"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message 
news:dci1bv$55u$1@chho.imagico.de...
>
> I like your planet better than the one in the NASA illustration (although 
> both are complete phantasy as far as surface structure is concerned).  But 
> i think the sun - when visible in view - would appear brighter, the 
> overall light level will be low so long exposure time would be necessary.

That's something I always fight about with myself. Whether or not to use 
film (camera), eyes, or something entirely unaffected by the usual 
abberations caused from light gathering things, for the virtual camera in a 
render. I tend to like the idea of lenseless stuff in space scenes but it 
would certainly make more sense to use either human eyes looking through a 
helmet/window or CCD camera with lens.

> Concerning the discovery itself - it is quite likely that more similar 
> sized objects exists out there but discovering them at that distance isn't 
> easy (esp. considering the many much nearer bodies that will have similar 
> apparent brightness).

Was reading about the Kuiper Belt. Its extent is supposed to be from about 
30 to 50 AU out from the Sun, whereas this new "planet" is twice that far 
away. Maybe that's how they've decided it might be something other than a 
Kuiper Belt object. I had forgotten about the large one called Sedna... and 
vaguely recall Quaoar... plus the vastness of the whole set of objects 
expected to be there which they say has much more in it than the 
better-known asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. But the more I read the 
more I wonder if it might very well be a very large Pluto-like Kuiper Belt 
"planetoid" instead. Orbits at a 44 degree angle to the ecliptic and might 
have a perigee a lot closer in (near Neptune?).

Still, right now anyway, it seems the discoverers and others following up on 
it could be determined to call it a new planet instead of consider it (and 
Pluto/Charon) a different class of objects.

Bob Hughes

Post a reply to this message