discovery Been a planet"

If Planet X  ( or the new 9 ) does Exist   Under the Current Rules   it cannot be Classified as a planet as there is no way it has cleared its Orbit ( its suspected of transiting the kuiper belt same as Pluto does.
Heck it can be said that Neptune has not cleared its Orbit ( Pluto crosses Neptune's Orbit )

Its Quite simple
It has to Orbit the Sun
it has to be rounded under its own gravity


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 19, 2017)

Planet X and Neptune do not clear their orbit completely, no, but under current rules they would still be a planet due to their mass relative to their "competition," meaning they are the big fish in their orbits.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 19, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> WELL DONE MR STERN
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd agree with this but would still allow a planet to perversely still be a moon ie the moon bit would classify a thing as double orbiting ie round another planet and the sun.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 19, 2017)

I'm against it, they should rather teach people that moons are important too and not only planets. Changing meaning of words and things just to compensate for a lack of understanding is kinda the wrong way.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

Colonize the darn rock first and then we will talk.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 19, 2017)

I think the source of moons can vary as much as there composition just like planets and one of few definitive properties is that they orbit a larger mass.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 19, 2017)

I thought NASA said back in either 1972 or 73 that within 20 years we will have humans travelling to Mars?


----------



## qubit (Feb 19, 2017)

I agree, the moon should be classed as a planet. After all, a moon is simply one planet orbiting another. On top of that, in our case, the centre of gravity in our system isn't even within the earth, but in space somewhere between them.

I've seen the official definition of a planet and I don't agree with it.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 19, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> I thought NASA said back in either 1972 or 73 that within 20 years we will have humans travelling to Mars?



Political talk Circumcised by Various US Governments over time as they Seek to reduce and Re-allocate Science Budgets


----------



## Beastie (Feb 19, 2017)

Planets go round stars and are bigger than asteroids.

 Moons go round planets and are also bigger than asteroids.

 I'm going with Copernicus and Galileo.


----------



## erocker (Feb 19, 2017)

The moon by definition can be a planet.. It's also a moon.  Why not both?


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 19, 2017)

erocker said:


> The moon by definition can be a planet.. It's also a moon. Why not both



there are Several MOONS Bigger than Mercury ( which is a Planet )

wilki

Radius, diameter and circumference. Mercury's diameter is _3,030 miles_ (_4,878 km_), comparable to the size of the continental United States. This makes it about two-fifths the size of Earth. It is smaller than Jupiter's moon Ganymede and Saturn's moon Titan.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 19, 2017)

I think this is a ploy to reopen the Pluto/planet debate rather than a serious attempt to reclassify our moon.


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 19, 2017)

erocker said:


> The moon by definition can be a planet.. It's also a moon.  Why not both?


I thought we had word planetoid for that ... our moon is a planetoid which is also an earth's satellite, and for example some of Mars moons are not planetoids but they are satellites and therefore also moons


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 19, 2017)

Should have never been Reclassified
IN my Opinion and the Opinion of many its a Planet   ( and it has 5 Moons ).
It was Demoted because of Politics   ( and its said its because American Children would have difficulty remembering the names if there were too many planets )


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 19, 2017)

No, it's a moon



dorsetknob said:


> WELL DONE MR STERN
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It also has to have cleared its own orbit, not sure if pluto has.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 19, 2017)

tigger said:


> It also has to have cleared its own orbit, not sure if pluto has.


Few if Any of the Existing Planets can be said to have cleared their orbits
Most of the recognized planets have Trojan Asteroids co-Orbiting with them A picky point for sure but a "Cleared Orbit is a Cleared Orbit " and those Trojens ain't Cleared Cause they are still there


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 19, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> Political talk Circumcised by Various US Governments over time as they Seek to reduce and Re-allocate Science Budgets


Exactly, the point being that you can't believe everything anyone tells you and where you can, they sometimes get it wrong.


----------



## natr0n (Feb 19, 2017)

x-files theme


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 19, 2017)

no no>>>>"RED DWARF"


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Feb 19, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> I thought NASA said back in either 1972 or 73 that within 20 years we will have humans travelling to Mars?


They were busy doing Muslim outreach.



erocker said:


> The moon by definition can be a planet.. It's also a moon.  Why not both?


It's not a bathroom at Target bro.


----------



## fourletterfame (Feb 19, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> 'A common question we receive is, "Why did you send New Horizons to Pluto if it is not a planet any more?" *To mitigate this unfortunate perception, we propose a new definition of planet.*



Seems like a crap justification, but whatever.


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 19, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> I thought NASA said back in either 1972 or 73 that within 20 years we will have humans travelling to Mars?


Sounds about right. I remember reading in a textbook in 6th grade where they said we'd have a colony on the moon by 1988.

Anyway, Pluto is a planet. The Moon is a moon. Why change things just for the sake of changing them?


----------



## Kanan (Feb 19, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I think this is a ploy to reopen the Pluto/planet debate rather than a serious attempt to reclassify our moon.


They simply want to change the deception of moons, to get more money. It's not a bad thing, but I would rather educate people on how important it is, than doing this.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 19, 2017)

Orbit makes more sense than mass alone.  Orbits form because of mass so going by orbit gives a predictable hierarchy of mass.  That said, it should be technically possible for two planets of near equal mass to be each other's moon.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 19, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> Few if Any of the Existing Planets can be said to have cleared their orbits
> Most of the recognized planets have Trojan Asteroids co-Orbiting with them A picky point for sure but a "Cleared Orbit is a Cleared Orbit " and those Trojens ain't Cleared Cause they are still there



That's why the relative mass rule is there.


----------



## qubit (Feb 19, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I think this is a ploy to reopen the Pluto/planet debate rather than a serious attempt to reclassify our moon.


It could be an Pluto is even smaller.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 19, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> it should be technically possible for two planets of near equal mass to be each other's moon.



Pluto/Charon is / was Often referred to as a Binary Planet(oid) system due to their Relative size and Co Orbits


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 19, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> Pluto/Charon is / was Often referred to as a Binary Planet(oid) system due to their Relative size and Co Orbits


I was actually thinking about how technically, the two masses together are the planet.  Binary Planet(oid) makes perfect sense.  I don't think there's any reason to change the status quo because the status quo works for what we know and what is theoretically known as possible.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 22, 2017)

Scientists have proposed a new way to define planets based on ‘the physics of the world itself,’ citing technical flaws in the definition adopted by the International Astronomical Union in 2006 as the reason for the possible overhaul.

If accepted, the geophysical definition would essentially classify all ‘round objects in space that are smaller than stars’ as planets, including Pluto, other dwarf planets, and even moons.

Scientists from NASA’s New Horizon’s mission will make their proposal at the Lunar and planetary Science Conference in March.


Adopting this definition would see roughly 110 objects in the solar system classified as ‘full-fledged’ planets, including dwarf planets and moon planets such as Ceres, Pluto, Charon, and our own moon.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Feb 22, 2017)

Pluto's a planet and our moon is a moon. I have about as much experience on Pluto as any scientist so the debate it over.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 22, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Pluto's a planet and our moon is a moon. *I have about as much experience on Pluto as any scientist so the debate it over*.


And I have been to Disney World Florida 8 times so probably have more Pluto experience than them


----------



## Vario (Feb 23, 2017)

I think we should make it a Sun. Go big or go home!


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 23, 2017)

Ever since i was a kid i always thought that the earth was hit by something huge where the pacific ocean is and a chunk went off and created the moon.


----------



## Solaris17 (Feb 23, 2017)

Technically the "Moon" IIRC is just an astronomical satellite. "Moons" as I recall are just an easy way to discuss other "satellites" around other astronomical bodies like "planets". "Moon" is just the name we gave our satellite.

In which case if im correct and I may not be it doesnt really matter to me in the slightest what we re-classify it as because it will always be "Moon"


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 23, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> Technically the "Moon" IIRC is just an astronomical satellite. "Moons" as I recall are just an easy way to discuss other "satellites" around other astronomical bodies like "planets". "Moon" is just the name we gave our satellite.


And up untill *Galileo Galilei* Found and confirmed Satellite around other Planets All moons were called "The Moon" (because there was only one known one)
After Mr Galilei Dropped his Bombshell they had to call them Something to avoid confusing the middle age s  Mind


Ps he could have wound up the Catholic church by calling them after Angels and Saints


----------



## erocker (Feb 23, 2017)

BiggieShady said:


> I thought we had word planetoid for that ... our moon is a planetoid which is also an earth's satellite, and for example some of Mars moons are not planetoids but they are satellites and therefore also moons


Planetoid is another newer word, made up by whoever. This isn't science. It's a bureaucracy of generating legitimacy.


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 23, 2017)

erocker said:


> Planetoid is another newer word, made up by whoever. This isn't science. It's a bureaucracy of generating legitimacy.


I wouldn't exclude possibility of Star Trek techno mumbo jumbo being the source ... as for bureaucracy of generating legitimacy, it has always been part of the science ... as parodied in Futurama when Stephen Hawking confronted with new portal-like phenomenon promptly says "I call it a Hawking hole!"


----------



## Drone (Feb 23, 2017)




----------



## alucasa (Feb 23, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> I thought NASA said back in either 1972 or 73 that within 20 years we will have humans travelling to Mars?



When I was a kid, I recall reading a book that said we'd have flying cars by year 2000. Well, it's 2017 now. We don't even have a flying bike.


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 23, 2017)

alucasa said:


> We don't even have a flying bike.


Actually I've seen several flying bikes/hoverbikes.









And even a couple true hoverboards.









I've even seen some "flying cars". But in my book they're called "airplanes you can drive".


----------



## alucasa (Feb 23, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> Actually I've seen several flying bikes/hoverbikes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, no, I want a flying bike powered by two Badgers in SLI !!!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 21, 2017)

A new animation reveals a large sprawl of new worlds that may exist just beyond Pluto.

The orbits of these dwarf planets are illustrated to show that they outnumber the planets in our solar system by hundreds, if not thousands.

And a new definition of planets could turn many of these dwarfs into fully fledged planets. 














http://uk.businessinsider.com/number-dwarf-planets-solar-system-2017-3?r=US&IR=T


----------



## alucasa (Mar 21, 2017)

The space is farrrrrr from empty. There are stuff. We know and have seen like 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the Universe.

The same odd as winning the Powerball.


----------

