How to name a planet
As most astronophiles now know, Pluto's still a planet. While reading a recent story on the Pluto debate in The New Yorker (sorry, no link because the story's not online), I happened upon a description of the rules that govern the naming of new planets -- and their craters, rings, and other features.
As it turns out, they're incredibly surreal. Say you're the lucky astronomer who's just discovered a new chasm on Venus. What are you permitted to call it? According to the International Astronomical Union, the only permitted names are "Goddesses of hunt" or "moon goddesses." Maybe you've found a bright spot on Ganymede? You can name it after any "Gods and characters of frost, snow, cold, and sleet from myths and folktales of cultures of the Far North."
The full list of rules is online here. Some of my favorites include:
Small craters of Mars: "Villages of the world with a population of less than 100,000."
Craters on the moon: "Deceased American astronauts are commemorated by craters in and around the crater Apollo. Appropriate locations will be provided in the future for other space-faring nations should they also suffer fatalities."
Large ringed features on Callisto: "Places (other than rivers, valleys and ravines) from myths and folktales of cultures of the Far North."
Small satellites of Uranus: "Heroines from Shakespeare and Pope."
Small satellites of Neptune: "Gods and goddesses associated with Neptune/Poseidon mythology or generic mythological aquatic beings."
As I've said before, I truly love the culture of astronomers. It's a nuanced blend of rigorous scientific discipline and baked-out-of-their-minds stoner logic. Half the guys, I swear, if they weren't mapping the stars with billion-dollar telescopes, they'd be out in California painting unicorns on the sides of vans.
Posted by Clive Thompson at August 21, 2006 03:01 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1547
You think it's just astronomers? Ever taken a look at the names given to quarks? You'd think it was a leprechaun or gnome that came up with some of those. In fact, from what I gather they've "toned down" the names a bit, substituting "top" and "bottom" for the original "truth" and "beauty".
But what else what you expect. Science guys know about all the best chemicals, don't they? ;)
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/quarks.html
Posted by: digital_blue at August 21, 2006 8:10 PM
"Painting unicorns on the sides of vans." *snort* Although I have to disagree a bit - the IAU is very much about standardization, consensus and all that stuff that has neither the rigour of science nor the fun of naming. Somehow, I don't think the quirkiness of a planet named Xena is going to stand, much less the name Gabrielle for its satellite.
Early quantum and particle physicists, on the other hand - if enough people thought a name was funny or appropriate, that was pretty much it - hence the strangeness, flavour and colour of quarks, Gell-Mann's 'The Eightfold Way,' and my personal favourite, neutrinos (Italian for 'little neutral ones').
Posted by: debcha at August 21, 2006 9:32 PM
As an ex-astrophysicist, I love all this stuff! :) I find it strangely comforting when faced with some of the trickier problems in science and philosophy of science to look at the entertainingly creative muddles in the corners of science and say: whatever else we say or do, we're still all so very human. :D
Best wishes!
Posted by: Chris Bateman at August 22, 2006 4:06 AM
Woo! Yes, Chris, I totally agree.
Digital_blue, debbie -- heh, god, yes, the naming of quarks is about as wonderfully loony as anything in science. And yeah, the IAU is very much a middle-of-the-road organization. You put it best: What's interesting about the naming conventions is that they're caught between the scientific (i.e. the discover of extraterrestrial bodies and features) and the cultural (i.e. the cultural history of planet definitions and the naming thereof.)
Posted by: Clive at August 22, 2006 12:33 PM
Post a comment
You think it's just astronomers? Ever taken a look at the names given to quarks? You'd think it was a leprechaun or gnome that came up with some of those. In fact, from what I gather they've "toned down" the names a bit, substituting "top" and "bottom" for the original "truth" and "beauty".
But what else what you expect. Science guys know about all the best chemicals, don't they? ;)
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/quarks.html
Posted by: digital_blue![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 21, 2006 8:10 PM
"Painting unicorns on the sides of vans." *snort* Although I have to disagree a bit - the IAU is very much about standardization, consensus and all that stuff that has neither the rigour of science nor the fun of naming. Somehow, I don't think the quirkiness of a planet named Xena is going to stand, much less the name Gabrielle for its satellite.
Early quantum and particle physicists, on the other hand - if enough people thought a name was funny or appropriate, that was pretty much it - hence the strangeness, flavour and colour of quarks, Gell-Mann's 'The Eightfold Way,' and my personal favourite, neutrinos (Italian for 'little neutral ones').
Posted by: debcha![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 21, 2006 9:32 PM
As an ex-astrophysicist, I love all this stuff! :) I find it strangely comforting when faced with some of the trickier problems in science and philosophy of science to look at the entertainingly creative muddles in the corners of science and say: whatever else we say or do, we're still all so very human. :D
Best wishes!
Posted by: Chris Bateman![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 22, 2006 4:06 AM
Woo! Yes, Chris, I totally agree.
Digital_blue, debbie -- heh, god, yes, the naming of quarks is about as wonderfully loony as anything in science. And yeah, the IAU is very much a middle-of-the-road organization. You put it best: What's interesting about the naming conventions is that they're caught between the scientific (i.e. the discover of extraterrestrial bodies and features) and the cultural (i.e. the cultural history of planet definitions and the naming thereof.)
Posted by: Clive![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 22, 2006 12:33 PM