Personally - I think it's a great name. It does of course honor Star Trek, which helps to raise awareness and interest in space sciences, which is a good thing. Plus, it you set Star Trek totally asside - Vulcan is Pluto's nephew - so it's also perfectly fitting mythoLOGICALly.

What an insult to the name Vulcan. Vulcan is a PLANET. It's not some piddling little speck of a sixth rate moon. How can you even think it's an honor. It's an INSULT.

I agree with PullMyFinger... the name Vulcan should be reserved for giving to a habitable extrasolar planet, not some bug fart of a moon on a too-small-to-be-a-real-planet like Pluto.

Puffmyfinger, I agree Vulcan is a planet not a tiny moon of a proto planet.

It's a shame to waste the name 'Vulcan' on such an insignificant speck.

I voted for Loki and Hel. Too many Greek and Roman, no Norse.

If anything, Vulcan should be reserved for a planet with similar characteristics as the fictional Vulcan homeworld.

Does anyone else find it ironic that Spock's homeworld doesn't have any moons and now we are naming a moon after Spock's homeworld?

No, but I do find it funny that the controversy revolves around whether or not Pluto's moon is worthy of the name of a fictional planet from a TV show, rather than whether it's appropriate to start naming real-life astral bodies after fictional ones.

That said, I think it's fine as long as they don't call it Coruscant. I don't even think Pluto HAS any cities...

Well, as far as fictional locations go, at least Vulcan bears the name of a Roman god. But, in the big scheme of things, it doesn't have to be Roman or Greek to be allowed. Haumea and Makemake are named for Hawaiian and Rapanuian mythology respectively. Actually, the naming conventions that are used for objects in our solar system is "Fascinating" (Spock).

I love Star Trek and Star Wars, but even I wouldn't want to name anything Coruscant. ...Unless we find a world that is actually one big city. That'd be cool. ...But, I suppose, if that kind of a place already exists then it would stand to reason that it already has a name of its own.

I think you're looking at some old results - Vulcan is WAY out in front, and has almost as many votes as Cerberus and Styx combined. :)

Indeed that was the old results page they've moved it to a less accessible view 8(

Haha. BTW, Cheney is of Norman Fernch origin.

Oops--Norman French.

You lead a very sad life indeed. I pity you.

O.o, says the troll with the snarky comments, pull my finger...

Insufficient data..

In the first episode of Star Trek, Where No Man Has Gone Before, there is a gravestone clearly marked James R. Kirk, but later episodes switched to the familiar T for Tiberius.

Actually, the first episode was "The Cage". And although "Where no Man Has Gone Before" was a redone pilot., it was actually the third episode aired on TV. The first "aired" episode was "The Man Trap".

The fictional Vulcan is now taken to be a world of 40 Eridani, instead...

I don't think so. Wikepedia says:

In the Roman adaptation of the Greek pantheon (see interpretatio romana), Hermes was identified with the Roman god Mercury,

I think you should revisit your definition of a planet. I agree that the so-called "dwarf planets" should be considered planets in their own right but one part of your definition stands out to me.

Why must a planet have at least one satellite?

Do Mercury have a moon? Mercury is smaller than Ganymede and Titan and it has no moon. So is it not a planet anymore??

The distinction between planet and dwarf planet may be arbitrary and unscientific but I don't think it means anyone gets off without having to count them all. Astronomers certainly still count them all, give each object a name or numerical designation and tell everyone else about what they've discovered. That's how the whole mess got started. Mike Brown discovered Eris and... the rest is history. And I've heard there was some "trickeration" about that IAU vote to demote Pluto.

Defining the word planet is a tricky situation though. For example, what do you call a planet that was thrown out of its system and no-longer orbits a star?

Also, was that a Val Kilmer movie reference?

I never said that a planet must have a moon to be a planet. What I said is that if it does have a moon, it MUST be a planet, in case there was doubt due to its small size. Mercury is still a planet even though it lacks a moon. In looking at more distant and smaller bodies and trying to determine if they are a planet or not, the simple test is moon=yes, else, check size to see if it is spheroid, and therefore massive enough to be a planet. If no moon and not spheroid, not a planet.

A planet that was thrown out of its system is a planet of whatever new star it currently orbits. If it orbits none, I would call it an Ejected Planet. The greek meaning 'wanderer' for planet would be especially apt in such a case.

Yes, you got the reference :)

Jerry Hathaway can eat popcorn all day long as far as I care.

You're trying to use the word planet to describe what are clearly planetoids of some type or another. Little balls of rock don't deserve the bigger designation for me - or for most astronomers - because as you said there are hundreds of them in our solar system alone, once you count all of the kiddies way out in the Kuiper Belt and likely at least a few in odd orbits in the Oort Cloud.

If we water down the word planet when referring to our own little solar system, then how do we accurately describe extrasolar planets? Giving all of the tiny planetoids in every other system the name "planet" just does not make sense - only the ones large enough to have at least some real level of surface gravity that you can feel, and of course the gas giants whose real surface is well below the cloud tops deserve the word planet IMO.

"If we water down the word planet when referring to our own little solar system, then how do we accurately describe extrasolar planets?"

You win the prize for the Most Orwellian Comment of the Day.

First of all, it is the new revised definition of planet that is 'watering down' the definition. The 'full strength' version was the prior one. I object to this 'watering down'.

One reason is because, just as you said, how do we properly classify extrasolar planets if we have an arbitrary system at home? We are 'curve fitting' the rules to make them specifically apply to our little system without using a general classification system, such as I advocate. This will cause chaos in time.

Using whether we can 'feel the gravity' or not of a body subjects it to a human standard of measurement. Humanity is not an apt yardstick to use to gauge the physical universe. It's like using imperial measurement instead of metric.

"You win the prize for the Most Orwellian Comment of the Day."

Not in the slightest... applying scientific understanding is about as non-Orwellian as it is possible to be! Newspeak doubleplus ungood!

"First of all, it is the new revised definition of planet that is 'watering down' the definition. The 'full strength' version was the prior one. I object to this 'watering down'."

Well that doesn't make sense unless you're willing to allow all of the KBOs that are larger than Pluto to be called planet as well. The simple fact is that Pluto and those KBOs have not cleared out their orbits, therefore don't deserve to be called planets.

Even an extrasolar large body caught in the midst of the formation process, constantly being bombarded with large quantities of material would be referred to as a protoplanet and not planet proper. Even if it was the size of Jupiter. Nothing controversial about that, so why does Pluto enrage so many people?

I'm not sure how the new definition, based upon more accurate astronomical observations, is watering it down. Just like Families in taxonomy are sometimes shifted around after DNA analysis shows us where they actually belong, sometimes the old original definitions need to adapt to a more complete understanding.

When Pluto was first discovered, of course they called it a planet - but we know so much more about our solar system now than we did then - so why are you so mad that this better understanding caused a reevaluation of what planet meant?

"applying scientific understanding is about as non-Orwellian as it is possible to be!"

I agree with that statement, which is why I object to the new classification system. I believe that the new system does not reflect a truly scientific method, but instead relies upon arbitrary, irrelevant notions. The major problem that most people such as I have with the Pluto situation is precisely that it is NOT scientific, and represents a wholesale dumbing down of an area that is supposed to be invioate and unaffected by the tide of stupidity overwhelming our society.

"that doesn't make sense unless you're willing to allow all of the KBOs that are larger than Pluto to be called planet as well."

I am. Why wouldn't I be? I am also willing to accept KBOs smaller than Pluto, if they meet the other requirements. I don't know why it is so troubling to those of you who oppose my view that there could be many planets. It seems that if the classification regime does not arbitrarily limit the number of planets to a handfull, you guys are simply not ok with it for some unknown reason.

"The simple fact is that Pluto and those KBOs have not cleared out their orbits, therefore don't deserve to be called planets."

What a nonsensical and overly-restrictive factor. I see no logic to your assertion. You are suggesting to me that simply by the fact that another body may occupy nearly the same orbit as some potential planet, even though it may be far away on the other side of the sun, some billions of kms away, that neither object is a planet, irrespective of their sizes and even if they have satellites? Why does it make sense that a planet MUST be the sole heir to all the material in its orbit? I see no reason to mandate that a planet must be either originally created within the star system it now occupies, or that it cleared the entirety of its own orbit. You are referring to factors that determine the number of planets in a system, not whether the bodies in the system are planets or not.

"Even an extrasolar large body caught in the midst of the formation process, constantly being bombarded with large quantities of material would be referred to as a protoplanet and not planet proper. Even if it was the size of Jupiter. Nothing controversial about that, so why does Pluto enrage so many people?"

Apples to Oranges. Neither Pluto nor anything else in our solar system is presently in the protoplanet stage due to the age of our sun. Extrasolar protoplanets in young star systems provide no guidance for classification for mature planets in mature star systems. They are protoplanets.

"I'm not sure how the new definition, based upon more accurate astronomical observations, is watering it down."

The new system is NOT based upon more accurate astronomical observations. Nobody here is arguing about the specific orbits, now known in greater precision than years ago. The increased accuracy of observations is not the issue, and has contributed nothing to the new classification system. The new system is based upon a new overall means of defining a planet. The new means takes into consideration factors which were previously ignored. But they were previously ignored because those factors say NOTHING about whether a body is a planet or not.

A planet is a planet because of its place in the gravity hierarchy. Any body that orbits a star, and possesses at least 1 satellite, and is large enough to hold a spheroid shape due to its own gravity, is a planet. Bodies without satellites which are otherwise large/spheroid enough are also planets, such as Mercury. The only reason why Mercury and Venus lack satellites is because they are so close to the sun.

So we who object to the new system see things as you scientists arbitrarily changing a scientific fact; not due to any new superior information or insight, but for economic reasons and for suspicious 'other' reasons. We are not ludites afraid of change. We see ourselves as objecting to clearly arbitrary Orwellian Reality Engineering, and we feel that this Pluto demotion issue is an early, supposedly harmless test case so as to see if people will object to reality being changed arbitrarily or not. That surely sounds bizarre to some people. But you did ask WHY so many people are so emotionally vested in this issue. It is because we see this as a test case for what is to come in the future.

I have no problem when people tell me about Quantum Mechanics in overthrowing my Newtonian view of the world. I have no problem with change. But the change must be correct change, accomplished by the correct means, and to serve a correct aim.

How does the new classification system clarify anything? I don't believe it does. I believe it provides a lot of wiggle room for personal judgment, and does not key upon the proper factors, while including irrelevant factors.

What a long winded rant without any real meat.

You're trying to say that minor bodies so far out from their star that they have only tenuous atmospheres during part of their orbits, and those so far out that they NEVER have an atmosphere deserve to be called planet just due to being round, and you don't see how silly that is?

Sorry, no convincing people like you that the world is round. You rail against the Jerry Hathaways at the same time that you act more irrationally than they do, especially with your comments "but for economic reasons and for suspicious 'other' reasons" and "we feel that this Pluto demotion issue is an early, supposedly harmless test case so as to see if people will object to reality being changed arbitrarily or not". That's a real hoot.

Reality hasn't changed, but our understanding of it has. Terminology updates DO happen when this occurs. When Einstein's theories became accepted, terms like "ether" went away. You clearly act like you would have been one of the ones denying Einstein simply because it required you to reevaluate your place in the universe. And you called me Orwellian!!! Too funny.

"You're trying to say that minor bodies so far out from their star that they have only tenuous atmospheres during part of their orbits, and those so far out that they NEVER have an atmosphere deserve to be called planet just due to being round, and you don't see how silly that is?"

Where did you get the idea that ANY of these factors determine whether an object is a planet or not? And why do you assume that your nonsensical reasoning is somehow 'self-evident'? And if it is so obvious, why can't your provide ANY explanation of why it is obvious?

And your tactics are crude. Lots of ad hominems and Straw Men in your arguments, because you have no arguments.

You accuse me of having no 'meat' to my comments, but at least I have a point of view which is fully explained and which is self-consistent. I see no content other than insult in you last post whatsoever.

I know you think that it is funny for people to be concerned about the world or to have any concerns whatever. After all, everthing is 100% ok on planet earth and it would be 'silly' and 'irrational' to have any suspicions or concerns whatsoever. We all should simply believe whatever authorities tell us. Any other course of action would be unthinking and contrary to the group will, which you seem to accept so readily.

You are obtuse turned to 11. I can accept you not agreeing with me, but you won't even recognize that I object to FAULTY SCIENCE, not SCIENCE. My claim is that the new system is faulty science. You don't refute that point at all. You just keep repeating the same party line over and over. And then you add the insulting strawmen to your 'argument' and all I can see is a fully-overcome mind without a shred of personal perspective, drawing all your views from group consensus.



In a fitting irony, it is you who do not see that all insights occur to individuals and small groups before they become widely accepted by the whole public. Yet my concerns, being minority concerns, are automatically considered to be garbage by you simply because of their minority status. You commit the same offense you accuse me of in not accepting changing conditions in the scientific realm, yet you cannot see your own hypocrisy in the political/social realm. Pathetic.

"And your tactics are crude. Lots of ad hominems and Straw Men in your arguments, because you have no arguments."

You keep telling yourself that while you rant and rave like a spoiled baby (who forgets that he called me Orwellian - a VERY dirty word - for simply trusting the opinion of those who spend their lives on this particular subject) and try to use the word planet for every round bug fart in the universe.

You're not convincing anybody but yourself. Make some popcorn Jerry!