Talk:Pluto/Archive 1

message: The statistics on Pluto show:
Mean radius 5.91352×109 km 
Divide that by one million and you at least have the right order of magnitude. Whether the figure is right in that case, I don't know, but the order of magnitude is majorly wrong.
:That's the orbital radius (it's under the "Orbital characteristics" heading). The planet radius is correctly reported as ~2300 km. At18 12:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  You have got to be kidding. 

message: Had this in it:
(this is due to the fact that Charon's period of revolution about Pluto and the time it takes for Pluto to turn once on its axis are almost identical - though not exactly identical: At the time of Pluto's discovery in 1930, Charon happened to be positioned directly behind Pluto as seen from Earth, preventing it from being discovered; over the next 48 years, however, the infinitesimal difference between the periods of Charon's revolution and Pluto's rotation had sufficiently built up to allow Charon to "peek out" from behind Pluto from a terrestrial perspective, enabling Charon to be discovered then)
As far as I can tell, this entire parenthetical is inaccurate. Charon is completely tidally locked with Pluto, not just nearly so. It wasn't discovered initially because telescopes just weren't that good back then, not because it was hidden behind Pluto. Even if it was its orbital period is 6 days, so it wouldn't take anywhere near 48 years for it to "peek out" from behind Pluto. Bryan 08:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it seems that way. —Bkell 09:22, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluto's moon section

message: This appears on page 662 of the 2004 World Almanac:
"At the U.S. Naval Observatory in Flagstaff (Arizona), in 1978, James Christy obtained a photograph of Pluto that was distinctly elongated.  Repeated observations of this shape and its variation were convincing evidence of the discovery of a satellite of Pluto, now named Charon."  (Presumably previous photos of Pluto taken between 1930 and 1978 did not show this "distinct elongation" - and if not, why not?).
:Because telescopes weren't good enough before then. Look at the best photograph we have now in 2004—it's a blurry circle. I doubt telescopes in the 1940s were able to see Pluto as anything more than a dot.
:Charon goes around Pluto in fewer than seven days. If you have a telescope that can resolve Charon, you would be able to observe a complete revolution in a week, not 48 years. Christy was able to observe the variation in the shape, after all; there would be no variation to observe if it took years and years. The reason Charon wasn't discovered until 1978 is that telescopes weren't good enough, not because Charon was hiding behind Pluto. —Bkell 10:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, what? That would only change which face of Pluto faces Charon. How would it have anything to do with the "distinct elongation" that would be visible in the 1978 photograph? I don't follow your reasoning at all. —Bkell 12:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: The reasoning just isn't right. An astronomer can observe Pluto at any time (any phase) in its rotation period. We aren't forced to look only when one spot on Pluto is underneath the Sun. Thus, in the last 74 years, Pluto has been observed many times with Charon on one side, with Charon on the other side, with Charon hidden, with Charon in front. -- hike395 15:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a "smoking gun", but...

message: On page 409 of the 2004 TIME Almanac, there is a horizontal row in the table marked "(Number of) Rings."  Under Pluto a "?" appears - in stark contrast to the definitive "0" entered for Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars (the numbers for Jupiter Saturn, Uranus and Neptune being 3, 1,000, 11, and 4 respectively).
In addition, Pluto's density of 32% of Earth's is far closer to that of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune (the four known ringed planets, with density ratios of 24%, 12%, 23% and 30% of Earth's respectively) than to that of Mercury, Venus and Mars (at 98%, 95% and 71% respectively).  Since Pluto seems to take after the other outer planets in this respect, shouldn't the possibility exist that it also takes after them as per other characteristics as well (the existence of rings)?
:Pluto is not a planet. Are there any other planetoids (asteroids, KBOs etc.) with rings? — Jor (Talk) 12:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that Pluto is very different to the other outer planets - the four ringed planets are extremely massive compared to the five smaller planets, and Pluto is a midget compared to the latter five. I'm no expert on planetary rings but I would guess that there's a good reason why none of the smaller planets have rings - probably something to do with the smaller Roche limits of those worlds. It seems very improbable to my mind that Pluto has any rings, so I would guess that Time is playing safe: we know for sure that eight of the nine planets have rings but we don't know this for sure yet in Pluto's case. -- ChrisO 12:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jor and ChrisO. A question mark in the Time Almanac is not a definitive source for rings. How about a scientific paper? Rings only occur in the super massive planets. The density of the planet is irrelevant. Finally, scientists do have occultation data for Pluto... If there were a ring system, it would occlude the starlight in a special pattern. This is how the rings of Uranus were discovered. No such pattern has been discovered, hence there is no evidence of rings. --- hike395 15:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibility of rings

message: Well, the image that is there is a blatant lie. There is a far better image of Pluto (in color no less) over at some nasa site. However, being a n00b, I haven't the slightest clue how to not violate copyright. So someone either needs to get that image, or to change the caption on the current one. Ctachme 04:02, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! If it's a NASA image it is likely in the public domain. Anyone see any reasons why it might not be? Bryan 04:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Image? 

message: Who says what is a planet and whats not? some stupid astronomers that dont even know what planet means? There are also theories to classify as planets those objects that have more than 360km of diameter, the size enough when gravity pulls in the way that a planet gains round shape. And I strongly agree with this. Pluto can be a KBO, that is a new type of planet. Why pluto shouldnt be a planet and jupiter should? Jupiter is mostly just gas, pluto is rocky ice. Then why Earth is a planet when is much smaller than Jupiter? Why Ceres isnt? In these day everything is so mess up, that even rocks  are classified has moons and with unpronunsable manes! Astronomy sucks these days. Where did the good managers of names and classification go? :( -Pedro 22:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down, and don't get too worked up about a classification issue like this. (And if you do want to get worked up, then it might be good to actually look into just *why* Pluto is considered a Kuiper belt object by some ^_~) -- Schnee 00:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto a KBO? 

message: The article mentions that the grandfather sent the idea for Pluto's name to a former Astronomer Royal.  Does this refer to Frank Dyson, as he was the only retired Astronomer Royal at the time? [unsigned]
:Numerous sources say that it was Herbert Hall Turner who cabled his colleagues in America with Venetia Burney's suggestion (see , , ).  He was not, however, a former Astronomer Royal.  I have edited the article accordingly. -- Curps 00:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please allow me to kill this rumor once and for all.  Pluto first appeared in The Chain Gang, released 18 August 1930, though he did not receive the name "Pluto" until a few cartoons later.  The name for the planet Pluto was announced 1 May 1930.  May comes before August.  (And in the future, sign your contributions with 4 ~s, which will turn into a signature and timestamp.) DenisMoskowitz 15:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the dog was named after the planet.--Jyril 17:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Pluto's Name 

message: Is there any more information available about Pluto's surface/interior composition? Right now it just mentions nitrogen and carbon monoxide ice. Surely there's more information than that. Kaldari 18:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page may be helpful if someone wants to write up a new section. Kaldari 18:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluto's composition

message: *Support strongly. Pluto the planet is by far the most important of the Pluto articles.--Jyril 12:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
*Strongly support: Not only is Pluto the most important of the Pluto's, it isn't even a planet so calling it Pluto (planet) is incorrect. --Ctachme 14:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: As this review shows, Camelot 30K occurs on "1999 ZX", "a celestial body between comet and planet, out in the Kuiper belt at 35 AU from the Sun". It turns out that designation is "safe", since no minor planet can have Z as it first letter (see Provisional designation of asteroids or New- And Old-Style Minor Planet Designations) —Z would be the half-month after December 31...
Urhixidur 23:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Camelot 30K]] 

message: Pluto is a small celestial body in the outer solar system. 
 Discovered in 1930 and originally classified as a planet, its 
 status is currently under dispute.
Someone added this "small celestial body". It is in dispute by some, but its status is that it is a planet. It seems that wikipedia as taken a position, against what is the common sence and the official designation by the IAU.
:The problem is that "common sense" is _opposed_ to the official designation by the IAU, which was approved a long time ago based on data which turned out to be wrong.  Common sense says Kuiper belt objects orbiting in resonance with Neptune aren't planets.  If Pluto is a planet, then so are all the rest of them.  Either way the "nine planet story" we remember from grade school is bullshit. 216.99.217.92 05:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "what is celestial body a star?"  What the hell are you talking about? 216.99.217.92 05:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Dropped small. Not small compared to its neighbourhood. Does not need a POV tag unless we claim A not B. Come up with a sentence briefly explaining the debate. Marskell 22:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed 'originally classified as a planet' to 'officially classified as a planet', to stress that it hasn't changed (yet). The Singing Badger 22:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: article introduction

message: This article lists Pluto's albedo a 0.30.  It is considerably more reflective than that; the estimate used by Mike Brown at Caltech in his article on the "New Planet",:
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html#hack
lists the ablbedo at 0.60.  That's actually at the low range of albedo estimates that I have read over the years.  Similarly, the albedo of Triton is listed at 0.76.  The last I heard, which was around the time of the Voyager flyby, was 0.90.
No absolute magnitude is listed for Pluto, Triton, Charon, or several other objects.  I stumbled onto this error because I wanted the absolute magnitude to compare to other absolute magnitudes listed by the Minor Planet Center.  Also, there is some dispute about the diameter.  As a result, I am calling for help on this rather than editing it directly.  Thank you.  Mike Emmert 19:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, albedo of 0.3 is way too low for Pluto. I replaced it with a value of 0.5 – 0.7 from NSSDC's Pluto fact sheet. I wonder if this wide range represents uncertainty or albedo differences, because Pluto's surface has highly contrasting lighter and darker regions.--Jyril 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto's albedo is wrong in the article. 

message: Can someone insert the Kanji characters into the article for Pluto like we have for the other planets? WilliamKF 03:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I found on wiktionary: 冥王星 WilliamKF 03:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark King Star - Kanji

message: I believe Pluto rotates retrogradely? At least my physics books and a couple of google's says so. Anyway, I don't know how to edit those Infoboxes - can't find any button for it. -josteinaj 20/01/06 20:15
:Pluto's axial tilt is over 90° (122.54°), which means its rotation is indeed retrograde. However, the difference is small enough that it is better to say Pluto orbits on its side than it orbits backwards. Uranus has similar situation, whereas Venus rotates clearly in retrograde motion.
::Fixed; the minus sign denoting the retrograde motion was missing before the rotation period.
:You can't edit infoboxes directly, instead you must edit the infobox template, which in the case of Pluto is Template:Planet_Infobox/Pluto.--Jyril 20:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrograde rotation 

message: In Vietnamese, Pluto is called Diêm Vương Tinh or Sao Diêm Vương, named after Yama (閻王), not Minh Vương Tinh (冥王星) as in the CJK languages. At the time of Pluto's discovery, the Chinese grip on Vietnamese culture isn't as strong as before and Vietnamese had already started to be written in quoc ngu.  Writing 冥 in quoc ngu would become Minh, which is easily misinterpreted as "bright" (since that is the much more common meaning of minh), and I suspect that's the reason it wasn't named that. DHN 18:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, like in Vietnamese, 冥 and bright (明) share the same pronunciation in Chinese, too. — Yaohua2000 09:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CJKV name 

message: Some editors are getting caught up on the amount of controversy surrounding the classification of pluto as a planet. I find that the addition of qualifiers, such as "some controversy" and "sometimes under controversy" marginalize debate over pluto's classification, and so violate the standards at WP:NPOV. Ihe amount of controversy isn't as important as the fact that there is controversy. shaggy 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV concerns 

message: On the front page today, it is said that Pluto was photographed for the first time on March 19, 1915. The article indicates the same thing with no additional information. It this a reference to photos taken at Lowell Observatory on March 19 and April 17, 1915 with the 9-inch camera from Swarthmore College, or to some other photograph(s)?
In any case, does anyone have information about when these prediscovery images were discovered, and when the positions derived from them were incorporated into a determination of Pluto's orbit? As most hanging around here will know, prediscovery observations of minor planets have been of great significance to orbit determination in the past, and I'm curious whether this was the case with Pluto. A fifteen-year prediscovery arc in the first years of Pluto's observation could have been significant.
I've done some checking in the references I have, and am turning up empty-handed on both questions. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the prediscovery observations were found within a year or so of the discovery in 1930, although I don't recall about those specific ones (I'll check my source tonight). I have a list of them if people are interested in it being posted. CFLeon 21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Photograph? 

message: I reverted a edit that said that Pluto was the second largest. I assume in reference to 2003 UB313, which is already mentiond in the article, This link http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ says 2003 UB313 is a Kuiper belt object, is there some doubt about this? Should we change it back to Second largest object? Orangutan 18:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a scattered KBO, like Chiron. It has an inclination of 39°, compared to Pluto's 12°. The Scattered disc is usually considered apart from the Kuiper Belt, just as with the Main Belt, but that's a matter of definition. kwami 19:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kwami, That's what I love about Wikipedia, I'm always learning new stuff.Orangutan 14:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Largest 

message: The problem with classifying Pluto as a planet is that: suppose we find a hundred objects that size out beyond Neptune? Or 200? or 1000? Do we WANT a hundred planetary bodies to memorize? It's basically the same problem that the 19th Centurians faced with the bodies between Mars and Jupiter, except their's was easier- it was quickly apparent that none of the objects was even the size of Luna, let alone Mercury. So they came up with 'minor planets', and that worked fine. Our problem is rather more complicated by Pluto being the only one known for over 60 years. We need to consider what is the MOST USEFUL definition. It certainly is useful to have names for the type of movement: primary vs secondary revolution around a star ('planet' vs 'moon')in rather low eccentric orbits to distinguish from comets (but aren't there some comets with lower eccentricies than Pluto?). So, using that, Pluto is a planet (but so is Ceres, Juno, Eros, Chiron, etc.). However, that can be carried TOO far, with all the tens of thousands of bodies just over a km!!! So, there NEEDS to be a size limit, 'major planets' vs 'minor planets' ('planets' vs 'planetoids'?; although I propose 'planetoid' as being very fitting for the loose interstellar bodies not orbiting a star). The POOREST choice is probably what the entertainment industry and some PR people for NASA do already and letting size ALONE being the factor and upgrading the major moons to 'planets'. There's ALREADY a word for large spherical bodies with atmospheres, no matter if they're revolving around a star or a planet: 'worlds'. As I see it, our BEST solution is to keep it at 8 planets (I know, what if we find an Earth-sized body out there? or even another Jupiter or larger?), and 2 'minor planet belts' (we can work on the exact term) typified by Ceres and Pluto. Perhaps a new term: I like 'plutinos', but it's become restricted to a particular type of orbit; and I think 'cubinos' and such, while useful for destinguishing between different types is too restricting to use as a general term. How about a contest like they did with picking Pluto's name? For a dollar (or equivalent currency), you can make an entry to pick the generic name of the trans-neptunians? Set up some basic rules (limited to 3 syllables, NO living people, no businees intests represented, that sort of thing), run the contest for a year or two, and have the winner picked by the IAU? All proceeds go to fund research on TNOs. Just give me credit for the idea! CFLeon 21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what kind of a response you're looking for, but this page is meant for discussing the Wikipedia article on Pluto, not the IAU policies on Pluto, so your idea won't get much exposure here.  This same debate has been going on for decades, and is also occurring on Talk:Planet if you're interested.  --Doradus 20:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 100 Planets?

message: Could someone trace the source of the statement that the barycenter lies above the planet's surface, please? New data from (Bluie, Grundy et al. 2006 do not seem to support that (mass ratio: 0.1165±0.0055)
:Does someone know the source of the inclination data for the moons (Charon's infobox)? Again, they are at odds with the source quoted above (~96 degrees to the ecliptic). Thank you. Eurocommuter 16:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barycenter; Inclination  

message: Any idea when the names for P1 and 2 will be out? Aeon 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Badstronomer said that... Science Now said that... Friday. =) *shrug* don't ask me... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  P1 and P2 Names 

message: Per http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/620/1, the moons are Nyx and Hydra. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 206.53.16.78 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Moon Names 

message: The following statement appearing under Pluto#Planet X? is somewhat inaccurate:
When Pluto was discovered in 1930, H.P. Lovecraft wrote a short story ("The Whisperer in Darkness") which proposed that Pluto was a base of invading extraterrestrials known as the Mi-go, who called it Yuggoth.According to S. T. Joshi and David E. Schultz (An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia ) this is not true: "It cannot be said that the discovery of Pluto inspired the writing of ['The Whisperer in Darkness']" (p. 298). Lovecraft began writing the story February 24, 1930, but the discovery of Pluto was not officially announced until March 14. Lovecraft was already aware that a trans-Neptunian planet might exist and had alluded to such a possibility in previous writings. Thus, the discovery of Pluto and the writing of the tale are simply coincidences._,-~R'lyehRising~-,_  02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet X 

message: 'Constance Lowell, Percival's widow who had delayed the search through her lawsuit,...' what lawsuit? Has something been removed here or have I missed something?Badgerpatrol 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: non-sequitur

message: If anyone is needing info on Pluto, I wrote a paper about it last year. 
User:The_stuart/Is_Pluto_a_Planet
--The_stuart 01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant nuclear fusion in your article. --Doradus 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research 

message: i came here wanted to know how many years it takes for pluto to complete its orbit.  this should be in the orbit section.  thanks.  --MateoP 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: orbit

message: Right now, there is an astronomical congress in Pague in Czechslovakia, where 3000 sci people from all over the world get to decide whether to demote Pluto into a mere space pebble. I heard on radio a small group of amateurs is already protesting in the street against "Pluto-theft"... Maybe the event could bring Pluto onto wikipedia (wikinews) front page. 195.70.32.136 12:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect we'll be there in a few days (is it this week or next?) when they make the final announcement. However, early sources suggest that it's decided already - it'll remain a planet, possibly by creating a new category of "dwarf planets" to include it and some others. Shimgray | talk | 12:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They decided but are not releasing until Wednesday, 2 am Eastern time.  A member of IAU said the new definition of a planet with not be what anyone expects (to build suspense maybe?) Zeusnoos 23:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dwarf planets already exist:  those are asteroids. --Pedro 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asteroids are formally "minor planets", not "dwarf planets". Shimgray | talk | 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but those have very similar meanings, and it is just used in the English-speaking world - and it doesnt say much about these objects. I would be happy with an official "telluric planets" "terrestrial" for English speakers, "gaseous planets" and "ice planets" (that would include Pluto and UB313) and I hope they dont forget the planet-like moons - which today are the most remarkable planets around and space rocks around the sun and planets: like 1221 Amor should be considered just rocks and their best names used by real planets. --Pedro 11:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, they haven't said what the new category will be - "dwarf" was just an attempt to find a word that wasn't "minor", I suspect. The intriguing possibility is that if Pluto is reclassed along with UB313, we may also end up reclassing Ceres and Mercury (now that would be interesting). Shimgray | talk | 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm?! Mercury is similar to Earth. Ceres is possibly also similar to these two. You must be talking of size issues. Ceres and Mercury are way bigger than most rocks in space. And Jupiter is far bigger than Earth. Maybe they will end up with a mass differentiation in order to consider Ceres a planet and some KBO's and asteroids as rocks, I don't know. I just hope they clean this mess. --Pedro 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this.--JyriL talk 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Off-topic nitpick: Czechoslovakia was dismantled 13 years ago. Prague, where the IAU is holding its conference, is the capital of the Czech Republic.--JyriL talk 00:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front page now? 

message: What the hell is that thing used for a pictur of pluto at the top of the page?That doesnt even look like pluto.--Killswitch Engage 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an image taken with I believe the Hubble.  As of now no images other tahn a few low res pics have been taken.  Other images are drawn or created by people. Aeon 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you know what Pluto looks like, feel free to tell us. Otherwise we have to wait until 2015 when New Horizons gets there. The title image is created from data collected from the mutual eclipses of Pluto and Charon which occurred between 1985 and 1990. Maps created from Hubble data are less detailed, but unlike this they cover whole Pluto except for the south polar region.--JyriL talk 05:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Regarding the recent addition ("In 1989, NASA also considered sending Voyager 2 to Pluto using a gravitational assist from Neptune, but this would not permit an optimal science flyby of Titan. It was eventually decided to calculate the Neptune and Titan flybys for maximum science regardless of the consequences to the craft's final trajectory."), please pardon my ignorance, but what are 'optimal science flyby' and 'maximum science?' Aquirata 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My interpretation would be that the 'optimal science flyby' is one that allows the best observations to be made, and 'maximum science' is a calculation based on the trade-off (would we learn more by observing Titan, or Pluto?). However, the terms are overly jargon-y and strike me as being very NASA-y (possibly direct from JPL's pages?) and they could do with being rewritten; I've made an attempt at doing so. blech 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a good rewrite. Aquirata 12:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This must be a misquote or misinterpretation- no trajectories with both Pluto and Neptune were feasible, since Pluto was in the opposite direction from Saturn and required an inclination change also. Early planning considered one craft to do the four Jovian planets and the other to go to Jupiter-Saturn and then Pluto. As it was, none of the good trajectories for Io or Titan led to an encounter with Neptune, so it was decided that Voyager 1 would be sacrified for this purpose, letting V2 with a not-as-good Titan encounter, but able to make Neptune. CFLeon 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploration of Pluto 

message: Should we add a pic from hubble on Pluto?  That would show some more detail that the real color one does not: Nitrogen ice patches.  Just a thought... --Galaxy001 04:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubble