From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 09:40:38 MST
avatar wrote,
> Thanks very much for the info Harvey.
>
> However, if "Objects sufficiently outside Neptune's orbit that orbital
> stability is
> reasonably assured for a substantial fraction of the lifetime of the solar
> system are given mythological names associated with creation" where did
> Pluto and
> Charon come from? Probably this rule did not apply when Charon was named?
I don't understand the problem. Pluto and its moon Charon are not outside
the orbit of Neptune. They cross the orbit of Neptune. Therefore they
don't get mythological names associated with creation. They fall under the
rule for "Objects crossing or approaching the orbit of Neptune and in
stabilizing
resonances other than 1:1" which "are given mythological names associated
with the
underworld." This seems to fit Pluto and Charon.
> If consistency had been respected, for example, Ge (Greek form, Roman
> Gaia) - mother of Uranus -
> should have been chosen, rather than Quaoar.
Quaoar is outside the orbit of Neptune, so it gets one of the "mythological
names associated with creation". Quaoar is not considered a planet because
it is in the Kuiper belt with a lot of other similar object. Greek deities
are used for the major planets and the above rules are used for
Trans-Neptunian Objects. The rules were carefully chosen so that "Pluto"
and "Charon" fit the rules for planets and TNOs. They are both Greek
deities and mythological names associated with the Underworld.
I don't see what is inconsistent here.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <http://HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST