Talk:Sedna (dwarf planet)

Misc

I notice that the astronomer Micheal Brown's home page contains a graph showing pollution where he lives in California. He might be interested to know that if he buys a new SAAB, and uses it in Los angeles, it is claimed by Jeremy Clarkson in today's Sunday Times - on the very same day that it announces the discovery of his new 'planet' - that 'the stuff coming out of the back of a Saab turbo's exhaust is actually less harmful than the air that went in at the front. Like a giant vacuum cleaner, in other words'. Anyone know if that's true? Matt Stan 22:13, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That sounds highly implausible. :-) Evercat 22:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Drat, looks like someone may have realized that Mike's page on Sedna was getting a lot of hits for something that wasn't supposed to have been announced yet. :) The external link [1] is now giving a 404. Hopefully it will come back online after the press conference, there was a ton of great information there. Bryan 09:04, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Working now MPF 20:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The news briefing is at 2004-03-15t13:00-05:00 http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/mar/HQ_n04040_solar_object.html

I guess I should remove the link to Chad's page, tho it hurts to only have news reports out there when that page (which Mike also had (neither linked to it from their homepages)) has such great info. - Jeandré, 2004-03-15t09:49z

To be pedantic, the Sun would only be blocked this way if your eye's pupil (or camera's aperture) was no larger than the pin head: The sun appears so small from Sedna that it could be completely blocked out with the head of a pin, according to Brown. I guess he means the Sun subtends an angle smaller than that of a pin head held at arm's length. Wikibob 01:50, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

New?

Is this the same as 2004 DW? -- The Anome 13:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. Still, this hasn't been much reported yet, Google news doesn't turn up much... Evercat 19:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I got some information from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8968352%255E29098,00.html but don't know how accurate it all is yet. Presumably there will be a flurry of updating on Monday when the press conference is. Bryan 19:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is it?

Some mention should be made of its highly elliptical orbit... Evercat 01:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Or http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/sedna/

Sedna is starting to sound a lot like a scattered disk object to me. Bryan 01:04, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The news item actually said that NASA is going to make its announcement tomorrow. Matt Stan 01:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can I suggest (astronomical object) instead of (object)? - the latter is a bit.. amibguous. Ed g2s 02:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Or Sedna (planetoid)? Evercat 02:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest Sedna (plutino).—Eloquence

On second thought, this may be inaccurate given the definition provided at plutino.—Eloquence 04:51, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes the Jewitt article cited there requires a very specific orbital diameter to be called a plutino. Joelwest 13:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

re previous attempts to define "planet" : "[Michael] A'Hearn and others say it's reasonably likely that another object as big or larger than Pluto will be found orbiting the Sun even farther out. What happens then? Start the fight over again."[2]

One definition of a planet is "any body in the solar system that is more massive than the total mass of all of the other bodies in a similar orbit.". Another "made round by its own gravity". Also, "anything as big or bigger than Pluto." - Jeandré, 2004-03-18t09:04z --- Dan Green's page [[3]] says that the whole "planet" vs. "not a planet" debate is a myth of the popular press that is long discredited in astronomy. The real question is classifying major planet vs. minor planet, and a case can be made that Pluto and Sedna are both minor planets. Joelwest 13:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Planetoid?

FYI some people seem to be calling Pluto also a planetoid. -- Paddu 14:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Had Pluto been discovered today, it would most likely not be called a planet. According to the IAU, it is one, though. [4]

That may very well be the case - but the point is - Pluto's classifaction is the subject of debate. It is not agreed whether it is a Planet/Planetoid etc. The point of the words in brackets is for disambiguation, not definition (that can be discussed in the article). Sedna (AO) distinguishes it well enough from any other Sedna without making a decision about its classification. Ed g2s 18:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

12 or 16?

Note discrepancy over official name. Brown's web site says 2003 VB12, but the http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2004-05/quickfacts.shtml , bbc, etc say VB16. NealMcB 01:42, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

This BBC News article [5] also says VB12. Except for your link I can find no other site which calls it VB16 (where at the BBC?). — Jor (Darkelf) 01:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This link [6] said VB16 when it was indexed by Google, but now says VB12. VB16 was probably an error. — Jor (Darkelf) 01:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Call for votes: What shall the name of this article be?

Vote for the article name you support most by typing the following beneath it: #~~~~

Poll closes 04:00, March 21, 2004 (UTC)

2003 VB12

Sedna

Sedna, Trans-Neptunian object 2003 VB12

Trans-Neptunian object 2003 VB12

Anthony DiPierro

Sedna (trans-Neptunian object)

Anthony DiPierro

Sedna (astronomical object)

Bryan 05:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Minesweeper 10:19, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
MPF 14:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) This covers all eventualities
Anthony DiPierro 15:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) Planetoid sounds stupid. Anthony DiPierro 15:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ed g2s 18:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) Planetoids aren't very well defined. The article says they are more like asteroids and are "much smaller than planets". Sedna is similar in size to Pluto. From what I've read, not even the experts in the field can decide on what each definition means - and therefore what Sedna is. Until they (or Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical Objects) can come up with some definitions, AO is the only sensible suggestion. Anything with planetoid in it must be ruled out.Talk:Sedna_(astronomical_object)#Planetoid?
ChrisO 14:51, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support, for the reasons given above by Ed g2s.
Michael Warren 15:38, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC).

Sedna (planetoid)

RickK | Talk 03:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Davodd 03:58, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
Bryan 05:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) Either this or (astronomical object) is quite sufficiently vague, IMO, and fits with our disambiguation standards. But whatever gets chosen, can we please stop moving the article around every few hours? :)
Seth Ilys 06:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC). A uniform article naming system for astronomical objects needs to be established, preferably through Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical Objects.
Jeandré, 2004-03-16t10:04z.
Minesweeper 10:19, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
— Jor (Darkelf) 11:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) Best of the available options for now. Once more Oort objects are discovered move to Sedna, Oort Cloud object (with final name replacing Sedna).
andy 14:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) (until IAU comes up with a naming scheme for such an object, or gives it the final name)
Timwi 15:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) (good idea, better than astronomical object)
Dmn 22:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) Planetoid is an excellent word to use
Paddu 14:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Rmhermen 16:27, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 18:13, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Texture 18:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Joelwest 13:32, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) after all, that's what its discoverers use

Sedna (astronomy)

Merovingian ↕ Talk 10:30, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC) - I don't know about you, but I like simplicity.

You may want to reconsider this. As of today, there is no sufficient data to classify this object. Although its more appropiate name would be Sedna, Planetoid 2003 VB12. As far as we know, it may be named as Sedna, Inner Oort Cloud object 2003 VB12, Sedna, Oort Cloud object 2003 VB12 or even Sedna, Trans-Neptunian object 2003 VB12. Obviously, Sedna is a planetoid and a Trans-Neptunian object, but it may or it may not be an Oort Cloud object or an Inner Oort Cloud object. --Maio 05:24, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

If it's obviously a planetoid, then what's wrong with calling it (planetoid) for now since there aren't any other significant planetoids named Sedna for it to be confused with? We can move the article one last time once its classification becomes better defined, if necessary. Bryan 05:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the object could be classified as two things at the same time, a planetoid and a TNO. But since it has been called more as a planetoid, I beleive that it is more appropiate to rename it to Sedna, Planetoid 2003 VB12 to make it detailed, precise, and human-readable at the same time. —Michael | Talk 14:23, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Must the 2003 VB12 be in the name? Not only is a numeric string like that imnsho very ugly, but the object is also very unlikely to be ever called both Sedna and 2003 VB12 at the same time. Sedna (planetoid) with a redirect from 2003 VB12 would seem best of both worlds. — Jor (Darkelf) 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copy/paste from the same article: By the IAU naming conventions for asteroids, the official name is 2003 VB12, until its orbit can be established well enough. Only then do the discoverers have the right to suggest a name. So, IMHO, at the moment it should include it. Perhaps later, when the name is officially settled down, it could be moved to Planetoid Sedna. —Michael | Talk 14:45, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

But by then it will have a asteroid number (at least if the IAU considers it an asteroid as well), and then by the naming standard for asteroids it'd have a name like 90000 Sedna. But till then Sedna (planetoid) should be the best and shortest alternative. andy 14:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about moving this to Sedna and moving the goddess page to Sedna (goddess) or whatever? That's basically the situation with Quaoar... Evercat 12:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if that is proper, as Sedna is not yet its name. — Jor (Darkelf) 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Farthest from the sun?

"...is farther from the Sun than any previously known object in the solar system."

Hmm, what about comets like Hale-Bopp, for instance? Is that not considered part of the solar system? Is it because of the plane? What about other Oort cloud objects which have a more even plane? Anthony DiPierro 14:04, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this is the only known Oort cloud object but I can't explain about the comets. Probably it is the furthest distance anything has been detected at, comet being too small to see at that distance with current technology. Rmhermen 15:01, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hale-Bopp has an aphelion of 372 AU but it will take over 1000 years from now to get there (Sedna's is 850 AU). Maybe no known comet is currently past 90 AU? Rmhermen 15:21, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Probably both farthest detected object, and currently farthest known? Should we note that in the article and hope that someone who's sure fixes it for us? Comet Halley holds the record distance for a comet observation: 28 AU. Comet Hale-Bopp has an aphelion of 457.583 AU. "aphelion, Comet Hyakutake will be about 800 AU's". "The aphelion (most distant point from the Sun) of a long-period comet may be more than 50,000 astronomical units away." - Jeandré, 2004-03-16t15:42z

Hmm, OK. I thought Hale-Bopp got farther than that. All that talk about the Oort cloud being 50,000 to 100,000 AU away and everything. Anthony DiPierro 15:45, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You must have missed the creation of the "new" and much closer Inner Oort cloud yesterday! I would say Sedna has the furthest detection claim for any object and the furthest perihelion. I am not sure that it is the current furthest known object. It is not clear whether Mike Brown's map of solar system objects' positions includes comets. Rmhermen 15:52, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that's what confused me. If Sedna is only part of the "inner" Oort cloud, how could it be the furthest known object. Either the "outer" Oort cloud is not known, or it's not part of the solar system (apparently it's the former). Anthony DiPierro 16:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yup, no outer Oort cloud objects have been discovered yet. The Oort cloud had only been predicted in theory until Sedna came along and although it looks like the theory may need tweaking, it's still pretty generally accepted. Bryan 17:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Acording to Heavens above, C/1999 LINEAR S4 is currently more than 10 AU from the sun, but has an aphelion of 1 892.19 AU. So while Sedna is the farthest detected TNO, and may currently be the farthest of all known TNOs, LINEAR-S4 will eventually be farther than Sedna. I'm sure there are other comets with even greater aphelions, tho none of them may currently be beyond 90 AU. If a comet was calculated to have most of its orbit outside the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, then Öpik-Oort cloud (which includes both inner (disk roughly on the ecliptic) and outer (the spherical cloud)) objects have been discovered before Sedna, no?. - Jeandré, 2004-03-17t11:09z

Marc W. Buie from Lowell Obs has 2000 OO₆₇ with an aphelion of >1000 AU. Is this the first discovery of a non-comet inner OOCO? - Jeandré, 2004-03-19t09:56z

That objects perihelion is at 20 AU while Sedna is at about 76 AU. I doubt they would be considered in the same class, however stay tuned the definition are still changing. Rmhermen 14:50, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I thought when they said "farthest from the sun," they were refering to average distance, or semi-major axis. However, Sedna's range from 76 to 900 AU [7] will give it a closer average distance than C/1999 LINEAR S4. Another way to check which has farthest average distance is to look at their periods (Kepler's third law $P^{2}\sim a^{3}$ ); whichever has the longer orbital period is further away on average.
Regarding Oort cloud objects, I thought the comets were all part of it? --zandperl 17:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They are theorised to be, but I don't believe any have ever actually been observed 'out there', only in-system. -- Michael Warren 17:09, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Some comets are thought to originate in the Kuiper Belt. Others, with a higher inclination and longer periods, are thought to originate in the Oort cloud. Some, like Halley's comet, which has a high inclination and a short period, could really have originated from either, but was thrown off its original path by later interactions. According to WP, it's came from the Kuiper Belt. Presumably we have observed comets from farther away, but it's hard to give conclusive evidence when the periods are so long. Anthony DiPierro 17:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The idea is that the Kuiper Belt is in line with the plane of the planets, but the Oort cloud is a sphere. But now, according to the new theories (not sure how new), there is an inner oort cloud which extends in a plane to the actual Oort cloud. This part I'm still not sure of exactly what the theory is. I never learned it in my astronomy classes a few years ago. Anthony DiPierro 17:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I never learned it in my astronomy classes a few weeks ago, so I wouldn't think the professionals are quite sure just yet... :) -- Michael Warren 17:30, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Reason to restore photographic image

I feel like with all of the artist's renderings (which may or may not be accurate), we should include at least one *real* picture of the object, and so I've restored the photographic image with Sedna as the tiny dot. It's the most meaningful of all the images present to *me*, and I think it will be to other people as well... - Seth Ilys 03:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't care if the picture is on the article or not, as long as the other 3 are in it. The reason why I removed it is because, to the general public, that image is just a bunch of dots with no particular meaning. Basically, it is something that any artist can produce with Photoshop by using light effects. (regardless if it is an official image) --Maio 03:56, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

In-progress infobox

File:Ssc2004-05b medium.jpg

Artist's concept of Sedna by R. Hurt of NASA / JPL-Caltech.

Orbital characteristics
Orbit type	Trans-Neptunian
Semimajor axis	532 AU
Eccentricity	0.857
Orbital period	±10,500 years
Inclination	12°
Physical characteristics
Diameter	<1800 km
Mass	?×10^? kg
Density	? g/cm³
Rotation period	±960h
Albedo	?
History
Discoverers	C. Trujillo, M. Brown, D. Rabinowitz
Discovery date	November 14, 2003

I moved the image outside of the table so that it can be used as a thumbnail and therefore provide an intuitive link to a larger version. —Michael | Talk 14:40, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

I would personally prefer the discovery image (the 2003-11-14t06:32z photo rather than the one with the circle, since the circle seems to have 2 objects in its centre) above the table until Hubble can give us something more substantial. What arguments are there for the use of the artistic impression at the most prominent position on the page? - Jeandré, 2004-03-17t10:30z

Pics included - query

Are the various artists impressions and photos included here and under Quaoar, etc., not copyright? Has permission for their use on a free access site (from where they can, and will, be lifted by other parties and used without acknowledgement) been granted? - MPF 14:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NASA images are public domain. But JPL-Caltech images aren't necessarily. Was this image made by NASA or JPL-Caltech? Anthony DiPierro 14:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Refer to [8] about the images presented in this article. NASA can't restrict access to the general public, but they can for commercial purposes. —Michael | Talk 14:50, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. Anthony DiPierro 14:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Works for me right now. It was down a few hours ago. —Michael | Talk 15:30, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

OK, it's up. I'll look into it. Asking around on IRC, someone said that while images created with US taxpayer money are public domain, the US government can have copyright transferred to it. But I can't find any direct citations which back any of this up. Anthony DiPierro 15:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Possible moon

This article (BBC) says Sedna might have a moon. WooHoo. --Phil | Talk 16:47, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

See Sedna (astronomical object)#Characteristics - it's already in the article. andy 19:55, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Red planetoid in Oort cloud

I don't see any reference to the red color of the planetoid in this article. I'd add that in myself but I couldn't find a good place for it. Has it been confirmed that Sedna is in the Oort cloud? That seemed to still be in disputed.

- Texture 18:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quote from M. Browns webpage: From observations at the 1.3-m SMARTS telescope in Chile, we do know that Sedna is one of the most red objects in the solar system -- almost as red as Mars. andy 19:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not even confirmed that there is an Oort cloud. The whole thing is currently just theory. Anthony DiPierro 19:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should this be moved to 2003 VB16 now, as that's the official name? Sarge Baldy 13:09, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

No, official name is 2003 VB 12 - see the discussion above why 16 is wrong. But as the name Sedna has been so much promoted by the media moving it to that name would create more confusion. See also the article naming poll above. andy 13:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3515658.stm