Last night's one-day-old Moon photographed a half-hour after sunset. Details: handheld camera ISO 400, f/2.8, 1/15". Credit: Bob King
Tonight the thin, 2-day-old crescent Moon will join Venus and Mars in the western sky at dusk for one of the most striking conjunctions of the year. The otherworldly trio will fit neatly with a circle about 1.5° wide or just three times the diameter of the full moon. No question, this will catch a lot of eyes around the world. Why not take a picture and share it with your friends? Here are a few tips to do just that.
Moon, Mars and Venus around 6:45 p.m. (CST) on Feb. 20 in the western sky. Be sure to look for the darkly-lit part of the moon illuminated by sunlight reflecting off Earth called earthshine. Source: Stellarium, author
You won’t need much for an easy snapshot. In bright twilight, point your mobile phone toward the Moon and tap off a few shots, taking care not to touch the screen too hard lest you shake the phone and blur the image. The phone’s autoexposure and autofocus settings should be adequate to capture both the Moon and Venus. Mars is fainter and may only show if you can steady your phone against something to allow for a longer exposure without blurring. Assuming you use your phone in its default wide view, the Moon, Venus and Mars will form a tight, small group in a larger scene.
Last night, Feb. 19, Venus and Mars were 1°apart. Tonight they’ll be even closer at just over 1/2° with the Moon about 1° to their right. Details: 65 minutes after sunset (mid-twilight), camera on tripod, 35mm lens at f/2.8, ISO 400 and 6 second exposure. Credit: Bob King
Phones provide the highest resolution in their wide setting. If you zoom in, the Moon will be bigger but resolution or sharpness will suffer. Someday phones will be as good as digital single lens reflex cameras (DSLRs) but until then, you’ll need one of these or their cousins, the point-and-shoot cameras, to get the best images of astronomical objects.
You’ll also need a tripod to keep the camera still and stable during the longer exposures you’ll need during the optimum time for photography which begins about 30 minutes after sunset. That’s when your photos will capture all three objects without overexposing the Moon and making it look washed-out. Ideally, you want to see the bright crescent contrasting with the dim glow of the earthshine.
Venus and Mars photographed in mid-twilight with a 100mm telephoto lens at f/2.8. To prevent trailing of the planets, I cut the exposure in half to 4 seconds and increased the camera’s ISO to 800. Credit: Bob King
Lucky for us, the Moon’s sharp form makes an ideal target for the camera’s autofocus. Frame an attractive landscape or ask a friend to stand in the foreground. Set your lens to its widest open setting (usually f/2.8-3.5) and the ISO (your camera’s sensitivity to light) to 800. The higher the ISO, the shorter the exposure you can use to capture an image, but high ISOs introduce unwanted noise and graininess. 800’s a good compromise. If you can manually set your exposure, start at 4 seconds.
Compose your photo and then focus on the Moon and gently press the shutter button. Check the image on the back screen. Are you on target or is it too dark? If so, double the time. If too bright, half it. As the sky gets darker, you’ll need to gradually increase your exposure. That’s when the Moon will start to wash out and the beautiful deep blue sky turn black or the color of your local light pollution. Around here, that’s pinkish-orange. I’ve got lots of orange sky photos to prove it!
Mercury and the Moon on Jan. 31, 2014. Besides finding a scene you like, the key to good photos in twilight is balancing the different types of lighting – dusk, the sunlit crescent, the earth-lit outline and the planets. Shoot pictures at a variety of exposures starting about 35 minutes after sunset when the western sky is still aglow but the Moon is bright and obvious. Credit: Bob King
All told, you can use a mobile phone to shoot from about 25-40 minutes after sunset and a DSLR from 25 minutes to 75 minutes after. If you’re shooting with a standard 24-35mm lens, keep your exposures under 20 seconds or the Moon and planets will start to streak or trail. The Rule of 500 is a great way to remember how long a time exposure you can make with any lens before celestial objects start trailing. So, 500/24mm = 20.8 seconds and 500/200mm (telephoto) = 2.5 seconds. That means if you plan to shoot the conjunction with a longer lens, you’ll need to up your ISO to 1600 or even 3200 in late twilight to get a tack-sharp, motionless photo.
I screwed this photo up of the Moon, Jupiter and Mars by overexposing the sunlit crescent. It’s all part of learning the ropes, a task made much easier nowadays by simply checking the view screen of your camera and trying a different exposure. Credit: Bob King
Telephoto images are a bit more challenging, but they increase the size of the pretty trio within the scene. When shooting telephoto images (even wide ones if you’re fussy), shoot them on self-timer. That’s the setting everyone used before the selfie took the world by storm. Most timers are pre-set to 10 seconds. You press it and the camera counts down 10 seconds before automatically tripping the shutter, allowing you time to put yourself in a group photo.
In astrophotography, using the self-timer assures you’re going to get a vibration-free photo. If it’s cold out and you’re shooting with a telephoto, vibration from your finger pressing the shutter button can jiggle the image.
Good luck tonight and clear skies! If you have any questions, please ask.
Cosmologists are intellectual time travelers. Looking back over billions of years, these scientists are able to trace the evolution of our Universe in astonishing detail. 13.8 billion years ago, the Big Bang occurred. Fractions of a second later, the fledgling Universe expanded exponentially during an incredibly brief period of time called inflation. Over the ensuing eons, our cosmos has grown to such an enormous size that we can no longer see the other side of it.
But how can this be? If light’s velocity marks a cosmic speed limit, how can there possibly be regions of spacetime whose photons are forever out of our reach? And even if there are, how do we know that they exist at all?
The Expanding Universe
Like everything else in physics, our Universe strives to exist in the lowest possible energy state possible. But around 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang, inflationary cosmologists believe that the cosmos found itself resting instead at a “false vacuum energy” – a low-point that wasn’t really a low-point. Seeking the true nadir of vacuum energy, over a minute fraction of a moment, the Universe is thought to have ballooned by a factor of 1050.
Since that time, our Universe has continued to expand, but at a much slower pace. We see evidence of this expansion in the light from distant objects. As photons emitted by a star or galaxy propagate across the Universe, the stretching of space causes them to lose energy. Once the photons reach us, their wavelengths have been redshifted in accordance with the distance they have traveled.
Two sources of redshift: Doppler and cosmological expansion; modeled after Koupelis & Kuhn. Bottom: Detectors catch the light that is emitted by a central star. This light is stretched, or redshifted, as space expands in between. Credit: Brews Ohare.
This is why cosmologists speak of redshift as a function of distance in both space and time. The light from these distant objects has been traveling for so long that, when we finally see it, we are seeing the objects as they were billions of years ago.
The Hubble Volume
Redshifted light allows us to see objects like galaxies as they existed in the distant past; but we cannot see all events that occurred in our Universe during its history. Because our cosmos is expanding, the light from some objects is simply too far away for us ever to see.
The physics of that boundary rely, in part, on a chunk of surrounding spacetime called the Hubble volume. Here on Earth, we define the Hubble volume by measuring something called the Hubble parameter (H0), a value that relates the apparent recession speed of distant objects to their redshift. It was first calculated in 1929, when Edwin Hubble discovered that faraway galaxies appeared to be moving away from us at a rate that was proportional to the redshift of their light.
Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble’s law. Credit: Brews Ohare
Dividing the speed of light by H0, we get the Hubble volume. This spherical bubble encloses a region where all objects move away from a central observer at speeds less than the speed of light. Correspondingly, all objects outside of the Hubble volume move away from the center faster than the speed of light.
Yes, “faster than the speed of light.” How is this possible?
The Magic of Relativity
The answer has to do with the difference between special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity requires what is called an “inertial reference frame” – more simply, a backdrop. According to this theory, the speed of light is the same when compared in all inertial reference frames. Whether an observer is sitting still on a park bench on planet Earth or zooming past Neptune in a futuristic high-velocity rocketship, the speed of light is always the same. A photon always travels away from the observer at 300,000,000 meters per second, and he or she will never catch up.
General relativity, however, describes the fabric of spacetime itself. In this theory, there is no inertial reference frame. Spacetime is not expanding with respect to anything outside of itself, so the the speed of light as a limit on its velocity doesn’t apply. Yes, galaxies outside of our Hubble sphere are receding from us faster than the speed of light. But the galaxies themselves aren’t breaking any cosmic speed limits. To an observer within one of those galaxies, nothing violates special relativity at all. It is the space in between us and those galaxies that is rapidly proliferating and stretching exponentially.
The Observable Universe
Now for the next bombshell: The Hubble volume is not the same thing as the observable Universe.
To understand this, consider that as the Universe gets older, distant light has more time to reach our detectors here on Earth. We can see objects that have accelerated beyond our current Hubble volume because the light we see today was emitted when they were within it.
Strictly speaking, our observable Universe coincides with something called the particle horizon. The particle horizon marks the distance to the farthest light that we can possibly see at this moment in time – photons that have had enough time to either remain within, or catch up to, our gently expanding Hubble sphere.
And just what is this distance? A little more than 46 billion light years in every direction – giving our observable Universe a diameter of approximately 93 billion light years, or more than 500 billion trillion miles.
The observable universe, more technically known as the particle horizon.
(A quick note: the particle horizon is not the same thing as the cosmological event horizon. The particle horizon encompasses all the events in the past that we can currently see. The cosmological event horizon, on the other hand, defines a distance within which a future observer will be able to see the then-ancient light our little corner of spacetime is emitting today.
In other words, the particle horizon deals with the distance to past objects whose ancient light that we can see today; the cosmological event horizon deals with the distance that our present-day light that will be able to travel as faraway regions of the Universe accelerate away from us.)
Dark Energy
Thanks to the expansion of the Universe, there are regions of the cosmos that we will never see, even if we could wait an infinite amount of time for their light to reach us. But what about those areas just beyond the reaches of our present-day Hubble volume? If that sphere is also expanding, will we ever be able to see those boundary objects?
This depends on which region is expanding faster – the Hubble volume or the parts of the Universe just outside of it. And the answer to that question depends on two things: 1) whether H0 is increasing or decreasing, and 2) whether the Universe is accelerating or decelerating. These two rates are intimately related, but they are not the same.
In fact, cosmologists believe that we are actually living at a time when H0 is decreasing; but because of dark energy, the velocity of the Universe’s expansion is increasing.
That may sound counterintuitive, but as long as H0 decreases at a slower rate than that at which the Universe’s expansion velocity is increasing, the overall movement of galaxies away from us still occurs at an accelerated pace. And at this moment in time, cosmologists believe that the Universe’s expansion will outpace the more modest growth of the Hubble volume.
So even though our Hubble volume is expanding, the influence of dark energy appears to provide a hard limit to the ever-increasing observable Universe.
Our Earthly Limitations
Cosmologists seem to have a good handle on deep questions like what our observable Universe will someday look like and how the expansion of the cosmos will change. But ultimately, scientists can only theorize the answers to questions about the future based on their present-day understanding of the Universe. Cosmological timescales are so unimaginably long that it is impossible to say much of anything concrete about how the Universe will behave in the future. Today’s models fit the current data remarkably well, but the truth is that none of us will live long enough to see whether the predictions truly match all of the outcomes.
Disappointing? Sure. But totally worth the effort to help our puny brains consider such mind-bloggling science – a reality that, as usual, is just plain stranger than fiction.
False color radar topographical map of Venus provided by Magellan. Credit: Magellan Team/JPL/NASA
Venus was once considered a twin to Earth, as it’s roughly the same size and is relatively close to our planet. But once astronomers looked at it seriously in the past half-century or so, a lot of contrasts emerged. The biggest one — Venus is actually a hothouse planet with a runaway greenhouse effect, making it inhospitable to life as we know it. Here are some more interesting facts about Venus.
1. Venus’ atmosphere killed spacecraft dead very quickly: You sure don’t want to hang around on Venus’ surface. The pressure there is so great that spacecraft need shielding to survive. The atmosphere is made up of carbon dioxide with bits of sulfuric acid, NASA says, which is deadly to humans. And if that’s not bad enough, the temperature at the surface is higher than 470 degrees Celsius (880 degrees Fahrenheit). The Soviet Venera probes that ventured to the surface decades ago didn’t last more than two hours.
2. But conditions are more temperate higher in the atmosphere: While you still couldn’t breathe the atmosphere high above Venus’ surface, at about 50 kilometers (31 miles) you’ll at least find the same pressure and atmosphere density as that of Earth. A very preliminary NASA study suggests that at some point, we could deploy airships for humans to explore Venus. And the backers suggest it may be more efficient to go to Venus than to Mars, with one large reason being that Venus is closer to Earth.
Artist’s conception of the High Altitude Venus Operational Concept (HAVOC) mission, a far-out concept being developed by NASA, approaching the planet. Credit: NASA Langley Research Center/YouTube (screenshot)
3. Venus is so bright it is sometimes mistaken for a UFO: The planet is completely socked in by cloud, which makes it extremely reflective to observers looking at the sky on Earth. Its brightness is between -3.8 and -4.8 magnitude, which makes it brighter than the stars in the sky. In fact, it’s so bright that you can see it go through phases in a telescope — and it can cast shadows! So that remarkable appearance can confuse people not familiar with Venus in the sky, leading to reports of airplanes or UFOs.
4. And those clouds mean you can’t see the surface: If you were to look at Venus with your eyes, you wouldn’t be able to see its surface. That’s because the clouds are so thick that they obscure what is below. NASA got around that problem when it sent the Magellan probe to Venus for exploration in the 1990s. The probe orbited the planet and got a complete surface picture using radar.
Artist’s impression of the surface of Venus Credit: ESA/AOES
5. Venus has volcanoes and a fresh face: Venus has fresh lava flows on its surface, which implies that volcanoes erupted anywhere from the past few hundred years to the past three million years. What this means is there are few impact craters on the surface, likely because the lava flowed over them and filled them in. While scientists believe the volcanoes are responsible, the larger question is how frequently this occurs.
6. Venus has a bizarre rotation: Venus not only rotates backwards compared to the other planets, but it rotates very slowly. In fact, a day on Venus (243 days) lasts longer than it takes the planet to orbit around the Sun (225 days). Even more strangely, the rotation appears to be slowing down; Venus is turning 6.5 minutes more slowly in 2014 than in the early 1990s. One theory for the change could be the planet’s weather; its thick atmosphere may grind against the surface and slow down the rotation.
Artist’s conception of Venus Express doing an aerobraking maneuver in the atmosphere in 2014. Credit: ESA–C. Carreau
7. Venus has no moons or rings: The two planets closest to the Sun have no rings or moons, which puts Venus in the company of only one other world: Mercury. Every other planet in the Solar System has one or the other, or in many cases both! Why this is is a mystery to scientists, but they are doing as much comparison of different planets as possible to understand what’s going on.
8. Venus appears to be a spot where spacecraft go to extremes: We briefly mentioned the Venera probes that landed on the surface, but that’s not the only unusual spacecraft activity at Venus. In 2014, the European Space Agency put an orbiter — that’s right, a spacecraft not designed to survive the atmosphere — into the upper parts of Venus’ dense atmosphere. Venus Express did indeed survive the encounter (before it ran out of gas), with the goal of providing more information about how the atmosphere looks at high altitudes. This could help with landings in the future.
As you can see, Venus is an interesting, mysterious, and extremely hostile world. With such a corrosive atmosphere, such incredible heat, a volcanically-scarred surface, and thick clouds of toxic gas, one would have to be crazy to want to live there. And yet, there are some who believe Venus could be terraformed for human use, or at the very least explored using airships, in the coming generations.
But that’s the thing about interesting places. Initially, they draw their fair share of research and attention. But eventually, the dreamers and adventurers come.
ILLUSTRATION IS RESERVED - DO NOT USE. The eight planets of the Solar System and the dwarf planet Pluto. For many astronomers and planetary scientists Pluto's status remains an open question. Redefining what is a planet could return Pluto to the fold - 9 planets and also open the door for many more. Insets from upper left, clockwise: Clyde Tombaugh, Mike Brown, Alan Stern, Gerard Kuiper.(Credit: NASA, Judy Schmidt, Björn Jónsson)
A storm is brewing, a battle of words and a war of the worlds. The Earth is not at risk. It is mostly a civil dispute, but it has the potential to influence the path of careers. In 2014, a Harvard led debate was undertaken on the question: Is Pluto a planet. The impact of the definition of planet and everything else is far reaching – to the ends of the Universe.
It could mean a count of trillions of planets in our galaxy alone or it means leaving the planet Pluto out of the count – designation, just a dwarf planet. This is a question of how to classify non-stellar objects. What is a planet, asteroid, comet, planetoid or dwarf planet? Does our Solar System have 8 planets or some other number? Even the count of planets in our Milky Way galaxy is at stake.
“Dawn arising.” The latest image of Ceres – February 12, 2015 – by the Dawn spacecraft from 80,000 km. With icy deposits pock marking its surface, a possible reservoir of water below its surface, is Ceres a planet, dwarf planet, an asteroid or all three? (Credit: NASA/Dawn)
Not to dwell on the Harvard debate, let it be known that if given their way, the debates outcome would reset the Solar System to nine planets. For over eight years, the solar system has had eight planets. During the period 1807 to 1845, our Solar System had eleven planets. Neptune was discovered in 1846 and astronomers began to discover many more asteroids. They were eliminated from the club. This is very similar to what is now happening to Pluto-like objects – Plutoids. So from 1846 to 1930, there were 8 planets – the ones as defined today.
The discoverer of Pluto – Clyde Tombaugh in the 1930s and again with homebuilt telescope in the 1990s that earned him an assignment at Lowell Observatory – discover Planet X. The cremated remains of Clyde are attached to the New Horizons space probe that is now approaching the dwarf planet Pluto.
In 1930, a Kansas farm boy, Clyde Tombaugh, hired by Lowell Observatory discovered Pluto and for 76 years there were 9 planets. In the year 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) took up a debate using a “democratic process” to accept a new definition of planet, define a new type – dwarf planet and then set everything else as “Small Bodies.” If your head is spinning with planets, you are not alone.
All two body systems have a barycenter, the shared point in space around which they orbit. Pluto and Charon’s happens to be between both bodies due to their proximity and similar mass. (Credit: NASA/New Horizons)
Two NASA missions were launched immediately before and after the IAU announcement took affect. The Dawn mission suddenly was to be launched to an asteroid and a dwarf planet and the New Horizons had rather embarked on a nine year journey to a planet belittled to a dwarf planet – Pluto. Principal Investigator, Dr. Alan Stern was upset. Furthermore, from the discoveries of the Kuiper mission and other discoveries, we now know that there are hundreds of billions of planets in our Milky Way galaxy; possibly trillions. The present definition excludes hundreds of billions of bodies from planethood status.
The presently known largest trans-Neptunian objects (TSO) – are likely to be surpassed by future discoveries. Which of these trans-Neptunian objects (TSO) would you call planets and which “dwarf planets”? (Illustration Credit: Larry McNish, Data: M.Brown)
There are two main camps with de facto leaders. One camp has Dr. Mike Brown of Caltech and the other, Dr. Stern of the Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) as leading figures. A primary focus of Dr. Brown’s research is the study of trans-Neptunian objects while Dr. Sterns’s activities are many but specifically, the New Horizons mission which is 6 months away from its flyby of Pluto. Consider first the IAU Resolution 5A that its members approved:
(1) A “planet” is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.
(2) A “dwarf planet” is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
(3) All other objects, except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as “Small Solar System Bodies”.
This is our starting point – planet, dwarf planet, everything else. Consider “everything else”. This broad category includes meteoroids, asteroids, comets and planetesimals. Perhaps other small body types will arise as we look more closely at the Universe. Within the category, there is now a question of what is an asteroid and what is a comet. NASA’s flybys of comets and now ESA’s Rosetta at 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko are making the delineation between the two types difficult. The difference between a meteoroid and an asteroid is simply defined as less than or greater than one meter in size, respectively. So the Chelyabinsk event absolutely involved a small asteroid – about 20 meters in diameter. Planetesimals are small bodies in a solar nebula that are the building blocks of planets but they could lead to the creation of all the other types of small bodies.
Dr. Alan Stern, project scientist for New Horizons and Neil deGrasse Tyson discuss the New Horizons spacecraft in the mission operations center at JHU/APL. The interview was for a NOVA special (12/14/2011), the Pluto Files, about a Kansas farm boy, a missing planet and the 70 years of astronomical discoveries leading to the present day. (Credit: JHU/APL,PBS)
Putting aside the question of “Small Bodies” and its sub-classes, what should be the definition of planet and dwarf planet? These are the two terms that demoted Pluto and raised Ceres to dwarf planet. It is also interesting to note how Resolution 5A is meant exclusively for our Solar System. In 2006, there were not thousands of exo-planets but just a few dozen extreme cases but nevertheless, the IAU did not choose to extend the definition to “stars” but rather just in reference to our pretty well known star, the Sun.
Recall Tim Allen’s movie, “The Santa Clause”. Clauses can cause a heap of trouble. The IAU has such a clause – Clause C which has caused much of the present controversy around the definition of planets. Clause (c) of Resolution 5A: “has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.” This is the Pluto killer-clause which demoted it to dwarf planet status and reduced the number of planets in our solar system to eight. In a sense, the IAU chose to cauterize a wound, a weakness in the definitions, that if left unchanged, would have led to who knows how many planets in our Solar System.
The question of what is Pluto is open for public discussion so armed with enough knowledge to be dangerous, the following is my proposed alternative to the IAU’s that are arguably an improvement. The present challenge to Pluto’s status lies in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. Such belts or clouds are probably not uncommon throughout the galaxy. Plutoids are the 500 lb gorilla in the room.
Two spacecraft, Dawn and New Horizon will reach their final objectives in 2015 – Dwarf Planets – Ceres and Pluto. (Credit: NASA, Illustration – T.Reyes)
This year, as touted by the likes of Planetary Society, Universe Today and elsewhere, is the year of the dwarf planet. How remarkable and surprising will the study of Ceres, Pluto and Charon by NASA spacecraft be? There is a strong possibility that after the celestial dust clears and data analysis is published, the IAU will take on the challenge again to better define what is a planet and everything else. It is impossible to imagine that the definitions can remain unchanged for long. Even now, there is sufficient information to independently assess the definitions and weigh in on the approaching debate. Anyone or any group – from grade schools to astronomical societies – can take on the challenge.
To encourage a debate and educate the public on the incredible universe that space probes and advanced telescopes are revealing, what follows is one proposed solution to what is a planet and everything else.
planet: is a celestial body that a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium – nearly round shape, b) has a differentiated interior as a result of its formation c) has insufficient mass to fuse hydrogen in its core, d) does not match the definition of a moon.
minor planet: is a planet with a mass less than one Pluto mass and does not match the definition of a moon.
inter-Stellar (minor) planet: is a (minor) planet that is not gravitationally bound to a stellar object.
binary (minor) planet: is a celestial body that is orbiting another (minor) planet for which the system’s barycenter resides above the surface of both bodies.
These definitions solve some hairy dilemmas. For one, planets orbit around the majority of most stars in the Universe, not just the Sun as Resolution 5A was only intended. Planets can also exist gravitationally not bound to a star – the result of it own molecular cloud collapse without a star or expulsion from a stellar system. One could specify gravitational expulsion however, it is possible that explosive events occur that cause the disintegration of a star and its binding gravity or creates such an impulse that a planet is thrusted out of a stellar system. Having an atmosphere certainly doesn’t work. Astronomers are already anticipating Mars or Earth-sized objects deep in the Oort cloud that could have no atmosphere – frozen out and also despite their size, not be able to “clear their neighborhood.”
An animation (above) of Kepler mission planet candidates compiled by Jeff Thorpe. Kepler and other exoplanet projects are revealing that the properties of planets – orbits, size, temperature, makeup – are all extreme. Does Pluto represent one of those extremes – the smallest of planets? (Credit: NASA/Kepler, Jeff Thorp)
The need to create a lower-end limit to what is a planet reached a near fever pitch with the discovery of a Trans-Nepturnian Object (TNO) in 2005 that is bigger than Pluto – Eris. Dr. Michael Brown of Caltech and his team led in the discovery of bright large KBOs. There was not just Eris but many of nearly the same size as Pluto. So without clause (c), one would be left with a definition for planet that could allow the count of planets in our Solar System to rise into the hundreds maybe even thousands. This would become a rather unmanageable problem; the number of planets rising year after year and never settled and with no means to make reasonable comparisons between planetary systems throughout our galaxy and even the Universe.
The book that tells the story of discovery – trans-Neptunian objects (TNO) that led to the downfall of Pluto from full planethood to that of a dwarf. The 2006 IAU decision was a pre-emptive strike to stave off a proliferation of planets in our system. It worked but “killed” Pluto. Did it have it coming? Dr. Brown also agrees that the present definition of planet is flawed and incomplete. (Photo Credits: Caltech/M.Brown)
Two more celestial body types follow that are proposed to round out the set.
moon: is a celestial body that a) orbits a (minor) planet and b) for which the barycenter of its orbit is below the surface of its parent (minor) planet.
This creates the possibility of a planet-moon system such that its barycenter is above the surface of the larger body. Pluto and Charon are the most prominent case in our Solar System. In such cases, if one body meets the criteria of a (minor)planet, then the other body can also be assessed to determine if it is also a (minor) planet and the pair as binary (minor) planets. If the primary body was a minor planet, it is possible that the barycenter could be above its surface but the secondary body does not meet all the criteria of a minor planet, specifically “differentiated interior”.
The definition of moon is compounded by the existence of, for example, asteroids with moons. For such objects, the smaller object is defined as a satellite.
Satellite: is a celestial body that a) orbits another celestial body, b) whose parent body is not a (minor) planet.
Another permissible term is moonlet which could be used to describe both very small moons such as those found in the Jovian and Saturn systems or a small body orbiting an asteroid or comet. Moonlet could replace satellite.
The discriminator between planet and moon is not mass but simply whether the celestial body orbits a (minor) planet and the barycenter resides inside the larger body. The definition of moon excludes the possibility of a planet orbiting another planet except in the special case of binary (minor) planet.
Defining a lower size limit to “Planet” is necessary to compare stellar systems and classify. A limit based on the body’s average surface pressure and temperature or the surface gravity could define a limit. While they could, they are not practical because of the extremes and diverse combinations of conditions. Strange objects would fall through the cracks.
Removing clause (c) – “has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit” – will avoid a future conflict such as a very low mass star with a plutoid-sized object or smaller, in a close orbit that has cleared its neighborhood.
Additionally, choosing to declare that Pluto becomes the “standard weight” that differentiates minor planet from planet sets a precedent. In an era in which computers measure and tally the state of our existence, setting this limit to include Pluto and return it as the ninth planet of our Solar System, is, in a small but significant way, a re-declaration of our humanity. Soon we will be challenged by artificial intelligence greater than ours; we are already have. Where will we stand our ground?
Forget about Pluto for a moment. Should Eris be our tenth planet? Like Pluto it has a prominent moon- Dysnomia. Human perception and conceptions of the Universe have shaped our view of the Solar System. The Ptolemaic system (Earth centered), Kepler’s Harmonic Spheres, even the fact that ten digits reside on our hands impact our impression of the Solar System (Photo Credits:NASA/ESA and M. Brown / Caltech)
The consequences of this proposed set of definitions, makes Ceres a minor planet and no longer an asteroid. Many trans-Neptunian objects discovered in this century become minor planets. Of the known TNOs only Pluto and Eris meets the criteria of planet.The dwarf planet Eris would become the tenth planet. Makemake, Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, Haumea would be minor planets. By keeping Pluto a planet and defining it as the standard bearer, only one new planet must be declared. Surely, more will be found, very distant, in odd elliptical and tilted orbits. The count of planets in our solar system could rise by 10, 20 maybe 50 and perhaps this would make the definition untenable but maybe not. So be it. New Horizons will fly by a dwarf planet in July but this should mark the beginning of the end of the present set of definitions.
Three perspectives of a ten planet Solar System. No longer Earth centered, or with harmonic spheres but now with planets outside the ecliptic plane and growing. How many planets would be too many? (Credits: Wikimedia, T.Reyes)
This set of definitions defines a set of celestial bodies that consistently covers the spectrum of known bodies. There is the potential of exotic celestial objects that are spawned from cataclysmic events or from the unique conditions during the early epochs of the Universe or from remnants of old or dying stellar objects. Their discovery will likely trigger new or revised definitions but these definitions are a good working set for the time being. Ultimately, it is the decision of the IAU but the sharing of knowledge and the democratic processes that we cherish permits anyone to question and evaluate such definitions or proclamations.To all that share an interest in Pluto as or as not a planet raise your hand and be heard.
A video from 2014 by Kurz Gesagt describing the Pluto-Charon system. Is this a binary planet system or one of the “dwarf” variety?
My condolences to the friends and family of Tammy Plotner, the first regular contributing writer to Universe Today. Can’t we all relate to what drew Tammy to write about the Universe? She wrote outstanding articles for U.T.
Caloris in Color – An enhanced-color view of Mercury from the cameras on board the MESSENGER spacecraft. The circular, orange area near the center-top of the disc is Caloris Basin. Credit: NASA / Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory / Carnegie Institution of Washington
Close by the Sun is Mercury, a practically atmosphere-like world that has a lot of craters. Until NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft arrived there in 2008, we knew very little about the planet — only part of it had been imaged! But now that the spacecraft has been circling the planet for a few years, we know a heck of a lot more. Here is some stuff about Mercury that’s useful to know.
1. Mercury has water ice and organics.
This may sound surprising given that the planet is so close to the Sun, but the ice is in permanently shadowed craters that don’t receive any sunlight. Organics, a building block for life, were also found on the planet’s surface. While Mercury doesn’t have enough atmosphere and is too hot for life as we know it, finding organics there demonstrates how those compounds were distributed throughout the solar system. There’s also quite a bit of sulfur on the surface, something that scientists are still trying to understand since no other planet in the Solar System has it in such high concentrations.
2. The water ice appears younger than we would expect.
Close examination of the ice shows sharp boundaries, which implies that it wasn’t deposited that long ago; if it was, the ice would be somewhat eroded and mixed in with Mercury’s regolith surface. So somehow, the ice perhaps came there recently — but how? What’s more, it appears the ice deposits on the Moon and the ice deposits on Mercury are different ages, which could imply different conditions for both of the bodies.
A forced perspective view of Mercury’s north pole (NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington)
3. Mercury has an atmosphere that changes with its distance to the Sun.
The planet has a very thin atmosphere that is known as an “exosphere” (something that is also present on the Moon, for example.) Scientists have detected calcium, sodium and magnesium in it — all elements that appear to change in concentration as the planet gets closer and further from the Sun in its orbit. The changes appear to be linked to how much solar radiation pressure falls on the planet.
4. Mercury’s magnetic field is different at its poles.
Mercury is somehow generating a magnetic field in its interior, but it’s quite weak (just 1% that of Earth’s). That said, scientists have observed differences in the north and the south pole magnetic strength. Specifically, at the south pole, the magnetic field lines have a bigger “hole” for charged particles from the Sun to strike the planet. Those charged particles are believed to erode Mercury’s surface and also to contribute to its composition.
Illustration of MESSENGER in orbit around Mercury (NASA/JPL/APL)
5. Despite Mercury’s weak magnetic field, it behaves similarly to Earth’s.
Specifically, the magnetic field does deflect charged particles similarly to how Earth does, creating a “hot flow anomaly” that has been observed on other planets. Because particles flowing from the Sun don’t come uniformly, they can get turbulent when they encounter a planet’s magnetic field. When plasma from the turbulence gets trapped, the superheated gas also generates magnetic fields and creates the HFA.
6. Mercury’s eccentric orbit helped prove Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Mercury’s eccentric orbit relative to the other planets, and its close distance to the Sun, helped scientists confirm Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Simply put, the theory deals with how the light of a star changes when another planet or star orbits nearby. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, scientists confirmed the theory in part by reflecting radar signals off of Mercury. The theory says that the path of the signals will change slightly if the Sun was there, compared to if it was not. The path matched what general relativity predicted.
A hot flow anomaly, or HFA, has been identified around Mercury (Credit: NASA/Duberstein)
7. Mercury is hard to spot in the sky, but has been known for millennia.
Mercury tends to play peekaboo with the Sun, which makes it somewhat of an observing challenge. The planet rises or sets very close to when the Sun does, which means amateur astronomers are often fighting against twilight to observe the tiny planet. That being said, the ancients had darker skies than we did (no light pollution) and were able to see Mercury pretty well. So the planet has been known for thousands of years, and was linked to some of the gods in ancient cultures.
8. Mercury has no moons or rings.
Scientists are still trying to understand how the Solar System formed, and one of the ways they do so is by comparing the planets. Interesting to note about Mercury: it has no rings or moons, which makes it different from just about every other planet in our Solar System. The exception is Venus, which also has no moons or rings.
A binary star system Credit: Michael Osadciw/University of Rochester
Astronomers have reported the discovery of a star that passed within the outer reaches of our Solar System just 70,000 years ago, when early humans were beginning to take a foothold here on Earth. The stellar flyby was likely close enough to have influenced the orbits of comets in the outer Oort Cloud, but Neandertals and Cro Magnons – our early ancestors – were not in danger. But now astronomers are ready to look for more stars like this one.
A comparison of the Solar System and its Oort Cloud. 70,000 years ago, Scholz’s Star and companion passed along the outer boundaries of our Solar System (Credit: NASA, Michael Osadciw/University of Rochester, Illustration-T.Reyes)
Lead author Eric Mamajek from the University of Rochester and collaborators report in The Closest Known Flyby Of A Star To The Solar System (published in Astrophysical Journal on February 12, 2015) that “the flyby of this system likely caused negligible impact on the flux of long-period comets, the recent discovery of this binary highlights that dynamically important Oort Cloud perturbers may be lurking among nearby stars.”
The star, named Scholz’s star, was just 8/10ths of a light year at closest approach to the Sun. In comparison, the nearest known star to the Sun is Proxima Centauri at 4.2 light years.
While the internet has been rife with threads and accusations of a Nemesis star that is approaching the inner Solar System and is somehow being “hidden” by NASA, this small red dwarf star with a companion represents the real thing.
In 1984, the paleontologists David Raup and Jack Sepkoski postulated that a dim dwarf star, now widely known on the internet as the Nemesis Star, was in a very long period Solar orbit. The elliptical orbit brought the proposed star into the inner Solar System every 26 million years, causing a rain of comets and mass extinctions on that time period. By no coincidence, because of the sheer numbers of red dwarfs throughout the galaxy, Scholz’s star nearly fits such a scenario. Nemesis was proposed to be in a orbit extending 95,000 A.U. compared to Scholz’s nearest flyby distance of 50,000 A.U. Recent studies of impact rates on Earth, the Moon and Mars have discounted the existence of a Nemesis star (see New Impact Rate Count Lays Nemesis Theory to Rest, Universe Today, 8/1/2011)
But Scholz’s star — a real-life Oort Cloud perturber — was a small red dwarf star star with a M9 spectral classification. M-class stars are the most common star in our galaxy and likely the whole Universe, as 75% of all stars are of this type. Scholz’s is just 15% of the mass of our Sun. Furthermore, Scholz’s is a binary star system with the secondary being a brown dwarf of class T5. Brown Dwarfs are believed to be plentiful in the Universe but due to their very low intrinsic brightness, they are very difficult to discover … except, as in this case, as companions to brighter stars.
The astronomers reported that their survey of new astrometric data of nearby stars identified Scholz’s as an object of interest. The star’s transverse velocity was very low, that is, the stars sideways motion. Additionally, they recognized that its radial velocity – motion towards or away from us, was quite high. For Scholz’s, the star was speeding directly away from our Solar System. How close could Scholz’s star have been to our system in the past? They needed more accurate data.
The collaborators turned to two large telescopes in the southern hemisphere. Spectrographs were employed on the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT) in South Africa and the Magellan telescope at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile. With more accurate trangental and radial velocities, the researchers were able to calculate the trajectory, accounting for the Sun’s and Scholz’s motion around the Milky Way galaxy.
Scholz’s star is an active star and the researchers added that while it was nearby, it shined at a dimly of about 11th magnitude but eruptions and flares on its surface could have raised its brightness to visible levels and could have been seen as a “new” star by primitive humans of the time.
The relative sizes of the inner Solar System, Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. (Credit: NASA, William Crochot)
At present, Scholz’s star is 20 light years away, one of the 70 closest stars to our Solar System. However, the astronomers calculated, with a 98% certainty, that Scholz’s passed within 0.5 light years, approximately 50,000 Astronomical Units (A.U.) of the Sun.
An A.U. is the mean distance from the Earth to the Sun and 50,000 is an important mile marker in our Solar System. It is the outer reaches of the Oort Cloud where billions of comets reside in cold storage, in orbits that take hundreds of thousands of years to circle the Sun.
With this first extraordinary close encounter discovered, the collaborators of this paper as well as other researchers are planning new searches for “Nemesis” type stars. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and other telescopes within the next decade will bring an incredible array of data sets that will uncover many more red dwarf, brown dwarf and possibly orphan planets roaming in nearby space. Some of these could likewise be traced to past or future near misses to the Sun and Earth system.
ALMA image of the galaxy NGC 253, with a diffuse envelope of carbon monoxide gas (in red) which surrounds star-forming regions (in yellow). The ALMA data are superimposed on a Hubble image that covers part of the same region. Credit: Credit: B. Saxton (NRAO/AUI/NSF); ALMA (NRAO/ESO/NAOJ); A. Leroy; STScI/NASA, ST-ECF/ESA, CADC/NRC/CSA
When we look up at the night sky outside of the bright city, we can see a dazzling array of stars and galaxies. It is more difficult to see the clouds of gas within galaxies, however, but gas is required to form new stars and allow galaxies to grow. Although gas makes up less than 1% of the matter in the universe, “it’s the gas that drives the evolution of the galaxy, not the other way around,” says Felix “Jay” Lockman of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO).
With radio telescopes and surveys such as the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) in West Virginia, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), and the Arecibo Legacy Fast ALFA (ALFALFA) survey, Lockman and other astronomers are learning more about the role of gas in galaxy formation. They presented their results at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in San Jose.
Although we have an excellent view of our part of the Milky Way, and we can tell that it has a disk-shaped structure — that is the origin of its name, after all — it is not so simple to study how the galaxy formed. Lockman described the situation with an analogy: if you were trying to understand how your own house was built without leaving it, you would look and listen throughout the house and you would look out the window to learn what you can from your neighbors’ homes. Andromeda is the Milky Way’s largest neighbor, and they both have “satellite” galaxies traveling around them, some of which appear to have gas.
In addition, Lockman and his colleagues found clouds of gas between Andromeda and one of its satellites, Triangulum, which could be a “source of fuel for future star formation” for the galaxies. As a dramatic example of high-velocity clouds, Lockman presented new GBT images of the Smith Cloud, which was first discovered in 1963 by a student in the Netherlands. The Smith Cloud is a newcomer to the Milky Way and could provide enough gas to form a million stars and solar systems. Based on its speed and trajectory, “we think in a few million years, splash!” as it collides with our galaxy.
Artist’s impression of the Smith Cloud approaching the Milky Way, with which it will collide in approximately 30 million years. The cloud’s image from the GBT can be seen at bottom. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF
Kartik Sheth, another scientist at NRAO, continued with a description of astronomers’ current state of knowledge of the assembly of disk and spiral galaxies, of which the Milky Way and Andromeda are only two examples. Spiral galaxies typically have many gas clouds forming new stars, often referred to as stellar nurseries, and now with ALMA, “a fantastic telescope at 16,500-ft elevation,” Sheth and his colleagues are studying them in more detail.
In particular, Sheth presented newly published results by Adam Leroy in the Astrophysical Journal, in which they examine star-forming clouds in the heart of the nearby starbursting galaxy, Sculptor, to study “the physics of how gas got converted into stars.” Sculptor and other starbursts form stars at a rate about 1,000 times faster than typical spiral galaxies like the Milky Way. “Only with ALMA can we actually accomplish observations like this” of objects outside our galaxy. By comparing the concentration and distribution of ten gas clouds in Sculptor, they find that the clouds are more massive, ten times denser, and more turbulent than similar clouds in more typical galaxies. Because of the density of these stellar nurseries, they can form stars much more efficiently.
Other astronomers at the AAAS meeting, such as Claudia Scarlata (University of Minnesota) and Eric Wilcots (University of Wisconsin), presented a larger-scale picture of how spiral galaxies collide with each other to form more massive elliptical-shaped galaxies. These galaxies typically appear older and have stopped forming stars, but they can grow by “merging” with a neighboring galaxy in its group. “I will contend that most galaxy transformations take place in groups,” says Wilcots. In a paper based on ALFALFA data published in the Astronomical Journal, Kelley Hess and Wilcots find gas-rich galaxies distributed primarily in the outskirts of groups, and therefore these systems tend to grow from the inside out.
In a related issue, both Priyamvada Natarajan (Yale University) and Scarlata discussed how the evolution of massive black holes at the centers of galaxies appear to be related to that of the galaxy as a whole, when astronomers follow them from “cradle to adulthood.” In particular, Natarajan explained how mature galaxies’ black holes can heat the gas in a galaxy and drive gas outflows, thus preventing continued star formation in the galaxy.
Finally, astronomers look forward to much more upcoming cutting-edge research on gas in galaxies. Ximena Fernández (Columbia University) described the COSMOS HI Large Extragalactic Survey (CHILES) of hydrogen gas in galaxies with the Very Large Array. They have completed a pilot survey so far, in which they have obtained the most distant detection so far of a galaxy containing gas. They plan to peer even further into the distant past than previous surveys, expecting to detect gas in 300 galaxies up to 5 billion light-years away—250 times further than the galaxy observed by Leroy.
Fernández also described MeerKAT, a radio telescope under construction in South Africa, and the Deep Investigation of Neutral Gas Origins (DINGO) in Australia, both of which will serve as precursors for the Square Kilometer Array in the 2020s. These new telescopes will add to astronomers’ increasingly complex view of the formation and evolution of galaxies.
Did you hear the one about last month’s ‘supermoon?’
Yeah, we know. The hype was actually for an event that was less than spectacular, as it revolved around the first New Moon of 2015 on January 20th. Said suspect Moon was touted as ‘super’ (we prefer the quixotic term proxigean) as it occurred 18 hours prior to perigee.
Not that the first lunar perigee of 2015 was an especially close one in time or space at 359,642 kilometres distant. Is every New and Full Moon now destined to become branded ‘super’ in the never ending SEO quest to get eyeballs on web pages?
But wait, there’s more. We’ve noticed as of late that another popular term is creeping into the popular astronomical vernacular: that of a ‘Black Moon’.
Black Moons for the next decade. Created by the author.
We’ve written lots about Moons both of the Black and Blue variety before. We’ll also let you in on a small secret: astronomers rarely sit around observatories discussing these Moons, be they Blue, Black or Super. At most, astronomers note the weeks surrounding New as the ‘Dark of the Moon,’ a prime time to go deep for faint objects while the light polluting Moon is safely out of the sky. And yes, terms such as ‘Super’ or ‘Black Moon’ have dubious roots in astrology, while the term Blue Moon comes down to us via a curious mix-up from Sky and Telescope and the Maine Farmer’s Almanac.
Simply put, a Black Moon is the New Moon version of a Blue Moon, and is either:
A month missing a Full or New Moon… this can only occur in February, as the lunar synodic period from like phase to phase is 29.5 days long. This last occurred in 2014 and will next occur in 2018.
The second New Moon in a month with two. This can happen in any calendar month except February.
And now for the most convoluted definition: the third New Moon in an astronomical season with four.
We bring this up because the February 18th New Moon is ‘Black’ in the sense that it meets the requirements expressed in rule 3. The fourth New Moon of the season falls on March 20th, just 13 hours before the northward equinox on the same date.
An extremely thin crescent Moon against a low contrast twilight sky. Credit and copyright: David Blanchflower.
Such are the curious vagaries of the juxtaposition of the lunar cycle on our modern day Gregorian calendar. Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean you’ll win the lottery or be lucky in love: any Earthly woes are strictly your own affairs to deal with, Black Moon or no. Continue reading “Black Moon: Why the New Moon on February 18th is Special”
A pile of Skittles candy seen at rest. Credit: PiccoloNamek
Take a speed of light trip across the solar system starting at the Sun
We’ve heard it over and over. There’s nothing faster than the speed of light. Einstein set the speed limit at 186,000 miles per second (299,792 km/sec). No material object can theoretically travel faster. For all practical purposes, only light is lithe enough to travel at the speed of light.
Moving in such haste, a beam of light can zip around the Earth 8 times in just one second. A trip to the moon takes just 1.3 seconds. Fast for sure but unfortunately not fast enough. Hit play on the video and you’ll soon know what I mean. The view begins at the Sun and travels outward into the solar system at the speed of light.
Planet Distance in AU Travel time
....................................................................
Mercury 0.387 193.0 seconds or 3.2 minutes
Venus 0.723 360.0 seconds or 6.0 minutes
Earth 1.000 499.0 seconds or 8.3 minutes
Mars 1.523 759.9 seconds or 12.6 minutes
Jupiter 5.203 2595.0 seconds or 43.2 minutes
Saturn 9.538 4759.0 seconds or 79.3 minutes
Uranus 19.819 9575.0 seconds or 159.6 minutes
Neptune 30.058 14998.0 seconds or 4.1 hours
Pluto 39.44 19680.0 seconds or 5.5 hours
...................................................................
Distances and light times to the planets and Pluto (from Alphonse Swinehart)
You might first think that moving that fast will get us across the orbits of the eight planets in a hurry. I shouldn’t have been surprised, but I found myself already getting impatient by the time Mercury flew by … after 3.2 minutes. Earth was still 5 minutes away and Jupiter another 40! That’s why the video cuts off at Jupiter – no one would stick around for Pluto’s appearance 5 1/2 hours later.
As the video tediously but effectively demonstrates we live in a solar system where a few planets are separated by vast spaces. Not even light is fast enough to satisfy the human need for speed. But just to put things in perspective, the fastest current human-made objects is NASA’s Voyager I spacecraft, which recently reached interstellar space traveling at 38,000 mph (17 km/sec) or nearly 18,000 times slower than light speed.
Let’s explore further. Any material object, a Skittle for instance, moving that fast would become infinitely massive. Why? You’d need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the Skittle to the exact speed of light. Since matter and energy are two faces of the same coin, all that energy creates an infinitely massive Skittle. Sweet revenge if there ever was.
You can however accelerate the pill-like candy to 99.9999% light speed with a finite if incredibly large amount of energy. Einstein’s cool with that. Here’s the weird thing. If you were travelling along at the speed of light it would look like a perfectly normal piece of candy, but if you were to look at it from the outside world, the sugary treat would be the entire universe. Both viewpoints are equally valid, and that’s the essence of relatively.
Wave-particle duality of light
To better imagine a day in the life of a photon, let’s go along for the ride. Photons are the particle form of light, which for a long time was only understood as waves of electromagnetic energy. In the weirdness of quantum world, light is both a particle and a wave. From our perspective, a photon rip by at 186,000 miles per second, but to the photon itself, the world stands still and time stops. Photons are everywhere at once. Omnipresent. No time passes for them.
In relativity theory, the movement of anything is defined entirely from an observer’s point of view. From the photon’s perspective, it’s at rest. From ours, it’s moving across time and space. We all have our own “coordinate frame”, so that wherever we are, we’re at rest. That’s relativity for you – all frames are equally valid.
Let say you’re in a plane. That sad bag of pretzels you were just handed is at rest because it’s in your coordinate frame. The person next to you is likewise at rest (and hopefully not snoring). Even the plane’s at rest. According to Einstein, it’s just as valid to picture the world outside the airplane window moving while the plane itself remains at rest. Next time you fly, close your eyes once the plane reaches altitude and a constant speed. You’ll hear the noise of engines, but there’s no way to know you’re actually moving.
Diagram showing how an object (sphere) contracts in the direction of motion as its speed increases. At far left, its velocity (V) is 0.3 times the speed of light. Credit: Askamathematician.com
Relativity also predicts that objects contract in the direction of their motion. Strange as it sounds, this has been verified by many experiments. The faster things travel, the more they contract.
The effect doesn’t become noticeable until an object approaches light speed, but the Apollo 10 service and crew modules reached a velocity of 0.0037% the speed of light. From the perspective of someone on the ground, the 11.03-meter-long module shrank by approximately 7.5 nanometers, an exceedingly tiny but measurable amount. (A sheet of paper is 100,000 nanometers thick). Likewise, distances contract, bottoming out at zero at light speed.
Length contraction occurs because a stationary observer sees a speedy spaceship traveler’s time tick by more slowly. Since light is measured in time units – light seconds, light years – in order for the two to agree on the speed of light (a constant across the universe) the traveler’s “ruler” has to be shorter. And it really is from your stationary perspective if you could somehow peer inside the ship. Traveling at 10% light speed, a 200-foot spaceship shrinks to 199 feet. At 86.5%, it’s 100 feet or half the size and at 99.99% only 3 feet!
We’ve traveled far today – sitting quietly in our frames of reference.
A full Moon flyby, as seen from Paris, France. Credit and copyright: Sebastien Lebrigand.
Shining like a beacon in Earth’s sky is the Moon. We’ve seen so much of it in our lifetimes that it’s easy to take it for granted; even the human landings on the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s were eventually taken for granted by the public.
Fortunately for science, we haven’t stopped looking at the Moon in the decades after Neil Armstrong took his first step. Here are a few things to consider about Earth’s closest big neighbor.
