New Planet Found in Our Solar System

Ahleckz · 15 May 2012 at 23:21

Glaucus said:
Not centrally funded. More a cross between of ESA and money incentives for green energy. It doesn't need to be run in a NASA type of way. The idea would be support and grow the private sector. Not have a government controlled department.

Ah, in that case I'd probably support it.

Narj · 15 May 2012 at 23:21

Reinstate Pluto FFS, it really annoys me that my primary education has been tarnished because some people decided it didn't fit their criteria.

PermaBanned · 15 May 2012 at 23:21

Is this exactly the same story that came up last year? Because of the orbits of comets and complex mathematical models it's possible that there's a large gas giant somewhere in the Oort cloud, and if there is then Hubble may have already found it but there's too much data to go through so we'll know in a few years if it is there.

Lazy journalism.

Nitefly · 15 May 2012 at 23:23

Spook187 said:
I see your point about the ocean floor,look at the benefits of Space Technology,we have telecommunication,Liquid Crystal Display Panels that were used in the Space Shuttle Program hence why we have them today in our living rooms etc,resources on this planet will run out one day whether we like it or not we have to learn more about other planets to mine/live on.

I understand that those are the sorts of technologies that come about by non-profit innovation, but I'm sure there are other non-profit innovations (and indeed profitable innovations) that lead to similar discoveries. I do appreciate your point though.

PermaBanned · 15 May 2012 at 23:25

PianoBasher said:
Reinstate Pluto FFS, it really annoys me that my primary education has been tarnished because some people decided it didn't fit their criteria.

No, it's not a planet. Because it doesn't fit the criteria of a planet. It's a Plutoid.

It is not an issue you can seriously care about. So the universe doesn't fit into your perfect primary school model. Sorry?

You want to change the accepted model of science because it makes you feel bad? Then you can go in the corner with the religious nutjobs and conspiracy theorists, your argument is just as valid.

/rant

PermaBanned · 15 May 2012 at 23:27

MrElve said:
Neil DeGrasse Tyson downgraded it to a Dwarf Planet didn't he?

He's the President of Physics now is he?

RomanNose · 15 May 2012 at 23:28

PermaBanned said:
No, it's not a planet. Because it doesn't fit the criteria of a planet. It's a Plutoid.

It is not an issue you can seriously care about. So the universe doesn't fit into your perfect primary school model. Sorry?

You want to change the accepted model of science because it makes you feel bad? Then you can go in the corner with the religious nutjobs and conspiracy theorists, your argument is just as valid.

/rant

I think your sarcasm detector temporarily failed.

MissChief · 15 May 2012 at 23:28

I, for one, welcome our new Reptilian Overlords.

One · 15 May 2012 at 23:31

Pluto is smaller than our moon, it's pretty retarded to continue to think it's a planet just because it was classified as one when you were a kid. We would still segregate blacks if we had that viewpoint.

Spook187 · 15 May 2012 at 23:34

I do like it when we open a can of worms about science on these boards,the rights and wrongs/money

PermaBanned · 15 May 2012 at 23:35

RomanNose said:
I think your sarcasm detector temporarily failed.

Temporarily... right...

Tefal · 15 May 2012 at 23:39

The Halk said:
Well, that's only a saving if you're going to keep sending big expensive rockets up.

well if we keep up current pace (assuming no increase in launches which is very unlikely) and taking your frankly ludicrously optimistic 40 years for a space elevator then that's another 8,000 launches just for satellites.

Narj · 15 May 2012 at 23:39

PermaBanned said:
No, it's not a planet. Because it doesn't fit the criteria of a planet. It's a Plutoid.

It is not an issue you can seriously care about. So the universe doesn't fit into your perfect primary school model. Sorry?

You want to change the accepted model of science because it makes you feel bad? Then you can go in the corner with the religious nutjobs and conspiracy theorists, your argument is just as valid.

/rant

desires said:
Pluto is smaller than our moon, it's pretty retarded to continue to think it's a planet just because it was classified as one when you were a kid. We would still segregate blacks if we had that viewpoint.

Crikey, what's up with the anal crew tonight? Sarcasm detectors on the blink indeed!

One · 15 May 2012 at 23:43

Your mum's on the blink.

Narj · 15 May 2012 at 23:45

desires said:
Your mum's on the blink.

At least she doesn't have her own postcode like yours!

One · 15 May 2012 at 23:47

PianoBasher said:
At least she doesn't have her own postcode like yours!

I'm sorry, I wouldn't have been rude if I had known your mum was homeless.

The Halk · 15 May 2012 at 23:59

Tefal said:
frankly ludicrously optimistic 40 years for a space elevator

Optimistic, but ludicrously so? I don't think so. Do note that I'm in favour of Skylon, and I think we should fund it entirely from within the UK. I'm just not as optimistic about the savings it claims will be made. I'm in general in favour of space - especially compared to haemorrhaging money in the direction of the green lobbies - however I'm just not that pleased with big rockets, as opposed to telescopes, and big showy things as opposed to real results.

I don't need to be convinced of the worth of Skylon - but the real solution is the Space Elevator, and I don't like the attitude of ignoring it as just a hypothetical solution far distant in the future. The Space Elevator will dawn the next age of man.

Vanquish-Storm · 16 May 2012 at 02:20

I have not read through the thread so I do not know if this is already mentioned. Read through the article and saw:

Too far out to be easily spotted by telescopes

Could anyone explain how that can be? We seem to know a fair bit about other galaxies and stars yet can not see a planet in our own solar system? :confused:

Tephnos · 16 May 2012 at 02:44

Vanquish-Storm said:
I have not read through the thread so I do not know if this is already mentioned. Read through the article and saw:

Could anyone explain how that can be? We seem to know a fair bit about other galaxies and stars yet can not see a planet in our own solar system?

At that distance, you're effectively blindly looking into dark space. The sun's light doesn't really illuminate much at that distance, from where we observe it.

Also, we know way more about our own solar system than we do about other galaxies. We know almost nothing of other galaxies. The only reason you hear about them so much is because of what astronomers do know, they are very proud of. And they should be, as space is huge.

Angilion · 16 May 2012 at 03:27

RomanNose said:
It does but you would have thought considering how small it is, we wouldn't have any hidden surprises by now.

A circle 5,000,000,000 miles across is not small, and even that's treating the solar system as a flat plane (which it isn't) ending at the Kuiper belt (which it doesn't).

A small, dark object 5,000,000,000 miles away...is it really so surprising that such a thing could exist without anyone having detected it before now?

If it was a warm Earth-sized planet with an atmosphere, liquid water and suchlike...now that would be a surprise. But it won't be.