270px|minijatura|desno|Poznati objekti Kuiperovog pojasa izvedeni iz podataka Minor Planet Centera. Objekti u glavnom pojasu obojani su zeleno dok su raspršeni objekti narančasti. Četiri vanjska planeta su plava. Nekoliko poznatih Neptunovih trojanskih asteroida su žuti dok su Jupiterovi ružičasti.
Kuiperov pojas, ponekad nazivan i Edgeworth–Kuiperov pojas, područje Sunčevog sustava nakon planeta koje se proteže od Neptunove orbite (na 30 AJ) do otprilike 50 AJ od Sunca. Iako sličan asteroidnom pojasu, značajno je veći od njega - 20 puta širi te 20 do 200 puta masivniji. Kao i asteroidni pojas, uglavnom se sastoji od manjih nebeskih tijela, ostataka iz vremena formiranja Sunčevog sustava. Dok je većina asteroida sastavljena uglavnom od stijena i metala, većina objekata Kuiperovog pojasa građena je od zaleđenih hlapljivih spojeva (koji se nazivaju "ledovima"), poput metana, amonijaka i vode. Klasični pojas dom je barem trima patuljastim planetima: Plutonu, Haumei i Makemakeu. Za neke od mjeseca sunčevog sustava, poput Neptunovog Tritona i saturnove Febe, vjeruje se da potječu iz pojasa.Johnson, Torrence V.; and Lunine, Jonathan I.; "Saturn's moon Phoebe as a captured body from the outer Solar System", Nature, Vol. 435, str. 69–71

Od otkrića pojasa 1992., broj poznatih objekata Kuiperovog pojasa (KBO) povećao se na više od tisuću dok se broj objekata s promjerom većim od 100 km procjenjuje na više od 100.000. Kuiperov pojas isprva se smatrao glavnim izvorištem periodičnih kometa, onih čija orbita traje manje od 200 godina. Međutim, istraživanja nakon sredine 1990-ih pokazala su da je klasični pojas dinamički stabilan, te da je pravi izvor kometa raspšeni disk, dinamički aktivno područje koje je nastalo gibanjem Neptuna prije 4,5 milijardi godina;Harold F. Levison, Luke Donnes (2007.). "Comet Populations and Cometary Dynamics". U Lucy Ann Adams McFadden, Paul Robert Weissman, Torrence V. Johnson. "Encyclopedia of the Solar System" (2. izdanje.). Amsterdam; Boston: Academic Press. str. 575 – 588. . objekti raspršenog pojasa poput Eris imaju izraženo ekscentrične orbite koje ih odvedu na udaljenosti i do 100 AJ od Sunca.

Kuiperov pojas ne bi se smio miješati s pretpostavljenim Oortovim oblakom, koji je tisuću puta udaljeniji. Objekti unutar Kuiperovog pojasa, zajedno s članovima raspršenog diska i potencijalnog Hillsovog oblaka ili Oortovog oblaka, kolektivno se nazivaju trans-Neptunskim objektima (TNO, eng. trans-Neptunian objects).

Pluton je najveći poznat član Kuiperovog pojasa, te drugi najveći poznati TNO, nakon Eris u raspršenom disku. Prvotno smatran planetom, Plutonov status kao dijela Kuiperovog pojasa doveo je do reklasificiranja u "patuljasti planet" 2006. godine. Građom je sličan mnogim drugim objektima u pojasu te mu je orbitalni period karakteristična za klasu KBO-a poznatih kao "plutinoi" koji dijele istu 2:3 rezonanciju s Neptunom.

 Povijest
Nakon otkrića Plutona mnogi su nagađli da možda nije sam. Područje koje se danas naziva Kuiperovim pojasom teoretizirano je u različitim oblicima desetljećima. Tek su 1992. pronađeni prvi izravni dokazi koji potvrđuju njegovo postojanje. Broj i raznolikost ranijih nagađanja o naravi Kuiperovog pojasa doveli su do toga da nije točno određeno kome pripadaju zasluge za njegovo prvo predlaganje.
 Hipoteze
Prvi astronom koji je predložio postojanje trans-Neptunske populacije bio je Frederick C. Leonard. 1930., nedugo nakon što je Clyde Tombaugh otkrio Pluton, Leonard je nagađao da "nije li vjerojatno da je u obliku Plutona na vidjelo izašao prvi u seriji od ultra-Neptunovskih tijela, čiji ostali članovi čekaju otkriće ali su suđeni da u konačnici budu pronađeni".
150px|minijatura|desno|Gerard Kuiper

1943. u časopisu Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Kenneth Edgeworth teoretizirao je da je, u području nakon Neptuna, materijal unutar primordijalne solarne maglice bio preširoko raspoređen da bi se iz njega formirali planeti umjesto čega je nastalo mnoštvo manjih tijela. Iz ovoga je izveo zaključak da je "vanjsko područje Sunčevog sustava, izvan orbita planeta, naseljeno velikim brojem relativno malih tijela"John Davies (2001.). "Beyond Pluto: Exploring the outer limits of the solar system". Cambridge University Press. xii. te da, s vremena na vrijeme, jedan od njih "zaluta iz svoje sfere kao povremeni posjetitelj unutarnjeg Sunčevog sustava",Davies, str. 2 postajući komet.

1951., u članku za časopis Astrophysics, Gerard Kuiper je nagađao o sličnom diskom koji se formirao rano u evoluciji Sunčevog sustava; međutim, on nije vjerovao da takav pojas postoji i danas. Kuiper je radio koristeći pretpostavke koje su u to vrijeme bile opće prihvaćene, da je Pluto veličine Zemlje te da je raspršio ove objekte vani prema Oortovom oblaku ili izvan Sunčevog sustava. Da je Kuiperova hipoteza bila točna, danas ne bi bilo Kuiperovog pojasa.

Hipoteza je u desetljećima koja su slijedila poprimila brojne različite oblike. 1962. fizičar Al G.W. Cameron predložio je postojanje "goleme mase malog materijala na rubovima Sunčevog sustava",Davies, str. 14 dok je 1964. Fred Whipple, koji je popularizirao poznatu hipotezu "prljava snježna gruda" kao objašnjenje strukture kometa, smatrao da "pojas kometa" može biti dovoljno masivan da izazove poremećaje u orbiti Urana koji su pokrenuli potragu za Planetom X. Promatranja su isključila ovu mogućnost.

1977. Charles Kowal otkrio je 2060 Hiron, ledeni planetiod s orbitom između Saturna i Urana. 1992., još jedan objekt, 5145 Fol, otkriven je u sličnoj orbiti. Danas je poznato da čitava populacija tijela nalik kometima, kentauri, zauzima područje između Jupitera i Neptuna. Orbite kentaura su nestabilne te imaju dinamički životni vijek od nekoliko milijuna godina. Od vremena otkrića Hirona, astronomi su pretpostavljali da mora postojati nekakav "rezervoar" iz kojeg se skupina nadopunjuje.Davies, str. 38

Dodatni dokazi o postojanju pojasa došli su od proučavanja kometa. Činjenica da kometi imaju određene životne vijekove bila je poznata već neko vrijeme. Kako se približavaju Suncu, njegova toplina izaziva sublimaciju njihove hlapljive površine u svemir, postupno ih izjedajući. Da bi bili vidljivi kroz vijekove Sunčevog sustava, stvara potrebu za njihovim čestim obnavljanjem. Jedno od takvih područja obnavljanja je Oortov oblak, sferični roj kometa koji se proteže dalje od 50.000 AJ od Sunca, prvi put predložen 1950. od strane Jana Oorta. Vjeruje se da je izvor kometa dugog perioda, poput Hale-Boppa, čije orbite traju tisuće godina.

Postoje, međutim, i druge kometne populacije poznate kao kratko-periodni i periodični; oni, poput Halleya, s orbitama koje traju manje od 200 godina. Do 1970-ih, brzina kojom su otkrivani kratko-periodni kometi bila je nedosljedna s mišljenjem da potječu samo iz Oortovog oblaka.Davies, str. 39 Da bi objekt Oortovog oblaka postao kratko-periodični komet potrebno je da ga prije toga zarobi jedan od divovskih planeta. 1980. u Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Julio Fernandez je ustvrdio da za svaki kratko-periodni komet koji ode prema unutarnjem Sunčevom sustavu, njih 600 treba biti izbačeno u međuzvjezdani prostor. Nagađao je da bi kometni pojas između 35 AJ i 50 AJ bio nužan kako bi se objasnili svi promatrani kometi. Slijedeći Fernandezova rad, 1988. kanadski tim sastavljen od Martina Duncana, Toma Quinna i Scotta Tremainea izveo je niz računalnih simulacija kako bi utvrdili jesu li svi promatrani kometi mogli doći iz Oortovog oblaka. Otkrili su da Oortov oblak ne može biti izvorište svih kometa, posebice zato što su kratko-periodni grupirani u blizini ravnine Sunčevog sustava dok kometi Oortovog oblaka imaju tendenciju stizati iz bilo koje točke na nebu. Dodajući u izračune pojas koji je opisao Fernandez, simulacije su se poklapale s promatranjima. Navodno zato što su se izrazi "Kuiper" i "kometni pojas" pojavili u početnoj rečenici Fernandezovog rada, Tremaine je ovu hipotetsku regiju oslovio kao "Kuiperov pojas".Davies, str. 191

 Otkriće
250px|minijatura|desno|Teleskopi na vrhu Mauna Kea pomoću kojih je otkriven Kuiperov pojas
1987. astronom David Jewitt, tada na MIT-u, bio je sve više zbunjen navodnom "prazninom vanjskog Sunčevog sustava". Tadašnju studenticu Jane Luu poticao je da mu pomogne u traženju drugog objekta izvan plutonove orbite jer kako je rekao, "ako mi to nećemo, nitko neće".Davies, str. 50 Služeći se teleskopima zvjezdarnica Kitt Peak u Arizoni i Cerro Tololo Inter-American u Čileu Jewitt i Luu potragu su zasnovali na istim principima kao i Clyde Tombaugh i Charles Kowal, koristeći blink-komparator. Isprva im je za pregled jednog para pločica bilo potrebno oko osam sati,Davies, str. 51 no proces je ubrzan uvođenjem električnih CCD senzora koji, iako su imali uže polje promatranja, su bili efikasniji u prikupljanju svjetla te su omogućavali digitalno uspoređivanje pločica na računalu. 1988. Jewitt je prešao na Institut za astronomiju Sveučilišta na Havajima. Kasnije mu se pridružila i Luu gdje su imali pristup 2,24 m teleskopu na vrhu Mauna Kea.Davies str. 57, 62 Vidno polje koje su mogli snimati CCD-i s vremenom se povećalo na 1024 x 1024 piksela što je omogućilo puno brže pretrage neba.Davies, str. 65 Konačno nakon pet godina potrage, 30. kolovoza 1992., Jewitt i Luu objavili su "otkriće kandidata za objekt Kuiperovog pojasa" (15760) 1992 QB1 Šest mjeseci kasnije u istom području otkrili su i drugi objekt, (181708) 1993 FW.

 Ime
Astronomi se ponekad služe nazivom Edgeworth-Kuiperov pojas kako bi odali priznanje Edgeworthu te se KBO-i ponekad nazivaju EKO-ima. Brian Marsden tvrdi da nijedan od navedenih ne zaslužuje pune zasluge: "Ni Edgeworth ni Kuiper nisu pisali ni o čemu sličnome što vidimo danas, ali Fred Whipple jest."Davies str. 199 Suprotno tome, Davit Jewitt komentirao je: "ako išta ... Fernandez gotovo sigurno zaslužuje priznanje za predviđanje Kuiperovog pojasa".

KBO-i se ponekad oslovljavaju i kuiperoidima, nazivom koji je predložio Clyde Tombaugh.Clyde Tombaugh, "The Last Word", Letters to the Editor, Sky & Telescope, prosinac, 1994., str. 8 Nekoliko znanstvenih grupacija preporuča izraz trans-neptunski objekt (TNO) za objekte unutar pojasa budući je manje kontroverzan od ostalih; unatoč tome ne radi se o sinonimu jer TNO-i uključuju sve objekte u orbiti oko Sunca dalje od neptunove orbite, a ne samo one unutar Kuiperovog pojasa.

 Podrijetlo
400px|minijatura|desno|Simulacija koja prikazuje vanjske planete s Kuiperovim pojasom: a) prije nego što su Jupiter i Saturn postignuli 2:1 rezonancu; b) nakon raspinja objekata Kuiperovog pojasa prema unutra uslijed orbitalnog pomaka Neptuna; c) nakon izbacivanja raspršenih objekata Kuiperovog pojasa od strane Jupitera
Točno podrijetlo Kuiperovog pojasa i njegove složene strukture još uvijek je nepoznato; astronomi stoga očekuju kompletiranje nekoliko široko-kutnih svemirskih teleskopa poput Pan-STARRS-a i LSST-a koji će moći otkriti do sada nepoznate KBO-e. Ta bi otkrića ujedno pomogla odgonetnuti navedene nedoumice.

Vjeruje se da se Kuiperov pojas sastoji od planetezimala, fragmenata izvornog protoplanetarnog diska oko Sunca koji se nije uspio formirati u prave planete već su nastala manja tijela od kojih najveća iznose 3.000 km u promjeru.

Moderne računalne simulacije pokazuju da se Kuiperov pojas nalazio pod snažnim utjecajem Jupitera i Neptuna. Također, pokazale su da se ni Uran ni Neptun nisu mogli formirati na sadašnjim lokacijama zbog nedostatka primordijalne tvari iz koje bi nastali objekti tolike mase. Umjesto toga, vjeruje se da su nastali bliže Jupiteru. Raspršenost planetezimala rano u povijesti Sunčevog sustava dovela bi do migracije orbita plinovitih divova; Saturn, Uran i Neptun pomaknuti su prema vani dok se Jupiter pomaknuo prema unutarnjem dijelu sustava. Orbite su im se s vremenom promijenile do te točke da se Jupiter i Saturn nalaze u točnoj 2:1 rezonanciji što znači da dok Jupiter napravi dvije orbite oko Sunca, Saturn napravi jednu. Gravitacijske posljedice takve rezonancije poremetile su orbite Urana i Neptuna što je za posljedicu imalo ekscentriciteniju orbitu Neptuna te pomak prema vani u primordijalni planetezimalni disk što je u disku izazvalo privremeni kaos. Kako se neptunova orbita širila, raspršila je brojne TNO planetezimale u više i ekscentricitetnije oribte. Mnogi su raspršeni prema unutra gdje ih je opet, u nekim slučajevima, prema vani izbacivao Jupiter. Za ovaj se proces vjeruje da je smanjio populaciju primordijalnog Kuiperovog pojasa za 99% te da je rasprostranjenost preostalih članova ograničio na vanjska područja.

Međutim, ovaj trenutačno najprihvaćeniji model, "model iz Nice", ne uspijeva objasniti neke od karakteristika distribucije te "problemi i dalje predstavljaju izazov analitičkim tehnikama i najbržem hardwareru i softwareu za numeričko modeliranje". Model predviđa viši prosječni eskcentricitet u orbitama klasičnih KBO-a nego što uistinu jest. Učestalost sparenih objekata, od kojih su mnogi udaljeni i slabo vezani, također prestavlja problem za model.

 Struktura
250px|minijatura|desno|Prašina u Kuiperovom pojasu stvara slabi infracrveni disk
Na najširoj točki, uključujući vanjska područja, Kuiperov pojas proteže se otprilike od 35 do 55 AJ. Za glavninu tijela pojasa općenito se drži da se proteže od 2:3 rezonancije na 39,5 AJ do 1:2 rezonancije na otprilike 48 AJ. Kuiperov je pojas poprilično gust s glavninom koncentracije koja se proteže i do deset stupnjeva izvan ekliptične ravnine te difuznije distribucije objekata koja se proteže nekoliko puta dalje.

Neptunova prisutnost ima značajan utjecaj na strukturu pojasa zbog orbitalnih rezonancija. Tijeko razdoblja koje je usporedivo sa starošću Sunčevog sustava, neptunova gravitacija destabilizira orbite bilo kojih objekata koji se nalaze u određenim područjima te ih "preusmjeri" ili prema unutarnjem dijelu Sunčevog sustava ili vani u raspršeni pojas ili međuzvjezdani prostor. Ovaj fenomen dovodi do toga Kuiperov pojas posjeduje izražene praznine u trenutačnoj strukturi, slično kao što asteroidni pojas ima Kirkwoodove praznine. U području između 40 i 42 AJ, na primjer, nijedan objekt ne može zadržati stabilnu orbitu na tako dugo razdoblje, te pojedini koji su promatrani u tome području na svoju sadašnju lokaciju došli su tek nedavno.

 Klasični pojas

Između 2:3 i 1:2 rezonancije s Neptunom, na otprilike 42 - 48 AJ, gravitacijski utjecaj Neptuna je neznatan te objekti mogu egzistirati s netaknutim orbitama. Navedeno područje, čiji članovi čine oko dvije trećine do danas promatranih KBO-a, poznato je kao klasični Kuiperov pojas. Budući se prvi moderno otkriveni KBO, (15760) 1992 QB1, smatra prototipom grupe, klasične KBO-e često se naziva i cubewanosima ("Q-B-1-osi"). Smjernice Međunarodne astronomske unije zahtijevaju da klasični KBO-i nose imena mitoloških bića povezanih sa stvaranjem.

Po svemu sudeći klasični Kuiperov pojas sastoji se od dvije odvojene populacije. Prva, poznata kao "dinamički hladna" populacija, ima orbite slične planetima; gotovo kružne, s orbitalnim ekscentricitetom manjim od 0,1 i s relativnom malenom inklinacijom od oko 10° (leže u ravnini sa Sunčevim sustavom a ne pri određenom kutu). Druga, "dinamički vruća" populacija, ima orbite pod većom inklinacijom, do 30°. Nazivi populacija nemaju veze s mogućim razlikama u temperaturi već zbog analogije čestica plina koje pri zagrijavanju povećavaju relativnu brzinu. Dvije populacije osim što imaju različite orbite, različite su i boje; hladna populacije primjetno je crvenija od vruće. Ako je ovo odraz različitog sastava moguće je da su formirane u različitim područjima. Za vruću populaciju vjeruje se da je nastala u blizini Jupitera te je izbačena zbog utjecaja plinovitih divova. Za hladnu populaciju pretpostavljeno je da je nastala manje više na trenutačkoj lokaciji, iako je moguće da je i ona bila pod utjecajem Neptuna za vrijeme njegove migracije. Iako se čini da model iz Nice barem djelomično objašnjava njihovu različitost sastava, moguće je da je razlika u bojama posljedica različitih evolucija površine.

 Rezonancija

250px|minijatura|desno|Distribucija cubewanoa (plavo), rezonantnih trans-neptunskih objekata (crveno) i bliskih objekata raspršenog diska (sivo)

Kada je orbitalni period nekog objekta točno srazmjeran neptunovom, tada objekt može biti zahvaćen s njim u sinkroniziranom kretanju. Ako je, na primjer, objekt u točnoj orbiti kada za dvije orbite oko Sunca Neptun napravi tri, te ako svoj perihel dostigne kada je Neptun od njega udaljen za četvrtinu orbite, u tom slučaju kada god se vrati u točku perihela Neptun će uvijek biti na otprilike istom relativnom položaju budući je za to vrijeme prošao jednu i pol orbitu. Ovo je poznato kao 2:3 (ili 3:2) rezonancija i odgovara karakterističnoj velikoj poluosi od oko 39,4 AJ. 2:3 rezonancija obuhvaća oko 200 poznatih objekata, uključujući Pluton zajedno s mjesecima po čemu je ova skupina dobila naziv plutinoi.
200px|minijatura|lijevo|Orbitalne klasifikacije
Mnogi plutinoi, uključujući Pluton, imaju orbite koje se sijeku s neptunovom no zbog svoje rezonantnosti nikada se neće sudariti. Plutinoi imaju visoke orbitalne ekscentricitete iz čega se može zaključiti da su u sadašnje orbite došli izbacivanjem od strane migrirajućeg Neptuna. Smjernice Međunarodne astronomske unije zahtijevaju da se svi plutioni nazovu prema božanstvima podzemlja.

1:2 rezonancija (za svaku neptunovu cijelu, ovi objekti obave pola orbite) odgovara velikoj pulosi od oko ~47,7 AJ te je rijetko naseljena. Objekti iz ove populacije ponekad se nazivaju twotinosima. Druge rezonancije postoje pri 3:4, 3:5, 4:7 i 2:5.Davies str. 104 Neptun posjeduje i brojne trojanske objekte koji se nalaze u njegovim L4 i L5 točkama, gravitacijski stabilnim područjima ispred i iza njegove orbite. Često se opisuju kao da objekti u 1:1 rezonanciji s Neptunom te imaju jako stabilne orbite.

Postoji i relativan nedostatak objekata s velikom poluosi ispod 39 AJ što se ne može objasniti postojećim rezonancijama. Aktualno objašnjenje ovog fenomena jest dok se Neptun kretao prema vani, nestabilne orbitalne rezonancije postupno su se kretale kroz ovo područje što znači da je bilo koji objekt u njemu s vremenom gravitacijski izbačen.Davies, str. 107

 "Kuiperova litica"
Čini se kako je 1:2 rezonancija rub iza kojega je poznato svega nekoliko objekata. Nije jasno radi li se o stvarnome vanjskome rubu klasičnog pojasa ili početku velike praznine. Poznati su objekti koji su detektirani u 2:5 rezonancija na oko 55 AJ što je dobrano izvan klasičnog pojasa; međutim, predviđanja velikog broja tijela u klasičnim orbitama između ovih rezonancija nisu potvrđena promatranjima.

Raniji modeli Kuiperovog pojasa predlagali su dvosturko povećanje broja velikih objekata izvan granice od 50 AJ, tako da je ovaj drastičan pad, poznat kao "Kuiperova litica", bio potpuno neočekivan te je do danas ostao nerazjašnjen. 2003. Bernstein i Trilling et al. pronašli su dokaze da je značajan pad objekata polumjera od 100 km ili više izvan 50 AJ, realan, a ne izvazan mogućim pogreškama pri promatranju. Moguća objašnjenja glase da je materijal na tim udaljenostima pre rijedak ili pre raspršen da bi se formirao u velike objekte, ili da su kasniji procesi uklonili ili uništili one koji su se uspjeli formirati. Patryk Lykawka sa Sveučilišta Kobe tvrdi da je mogući uzročnik ovoga fenomena gravitacijski utjecaj neotkrivenog objekta, možda čak veličine Zemlje ili Marsa.

 Sastav
250px|minijatura|desno|Infracrveni spektar Eris i Plutona iz čega su im vidljive zajedničke apsorpcijske linije metana
Proučavanje Kuiperovog pojasa od njegovog otkrića otkrilo je da se njegovi članovi sastoje uglavnom od ledova: kombinacije lakih ugljikovodika (poput metana), amonijama i vodenog leda,Stephen C. Tegler (2007.). "Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies". In Lucy-Ann McFadden et al.. Encyclopedia of the Solar System. str. 605 – 620. koji su ujedno prisutni i u sastavu kometa. Niska gustoća KBO-a s poznatim promjerom karakteristična je za građu od leda. Temperatura pojasa iznosi svega oko 50 K, tako da mnogi spojevi koji bi bliže Suncu bili plinoviti, ostaju u čvrstom agregatnom stanju.

Kemijski sastav KBO-a teško je odrediv zbog njihovih malih dimenzija i velike udaljenosti od Zemlje. Glavna metoda kojom se astronomi služe pri određivanju sastava nebeskih objekata je spektroskopija; kada se svjetlost objekta razbije na sastavne boje nastaje slika nalik dugi, odnosno spektar. Svaki element ili spoj ima svoj jedinstven spektroskopski potpis zbog čega se analiziranjem cijelog spektra nekog objekta može odrediti njegov sastav.

Tako detaljna analiza ranije nije bila moguća te su astronomi mogli odrediti samo osnovne činjenice o sastavu, poput njihove boje. Ovakvi prvotni podaci otkrili su široku paletu boja među KBO-ima, od neutralne sive do tamno crvene, Što navodi na zaključak da su im površine sastavljene od raznih spojeva, od nečistih ledova do ugljikovodika. Navedena raznolikost bila je iznenađenje budući su astronomi očekivali jednolično tamne KBO-e čiji su hlapljivi ledovi nestali zbog utjecaja kozmičkih zraka.Davies, str. 118 Jedno od predloženih objašnjenja ove nedosljednosti je i izranjanje novoga materijala zbog udara. Međutim istraživanje iz 2001. tijekom kojeg je obavljena spektralna analiza poznatih objekata Kuiperovog pojasa pokazalo je da su varijacije u bojama predrastične da bi se objasnile nasumičnim udarima.

Iako je većinu KBO-a zbog njihovog slabog sjaja i danas teško spektralno analizirati, ostvaren je nemal broj uspjeha u određivanju njihovog sastava. 1996. Robert H. Brown et al. dobio je spektroskopske podatke objekta 1993 SC otkrivši površinski sastav s velikim količinama metanovog leda, slično 134340 Plutonu i Neptunovom mjesecu Tritonu.

Vodeni led detektiran je na nekoliko KBO-a, uključujući 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya i 20000 Varuna. 2004. Mike Brown et al. otkrili su prisustvo ledova kristalne vode i amonijevog hidrata na jednom od najvećih poznatih KBO-a, 50000 Quaoaru. Obje supstance trebalu su nestati za vrijeme postojanja Sunčevog sustava, iz čega se može zaključiti da su tek nedavno izbili na površinu, ili unutarnjom tektonskom aktivnošću ili udarom meteora.

 Masa i distribucija veličina
250px|minijatura|desno|Ilustracija zakona snage
Unatoč njegovom velikom obujmu, kolektivna masa Kuiperovog pojasa relativno je mala. Pretpostavlja se da ukupna masa pojasa iznosi između 1/25 i 1/10 mase Zemlje, odnosno 1/13 prema drugim procjenama. Suprotno ovome, modeli formiranja Sunčevog sustava predviđaju kolektivnu masu pojasa koja iznosi 30 masa Zemlje. Navedeni nedostatak od >99% mase ne može se ignorirati budući je potreban za nastanak bilo kojeg KBO-a većeg od 100 km u promjeru. Da je u pojasu oduvijek vladala ovako niska gustoća, navedeni se objekti jednostavno ne bi mogli formirati. Nadalje, ekscentricitet i inklinacija sadašnjih orbita susrete objekata čini "silovitima" što više rezultira uništenjem nego nagomilavanjem. Čini se da su trenutni objekti Kuiperovog pojasa ili nastali bliže Suncu ili im je nekakav mehanizam raspršio izvornu masu. Neptunov današnji utjecaj preslab je da bi se njime objasnio tako značajan nestanak mase, iako model iz Nice predlaže da je u prošlosti mogao biti uzročnikom njenog uklanjanja. Dok je ovo pitanje i dalje bez odgovora, pretpostavke se kreću od zvijezda u prolazu do mrvljenja malenih objekata u prašinu dovoljno sitnu da bude pod utjecajem solarnog zračenja.

Svjetli objekti rijetkost su u odnosu na blijedu populaciju, očekivano u skladu s modelima "nagomilavanja", s pretpostavkom da su samo neki objekti određene veličine nastavili rasti. Ovaj odnos između N(D) (broj objekata čiji je promjer veći od D) i D, poznat kao "padina sjaja", potvrđen je promatranjima. Padina je obrnuto proporcionalna nekoj snazi promjera D:

 gdje trenutačna mjerenja daju q = 4 ±0.5.

Što implicira

Manje formalno, postoji na primjer 8 (=23) puta više objekata u rasponu od 100 – 200 km nego u 200 – 400 km. Drugim riječima, na svaki objekt promjera 1000 km trebalo bi doći oko 1000 (=103) objekata promjera od 100 km.

Ako q iznosi 4 ili manje, zakon bi implicirao neograničenu masu u Kuiperovom pojasu. Istinita funkcija N(D) očito pretpostavlja samo vrijednosti cijeloga broja tako da vrijednosti razlomaka koje daje za N za veliko D ne mogu biti točne. Točniji modeli pokazali su da je parametar "padine" q realno veći pri velikim promjerima i manji pri malim promjerima. Po svemu sudeći Pluton je neočekivano velik sadržeći nekoliko postotaka sveukupne mase Kuiperovog pojasa. Ne očekuje se da unutar pojasa postoji objekt veći od Plutona, te je većina nasjajnijih (najvećih) objekata na inklinacijama manjim od 5° vjerojatno već otkrivena. Od siječnja 2010. najmanji poznati objekt Kuiperovog pojasa ima promjer od 980 m.

 Raspršeni objekti

200px|minijatura|lijevo|Usporedba orbita rasrpešnih objekata (crno), klasičnih KBO-a (plavo) i 2:5 rezonantnih objekata (zeleno). Orbite drugih KBO-a prikazane su sivo.
Raspršeni disk je rijetko naseljeno područje koje se preklapa s Kuiperovim pojasom ali se proteže do udaljenosti od 100 AJ pa i dalje. Objetki raspršenog diska (SDO, eng. Scattered disc objects) putuju u jako eliptičnim orbitama, često i u visokoj inklinaciji u odnosu na ekliptiku. Većina modela formiranja Sunčevog sustava prikazauju nastanak KBO-a i SDO-a u primordijalnom kometnom pojasu prije nego što su ih gravitacijski utjecaji, posebice s Neptunom, izbacili prema vani; neke u stabilne orbite (KBO-e) a druge u nestabilne na taj način formirajući raspršeni disk. Zbog njegove nestabilne prirode vjeruje se da je raspršeni disk izvor mnogih kratko-periodičnih kometa. Njihove dinamične orbite povremeno ih usmjere prema unutarnjem Sunčevom sustavu gdje prvo postanu kentauri a zatim i kratko-periodični kometi.

Prema Minor Planet Centeru koji službeno katalogizira sve trans-neptunske objekte, KBO je, strogo govoreći, bilo koji objekt koji orbitira isključivo unutar definiranog područja Kuiperovog pojasa, neovisno o njegovom podrijetlu ili sastavu. Objekti otkriveni izvan pojasa klasificiraju se kao raspršeni objekti. Međutim, unutar određenih znanstvenih krugova izraz "Kuiperov pojas" postao je sinonim za bilo koji ledeni planetoid u vanjskom Sunčevom sustavu, iako mu je orbita tijekom većine povijesti Sunčevog sustava možebitno bila izvan Kuiperovog pojasa. Objekte raspršenog diska često opisuju i kao "raspršene objekte Kuiperovog pojasa". 136199 Eris, koji je masivniji od Plutona, često se naziva KBO-om, iako je tehnički gledano SDO. Konsenzus među astronomima po pitanju točne definicije Kuiperovog pojasa još uvijek nije postignut.

Za Kentaure, koji se inače ne smatraju dijelom Kuiperovog pojasa, također se vjeruje da su raspršeni objekti, s jedinom razlikom u tome što su oni raspršeni prema unutra a ne vani. Tako Minor Planet Center Kentaure i SDO-e grupira zajedno kao raspršene objekte.

 Triton

200px|minijatura|desno|Neptunov mjesec Triton

Tijekom njegovog migracijskog perioda, Neptun je vjerojatno zahvatio jedan od većih KBO-a i postavio ga u orbitu oko sebe. Radi se o Tritonu, jedinom velikom mjesecu u Sunčevom sustav koji ima retrogradnu orbitu što znači da orbitira suprotno od smjera Neptunove rotacije. Ovo navodi na zaključak da je Triton u trenutku zahvaćanja već bio u potpunosti formirano tijelo, za razliku od satalita Jupitera i Saturna koji su nastali skupljanjem materijala iz diskova koji su okruživali njihve mlade matične planete. Triton je malo veći od Plutona, i spektralna analiza oba objekta otkrila je da su načinjeni od uglavnom istih materijala poput metana i ugljikovog monoksida. Iz ovoga se može zaključiti da je Triton nekoć bio KBO kojega je zahvation Neptun tijekom njegove migracije prema vani.

 Najveći KBO-i

Od 2000. godine otkriven je značajan broj objekata čiji se promjeri kreću od 500 do 1500 km. Klasični KBO 50000 Quaoar otkriven 2002. ima promjer od preko 1200 km, dok su 136108 Haumea i 136472 Makemake još veći. Manji objekti poput 28978 Iksiona i 20000 Varune imaju promjere od oko 500 km.
 Pluton

Otkrivanje velikih KBO-a u orbitama sličnim Plutonovoj mnoge je navelo na zaključak da Pluton nije toliko različit od ostalih članova Kuiperovog pojasa. Ne samo da su novootkriveni objekti Plutonu bili slični po dimenzijama, već su mnogi imali i prirodne satelite te sličan sastav (poglavito metan i ugljikov monoksid koji su pronađeni i na drugim KBO-ima). Tako točno u vrijeme kada se razmišljalo o reklasifikaciji 1 Ceresa kao planeta, određeni astronomi počeli su dovoditi u pitanje status samoga Plutona.

Dvojbu je u prvi plan smjestilo otkriće 136199 Eris, objekta u raspršenom disku daleko izvan Kuiperovog pojasa, za koju se ispostavilo da je 27% masivnija, ali po promjeru manja od Plutona. Suočena s novonastalom situacijom Međunarodna astronomska unija (IAU) po prvi je put točno definirala što to čini planet, između ostaloga navodeći potrebu da planet mora imati čisto područje oko svoje orbite. Budući da je Pluton svoju orbitu dijelio s brojnim drugim KBO-ima, IAU je zaključila da nije zadovoljio jedan od uvjeta te ga reklasificirala iz planeta u člana Kuiperovog pojasa. Postoje međutim mnogi drugi objekti poput 90482 Orka i 28978 Iksiona koji su dovoljno veliki da ostvare hidrostatičku ravnotežu te će vjerojatno zadovoljiti kriterije za proglašenje kada o njima bude dostupno više informacija.

 Istraživanje

16. siječnja 2006. NASA je lansirala New Horizons, prvu letjelicu kojoj je zadatak istraživanje Kuiperovog pojasa odnosno Plutona. Misija koju predvodi Alan Stern sa Southwest Research Instituta do cilja će doći 14. srpnja 2015. te bi, ako okolnosti dopuste, trebala nastaviti s istraživanje još jednog za sada neodređenoga, KBO-a. Kandidati za takvu produženu misiju imat će od 40 do 90 km promjeru te po mogućnosti bijeli ili sivi odsjaj kao suprotnost Plutonovoj crvenkastoj boji. Trenutačno nije određeno točno koji KBO se planira dodatno istraživati budući se očekuju podaci projekta Pan-STARRS koji će kontrolorima misije omogućiti što širi spektar mogućnosti.

 Drugi Kuiperovi pojasevi

250px|minijatura|desno|Fragmentacijski disk oko zvijezda HD 139664 i HD 53143.
Do 2006. astronomi su identificirali diskove prašine kao strukture nalik Kuiperovom pojasu oko devet drugih zvijezda. Dijele se u dvije glavne kategorije: široke pojaseve s polumjerom od preko 50 AJ i uže (poput našega) s polumjerom između 20 i 30 AJ te s relativno jasnim granicama. 15-20% zvijezda poput našeg Sunca posjeduju infracrvene tragove za koje se vjeruje da predstavljaju strukture poput Kuiperovog pojasa. Većina poznatih fragmentacijskih diskova oko drugih zvijezda mlađeg je podrijetla dok dvije fotografije desno predstavljaju diskove dovoljne starosti (oko 300 milijuna godina) da se smjeste u stabilne konfiguracije. Lijeva fotografija predstavlja pogled od gore na široki pojas, dok je desna bočni pogled na uski pojas. Simulacije prašine u Kuiperovom pojasu provede superračunalima otkrile su mogućnost da je ranije u povijesti svog postojanja nalikovao uskim diskovima oko mladih zvijezda.

 Bilješke
 Stručna literatura nije dosljedna u uporabi termina "raspršeni disk" i "Kuiperov pojas". Za neke, postoji izražena razlika između njih dok je za druge raspršeni pojas dio Kuiperovog pojasa. Neki autori čak koriste oba objašnjenja u istoj publikaciji.Weissman and Johnson, 2007., "Encyclopedia of the solar system", fusnota str. 584 Budući Minor Planet Center Međunarodne astronomske unije, institucija odgovorna za katalogiziranje nebeskih objekata sunčevog sustava razlikuje ova dva fenomena, isto se shvaćanje primjenjuje na Wikipediji. Ovo znači da, na Wikipediji, Eris, najveći poznati trans-Neptunski objekt nije dio Kuiperovog pojasa čime Pluton postaje najveći objekt Kuiperovog pojasa.

 Izvori

 Vanjske poveznice
Kuiper belt @ britannica.com

Four outer planets are blue.

A few of Neptune's famous Trojan asteroids are yellow while Jupiter's are pink.

The Kuiper belt, sometimes also called the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, is the area of the Solar System after a planet stretching from Neptune's orbit (at 30 AJ) to approximately 50 AJ from the Sun.

Collisional Erosion in the Primordial Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt and the Generation of the 30-50 AU Kuiper Gap
Abstract
One of the oustanding questions about the architecture of the outer solar system is how the trans-Neptunian disk of comets and small planet-scale objects known as the solar system's Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt (EKB) originated and evolved to its present mass and architecture. Applying a time-dependent model of collisonal evolution of the EKB, we find that under a wide range of assumptions, collisional evolution should have depleted the mass of the 30-50 AU zone by >90% early in the history of the solar system, thereby creating a deep scar or gap in the surface mass density across a wide region beyond Neptune, much like what is observed today. Dynamical erosion may have further accelerated the depletion process. Given the fact that Neptune has had far less dynamical influence beyond 50 AU, our results also suggest that unless the solar nebula was truncated near 50 AU, then surface mass density of solids somewhere beyond ~50 AU may increase again, most likely dramatically.
- Publication:
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Pub Date:
- December 1997
- DOI:
- 10.1086/304912
- Bibcode:
- 1997ApJ...490..879S
- Keywords:
- Comets: General;
- Solar System: Formation;
- Solar System: General

Question: how many planets are in the kuiper belt

Four outer planets are blue.

A few of Neptune's famous Trojan asteroids are yellow while Jupiter's are pink.

The Kuiper belt, sometimes also called the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, is the area of the Solar System after a planet stretching from Neptune's orbit (at 30 AJ) to approximately 50 AJ from the Sun.

Question: what color are jupiter's pojas

Four outer planets are blue.

Question: what is another name for the kuiper belt

Edgeworth – Kuiperov pojas , područje Sunčevog sustava nakon planeta koje se proteže od Neptunove orbite ( na 30 AJ ) do otprilike 50 AJ od Sunca .

Four outer planets are blue.

what is another name for the kuiper belt

Question: what are the color of neptune's outer planets

Four outer planets are blue.

what are the color of neptune's outer planets

Question: what is the area between neptune and the sun called

"Kuiperov pojas , ponekad nazivan i Edgeworth – Kuiperov pojas , područje Sunčevog sustava nakon planeta koje se proteže od Neptunove orbite ( na 30 AJ ) do otprilike 50 AJ od Sunca .

Four outer planets are blue.

what is the area between neptune and the sun called

Question: what color are neptune's trojan asteroids

Four outer planets are blue.

what color are neptune's trojan asteroids

A few of Neptune 's famous Trojan asteroids are yellow while Jupiter 's are pink .

The Kuiper belt , sometimes also called the Edgeworth - Kuiper belt , is the area of the Solar System after a planet stretching from Neptune 's orbit ( at 30 AJ ) to approximately 50 AJ from the Sun .

Četiri vanjska planeta su plava. Nekoliko poznatih Neptunovih trojanskih asteroida su žuti dok su Jupiterovi ružičasti. Kuiperov pojas, ponekad nazivan i Edgeworth–Kuiperov pojas, područje Sunčevog sustava nakon planeta koje se proteže od Neptunove orbite (na 30 AJ) do otprilike 50 AJ od Sunca.

Nekoliko poznatih Neptunovih trojanskih asteroida su žuti dok su Jupiterovi ružičasti.

Kuiperov pojas, ponekad nazivan i Edgeworth–Kuiperov pojas, područje Sunčevog sustava nakon planeta koje se proteže od Neptunove orbite (na 30 AJ) do otprilike 50 AJ od Sunca.

Four outer planets are blue. A few of Neptune's famous Trojan asteroids are yellow while Jupiter's are pink. The Kuiper belt, sometimes also called the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, is the area of the Solar System after a planet stretching from Neptune's orbit (at 30 AJ) to approximately 50 AJ from the Sun.

A few of Neptune's famous Trojan asteroids are yellow while Jupiter's are pink.

The Kuiper belt, sometimes also called the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, is the area of the Solar System after a planet stretching from Neptune's orbit (at 30 AJ) to approximately 50 AJ from the Sun.

In Lucy Ann Adams McFadden, Paul Robert Weissman, Torrence V. Johnson.

“Encyclopedia of the Solar System” (II edition).

of Amsterdam;

Discovery of the candidate Kuiper belt object 1992 QB1
Abstract
THE apparent emptiness of the outer Solar System has been a long-standing puzzle for astronomers, as it contrasts markedly with the abundance of asteroids and short-period comets found closer to the Sun. One explanation for this might be that the orbits of distant objects are intrinsically short-lived, perhaps owing to the gravitational influence of the giant planets. Another possibility is that such objects are very faint, and thus they might easily go undetected. An early survey1 designed to detect distant objects culminated with the discovery of Pluto. More recently, similar surveys yielded the comet-like objects 2060 Chiron2 and 5145 Pholus3 beyond the orbit of Saturn. Here we report the discovery of a new object, 1992 QB1, moving beyond the orbit of Neptune. We suggest that this may represent the first detection of a member of the Kuiper belt4,5, the hypothesized population of objects beyond Neptune and a possible source of the short-period comets6-8.
- Publication:
- Nature
- Pub Date:
- April 1993
- DOI:
- 10.1038/362730a0
- Bibcode:
- 1993Natur.362..730J
- Keywords:
- Comets;
- Faint Objects;
- Gas Giant Planets;
- Solar System;
- Astronomical Photometry;
- Brightness Distribution;
- Charge Coupled Devices;
- Solar Orbits;
- Astronomy; Comets;
- COMETS;
- 1992QB1;
- KUIPER BELT;
- EARTH-BASED OBSERVATIONS;
- ORBITAL ELEMENTS;
- PROCEDURE;
- OPTICAL PROPERTIES;
- DESCRIPTION;
- ORBITS;
- COLOR;
- 1993FW

Question: where are kuiperov pojas located in the solar system

In Lucy Ann Adams McFadden, Paul Robert Weissman, Torrence V. Johnson.

“Encyclopedia of the Solar System” (II edition).

of Amsterdam;

where are kuiperov pojas located in the solar system

Question: what is the name of the book by lucy ann adams mcfadden

of Amsterdam;

what is the name of the book by lucy ann adams mcfadden

Question: what is the name of the book written by kuiperov pojas

of Amsterdam;

what is the name of the book written by kuiperov pojas

Question: who is the author of encyclopedia of the solar system

of Amsterdam;

who is the author of encyclopedia of the solar system

Question: who is the author of the encyclopedia of the solar system

of Amsterdam;

who is the author of the encyclopedia of the solar system

Question: who are the authors of the encyclopedia of the solar system

Paul Robert Weissman, Torrence V. Johnson

Paul Robert Weissman , Torrence V. Johnson

of Amsterdam;

Paul Robert Weissman , Torrence V. Johnson

who are the authors of the encyclopedia of the solar system

In Lucy Ann Adams McFadden , Paul Robert Weissman , Torrence V. Johnson .

“ Encyclopedia of the Solar System ” ( II edition ) .

U Lucy Ann Adams McFadden, Paul Robert Weissman, Torrence V. Johnson. "Encyclopedia of the Solar System" (2. izdanje.). Amsterdam;

U Lucy Ann Adams McFadden, Paul Robert Weissman, Torrence V. Johnson.

"Encyclopedia of the Solar System" (2. izdanje.).

In Lucy Ann Adams McFadden, Paul Robert Weissman, Torrence V. Johnson. “Encyclopedia of the Solar System” (II edition). of Amsterdam;

In Lucy Ann Adams McFadden, Paul Robert Weissman, Torrence V. Johnson.

“Encyclopedia of the Solar System” (II edition).

Since the discovery of the belt in 1992, the number of famous objects of the Kuiper belt (KBO) has increased to more than a thousand, while the number of objects with a diameter of more than 100 km is estimated to more than 100,000.

|
|
The Kuiper Belt at 20: Paradigm Changes in Our Knowledge of the Solar System
August 24, 2012
New Horizons hopes to explore beyond Pluto, into the ancient and unexplored Kuiper Belt.
New Horizons remains healthy and on course, now more than 24 times as far from the Sun as the Earth is. This summer’s spacecraft and payload checkout went extremely well, as did both major flight-software updates we loaded aboard New Horizons. And, the spacecraft’s rehearsal of the closest-approach day of the Pluto encounter went just about perfectly.
After finishing all of this at the beginning of July, we put New Horizons back into hibernation, and we’ve been cruising that way for almost eight weeks. As those who follow New Horizons on Twitter (@NewHorizons2015) know, every Monday New Horizons checks in with a beacon that tells us if all is well, or not. And almost every week we’ve been able to report a “green beacon Monday” to our 22,000-plus Twitter followers, indicating the spacecraft is in good health.
New Horizons will cruise quietly in hibernation until Jan. 6, 2013, when we wake it up for a month of complex activities, including some advance work on next summer’s checkout, and the third of the four major software upgrades needed before next summer’s on-spacecraft rehearsal of the nine days surrounding Pluto closest approach.
Since activity on New Horizons is pretty quiet right now, I’ll take this opportunity to mention that planetary science is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the discovery of the Kuiper Belt. That came in 1992, when the first Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) was discovered.
Actually, of course, the first object in the Kuiper Belt was discovered in 1930 — Pluto itself; and the second such object, Pluto’s giant moon Charon, was discovered in 1978. The Kuiper Belt was first postulated — most famously by Gerard Kuiper — by planetary scientists back in the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘50s. But it took until 1992 for technology to mature sufficiently enough to find another object (outside the Pluto system) orbiting the Sun beyond Neptune.
This plot shows one aspect of Kuiper Belt structure: Different numbers of bodies orbit at different distances. This graph includes just the known bodies, which make up a tiny fraction of the grand total. (Wikipedia)
Since 1992, more than 1,000 KBOs have been discovered. But only a tiny fraction of the sky has been surveyed for KBOs. It is estimated that more than 100,000 KBOs exist with diameters of 100 kilometers or larger, along with billions of smaller objects down to the size of cometary nuclei, just a kilometer or two across. (By comparison, Pluto is huge — its diameter is almost 2,400 kilometers, making a drive around its equator as far as from Manhattan to Moscow!)
Most of the known KBOs are just 100 to 300 kilometers across, about one-tenth of Pluto’s diameter. But some are smaller than 100 kilometers across, and some are larger than 300 kilometers across. In fact, there is great diversity among KBOs:
- Some are red and some are gray;
- The surfaces of some are covered in water ice, but others (like Pluto) have exotic volatile ices like methane and nitrogen;
- Many have moons, though none with more known moons than Pluto;
- Some are highly reflective (like Pluto), others have much darker surfaces;
- Some have much lower densities than Pluto, meaning they are primarily made of ice. Pluto’s density is so high that we know its interior is about 70% rock in its interior; a few known KBOs are more dense than Pluto, and even rockier!
Some planets of the Kuiper Belt; note that since this diagram was made, we’ve learned that Eris is actually smaller than Pluto. (sollunaterra.webs.com)
But I don’t consider this surprising assortment of KBOs to be the most important contribution to our knowledge of the solar system that has come from telescope exploration of the Kuiper Belt. In my opinion, the three greatest solar system lessons we’ve learned from the Kuiper Belt are:
- That our planetary system is much larger than we used to think. In fact, we were largely unaware of the Kuiper Belt — the largest structure in our solar system — until it was discovered 20 years ago. It’s akin to not having maps of the Earth that included the Pacific Ocean as recently as 1992!
- That the locations and orbital eccentricities and inclinations of the planets in our solar system (and other solar systems as well) can change with time. This even creates whole flocks of migration of planets in some cases. We have firm evidence that many KBOs (including some large ones like Pluto), were born much closer to the Sun, in the region where the giant planets now orbit.
- And, perhaps most surprisingly, that our solar system, and very likely very many others, was very good at making small planets, which dominate the planetary population! Today we know of more than a dozen dwarf planets in the solar system, and those dwarfs already outnumber the number of gas giants and terrestrial planets combined. But it is estimated that the ultimate number of dwarf planets we will discover in the Kuiper Belt and beyond may well exceed 10,000. Who knew? (And which class of planet is the misfit now?)
What an amazing set of paradigm shifts in our knowledge the Kuiper Belt has brought so far. Our quaint 1990s and earlier view of the solar system missed its largest structure! It didn’t know about the existence of dwarf planets, the most populous class of planet in our solar system —and very likely the galaxy. It didn’t even contemplate that dwarf planets would have such a wide range of colors, reflectivities, orbits and surface compositions. And it didn’t realize that the locations of most planets in our solar system today — even including some of the very largest planets — are different from where they were born.
Just imagine what our close flybys of the Pluto system and smaller KBOs, combined with new giant telescopes coming on line to probe the sky, will teach us about the Kuiper Belt in the next 20 years. It’s an exciting time, and its sometimes hard for me to believe after working on this since 1989, that our 2015 exploration of Pluto and its many moons is almost upon us—but it is!
Well, that’s my update for now. Thanks again for following our journey across the deep ocean of space, to a new planet and a truly new frontier.
Until I write again, I hope you’ll keep on exploring — just as we do!
-Alan Stern

Question: when was the kuiper belt discovered

Since the discovery of the belt in 1992, the number of famous objects of the Kuiper belt (KBO) has increased to more than a thousand, while the number of objects with a diameter of more than 100 km is estimated to more than 100,000.

Question: how many kuiper pojas are there in the world

how many kuiper pojas are there in the world

Question: what is the diameter of the kuiper belt

Question: how many objects have a diameter of 100 km

how many objects have a diameter of 100 km

Question: what is the name of the belt of objects with a diameter of more than 100 km

what is the name of the belt of objects with a diameter of more than 100 km

Since the discovery of the belt in 1992 , the number of famous objects of the Kuiper belt ( KBO ) has increased to more than a thousand , while the number of objects with a diameter of more than 100 km is estimated to more than 100,000 .

Od otkrića pojasa 1992., broj poznatih objekata Kuiperovog pojasa (KBO) povećao se na više od tisuću dok se broj objekata s promjerom većim od 100 km procjenjuje na više od 100.000.

Od otkrića pojasa 1992., broj poznatih objekata Kuiperovog pojasa (KBO) povećao se na više od tisuću dok se broj objekata s promjerom većim od 100 km procjenjuje na više od 100.000.

Since the discovery of the belt in 1992, the number of famous objects of the Kuiper belt (KBO) has increased to more than a thousand, while the number of objects with a diameter of more than 100 km is estimated to more than 100,000.

Since the discovery of the belt in 1992, the number of famous objects of the Kuiper belt (KBO) has increased to more than a thousand, while the number of objects with a diameter of more than 100 km is estimated to more than 100,000.

The Kuiper belt should not be mixed with the supposed Oort cloud, which is a thousand times distant.

Objects within the Kuiper belt, together with the members of the dispersed disk and the potential Hills cloud or Oort cloud, are collectively called trans-Neptunian objects (TNO, eng. trans-Neptunian objects).

Question: the kuiper belt is a thousand times closer to what cloud

The Kuiper belt should not be mixed with the supposed Oort cloud, which is a thousand times distant.

Objects within the Kuiper belt, together with the members of the dispersed disk and the potential Hills cloud or Oort cloud, are collectively called trans-Neptunian objects (TNO, eng. trans-Neptunian objects).

the kuiper belt is a thousand times closer to what cloud

Question: what are the objects in the kuiper belt called

trans - Neptunskim objektima ( TNO , eng . trans - Neptunian

what are the objects in the kuiper belt called

Question: what are the objects within the kuiper belt called

trans - Neptunskim objektima ( TNO , eng . trans - Neptunian

what are the objects within the kuiper belt called

Question: how far is the kuiper belt from the oort cloud

how far is the kuiper belt from the oort cloud

Question: how far away is the kuiper belt from the oort cloud

how far away is the kuiper belt from the oort cloud

Question: where is the oort cloud located in the solar system

"Kuiperov pojas ne bi se smio miješati s pretpostavljenim Oortovim oblakom ,

where is the oort cloud located in the solar system

Question: what are the two cloud bodies that make up the kuiper belt

what are the two cloud bodies that make up the kuiper belt

The Kuiper belt should not be mixed with the supposed Oort cloud , which is a thousand times distant .

Objects within the Kuiper belt , together with the members of the dispersed disk and the potential Hills cloud or Oort cloud , are collectively called trans - Neptunian objects ( TNO , eng . trans - Neptunian objects ) .

Kuiperov pojas ne bi se smio miješati s pretpostavljenim Oortovim oblakom, koji je tisuću puta udaljeniji. Objekti unutar Kuiperovog pojasa, zajedno s članovima raspršenog diska i potencijalnog Hillsovog oblaka ili Oortovog oblaka, kolektivno se nazivaju trans-Neptunskim objektima (TNO, eng. trans-Neptunian objects).

Kuiperov pojas ne bi se smio miješati s pretpostavljenim Oortovim oblakom, koji je tisuću puta udaljeniji.

Objekti unutar Kuiperovog pojasa, zajedno s članovima raspršenog diska i potencijalnog Hillsovog oblaka ili Oortovog oblaka, kolektivno se nazivaju trans-Neptunskim objektima (TNO, eng. trans-Neptunian objects).

The Kuiper belt should not be mixed with the supposed Oort cloud, which is a thousand times distant. Objects within the Kuiper belt, together with the members of the dispersed disk and the potential Hills cloud or Oort cloud, are collectively called trans-Neptunian objects (TNO, eng. trans-Neptunian objects).

The Kuiper belt should not be mixed with the supposed Oort cloud, which is a thousand times distant.

Objects within the Kuiper belt, together with the members of the dispersed disk and the potential Hills cloud or Oort cloud, are collectively called trans-Neptunian objects (TNO, eng. trans-Neptunian objects).

Originally considered a planet, Pluto's status as part of the Kuiper belt led to the re-classification into the "patulious planet" in 2006.

The city is similar to many other objects in the band and its orbital period is characteristic of the class of KBO known as "plutinois" that share the same 2:3 resonance with Neptune.

After the discovery of Pluto, many have guessed that he may not be alone.

The second "trans-Neptunian" object (TNO) orbiting the sun to be discovered (the first being Pluto, in 1930) was found at Mauna Kea in 1992 -- ushering in a new era of solar-system studies, forever altering our view of the outer solar system, and putting Pluto finally into proper perspective. By "trans-Neptunian", we here mean objects with most or all of their orbits outside that of Neptune and whose eccentricities are generally well below that of typical comet eccentricities; a more formal (and technical) definition of TNO might be the following: an object that orbits the sun and either (a) has a perihelion distance > 30 AU (the mean heliocentric distance of Neptune), or (b) has a semi-major axis > 30 AU but is in a short-order resonance with respect to (and exterior to) Neptune. Soon after additional TNOs were found in the following months, some astronomers started circulating the term "Kuiper belt" (a term unknown until the 1990s) for these objects. Had they done a little more research, they probably would not have chosen the term "Kuiper belt", and it may be time to now stop using this term.
Some astronomers were much too hasty in calling the new trans-Neptunian objects "Kuiper-belt" objects, both because that's too simple a term for dynamically-different objects in that region and because Kuiper was the wrong person to recognize for reasons cited below. Kuiper did briefly speculate on the possibility of "one or more small planets, like Ceres" beyond heliocentric distance r = 38 AU, and on "remnants" of a circular ring of comets being still left beyond r = 50 AU. However, Kuiper presumed that there was no longer any significant population of small objects between r = 30 and 38 AU, and he remarked that it would be "puzzling" if there "were asteroidal bodies" today between 30 and 50 AU [Kuiper 1951, Astrophysics: A Topical Symposium (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.), p. 402)! (There are now hundreds of known "asteroidal bodies" orbiting the sun between 30 and 50 AU.) Harvard astronomers Fred Whipple and Al Cameron, meanwhile, conjectured separately in the 1960s that even today "there must be a tremendous mass of small solid material" between r = 40 and 50 AU, and Whipple illustrated his hypothesis by showing some members of the "comet ring" as close as r = 30-35 AU. Whipple stated clearly in a 1972 paper that his thinking on this was spawned independent of the work by Cameron and by Kuiper, and Whipple pleaded with astronomers to not forget that there might be now a detectable belt of objects beyond Neptune. Whipple's concept may have germinated as early as the 1930s, when his undergraduate mentor at UCLA proposed just such a group of object beyond Neptune (see Leonard 1930, Leaflet Astron. Soc. Pacific No. 30, pp. 121-124), when Frederick C. Leonard questioned, "Is it not likely that in Pluto there has come to light the *first* of a *series* of ultra-Neptunian bodies, the remaining members of which still await discovery but which are destined eventually to be detected?" [Later in Kuiper's career, he may have been heavily influenced by the work of Cameron and especially that of Whipple, whereby he was more vague about the "comet zone" around heliocentric distances 35 to 60+ AU in terms of the current situation -- but Kuiper never came out and claimed emphatically that there must now be many objects orbiting the sun in the tens of AU just beyond Neptune's orbit, as Whipple and Cameron very much did, and as Leonard and Kenneth Edgeworth had done years before Kuiper published anything on cosmogony.]
Regarding the early prediction of (what we now call) cubewano objects, besides Leonard (1930), see K. E. Edgeworth 1943, J.B.A.A. 53, 186; A. G. W. Cameron 1962, Icarus 1, 13; F. L. Whipple 1964, Proc. National Acad. Sci. 51, 711; Whipple 1964, A.J. 69, 563; Whipple 1972, in The Motion, Evolution of Orbits, and Origin of Comets (ed. G. A. Chebotarev et al.), p. 401; E. I. Kazimirchack-Polonskaya (1972, ibid., p. 252); and Cameron 1978, in The Origin of the Solar System (ed. by S. F. Dermott; Chichester: John Wiley and Sons), pp. 61ff. Writing a second time on the topic, Edgeworth (1949, MNRAS 109, 609) wrote: "It is not unreasonable to suppose that this outer region [just beyond the orbit of Neptune] is now occupied by a large number of comparatively small clusters [condensations], and that it is in fact a vast reservoir of potential comets". Note again that -- whereas Kuiper mainly spoke of this region as being a region of comet formation and existence early in the solar system (where the objects would have been largely depleted over billions of years by the planets, so that there should not be much of anything there today) -- the other authors (cited above) all spoke of such a belt as currently being likely to still include a great many comets --- which is relevant to the discussion of Pluto being the first known apparent member of this trans-Neptunian comet family. [The reference to Leonard was noted in 2000 by B. G. Marsden (after evidently being long forgotten), and Leonard's comments were perhaps the most prescient of the 1990s discoveries other than Whipple's many comments over decades in the literature.]
The over-crediting of Kuiper evidently started with a much-cited 1980 paper by Julio Fernandez (MNRAS 192, 481), in which Fernandez unfortunately appears not to have done very extensive searching of the literature on the matter (though he did more than most others that followed him); to his credit, Fernandez also adopts the term TNO in his recent book as being preferable to "Kuiper-belt object", generously acknowledging that he "accepts part of the blame for this unjust situation since [I] overlooked Edgeworth's work in [my] 1980 paper" [Fernandez 2005, Comets: Nature, Dynamics, Origin, and Their Cosmogonical Relevance (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer), pp. 198-199]. In fact, many others (e.g., Duncan et al. 1987, A.J. 94, 1330; Torbett 1989, A.J. 98, 1477; Jewitt and Luu 1993, Nature 362, 730) writing on the topic of a possible belt of comets beyond Neptune during the 1980s and early 1990s followed suit -- merely citing a single 1951 reference of Gerard Kuiper's that only briefly touches on objects beyond Neptune in a lengthy chapter discussing all aspects of solar-system evolution (and that does not state that there should be many small objects now situated between 30 and 50 AU!). The flood gates apparently opened in earnest due to the paper by Duncan et al. in 1987; prior to that, authors actually looked at the earlier papers and realized that the proper credit for saying that comets may still, now be orbiting the sun in a region just beyond Neptune should, in fact, be given to Cameron (1962) and Whipple (1964, 1972), as was done properly by, e.g., Hamid et al. (1968, A.J. 73, 727), Marsden (1974, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 12, 1), Eneev (1980, Sov. Astron. Let. 6, 163), and Bailey (1983, MNRAS 205, 47P).
The real problem was that Fernandez (and, thus, the authors following Fernandez's lead without checking to see what Kuiper actually wrote) did not look beyond this one early paper that Kuiper had written on the speculations about the origins of the solar system for a general book [Astrophysics: A Topical Symposium, p. 400; noted above], in which Kuiper said nothing that would warrant his name being attached to a group of objects beyond Neptune. Indeed, Kuiper himself, in several later publications, stated that his comments on objects beyond Neptune were preliminary (though his revisions were both slight and vague). There was never any detailed expansion by Kuiper of the idea of small objects beyond Neptune -- indeed even less than was made by other authors -- and those later papers by Kuiper (e.g., 1951, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 37, 13; 1953, ibid., 39, 1156; 1956, JRASC 50, 115; 1974, Cel. Mech. 9, 324 and 346) all reinforce the notion that he was not in synch with numerous other pre-1992 authors on this topic (who all differed with Kuiper in their speculation that such objects were likely to now be populating that region beyond Neptune; Kuiper believed that any comets or small planets that formed in the region 30-50 AU in the early history of the solar system would have been dispersed, ejected, or dissolved by Pluto so that nothing substantial should be there today).
It seems that many authors typically do not do their historical homework, preferring to rely on the homework of those authors that they cite; such practice leads to a propagation of errors, sometimes where even the citation is in typographical error (cf. Ball 2002, Nature 420, 594)! The tell-tale sign of this blind "following suit" by recent authors is that Kuiper published a few other papers in which he made brief mention of possible objects beyond Neptune, but nobody cites Kuiper's other work pertaining to the topic, showing that they do not understand the situation regarding Kuiper's stance. In fact, it is remarkable that, of all the numerous pre-1992 authors mentioning the possibility of objects in low-eccentricity orbits just beyond the orbit of Neptune, Kuiper appears to have been absolutely alone in predicting that there should NOT NOW be objects there! So why name a "belt" after a man who actually believed it should not be there?!
That Kuiper's thoughts on a region of small bodies beyond Neptune were very minor parts of Kuiper's work is reflected in the lack of citing Kuiper on this topic by most other pre-1987 authors, such as T. Yamamoto (1984, A.Ap. 142, 31), Fred Whipple, and Al Cameron. [When Kuiper was cited on this topic prior to 1987 (e.g., Biermann and Michel 1978, Moon and Planets 18, 447), it was in reference to his placing comets as having formed originally at or beyond Neptune, without comment on Kuiper's stance on the evolution of the placement of those original comets.] As another example, notably absent in the transcribed discussion at a key 1952 meeting on the topic of origins of small objects in the outer solar system, involving most of the major contemporary players (including Kuiper), is any reference to Kuiper's work on the topic [cf. La Physique des Cometes 1953, Extrait des Memories in-8o de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege Quatrieme Serie, Tome XIII, Fasc. I-II (Louvain: Imprimerie Ceuterick), pp. 386ff]. Furthermore, none of his obituary writers -- mostly contemporary planetary scientists who should have known the situation well -- made any mention to Kuiper speculating on objects in a region just beyond Neptune, despite including lengthy lists of notable accomplishments by Kuiper in his planetary-science career [see Cruikshank 1974, Sky Telesc. 47, 159; Owen and Sagan 1974, Mercury 3(2-3), 16; Whitaker 1974, Physics Today 27(3), 85; Sagan 1974, Icarus 22, 117; Anonymous 1974, Nature 248, 539]; indeed, though numerous of Kuiper's significant publications were cited in the obituaries, there is no mention of Kuiper's chapter in Hynek's book that is so highly cited by "Kuiper-belt" proponents today. The "Kuiper-belt" proponents are attempting to re-write history without looking at the facts, and even one historian has fallen into this trap [Doel 1996, Solar System Astronomy in America, Cambridge Univ. Press], again because he did not look into all of Kuiper's writings on the topic (Doel simply accepted that many have taken the term "Kuiper belt" as proper, without looking into the matter).
The fact that many astronomers, soon after the discovery of Pluto, were considering its probably small mass and its non-major-planet-like orbit as indications that this was an unusual object akin to comets or minor planets shows that this was a logical way of thinking (and it is logical to assume that numerous astronomers may have independently thought that there might well be a belt of asteroidal or comet-like objects beyond Neptune, of which Pluto was only one member). Astronomers certainly realized that "major planet" categorization did not make complete sense, and this sensibility evidently remained through the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s -- as one astronomer after another made brief comments inferring the meaning of Pluto in terms of a family of objects beyond Neptune. So it may be unwise to call these objects anything other than "trans-Neptunian objects", or "cubewanos", "plutinos", and "scattered-disk objects". If astronomers' names are attached to the population, the names of Leonard and Whipple likely would be most historically correct and proper ("Leonard-Whipple belt"), but perhaps we could settle with something catchy like the "LEdgeKWhip belt(s)", to "honor" Edgeworth and Kuiper as well as Leonard and Whipple. Given that historians have found Kuiper to have likely plagiarized the work of others (cf. Doel 1996, op.cit., pp. 142ff), including on this very topic (by not acknowledging Edgeworth's two prominent articles in the 1940s and the ideas of Leonard; cf. Green 1999, ICQ 21, 45), it is especially improper to give Kuiper the only credit through the ill-conceived name "Kuiper Belt". [Kuiper has numerous other things named in his honor (including craters on the moon, Mars, and Mercury; a research aircraft; a minor planet; etc.), so he hardly "needs" something named for him that is actually inappropriate, in that it supposedly recognizes something that he didn't claim exists, while others -- who go largely unrecognized -- did strongly believe to exist.]
Unfortunately, some people strangely also refer to *all* TNOs as "Kuiper-belt objects" -- even those outside the region that might be truly called a "belt" with semi-major axes in the range 37-50 AU. The "scattered" objects, some of which are entirely beyond Neptune's orbit and others of which cross Neptune's orbit, are mostly thought to be cousins of the centaurs -- the latter having simply been perturbed closer toward the sun over time -- but some of the scattered TNOs with very large aphelia or semi-major axes may be in their current orbits due to a ancient assist from a passing star. At any rate, to say that the scattered TNOs are part of a belt is nonsense. If speaking of a belt, the proper thing is to include only the cubewanos but perhaps also the Neptune-resonant objects with semi-major axes > 30 AU (including the plutinos). Also, the term "transneptunian object" was recommended over "Kuiper-belt object" or "Edgeworth-Kuiper object" by the Scientific Organizing Committee of the ESO Workshop on "Minor Bodies in the Outer Solar System" (1998 Nov. 2-5, Garching, Germany), with it noted that the term TNO is less controversial than KBO or EKB [see Davies 2000, Minor Bodies in the Outer Solar System (Berlin: Springer), p. 9].
Additional remarks on this topic (in more detail, with more references) are published in the January 1999 issue of the ICQ (pages 44-46) and the July 2004 issue (pages 117-118).
Index to the CBAT/MPC/ICQ pages.

Question: when did pluto become a planet in the kuiper belt

Originally considered a planet, Pluto's status as part of the Kuiper belt led to the re-classification into the "patulious planet" in 2006.

The city is similar to many other objects in the band and its orbital period is characteristic of the class of KBO known as "plutinois" that share the same 2:3 resonance with Neptune.

After the discovery of Pluto, many have guessed that he may not be alone.

when did pluto become a planet in the kuiper belt

Question: pluto is in which class of kbo

Question: what is the resonance of pluto with neptune

what is the resonance of pluto with neptune

Question: pluto and neptune are part of which belt

Kuiperovog pojasa doveo je do reklasificiranja u "" patuljasti planet "" 2006 . godine .

pluto and neptune are part of which belt

Question: what is pluto called in the kuiper belt

Question: what was pluto originally called before it was classified as a planet

what was pluto originally called before it was classified as a planet

Question: where is pluto located in the solar system

Kuiperovog pojasa doveo je do reklasificiranja u "" patuljasti planet "" 2006 . godine .

where is pluto located in the solar system

Question: which planet in the kuiper belt has the same 2:3 resonance as pl

which planet in the kuiper belt has the same 2:3 resonance as pl

Originally considered a planet , Pluto 's status as part of the Kuiper belt led to the re - classification into the " patulious planet " in 2006 .

The city is similar to many other objects in the band and its orbital period is characteristic of the class of KBO known as " plutinois " that share the same 2:3 resonance with Neptune .

After the discovery of Pluto , many have guessed that he may not be alone .

Prvotno smatran planetom, Plutonov status kao dijela Kuiperovog pojasa doveo je do reklasificiranja u "patuljasti planet" 2006. godine.

Građom je sličan mnogim drugim objektima u pojasu te mu je orbitalni period karakteristična za klasu KBO-a poznatih kao "plutinoi" koji dijele istu 2:3 rezonanciju s Neptunom.

Povijest Nakon otkrića Plutona mnogi su nagađli da možda nije sam.

Originally considered a planet, Pluto's status as part of the Kuiper belt led to the re-classification into the "patulious planet" in 2006. The city is similar to many other objects in the band and its orbital period is characteristic of the class of KBO known as "plutinois" that share the same 2:3 resonance with Neptune. After the discovery of Pluto, many have guessed that he may not be alone.

Originally considered a planet, Pluto's status as part of the Kuiper belt led to the re-classification into the "patulious planet" in 2006.

The city is similar to many other objects in the band and its orbital period is characteristic of the class of KBO known as "plutinois" that share the same 2:3 resonance with Neptune.

After the discovery of Pluto, many have guessed that he may not be alone.

In 1951, in an article for the magazine Astrophysics, Gerard Kuiper guessed a similar disc that formed early in the evolution of the Solar System; however, he did not believe that such a band exists today.

Kuiper worked using the assumptions that were generally accepted at that time, that Pluto was the size of the Earth and that it spread these objects outside the Oort Cloud or outside the Solar System.

Question: when did kuiper come up with the theory of pluto

In 1951, in an article for the magazine Astrophysics, Gerard Kuiper guessed a similar disc that formed early in the evolution of the Solar System; however, he did not believe that such a band exists today.

Kuiper worked using the assumptions that were generally accepted at that time, that Pluto was the size of the Earth and that it spread these objects outside the Oort Cloud or outside the Solar System.

when did kuiper come up with the theory of pluto

Question: what is the largest planet in our solar system

what is the largest planet in our solar system

Question: who discovered pluto's disc in 1951

Question: what magazine did gerard kuiper write about in 1951

what magazine did gerard kuiper write about in 1951

Question: what assumptions did kuiper make about pluto

je Pluto veličine Zemlje te da je raspršio ove objekte vani prema Oortovom oblaku ili izvan Sunčevog

what assumptions did kuiper make about pluto

Question: according to kuiperov pojas what is pluto

veličine Zemlje te da je raspršio ove objekte vani prema Oortovom oblaku ili izvan Sunčevog

according to kuiperov pojas what is pluto

Question: where are pluto's pojas located in our solar system

where are pluto's pojas located in our solar system

Question: where did pluto spread its objects in the solar system

outside the Oort Cloud or outside the Solar System

Oortovom oblaku ili izvan Sunčevog sustava

outside the Oort Cloud or outside the Solar System

where did pluto spread its objects in the solar system

In 1951 , in an article for the magazine Astrophysics , Gerard Kuiper guessed a similar disc that formed early in the evolution of the Solar System ; however , he did not believe that such a band exists today .

Kuiper worked using the assumptions that were generally accepted at that time , that Pluto was the size of the Earth and that it spread these objects outside the Oort Cloud or outside the Solar System .

1951., u članku za časopis Astrophysics, Gerard Kuiper je nagađao o sličnom diskom koji se formirao rano u evoluciji Sunčevog sustava; međutim, on nije vjerovao da takav pojas postoji i danas.

Kuiper je radio koristeći pretpostavke koje su u to vrijeme bile opće prihvaćene, da je Pluto veličine Zemlje te da je raspršio ove objekte vani prema Oortovom oblaku ili izvan Sunčevog sustava.

In 1951, in an article for the magazine Astrophysics, Gerard Kuiper guessed a similar disc that formed early in the evolution of the Solar System; however, he did not believe that such a band exists today. Kuiper worked using the assumptions that were generally accepted at that time, that Pluto was the size of the Earth and that it spread these objects outside the Oort Cloud or outside the Solar System.

In 1951, in an article for the magazine Astrophysics, Gerard Kuiper guessed a similar disc that formed early in the evolution of the Solar System; however, he did not believe that such a band exists today.

Kuiper worked using the assumptions that were generally accepted at that time, that Pluto was the size of the Earth and that it spread these objects outside the Oort Cloud or outside the Solar System.

The fact that comets have certain lifetimes has been known for a long time.

As they approach the Sun, its heat causes the sublimation of their floating surfaces into space, gradually eating them out.

From Kuiper Belt Object to Cometary Nucleus: The Missing Ultrared Matter
Abstract
We combine new and published data to show that the optical color distributions of cometary nuclei and Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) are significantly different. The nuclei are, as a group, bluer than the KBOs, indicating that the surface chemical and/or physical properties of the two types of bodies are different. Objects in the dynamically intermediate Centaur class have optical colors like those of KBOs, while the color distribution of candidate dead comets is indistinguishable from that of the cometary nuclei. We infer that the surfaces of KBOs are modified upon entry to the inner solar system. We consider several mechanisms and conclude that the color change is most likely caused by the rapid burial of ancient surface materials exposed in the Kuiper belt. The distinctive, ultrared material that is present on the surfaces of some KBOs is absent on the cometary nuclei.
- Publication:
- The Astronomical Journal
- Pub Date:
- February 2002
- DOI:
- 10.1086/338692
- Bibcode:
- 2002AJ....123.1039J
- Keywords:
- Comets: General;
- Kuiper Belt;
- Minor Planets;
- Asteroids

Question: where do kuiperov pojas land in space

The fact that comets have certain lifetimes has been known for a long time.

As they approach the Sun, its heat causes the sublimation of their floating surfaces into space, gradually eating them out.

Question: kuiperov pojas are a type of what

Question: what happens to comets when they approach the sun

what happens to comets when they approach the sun

Question: what causes comets to sublimate into space

what causes comets to sublimate into space

Question: what happens to comets when they reach the sun

what happens to comets when they reach the sun

Question: how do kuiperov pojas die in space

Question: when do comets lose their floating surfaces

when do comets lose their floating surfaces

The fact that comets have certain lifetimes has been known for a long time .

As they approach the Sun , its heat causes the sublimation of their floating surfaces into space , gradually eating them out .

Činjenica da kometi imaju određene životne vijekove bila je poznata već neko vrijeme. Kako se približavaju Suncu, njegova toplina izaziva sublimaciju njihove hlapljive površine u svemir, postupno ih izjedajući.

Činjenica da kometi imaju određene životne vijekove bila je poznata već neko vrijeme.

Kako se približavaju Suncu, njegova toplina izaziva sublimaciju njihove hlapljive površine u svemir, postupno ih izjedajući.

The fact that comets have certain lifetimes has been known for a long time. As they approach the Sun, its heat causes the sublimation of their floating surfaces into space, gradually eating them out.

The fact that comets have certain lifetimes has been known for a long time.

As they approach the Sun, its heat causes the sublimation of their floating surfaces into space, gradually eating them out.

To be visible through the epochs of the solar system, it creates the need for their frequent renewal.

One of these areas of renewal is the Oort Cloud, a spherical row of a comet that stretches further than 50,000 AJ from the Sun, first proposed in 1950 by Jan Oort.

Question: when was the oort cloud first proposed

To be visible through the epochs of the solar system, it creates the need for their frequent renewal.

One of these areas of renewal is the Oort Cloud, a spherical row of a comet that stretches further than 50,000 AJ from the Sun, first proposed in 1950 by Jan Oort.

Question: who came up with the idea of the oort cloud

who came up with the idea of the oort cloud

Question: what is the name of the spherical row of a comet that stretches further than 50,

what is the name of the spherical row of a comet that stretches further than 50,

Question: how far is the oort cloud from the sun

AJ od Sunca , prvi put predložen 1950 . od strane Jana Oorta .

Question: why is the oort cloud visible through the solar system

why is the oort cloud visible through the solar system

Question: what type of object is the oort cloud

Question: what is the main need for kuiperov pojas

what is the main need for kuiperov pojas

To be visible through the epochs of the solar system , it creates the need for their frequent renewal .

One of these areas of renewal is the Oort Cloud , a spherical row of a comet that stretches further than 50,000 AJ from the Sun , first proposed in 1950 by Jan Oort .

Da bi bili vidljivi kroz vijekove Sunčevog sustava, stvara potrebu za njihovim čestim obnavljanjem. Jedno od takvih područja obnavljanja je Oortov oblak, sferični roj kometa koji se proteže dalje od 50.000 AJ od Sunca, prvi put predložen 1950. od strane Jana Oorta.

Da bi bili vidljivi kroz vijekove Sunčevog sustava, stvara potrebu za njihovim čestim obnavljanjem.

Jedno od takvih područja obnavljanja je Oortov oblak, sferični roj kometa koji se proteže dalje od 50.000 AJ od Sunca, prvi put predložen 1950. od strane Jana Oorta.

To be visible through the epochs of the solar system, it creates the need for their frequent renewal. One of these areas of renewal is the Oort Cloud, a spherical row of a comet that stretches further than 50,000 AJ from the Sun, first proposed in 1950 by Jan Oort.

To be visible through the epochs of the solar system, it creates the need for their frequent renewal.

One of these areas of renewal is the Oort Cloud, a spherical row of a comet that stretches further than 50,000 AJ from the Sun, first proposed in 1950 by Jan Oort.

By the 1970s, the speed by which short-period comets were discovered was incompatible with the opinion that they originate only from the Oort Cloud.Davies, page 39 To make the object of the Oort Cloud a short-period comet, it was necessary to be captured by one of the wild planets.

In 1980, in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Julio Fernandez stated that for each short-period comet that goes towards the inner Solar System, 600 of them should be thrown into the interstellar space.

On the existence of a comet belt beyond Neptune
Abstract
An analysis of the possible existence of a comet belt in connection with the origin of the short-period comets is presented. It is predicted that solid conglomerates up to about 10 to the 18th g were formed by gravitational instabilities in the belt region; a subsequent fragmentation-accretion process led to a power-law mass distribution similar to that observed in the asteroids. Close encounters between members of the belt have provoked the diffusion of some of them so that they became subject to the strong perturbations of Neptune. The influence of close encounters between belt comets is studied in relation to the diffusion of their orbits using a Monte Carlo method. It is concluded that if such a belt contains members with masses equal to or greater than that of Ceres, the orbital diffusion could proceed rapidly enough to maintain the number of observed short-period comets in a steady state.
- Publication:
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Pub Date:
- August 1980
- DOI:
- 10.1093/mnras/192.3.481
- Bibcode:
- 1980MNRAS.192..481F
- Keywords:
- Comets;
- Neptune (Planet);
- Solar Orbits;
- Solar System;
- Monte Carlo Method;
- Nebulae;
- Orbital Elements;
- Planetary Evolution;
- NEPTUNE;
- COMETS;
- SHORT PERIOD COMETS;
- ORIGIN;
- ANALYIS;
- HYPOTHESES;
- MATHEMATICAL MODELS;
- MONTE CARLO TECHNIQUES;
- ORBITS;
- DIFFUSION;
- ABUNDANCE;
- FORMATION;
- SOLAR NEBULA;
- EVOLUTION;
- DYNAMICS;
- SIMULATIONS;
- GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS;
- FRAGMENTATION;
- ACCRETION;
- DISTRIBUTION;
- Astrophysics; Comets

Question: how many kuiperov pojas are there in our solar system

By the 1970s, the speed by which short-period comets were discovered was incompatible with the opinion that they originate only from the Oort Cloud.Davies, page 39 To make the object of the Oort Cloud a short-period comet, it was necessary to be captured by one of the wild planets.

In 1980, in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Julio Fernandez stated that for each short-period comet that goes towards the inner Solar System, 600 of them should be thrown into the interstellar space.

how many kuiperov pojas are there in our solar system

Question: where do kuiperov pojas originate from in our solar system

where do kuiperov pojas originate from in our solar system

Question: when were kuiperov pojas discovered in our solar system

when were kuiperov pojas discovered in our solar system

Question: who said 600 kuiperov pojas should be thrown into interstellar space

who said 600 kuiperov pojas should be thrown into interstellar space

Question: where can you find kuiperov pojas in our solar system

where can you find kuiperov pojas in our solar system

By the 1970s , the speed by which short - period comets were discovered was incompatible with the opinion that they originate only from the Oort Cloud . Davies , page 39 To make the object of the Oort Cloud a short - period comet , it was necessary to be captured by one of the wild planets .

In 1980 , in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , Julio Fernandez stated that for each short - period comet that goes towards the inner Solar System , 600 of them should be thrown into the interstellar space .

Do 1970-ih, brzina kojom su otkrivani kratko-periodni kometi bila je nedosljedna s mišljenjem da potječu samo iz Oortovog oblaka.Davies, str. 39 Da bi objekt Oortovog oblaka postao kratko-periodični komet potrebno je da ga prije toga zarobi jedan od divovskih planeta.

1980. u Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Julio Fernandez je ustvrdio da za svaki kratko-periodni komet koji ode prema unutarnjem Sunčevom sustavu, njih 600 treba biti izbačeno u međuzvjezdani prostor.

By the 1970s, the speed by which short-period comets were discovered was incompatible with the opinion that they originate only from the Oort Cloud.Davies, page 39 To make the object of the Oort Cloud a short-period comet, it was necessary to be captured by one of the wild planets. In 1980, in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Julio Fernandez stated that for each short-period comet that goes towards the inner Solar System, 600 of them should be thrown into the interstellar space.

By the 1970s, the speed by which short-period comets were discovered was incompatible with the opinion that they originate only from the Oort Cloud.Davies, page 39 To make the object of the Oort Cloud a short-period comet, it was necessary to be captured by one of the wild planets.

In 1980, in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Julio Fernandez stated that for each short-period comet that goes towards the inner Solar System, 600 of them should be thrown into the interstellar space.

Following Fernandez's work, in 1988, a Canadian team composed of Martin Duncan, Tom Quinn and Scott Tremaine<unk> a series of computer simulations to determine whether all observed comets could come from the Oort Cloud.

They discovered that the cloud of Oort could not be the source of all comets, especially because the short periods are grouped near the plane of the Solar System while the comets of the cloud of Oort tend to arrive from any point in the sky.

The Origin of Short-Period Comets
Abstract
The authors present the key results of an extensive series of numerical simulations of the evolution of comet orbits due to the gravitational perturbations of the giant planets. The results show that the inclination distribution of comets with large perihelion (q ≤ 30 AU) that evolve to observable comets (i.e., those with q ≤ 1.5 AU) is approximately preserved. Thus, the short-period (SP) comets, which are mostly in prograde, low-inclination orbits, cannot arise from gravitational scattering of any spherical population of comets (such as the Oort cloud). However, the distribution of orbital elements of SP comets arising from a population of low-inclination Neptune-crossing comets is in excellent agreement with observations. It is concluded that the SP comets arise from a cometary belt in the outer solar system.
- Publication:
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Pub Date:
- May 1988
- DOI:
- 10.1086/185162
- Bibcode:
- 1988ApJ...328L..69D
- Keywords:
- Comets;
- Gas Giant Planets;
- Orbital Elements;
- Astronomical Models;
- Gravitational Effects;
- COMETS;
- SHORT-PERIOD COMETS;
- ORIGIN;
- NUMERICAL METHODS;
- SIMULATIONS;
- EVOLUTION;
- ORBITS;
- GRAVITY EFFECTS;
- PERTURBATIONS;
- DISTRIBUTION;
- SCATTERING;
- SOURCE;
- ORBITAL ELEMENTS;
- INCLINATION;
- NEPTUNE-CROSSERS;
- PROCEDURE;
- OORT CLOUD;
- POSITION (LOCATION);
- NEPTUNE;
- ANALYSIS;
- Astrophysics; Comets;
- COMETS;
- SOLAR SYSTEM: GENERAL

Question: when did the kuiperov pojas arrive in our solar system

Following Fernandez's work, in 1988, a Canadian team composed of Martin Duncan, Tom Quinn and Scott Tremaine<unk> a series of computer simulations to determine whether all observed comets could come from the Oort Cloud.

They discovered that the cloud of Oort could not be the source of all comets, especially because the short periods are grouped near the plane of the Solar System while the comets of the cloud of Oort tend to arrive from any point in the sky.

when did the kuiperov pojas arrive in our solar system

Question: where did the kuiperov pojas come from in our solar system

where did the kuiperov pojas come from in our solar system

Question: where are the comets located in our solar system

where are the comets located in our solar system

Question: where do most comets in our solar system come from

where do most comets in our solar system come from

Question: where are most of the comets in our solar system located

where are most of the comets in our solar system located

Question: where do comets in the cloud of oort come from

Sunčevog sustava dok kometi Oortovog oblaka imaju tendenciju stizati iz bilo koje točke na nebu

where do comets in the cloud of oort come from

Following Fernandez 's work , in 1988 , a Canadian team composed of Martin Duncan , Tom Quinn and Scott Tremaine < unk > a series of computer simulations to determine whether all observed comets could come from the Oort Cloud .

They discovered that the cloud of Oort could not be the source of all comets , especially because the short periods are grouped near the plane of the Solar System while the comets of the cloud of Oort tend to arrive from any point in the sky .

Slijedeći Fernandezova rad, 1988. kanadski tim sastavljen od Martina Duncana, Toma Quinna i Scotta Tremainea izveo je niz računalnih simulacija kako bi utvrdili jesu li svi promatrani kometi mogli doći iz Oortovog oblaka.

Otkrili su da Oortov oblak ne može biti izvorište svih kometa, posebice zato što su kratko-periodni grupirani u blizini ravnine Sunčevog sustava dok kometi Oortovog oblaka imaju tendenciju stizati iz bilo koje točke na nebu.

Following Fernandez's work, in 1988, a Canadian team composed of Martin Duncan, Tom Quinn and Scott Tremaine<unk> a series of computer simulations to determine whether all observed comets could come from the Oort Cloud. They discovered that the cloud of Oort could not be the source of all comets, especially because the short periods are grouped near the plane of the Solar System while the comets of the cloud of Oort tend to arrive from any point in the sky.

Following Fernandez's work, in 1988, a Canadian team composed of Martin Duncan, Tom Quinn and Scott Tremaine<unk> a series of computer simulations to determine whether all observed comets could come from the Oort Cloud.

They discovered that the cloud of Oort could not be the source of all comets, especially because the short periods are grouped near the plane of the Solar System while the comets of the cloud of Oort tend to arrive from any point in the sky.

Their orbits have changed over time to the point that Jupiter and Saturn are in the exact 2:1 resonance which means that while Jupiter makes two orbits around the Sun, Saturn makes one.

The gravitational consequences of such resonance disrupted the orbits of Uranus and Neptune which resulted in the excentricity of the orbit of Neptune and the move to the outside into the primordial planet-simal disk which caused a temporary chaos in the disk.

From a cloud of gas and debris to a system of ordered planets with regular orbits, much has changed since the solar system first began to coalesce about 4.5 billion years ago. Fortunately, the solar system is now full of clues to its past, and astronomers, with the help of computer models, are finding new ways to link together previously unconnected observations to explain how the planetary system came to resemble what it is today.
For many years, astronomers have known that the largest of the outermost planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune orbit along a path that deviates from a near-perfect circle and do not share the same orbital plane. They also have known that several hundred asteroids either precede or follow Jupiter in its journey around the sun. And in a third and separate observation, astronomers have known that about 600 million years after Earth's moon formed, it experienced a period of heavy bombardment by space debris, as evidenced by its cratered surface. Only now have astronomers been able to connect these three mysterious observations through a series of cosmic chain reactions.
Reporting in a series of papers in the May 26 Nature, Alessandro Morbidelli of the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur in Nice, France, and colleagues say that they have created a model that confirms that a sudden shuffling of orbits among the giant planets, several hundred million years after their formation, may be responsible for the series of events. "This work is unique in the sense [that] we explain in a level of detail no one's ever seen before," Morbidelli says.
A dramatic increase in the rate of surface cratering occured 600 million years after the moon formed. A new hypothesis may explain why this event, among others, took place. Image courtesy of NASA.
As the giant planets tossed around the planetesimals debris left over from planet formation their orbits shifted. According to Joe Hahn, a planetary scientist at St. Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who wrote an accompanying comment on the group's research in the same issue of Nature, "the key feature is planet scattering. All the orbits get very quickly disturbed."
Eventually the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn fell into a resonance such that Jupiter revolved around the sun exactly twice per single revolution of Saturn. It was this ratio, Morbidelli says, that allowed the orbital system to "come to an abrupt change."
The researchers' model shows that the strong gravitational tugs from the orbital resonance of Jupiter and Saturn could account for the eccentric and inclined orbits of the large planets. And the tugs could also account for the energy needed to kick Neptune out to a distance of twice its previous orbit, where it remains today.
"It's just gravity," says Harold Levison of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., who is a co-author of the study. "There was a significant torque that allowed you to change eccentricities."
Neptune's ejection also sent the planet crashing into a belt of planetesimals that had gathered at the edge of the solar system. The impact sent some of the debris hurtling back toward the sun, an action that Morbidelli's team says could explain the period of heavy bombardment of the inner solar system, including Earth's moon.
But perhaps the most surprising find for Morbidelli and colleagues was their model's ability to explain the presence of Jupiter's Trojans, the asteroids known to join Jupiter in its orbit around the sun. "In the beginning we weren't thinking about Trojans at all," Morbidelli says. Early works showed that if the Trojans were "priomodial" captured into orbit as Jupiter formed then the Trojans would have been lost during the orbital shuffle. Thus, these early models must be wrong, Morbidelli says; "because we have the Trojans."
Additional modeling revealed that some planetesimals knocked loose by Neptune's ejection may have been captured by Jupiter's large gravitational presence. With the increased orbital distance between Jupiter and Saturn, tugs of gravity would not be enough to dislodge the debris from orbit. So, the model allows the Trojans to remain in a gravitational balance, preceding or trailing Jupiter in its orbit. "It was a gorgeous result," Morbidelli says. "We have turned what seemed to be a weakness of our model into a strength."
This series of still images represent three main stages in the orbital shift model: left, just before the shift; middle, debris scatters after Neptune is ejected, sending rubble towards the moon; right, 200 million years later when the planets settle down into their final orbits. AU in these graphs stands for Astronomical units. One AU is equal to the distance from the sun to Earth. Images from an animation courtesy of Morbidelli and colleagues.
"I would not have expected the same model to explain both the planetary orbits and the Trojans," Hahn says. "All these things are big plusses in their favor. It's a compelling story."
But Hahn is not entirely convinced that the orbital rearrangement actually took place in the early solar system. About the proposed theory, Hahn says: "Does that mean that's the way the solar system behaved? Or is it the luck of the model?"
Hahn says that it is difficult to prove a model of the early history of the solar system because the evolution is not directly observable. "All we see is the end state," he says. "But you can make your model compelling by showing it agrees and is consistent with what we see in the solar system."
Because Morbidelli's team's model seems compatible with the constraints of
the three previously unconnected cosmic events, they remain hopeful that their
model accurately describes the processes of the early solar system. The team
continues to try to add support to their model by adding new parameters, this
time focusing on the mechanics of the debris in the disk-shaped region of planetesimals
beyond Neptune known as the Kuiper Belt. "I'm working on it as we speak,"
Levison says.
Kathryn Hansen
Geotimes intern
Links:
Alessandro Morbidelli's home page
Animation of orbital shift [download AVI file, 4 MB]
Back to top
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers

Question: what is the resonance between saturn and jupiter

Their orbits have changed over time to the point that Jupiter and Saturn are in the exact 2:1 resonance which means that while Jupiter makes two orbits around the Sun, Saturn makes one.

The gravitational consequences of such resonance disrupted the orbits of Uranus and Neptune which resulted in the excentricity of the orbit of Neptune and the move to the outside into the primordial planet-simal disk which caused a temporary chaos in the disk.

what is the resonance between saturn and jupiter

Question: how many orbits does jupiter make around the sun

how many orbits does jupiter make around the sun

Question: what type of force causes neptune to orbit the sun

what type of force causes neptune to orbit the sun

Question: where does neptune orbit the sun

Question: what is the resonance of jupiter and saturn

what is the resonance of jupiter and saturn

Question: which two planets are in the orbit of the sun

Urana i Neptuna što je za posljedicu imalo ekscentriciteniju orbitu Neptuna

which two planets are in the orbit of the sun

Question: what is the name of neptune's orbit around the sun

what is the name of neptune's orbit around the sun

Their orbits have changed over time to the point that Jupiter and Saturn are in the exact 2:1 resonance which means that while Jupiter makes two orbits around the Sun , Saturn makes one .

The gravitational consequences of such resonance disrupted the orbits of Uranus and Neptune which resulted in the excentricity of the orbit of Neptune and the move to the outside into the primordial planet - simal disk which caused a temporary chaos in the disk .

Orbite su im se s vremenom promijenile do te točke da se Jupiter i Saturn nalaze u točnoj 2:1 rezonanciji što znači da dok Jupiter napravi dvije orbite oko Sunca, Saturn napravi jednu.

Gravitacijske posljedice takve rezonancije poremetile su orbite Urana i Neptuna što je za posljedicu imalo ekscentriciteniju orbitu Neptuna te pomak prema vani u primordijalni planetezimalni disk što je u disku izazvalo privremeni kaos.

Their orbits have changed over time to the point that Jupiter and Saturn are in the exact 2:1 resonance which means that while Jupiter makes two orbits around the Sun, Saturn makes one. The gravitational consequences of such resonance disrupted the orbits of Uranus and Neptune which resulted in the excentricity of the orbit of Neptune and the move to the outside into the primordial planet-simal disk which caused a temporary chaos in the disk.

Their orbits have changed over time to the point that Jupiter and Saturn are in the exact 2:1 resonance which means that while Jupiter makes two orbits around the Sun, Saturn makes one.

The gravitational consequences of such resonance disrupted the orbits of Uranus and Neptune which resulted in the excentricity of the orbit of Neptune and the move to the outside into the primordial planet-simal disk which caused a temporary chaos in the disk.

As Neptune’s orbit spread, it spread numerous TNOs into more and more excentric orbits.

The Formation of Uranus and Neptune among Jupiter and Saturn
Abstract
The outer giant planets, Uranus and Neptune, pose a challenge to theories of planet formation. They exist in a region of the solar system where long dynamical timescales and a low primordial density of material would have conspired to make the formation of such large bodies (~15 and 17 times as massive as Earth, respectively) very difficult. Previously, we proposed a model that addressed this problem: Instead of forming in the trans-Saturnian region, Uranus and Neptune underwent most of their growth among proto-Jupiter and proto-Saturn, were scattered outward when Jupiter acquired its massive gas envelope, and subsequently evolved toward their present orbits. We present the results of additional numerical simulations, which further demonstrate that the model readily produces analogs to our solar system for a wide range of initial conditions. We also find that this mechanism may partly account for the high orbital inclinations observed in the Kuiper belt.
- Publication:
- The Astronomical Journal
- Pub Date:
- May 2002
- DOI:
- 10.1086/339975
- arXiv:
- arXiv:astro-ph/0111290
- Bibcode:
- 2002AJ....123.2862T
- Keywords:
- Celestial Mechanics;
- Kuiper Belt;
- planets and satellites: formation;
- Solar System: Formation;
- Astrophysics
- E-Print:
- Submitted to AJ

Question: what type of force caused neptune to orbit uranus

As Neptune’s orbit spread, it spread numerous TNOs into more and more excentric orbits.

what type of force caused neptune to orbit uranus

Question: what is the name of the planet that neptune orbits

what is the name of the planet that neptune orbits

Question: what happens when neptune moves to the outside of the planet-simal disk

what happens when neptune moves to the outside of the planet-simal disk

Question: where does the kuiperov pojas orbit neptune

where does the kuiperov pojas orbit neptune

Question: what caused neptune to orbit uranus

Question: what is the orbit of neptune in the kuiperov pojas

what is the orbit of neptune in the kuiperov pojas

As Neptune ’s orbit spread , it spread numerous TNOs into more and more excentric orbits .

Kako se neptunova orbita širila, raspršila je brojne TNO planetezimale u više i ekscentricitetnije oribte.

The gravitational consequences of such resonance disrupted the orbits of Uranus and Neptune which resulted in the excentricity of the orbit of Neptune and the move to the outside into the primordial planet-simal disk which caused a temporary chaos in the disk. As Neptune’s orbit spread, it spread numerous TNOs into more and more excentric orbits.

As Neptune’s orbit spread, it spread numerous TNOs into more and more excentric orbits.

The model predicts a higher average scentricity in the orbits of the classic KBOs than it really is.

The frequency of spared objects, many of which are distant and poorly connected, also leads the problem to the model.

Diversity of objects and frequency of pairs not easily accounted for by standard models of planet formation.
The cold and shadowy fringe of the solar system known as the Kuiper belt is generating increasing debate among scientists as data accumulates on the growing population of objects discovered there. Now, two new studies of Kuiper belt objects presented 5 October at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences in Pasadena, California, may reveal a crucial hole a prevailing model of the solar system's early history.
One of the scientists challenging established theory is Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Rather than growing incrementally from small precursors, as has been conventionally believed, he argues the largest Kuiper belt objects formed in a series of collisions between objects of roughly equal size — a process Brown describes as "pyramidal growth".
Evidence for this, Brown says, comes from recent discoveries that large Kuiper belt objects, which can reach diameters in excess of 2,000 kilometres, have widely disparate densities. Some seem to be comprised almost entirely of rock, with densities as high as 3.0 grams per cubic centimetre. Others have densities so low they appear to be almost entirely water ice punctuated with void spaces. Pluto, the best-known Kuiper belt object, lies midway between these extremes, with a density of about 2.0 grams per cubic centimetre.
If all these bodies accreted from multitudes of small precursors, Brown says, they should all have densities representing the average composition of the protoplanetary nebula in which they formed. "To get something that large, you would have had to accrete from a very large swath of the outer solar system," he said. "You would think they would be some of the most uniformly composed objects in the solar system." Instead, there "is about as big a variation as you can get."
Brown believes that this wide variation is a sign that the biggest Kuiper belt objects were produced not from gradual accretion, but from a small number of collisions among large objects, beginning with ones on the order of 500 kilometres in diameter. In each of the collisions, most of the mass stuck together to form a new, larger object, with rest blowing off into space - the amount varying with the size and power of each impact.
Because the blown-away material is primarily ice, this means that some large Kuiper belt objects could have been built from a small number of really big collisions among increasingly ice-depleted bodies, while others might have been formed from smaller, less powerful collisions that allowed more ice to remain. "You can have different combinations," he said.
Neptune not guilty
Brown's argument that current theory is lacking was bolstered by a study presented by Alex Parker, a graduate student in astronomy at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.
Parker examined binary objects in the cold classical Kuiper belt, a region on the edge of the Solar System, 6 to 7 billion kilometres from the Sun.
Traditional theory finds it hard to explain how these objects formed there because, that far out, their accretion would have been too slow to have been finished during the known life of the solar system. Thus, in a theory known as the Nice model (for Nice, France, where it was first proposed), scientists suggested that these objects formed closer to the Sun, where faster growth was possible. Then they were flung outward by dramatic shifts in the orbits of the outer planets, most importantly Neptune.
But there's one problem with that theory, according to Parker. About 30 percent of these objects are binaries. "The most famous are Pluto and Charon, but there are many others," he says.
Painstaking studies of their slow-motion orbits, in which they can take 4 to 17 years to complete a circuit of each other, reveal that many are so far apart that they are very loosely bound — loosely enough that any interaction with Neptune would have sent them flying in different directions.
"So if the Kuiper belt was subjected to this violent event, these [binary] systems should have been destroyed," Parker says.
Stephen Tegler of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff agrees that Parker's finding forces theoreticians back to the drawing board. "We have got to come up with a way to tweak the Nice model, or they formed in situ," he says.
But, Tegler notes, "It's a brand new idea and it's up to the rest of us to check this out — to confirm or refute it."
Big hunks falling
One reason for caution is that for Kuiper objects to have emerged in situ would require them to have formed more quickly than traditional theory predicts.
It's here that Brown's and Parker's findings support each other. That's because one way Kuiper belt objects might have formed in situ, Parker says, is under an emerging model of planet formation in which turbulences and vortexes in the protoplanetary nebula allow many tiny particles to coalesce extremely rapidly into big ones.
Brown refers to this as "big hunks falling out of the nebula" and thinks it's a way in which large building blocks might have been formed as starting material for his 'pyramidal growth' model. He cautions, though, that the new theory is in its infancy. "No one has really put all the pieces together yet," he says. But, he adds, "We could well be completely rewriting how planets form."
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lovett, R. Kuiper Belt may be born of collisions. Nature (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2010.522
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2010.522

Question: what is the main problem with the kuiperov pojas model

"Učestalost sparenih objekata , od kojih su mnogi udaljeni

The model predicts a higher average scentricity in the orbits of the classic KBOs than it really is.

The frequency of spared objects, many of which are distant and poorly connected, also leads the problem to the model.

what is the main problem with the kuiperov pojas model

Question: what is the problem with the kuiperov pojas model

what is the problem with the kuiperov pojas model

Question: where does the scentricity of pojas come from

sparenih objekata , od kojih su mnogi udaljeni

where does the scentricity of pojas come from

Question: what does the kuiperov pojas model predict about the orbits of kbo

what does the kuiperov pojas model predict about the orbits of kbo

Question: the kuiperov pojas model predicts a higher average scentricity in the

the kuiperov pojas model predicts a higher average scentricity in the

Question: does the kuiperov pojas model predict a higher or lower scentricity

does the kuiperov pojas model predict a higher or lower scentricity

The model predicts a higher average scentricity in the orbits of the classic KBOs than it really is .

The frequency of spared objects , many of which are distant and poorly connected , also leads the problem to the model .

Model predviđa viši prosječni eskcentricitet u orbitama klasičnih KBO-a nego što uistinu jest. Učestalost sparenih objekata, od kojih su mnogi udaljeni i slabo vezani, također prestavlja problem za model.

Model predviđa viši prosječni eskcentricitet u orbitama klasičnih KBO-a nego što uistinu jest.

Učestalost sparenih objekata, od kojih su mnogi udaljeni i slabo vezani, također prestavlja problem za model.

The model predicts a higher average scentricity in the orbits of the classic KBOs than it really is. The frequency of spared objects, many of which are distant and poorly connected, also leads the problem to the model.

The model predicts a higher average scentricity in the orbits of the classic KBOs than it really is.

The frequency of spared objects, many of which are distant and poorly connected, also leads the problem to the model.

The structure of the Dust in the Kuiper Belt creates a weak infrared disk At the broadest point, including the external areas, the Kuiper Belt stretches around 35 to 55 AJ.

For the main body of the belt, it is generally held to stretch from 2:3 resonance to 39,5 AJ to 1:2 resonance to approximately 48 AJ.

Thermal Evolution and Differentiation of Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt Objects
Abstract
The region beyond Neptune's orbit is populated by numerous bodies with semimajor axes from 31 to 48 AU. This region, known as the Kuiper belt, should contain primitive bodies, perhaps among the most primitive objects in the solar system. These bodies could be remnants of the solar system formation. They seem to be dark, volatile-rich objects showing a strong relationship with comets: the Kuiper belt is probably the source of most short-period comets and Centaurs. The Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) could still contain ices and organic compounds in unaltered proportions with respect to those of their formation. Thermal models of bodies moving in Kuiper belt orbits have been developed to follow their evolution and differentiation and to better understand the relations between them and the short-period comets and Centaurs. In these models, we assume that KBOs are porous bodies composed of ices and dust. The solar energy is very low, between 30 and 50 AU, and radiogenic heating becomes a nonnegligible source of energy for differentiation. The radioactive elements, if they exist in sufficient quantity, may modify the original composition of cometary nuclei. In the models reported here, we have assumed that the radiogenic elements stored in the refractory component are 40K, 232Th,235U, and 238U, in meteoritic proportions. In some models, we have also included the short-lived radio nuclide 26Al. The aim of this work is to see how an undifferentiated Kuiper belt body can change its internal structure under the combined effect of radiogenic heating and solar irradiation. Moderate heating can permit the sublimation of the most volatile ices both from the interior and from the surface, depending on the dominant heat source. The main result is that Kuiper belt objects can be strongly volatile depleted. From the surface down to several hundred meters below the surface, the most volatile ices (like CO) can be completely absent.
- Publication:
- The Astronomical Journal
- Pub Date:
- May 2001
- DOI:
- 10.1086/320385
- Bibcode:
- 2001AJ....121.2792D
- Keywords:
- Comets: General;
- Kuiper Belt;
- Oort Cloud;
- Minor Planets;
- Asteroids

Question: what is the range of resonance of the kuiper belt

The structure of the Dust in the Kuiper Belt creates a weak infrared disk At the broadest point, including the external areas, the Kuiper Belt stretches around 35 to 55 AJ.

For the main body of the belt, it is generally held to stretch from 2:3 resonance to 39,5 AJ to 1:2 resonance to approximately 48 AJ.

what is the range of resonance of the kuiper belt

Question: what is the range of the kuiper belt

Question: what does the dust in the kuiper belt create

what does the dust in the kuiper belt create

Question: what does the structure of the dust in the kuiper belt create

what does the structure of the dust in the kuiper belt create

Question: how many resonance does the kuiper belt have

how many resonance does the kuiper belt have

Question: the kuiper belt is made up of what

The structure of the Dust in the Kuiper Belt creates a weak infrared disk At the broadest point , including the external areas , the Kuiper Belt stretches around 35 to 55 AJ .

For the main body of the belt , it is generally held to stretch from 2:3 resonance to 39,5 AJ to 1:2 resonance to approximately 48 AJ .

Struktura Prašina u Kuiperovom pojasu stvara slabi infracrveni disk Na najširoj točki, uključujući vanjska područja, Kuiperov pojas proteže se otprilike od 35 do 55 AJ. Za glavninu tijela pojasa općenito se drži da se proteže od 2:3 rezonancije na 39,5 AJ do 1:2 rezonancije na otprilike 48 AJ.

Struktura Prašina u Kuiperovom pojasu stvara slabi infracrveni disk Na najširoj točki, uključujući vanjska područja, Kuiperov pojas proteže se otprilike od 35 do 55 AJ.

Za glavninu tijela pojasa općenito se drži da se proteže od 2:3 rezonancije na 39,5 AJ do 1:2 rezonancije na otprilike 48 AJ.

The structure of the Dust in the Kuiper Belt creates a weak infrared disk At the broadest point, including the external areas, the Kuiper Belt stretches around 35 to 55 AJ. For the main body of the belt, it is generally held to stretch from 2:3 resonance to 39,5 AJ to 1:2 resonance to approximately 48 AJ.

The structure of the Dust in the Kuiper Belt creates a weak infrared disk At the broadest point, including the external areas, the Kuiper Belt stretches around 35 to 55 AJ.

For the main body of the belt, it is generally held to stretch from 2:3 resonance to 39,5 AJ to 1:2 resonance to approximately 48 AJ.

This area, whose members make up about two-thirds of the to date observed KBOs, is known as the classic Kuiper belt.

As the first modernly discovered KBO, (15760) 1992 QB1, is considered a prototype of the group, the classical KBOs are often called cubewanos ("Q-B-1-osi").

Question: what are the classical kbo's called

This area, whose members make up about two-thirds of the to date observed KBOs, is known as the classic Kuiper belt.

As the first modernly discovered KBO, (15760) 1992 QB1, is considered a prototype of the group, the classical KBOs are often called cubewanos ("Q-B-1-osi").

Question: where are the kuiperov pojas found in the world

where are the kuiperov pojas found in the world

Question: how many kuiperov pojas are there in the world

dvije trećine do danas promatranih KBO -

how many kuiperov pojas are there in the world

Question: where do the kuiperov pojas live

Question: when was the first kuiperov pojas discovered

when was the first kuiperov pojas discovered

Question: where are the kuiperov pojas found in the solar system

where are the kuiperov pojas found in the solar system

Question: how many kuiperov pojas are there

dvije trećine do danas promatranih KBO -

two - thirds of the to date observed KBOs

This area , whose members make up about two - thirds of the to date observed KBOs , is known as the classic Kuiper belt .

As the first modernly discovered KBO , ( 15760 ) 1992 QB1 , is considered a prototype of the group , the classical KBOs are often called cubewanos ( " Q - B-1 - osi " ) .

Navedeno područje, čiji članovi čine oko dvije trećine do danas promatranih KBO-a, poznato je kao klasični Kuiperov pojas. Budući se prvi moderno otkriveni KBO, (15760) 1992 QB1, smatra prototipom grupe, klasične KBO-e često se naziva i cubewanosima ("Q-B-1-osi").

Navedeno područje, čiji članovi čine oko dvije trećine do danas promatranih KBO-a, poznato je kao klasični Kuiperov pojas.

Budući se prvi moderno otkriveni KBO, (15760) 1992 QB1, smatra prototipom grupe, klasične KBO-e često se naziva i cubewanosima ("Q-B-1-osi").

This area, whose members make up about two-thirds of the to date observed KBOs, is known as the classic Kuiper belt. As the first modernly discovered KBO, (15760) 1992 QB1, is considered a prototype of the group, the classical KBOs are often called cubewanos ("Q-B-1-osi").

This area, whose members make up about two-thirds of the to date observed KBOs, is known as the classic Kuiper belt.

As the first modernly discovered KBO, (15760) 1992 QB1, is considered a prototype of the group, the classical KBOs are often called cubewanos ("Q-B-1-osi").

The guidelines of the International Astronomical Union require that the classical KBOs carry the names of mythological creatures associated with creation.

Celestial nomenclature has long been a controversial topic. At its inaugural meeting in 1922 in Rome, the IAU standardized the constellation names and abbreviations. More recently IAU Committees or Working Groups have given or certified the names of astronomical objects and features. In 1982, the United Nations, at its "Fourth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names" held in Geneva, recognized the role of the IAU by adopting its Resolution 13 on Extraterrestrial feature names (p.33).
In the following links you can find further information on how different objects and features are named.
Quick links:
Spelling of Names
Questions have been asked about the proper English spelling of names of astronomical objects, especially as regards capitalization of such names.
The IAU formally recommends that the initial letters of the names of individual astronomical objects should be printed as capitals (see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter 8, page S30 – PDF file); e.g., Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. "The Earth's equator" and "Earth is a planet in the Solar System" are examples of correct spelling according to these rules.
It is emphasized, however, that language conventions are the responsibility of individual nations or groups of nations. While the IAU is willing to help to achieve a minimum degree of orthographic consistency as regards astronomical terms, it cannot undertake to do so for all languages, nor is it in the power of the IAU to enforce the application of any such conventions.
If a name is difficult to spell or pronounce, it may not be the best choice for use on maps and in presentations. Sometimes multi-word names are discouraged for this reason. The purpose of nomenclature is to provide simple, clear, unambiguous names for features.
List of known names of Solar System objects, exoplanets, stars and stellar streams (14 August 2022).
Naming of Solar System Objects and Features
The IAU has been the arbiter of planetary and satellite nomenclature since its inception in 1919 (also see Resolution 13 of the Fourth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, held in Geneva in 1982). The various IAU Working Groups normally handle this process, and their decisions primarily affect the professional astronomers. But from time to time the IAU takes decisions and makes recommendations on issues concerning astronomical matters affecting other sciences or the public. Such decisions and recommendations are not enforceable by any national or international law; rather they establish conventions that are meant to help our understanding of astronomical objects and processes. Hence, IAU recommendations should rest on well-established scientific facts and have a broad consensus in the community concerned.
Major Planets and the Moon
The eight major planets in our Solar System and Earth's satellite have official IAU names. The names of the major planets were already in common use when the IAU formed in 1919 (e.g. scientifically, in professional and amateur astronomy literature, in nautical almanacs, etc.). However, the names of the planets have been included in wording for IAU resolutions multiple times since the IAU's founding and these names can be considered formally adopted by the IAU membership. While there are cultural names for the planets and Earth's satellite in other languages, there are classic names for the major planets and Moon which appear in English language IAU resolutions and the IAU Style Manual (which was approved by an IAU resolution in 1988).
What follows is a partial list of instances of use of these planet names, but it is by no means exhaustive. This compilation demonstrates, however, that the names of the planets and Moon have appeared in IAU resolutions (or in wording of documents approved by IAU resolution) approved by IAU General Assemblies multiple times, and continue to be in ubiquitous use.
-
1976: The names of the then major planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) and the Earth's satellite (Moon) appear in IAU Resolution No. 10, which was approved by the XVIth General Assembly of the IAU in Grenoble, France in 1976.
-
1988: The IAU XXth General Assembly — which met in Baltimore in 1988 — approved IAU Resolution A3 on the Improvement of Publications, which recognized "the importance of identifying astronomical objects by clear and unambiguous designations" and recommended "that the authors and editors of the astronomical literature adopt the recommendations in the IAU Style Manual". The "IAU Style Manual (1989): The Preparation of Astronomical Papers and Reports" by George A. Wilkins (President of IAU Commission 5) was published in December 1988, and reprinted as Chapter VIII ("IAU Style Book") in the "Transactions of the International Astronomical Union Vol. XXB: Proceedings of the Twentieth General Assembly Baltimore 1988" (1990; ed. Derek McNally; Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordrecht). The IAU Style Manual Sec. 5.25 lists the names of the "principal planets" as Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
-
2006: IAU Resolution B5 (Definition of a Planet in the Solar System) explicitly lists the eight planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. While Resolution B5 defined the category of dwarf planet, Resolution B6 explicitly lists Pluto as an example.
One also sees these planet names are used ubiquitously by modern IAU working groups (e.g. IAU Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature, the IAU Working Group on Cartographic Coordinates and Rotational Elements in their recent report by Archinal et al. 2011 Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Vol. 109, Issue 2, pp. 101-135, etc.).
So the IAU does recognize official names for the major planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) and Earth's satellite (Moon).
Planetary Features
Planetary nomenclature, like terrestrial nomenclature, is used to uniquely identify a feature on the surface of a planet or satellite so that the feature can be easily located, described, and discussed. The procedure is as follows:
- When the first images of the surface of a planet or satellite are obtained, themes for naming features are chosen and names of a few important features are proposed, usually by members of the appropriate IAU task group.
- As higher resolution images and maps become available, names for additional features may be requested by investigators mapping or describing specific surfaces or geological formations.
- At this point, anyone may suggest that a specific name be considered by a Task Group, but there is no guarantee that the name will be accepted. Please submit name requests via this form.
- Names successfully reviewed by a task group are submitted by the task group chair to the Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN).
- Upon successful review by vote of the members of the WGPSN, names are considered approved as official IAU nomenclature, and can be used on maps and in publications. Approved names are immediately entered into the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature, and posted on its web site. Any objections to these names based on significant substantive problems or inconsistent application of normal IAU naming convention must be forwarded in writing or email to the IAU General-Secretary within three months from the time the name was placed on the web site. The General-Secretary will make a recommendation to the WGPSN Chair as to whether or not the approved name(s) should be reconsidered. The General-Secretary, in concurrence with the IAU President, may seek the advice of external consultants.
- Approved names are also listed in the transactions of the IAU (A and B).
- The categories of the planetary features are listed here.
(from https://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Page/Approved)
Definition of a Planet
We invite you to consult the IAU Resolutions B5 and B6 (PDF file, 92KB) adopted on August 2006, at our XXVIth General Assembly in Prague, as well as the press release published on the occasion. The following theme article may also be of interest: https://www.iau.org/public/pluto/.
Dwarf Planets
Dwarf planets are planetary-mass objects orbiting the Sun that are massive enough to be rounded by their own gravity, but are not planets or satellites. Unlike planets, these bodies have not cleared the neighbourhood around their orbits, and their paths sometimes cross with other, often similar, objects.
There are currently five identified dwarf planets in our Solar System, each named after a God from Greek, Polynesian, or Roman mythologies. These five bodies are Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. In addition all of these but Ceres are also classified as plutoids, meaning that they are dwarf planets that orbit beyond Neptune and have an absolute magnitude H greater than 1.
There are several stages before a proposed name is accepted:
- When a body is initially sighted it is given a provisional name, which is later superseded by a permanent numerical designation once its orbit has been well determined.
- The discovery team suggests a suitable name to the two relevant IAU groups — the working groups for Small Body Nomenclature (WGSBN) and Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN) — who together are responsible for naming dwarf planets. The name is intended to reflect the characteristics of the body itself, and be an appropriate moniker derived from mythology. Objects, including dwarf planets, far beyond the orbit of Neptune are expected to be given the name of a deity or figure related to creation; for example Makemake, the Polynesian creator of humanity and god of fertility, and Haumea, the Hawaiian goddess of fertility and childbirth.
- The IAU finally decides on the assignment of the name, priority given to the ones proposed by the discoverers.
- Dwarf planets may not share a name with any other small Solar System bodies.
The names of features on the bodies in the Pluto system are related to mythology and the literature and history of exploration:
Pluto:
- Names for the Underworld from the world's mythologies.
- Gods, goddesses, and dwarfs associated with the Underworld.
- Heroes and other explorers of the Underworld.
- Writers associated with Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.
- Scientists and engineers associated with Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.
Charon:
- Destinations and milestones of fictional space and other exploration.
- Fictional and mythological vessels of space and other exploration.
- Fictional and mythological voyagers, travellers and explorers.
Styx:
Nix:
Kerberos:
- Dogs from literature, mythology and history.
Hydra:
- Legendary serpents and dragons.
Satellites of Planets in the Solar System
The WGPSN is responsible for naming of satellites of planets. With the agreement of the WGPSN, the WGSBN will assume responsibility for the naming of satellites of minor planets. The WGPSN is responsible for naming of satellites of planets.
Modern technology has made it possible to discover satellites down to 1 km in size or even smaller. The greatly increased discovery rate of satellites has made it necessary to extend the existing name categories for the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn whose names are drawn from the Greco-Roman mythology. The Jovian satellites have previously been named for Zeus/Jupiter's lovers and favorites but now Zeus' descendants are also included as an allowable source of names. The satellites of Saturn have so far been named for the Greco-Roman Titans, descendants of the Titans, Giants and the Roman god of the beginning. In order to internationalize the names, we now also allow names of giants and monsters in other mythologies (so far Gallic, Inuit and Norse).
The process of naming newly discovered natural satellites is as follows:
- When reported to the IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams, the object is assigned a provisional name, consisting on the letter S followed by the year of discovery and a number indicating the order of discovery within that year.
- When the satellite is confirmed, the discoverer suggests a final name. Expanding on past practice, satellites of minor planets will, where possible and appropriate, receive names of mythological characters closely related to the name of the primary and suggesting the relative sizes. For example, binary transneptunian objects of comparable size should receive the names of twins or siblings, consistent with the current principle of using names of gods of creation or the underworld. As another example, satellites that share Pluto's orbital rhythm should take the name of underworld deities, as Pluto itself is named after the Roman god of the underworld who was able to render himself invisible.
- The IAU finally decides on the assignment of the name, priority given to the ones proposed by the discoverers.
More information:
Minor Planets
The assignment of a particular name to a particular minor planet is the end of a long process that can take many decades:
- It begins with the discovery of a Minor Planet that cannot be identified with any already-known object. Such Minor Planets are given a provisional designation. The provisional designations are based on the date of discovery and are assigned by the Minor Planet Center (MPC) according to a well defined formula that involves the year of discovery, two letters and, if need be, further digits (for example 1989 AC or 2002 LM60).
- When the orbit of a Minor Planet becomes well enough determined that the position can be reliably predicted far into the future (typically this means after the Minor Planet has been observed at four or more oppositions), the Minor Planet receives a permanent designation - number issued sequentially by the Minor Planet Center, for example (433), (4179) or (50000).
- When a Minor Planet receives a permanent number, the discoverer of the Minor Planet is invited to suggest a name for it. The discoverer has this privilege for a period of ten years following the numbering of the object. The discoverer writes a short citation explaining the reasons for assigning the name according to the guidelines of the IAU.
- All proposed names are judged by the fifteen-person Working Group for Small Body Nomenclature (WGSBN) of the IAU, comprised of professional astronomers with research interests connected with Minor Planets and/or comets from around the world.
Proposed names should be:
- 16 characters or less in length
- preferably one word
- pronounceable (in some language)
- non-offensive
- not too similar to an existing name of a Minor Planet or natural Planetary satellite.
The names of individuals or events principally known for political or military activities are unsuitable until 100 years after the death of the individual or the occurrence of the event.
In addition,
- names of pet animals are discouraged
- names of a purely or principally commercial nature are not allowed.
There are more detailed guidelines for unusual Minor Planets in certain dynamical groups, for example:
- Trojan asteroids (those that librate in 1:1 resonance with Jupiter) are named for heroes of the Trojan War (Greeks at L4 and Trojans at L5).
- Trans-Jovian Planets crossing or approaching the orbit of a giant Planet but not in a stabilizing resonance (so called Centaurs) are named for centaurs.
- Objects crossing or approaching the orbit of Neptune and in stabilizing resonances other than 1:1 (notably the Plutinos at the 2:3 resonance) are given mythological names associated with the underworld.
- Objects sufficiently outside Neptune's orbit that orbital stability is reasonably assured for a substantial fraction of the lifetime of the solar system (so called Cubewanos or "classical" TNOs) are given mythological names associated with creation.
- Objects that approach or cross Earth's orbit (so called Near Earth Asteroids) are generally given mythological names.
Accepted names become official when they are published, along with their accompanying citations, in the Minor Planet Circulars, issued monthly by the Minor Planet Center.
The WGSBN recognizes the need to limit the numbers of Minor Planets named, and it requests individual discoverers and teams to propose no more than two names each two months.
Contrary to some recent media reports it is not possible to buy a name for a minor planet. If you have a name you would like to apply to a minor planet, the best advice is "Go out and discover one!".
The alphabetic list of all names is available at the Minor Planet Center including the discovery circumstances.
More information:
Meteor Showers
The new nomenclature rules for meteor showers, presented at the 2022 June 15 Business meeting of the IAU Commission F1, were approved by members of the F1 Commission by vote, which took place electronically from July 15 to July 20, 2022. The new nomenclature rules won’t be applied retroactively. All names of meteor showers assigned before August 2022 will continue to be used.
The new rules are based on a two-stage approach. The first stage applies to a new shower just after its discovery. The second stage concerns the repeatedly observed shower, the existence of which no longer raises any doubts.
1st stage – a new meteor shower submitted to the Meteor Data Centre (MDC) is given a provisional designation only (not a name) based on the date of submission. It is assigned by the MDC according to the following schema:
- a prefix M,
- the year of discovery (4-digit number) followed by a hyphen,
- an uppercase letter identifying the half-month of observation during that year; A for the first half of January, B for the second half, and so on (see Appendix 1),
- a number representing the order of the shower submission to the MDC within that half month.
Example: the first shower submitted to the MDC within the second half of the August, e.g. on August 17, 2022, would be designated as M2022-Q1.
2nd stage – a meteor shower, which has become well confirmed (its regular activity, origin, etc.) and meets the required criteria for established status (Appendix 2), will be given a final designation according to the following schema:
- a prefix M followed by a hyphen,
- the IAU MDC numerical code (a number issued sequentially by the MDC)
- a name (the discoverer will be invited to propose a unique name for their shower; all proposed names will be judged by the Working Group on Meteor Shower Nomenclature of the IAU.)
The final shower designation and the name will be officially approved by the IAU.
Example: a shower provisionally designated M2022-Q1 could obtain the final designation M-01212 (18-Aquariids), where 01212 is the sequential numerical code of the shower given by the MDC, and 18-Aquariids the name given by the observer.
Appendix 1.
The table below shows the relationship between the letters of the Latin alphabet and the half-month intervals in the calendar year, used for the provisional designation of meteor showers. Letters I and Z are unused.
|Latin Letter
||Half-Month
||Latin Letter
||Half-Month
|
|
|
A
|Jan. 1-15
||B
||Jan. 16-31
|
|
|
C
|Feb. 1-15
||D
||Feb. 16-29
|
|
|
E
|Mar. 1-15
||F
||Mar. 16-31
|
|
|
G
|Apr. 1-15
||H
||Apr. 16-30
|
|
|
J
|May 1-15
||K
||May 16-31
|
|
|
L
|June 1-15
||M
||June 16-30
|
|
|
N
|July 1-15
||O
||July 16-31
|
|
|
P
|Aug. 1-15
||Q
||Aug. 16-31
|
|
|
R
|Sep. 1-15
||S
||Sep. 16-30
|
|
|
T
|Oct. 1-15
||U
||Oct. 16-31
|
|
|
V
|Nov. 1-15
||W
||Nov. 16-30
|
|
|
X
|Dec. 1-15
||Y
||Dec. 16-31
|
Appendix 2.
Criteria for the nomination of showers for established status:
Giving the status of an established shower to a meteor shower means that we are dealing with a real stream and that its parameters (radiant coordinates, velocity and orbit) have been independently determined. Established showers officially receive their names during IAU General Assemblies.
A meteor shower listed in the MDC database can be nominated for established status by anyone if the shower fulfils criteria C1-C3. Criterion C4 is not obligatory but will strengthen the shower candidate’s position.
C1 - The shower is represented by at least two sets of parameters (hereafter called: solution) which have been observed/ determined by at least two independent author teams.
C2 - Each solution was identified using at least 15 members of the shower (in the case of single-station observations, at least 50 members) within one period of shower activity.
C3 - The shower’s existence is supported by an evaluation of its statistical significance in the local sporadic background or the existence is supported by an estimate of the probability of a random coincidence of the orbits in the dataset used.
C4 - The stream parent body is known, or there is a candidate for the parent body, or another
mechanism of the stream formation is suggested.
Compliance with the C3 and C4 criteria must be confirmed by research and reviewed publication submitted to the MDC.
The Working Group on Meteor Shower Nomenclature of the IAU (WG) must unanimously approve each nomination. Once the WG has approved a suggestion, the President of the WG, in agreement with the President of the F1 Committee, will contact the IAU. Nomination proposals will be presented at meetings of the Committee during the GA IAU. Once the IAU has approved a nomination and the shower has officially received its name, it will be moved from the Working List to the List of Established Showers in the MDC
Comets
A comet is a body made of rock and ice, typically a few kilometres in diameter, which orbits the Sun. Comets may pass by the Sun only once or go through the Solar System periodically. A comet’s tail is formed when the Sun’s heat warms the coma or nucleus, which releases vapours into space.
During the 19th century, comets were only given names after their second apparition, while those that had only appeared once were designated by a combination of year of discovery, numbers (both Arabic and Roman) and letters. Sometimes, the name of the discoverer was referred to in parentheses. It was not until the 20th century that comets were routinely named after their discoverers.
Today, the IAU’s Division F Working Group on Small Body Nomenclature (SBN) is the responsible body for strategic matters related to comet naming. When a comet is discovered and confirmed, the Minor Planet Center (MPC) announces it on behalf of the IAU. It is then given a designation according to the following pattern (see Resolution C.5 approved by the IAU in 1995 on p.32 of this PDF):
-
A prefix, alluding to the type of comet, which can be any of the following:
-
P/ for a periodic comet.
-
C/ for a comet that is not periodic.
-
X/ for a comet for which a meaningful orbit cannot be computed.
-
D/ for a periodic comet that no longer exists or is deemed to have disappeared.
-
I/ for all interstellar objects, whether comets or asteroids.
-
The year of discovery.
-
An uppercase letter identifying the half-month of observation during that year (A for first half of January, B for second half and so on).
-
A number representing the order of discovery within that half month.
As an example, the third comet discovered in the second half of January 2013, and classified as periodic, would be designated as P/2013 B3. The precise method, including exceptions and special cases, is described in the Cometary Designation System IAU resolution.
When a periodic comet is observed after its second apparition, the IAU’s Minor Planet Center (MPC) gives it a sequential number indicating the order of the discovery.
To complete the designation, comets are either given the name of the discovery team or of one or two individual members of the team (last name for an individual or one word or acronym for a team of astronomers). Discoveries by individuals are named for up to three independent discoverers. The names appear in chronological order and separated by a hyphen. In very rare cases the title can consist of three discoverers, or can even be generic.
Examples of complete titles for comets (whether provisional or final) are 119P/Parker-Hartley, C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp) or 146P/Shoemaker-LINEAR.
More detailed guidelines explaining the process of assigning the names of the discoverers to a comet can be found in this IAU document. Also read this essay on the web pages of the International Comet Quarterly.
Naming Objects Outside the Solar System
Stars
See the dedicated page "Naming Stars".
Nebulae, Galaxies, and Other Objects
The designation of astronomical objects beyond the Solar System should consist of at least two parts — a leading acronym and a sequence value.
-
An acronym is a code specifying the catalogue or collection of sources, conforming to the following rules, among others:
-
It should consist of at least three characters (letters and/or numerals, avoiding special characters).
-
The acronym must be unique.
-
Acronyms should not be excessively long.
-
Sequence: a string of usually alpha-numerical characters that uniquely identify the source within the catalogue. Common values for the sequence are:
More information:
Complete specifications concerning designations for astronomical radiation sources outside the solar system are published by the Working Group on Astronomical Designations in IAU Commission B2. See http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Dic/iau-spec.html for more details.
Exoplanets
See the dedicated page "Naming of exoplanets".

Question: what are the classical kbo called in astronomy

The guidelines of the International Astronomical Union require that the classical KBOs carry the names of mythological creatures associated with creation.

what are the classical kbo called in astronomy

Question: who decides the names of the kuiperov pojas

who decides the names of the kuiperov pojas

Question: when was the first kbo discovered in space

when was the first kbo discovered in space

Question: the guidelines of the international astronomical union require that classical kbos carry the names of

mythological creatures associated with creation

mythological creatures associated with creation

the guidelines of the international astronomical union require that classical kbos carry the names of

Question: what are the names of kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the meaning of kbo in astronomy

Question: what are cubewanos

The guidelines of the International Astronomical Union require that the classical KBOs carry the names of mythological creatures associated with creation .

Budući se prvi moderno otkriveni KBO, (15760) 1992 QB1, smatra prototipom grupe, klasične KBO-e često se naziva i cubewanosima ("Q-B-1-osi"). Smjernice Međunarodne astronomske unije zahtijevaju da klasični KBO-i nose imena mitoloških bića povezanih sa stvaranjem.

Smjernice Međunarodne astronomske unije zahtijevaju da klasični KBO-i nose imena mitoloških bića povezanih sa stvaranjem.

As the first modernly discovered KBO, (15760) 1992 QB1, is considered a prototype of the group, the classical KBOs are often called cubewanos ("Q-B-1-osi"). The guidelines of the International Astronomical Union require that the classical KBOs carry the names of mythological creatures associated with creation.

The guidelines of the International Astronomical Union require that the classical KBOs carry the names of mythological creatures associated with creation.

When the orbital period of an object is precisely aligned with the Neptune, then the object can be engaged with it in a synchronized movement.

Question: how many orbits does an object make around the sun neptune

When the orbital period of an object is precisely aligned with the Neptune, then the object can be engaged with it in a synchronized movement.

how many orbits does an object make around the sun neptune

Question: what is neptune's relative position when it returns to the perihel point

what is neptune's relative position when it returns to the perihel point

Question: when the orbital period of an object is precisely aligned with neptune the object can

when the orbital period of an object is precisely aligned with neptune the object can

Question: how far does a kuiperov pojas orbit neptune

how far does a kuiperov pojas orbit neptune

Question: how close is neptune to the perihel point when it reaches nept

approximately the same relative position

approximately the same relative position

how close is neptune to the perihel point when it reaches nept

Question: how can an object be engaged with neptune

how can an object be engaged with neptune

Question: when the orbital period of an object is precisely aligned with neptune it can be

when the orbital period of an object is precisely aligned with neptune it can be

Question: how far is neptune from kuiperov pojas

When the orbital period of an object is precisely aligned with the Neptune , then the object can be engaged with it in a synchronized movement .

If , for example , an object is in the exact orbit when for two orbits around the Sun Neptune makes three , and if its perihel reaches when Neptune is far from it for a quarter of the orbite , in that case when it returns to the perihel point Neptune will always be at approximately the same relative position as for that time it has passed one and a half of the orbite .

Kada je orbitalni period nekog objekta točno srazmjeran neptunovom, tada objekt može biti zahvaćen s njim u sinkroniziranom kretanju.

When the orbital period of an object is precisely aligned with the Neptune, then the object can be engaged with it in a synchronized movement. If, for example, an object is in the exact orbit when for two orbits around the Sun Neptune makes three, and if its perihel reaches when Neptune is far from it for a quarter of the orbite, in that case when it returns to the perihel point Neptune will always be at approximately the same relative position as for that time it has passed one and a half of the orbite.

When the orbital period of an object is precisely aligned with the Neptune, then the object can be engaged with it in a synchronized movement.

This is known as 2:3 (or 3:2) resonance and corresponds to a characteristic large half of about 39.4 AJ. 2:3 resonance covers about 200 known objects, including Pluto along with the months after which this group was named plutinoi.

Orbital classifications Many plutinoes, including Pluto, have orbits that relate to Neptune but because of their resonance they will never collide.

Plutinoes have high orbital excentricities from which it can be concluded that they have come to the current orbits by a dismissal by the migrating Neptune.

Resonance Occupation in the Kuiper Belt: Case Examples of the 5:2 and Trojan Resonances
Abstract
As part of our ongoing Deep Ecliptic Survey (DES) of the Kuiper belt, we report on the occupation of the 1:1 (Trojan), 4:3, 3:2, 7:4, 2:1, and 5:2 Neptunian mean motion resonances (MMRs). The previously unrecognized occupation of the 1:1 and 5:2 MMRs is not easily understood within the standard model of resonance sweeping by a migratory Neptune over an initially dynamically cold belt. Among all resonant Kuiper belt objects (KBOs), the three observed members of the 5:2 MMR discovered by DES possess the largest semimajor axes (a~55.4 AU), the highest eccentricities (e~0.4), and substantial orbital inclinations (i~10deg). Objects (38084) 1999HB12 and possibly 2001KC77 can librate with modest amplitudes of ~90° within the 5:2 MMR for at least 1 Gyr. Their trajectories cannot be explained by close encounters with Neptune alone, given the latter's current orbit. The dynamically hot orbits of such 5:2 resonant KBOs, unlike hot orbits of previously known resonant KBOs, may imply that these objects were preheated to large inclination and large eccentricity prior to resonance capture by a migratory Neptune. Our first discovered Neptunian Trojan, 2001QR322, may not owe its existence to Neptune's migration at all. The trajectory of 2001QR322 is remarkably stable; the object can undergo tadpole-type libration about Neptune's leading Lagrange (L4) point for at least 1 Gyr with a libration amplitude of 24°. Trojan capture probably occurred while Neptune accreted the bulk of its mass. For an assumed albedo of 12%-4%, our Trojan is ~130-230 km in diameter. Model-dependent estimates place the total number of Neptune Trojans resembling 2001QR322 at ~20-60. Their existence helps to rule out violent orbital histories for Neptune.
- Publication:
- The Astronomical Journal
- Pub Date:
- July 2003
- DOI:
- 10.1086/375207
- arXiv:
- arXiv:astro-ph/0301458
- Bibcode:
- 2003AJ....126..430C
- Keywords:
- Celestial Mechanics;
- Comets: General;
- Kuiper Belt;
- Minor Planets;
- Asteroids;
- Astrophysics
- E-Print:
- Accepted to AJ, final version, contains list of names of all resonant KBOs known to humanity as of Feb 1 2003

Question: how many plutinoes are in the 2:3 resonance

This is known as 2:3 (or 3:2) resonance and corresponds to a characteristic large half of about 39.4 AJ. 2:3 resonance covers about 200 known objects, including Pluto along with the months after which this group was named plutinoi.

Orbital classifications Many plutinoes, including Pluto, have orbits that relate to Neptune but because of their resonance they will never collide.

Plutinoes have high orbital excentricities from which it can be concluded that they have come to the current orbits by a dismissal by the migrating Neptune.

how many plutinoes are in the 2:3 resonance

Question: pluto and neptune are two examples of what

pluto and neptune are two examples of what

Question: what is the resonance of kuiperov pojas

Question: how many plutinoes have a 2:3 resonance

Question: which plutinoes orbit neptune but will never collide

which plutinoes orbit neptune but will never collide

Question: pluto and neptune have what

Question: what is the resonance of pluto and neptune

what is the resonance of pluto and neptune

Question: why do pluto and neptune have orbits similar to pluto

why do pluto and neptune have orbits similar to pluto

This is known as 2:3 ( or 3:2 ) resonance and corresponds to a characteristic large half of about 39.4 AJ . 2:3 resonance covers about 200 known objects , including Pluto along with the months after which this group was named plutinoi .

Orbital classifications Many plutinoes , including Pluto , have orbits that relate to Neptune but because of their resonance they will never collide .

Plutinoes have high orbital excentricities from which it can be concluded that they have come to the current orbits by a dismissal by the migrating Neptune .

Ovo je poznato kao 2:3 (ili 3:2) rezonancija i odgovara karakterističnoj velikoj poluosi od oko 39,4 AJ. 2:3 rezonancija obuhvaća oko 200 poznatih objekata, uključujući Pluton zajedno s mjesecima po čemu je ova skupina dobila naziv plutinoi. Orbitalne klasifikacije Mnogi plutinoi, uključujući Pluton, imaju orbite koje se sijeku s neptunovom no zbog svoje rezonantnosti nikada se neće sudariti. Plutinoi imaju visoke orbitalne ekscentricitete iz čega se može zaključiti da su u sadašnje orbite došli izbacivanjem od strane migrirajućeg Neptuna.

Ovo je poznato kao 2:3 (ili 3:2) rezonancija i odgovara karakterističnoj velikoj poluosi od oko 39,4 AJ. 2:3 rezonancija obuhvaća oko 200 poznatih objekata, uključujući Pluton zajedno s mjesecima po čemu je ova skupina dobila naziv plutinoi.

Orbitalne klasifikacije Mnogi plutinoi, uključujući Pluton, imaju orbite koje se sijeku s neptunovom no zbog svoje rezonantnosti nikada se neće sudariti.

Plutinoi imaju visoke orbitalne ekscentricitete iz čega se može zaključiti da su u sadašnje orbite došli izbacivanjem od strane migrirajućeg Neptuna.

This is known as 2:3 (or 3:2) resonance and corresponds to a characteristic large half of about 39.4 AJ. 2:3 resonance covers about 200 known objects, including Pluto along with the months after which this group was named plutinoi. Orbital classifications Many plutinoes, including Pluto, have orbits that relate to Neptune but because of their resonance they will never collide. Plutinoes have high orbital excentricities from which it can be concluded that they have come to the current orbits by a dismissal by the migrating Neptune.

This is known as 2:3 (or 3:2) resonance and corresponds to a characteristic large half of about 39.4 AJ. 2:3 resonance covers about 200 known objects, including Pluto along with the months after which this group was named plutinoi.

Orbital classifications Many plutinoes, including Pluto, have orbits that relate to Neptune but because of their resonance they will never collide.

Plutinoes have high orbital excentricities from which it can be concluded that they have come to the current orbits by a dismissal by the migrating Neptune.

The 1:2 resonance (for each Neptune whole, these objects cover half the orbit) corresponds to a large pulse of about ~47.7 AJ and is rarely settled.

by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 22 April 2018
Contents:
Link to List of known trans-Neptunian objects and Centaurs
Dynamical classes:
Classes of outer solar system objects, with numbers of known objects with MPC designations (2,946, as of 22 April 2018) in parenthesis (see note below):
Note that these counts are approximate, since these classifications are in some cases not universally defined and since orbits are not well determined for some objects. In the case of resonance objects, accurate classification requires extended observations and dynamical studies. These counts include delineations based on preliminary orbital elements (listed as possible members), and classifications for objects in such cases are subject to revision.
The graph below plots eccentricity versus semimajor axis for outer solar system objects by class (click here for a larger version). Black asterisks indicate values for Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (from left to right). The light blue curves indicate values corresponding to perihelion distances of 40 AU, 45 AU, and 50 AU (from left to right on the graph).
Distribution by distance:
Below is a histogram of outer solar system objects by distance (click here for a larger version)
Including Sedna, 12 trans-Neptunian objects have aphelion distances beyond 800 AU. (Another 5 unusual asteroids have aphelia over 800 AU; these may be inactive comets.) A total of 66 TNOs (plus 13 more unusual objects) have aphelion distances exceeding 200 AU. Relatively few (10) have been discovered with perihelion distances greater than 47 AU, and only 6 with perihelion distances greater than 50 AU. Data thus far suggests than there is indeed a cutoff to the classical TNO population around 47 AU, although the discoveries of Sedna and 2012 VP113 suggest an unrecognized population of much more distant objects (see below).
Of the 2,946 outer solar system objects counted above, 92 (3.1%) have inclinations from 40° to 90°, and 91 (3.1%) have retrograde orbits. Most if not all of the latter objects may actually be comets no longer showing cometary activity.
The graph below (click here for larger version) shows estimated TNO size versus perihelion distance. A line indicates the nature of the cutoff that would result from detectability limits; in other words, objects lying along this line would have the same apparent brightness from Earth (assuming the same albedo). Note the lack of detected objects with perihelions beyond 47 AU.
The graph below (click here for larger version and discussion) shows eccentricity versus semimajor axis for outer solar system objects. Green lines indicate the location of orbital resonances with Neptune where objects have been found. The second resonance from the left is the 2:3 resonance, location of a cluster of objects (the Plutinos).
Largest objects:
The 30 largest known TNOs (plus one satellite) are, with estimated diameters:
Diameters with question marks are estimated (see discussion here). For comparison, the largest asteroid, (1) Ceres, is 920 km in diameter. A total of 75 TNOs appear to be at least 500 km in diameter and 318 at least 300 km. The total volume of known TNOs (including Pluto) is estimated at 205% of that of the Moon (36% in the Pluto system, 31% in the Eris system, and 10% in the Haumea system). (A note: these size-associated figures are very dependent on the assumed albedo value for these objects. The above figures assume an albedo of 9% for objects with unmeasured diameters/albedos.) For more discussion of large TNOs see:
The graph below (click here for larger version and discussion) plots albedo vs. diameter for TNOs and centaurs with measured diameters.
The chart below (click here for larger version) shows the orbits of some of the largest known TNOs with the outer planets.
Binary objects:
Below is a plot of TNO and asteroid size ratios vs. separation:
In 2001 the TNO 1998 WW31 was found to be double, and companions to other TNOs have since been found. The possibility of companions for six more TNOs has been suggested (for (20000) Varuna, (32929) 1995 QY9, (33128) 1998 BU48, (47932) 2000 GN171, 2003 SQ317, and 2010 WG9). In 2005 two companions to (136108) Haumea were discovered, shortly before two additional satellites of Pluto were reported (with additional discoveries later bringing Pluto's total to five satellites). In 2013 the Centaur (10199) Chariklo was found to have a ring, followed by the TNO Haumea in 2017. Data for the 86 TNOs known to have satellites or rings are given below:
|TNO||companion(s)||component diameters (km)||separation (km)||orbital period (d)||year|
reported
|(134340) Pluto||Charon||2370||1210||19,573||6.387||1978|
|Styx||6||42,490||20.162||2012|
|Nix||43||48,840||24.855||2005|
|Kerberos||9||57,730||32.168||2011|
|Hydra||38||64,740||38.202||2005|
|(10199) Chariklo||rings||250||--||405||0.78||2014|
|(26308) 1998 SM165||S/2001 (26308) 1||270||80||11,380||130.20||2002|
|(38628) Huya||410||210||1,700?||3.2?||2012|
|(42355) Typhon||Echidna||160||90||1,580||18.982||2006|
|(47171) Lempo||Hiisi||290||260||870||1.907||2007|
|Paha||140||7,410||50.3||2002|
|(48939) 1995 TL8||180||80||420?||1.4?||2005|
|(50000) Quaoar||Weywot||1070||80||13,800||12.3||2007|
|(55637) 2002 UX25||660||210||4,770||8.309||2007|
|(58534) Logos||Zoe||80||60||8,220||309.9||2002|
|(60458) 2000 CM114||170||130||2,200?||15?||2006|
|(60621) 2000 FE8||150||110||1,200?||8?||2007|
|(65489) Ceto||Phorcys||220||170||1,840||9.554||2006|
|(66652) Borasisi||Pabu||130||100||4,530||46.289||2003|
|(79360) Sila-Nunam||Nunam||250||240||2,780||12.51||2005|
|(80806) 2000 CM105||160||120||2,700?||23?||2005|
|(82075) 2000 YW134||220||80||1,900?||10?||2005|
|(82157) 2001 FM185||140||120||3,100?||33?||2011|
|(88611) Teharonhiawako||Sawiskera||180||130||27,700||828.8||2001|
|(90482) Orcus||Vanth||910||480||9,010||9.539||2007|
|(119067) 2001 KP76||150||150||8,900?||130?||2008|
|(119979) 2002 WC19||520||130||4,100||8.403||2007|
|(120347) Salacia||Actaea||850||290||5,600||5.494||2006|
|(123509) 2000 WK183||110||100||2,370||30.92||2007|
|(134860) 2000 OJ67||140||110||2,270||22.06||2005|
|(136108) Haumea||rings||1600||--||2,290||0.485||2017|
|Namaka||160||25,660||18.278||2005|
|Hi'iaka||320||49,900||49.46||2005|
|(136199) Eris||Dysnomia||2330||700||37,600||15.790||2005|
|(136472) Makemake||S/2015 (136472) 1||1430||180||21,000?||12.4||2016|
|(139775) 2001 QG298||140||120||170||0.574||2004|
|(148780) Altjira||250||220||9,900||139.6||2007|
|(160091) 2000 OL67||150||120||7,800?||120?||2008|
|(160256) 2002 PD149||190||160||24,000?||470?||2007|
|(174567) Varda||Ilmare||720||330||4,810||5.751||2011|
|(182933) 2002 GZ31||200||120||2,100?||12?||2007|
|(208996) 2003 AZ84||720||70||7,200?||12?||2007|
|(225088) 2007 OR10||1510||300||15,000?||68?||2016|
|(229762) 2007 UK126||610||110||3,600?||6?||2011|
|(275809) 2001 QY297||170||150||9,960||138.11||2007|
|(303712) 2005 PR21||230||140||3,600?||22?||2008|
|(341520) Mors-Somnus||Somnus||100||100||21,000||971.7||2008|
|(364171) 2006 JZ81||120||80||33,000||1,500||2011|
|(385446) Manwe||Thorondor||140||80||6,670||110.18||2006|
|(469420) 2001 XP254||110||80||1,200?||12?||2011|
|(469505) 2003 FE128||190||140||2,100?||13?||2012|
|(469514) 2003 QA91||190||180||1,900?||9?||2007|
|(469705) 2005 EF298||140||110||7,700||128.11||2011|
|1998 WV24||110||100||1,400?||14?||2008|
|1998 WW31||S/2000 (1998 WW31) 1||150||120||22,600||587.3||2001|
|1999 OJ4||80||70||3,270||84.12||2005|
|1999 RT214||100||70||3,300?||64?||2006|
|1999 RY214||120||80||1,500?||15?||2009|
|1999 XY143||210||180||2,700?||14?||2009|
|2000 CF105||60||50||33,000||3,990||2002|
|2000 CQ114||80||80||6,900||220.7||2004|
|2000 QL251||150||140||5,000||56.45||2006|
|2000 WT169||200||170||2,600?||14?||2009|
|2001 FL185||140||90||1,900?||17?||2007|
|2001 QC298||240||190||3,810||19.23||2002|
|2001 QQ322||170||160||3,900?||32?||2008|
|2001 QW322||130||130||102,000||6,280||2001|
|2001 RZ143||110||90||1,600?||17?||2007|
|2001 XR254||170||140||9,300||125.6||2007|
|2002 VF130||120||110||22,000?||760?||2009|
|2002 VT130||250||200||2,500?||10?||2009|
|2002 XH91||300||180||20,000?||190?||2009|
|2003 HG57||160||160||13,000?||210?||2012|
|2003 QR91||210||190||1,800?||8?||2007|
|2003 QY90||80||80||8,500||309.7||2003|
|2003 TJ58||60||50||3,800||137.68||2007|
|2003 UN284||120||80||54,000||3,180||2003|
|2003 WU188||180||130||1,300?||6?||2007|
|2003 YS179||140||130||7,800?||120?||2011|
|2003 YU179||170||90||2,000?||15?||2009|
|2004 KB19||150||?||?||?||2015|
|2004 KH19||180||130||13,000?||210?||2011|
|2004 PB108||240||130||10,400||97.02||2007|
|2005 EO304||150||80||70,000||3,580||2005|
|2005 GD187||120||100||7,600?||150?||2011|
|2005 SF278||220||?||?||?||2018|
|2005 VZ122||120||50||2,300?||30?||2011|
|2006 BR284||90||70||25,300||1,500||2011|
|2006 CH69||100||80||27,000||1,420||2010|
|2006 SF369||140||140||3,100?||28?||2008|
|2014 LQ28||320||?||?||?||2018|
|2015 QL14||180||?||?||?||2018|
|[hst5]||140||140||16,000?||1,000?||2011|
Values of binary TNO separations or orbital periods if marked by "?" are approximate, assuming that observed (projected) separations are comparable to the semimajor axes and that both components have densities of order 1,000 kg/m3. For additional data see the following listings:
With 86 binary/multiple TNOs (or SDOs/centaurs) (through April 2018) in a population of 2,707 objects, it appears that binary TNOs are quite common. Binary TNOs identified in 2005 include several close binaries, suggesting more binaries that cannot yet be resolved.
For more information on binary TNOs, see the Asteroids with Satellites section at this web site.
General links:
© 2001-2017, 2018 by Wm. Robert Johnston.
Last modified 22 April 2018.
Return to Home. Return to Astronomy and Space.

Question: what is the resonance of neptune pojas

The 1:2 resonance (for each Neptune whole, these objects cover half the orbit) corresponds to a large pulse of about ~47.7 AJ and is rarely settled.

Question: what is the average pulse of neptune pojas

what is the average pulse of neptune pojas

Question: how many neptune pojas are there in the orbit

how many neptune pojas are there in the orbit

Question: where are neptune pojas located on the earth

where are neptune pojas located on the earth

Question: where does the 1:2 resonance occur in neptune

where does the 1:2 resonance occur in neptune

Question: how many aj does a kuiperov pojas have

The 1:2 resonance ( for each Neptune whole , these objects cover half the orbit ) corresponds to a large pulse of about ~47.7 AJ and is rarely settled .

1:2 rezonancija (za svaku neptunovu cijelu, ovi objekti obave pola orbite) odgovara velikoj pulosi od oko ~47,7 AJ te je rijetko naseljena.

1:2 rezonancija (za svaku neptunovu cijelu, ovi objekti obave pola orbite) odgovara velikoj pulosi od oko ~47,7 AJ te je rijetko naseljena.

The 1:2 resonance (for each Neptune whole, these objects cover half the orbit) corresponds to a large pulse of about ~47.7 AJ and is rarely settled.

The 1:2 resonance (for each Neptune whole, these objects cover half the orbit) corresponds to a large pulse of about ~47.7 AJ and is rarely settled.

Earlier models of the Kuiper belt proposed a double increase in the number of large facilities outside the 50 AJ, so that this drastic fall, known as "Kuiper's leak", was completely unexpected and has remained unclear to this day.

in 2003.

Undergraduate
GPS offers undergraduate degree programs in geobiology, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, or planetary science.
Postdoctoral
If you are seeking a postdoctoral position, check here for available openings!
Awards & Honors
- George Rossman Awarded Roebling Medal!
George Rossman
George Rossman (PhD '71), professor of mineralogy, has been awarded the 2021 Roebling Medal by the Mineralogical Society of America (MSA). The Roebling Medal is the MSA's highest award, recognizing "scientific eminence as represented primarily by scientific publication of outstanding original research in mineralogy."
- Cosmochemist François Tissot Named a Packard Fellow!
François Tissot
François Tissot, assistant professor of geochemistry and Heritage Medical Research Institute Investigator, has been selected as one of the 2021 Packard Fellows for Science and Engineering. The fellowship is awarded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and provides early-career scientists and engineers with $875,000 over five years to pursue their research.
- Victoria Orphan elected to the 2021 class of AGU Fellows!
Victoria Orphan
AGU Fellows have made outstanding achievements and contributions by pushing the frontiers of our science forward. They have also embodied AGU’s shared vision of a thriving, sustainable, and equitable future for all powered by discovery, innovation, and action.
- Dianne Newman has been elected as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences!
Dianne Newman
Newman's research focuses on the strategies bacteria take to cope with stress, such as the challenge of surviving in the absence of oxygen. Her current work includes examining the consequences of these metabolic responses in habitats ranging from the soil to chronic infections.

Question: when did the kuiper belt stop being built

Earlier models of the Kuiper belt proposed a double increase in the number of large facilities outside the 50 AJ, so that this drastic fall, known as "Kuiper's leak", was completely unexpected and has remained unclear to this day.

in 2003.

when did the kuiper belt stop being built

Question: what is the name of the double increase in the number of large facilities outside the 50

in 2003.

what is the name of the double increase in the number of large facilities outside the 50

Question: what is the name of the belt with a double increase in the number of large facilities

Kuiperovog pojasa predlagali su dvosturko povećanje broja velikih objekata izvan granice od 50 AJ , tako da je ovaj drastičan pad , poznat kao "" Kuiperova litica "" , bio potpuno neočekivan te je do danas ostao nerazjašnjen .

in 2003.

what is the name of the belt with a double increase in the number of large facilities

Question: where is the kuiper belt located on a map

in 2003.

where is the kuiper belt located on a map

Question: how many large facilities are in the kuiper belt

in 2003.

how many large facilities are in the kuiper belt

Question: what is the name of the kuiperov pojas

Kuiperovog pojasa predlagali su dvosturko povećanje broja velikih objekata izvan granice od 50 AJ , tako da je ovaj drastičan pad , poznat kao "" Kuiperova litica "" , bio potpuno neočekivan te je do danas ostao nerazjašnjen .

in 2003.

Earlier models of the Kuiper belt proposed a double increase in the number of large facilities outside the 50 AJ , so that this drastic fall , known as " Kuiper 's leak " , was completely unexpected and has remained unclear to this day .

Raniji modeli Kuiperovog pojasa predlagali su dvosturko povećanje broja velikih objekata izvan granice od 50 AJ, tako da je ovaj drastičan pad, poznat kao "Kuiperova litica", bio potpuno neočekivan te je do danas ostao nerazjašnjen. 2003.

Raniji modeli Kuiperovog pojasa predlagali su dvosturko povećanje broja velikih objekata izvan granice od 50 AJ, tako da je ovaj drastičan pad, poznat kao "Kuiperova litica", bio potpuno neočekivan te je do danas ostao nerazjašnjen.

Earlier models of the Kuiper belt proposed a double increase in the number of large facilities outside the 50 AJ, so that this drastic fall, known as "Kuiper's leak", was completely unexpected and has remained unclear to this day. in 2003.

Earlier models of the Kuiper belt proposed a double increase in the number of large facilities outside the 50 AJ, so that this drastic fall, known as "Kuiper's leak", was completely unexpected and has remained unclear to this day.

Bernstein and Trilling et al. found evidence that a significant fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more beyond 50 AJ was real, and not linked to possible observation errors.

The possible explanation is that the material on these distances was too rare or too dispersed to form into large objects, or that the later processes removed or destroyed those that succeeded in forming.

The Size Distribution of Trans-Neptunian Bodies
Abstract
We search 0.02 deg2 of the invariable plane for trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) 25 AU or more distant using the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) aboard the Hubble Space Telescope. With 22 ks per pointing, the search is more than 50% complete for m606W<=29.2. Three new objects are discovered, the faintest with mean magnitude m=28.3 (diameter ~25 km), which is 3 mag fainter than any previously well-measured solar system body. Each new discovery is verified with a follow-up 18 ks observation with the ACS, and the detection efficiency is verified with implanted objects. The three detections are a factor of ~25 less than would be expected under extrapolation of the power-law differential sky density for brighter objects, Σ(m)≡dN/dmdΩ~10αm with α~0.63. Analysis of the ACS data and recent TNO surveys from the literature reveals departures from this power law at both the bright and faint ends. Division of the TNO sample by distance and inclination into ``classical Kuiper belt'' (CKB) and ``Excited'' samples reveals that Σ(m) differs for the two populations at 96% confidence, and both samples show departures from power-law behavior. A double power-law Σ(m) adequately fits all data. Implications of these departures include the following: (1) The total mass of the ``classical'' Kuiper belt is ~0.010 M⊕, only a few times Pluto's mass, and is predominantly in the form of ~100 km bodies (barring a secondary peak in the mass distribution at sub-10 km sizes). The mass of Excited objects is perhaps a few times larger. (2) The Excited class has a shallower bright-end magnitude (and, presumably, size) distribution; the largest objects, including Pluto, make up tens of percent of the total mass whereas the largest CKB objects are only ~2% of its mass. (3) The derived size distributions predict that the largest Excited body should be roughly the mass of Pluto, and the largest CKB body should have mR~20-hence, Pluto is feasibly considered to have originated from the same physical process as the Excited TNOs. (4) The observed deficit of small TNOs occurs in the size regime where present-day collisions are expected to be disruptive, suggesting extensive depletion by collisions. The Excited and CKB size distributions are qualitatively similar to some numerical models of growth and erosion, with both accretion and erosion appearing to have proceeded to more advanced stages in the Excited class than in the CKB. (5) The lack of detections of distant TNOs implies that if a mass of TNOs comparable to the CKB is present near the invariable plane beyond 50 AU, that distant population must be composed primarily of bodies smaller than ~40 km. (6) There are too few small CKB objects for this population to be the reservoir of Jupiter-family comet precursors without a significant upturn in the population at diameters under 20 km. With optimistic model parameters and extrapolations, the Excited population could be the source reservoir. Implications of these discoveries for the formation and evolution of the outer solar system are discussed.Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with program GO-9433.
- Publication:
- The Astronomical Journal
- Pub Date:
- September 2004
- DOI:
- 10.1086/422919
- arXiv:
- arXiv:astro-ph/0308467
- Bibcode:
- 2004AJ....128.1364B
- Keywords:
- Kuiper Belt;
- Solar System: Formation;
- Astrophysics
- E-Print:
- Revised version accepted to the Astronomical Journal. Numerical results are very slightly revised. Implications for the origins of short-period comets are substantially revised, and tedious material on statistical tests has been collected into a new Appendix

Question: a significant fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more beyond 50 aj

Bernstein and Trilling et al. found evidence that a significant fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more beyond 50 AJ was real, and not linked to possible observation errors.

The possible explanation is that the material on these distances was too rare or too dispersed to form into large objects, or that the later processes removed or destroyed those that succeeded in forming.

a significant fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more beyond 50 aj

Question: kuiperov pojas have a radius of 100 km or more beyond what

kuiperov pojas have a radius of 100 km or more beyond what

Question: the fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more was found to be what

the fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more was found to be what

Question: the fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more was not linked to what

the fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more was not linked to what

Question: why did the material on the kuiperov pojas form into large objects

why did the material on the kuiperov pojas form into large objects

Question: what is the radius of a kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the possible explanation for the fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or

too rare or too dispersed to form into large objects

pre rijedak ili pre raspršen da bi se formirao u velike objekte

too rare or too dispersed to form into large objects

what is the possible explanation for the fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or

Question: why did the material on the kuiperov pojas not form into large objects

why did the material on the kuiperov pojas not form into large objects

Bernstein and Trilling et al . found evidence that a significant fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more beyond 50 AJ was real , and not linked to possible observation errors .

The possible explanation is that the material on these distances was too rare or too dispersed to form into large objects , or that the later processes removed or destroyed those that succeeded in forming .

Bernstein i Trilling et al. pronašli su dokaze da je značajan pad objekata polumjera od 100 km ili više izvan 50 AJ, realan, a ne izvazan mogućim pogreškama pri promatranju.

Moguća objašnjenja glase da je materijal na tim udaljenostima pre rijedak ili pre raspršen da bi se formirao u velike objekte, ili da su kasniji procesi uklonili ili uništili one koji su se uspjeli formirati.

Bernstein and Trilling et al. found evidence that a significant fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more beyond 50 AJ was real, and not linked to possible observation errors. The possible explanation is that the material on these distances was too rare or too dispersed to form into large objects, or that the later processes removed or destroyed those that succeeded in forming.

Bernstein and Trilling et al. found evidence that a significant fall of objects of a radius of 100 km or more beyond 50 AJ was real, and not linked to possible observation errors.

The possible explanation is that the material on these distances was too rare or too dispersed to form into large objects, or that the later processes removed or destroyed those that succeeded in forming.

Patryk Lykawka from the University of Kobe claims that the possible cause of this phenomenon is the gravitational influence of an uncovered object,<unk> even the size of Earth or Mars.

Question: who is the author of the kuiperov pojas

Patryk Lykawka from the University of Kobe claims that the possible cause of this phenomenon is the gravitational influence of an uncovered object,<unk> even the size of Earth or Mars.

Question: where did the kuiperov pojas originate from

Sveučilišta Kobe tvrdi da je mogući uzročnik ovoga fenomena gravitacijski utjecaj neotkrivenog

where did the kuiperov pojas originate from

Question: the kuiperov pojas are similar to what two other objects

the kuiperov pojas are similar to what two other objects

Question: what type of influence is the kuiperov pojas

what type of influence is the kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the main cause of kuiperov pojas

what is the main cause of kuiperov pojas

Question: the kuiperov pojas are the gravitational equivalent of which planet

the kuiperov pojas are the gravitational equivalent of which planet

Patryk Lykawka from the University of Kobe claims that the possible cause of this phenomenon is the gravitational influence of an uncovered object,<unk > even the size of Earth or Mars .

Patryk Lykawka sa Sveučilišta Kobe tvrdi da je mogući uzročnik ovoga fenomena gravitacijski utjecaj neotkrivenog objekta, možda čak veličine Zemlje ili Marsa.

The possible explanation is that the material on these distances was too rare or too dispersed to form into large objects, or that the later processes removed or destroyed those that succeeded in forming. Patryk Lykawka from the University of Kobe claims that the possible cause of this phenomenon is the gravitational influence of an uncovered object,<unk> even the size of Earth or Mars.

Patryk Lykawka from the University of Kobe claims that the possible cause of this phenomenon is the gravitational influence of an uncovered object,<unk> even the size of Earth or Mars.

Encyclopedia of the Solar System.

605-620, which are simultaneously present in the composition of the comet.

Composition of the Volatile Material in Halley's Coma from In Situ Measurements
Abstract
The investigation of the volatile material in the coma of comets is a key to understanding the origin of cometary material, the physical and chemical conditions in the early solar system, the process of comet formation, and the changes that comets have undergone during the last 4.6 billion years. So far, in situ investigations of the volatile constituents have been confined to a single comet, namely P/Halley in 1986. Although, the Giotto mission gave only a few hours of data from the coma, it has yielded a surprising amount of new data and has advanced cometary science by a large step. In the present article the most important results of the measurements of the volatile material of Halley's comet are summarized and an overview of the identified molecules is given. Furthermore, a list of identified radicals and unstable molecules is presented for the first time. At least one of the radicals, namely CH2, seems to be present as such in the cometary ice. As an outlook to the future we present a list of open questions concerning cometary volatiles and a short preview on the next generation of mass spectrometers that are being built for the International Rosetta Mission to explore the coma of Comet Wirtanen.
- Publication:
- Space Science Reviews
- Pub Date:
- October 1999
- DOI:
- 10.1023/A:1005256607402
- Bibcode:
- 1999SSRv...90....3A
- Keywords:
- P/Halley;
- Volatiles;
- Radicals

Question: how many kuiperov pojas are in the comet

Encyclopedia of the Solar System.

605-620, which are simultaneously present in the composition of the comet.

how many kuiperov pojas are in the comet

Question: where are kuiperov pojas located in our solar system

Encyclopedia of the Solar System.

where are kuiperov pojas located in our solar system

Question: kuiperov pojas are a type of

Encyclopedia of the Solar System.

Question: where can you find the kuiperov pojas

Encyclopedia of the Solar System.

Question: how many pojas are in a kuiperov poja

Encyclopedia of the Solar System.

605 - 620 , which are simultaneously present in the composition of the comet .

Encyclopedia of the Solar System. str. 605 – 620. koji su ujedno prisutni i u sastavu kometa.

str. 605 – 620. koji su ujedno prisutni i u sastavu kometa.

Encyclopedia of the Solar System. 605-620, which are simultaneously present in the composition of the comet.

605-620, which are simultaneously present in the composition of the comet.

The composition of the Infrared Spectrum of Eris and Pluto from which they are visible common methane absorption lines The study of the Kuiper belt from its discoveries revealed that its members consist mainly of ice: a combination of light hydrocarbons (such as methane), ammonia and water ice, Stephen C. Tegler (2007).

“Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

Question: the kuiper belt consists mainly of what

The composition of the Infrared Spectrum of Eris and Pluto from which they are visible common methane absorption lines The study of the Kuiper belt from its discoveries revealed that its members consist mainly of ice: a combination of light hydrocarbons (such as methane), ammonia and water ice, Stephen C. Tegler (2007).

“Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

Question: who discovered the kuiper belt in 2007

“Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

Question: what is visible from the kuiper belt

“Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

Question: what are the visible signs of the kuiper belt

“Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

what are the visible signs of the kuiper belt

Question: the kuiper belt is made up of which two bodies of water

“Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

the kuiper belt is made up of which two bodies of water

Question: when was the kuiper belt discovered and by whom

“Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

when was the kuiper belt discovered and by whom

Question: the kuiper belt objects consist mainly of ice in which spectrum

“Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

the kuiper belt objects consist mainly of ice in which spectrum

Question: what are the main hydrocarbons in the kuiper belt

“Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

what are the main hydrocarbons in the kuiper belt

The composition of the Infrared Spectrum of Eris and Pluto from which they are visible common methane absorption lines The study of the Kuiper belt from its discoveries revealed that its members consist mainly of ice : a combination of light hydrocarbons ( such as methane ) , ammonia and water ice , Stephen C. Tegler ( 2007 ) .

“ Kuiper Belt Objects : Physical Studies ”

Sastav Infracrveni spektar Eris i Plutona iz čega su im vidljive zajedničke apsorpcijske linije metana Proučavanje Kuiperovog pojasa od njegovog otkrića otkrilo je da se njegovi članovi sastoje uglavnom od ledova: kombinacije lakih ugljikovodika (poput metana), amonijama i vodenog leda,Stephen C. Tegler (2007.). "Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies".

Sastav Infracrveni spektar Eris i Plutona iz čega su im vidljive zajedničke apsorpcijske linije metana Proučavanje Kuiperovog pojasa od njegovog otkrića otkrilo je da se njegovi članovi sastoje uglavnom od ledova: kombinacije lakih ugljikovodika (poput metana), amonijama i vodenog leda,Stephen C. Tegler (2007.).

"Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies".

The composition of the Infrared Spectrum of Eris and Pluto from which they are visible common methane absorption lines The study of the Kuiper belt from its discoveries revealed that its members consist mainly of ice: a combination of light hydrocarbons (such as methane), ammonia and water ice, Stephen C. Tegler (2007). “Kuiper Belt Objects: Physical Studies”

The composition of the Infrared Spectrum of Eris and Pluto from which they are visible common methane absorption lines The study of the Kuiper belt from its discoveries revealed that its members consist mainly of ice: a combination of light hydrocarbons (such as methane), ammonia and water ice, Stephen C. Tegler (2007).

So detailed analysis before was not possible and astronomers could only determine the basic facts about the composition, such as their color.

Question: what are the basic facts about kuiperov pojas

So detailed analysis before was not possible and astronomers could only determine the basic facts about the composition, such as their color.

what are the basic facts about kuiperov pojas

Question: what are the basic characteristics of kuiperov pojas

what are the basic characteristics of kuiperov pojas

Question: who discovered the kuiperov pojas

Question: how do you find the kuiperov pojas

Question: how do we know the composition of kuiperov pojas

how do we know the composition of kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the basic science of kuiperov pojas

what is the basic science of kuiperov pojas

Question: what type of analysis is needed to determine the composition of kuiperov pojas

what type of analysis is needed to determine the composition of kuiperov pojas

So detailed analysis before was not possible and astronomers could only determine the basic facts about the composition , such as their color .

Tako detaljna analiza ranije nije bila moguća te su astronomi mogli odrediti samo osnovne činjenice o sastavu, poput njihove boje.

Tako detaljna analiza ranije nije bila moguća te su astronomi mogli odrediti samo osnovne činjenice o sastavu, poput njihove boje.

So detailed analysis before was not possible and astronomers could only determine the basic facts about the composition, such as their color.

So detailed analysis before was not possible and astronomers could only determine the basic facts about the composition, such as their color.

This diversity was a surprise that future astronomers expected uniformly dark KBOs whose floating ice disappeared due to the impact of cosmic air.Davies, p. 118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to the collision.

Optical-Infrared Spectral Diversity in the Kuiper Belt
Abstract
We have measured the optical and infrared colors of five Kuiper belt objects to search for evidence of spectral diversity among these bodies. We find extreme differences, especially in the measured V - J color indices, that indicate a wide range of surface compositions in the Kuiper belt.
- Publication:
- The Astronomical Journal
- Pub Date:
- April 1998
- DOI:
- 10.1086/300299
- Bibcode:
- 1998AJ....115.1667J
- Keywords:
- COMETS: GENERAL;
- MINOR PLANETS;
- ASTEROIDS

Question: what causes kuiperov pojas to disappear

This diversity was a surprise that future astronomers expected uniformly dark KBOs whose floating ice disappeared due to the impact of cosmic air.Davies, p. 118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to the collision.

Question: why did kuiperov pojas disappear

Question: what are kuiperov pojas composed of

ledovi nestali zbog utjecaja kozmičkih zraka . Davies , str . 118 Jedno od predloženih objašnjenja ove nedosljednosti je i izranjanje novoga materijala zbog udara .

Question: what type of kuiperov pojas disappeared due to the impact of cosmic air

what type of kuiperov pojas disappeared due to the impact of cosmic air

Question: why are kuiperov pojas so incoherent

Question: what type of kuiperov pojas have floating ice

what type of kuiperov pojas have floating ice

Question: why did astronomers expect uniformly dark kbos to disappear

why did astronomers expect uniformly dark kbos to disappear

This diversity was a surprise that future astronomers expected uniformly dark KBOs whose floating ice disappeared due to the impact of cosmic air . Davies , p. 118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to the collision .

Navedena raznolikost bila je iznenađenje budući su astronomi očekivali jednolično tamne KBO-e čiji su hlapljivi ledovi nestali zbog utjecaja kozmičkih zraka.Davies, str. 118 Jedno od predloženih objašnjenja ove nedosljednosti je i izranjanje novoga materijala zbog udara.

Navedena raznolikost bila je iznenađenje budući su astronomi očekivali jednolično tamne KBO-e čiji su hlapljivi ledovi nestali zbog utjecaja kozmičkih zraka.Davies, str. 118 Jedno od predloženih objašnjenja ove nedosljednosti je i izranjanje novoga materijala zbog udara.

This diversity was a surprise that future astronomers expected uniformly dark KBOs whose floating ice disappeared due to the impact of cosmic air.Davies, p. 118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to the collision.

This diversity was a surprise that future astronomers expected uniformly dark KBOs whose floating ice disappeared due to the impact of cosmic air.Davies, p. 118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to the collision.

118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to a collapse.

However, a 2001 study during which a spectral analysis of the well-known objects of the Kuiper belt was carried out showed that the variations in colors were predastic to be explained by accidental strikes.

Colors and Spectra of Kuiper Belt Objects
Abstract
We present new measurements of the optical colors of Kuiper belt objects, principally from the Keck 10 m telescope. The measurements confirm the existence of a wide spread in the B-V, V-R, and R-I color indices as we found previously. Relative to the sun, the Kuiper belt objects exhibit reflected colors from nearly neutral to very red. The optical and optical-infrared (V-J) color indices are mutually correlated, showing the presence of a single reddening agent from 0.45 to 1.2 μm. On the other hand, we find no evidence for linear correlations between the color and absolute magnitude (a proxy for size), instantaneous heliocentric distance, semimajor axis, or with any other orbital property. In this regard, the Kuiper belt objects differ from the main-belt asteroids, in which strong radial color gradients exist. We find no statistically significant evidence for bimodal or other nonuniform color distributions, either in our data or in data previously reported to show such evidence. The impact resurfacing hypothesis is reexamined in the light of the new color data and is rejected as the primary cause of the observed color dispersion. We also present new near-infrared reflection spectra of 1993 SC, 1996 TS66, 1999 DE9 and 2000 EB173, taken at the Keck and Subaru telescopes. These spectra, combined with others from the published literature, provide independent evidence for compositional diversity in the Kuiper belt. Objects 2000 EB173, 1993 SC, and 1996 TS66 are spectrally bland, while 1999 DE9 shows solid-state absorption bands. Based in part on data collected at the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
- Publication:
- The Astronomical Journal
- Pub Date:
- October 2001
- DOI:
- 10.1086/323304
- arXiv:
- arXiv:astro-ph/0107277
- Bibcode:
- 2001AJ....122.2099J
- Keywords:
- Comets: General;
- Kuiper Belt;
- Solar System: Formation;
- Astrophysics
- E-Print:
- 49 pages, 19 postscript figures, accepted for publication in A.J

Question: what causes the color changes in pojas

pokazalo je da su varijacije u bojama predrastične da bi se objasnile nasumičnim udarima

118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to a collapse.

However, a 2001 study during which a spectral analysis of the well-known objects of the Kuiper belt was carried out showed that the variations in colors were predastic to be explained by accidental strikes.

Question: what causes the formation of the kuiperov pojas

what causes the formation of the kuiperov pojas

Question: what are the colors of kuiperov pojas

Question: how many pojas are there in the kuiper belt

how many pojas are there in the kuiper belt

Question: what type of analysis is used to explain the variations in color of pojas

what type of analysis is used to explain the variations in color of pojas

Question: what is one explanation for the incoherence of the kuiper belt

nedosljednosti je i izranjanje novoga materijala

what is one explanation for the incoherence of the kuiper belt

118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to a collapse .

However , a 2001 study during which a spectral analysis of the well - known objects of the Kuiper belt was carried out showed that the variations in colors were predastic to be explained by accidental strikes .

118 Jedno od predloženih objašnjenja ove nedosljednosti je i izranjanje novoga materijala zbog udara. Međutim istraživanje iz 2001. tijekom kojeg je obavljena spektralna analiza poznatih objekata Kuiperovog pojasa pokazalo je da su varijacije u bojama predrastične da bi se objasnile nasumičnim udarima.

118 Jedno od predloženih objašnjenja ove nedosljednosti je i izranjanje novoga materijala zbog udara.

Međutim istraživanje iz 2001. tijekom kojeg je obavljena spektralna analiza poznatih objekata Kuiperovog pojasa pokazalo je da su varijacije u bojama predrastične da bi se objasnile nasumičnim udarima.

118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to a collapse. However, a 2001 study during which a spectral analysis of the well-known objects of the Kuiper belt was carried out showed that the variations in colors were predastic to be explained by accidental strikes.

118 One of the proposed explanations of this incoherence is the release of a new material due to a collapse.

However, a 2001 study during which a spectral analysis of the well-known objects of the Kuiper belt was carried out showed that the variations in colors were predastic to be explained by accidental strikes.

Although most of the KBOs, due to their weak brightness, are still difficult to analyze spectrally today, there has been a small number of successes in determining their composition.

Robert H. Brown et al. received spectroscopic data of the 1993 SC object discovering a surface composition with large amounts of methane ice, similar to 134340 Pluto and Neptune moon Triton.

Question: who discovered the composition of the kuiperov pojas

Although most of the KBOs, due to their weak brightness, are still difficult to analyze spectrally today, there has been a small number of successes in determining their composition.

Robert H. Brown et al. received spectroscopic data of the 1993 SC object discovering a surface composition with large amounts of methane ice, similar to 134340 Pluto and Neptune moon Triton.

who discovered the composition of the kuiperov pojas

Question: why are kuiperov pojas difficult to analyze

why are kuiperov pojas difficult to analyze

Question: what is on the surface of kuiperov pojas

what is on the surface of kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the composition of the kuiperov pojas

what is the composition of the kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the brightness of kuiperov pojas

what is the brightness of kuiperov pojas

Question: when was the kuiperov pojas discovered

Question: when was the kuiperov pojas discovered in space

when was the kuiperov pojas discovered in space

Although most of the KBOs , due to their weak brightness , are still difficult to analyze spectrally today , there has been a small number of successes in determining their composition .

Robert H. Brown et al . received spectroscopic data of the 1993 SC object discovering a surface composition with large amounts of methane ice , similar to 134340 Pluto and Neptune moon Triton .

Iako je većinu KBO-a zbog njihovog slabog sjaja i danas teško spektralno analizirati, ostvaren je nemal broj uspjeha u određivanju njihovog sastava. 1996.

Robert H. Brown et al. dobio je spektroskopske podatke objekta 1993 SC otkrivši površinski sastav s velikim količinama metanovog leda, slično 134340 Plutonu i Neptunovom mjesecu Tritonu.

Although most of the KBOs, due to their weak brightness, are still difficult to analyze spectrally today, there has been a small number of successes in determining their composition. Robert H. Brown et al. received spectroscopic data of the 1993 SC object discovering a surface composition with large amounts of methane ice, similar to 134340 Pluto and Neptune moon Triton.

Although most of the KBOs, due to their weak brightness, are still difficult to analyze spectrally today, there has been a small number of successes in determining their composition.

Robert H. Brown et al. received spectroscopic data of the 1993 SC object discovering a surface composition with large amounts of methane ice, similar to 134340 Pluto and Neptune moon Triton.

Water ice was detected on several KBOs, including 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya and 20000 Varuna.

Near-Infrared Spectroscopy of the Bright Kuiper Belt Object 2000 EB173
Abstract
We have obtained a near-infrared spectrum of the bright Kuiper Belt object 2000 EB173; the spectrum appears featureless. The spectrum has a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio to rule out the 1.5 and 2.0 μm absorption from water ice even at the low level seen in the Centaur Chariklo. In addition, we can rule out a 2.3 μm absorption at the level seen in the Centaur Pholus.
- Publication:
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Pub Date:
- November 2000
- DOI:
- 10.1086/317277
- Bibcode:
- 2000ApJ...543L.163B
- Keywords:
- Infrared: Solar System;
- Kuiper Belt Objects;
- Minor Planets;
- Asteroids

Question: where are kuiperov pojas found in india

Water ice was detected on several KBOs, including 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya and 20000 Varuna.

Question: when was the last time kuiperov pojas were detected

when was the last time kuiperov pojas were detected

Question: how many kuiperov pojas are there in varuna

how many kuiperov pojas are there in varuna

Question: where are kuiperov pojas found in the world

where are kuiperov pojas found in the world

Water ice was detected on several KBOs , including 1996 TO66 , 38628 Huya and 20000 Varuna .

Vodeni led detektiran je na nekoliko KBO-a, uključujući 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya i 20000 Varuna.

Vodeni led detektiran je na nekoliko KBO-a, uključujući 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya i 20000 Varuna.

Water ice was detected on several KBOs, including 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya and 20000 Varuna.

Water ice was detected on several KBOs, including 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya and 20000 Varuna.

in 2004.

NICS-TNG infrared spectroscopy of trans-neptunian objects 2000 EB173 and 2000 WR106
Abstract
We report complete near-infrared (0.9-2.4 mu m) spectral observations of trans-neptunian objects (TNOs) 2000 EB173 and 2000 WR106 collected using the new Near Infrared Camera Spectrometer (NICS) attached to the 3.56 m Telescopio Nazionale Galileo (TNG). Both spectra are very red and with a quite strong and broad drop extending throughout the K band. However, while 2000 EB173 does not show any evidence of narrow absorption features, the spectrum of 2000 WR106 has quite deep water ice absorption at 1.5 and 2.0 mu m. Moreover, the latter object is significantly less red than the former indicating, therefore, that the surface of 2000 WR106 is ``cleaner'' (i.e. less processed by particle irradiation) than that of 2000 EB173.
- Publication:
- Astronomy and Astrophysics
- Pub Date:
- July 2001
- DOI:
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20010758
- arXiv:
- arXiv:astro-ph/0105434
- Bibcode:
- 2001A&A...373L..29L
- Keywords:
- MINOR PLANETS;
- COMETS;
- INFRARED;
- TRANS-NEPTUNIAN OBJECTS;
- Astrophysics
- E-Print:
- 4 pages, 2 figures, Latex file (aa-package). A&

Question: where was water ice detected in kuiperov pojas

in 2004.

where was water ice detected in kuiperov pojas

Vodeni led detektiran je na nekoliko KBO-a, uključujući 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya i 20000 Varuna. 2004.

Water ice was detected on several KBOs, including 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya and 20000 Varuna. in 2004.

It is assumed that the total mass of the belt is between 1/25 and 1/10 of the Earth’s mass, or 1/13 according to other estimates.

On the contrary, the models of the formation of the Solar System predict the collective mass of the belt that is 30 mass of the Earth.

The Structure of the Kuiper Belt: Size Distribution and Radial Extent
Abstract
The size distribution in the Kuiper Belt records physical processes operating during the formation and subsequent evolution of the solar system. This paper reports a study of the apparent magnitude distribution of faint objects in the Kuiper Belt, obtained via deep imaging on the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope and the ESO Very Large Telescope UT1. We find that the entire range of observed objects (magnitudes mR~20-27) is well represented by an unbroken power law, with the number of objects per square degree brighter than magnitude R being of the form Σ(mR<R)=10α(R-R0), with α=0.69 and R0=23.5. This luminosity function's slope implies a steep size distribution in the observed range, which should ``roll over'' to a shallower ``collisional'' slope once observations extend to even fainter magnitudes and thus sample bodies whose collisional ages become less than the age of the solar system. Our observations indicate the roll over is for diameters of less than 50 km, in agreement with collisional models. Modeling our survey gives a belt mass between 30 and 50 AU of order 0.1 M⊕, relatively insensitive to the roll over diameter as long as the latter is >~1 km. We report the discovery of several objects outside of 48 AU and discuss the evidence for a sharp outer edge to the trans-Neptunian distribution.
- Publication:
- The Astronomical Journal
- Pub Date:
- August 2001
- DOI:
- 10.1086/322080
- Bibcode:
- 2001AJ....122.1051G
- Keywords:
- Comets: General;
- Kuiper Belt

Question: how much mass of the earth is the kuiperov pojas

It is assumed that the total mass of the belt is between 1/25 and 1/10 of the Earth’s mass, or 1/13 according to other estimates.

On the contrary, the models of the formation of the Solar System predict the collective mass of the belt that is 30 mass of the Earth.

how much mass of the earth is the kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the mass of the kuiperov pojas belt

what is the mass of the kuiperov pojas belt

Question: what is the total mass of the kuiperov pojas

what is the total mass of the kuiperov pojas

Question: how much of the earth's mass is the kuiperov pojas belt

how much of the earth's mass is the kuiperov pojas belt

Question: what is the collective mass of the solar system

what is the collective mass of the solar system

Question: what model predicts the collective mass of the solar system

the models of the formation of the Solar System

modeli formiranja Sunčevog sustava predviđaju kolektivnu masu pojasa

the models of the formation of the Solar System

what model predicts the collective mass of the solar system

It is assumed that the total mass of the belt is between 1/25 and 1/10 of the Earth ’s mass , or 1/13 according to other estimates .

On the contrary , the models of the formation of the Solar System predict the collective mass of the belt that is 30 mass of the Earth .

Pretpostavlja se da ukupna masa pojasa iznosi između 1/25 i 1/10 mase Zemlje, odnosno 1/13 prema drugim procjenama. Suprotno ovome, modeli formiranja Sunčevog sustava predviđaju kolektivnu masu pojasa koja iznosi 30 masa Zemlje.

Pretpostavlja se da ukupna masa pojasa iznosi između 1/25 i 1/10 mase Zemlje, odnosno 1/13 prema drugim procjenama.

Suprotno ovome, modeli formiranja Sunčevog sustava predviđaju kolektivnu masu pojasa koja iznosi 30 masa Zemlje.

It is assumed that the total mass of the belt is between 1/25 and 1/10 of the Earth’s mass, or 1/13 according to other estimates. On the contrary, the models of the formation of the Solar System predict the collective mass of the belt that is 30 mass of the Earth.

It is assumed that the total mass of the belt is between 1/25 and 1/10 of the Earth’s mass, or 1/13 according to other estimates.

On the contrary, the models of the formation of the Solar System predict the collective mass of the belt that is 30 mass of the Earth.

The mass and distribution of size Illustration of the law of power Despite its large scope, the collective mass of the Kuiper belt is relatively small.

Dynamical determination of the mass of the Kuiper Belt from motions of the inner planets of the Solar system
Abstract
In this paper we determine dynamically the mass of the Kuiper Belt Objects by exploiting the latest least-squares determinations of the extra rates of perihelia of the inner planets of the Solar system. By modelling classical Kuiper Belt Objects as an ecliptic ring of finite thickness, we obtain 0.033 +/- 0.115 in units of terrestrial masses. For resonant Kuiper Belt Objects, a two-ring model yields 0.018 +/- 0.063. These values are consistent with recent determinations obtained using ground- and space-based optical techniques. Some implications for precise tests of Einsteinian and post-Einsteinian gravity are briefly discussed.
- Publication:
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Pub Date:
- March 2007
- DOI:
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11384.x
- arXiv:
- arXiv:gr-qc/0609023
- Bibcode:
- 2007MNRAS.375.1311I
- Keywords:
- celestial mechanics;
- ephemerides;
- Kuiper Belt;
- planets and satellites: individual: Earth;
- planets and satellites: individual: Mars;
- planets and satellites: individual: Mercury;
- General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology;
- Astrophysics;
- Physics - Space Physics
- E-Print:
- LaTex, 12 pages, no figures, 4 tables, 27 references. One reference added. To appear in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Question: what is the mass of the kuiper belt

The mass and distribution of size Illustration of the law of power Despite its large scope, the collective mass of the Kuiper belt is relatively small.

Question: what is the approximate mass of the kuiper belt

what is the approximate mass of the kuiper belt

Question: what is the law of power of the kuiper belt

what is the law of power of the kuiper belt

The mass and distribution of size Illustration of the law of power Despite its large scope , the collective mass of the Kuiper belt is relatively small .

Masa i distribucija veličina Ilustracija zakona snage Unatoč njegovom velikom obujmu, kolektivna masa Kuiperovog pojasa relativno je mala. Pretpostavlja se da ukupna masa pojasa iznosi između 1/25 i 1/10 mase Zemlje, odnosno 1/13 prema drugim procjenama.

Masa i distribucija veličina Ilustracija zakona snage Unatoč njegovom velikom obujmu, kolektivna masa Kuiperovog pojasa relativno je mala.

The mass and distribution of size Illustration of the law of power Despite its large scope, the collective mass of the Kuiper belt is relatively small. It is assumed that the total mass of the belt is between 1/25 and 1/10 of the Earth’s mass, or 1/13 according to other estimates.

The mass and distribution of size Illustration of the law of power Despite its large scope, the collective mass of the Kuiper belt is relatively small.

Objects discovered outside the belt are classified as dispersed objects.

However, within certain scientific circles, the term "Kuiper's Belt" became synonymous with any ice planetoid in the external solar system, although its orbit during most of the history of the solar system was cerebrospectively outside the Kuiper's Belt.

Question: what type of objects are found outside the kuiper belt

Objects discovered outside the belt are classified as dispersed objects.

However, within certain scientific circles, the term "Kuiper's Belt" became synonymous with any ice planetoid in the external solar system, although its orbit during most of the history of the solar system was cerebrospectively outside the Kuiper's Belt.

what type of objects are found outside the kuiper belt

Question: what name is given to any ice planetoid in the solar system

what name is given to any ice planetoid in the solar system

Question: what name is given to the area of the solar system where ice planetoids orbit the

what name is given to the area of the solar system where ice planetoids orbit the

Question: what is the kuiper's belt

planetoid u vanjskom Sunčevom sustavu , iako mu je orbita tijekom većine povijesti Sunčevog sustava možebitno bila izvan Kuiperovog pojasa .

Question: where is the kuiper's belt located in the solar system

where is the kuiper's belt located in the solar system

Objects discovered outside the belt are classified as dispersed objects .

However , within certain scientific circles , the term " Kuiper 's Belt " became synonymous with any ice planetoid in the external solar system , although its orbit during most of the history of the solar system was cerebrospectively outside the Kuiper 's Belt .

Objekti otkriveni izvan pojasa klasificiraju se kao raspršeni objekti. Međutim, unutar određenih znanstvenih krugova izraz "Kuiperov pojas" postao je sinonim za bilo koji ledeni planetoid u vanjskom Sunčevom sustavu, iako mu je orbita tijekom većine povijesti Sunčevog sustava možebitno bila izvan Kuiperovog pojasa.

Objekti otkriveni izvan pojasa klasificiraju se kao raspršeni objekti.

Međutim, unutar određenih znanstvenih krugova izraz "Kuiperov pojas" postao je sinonim za bilo koji ledeni planetoid u vanjskom Sunčevom sustavu, iako mu je orbita tijekom većine povijesti Sunčevog sustava možebitno bila izvan Kuiperovog pojasa.

Objects discovered outside the belt are classified as dispersed objects. However, within certain scientific circles, the term "Kuiper's Belt" became synonymous with any ice planetoid in the external solar system, although its orbit during most of the history of the solar system was cerebrospectively outside the Kuiper's Belt.

Objects discovered outside the belt are classified as dispersed objects.

However, within certain scientific circles, the term "Kuiper's Belt" became synonymous with any ice planetoid in the external solar system, although its orbit during most of the history of the solar system was cerebrospectively outside the Kuiper's Belt.

It’s Triton, the only big moon in the solar system that has a retrograde orbit which means that it orbits the opposite direction of Neptune’s rotation.

This indicates the conclusion that at the time of the infection, Triton was already a fully formed body, unlike the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn that were formed by gathering material from the disks that surrounded their young mother planets.

Question: what is the name of the only moon in the solar system that has a retrograde

It’s Triton, the only big moon in the solar system that has a retrograde orbit which means that it orbits the opposite direction of Neptune’s rotation.

This indicates the conclusion that at the time of the infection, Triton was already a fully formed body, unlike the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn that were formed by gathering material from the disks that surrounded their young mother planets.

what is the name of the only moon in the solar system that has a retrograde

Question: triton is the only moon of which two planets

triton is the only moon of which two planets

Question: what is the orbit of triton in our solar system

what is the orbit of triton in our solar system

Question: triton, the only moon in the solar system that has a retrograde orbit

triton, the only moon in the solar system that has a retrograde orbit

Question: where did triton come from in the solar system

disks that surrounded their young mother planets

diskova koji su okruživali njihve mlade matične planete

disks that surrounded their young mother planets

where did triton come from in the solar system

Question: triton is the only moon in our solar system that orbits the opposite direction of

triton is the only moon in our solar system that orbits the opposite direction of

Question: triton is the moon of which planet in our solar system

triton is the moon of which planet in our solar system

It ’s Triton , the only big moon in the solar system that has a retrograde orbit which means that it orbits the opposite direction of Neptune ’s rotation .

This indicates the conclusion that at the time of the infection , Triton was already a fully formed body , unlike the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn that were formed by gathering material from the disks that surrounded their young mother planets .

Radi se o Tritonu, jedinom velikom mjesecu u Sunčevom sustav koji ima retrogradnu orbitu što znači da orbitira suprotno od smjera Neptunove rotacije.

Ovo navodi na zaključak da je Triton u trenutku zahvaćanja već bio u potpunosti formirano tijelo, za razliku od satalita Jupitera i Saturna koji su nastali skupljanjem materijala iz diskova koji su okruživali njihve mlade matične planete.

It’s Triton, the only big moon in the solar system that has a retrograde orbit which means that it orbits the opposite direction of Neptune’s rotation. This indicates the conclusion that at the time of the infection, Triton was already a fully formed body, unlike the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn that were formed by gathering material from the disks that surrounded their young mother planets.

It’s Triton, the only big moon in the solar system that has a retrograde orbit which means that it orbits the opposite direction of Neptune’s rotation.

This indicates the conclusion that at the time of the infection, Triton was already a fully formed body, unlike the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn that were formed by gathering material from the disks that surrounded their young mother planets.

The double was placed in the first plan by the discovery of 136199 Eris, an object in a spread disk far outside the Kuiper belt, for which it was found to be 27% more massive, but by average less than Pluto.

Undergraduate
GPS offers undergraduate degree programs in geobiology, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, or planetary science.
Postdoctoral
If you are seeking a postdoctoral position, check here for available openings!
Awards & Honors
- George Rossman Awarded Roebling Medal!
George Rossman
George Rossman (PhD '71), professor of mineralogy, has been awarded the 2021 Roebling Medal by the Mineralogical Society of America (MSA). The Roebling Medal is the MSA's highest award, recognizing "scientific eminence as represented primarily by scientific publication of outstanding original research in mineralogy."
- Cosmochemist François Tissot Named a Packard Fellow!
François Tissot
François Tissot, assistant professor of geochemistry and Heritage Medical Research Institute Investigator, has been selected as one of the 2021 Packard Fellows for Science and Engineering. The fellowship is awarded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and provides early-career scientists and engineers with $875,000 over five years to pursue their research.
- Dianne Newman has been elected as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences!
Dianne Newman
Newman's research focuses on the strategies bacteria take to cope with stress, such as the challenge of surviving in the absence of oxygen. Her current work includes examining the consequences of these metabolic responses in habitats ranging from the soil to chronic infections.
- Victoria Orphan elected to the 2021 class of AGU Fellows!
Victoria Orphan
AGU Fellows have made outstanding achievements and contributions by pushing the frontiers of our science forward. They have also embodied AGU’s shared vision of a thriving, sustainable, and equitable future for all powered by discovery, innovation, and action.

Question: how much more massive is eris than pluto

The double was placed in the first plan by the discovery of 136199 Eris, an object in a spread disk far outside the Kuiper belt, for which it was found to be 27% more massive, but by average less than Pluto.

how much more massive is eris than pluto

Question: which planet is bigger than the kuiperov pojas

which planet is bigger than the kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the name of the object discovered in the kuiper belt

what is the name of the object discovered in the kuiper belt

Question: what is the name of the object found in the kuiper belt

what is the name of the object found in the kuiper belt

Question: how much bigger is eris compared to pluto

how much bigger is eris compared to pluto

Question: where is eris located in the solar system

Kuiperovog pojasa , za koju se ispostavilo da je 27 % masivnija , ali po promjeru manja od Plutona .

where is eris located in the solar system

Question: what is the largest object discovered in the kuiper belt

what is the largest object discovered in the kuiper belt

Question: how many times bigger is the kuiperov pojas

how many times bigger is the kuiperov pojas

The double was placed in the first plan by the discovery of 136199 Eris , an object in a spread disk far outside the Kuiper belt , for which it was found to be 27 % more massive , but by average less than Pluto .

Dvojbu je u prvi plan smjestilo otkriće 136199 Eris, objekta u raspršenom disku daleko izvan Kuiperovog pojasa, za koju se ispostavilo da je 27% masivnija, ali po promjeru manja od Plutona.

Dvojbu je u prvi plan smjestilo otkriće 136199 Eris, objekta u raspršenom disku daleko izvan Kuiperovog pojasa, za koju se ispostavilo da je 27% masivnija, ali po promjeru manja od Plutona.

The double was placed in the first plan by the discovery of 136199 Eris, an object in a spread disk far outside the Kuiper belt, for which it was found to be 27% more massive, but by average less than Pluto.

The double was placed in the first plan by the discovery of 136199 Eris, an object in a spread disk far outside the Kuiper belt, for which it was found to be 27% more massive, but by average less than Pluto.

Since Pluto has shared its orbit with a number of other KBOs, IAU concluded that it did not meet one of the conditions and re-classified it from the planet to a member of the Kuiper belt.

However, there are many other objects such as 90482 Orka and 28978 Ixion that are large enough to<unk> hydrostatic balance and will likely meet the criteria for declaration when more information about them is available.

The world's astronomers, under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), have concluded two years of work defining the difference between "planets" and the smaller "solar system bodies" such as comets and asteroids. If the definition is approved by the astronomers gathered 14-25 August 2006 at the IAU General Assembly in Prague, our Solar System will include 12 planets, with more to come: eight classical planets that dominate the system, three planets in a new and growing category of "plutons" - Pluto-like objects - and Ceres. Pluto remains a planet and is the prototype for the new category of "plutons."
With the advent of powerful new telescopes on the ground and in space, planetary astronomy has gone though an exciting development over the past decade. For thousands of years very little was known about the planets other than they were objects that moved in the sky with respect to the background of fixed stars. In fact the word "planet" comes from the Greek word for "wanderer". But today hosts of newly discovered large objects in the outer regions of our Solar System present a challenge to our historically based definition of a "planet".
At first glance one should think that it is easy to define what a planet is - a large and round body. On second thought difficulties arise, as one could ask "where is the lower limit?" - how large, and how round should an asteroid be before it becomes a planet - as well as "where is the upper limit?" - how large can a planet be before it becomes a brown dwarf or a star?
IAU President Ron Ekers explains the rational behind a planet definition: "Modern science provides much more knowledge than the simple fact that objects orbiting the Sun appear to move with respect to the background of fixed stars. For example, recent new discoveries have been made of objects in the outer regions of our Solar System that have sizes comparable to and larger than Pluto. These discoveries have rightfully called into question whether or not they should be considered as new 'planets.' "
The International Astronomical Union has been the arbiter of planetary and satellite nomenclature since its inception in 1919. The world's astronomers, under the auspices of the IAU, have had official deliberations on a new definition for the word "planet" for nearly two years. IAU's top, the so-called Executive Committee, led by Ekers, formed a Planet Definition Committee (PDC) comprised by seven persons who were astronomers, writers, and historians with broad international representation. This group of seven convened in Paris in late June and early July 2006. They culminated the two year process by reaching a unanimous consensus for a proposed new definition of the word "planet."
Owen Gingerich, the Chair of the Planet Definition Committee says: "In July we had vigorous discussions of both the scientific and the cultural/historical issues, and on the second morning several members admitted that they had not slept well, worrying that we would not be able to reach a consensus. But by the end of a long day, the miracle had happened: we had reached a unanimous agreement."
The part of "IAU Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI" that describes the planet definition, states "A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet." Member of the Planet Definition Committee, Richard Binzel says: "Our goal was to find a scientific basis for a new definition of planet and we chose gravity as the determining factor. Nature decides whether or not an object is a planet."
According to the new draft definition, two conditions must be satisfied for an object to be called a "planet." First, the object must be in orbit around a star, while not being itself a star. Second, the object must be large enough (or more technically correct, massive enough) for its own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape. The shape of objects with mass above 5 x 1020 kg and diameter greater than 800 km would normally be determined by self-gravity, but all borderline cases would have to be established by observation.
If the proposed Resolution is passed, the 12 planets in our Solar System will be Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon and 2003 UB313. The name 2003 UB313 is provisional, as a "real" name has not yet been assigned to this object. A decision and announcement of a new name are likely not to be made during the IAU General Assembly in Prague, but at a later time. The naming procedures depend on the outcome of the Resolution vote. There will most likely be more planets announced by the IAU in the future. Currently a dozen "candidate planets" are listed on IAU's "watchlist" which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better known.
The IAU draft Resolution also defines a new category of planet for official use: "pluton". Plutons are distinguished from classical planets in that they reside in orbits around the Sun that take longer than 200 years to complete (i.e. they orbit beyond Neptune). Plutons typically have orbits that are highly tilted with respect to the classical planets (technically referred to as a large orbital inclination). Plutons also typically have orbits that are far from being perfectly circular (technically referred to as having a large orbital eccentricity). All of these distinguishing characteristics for plutons are scientifically interesting in that they suggest a different origin from the classical planets.
The draft "Planet Definition" Resolution will be discussed and refined during the General Assembly and then it (plus four other Resolutions) will be presented for voting at the 2nd session of the GA 24 August between 14:00 and 17:30 CEST.
Notes
The IAU is the international astronomical organisation that brings together distinguished astronomers from all nations of the world. IAU's mission is to promote and safeguard the science of astronomy in all its aspects through international cooperation. Founded in 1919, the IAU is the world's largest professional body for astronomers. The IAU General Assembly is held every three years and is one of the largest and most diverse meetings in the astronomical community's calendar.
Science contacts (the persons below can all be reached via the IAU GA Press Office, see bottom)
Owen Gingerich
IAU Planet Definition Committee Chair
Tel: via the Press Room +420-261-177-075
Iwan Williams
President, IAU Division III Planetary Systems Sciences
Tel: via the Press Room +420-261-177-075
Ron Ekers
IAU President
Tel: via the Press Room +420-261-177-075
Catherine Cesarsky
IAU President-Elect and member of the Planet Definition Committee
Tel: via the Press Room +420-261-177-075
Richard Binzel
Member of the Planet Definition Committee
Tel: via the Press Room +420-261-177-075
Dava Sobel
Author and historian, member of the Planet Definition Committee
via the IAU Press Office
Tel: +420-261-177-075
Mike Brown
Discoverer of 2003 UB313 and a host of other planet candidates
Via Caltech Media Relations
Tel: +1-626-395-3226
E-mail: mbrown(@)caltech.edu
Links
Additional material in this release package may be found in: http://www.iau2006.org/
Contacts
Lars Lindberg Christensen
IAU Press Officer, IAU GA 2006 Press office, Meeting Room 3.2
Prague Congress Center, Czech Republic
Tel: +420-261-177-075
Cell: +49-173-3872-621
Email: lars@eso.org

Question: which planet has the latin name kuiperov pojas

Since Pluto has shared its orbit with a number of other KBOs, IAU concluded that it did not meet one of the conditions and re-classified it from the planet to a member of the Kuiper belt.

However, there are many other objects such as 90482 Orka and 28978 Ixion that are large enough to<unk> hydrostatic balance and will likely meet the criteria for declaration when more information about them is available.

which planet has the latin name kuiperov pojas

Question: what are the criteria for classification pluto from the kuiper belt

what are the criteria for classification pluto from the kuiper belt

Question: what is the criteria for a kuiperov pojas

what is the criteria for a kuiperov pojas

Question: what are the names of pluto's pojas

Question: what do kuiperov pojas have to do to be classified as a k

what do kuiperov pojas have to do to be classified as a k

Since Pluto has shared its orbit with a number of other KBOs , IAU concluded that it did not meet one of the conditions and re - classified it from the planet to a member of the Kuiper belt .

However , there are many other objects such as 90482 Orka and 28978 Ixion that are large enough to < unk > hydrostatic balance and will likely meet the criteria for declaration when more information about them is available .

Budući da je Pluton svoju orbitu dijelio s brojnim drugim KBO-ima, IAU je zaključila da nije zadovoljio jedan od uvjeta te ga reklasificirala iz planeta u člana Kuiperovog pojasa.

Postoje međutim mnogi drugi objekti poput 90482 Orka i 28978 Iksiona koji su dovoljno veliki da ostvare hidrostatičku ravnotežu te će vjerojatno zadovoljiti kriterije za proglašenje kada o njima bude dostupno više informacija.

Since Pluto has shared its orbit with a number of other KBOs, IAU concluded that it did not meet one of the conditions and re-classified it from the planet to a member of the Kuiper belt. However, there are many other objects such as 90482 Orka and 28978 Ixion that are large enough to<unk> hydrostatic balance and will likely meet the criteria for declaration when more information about them is available.

Since Pluto has shared its orbit with a number of other KBOs, IAU concluded that it did not meet one of the conditions and re-classified it from the planet to a member of the Kuiper belt.

However, there are many other objects such as 90482 Orka and 28978 Ixion that are large enough to<unk> hydrostatic balance and will likely meet the criteria for declaration when more information about them is available.

NASA has launched New Horizons, the first aircraft to explore the Kuiper belt or Pluto.

The mission led by Alan Stern from the Southwest Research Institute will reach its goal on July 14, 2015 and, if the circumstances allow, it should continue to investigate another untouched, KBO.

Question: what is the name of nasa's probe to explore the kuiper belt

New Horizons , prvu letjelicu kojoj je zadatak istraživanje Kuiperovog pojasa

NASA has launched New Horizons, the first aircraft to explore the Kuiper belt or Pluto.

The mission led by Alan Stern from the Southwest Research Institute will reach its goal on July 14, 2015 and, if the circumstances allow, it should continue to investigate another untouched, KBO.

what is the name of nasa's probe to explore the kuiper belt

Question: who is the scientist that is leading the new horizons mission

who is the scientist that is leading the new horizons mission

Question: when is new horizons scheduled to reach its goal

14 . srpnja 2015 . te bi , ako okolnosti dopuste , trebala nastaviti s istraživanje još jednog za sada neodređenoga ,

when is new horizons scheduled to reach its goal

Question: where is new horizons mission to pluto located

where is new horizons mission to pluto located

Question: what is the name of the kuiper belt on pluto

what is the name of the kuiper belt on pluto

Question: who launched new horizons to explore pluto

who launched new horizons to explore pluto

Question: where is new horizons mission from

Question: new horizons is the first aircraft to explore what

new horizons is the first aircraft to explore what

NASA has launched New Horizons , the first aircraft to explore the Kuiper belt or Pluto .

The mission led by Alan Stern from the Southwest Research Institute will reach its goal on July 14 , 2015 and , if the circumstances allow , it should continue to investigate another untouched , KBO .

NASA je lansirala New Horizons, prvu letjelicu kojoj je zadatak istraživanje Kuiperovog pojasa odnosno Plutona. Misija koju predvodi Alan Stern sa Southwest Research Instituta do cilja će doći 14. srpnja 2015. te bi, ako okolnosti dopuste, trebala nastaviti s istraživanje još jednog za sada neodređenoga, KBO-a.

NASA je lansirala New Horizons, prvu letjelicu kojoj je zadatak istraživanje Kuiperovog pojasa odnosno Plutona.

Misija koju predvodi Alan Stern sa Southwest Research Instituta do cilja će doći 14. srpnja 2015. te bi, ako okolnosti dopuste, trebala nastaviti s istraživanje još jednog za sada neodređenoga, KBO-a.

NASA has launched New Horizons, the first aircraft to explore the Kuiper belt or Pluto. The mission led by Alan Stern from the Southwest Research Institute will reach its goal on July 14, 2015 and, if the circumstances allow, it should continue to investigate another untouched, KBO.

NASA has launched New Horizons, the first aircraft to explore the Kuiper belt or Pluto.

The mission led by Alan Stern from the Southwest Research Institute will reach its goal on July 14, 2015 and, if the circumstances allow, it should continue to investigate another untouched, KBO.

The other Kuiper discs Fragmentation disk around the stars HD 139664 and HD 53143.

By 2006, astronomers identified the dust disks as structures similar to the Kuiper belt around nine other stars.

They are divided into two main categories: widespread bands with a radius of over 50 AJ and angles (like our) with a radius between 20 and 30 AJ and with relatively clear boundaries.

Astrophysics
[Submitted on 20 Jan 2006]
Title:First scattered light images of debris disks around HD 53143 and HD 139664Download PDF
Abstract: We present the first scattered light images of debris disks around a K star (HD 53143) and an F star (HD 139664) using the coronagraphic mode of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) aboard the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). With ages 0.3 - 1 Gyr, these are among the oldest optically detected debris disks. HD 53143, viewed ~45 degrees from edge-on, does not show radial variation in disk structure and has width >55 AU. HD 139664 is seen close to edge-on and has belt-like morphology with a dust peak 83 AU from the star and a distinct outer boundary at 109 AU. We discuss evidence for significant diversity in the radial architecture of debris disks that appears unconnected to stellar spectral type or age. HD 139664 and possibly the solar system belong in a category of narrow belts 20-30 AU wide. HD 53143 represents a class of wide disk architecture with characteristic width >50 AU.
Submission historyFrom: Paul Kalas [view email]
[v1] Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:00:07 UTC (336 KB)
Full-text links:
Download:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code and Data Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs and how to get involved.

Question: what are the two main types of kuiperov pojas

The other Kuiper discs Fragmentation disk around the stars HD 139664 and HD 53143.

By 2006, astronomers identified the dust disks as structures similar to the Kuiper belt around nine other stars.

They are divided into two main categories: widespread bands with a radius of over 50 AJ and angles (like our) with a radius between 20 and 30 AJ and with relatively clear boundaries.

what are the two main types of kuiperov pojas

Question: how many stars are in the kuiper belt

Question: what are the names of the other kuiper discs

what are the names of the other kuiper discs

Question: what is the name of the disk around hd 139664

what is the name of the disk around hd 139664

Question: when did the kuiperov pojas appear in the sky

when did the kuiperov pojas appear in the sky

Question: how many main categories of kuiperov pojas are there

how many main categories of kuiperov pojas are there

Question: what is the radius of the kuiperov pojas

what is the radius of the kuiperov pojas

Question: which is the brightest star in the kuiper belt

which is the brightest star in the kuiper belt

The other Kuiper discs Fragmentation disk around the stars HD 139664 and HD 53143 .

By 2006 , astronomers identified the dust disks as structures similar to the Kuiper belt around nine other stars .

They are divided into two main categories : widespread bands with a radius of over 50 AJ and angles ( like our ) with a radius between 20 and 30 AJ and with relatively clear boundaries .

Drugi Kuiperovi pojasevi Fragmentacijski disk oko zvijezda HD 139664 i HD 53143. Do 2006. astronomi su identificirali diskove prašine kao strukture nalik Kuiperovom pojasu oko devet drugih zvijezda. Dijele se u dvije glavne kategorije: široke pojaseve s polumjerom od preko 50 AJ i uže (poput našega) s polumjerom između 20 i 30 AJ te s relativno jasnim granicama.

Drugi Kuiperovi pojasevi Fragmentacijski disk oko zvijezda HD 139664 i HD 53143.

Do 2006. astronomi su identificirali diskove prašine kao strukture nalik Kuiperovom pojasu oko devet drugih zvijezda.

Dijele se u dvije glavne kategorije: široke pojaseve s polumjerom od preko 50 AJ i uže (poput našega) s polumjerom između 20 i 30 AJ te s relativno jasnim granicama.

The other Kuiper discs Fragmentation disk around the stars HD 139664 and HD 53143. By 2006, astronomers identified the dust disks as structures similar to the Kuiper belt around nine other stars. They are divided into two main categories: widespread bands with a radius of over 50 AJ and angles (like our) with a radius between 20 and 30 AJ and with relatively clear boundaries.

The other Kuiper discs Fragmentation disk around the stars HD 139664 and HD 53143.

By 2006, astronomers identified the dust disks as structures similar to the Kuiper belt around nine other stars.

They are divided into two main categories: widespread bands with a radius of over 50 AJ and angles (like our) with a radius between 20 and 30 AJ and with relatively clear boundaries.

The 15

-20% of the stars like our Sun own infrared traces that are believed to represent structures like the Kuiper belt.

Debris Disks around Sun-like Stars
Abstract
We have observed nearly 200 FGK stars at 24 and 70 μm with the Spitzer Space Telescope. We identify excess infrared emission, including a number of cases where the observed flux is more than 10 times brighter than the predicted photospheric flux, and interpret these signatures as evidence of debris disks in those systems. We combine this sample of FGK stars with similar published results to produce a sample of more than 350 main sequence AFGKM stars. The incidence of debris disks is 4.2+ 2.0-1.1% at 24 μm for a sample of 213 Sun-like (FG) stars and 16.4+ 2.8-2.9% at 70 μm for 225 Sun-like (FG) stars. We find that the excess rates for A, F, G, and K stars are statistically indistinguishable, but with a suggestion of decreasing excess rate toward the later spectral types; this may be an age effect. The lack of strong trend among FGK stars of comparable ages is surprising, given the factor of 50 change in stellar luminosity across this spectral range. We also find that the incidence of debris disks declines very slowly beyond ages of 1 billion years.
- Publication:
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Pub Date:
- February 2008
- DOI:
- 10.1086/525514
- arXiv:
- arXiv:0710.5498
- Bibcode:
- 2008ApJ...674.1086T
- Keywords:
- circumstellar matter;
- infrared: stars;
- planetary systems: formation;
- Astrophysics
- E-Print:
- ApJ, in press

Question: the kuiperov pojas are divided into how many main categories

The 15

-20% of the stars like our Sun own infrared traces that are believed to represent structures like the Kuiper belt.

the kuiperov pojas are divided into how many main categories

Question: what percentage of the stars in the kuiper belt are infrared

The 15

what percentage of the stars in the kuiper belt are infrared

Question: what is the name of the belt of stars with a radius of over 50 aj

The 15

what is the name of the belt of stars with a radius of over 50 aj

Question: what are the two main categories of kuiperov pojas

The 15

what are the two main categories of kuiperov pojas

Question: what kind of bands are the kuiperov pojas

The 15

what kind of bands are the kuiperov pojas

Question: where are the kuiperov pojas located in our solar system

The 15

where are the kuiperov pojas located in our solar system

Question: what percentage of stars in the kuiper belt have infrared traces

The 15

what percentage of stars in the kuiper belt have infrared traces

-20 % of the stars like our Sun own infrared traces that are believed to represent structures like the Kuiper belt .

Dijele se u dvije glavne kategorije: široke pojaseve s polumjerom od preko 50 AJ i uže (poput našega) s polumjerom između 20 i 30 AJ te s relativno jasnim granicama. 15-20% zvijezda poput našeg Sunca posjeduju infracrvene tragove za koje se vjeruje da predstavljaju strukture poput Kuiperovog pojasa.

-20% zvijezda poput našeg Sunca posjeduju infracrvene tragove za koje se vjeruje da predstavljaju strukture poput Kuiperovog pojasa.

They are divided into two main categories: widespread bands with a radius of over 50 AJ and angles (like our) with a radius between 20 and 30 AJ and with relatively clear boundaries. The 15 -20% of the stars like our Sun own infrared traces that are believed to represent structures like the Kuiper belt.

-20% of the stars like our Sun own infrared traces that are believed to represent structures like the Kuiper belt.

The left picture represents a view from above on a wide belt, while the right side view is on a narrow belt.

Simulations of dust in the Kuiper belt performed by supercomputers have revealed the possibility that earlier in the history of its existence it looked like narrow disks around young stars.

Collisional Grooming Models of the Kuiper Belt Dust Cloud
Abstract
We modeled the three-dimensional structure of the Kuiper Belt (KB) dust cloud at four different dust production rates, incorporating both planet-dust interactions and grain-grain collisions using the collisional grooming algorithm. Simulated images of a model with a face-on optical depth of ~10-4 primarily show an azimuthally symmetric ring at 40-47 AU in submillimeter and infrared wavelengths; this ring is associated with the cold classical KB. For models with lower optical depths (10-6 and 10-7), synthetic infrared images show that the ring widens and a gap opens in the ring at the location of Neptune; this feature is caused by trapping of dust grains in Neptune's mean motion resonances. At low optical depths, a secondary ring also appears associated with the hole cleared in the center of the disk by Saturn. Our simulations, which incorporate 25 different grain sizes, illustrate that grain-grain collisions are important in sculpting today's KB dust, and probably other aspects of the solar system dust complex; collisions erase all signs of azimuthal asymmetry from the submillimeter image of the disk at every dust level we considered. The model images switch from being dominated by resonantly trapped small grains ("transport dominated") to being dominated by the birth ring ("collision dominated") when the optical depth reaches a critical value of τ ~ v/c, where v is the local Keplerian speed.
- Publication:
- The Astronomical Journal
- Pub Date:
- October 2010
- DOI:
- 10.1088/0004-6256/140/4/1007
- arXiv:
- arXiv:1008.0904
- Bibcode:
- 2010AJ....140.1007K
- Keywords:
- celestial mechanics;
- circumstellar matter;
- infrared: stars;
- interplanetary medium;
- Kuiper Belt: general;
- planetary systems;
- stars: imaging;
- Astrophysics - Earth and Planetary Astrophysics
- E-Print:
- 31 pages, including 9 figures

Question: who created the image of the kuiperov pojas

The left picture represents a view from above on a wide belt, while the right side view is on a narrow belt.

Simulations of dust in the Kuiper belt performed by supercomputers have revealed the possibility that earlier in the history of its existence it looked like narrow disks around young stars.

who created the image of the kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the right side view of kuiperov pojas

what is the right side view of kuiperov pojas

Question: which side of the kuiper belt is the sun

which side of the kuiper belt is the sun

Question: what is thought to be the source of the kuiperov pojas

what is thought to be the source of the kuiperov pojas

Question: what are the disks in the kuiper belt

Question: what is the name of the belt of dust around young stars that supercomputers have

what is the name of the belt of dust around young stars that supercomputers have

The left picture represents a view from above on a wide belt , while the right side view is on a narrow belt .

Simulations of dust in the Kuiper belt performed by supercomputers have revealed the possibility that earlier in the history of its existence it looked like narrow disks around young stars .

Lijeva fotografija predstavlja pogled od gore na široki pojas, dok je desna bočni pogled na uski pojas. Simulacije prašine u Kuiperovom pojasu provede superračunalima otkrile su mogućnost da je ranije u povijesti svog postojanja nalikovao uskim diskovima oko mladih zvijezda.

Lijeva fotografija predstavlja pogled od gore na široki pojas, dok je desna bočni pogled na uski pojas.

Simulacije prašine u Kuiperovom pojasu provede superračunalima otkrile su mogućnost da je ranije u povijesti svog postojanja nalikovao uskim diskovima oko mladih zvijezda.

The left picture represents a view from above on a wide belt, while the right side view is on a narrow belt. Simulations of dust in the Kuiper belt performed by supercomputers have revealed the possibility that earlier in the history of its existence it looked like narrow disks around young stars.

The left picture represents a view from above on a wide belt, while the right side view is on a narrow belt.

Simulations of dust in the Kuiper belt performed by supercomputers have revealed the possibility that earlier in the history of its existence it looked like narrow disks around young stars.

Notes Specialist literature is not consistent in the use of the terms "sprayed disk" and "Kuiper's belt".

Question: what is the name of the disk in kuiperov pojas

Notes Specialist literature is not consistent in the use of the terms "sprayed disk" and "Kuiper's belt".

what is the name of the disk in kuiperov pojas

Question: what term is used to describe a disk or disk

what term is used to describe a disk or disk

Question: what is the name of the disk in pojas

Question: how is the term kuiper's belt used

Question: kuiper's belt is an example of what

Question: what type of literature is kuiper's belt

what type of literature is kuiper's belt

Question: what are the terms for kuiperov pojas

Question: what is the name of the belt used in pojas

what is the name of the belt used in pojas

Notes Specialist literature is not consistent in the use of the terms " sprayed disk " and " Kuiper 's belt " .

Bilješke Stručna literatura nije dosljedna u uporabi termina "raspršeni disk" i "Kuiperov pojas".

Bilješke Stručna literatura nije dosljedna u uporabi termina "raspršeni disk" i "Kuiperov pojas".

Notes Specialist literature is not consistent in the use of the terms "sprayed disk" and "Kuiper's belt".

Notes Specialist literature is not consistent in the use of the terms "sprayed disk" and "Kuiper's belt".