Things just got weirder in the outer solar system.
There’s this big ole chunk of ice out there, with the designation 2004 XR 190 (it’s been nicknamed “Buffy”, which makes me wonder when they’ll start naming these objects after good shows– how about “Leela”, or “Cartman”, or “Stewie”?). It’s probably 500 to 1000 kilometers wide, making it fairly big (though smaller than Pluto). It was discovered during routine observations as part of the Legacy Survey, a project where large telescopes peer at big patches of the sky and look for all sorts of astronomical beasties, including these Kuiper Belt Objects.
What’s weird about this iceball is its orbit. Right now it’s 58 astronomical units from the Sun– 58 times the Earth-Sun distance, translating to about 8.5 billion kilometers, twice the distance of Pluto from the Sun. Now, most objects that far out have really elliptical orbits. They get that way, it’s thought, from getting too close to Neptune, and the planet’s gravity flings them way out into those elongated orbits. Others may have been affected by — get this — a passing star, millions or billions of years ago, whose gravity dropped the comets into weird orbits.
But (sigh) “Buffy’s” orbit isn’t elongated; it’s actually fairly circular. That’s pretty strange! It’s not thought that these objects form that far out, so something has to move them out there. But if that’s true, the orbit should be more elliptical.
And it gets weirder– the orbit is tilted, a lot. Compared to Earth’s orbit (which is pretty much the same plane all the planets orbit in), this guy — I guess it’s a gal given the name — is tilted by 47 degrees! It’s really hard to think of a mechanism that could both circularize the orbit and give it that huge tilt.
It’s possible the answer lies in the way the solar system has changed over hundreds of millions of years. Neptune and Uranus may have formed closer in to the Sun, and by gravitationally affecting comets, they moved out to their present positions. That takes a looooong time, so things probably haven’t changed much in the last eon or two. But things were different a long time ago. Maybe as those slow changes took place, something happened to put 2004 XR 190 (sorry, I can’t use the nickname again) in its circular but highly tilted orbit. Maybe it was a combination of two or more processes.
Whatever happened, it’s challenging our theories of how the solar system got its current configuration. And that’s a pretty good thing– scientists love to be challenged, love to have their hypotheses shown to have holes. That means there are more puzzles left to solve, more observations to make, and more time to think about the way things are and how they got that way.
December 13th, 2005 at 11:42 pm
Just goes to show you that the more you learn the less you know. Man I love science.
December 13th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
surely they could have picked a better name, stewie would have been great.
(here kids, look in the eyepiece, see that small dot, thats stewie) hehehe
December 13th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
VICTORY IS MINE!
December 14th, 2005 at 12:19 am
It’s not strange… it was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED that way!
I’m kidding, only kidding!
December 14th, 2005 at 12:56 am
All hail The Bad Astronomer!
December 14th, 2005 at 2:40 am
What the duce?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:39 am
quote:
(it’s been nicknamed “Buffy�, which makes me wonder when they’ll start naming these objects after good shows– how about “Leela�, or “Cartman�, or “Stewie�?).
I have the South Park Episode about Scientology if you want to borrow it. It is brilliant in my opinion.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:14 am
Just a question: if there are many of these objects in the Kuiper belt, isn’t there a large probability that some of them have anomalous orbits?
December 14th, 2005 at 6:16 am
Hmmm. Scientists love to be proven wrong? Now that’s just too utopian. Like it or not, but contrary to what the ideal scientist is supposed to behave like, most of us are just mortals, and I know A LOT of them who would keep everything secret that proves their articles wrong. After all, being right is what gets you a reputation and new funding, is it not?
December 14th, 2005 at 6:37 am
You guys have it all wrong. It’s an alien probe, sent to observe our solar system (and us, now that we’er here).
Smile! You’re on candid camera.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:51 am
Umm… A complete aside, not really relating to the point of your post. Did you ever WATCH “Buffy”? I used to dis it, based entirely on the name and the premise… Then I actually watched it, and realized that it was the most intelligent thing on television (though not for the science, admittedly). And the guy who wrote it also wrote “Firefly” – notable for having no sound in space.
Anyway, love your column!
Jess
December 14th, 2005 at 7:32 am
Ditto Jess Mills post above. It did seem silly until I actually watched a few eps. Love the column Phil. Trust me when I say naming it after Buffy is a fitting tribute.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:34 am
Dude, seriously, don’t diss Buffy. That’s just… wrong.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:46 am
BA: What did you win?
December 14th, 2005 at 10:06 am
I loved the original Buffy movie. I watched several episodes of the TV show, and didn’t care for it. I did see some episodes of Angel, and it made me laugh, but I think it was just a little bit too much on the cheesy side.
And yes, I knew I’d get protests when I wrote that. My old boss worships Buffy. I don’t think he reads my blog though.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Buffy…I like it. The name, not particularly the show. But I think it might be better assigned to our host, himself. Buffy, the Bad Astronomer: destroyer of anti-science (ala vampires). It’s got a ring to it. Think about it, Buffy.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:15 am
And I bet you just loved the proposal to name a planet “Xena”
I may be supportive of your scientific endeavours, but I’m highly skeptical of your taste in television.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:25 am
It’s encouraging to see that you’re opinion on three “good shows” matches mine
As for this ice chunk, it’s clear that the U.S. Government put it there using its captured alien space craft. (which we have been backwards engineering for the last 60 years, succesfully, dispite our inability to get to the moon.)
December 14th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Speaking of names that relate to tv programs (intentionally or not), I thought it was cool when one of the early names for the ISS was “Alpha.” (In spite of its bad science, I’m a Space: 1999 fan. Well, a fan of the first season anyway.)
As for Family Guy names, if we’re going to call something “Stewie,” we’d also have to call something else “Brian,” who’s probably the most intelligent character on the show. (Don’t tell Stewie I said that!)
Of course, since the universe seems to be “thumbing its nose” at us humans and our pitifully small understanding of things, maybe we should name something “Bender.”
December 14th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
So, if we start with Gabrielle and then Xena… How does Buffy follow? I would think Autolycus or Joxer the Mighty would be more appropriate.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Diederick de Vries Said:
>Hmmm. Scientists love to be proven wrong? Now that’s just too utopian. Like it or not, but contrary to what the ideal scientist is supposed to behave like, most of us are just mortals, and I know A LOT of them who would keep everything secret that proves their articles wrong. After all, being right is what gets you a reputation and new funding, is it not?
Scientists love to have everyone else proven wrong, especially when it means they are right.
The Bad Astronomer Said:
>I loved the original Buffy movie. I watched several episodes of the TV show, and didn’t care for it. I did see some episodes of Angel, and it made me laugh, but I think it was just a little bit too much on the cheesy side.
That’s ironic, given that most people* think the movie was too cheesy and a bit lame, but think the TV show is the wittiest and best written program ever made**.
*Okay, most people who watch sci fi, as opposed to people who think both are crappy because they’re not a “reality” show or soap opera or sporting event.
**I’ll collect my “Joss Whedon is God” points now, thank you.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Joxer the Mighty! That’s what we need to name one of these guys!
December 14th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Naming it after Buffy or Xena isn’t so bad, but I think that my idea is much better.
I still haven’t heard back from NASA about my proposal for naming new bodies found in the outer solar system.
All of the flak that NASA got because of the naked man and woman on the pioneer probe a few years ago may be a reason my letter may have found its way into a cylindrical file cabinet (ie: Trash Can).
As a male college student that would pay taxes if I had a job, I think that it would be a great idea to name large chunks of ice in the outer solar system after people like Jenna Jameson, Chasey Lain, Teagan Presley, or Briana Banks.
All you prudes hear me out. I think that this idea is perfectly reasonable, and I seriously believe that it has a lot of potential.
Everyone knows that Sex Sells. The Adult industry is HUGE. Its no secret that space activities could use more cash. Get some endorsements from a few pretty faces, name a new rock after an adult actress every now and then and even the Hoover Dam won’t be able to hold back the cash flow.
Who wouldn’t pay to see some hot blonde give a little speech in front of the shuttle, or in front of a mockup of the Mars Rovers, or give a presentation on the latest on the latest images from the Hubble? No one cares about old men in suits.
I’m just saying what most men are currently thinking.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
BUFFY!!! Oh, man that show was great. People who don’t think it awesome does so either because A: They dont notice all the layers and subtexts going on, or B: They are mindless automatons – much liked by their highschool teachers, and hooked on knock-knock jokes.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Wonderful story. Seems as if most of the news about astronomy have been right in our own solar system. Remarkable! Perhaps we will learn much from this bit of news.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Let’s name it Barbarella!
December 14th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
This object could be from the old T.V. show Family Affair:
“Into this life
of independence came three young orphans, the 6-year old
twins Buffy and Jody and 15-year-old Cissy.
Now could an object named “Jody” be in a close orbit with “Buffy”?
It’s all “Mr. French” to me…. :*)
December 15th, 2005 at 4:01 am
Could it be that 2004 XR 190 didn’t actually formed in our solar system, but was passing by and got caught by Sun’s gravity? (maybe it IS a probe? that will cover intelligent design aspect as well!)
December 16th, 2005 at 10:29 am
We really are reading WAY too much into this object. “Buffy’s” orbital tilt strongly suggests this object was not created by the processes that created the solar system. Wheras many, many objects get captured as they pass our solar system.
Granted, most either have too much speed (hyperbolic trajectories) or too little (they fall into the sun); and of the ones that achieve stable orbits, most are on parabolic trajectories. But surely we’d expect a few of them to achieve near-circular orbits that are significantly tipped from the eccliptic.
[Commentator Ektich, in an earlier reply, makes a really good point.]
Where is the big mystery — what am I missing here?
Maybe instead of questioning our basic assumptions we should act on the obvious probable solution (that “Buffy” is not from around here” and get a probe out there to analyze the materials she’s made of!
December 16th, 2005 at 11:51 am
It’s artificial. I’d bet money on it. Definitely need to send a probe.
By the way, I like the idea of naming objects after porn stars. Get a lot more support from the “Joe Sixpacks” of the world if we announce we are sending a “probe” to Jenna Jameson and will send back pictures. They will start writing checks.
December 16th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
>
While I like the mockery of “Buffy” (a show I enjoyed but thought was overrated), you’re wrong on two counts:
1.) There was already an object in space that was named after a “good show”
2.) If another planet, chunk of ice, or solar system was nicknamed “Brian” or “Stewie”, then that would just be an example of something getting their name from a crappy TV show
.
But I guess it doesn’t really matter what these things are nicknamed, since they’ll probably end up getting different names anyway.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:14 am
I know YMMV, but how can ANYONE respect a scientist who didn’t like BUFFY!
December 17th, 2005 at 12:15 am
sorry, what I meant to say was how can anyone respect a scientist who doesn’t like BUFFY. get over yourself man!
February 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Count a seventh vote for Buffy as the best show ever.
April 12th, 2010 at 5:40 am
2004 XR 190 (it’s been nicknamed “Buffy”, which makes me wonder when they’ll start naming these objects after good shows
Hey Buffy was a good show! A great one even.