Celestia Forums

2003 EL61 now has dwarf planet status and is named Haumea. Its moons are Hi'iaka and Namaka.
I've updated outersys.ssc, which you can find on SVN at:

http://celestia.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/celestia/trunk/celestia/data/outersys.ssc

You'll need a recent build of Celestia to use it, since it includes multiple names for these bodies.

Grant

A dwarf planet eh? Cue lots of fighting about what is "round" in 3... 2... 1...

Out of interest, why is it that of the dwarf planets, Pluto gets special privilege in having the non-numbered designation coming first in the list of identifiers?

ajtribick wrote:A dwarf planet eh? Cue lots of fighting about what is "round" in 3... 2... 1...

Doesn't the original definition stipulate hydrostatic equilibrium, rather than roundness?

ajtribick wrote:Out of interest, why is it that of the dwarf planets, Pluto gets special privilege in having the non-numbered designation coming first in the list of identifiers?

Because Chris is the boss:

chris wrote:As for name priority, I'm partial to standardizing on the compound "number name" form as the primary name for minor planets (with an exception for Pluto.)

That comes from our discussion in the "Multiple names for solar system objects" thread, the top post here.

Grant

granthutchison wrote:

ajtribick wrote:Out of interest, why is it that of the dwarf planets, Pluto gets special privilege in having the non-numbered designation coming first in the list of identifiers?

Because Chris is the boss:

chris wrote:As for name priority, I'm partial to standardizing on the compound "number name" form as the primary name for minor planets (with an exception for Pluto.)

That comes from our discussion in the "Multiple names for solar system objects" thread, the top post here.

Grant

I find it looks inconsistent - the fact the order is changed for this one object makes it look like a typo.

No special treatment for Pluto! Down with Pluto!

ajtribick wrote:A dwarf planet eh? Cue lots of fighting about what is "round" in 3... 2... 1...

Fortunately, the non-spherical shape of Haumea/2003 EL 61 raise any further objections. Everyone seems satisfied with the 'state of hydrostatic equilibrium' clause that allows triaxial ellipsoids in the dwarf planet family.

Out of interest, why is it that of the dwarf planets, Pluto gets special privilege in having the non-numbered designation coming first in the list of identifiers?

Simply because people are much more familiar with "Pluto" than "134340 Pluto", and there's no practical impact from this small inconsistency.

--Chris

chris wrote:

Out of interest, why is it that of the dwarf planets, Pluto gets special privilege in having the non-numbered designation coming first in the list of identifiers?

Simply because people are much more familiar with "Pluto" than "134340 Pluto", and there's no practical impact from this small inconsistency.

--Chris

Then again, the familiarity issue could be raised for objects like Ceres: most people are probably more familiar with "Ceres" than "1 Ceres", or "Eris" than "136199 Eris". Similarly most people are probably more familiar with "2003 EL61" than "Haumea" or "136108 Haumea".

ajtribick wrote:

chris wrote:

Out of interest, why is it that of the dwarf planets, Pluto gets special privilege in having the non-numbered designation coming first in the list of identifiers?

Simply because people are much more familiar with "Pluto" than "134340 Pluto", and there's no practical impact from this small inconsistency.

--Chris

Then again, the familiarity issue could be raised for objects like Ceres: most people are probably more familiar with "Ceres" than "1 Ceres", or "Eris" than "136199 Eris". Similarly most people are probably more familiar with "2003 EL61" than "Haumea" or "136108 Haumea".

Quite true, but none of these objects are nearly as familiar to the public as Pluto. An average user seeing the '134340' in front of Pluto in the solar system browser is likely to be puzzled about why the gobbledygook is there, and may even wonder if it refers to the familiar former planet at all.

--Chris

So rather than encouraging the average user to find out about how minor planet numbering works etc, we let them keep their favourite planet unblemished so they can stay nice and comfortably in the 20th century?

ajtribick wrote:So rather than encouraging the average user to find out about how minor planet numbering works etc, we let them keep their favourite planet unblemished so they can stay nice and comfortably in the 20th century?

No.

I'm saying that Pluto should be easy to locate for the average user, and that usability outweighs the need for absolute consistency. As soon as a user selects Pluto, the name decorated with the minor planet number appears in the upper left corner. That ought to be enough incentive for the inquisitive user to go read up on minor planet numbers.

--Chris

chris wrote:

ajtribick wrote:So rather than encouraging the average user to find out about how minor planet numbering works etc, we let them keep their favourite planet unblemished so they can stay nice and comfortably in the 20th century?

No.

I'm saying that Pluto should be easy to locate for the average user, and that usability outweighs the need for absolute consistency. As soon as a user selects Pluto, the name decorated with the minor planet number appears in the upper left corner. That ought to be enough incentive for the inquisitive user to go read up on minor planet numbers.

--Chris

So when the user turns on dwarf planet orbits+labelling, it doesn't matter that they see a bunch of "gobbledygook" (as you put it) in front of all the other names, despite being used to seeing these objects referred to in the popular media without the numbers (same when asteroids get mentioned). They then wonder why Pluto doesn't have the "gobbledygook" and every other dwarf planet and asteroid does, and if they bring it up in the forums we just have to say that the reason is because Chris says so.

If familiarity for the "average user" is the major concern here, I think you make a very good case for making the non-numbered designation the primary designation in the case of all minor planets.

I personally MUCH prefer to see the non-numbered names in the main window because the numbers are taking too much space and make things confusing. Having the numbered names displayed in the upper-left corner as a second name is much better, in my oinion. I've edited the data files so only the non-numbered names are displayed first. This way, it's more consistent with Pluto and other objects designation.

Cham's idea seem sensible to me.

ajtribick wrote:

chris wrote:

ajtribick wrote:So rather than encouraging the average user to find out about how minor planet numbering works etc, we let them keep their favourite planet unblemished so they can stay nice and comfortably in the 20th century?

No.

I'm saying that Pluto should be easy to locate for the average user, and that usability outweighs the need for absolute consistency. As soon as a user selects Pluto, the name decorated with the minor planet number appears in the upper left corner. That ought to be enough incentive for the inquisitive user to go read up on minor planet numbers.

--Chris

So when the user turns on dwarf planet orbits+labelling, it doesn't matter that they see a bunch of "gobbledygook" (as you put it) in front of all the other names, despite being used to seeing these objects referred to in the popular media without the numbers (same when asteroids get mentioned). They then wonder why Pluto doesn't have the "gobbledygook" and every other dwarf planet and asteroid does, and if they bring it up in the forums we just have to say that the reason is because Chris says so.

But the ultimate reason isn't, 'Chris said so.' There's some historical and social justification for the choice: quite simply, a lot more people know about Pluto than Ceres.

If familiarity for the "average user" is the major concern here, I think you make a very good case for making the non-numbered designation the primary designation in the case of all minor planets.

It seems to me that a user sophisticated enough to be familiar with the names of a few asteroids won't be mystified by the appearance of the minor planet numbers in front of the names. But this is an issue where I'm willing to yield to the (forum) majority opinion.

--Chris

ajtribick wrote:No special treatment for Pluto! Down with Pluto!

ajtribick,

I totally agree with this idea . There are at least two things, that should be done to fulfill it:

1. Pluto (and Charon) should be removed from "solarsys.ssc" and placed in "outersys.ssc"

2. When one right-clicks on the Sun and then selects "Orbiting Bodies", there is "Pluto-Charon" on the list. It should be replaced by a sub-list "Dwarf Planets" and "Pluto-Charon" should be just an element of this sub-list, like all other dwarf planets.

Just my opinion.

Paul

Cham wrote:I personally MUCH prefer to see the non-numbered names in the main window because the numbers are taking too much space and make things confusing. Having the numbered names displayed in the upper-left corner as a second name is much better, in my oinion. I've edited the data files so only the non-numbered names are displayed first. This way, it's more consistent with Pluto and other objects designation.

Just for what it's worth here, I agree with Martin...

Perso, recently I have been trolling again in the default package to eventually return to it and eliminate my custom data structure (I don't have much time to keep it up to date with Grant's additions) and I still find it a real... mess! (:oops: sorry, I know you talented minds are ok with it but since the addition of dwarf planets and minor moons I find it worst than ever)
I would really happy if the default extra directory was free of important bodies (asteroids/dwarfs planets/comets) and if spacecrafts were not imbued in the data folder (they could go in the extra as example and could be easily eliminated if necessary)...