Talk:Pluto

Small moons

I was wondering about the following sentence in the Nix and Hydra section: "With 90% confidence, no additional moons larger than 12 km (or a maximum of 37 km with an albedo of 0.041) exist beyond the glare of Pluto 5 arcseconds from the dwarf planet." This comes from a study done in 2006. Just below it is a small section on S/2011 P 1, which was discovered in 2011 and is expected to be larger than the abovementioned value. Now, I know this has something to do with the 'with 90% confidence' or with any of the specifics only outlined in the ref itself. It must, however, look very curious to the average reader who reads this and then about S/2011 P 1. Furthermore, I have my doubts about the usefulness of stating this (here). Thoughts? --JorisvS (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that we now know of even two moons "contradicting" that statement, I would remove it as outdated/disproved information, and to not confuse the readers. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. --JorisvS (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Small tweak

"...This pattern is configured so that, in each 500-year cycle..."

It wasn't configured. It is so. In much the same way Earth wasn't designed for humans by a deity but just happens to be suitable.

I'd re-write that as "This pattern is such that, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.24.19 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Pluto's artistic impression

Hello there, I've created two images based on Hubble Space Telescope's images to illustrate a realistic vision of Pluto, should it be added to the main article? The images are File:Artist's impression dwarf planet Pluto, albedo.png and File:Artist's impression dwarf planet Pluto.png.

Sorry, but there's no real reason to add them: the HST image is as good as we can currently get, and unlike for the dwarf planets that are entirely points of light, it is a close visual representation (I say 'close' since it can do the main albedo features but not sharp edges) of Pluto. I feel that's an important distinction. Iridia (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I support adding one of the images (I'd prefer the first) to the main article (not the lede/infobox, of course), given that the HST images are low-resolution and don't look like "real" photographic images because of the massive digital reprocessing. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I also think that, while I usually don't favor original artwork, etc, that in this case there is a demonstrable reason to include it based on the existing image's quality. However, if an official version was available, I'd say these get jettisoned pretty quick. I agree in specifics with Roentgenium111.204.65.34.34 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons has other official high resolution images such as File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-b90.jpg that are also not used in the article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Alignment problem

Someone needs to fix the center alignment at the bottom, looks very messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.23 (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, but not sure what in the prev edit, the diff here[1], caused the problem. I fixed it by editing the June 24 version and manually adding in the text changes made by Serendipodous. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok this is apparently one of those strange things that happens every now and then. Now the June 26 version by Serendipodous appears normal with no unwanted centered headings or text. A glitch somewhere?...really weird. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifth moon

Alan Stern announced a fifth moon on twitter 11 July 2012. -- Kheider (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder why the system has so many small moons in contrast to Earth's system, since both formed presumably in the same way, by a grand collision... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple. The further you are from the Sun, the larger your Sphere of influence will be. Pluto has a larger hill sphere than Earth. This is also why Neptune should have more trojans than Jupiter. -- Kheider (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a possible explanation; however, Pluto's system takes up less than a percent of its Hill sphere, and enlarging the system till Charon's distance becomes that of Earth's Moon would still put most of Pluto's moons inside Earth's Hill sphere. But maybe they were further off upon creation... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

IAU Circular 9253 now available: S/2012(134340)1 is 10-25 km in diameter. Iridia (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So why are we referring to it under a designation ("S/2012 P 1") that apparently no-one is using? All the references seem to be using either "S/2012 (134340) 1" or "P5". 46.126.76.193 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

134340 is pluto's minor planet catalog number. P is also acceptable as a shorthand for Pluto. Both names are therefore correct.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless the designation can be demonstrated to be in actual use in reliable sources, it is just a made-up extrapolation of a nomenclature system. (And a nomenclature system that is no longer officially sanctioned since the demotion of Pluto by the IAU). 46.126.76.193 (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The proper name is "S/2012 (134340) 1" since Pluto is not a planet. But I guess Wikipedia is using the P as an improper throwback to when Pluto was a planet. -- Kheider (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is it would seem that none of the referenced sources is using this (including those on the S/2012 P 1 article). This contrasts with S/2011 (134340) 1, which was at least referred to as "S/2011 P 1" at the time (thus providing at least some justification for using the name). This time we've gone and made up a designation, and made-up designations should not be used. I recommend picking one of the naming conventions that can be backed up with references showing it is in use, either P4 and P5 or S/2011 (134340) 1 and S/2012 (134340) 1, my preference being the latter. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in mass estimates

The statement "In 1955 Pluto was calculated to be roughly the mass of the Earth, with further calculations in 1971 bringing the mass down to roughly that of Mars" seems incompatible with the data in the "Mass estimates for Pluto" table. 86.179.2.60 (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a real problem. Before 1978, the mass estimates for Pluto were all wrong guesses. Even the mass of Neptune was not preciously known until the 1989 Voyager 2 flyby. -- Kheider (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The article states that the mass estimate was "revised downward throughout the 20th century". But the statement above would imply an increase in the mass estimate from 1948 (0.1 Earths) to 1955 (roughly 1 Earth). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a problem because the figures given in the two places are presented as if they were state-of-the-art estimates of their day (even though wrong), and yet they are wildly incompatible. 86.179.4.226 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a general downward trend from the original estimate of a planet several times more massive than the Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked the source. Croswell doesn't actually say who made those estimates, so I think it's better to just use list's sources, since they are fully accredited. Serendi^podous 07:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Rotation < Rotation and orbit

the sub-section labeled "Rotation" is a small paragraph and should be moved to the top of the section rather than being given its own header. It seems silly to have "Rotation" a sub-section of itself.

-no one of consequence Ltnemo2000 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Orbital period of Pluto and moons

The table "Pluto and its satellites, with Earth's Moon comparison" contains orbital periods of Pluto's satellites around the system's barycentre, but in the case of Pluto itself there is its orbital period around the Sun. I think this is quite misleading. Its orbital period around the barycenter should be written here as well. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've fixed it here and at moons of Pluto. --JorisvS (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2012

Please change "Mark Showalter" to Mark R. Showalter JavautilRandom (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Kheider (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 2012-08-14

Hello, could someone remove the "S/2012 P 1" designation from the table of moons in the Near Resonances section as this designation was not actually used in reliable sources. The article itself has recently been moved after a move request to S/2012 (134340) 1 (similarly for S/2011 P 1 to S/2011 (134340) 1). 46.126.76.193 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)