the numerical line. . .

Space/Science » in reply to Re: I think we should stop calling them Moons

Justin Kelly — 5/18/2002 11:32:49 AM (archived)

I would think that it should be pretty high, right where the objects gravity starts to form itself into a sphere, which would count out the majority of those pesky little rocks (also would make Phobos and Deimos no longer moons). At least then it would'nt be an arbitrary number.

-Justin Kelly

The whole thread (17 posts)

Jupiter has 11 new moons (or has captured 11 asteroids *g*). - Marcia - 5/17/2002 9:28:01 AM
- Retrograde moons and gravity - Bowser - 5/18/2002 4:42:07 PM
  - Re: Retrograde moons and gravity - RobVG - 5/18/2002 7:14:41 PM
    - Just the Opposite - Justin Kelly - 5/18/2002 11:39:14 AM
      - Thanks Justin - RobVG - 5/18/2002 3:15:04 PM
        
        Yes - Justin Kelly - 5/19/2002 5:32:37 PM
- I think we should stop calling them Moons - Justin Kelly - 5/17/2002 12:35:38 PM
  - Re: I think we should stop calling them Moons - Tom Brosz - 5/17/2002 4:39:32 PM
    - Re: I think we should stop calling them Moons - p - 5/18/2002 5:23:10 PM
      - Is Pluto a planet? - Tom Brosz - 5/18/2002 6:33:50 PM
        
        Re:Discoveries - Raoul - 5/18/2002 7:11:51 PM
        
        Pluto is Bigger Than Ceres - Mark Eby - 5/19/2002 2:25:30 PM
        
        Re: Re:Discoveries - Raoul - 5/18/2002 7:14:19 PM
        
        Define planets by size, not orbit - Buck Galaxy - 5/19/2002 5:48:05 PM
        
        Good point. Asteroids an obvious exception. (n/t) (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/18/2002 11:49:19 AM
      - the numerical line. . . - Justin Kelly - 5/18/2002 11:32:49 AM
        
        I like it. If it ain't round, it aint a moon (nt) (n/t) - FrankC - 5/18/2002 3:12:35 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (17 posts)