The Search for Planet Nine Continues; Potential Candidate Found

Mars-Sized Planetary Mass Object Could be Influencing Nearby Kuiper Belt Objects 42 comments

Astronomers are inferring the existence of a "Planet Ten" (or actually the true "Planet Nine"?), a Mars-sized body in the Kuiper Belt, several times closer to the Sun than where the hypothetical Neptune-like Planet Nine is expected to be:

An unknown, unseen "planetary mass object" may lurk in the outer reaches of our solar system, according to new research on the orbits of minor planets to be published in the Astronomical Journal. This object would be different from — and much closer than — the so-called Planet Nine, a planet whose existence yet awaits confirmation.
In the paper, Kat Volk and Renu Malhotra of the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, or LPL, present compelling evidence of a yet-to-be-discovered planetary body with a mass somewhere between that of Mars and Earth. The mysterious mass, the authors show, has given away its presence — for now — only by controlling the orbital planes of a population of space rocks known as Kuiper Belt objects, or KBOs, in the icy outskirts of the solar system.
[...] According to the calculations, an object with the mass of Mars orbiting roughly 60 AU from the sun on an orbit tilted by about eight degrees (to the average plane of the known planets) has sufficient gravitational influence to warp the orbital plane of the distant KBOs within about 10 AU to either side.

Also at New Scientist.

The curiously warped mean plane of the Kuiper belt

We estimate this deviation from the expected mean plane to be statistically significant at the ∼97−99% confidence level. We discuss several possible explanations for this deviation, including the possibility that a relatively close-in (a≲100~au), unseen small planetary-mass object in the outer solar system is responsible for the warping.

Original Submission

Planet Nine's Existence Disfavoured by New Data 23 comments

stormwyrm writes:

Ethan Siegel at Starts With A Bang brings to attention the results of the Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS). The OSSOS project, which started in 2013 (before the Planet Nine hypothesis was proposed) to survey the minor planets of the outer Solar System, has discovered and determined the orbits of well over eight hundred trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) in its operation. They have recently published a paper that basically puts the kibosh on the Planet Nine hypothesis. Planet Nine was initially proposed to explain an apparent anomalous clustering of orbits of TNOs consistent with them being perturbed by a large planet, but the OSSOS results have found no such anomalous clustering, and are rather seeing a distribution consistent with uniform randomness.

From Forbes' Javascript-required article:

It was perhaps the most exciting idea to come out of science last year: that an undiscovered, giant world exists in our Solar System, far beyond the orbit of Neptune. This wouldn't be some tiny, frozen world like Pluto or Eris, smaller even than Earth's Moon, but a monstrous super-Earth, perhaps ten times as massive as our own world and almost as large as Uranus or Neptune in radius. As the months passed since it was first proposed by Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown, they compiled additional evidence for it, and things were looking rosy. But a new study by Shankman et al. has turned the evidence on its head, disfavoring the planet's existence and uncovering a bias in the data itself.
[...] what they found was entirely consistent with no Planet Nine, and that the overall case for Planet Nine's existence was substantially weakened by their study. In particular, the clustering in the orientation of each orbit in space (defined by multiple variables, ω and Ω) that earlier studies, like Batygin & Brown and Trujillo & Sheppard, previously noticed simply doesn't exist in this new, unbiased study.
We find no evidence in the OSSOS sample for the ω clustering that was the impetus for the current additional planet hypothesis.
The data from this new study is quite clear that the previously observed correlation, which was the impetus for hypothesizing Planet Nine, doesn't persist into the new sample.

OSSOS also has a Frequently Asked Questions page about these findings. They don't entirely rule out the existence of a substantial (perhaps Mars-sized) planet in the outer reaches of the Solar System, but their data makes it highly improbable that a super-Earth on the scale of Uranus or Neptune might be out there.

Additional reading:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/new-haul-distant-worlds-casts-doubt-planet-nine

Original Submission

Medieval Records Could Point the Way to Planet Nine 32 comments

takyon writes:

Medieval astronomical records, such as the Bayeux Tapestry, could help narrow down the location (or at least infer the existence) of the hypothetical Planet Nine:

Scientists suspect the existence of Planet Nine because it would explain some of the gravitational forces at play in the Kuiper Belt, a stretch of icy bodies beyond Neptune. But no one has been able to detect the planet yet, though astronomers are scanning the skies for it with tools such as the Subaru Telescope on Hawaii's Mauna Kea volcano.
Medieval records could provide another tool, said Pedro Lacerda, a Queen's University astronomer and the other leader of the project.
"We can take the orbits of comets currently known and use a computer to calculate the times when those comets would be visible in the skies during the Middle Ages," Lacerda told Live Science. "The precise times depend on whether our computer simulations include Planet Nine. So, in simple terms, we can use the medieval comet sightings to check which computer simulations work best: the ones that include Planet Nine or the ones that do not."

Also at Queen's University Belfast.

Original Submission

Another Trans-Neptunian Object With a High Orbital Inclination Points to Planet Nine 27 comments

takyon writes:

2015 BP₅₁₉, nicknamed "Caju", is another extreme trans-Neptunian object that points to the existence of Planet Nine. Discovered with data from the Dark Energy Survey, Caju has a relatively large diameter, estimated at around 400-700 km, meaning the object could be a gravitationally rounded dwarf planet. It also has a highly inclined orbit of 54°, which a team of scientists says can be explained by the presence of the hypothetical Planet Nine:

After discovering it, the team tried to investigate 2015 BP₅₁₉'s origins using computer simulations of the Solar System. However, these tests were not able to adequately explain how the object had ended with such an orbit.
But when the team added a ninth planet with properties exactly matching those predicted by the Caltech scientists in 2016, the orbit of 2015 BP₅₁₉ suddenly made sense. "The second you put Planet Nine in the simulations, not only can you form objects like this object, but you absolutely do," Juliette Becker, a Michigan graduate student and lead author of the study told Quanta.
Some researchers, however, caution that Planet Nine may not be the only explanation for 2015 BP₅₁₉'s strange orbit. Michele Bannister, a planetary astronomer from Queen's University Belfast, in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, told Newsweek that while the latest findings were "a great discovery," other scenarios could account for its tilt. "This object is unusual because it's on a high inclination," she said. "This can be used to maybe tell us some things about its formation process. There are a number of models that suggest you can probably put objects like this into the shape of orbit and the tilt of orbit that we see today."

Also at Quanta Magazine.

Discovery and Dynamical Analysis of an Extreme Trans-Neptunian Object with a High Orbital Inclination (arXiv:1805.05355)

Original Submission

LSST Could be the Key to Finding New Planets in Our Solar System 7 comments

takyon writes:

The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) may be able to find new planets in our solar system, including the hypothesized planets Nine and Ten:

Overall, these estimates indicated that Planet 9/X was a super-Earth with anywhere between 5 to 20 Earth masses, and orbited the Sun at a distance of between 150 – 600 AU. Concurrently, these studies have also attempted to narrow down where this Super-Earth's orbit will take it throughout the outer Solar System, as evidenced by the perturbations it has on KBOs.
Unfortunately, the predicted locations and brightness of the object are not yet sufficiently constrained for astronomers to simply look in the right place at the right time and pick it out. In this respect, a large area sky survey must be carried out using moderately large telescopes with a very wide field of view. As Dr. Trilling told Universe Today via email:
"The predicted Planet X candidates are not particularly faint, but the possible locations on the sky are not very well constrained at all. Therefore, what you really need to find Planet X is a medium-depth telescope that covers a huge amount of sky. This is exactly LSST. LSST's sensitivity will be sufficient to find Planet X in almost all its (their) predicted configurations, and LSST will cover around half of the known sky to this depth. Furthermore, the cadence is well-matched to finding moving objects, and the data processing systems are very advanced. If you were going to design a tool to find Planet X, LSST is what you would design."

On the detectability of Planet X with LSST

CU Boulder Researchers Say Collective Gravity, Not Planet Nine, Explains Orbits of Detached Objects 16 comments

takyon writes:

Collective gravity, not Planet Nine, may explain the orbits of 'detached objects'

Bumper car-like interactions at the edges of our solar system—and not a mysterious ninth planet—may explain the the dynamics of strange bodies called "detached objects," according to a new study. CU Boulder Assistant Professor Ann-Marie Madigan and a team of researchers have offered up a new theory for the existence of planetary oddities like Sedna—an icy minor planet that circles the sun at a distance of nearly 8 billion miles. Scientists have struggled to explain why Sedna and a handful of other bodies at that distance look separated from the rest of the solar system. [...] The researchers presented their findings today at a press briefing at the 232nd meeting of the American Astronomical Society, which runs from June 3-7 in Denver, Colorado.
[...] [Jacob] Fleisig had calculated that the orbits of icy objects beyond Neptune circle the sun like the hands of a clock. Some of those orbits, such as those belonging to asteroids, move like the minute hand, or relatively fast and in tandem. Others, the orbits of bigger objects like Sedna, move more slowly. They're the hour hand. Eventually, those hands meet. "You see a pileup of the orbits of smaller objects to one side of the sun," said Fleisig, who is the lead author of the new research. "These orbits crash into the bigger body, and what happens is those interactions will change its orbit from an oval shape to a more circular shape." In other words, Sedna's orbit goes from normal to detached, entirely because of those small-scale interactions.

Also at Popular Mechanics, where Planet Nine proposer Konstantin Batygin disputes the findings:

Batygin, of Caltech, tells Popular Mechanics that any sufficiently strong gravitational encounter could detach an object from Neptune's embrace, but for the distant small bodies of the Kuiper belt to have done so through "self-gravity"—as the CU model proposes—there would need to be about five to ten times the mass of Earth in the outer parts of the Kuiper belt. There isn't.
"Unfortunately, the self-gravity story suffers from the following complications," Batygin says. "Both observational and theoretical estimates place the total mass of the Kuiper belt at a value significantly smaller than that of the Earth [only 1 to 10 percent Earth's mass]. As a consequence, Kuiper belt objects generally behave like test-particles enslaved by Neptune's gravitational pull, rather than a self-interacting group of planetoids."

Planet Nine.

Original Submission

Planet Nine Search Turns Up 10 More Moons of Jupiter 3 comments

takyon writes:

Astronomers have found a new crop of moons around Jupiter, and one of them is a weirdo

Ten more moons have been confirmed to orbit around Jupiter, bringing the planet's total known satellite count to 79. That's the highest number of moons of any planet in the Solar System. And these newly discovered space rocks are giving astronomers insight as to why the Jupiter system looks like it does today.
Astronomers at Carnegie Institution for Science first found these moons in March 2017, along with two others that were already confirmed in June of last year. The team initially found all 12 moons using the Blanco 4-meter telescope in Chile, though finding these objects wasn't their main goal. Instead, they were searching for incredibly distant small objects — or even planets — that might be lurking in our Solar System beyond Pluto. But as they searched for these fringe space rocks, they decided to take a peek at what might be lurking around Jupiter at the same time. Now, the moons they found have been observed multiple times, and their exact orbits have been submitted for approval from the International Astronomical Union, which officially recognizes celestial bodies.
These moons are all pretty tiny, ranging between less than a mile and nearly two miles wide. And they break down into three different types. Two orbit closer to Jupiter, moving in the same direction that the planet spins. Farther out from those, about 15.5 million miles from the planet, there are nine that rotate in the opposite direction, moving against Jupiter's rotation. But in this same distant region, one strange moon that astronomers are calling Valetudo is moving with Jupiter's spin, like the two inner moons.

Moons of Jupiter.

Also at NPR and CNN.

Previously: Two Tiny New Moons Found Around Jupiter

Original Submission

Planet Nine... or Giant Planet Five? 58 comments

takyon writes:

Planet Nine: 'Insensitive' Term Riles Scientists

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) famously reclassified Pluto as a "dwarf planet" in 2006. That decision remains highly controversial today, as made clear by the new note, which appeared in the July 29 issue of the Planetary Exploration Newsletter.

The note:

ON THE INSENSITIVE USE OF THE TERM "PLANET 9" FOR OBJECTS BEYOND PLUTO
We the undersigned wish to remind our colleagues that the IAU planet definition adopted in 2006 has been controversial and is far from universally accepted. Given this, and given the incredible accomplishment of the discovery of Pluto, the harbinger of the solar system's third zone — the Kuiper Belt — by planetary astronomer Clyde W. Tombaugh in 1930, we the undersigned believe the use of the term 'Planet 9' for objects beyond Pluto is insensitive to Professor Tombaugh's legacy.
We further believe the use of this term should be discontinued in favor of culturally and taxonomically neutral terms for such planets, such as Planet X, Planet Next, or Giant Planet Five.

35 researchers signed the note, including Alan Stern, principal investigator of the New Horizons mission.

Of more interest may be this proposal concerning future exploration of Uranus and Neptune:

Outer Solar System Exploration: A Compelling and Unified Dual Mission Decadal Strategy for Exploring Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Dwarf Planets, and Small KBOs and Centaurs

Original Submission

Mystery Orbits in Outermost Reaches of Solar System May Not be Caused by "Planet Nine" 6 comments

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The strange orbits of some objects in the farthest reaches of our solar system, hypothesised by some astronomers to be shaped by an unknown ninth planet, can instead be explained by the combined gravitational force of small objects orbiting the Sun beyond Neptune, say researchers.
The alternative explanation to the so-called 'Planet Nine' hypothesis, put forward by researchers at the University of Cambridge and the American University of Beirut, proposes a disc made up of small icy bodies with a combined mass as much as ten times that of Earth. When combined with a simplified model of the solar system, the gravitational forces of the hypothesised disc can account for the unusual orbital architecture exhibited by some objects at the outer reaches of the solar system.
[...] "The Planet Nine hypothesis is a fascinating one, but if the hypothesised ninth planet exists, it has so far avoided detection," said co-author Antranik Sefilian, a PhD student in Cambridge's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. "We wanted to see whether there could be another, less dramatic and perhaps more natural, cause for the unusual orbits we see in some TNOs. We thought, rather than allowing for a ninth planet, and then worry about its formation and unusual orbit, why not simply account for the gravity of small objects constituting a disc beyond the orbit of Neptune and see what it does for us?"
[...] Earlier attempts to estimate the total mass of objects beyond Neptune have only added up to around one-tenth the mass of Earth. However, in order for the TNOs to have the observed orbits and for there to be no Planet Nine, the model put forward by Sefilian and Touma requires the combined mass of the Kuiper Belt to be between a few to ten times the mass of Earth. [...] "It's also possible that both things could be true -- there could be a massive disc and a ninth planet. With the discovery of each new TNO, we gather more evidence that might help explain their behaviour."

Shepherding in a Self-Gravitating Disk of Trans-Neptunian Objects

Original Submission

New Arguments in Favor of a Ninth Planet in Our Solar System 32 comments

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Corresponding with the three-year anniversary of their announcement hypothesizing the existence of a ninth planet in the solar system, Caltech's Mike Brown and Konstantin Batygin are publishing a pair of papers analyzing the evidence for Planet Nine's existence.
The papers offer new details about the suspected nature and location of the planet, which has been the subject of an intense international search ever since Batygin and Brown's 2016 announcement.
The first, titled "Orbital Clustering in the Distant Solar System," was published in The Astronomical Journal on January 22. The Planet Nine hypothesis is founded on evidence suggesting that the clustering of objects in the Kuiper Belt, a field of icy bodies that lies beyond Neptune, is influenced by the gravitational tugs of an unseen planet. It has been an open question as to whether that clustering is indeed occurring, or whether it is an artifact resulting from bias in how and where Kuiper Belt objects are observed.
To assess whether observational bias is behind the apparent clustering, Brown and Batygin developed a method to quantify the amount of bias in each individual observation, then calculated the probability that the clustering is spurious. That probability, they found, is around one in 500.
[...] The second paper is titled "The Planet Nine Hypothesis," and is an invited review that will be published in the next issue of Physics Reports. The paper provides thousands of new computer models of the dynamical evolution of the distant solar system and offers updated insight into the nature of Planet Nine, including an estimate that it is smaller and closer to the sun than previously suspected. Based on the new models, Batygin and Brown -- together with Fred Adams and Juliette Becker (BS '14) of the University of Michigan -- concluded that Planet Nine has a mass of about five times that of the earth and has an orbital semimajor axis in the neighborhood of 400 astronomical units (AU), making it smaller and closer to the sun than previously suspected -- and potentially brighter. Each astronomical unit is equivalent to the distance between the center of Earth and the center of the sun, or about 149.6 million kilometers.

-- submitted from IRC

The planet nine hypothesis (DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.01.009) (DX)

Orbital Clustering in the Distant Solar System (DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf051) (DX)

Previously: CU Boulder Researchers Say Collective Gravity, Not Planet Nine, Explains Orbits of Detached Objects

Original Submission

Scientists Propose Plan to Determine if Planet Nine is a Primordial Black Hole 25 comments

upstart writes in with an IRC submission for RandomFactor:

Scientists propose plan to determine if Planet Nine is a primordial black hole:

Dr. Avi Loeb, Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard, and Amir Siraj, a Harvard undergraduate student, have developed the new method to search for black holes in the outer solar system based on flares that result from the disruption of intercepted comets. The study suggests that the LSST[*] has the capability to find black holes by observing for accretion flares resulting from the impact of small Oort cloud objects.
"In the vicinity of a black hole, small bodies that approach it will melt as a result of heating from the background accretion of gas from the interstellar medium onto the black hole," said Siraj. "Once they melt, the small bodies are subject to tidal disruption by the black hole, followed by accretion from the tidally disrupted body onto the black hole." Loeb added, "Because black holes are intrinsically dark, the radiation that matter emits on its way to the mouth of the black hole is our only way to illuminate this dark environment."
[...] The upcoming LSST is expected to have the sensitivity required to detect accretion flares, while current technology isn't able to do so without guidance. "LSST has a wide field of view, covering the entire sky again and again, and searching for transient flares," said Loeb. "Other telescopes are good at pointing at a known target, but we do not know exactly where to look for Planet Nine. We only know the broad region in which it may reside." Siraj added, "LSST's ability to survey the sky twice per week is extremely valuable. In addition, its unprecedented depth will allow for the detection of flares resulting from relatively small impactors, which are more frequent than large ones."

"Shift-Stacking" Method Used to Search for Dim Solar System Objects 5 comments

takyon writes:

Lighting a path to Planet Nine

The search for Planet Nine — a hypothesized ninth planet in our solar system — may come down to pinpointing the faintest orbital trails in an incredibly dark corner of space.
That's exactly what Yale astronomers Malena Rice and Gregory Laughlin are attempting with a technique that scoops up scattered light from thousands of space telescope images and identifies orbital pathways for previously undetected objects.
[...] To detect objects that are otherwise undetectable, Rice and Laughlin employ a method called "shifting and stacking." They "shift" images from a space telescope — like moving a camera while snapping photos — along pre-defined sets of potential orbital paths. Then they "stack" hundreds of these images together in a way that combines their faint light.
[...] Rice said shifting and stacking has been used in the past to discover new solar system moons. This is the first time it has been used on a large scale to search a wide area of space. The images she and Laughlin used came from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, a space telescope normally used to search for planets outside our solar system.
The researchers tested their method by successfully searching for light signals of three known, trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs). Next, they conducted a blind search of two sectors in the outer solar system that might reveal Planet Nine or any previously undetected Kuiper belt objects — and detected 17 potential objects.

Also at EarthSky.

Exploring Trans-Neptunian Space with TESS: A Targeted Shift-Stacking Search for Planet Nine and Distant TNOs in the Galactic Plane (arXiv:2010.13791)

Original Submission

Claim for Giant 'Planet Nine' at Solar System's Edge Takes a Hit 16 comments

Eratosthenes writes:

Science Mag says:

For planetary scientists, it was the boldest claim in a generation: an unseen extra planet, as much as 10 times the mass of Earth, lurking on the Solar System's frontier, beyond Neptune. But the claim looks increasingly shaky, after a team of astronomers reported last week that the orbits of a handful of distant lumps of rock are not bunched together by the gravity of "Planet Nine," as its proponents believe, but only seem clustered because that's where telescopes happened to be looking.
Planet Nine supporters aren't backing down yet but one skeptic not involved with the new work says she is "very happy" to see it. The study has carried out "a more uniform analysis" than done previously of the far-off rocky bodies known as known as Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), says astronomer Samantha Lawler of the University of Regina, who has tried and failed to simulate the clustered orbits in computer models with an extra planet.
Mike Brown and Konstantin Batygin of the California Institute of Technology made headlines worldwide in 2016 with their prediction for a distant Planet Nine. They based their conclusion on a study of six TNOs, each smaller than Pluto, in extremely elongated and tilted orbits around the Sun. The orbits of these "extreme" TNOs were bunched together, Brown and Batygin said, because Planet Nine's gravity had nudged them there over billions of years. Several more extreme TNOs discovered since then seemed to cluster as well. "I would argue that the relevant [Planet 9] dataset is in pretty good shape," Batygin says.

But then, the evil selection bias crept in.

SoylentNews

SoylentNews is people

Navigation

Sections

SoylentNews

Log In

Related Links

The Search for Planet Nine Continues; Potential Candidate Found

Related Stories

Already done.Already done. (Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Saturday November 13 2021, @01:44AM (3 children)

Re:Already done.(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @02:36AM

Re:Already done.Re:Already done. (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday November 13 2021, @12:33PM (1 child)

Re:Already done.(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday November 13 2021, @05:24PM

Cruse of PlutoCruse of Pluto (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @03:59AM (6 children)

Re:Cruse of PlutoRe:Cruse of Pluto (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @04:33AM (5 children)

Comment Below Threshold

Re:Cruse of Pluto(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @04:41AM

Re:Cruse of PlutoRe:Cruse of Pluto (Score: 4, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday November 13 2021, @11:08AM (3 children)

Re:Cruse of Pluto(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @05:46PM

Re:Cruse of PlutoRe:Cruse of Pluto (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 15 2021, @03:14PM (1 child)

Re:Cruse of Pluto(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 15 2021, @08:48PM

Comment Below Threshold

sexism and feminism(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @04:30AM

Comment Below Threshold

Science? (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @06:00AM

Another Ploy!Another Ploy! (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @06:50AM (17 children)

What about Ceres?What about Ceres? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @11:36AM (16 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @11:55AM (15 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 4, Funny) by theluggage on Saturday November 13 2021, @12:38PM (3 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @06:39PM (2 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 3, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Sunday November 14 2021, @12:14AM (1 child)

Re:What about Ceres?(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 14 2021, @03:02AM

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 3, Informative) by pe1rxq on Saturday November 13 2021, @02:08PM (10 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @02:48PM (6 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Saturday November 13 2021, @07:33PM (5 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @10:42PM (4 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 5, Informative) by pe1rxq on Sunday November 14 2021, @12:09AM (3 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 2) by vux984 on Sunday November 14 2021, @08:02PM (2 children)

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Monday November 15 2021, @08:04PM (1 child)

Re:What about Ceres?(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday November 16 2021, @06:24PM

Re:What about Ceres?(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13 2021, @03:26PM

Re:What about Ceres?Re:What about Ceres? (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday November 14 2021, @04:06PM (1 child)

Re:What about Ceres?(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14 2021, @08:12PM

That's no planetThat's no planet (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday November 13 2021, @05:44PM (3 children)

Re:That's no planetRe:That's no planet (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday November 13 2021, @05:49PM (1 child)

Re:That's no planet(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday November 13 2021, @06:00PM

Re:That's no planet(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 15 2021, @03:18PM