
New details about planet 2007 OR10, third largest dwarf planet in solar system - curtis
http://gizmodo.com/a-huge-unnamed-dwarf-planet-almost-the-size-of-pluto-1776287457
======
Mithaldu
Its orbit in relation to other far out planets:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/2007OR10...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/2007OR10-orbit.png)

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
Thanks, that's the context that we need. It seems rather odd that someone
could write a whole article without going into _where_ "in Our Solar System"
this body orbits.

Obviously it's not going to be in the inner solar system, but it seems odd not
to even mention the basic comparisons to e.g. the orbits of Pluto or Eris.

Summary: It is out past Neptune, has a similar kind of orbit to Eris.

~~~
SerLava
Odd but not too rare, unfortunately. I've seen countless articles _about the
contents of a photograph or piece of art_ that did not include an image of any
type. Puzzling.

~~~
anonymfus
_> about the contents of a photograph or piece of art_

That often happens because of copyrights.

~~~
nsxwolf
How can that be? That sounds like the most uncontroversial example of fair
use.

~~~
desdiv
Fair use doesn't apply everywhere in the world.

>Fair use is a legal doctrine only in the United States.[0]

In the UK, for example, their fair dealing exception is only for " _non-
commercial_ research or study, criticism or review". [1]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom_law)

~~~
sandebert
The term "fair use" seems to only exist in the United States, but the same
concept exists in more places. Such as Sweden, for instance, where it's called
"skäligt bruk".

[https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)

------
fernly
I am baffled by the article's frequent use of the word Kepler. The first
mention is correct: "New planets are uncovered all the time, thanks to Kepler.
In fact, the mission just unearthed a stash of more than 1,200 new exoplanets,
bringing its total haul to over 3,200."

This refers to the Kepler Mission[1] which points to a fixed spot in
interstellar space and finds exoplanets. But that mission has NOTHING to do
with our solar system. It isn't pointed anywhere near the solar ecliptic and
couldn't see a local planet if it was.

So when it says "That lack of reflective light made it hard for Kepler to even
spot the planet" it is being ignorantly misleading, and when it says "although
Kepler managed to catch brief glimpse in 2014" it is just wrong. "the Konkoly
researchers hadn’t thought to pair NASA Kepler data with ESA Herschel data"
\-- for very good reason, Kepler data would be completely irrelevant.
"information about the amount of light the planet was reflecting from
Kepler..." again, completely impossible and wrong.

The byline is Ria Misra, clearly a person who should not be allowed to write
about astronomy anytime soon.

[1] [http://kepler.nasa.gov/](http://kepler.nasa.gov/)

~~~
the8472
The abstract of the paper[0] clearly says

> We combined optical light curves provided by the Kepler Space Telescope–K2
> extended mission and thermal infrared data provided by the Herschel Space
> Observatory.

Kepler hasn't been staring at the same patch of stars for a while now[1]

[0]
[http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/5/11...](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/5/117/)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)#Second_Lig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_\(spacecraft\)#Second_Light_.28K2.29)

~~~
fernly
Thank you. It appears I was wrong.

------
mbell
This was discovered in 2007 and thought to be a dwarf planet even then. The
new information here is a more accurate estimate of it's size that moves it
from 5th largest to 3rd largest dwarf planet. The title is click bait.

~~~
dang
Ok, we changed the title to a representative phrase from the article.

------
GFK_of_xmaspast
It's original discoverer, Mike Brown, wrote a few blog posts about this object
back in 2011 that are worth reading:
[http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2011/08/redemption-of-
snow-...](http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2011/08/redemption-of-snow-white-
part-1.html)

------
GFK_of_xmaspast
Here's the actual paper:
[http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03090](http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03090)

------
akkartik
Sigh, not Planet X: [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/feature-
astronomers-s...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/feature-astronomers-
say-neptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system)

~~~
LogicFailsMe
I'm hoping for planet McPlanetface myself...

~~~
senorsmile
Not dwarfy mcdwarfface?

------
DarkTree
Perhaps one of the more interesting things in this article was the depiction
of Haumea [0]. I had no clue planets could have an elliptical shape. Pretty
cool. Apparently it hasn't been directly observed, but it's shape has been
calculated from its "light curve".

[0]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea))

~~~
abstrakraft
>> I had no clue planets could have an elliptical shape.

They can't, as one of the defining characteristics of a planet is having
enough mass to be rounded under it's own gravity. Dwarf planets have no such
restriction.

~~~
gnoway
Earth is elliptical - an oblate spheroid - so I would say they can.

~~~
bronson
Yes, the Earth is an oblate spheroid rounded by its own gravity. Despite your
tone, you seem to be agreeing.

------
charlesdenault
The massive distances between celestial objects is somewhat beyond human
comprehension. The scale of these objects and their orbits is so very
different from the scales we encounter on a daily basis. The fact that these
bodies can still be discovered proves we know so little about our own cosmic
backyard, let alone the intricacies of spacetime.

~~~
egjerlow
Although I agree with you that it's in some ways amazing that we can, e.g.
spot planets in solar systems hundreds of light-years away and still have
discoveries like this one in our own 'backyard', I'd say that the intricacies
of spacetime is a rather different issue which is not correlated with our lack
of understanding of our own cosmic backyard, except for the fact that both are
'astrophysical' phenomena (spacetime is more GR, but bear with me).

What I mean is that the intricacies of spacetime is something that can be
mathematically formulated, tested, and 'known' in a whole different way than
how many objects reside in our solar system. It's kind of analogous to saying
that not knowing how many species there are on earth means we don't understand
how natural selection works.

------
Negative1
"A dwarf planet", not "An". Also, too many commas and no need to capitalize
every word.

Grammar, FTW.

~~~
Hupriene
Re: the commas, see the Free Modifier example from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma#Parenthetical_phrases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma#Parenthetical_phrases)

The commas are not ideal, but neither are they ungrammatical.

------
cdelsolar
That's an pretty surprising finding.

------
knieveltech
If the naming gets crowdsourced we all know how that ends. Ladies and
Gentlemen, I would like to present Rocky McPlanetFace.

~~~
x5n1
Planetey McPlanetFace you pleb. ;)

~~~
knieveltech
Oh please. Thingy McThingFace was so 2015:

[http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/zimmerman-gun-sale-
hijacke...](http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/zimmerman-gun-sale-hijacked-
racist)

