 |
| A photo of Pluto from the New Horizons mission in July |
1. “To Pluto,” Nature 522 (04 June 2015): 6, accessed September 24, 2015
doi: 10.1038/522006b
The commentator in this nature editorial state a number of facts that lead to a “how did the ‘planet’ of pluto form” discussion. They reference another study published by nature that used Hubble Space Telescope images to study Pluto’s moons, which returned with photos of an inconsistent surface of Pluto and its moons, raising questions about how the quaternary system of Pluto formed. The editorial explains dwarf planet’s uniqueness in its formation as well as in its orbital tendencies, having 3 moons spin around a relativity low center of mass. Overall, the op-ed discusses why Pluto deserves to be studied more closely.
2. “Pluto, here we come, whatever you are” The Los Angeles Daily News, January 29, 2015, accessed September 24, 2015
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20150129/pluto-here-we-come-whatever-you-are-editorial
The author argues the importance of the New Horizons mission, which included NASA sending an unmanned, 200 watt vehicle to take photos of the icy pseudo planet. This is the first real mission to specifically explore pluto and it strange moons. Many other missions were axed in the 90s as a result of budget cuts. He points out the irony in CalTech running the mission which was essentially the same entity that stripped Pluto of its official planetary status. The piece doesn’t take a stance directly on the issue of whether Pluto is a planet or not, but they mention both sides. (Proponents of planetary status - it’s a large enough object. Proponents of dwarf status - it’s a big asteroid with a bunch of little asteroids around it. The articles main point is to highlight the significance of the mission.
3. Stuart Clark, “Of course Pluto Deserves to be a Planet. Size isn’t Everything,” The Guardian, July 15, 2015, accessed September 24, 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/15/pluto-planet-size-nasa-new-horizons
The author, Stuart Clark, argues that Pluto is a planet since size isn’t a reason to demote its status. Again, the article focuses on the New Horizons mission, in which he comically points out, was launched in 2006 to study Pluto and was supposed to take 9 years to reach the planet. The voyage took 9 years, but arrived this past July to a dwarf planet, as the International Astronomers Union demoted the very thing they had set out to study from full planetary status in 2007. The article cites how the requirement of pluto to clear its trajectory (to orbit freely without running into other objects) makes little sense since Jupiter orbits with 25+ moons. The article preaches the notion that denying pluto its planetary status would be “also to deny the cultural history if astronomy” and would just be ignorant in general.
4. “NASA’s New horizons opens up a great future of space exploration,” Deseret News, August 1, 2015, accessed September 24, 2015
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633652/NASAs-New-Horizons-opens-up-a-great-future-of-space-exploration.html?pg=all
This editorial by an unnamed commentator argues the significance of the technical side of the New Horizons Mission. The author describes the difficulty inherent in the act of shooting a probe smaller than your car at a target over 3 billion miles away. The article focuses on the impressiveness of the scientists to be able to accomplish such a feat with 2006 era technology. Now that we are collecting the fruits of our labors over 9 years later, the article cites this as a precursor to what we will be able to accomplish in another 10 years. The main idea of this article is that nothing is out of reach in our solar system now, attempting to debunk theories that trivialize space exploration and brush out previous accomplishments off as cold war propaganda. In a side bar at the bottom, the author quickly mentions how pluto should be a planet essentially just off principle since the article provided no evidence to support this claim.
5. “Pluto, up close, will always be a planet,” cleveland.com, July 25,2015, accessed September 24, 2015
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/pluto_will_always_be_a_planet.html
In contrast to its name and the other sources here, the editorial board of cleveland.com didn’t push the issue of pluto planetary status. The editorial recognized the existence of the Kuiper Belt (the astronomically large asteroid belt that Pluto sits in the middle of, and is the reason of the debate over its planetary status) as a reason Pluto would not be considered a planet — the same issue in source 3, but with a different opinion. The OpEd links out to other sources that discuss the same issue about how Pluto has yet to sufficiently clear its trajectory, and probably never will. They expand on the logic that if Pluto is considered a planet, then many other obscure but equally qualified objects in the Kuiper belt would have to be considered for planetary status as well, and if Pluto got special treatment for being Pluto, then thats illogical.
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20150129/pluto-here-we-come-whatever-you-are-editorial
The author argues the importance of the New Horizons mission, which included NASA sending an unmanned, 200 watt vehicle to take photos of the icy pseudo planet. This is the first real mission to specifically explore pluto and it strange moons. Many other missions were axed in the 90s as a result of budget cuts. He points out the irony in CalTech running the mission which was essentially the same entity that stripped Pluto of its official planetary status. The piece doesn’t take a stance directly on the issue of whether Pluto is a planet or not, but they mention both sides. (Proponents of planetary status - it’s a large enough object. Proponents of dwarf status - it’s a big asteroid with a bunch of little asteroids around it. The articles main point is to highlight the significance of the mission.
3. Stuart Clark, “Of course Pluto Deserves to be a Planet. Size isn’t Everything,” The Guardian, July 15, 2015, accessed September 24, 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/15/pluto-planet-size-nasa-new-horizons
The author, Stuart Clark, argues that Pluto is a planet since size isn’t a reason to demote its status. Again, the article focuses on the New Horizons mission, in which he comically points out, was launched in 2006 to study Pluto and was supposed to take 9 years to reach the planet. The voyage took 9 years, but arrived this past July to a dwarf planet, as the International Astronomers Union demoted the very thing they had set out to study from full planetary status in 2007. The article cites how the requirement of pluto to clear its trajectory (to orbit freely without running into other objects) makes little sense since Jupiter orbits with 25+ moons. The article preaches the notion that denying pluto its planetary status would be “also to deny the cultural history if astronomy” and would just be ignorant in general.
4. “NASA’s New horizons opens up a great future of space exploration,” Deseret News, August 1, 2015, accessed September 24, 2015
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633652/NASAs-New-Horizons-opens-up-a-great-future-of-space-exploration.html?pg=all
This editorial by an unnamed commentator argues the significance of the technical side of the New Horizons Mission. The author describes the difficulty inherent in the act of shooting a probe smaller than your car at a target over 3 billion miles away. The article focuses on the impressiveness of the scientists to be able to accomplish such a feat with 2006 era technology. Now that we are collecting the fruits of our labors over 9 years later, the article cites this as a precursor to what we will be able to accomplish in another 10 years. The main idea of this article is that nothing is out of reach in our solar system now, attempting to debunk theories that trivialize space exploration and brush out previous accomplishments off as cold war propaganda. In a side bar at the bottom, the author quickly mentions how pluto should be a planet essentially just off principle since the article provided no evidence to support this claim.
5. “Pluto, up close, will always be a planet,” cleveland.com, July 25,2015, accessed September 24, 2015
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/pluto_will_always_be_a_planet.html
In contrast to its name and the other sources here, the editorial board of cleveland.com didn’t push the issue of pluto planetary status. The editorial recognized the existence of the Kuiper Belt (the astronomically large asteroid belt that Pluto sits in the middle of, and is the reason of the debate over its planetary status) as a reason Pluto would not be considered a planet — the same issue in source 3, but with a different opinion. The OpEd links out to other sources that discuss the same issue about how Pluto has yet to sufficiently clear its trajectory, and probably never will. They expand on the logic that if Pluto is considered a planet, then many other obscure but equally qualified objects in the Kuiper belt would have to be considered for planetary status as well, and if Pluto got special treatment for being Pluto, then thats illogical.
No comments:
Post a Comment