You need to upgrade your Flash Player The theme of this blog is not only and obviously space, but in particular “terrestrial worlds”, places that tend to have surfaces on which one could walk or at least attach oneself to. These places sometimes also have other earth-like familiar features such as atmospheres, weather, volcanos, geysers and perhaps, we are finding, even exotic oceans, rivers or lakes that are not necessarily made of familiar materials we are used to here at home. The second theme is imagery. Occasionally I do some retouching of images when needed if an image is incomplete or sometimes “dirty” or noisy. I will attempt to correct image shortcomings based upon other images or well-accepted presumed attributes. When this is done, notes will be offered as to what was added, why and sometimes how it was done. This way no one should ever wonder if something they are looking at is real or photoshop.
« More Fun with Landers from Orbit
Ted Stryk’s Triton Redux »

Pluto, “Weak”.

Not that I am for Pluto inclusion in the planetary family… I just keep running into these references to the Plutonian contreversy.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 21st, 2009 at 10:48 am and is filed under Graphic Design, Pluto, Products. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “Pluto, “Weak”.”

  1. Gordan Says:
    March 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    Haha, nice one!

  2. Laurel Kornfeld Says:
    March 21st, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Pluto SHOULD be included in the planetary family. It is spherical, meaning it is in a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium, where it is pulled into a round shape by its own gravity. This is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects. The IAU demotion was done by only four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, and was immediately opposed by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto.

  3. thomas Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 am

    perhaps, but then we would have to also include ceres, sedna and i think up to 6 others recently discovered. not that its a bad thing… but i think the idea of having 16 planets vs. 8 is what made people think twice.

  4. Ben Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    I’m actually wearing that shirt right now.

  5. Gordan Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    If only Pluto’s orbit wasn’t in a resonance with Neptune, it’d have been ejected far into the Kuiper belt a long time ago. Just like all the other bodies that undoubtedly formed in similar orbits to Pluto’s. We’d have none of this tiresome argument nowadays.

    This sentimentalism about Pluto’s status is frankly puzzling to me, regardless of whether the IAU decision was justified or not. One can argue all day about inventing rules by which it classifies as a planet just as one can make equally valid rules on why it doesn’t qualify. In the end it doesn’t matter, even Ceres was once regarded as a planet, only to naturally stop being called one once similar objects were discovered. How come noone’s crying for reinstating poor little Ceres?

Leave a Reply