Talk:Planet

The IAU definition of "planet" has too much weight

The article's use of the IAU definition of "planet" has too much weight; the entire article is structured around it. As has been said at this link, the IAU's definition is not the "final word". The geophysical definition of "planet" (in which moons such as Ganymede are considered planets) should be given more weight. Possibly a major rewrite of the article should be done by someone to address this problem. For example, the first paragraphs of the article are very IAU-centric and should include a non-IAU perpsective. LumaP15 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, the IUGS would have to approve it before it could be added here. Serendi^podous 07:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

New to this discussion here. Why would the IUGS be the final authority? Grinspoon and Stern https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/07/yes-pluto-is-a-planet/?utm_term=.1bde2f497aa0 and other scientists https://phys.org/news/2017-02-geophysical-planet-definition.html argue that different definitions should be acceptable depending on context. The topic is described as controversial in the community (example in Phys.org) and books are written that emphasize that dwarf planets are also planets https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/books/13-planets-by-david-a-aguilar/. Highlighting the proposed "geophysical definition" https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2017/pdf/1448.pdf would probably be going too far, but I think it would be good to have a small section on the controversy behind the definition. It's not universally accepted! WorldsWanderer (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm sure they do. But they're two people. One of whom has a VERY personal interest in this particular issue. Only designated authorities have the final say on issues of nomenclature. For astronomy, that's the IAU; for geology, i's the IUGS. Believe me, if the IUGS voted to accept the definition, it would go in here topswitch. But it hasn't. Serendi^podous 09:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your view of the relation between IUGS and science. If your look at their mission they state that they are involved in ("fostering international agreement on nomenclature and classification..."). Fostering is not the same as legislating. Scientists are under no obligation to follow their decisions. The same goes for the IAU although I admit I didn't find an equivalent statement after a quick search. As for the motivation, please don't impart motivations to one of the authors (I assume you mean Stern). Yes, he's been an advocate for Pluto to be recognized at the same level as other planets. You may argue that it's because he's the PI of the New Horizon mission. However, New Horizon is en route to Ultima Thule. He's not advocating for that to be planet. Others on the team have strongly supported the IAU definition (e.g. Rick Binzel). One of the most vocal supporters of the IAU definition is (Mike Brown), whose Tweeter handle is "Plutokiller" and wrote a book "How I killed Pluto". Could he have a vested interest in the topic? Also, the issue is not just about Pluto: all dwarf planets would be included in any of the other definitions. There are other opponents of the IAU definition (see the previous references I listed, and thanks for pointing the better way to include a reference in the Talk page). I don't want to take down the IAU definition, but I think we do a disservice to the Wikipedia users if we don't recognize that this definition is not universally accepted by scientists. A significant fraction of the community does not agree with the perception that there are two "levels" of planets and has gathered several times to discuss the issue. WorldsWanderer (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the current article makes clear the changing definitions of "planet" (which once included the sun and moon). The IAU definition is supported by major dictionaries. Dbfirs 21:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I Agree with WorldsWanderer; the non-IAU definition is worth at least a mention on the article even if it doesn't have the same weight as the IAU definition. People reading the article should at least be aware that the issue of planetary definition isn't a settled one. Just because the IAU is an authority doesn't necessarily mean they're right. LumaP15 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just because the IAU is an authority doesn't necessarily mean they're right.

It does for Wikipedia's purposes. We seek verifiability, not truth. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's already there (belt planets), don't need it twice. Tbayboy (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be better though if the geophysical definition of "planet" were mentioned in more sections. For example, planets such as Ceres and Titan (objects considered to be "planets" under the geophysical definition of "planet") should have their images/photos at the top of the article alongside the photos of the "8 planets". And the section about the Solar System should have a sub-section in which more than 8 planets are described (i.e. Europa, Titan, Pluto, Ceres, Eris, the Moon, etc.) In other words, the IAU definition of "planet" should not be treated as a "fact" — the article, as it is currently written, treats it as a "fact". The first sentence of the article is straight from the IAU. There should at least be sentences at the beginning of the article (in the lead) acknowledging that this is not a closed issue and that there is still discussion in the scientific community about what the definition of a "planet" is (including definitions which do not conform to the IAU's definition). Also, instead of a sentence saying "there are 8 planets", the sentence should say "according to the IAU, there are 8 planets". Similarly, when describing a planet's defining characteristics (as defined by the IAU), the sentence should say "according to the IAU, a planet is [...]" The sentence should not say "A planet is [...]" (which is the way the first sentence of the article is written). LumaP15 (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The IAU def is a fact: they defined it, and they are the accepted body for such definitions. There is no equivalent geophysical definition -- see Serendipodous' comment above. If IUGS ever makes a definition, it should be incorporated here, but not until then. Tbayboy (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree — the IAU definition is not a fact, it is an interpretation by one political body (the IAU) which not everyone agrees with. And the definition itself was not even chosen by a majority of people in the IAU. By saying phrases such as "there are 8 planets", the article is giving too much weight to this organization. A large political body's interpretation (IAU, IUGS, etc.) is not necessary. While the IAU is large enough that its version of planets should be included, the geophysical version (which is supported by individual planetary scientists) should be given more weight. LumaP15 (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The 2006 IAU definition is the established scientific convention. Obviously this article should describe the established scientific convention. Perhaps a brief mention that some scientists are unhappy with it is warranted, but it is no more than a temporary footnote in the history of planetary science (e.g., does anyone remember those who complained when Ceres and Vesta lost their planetary status?). This situation is similar to the convention for Earth's prime meridian. Some scientists dislike the established convention, but we don't rewrite wikipedia to give more weight to the Paris meridian. Some may disagree with the established values of some physical constants, but we don't rewrite wikipedia to give more weight to alternate values. So, no, the 2006 IAU definition does not have too much weight – it has the weight it obviously deserves, and we should not be rewriting wikipedia. People who wish to battle for 9 or more planets in the Solar System can take this fight to the IAU. JeanLucMargot (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Read this link — it says that planetary scientists regularly disregard the 2006 IAU definition. In the article, the cited paper says "We therefore conclude that the argument made during the IAU planet definition controversy, that planet-sized Kuiper Belt Objects should be classified as non-planets because they share orbits, is arbitrary and not based on historical precedent." The article also says the IAU definition "communicates the wrong idea" about the nature of the Solar System.

Also, the following was said in the article: "This is why we aren't supposed to vote in science. Voting creates biases. Taxonomical classification is a part of science, so we should not allow biases to enter in. That is why it was a mistake to vote on the definition of a planet. It should have never happened." The article also says the 2006 IAU definition "was voted on by a very small percentage of the world's astronomers and planetary scientists". Why should the Wikipedia article about planets give so much weight to a definition that only a very small percentage of the world's astronomers and planetary scientists voted on?

The 2006 IAU definition of a planet was a political decision, not a scientific one. As you said ("perhaps a brief mention..."), there should at least be a mention of the opposition to the IAU defintion, so a mention of the geophysical definition of "planet" should be made at the beginning of the article. The Solar System section should also be changed so that there are two sections: one which describes the IAU's version, and one which describes the geophysical version. Also, any mention of "the 8 planets" should be written as "according the the IAU, the 8 planets..." LumaP15 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think some of you are discussing this matter as if it were an empirical question. It is not, it is merely definitional. Different bodies are planets according to different definitions of the word. And it can be defined arbitrarily because "planet" is not a natural kind (even people involved with the demotion of Pluto, such as Gonzalo Tancredi, have admitted this). --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not Wikipedia's job to make a call on which is the more valid definition. We go with the definition endorsed by the highest authority, in this case, the IAU. If the IUGS endorses Stern's proposal, then it can be included as a co-equal definition. But it has not. Serendi^podous 18:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are talking to me, but I fully agree with what you said here and my comment is fully compatible with yours, so if you are talking to me I'm not sure which point you think I'm missing. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

who's the authority on who is an authority? 2600:1014:B06F:7793:E0FD:16C4:A6C1:42A (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The IAU doesn't know what they are talking about what so ever. Planets (even dwarf planets/exoplanets) are evolving stars, dead stars and stellar remains. This has been known for about a decade now.https://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v9.pdf "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."Airpeka (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Not an acceptable source, —PaleoNeonate – 14:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Planet Eris

Why isn't Eris among the objects formerly considered planets in that section? Eris was considered a planet by many including NASA and still is by people rejecting the IAU definition. 212.186.0.174 (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Not officially and for a very short time only. Ruslik_Zero 06:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Eris is still officially recognized by NASA as a dwarf planet. So technically is still a planet just smaller and belongs on this page.Liebecon (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Dwarf planets are not a subcategory of planets, they are separate. While some would argue they should be considered a subcategory, myself included, that does not change the classification as it stands. Hi529 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Are these even planets? They could be more than Pluto will ever be

15760 Albion (image on the right) and (181708) 1993 FW are the two bodies in question.

"two newly discovered planets are called Smiley and Karla."ISBN 978-1-84239-912-5

I searched those two bodies up and it turns out they refer to the bodies listed at the very top, discovered by David C. Jewitt and Jane X. Luu. These bodies do orbit the Sun and do appear to be round despite their small dimensions. They may not have cleared their Kuiper Belt neighbourhood (this is being debated on, see clearing the neighbourhood#Disagreement) but unlike Pluto their orbits appear satisfyingly circular and not as eccentric.

I know I and my source are probably the only ones in the world shouting about these two bodies being planets, but unlike Pluto I classify them both as legitimate planets in a ten-planet Solar System. Should we debate over these being planets? Honestly, even though I see Pluto as a dwarf planet or even a binary comet or asteroid I don't think we should always follow the IAU.

46.107.124.47 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

They're not planets; they're not even dwarf planets. Whoever called them planets was being either careless or facecious. And in future, don't put refs in talk page comments; they stay at the bottom no matter how long the page gets. Serendi^podous 09:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Escaping the Earth" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Escaping the Earth. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Planet-sam" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Planet-sam. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

1. Add the template to the section "Objects formerly considered planets" linking to the main article: List of former planets 2. Change "was ruled by Aphrodite, the goddess of love" in section "Mythology and naming" to "was ruled by Aphrodite, the goddess of love, and Hera, the queen of the gods" with source thanks 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:51C0:E732:65B0:DA84 (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

1. 1 is  Done, but #2 is  Not done. The source given is not reliable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

"Space Planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Space Planet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#Space Planet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 13:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

A newly discovered planer Premsagar1997524 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ref and historical summary for IAU def

I think this might be a good general ref for either this article, definition of 'planet', or our article on the IAU definition of 'planet'. I don't see it in any of them, but IMO it might make a useful counterweight to the claims that the IAU didn't adequately consider astronomer's views.

Ron Ekers (2018) 'The Prague IAU General Assembly, Pluto and the IAU processes'. In C. Sterken, J. Hearnshaw & D. Valls-Gabaud, eds., Under One Sky: The IAU Centenary Symposium. Proceedings, IAU Symposium No. 349.[1]

It does note that there were 3 conceptions of 'planet' under consideration, something that seems to have gotten lost in our articles -- the traditional 9 plus Ceres and a couple more TNOs, the Classical 8, and the Sterns concept including moons. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

did they really use the term "classical 8"? if so, that was kinda bogus of them..in classic times, there were only 5. (the sun and moon were NOT originally considered planets, but they sort of came to be considered planets in late/post classical times, but even then not fully). Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were all discovered in modern times...so to call Uranus and Neptune classical seems a bit arbitrary Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Stern and the alt def of 'planet'

Thought I should give some of my reasons here. We often equate the non-IAU def with Alan Stern, because he's vocal and is the head of New Horizons. But he badly contradicts himself, criticizes the IAU for adopting his own proposals (e.g. for claiming that Neptune had cleared its neighborhood, claiming that if it had, Pluto wouldn't be there -- despite his lambda criterion being in complete accord with the IAU), counts hundreds of known TNOs as dwarf planets when his colleagues/collaborators have shown that most are not even solid bodies, etc. So e.g. in the table of former planets, we need to be careful when stating that a body fits "the" geophysical definition, because there isn't just one, and even restricting ourselves to a single researcher, the def changes from year to year. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Well that raises the question of whether we should include the geophysical definition at all. If, as you say, it changes all the time, then the logical thing to do would be to appeal to a higher authority, like we do re: the definition of the Kuiper belt. But in this case there is no higher authority. Serendi^podous 06:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Serendipodous. Double sharp (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Moon not in hydrostatic equillibrium?

Could we get a citation needed (or better yet, a citation) for that? The Moon is clearly rounded under its own gravity, unless there's some very specific reason to consider it otherwise it is in equillibrium at least as much as the Earth is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.206.227.142 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done corrected and cited. Geogene (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That citation, on the other hand, includes "~110" geophysical planets and shows the ones smaller than Earth and Venus in a picture. Including Huya, which according to current thinking is probably not a solid body and hence not in equilibrium. And including Iapetus, which is not actually in HE now (it's too oblate for its current rotation period). And including Pallas, Vesta, and Hygiea. So I'm unconvinced. Stern certainly considers the Moon a planet, but whether his definition as stated actually agrees with his intent is in question. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The citations for the Moon not being in HE are at List of possible dwarf planets. That said, one of those papers (doi:10.1007/BF00055525) says that Mercury and Venus are not in HE either. On the other hand, HE is part of the IAU definition, so if that's correct, then they are not planets. I don't think anyone actually believes that. After all: dynamically speaking, Mercury and Venus are clearly gravitationally dominant objects within their spheres of influence. And besides: as Soter remarks: "In a population of small bodies spanning a continuum of sizes and shapes,does gravity dominate the shape of a body if the cross-section deviates from hydrostatic equilibrium by 10%, or by 1%? Nature provides no unoccupied gap between spheroidal and non-spheroidal shapes, so any boundary would be an arbitrary choice."

I kind of suspect that each side already knows what kind of things they want to be planets and just has a problem finding a formal definition. It's just that the geophysical definition has bigger problems with edge cases, so far as I can see. Double sharp (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Luna is not in HE: [2]. It's too oblate for its current spin. That said, Stern's definition includes it anyway (the Runyon article cited explicitly includes it). The article by Runyon, Stern et al. being cited even goes so far as to include Proteus in its picture, which is not even round.

But then again, the Runyon et al. definition doesn't say HE. It says a planet "has sufficient self-gravitation to asssume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid". (OK, never mind that not all spheroids are ellipsoids.) So, I suppose the column should really be asking if the object is round, rather than for HE. No, I cannot come up with an explanation of what Proteus is doing in that figure.

We should, however, be consistent. Iapetus is in pretty much the same situation Luna is in: gravitationally rounded, but not in the correct shape for its current spin. Stern includes it as a planet too. So we should probably not give different answers for Luna and Iapetus in this table. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Double sharp: you should try to fix the table as you think best. I think part of the problem might be that the article gives too much attention (weight) to minority viewpoints on what the definition of a planet should be. Geogene (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the table to follow what Stern actually seems to be writing, which is closer to gravitational rounding than strict HE: 2002 The proposed criteria for admitting (or rejecting) any body into (or from) the class of planetary bodies has many attractive features, most notably the shared physical attribute that the bodies which meet the criteria are shape-dominated by gravity, but not so large as to ever have or in the future generate energy via a fusion chain reaction; 2017 A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters. Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Problem is, according to that definition Jupiter is not a planet, because the geometry is a contradiction in terms (no spheroids are triaxial ellipsoids). But we now have a better-written article to use. — kwami (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbols for 'new' dwarf planets

So some guy has created his astrological symbols for dwarf planets discovered in 21st century. Nice, imaginative, but what about notability? It looks like pure original research. Szczureq (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

They're the default in astrology (which is the only place planetary symbols are common) and have been accepted into Unicode. He actually created a few more, but they are not notable. — kwami (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Issues

What makes this article to be FA when it has uncited sentences and an expansion template. 2001:4455:364:A800:E5E5:3906:820:3691 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There are currently 47 cn tags. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I look through the majority of "citation needed" tags, and it seems that a LOT of work is needed here. Some sections are good enough, but some (probably added after the FA nomination?) are in a great need of copyedit and sources (f.e. "21st century", "Geophysical definitions", "Mythology and naming", "Formation"). Section "Solar System" has 10 'cn', though it's mostly a list of planets with one-sentence intro of planet types. "Exoplanets" needs a rewrite and good sources. "Physical characteristics" has a "needs expansion" template. I never wrote a FA, but this one clearly fails even milder GA standards. buidhe, you are more familiar with the process, so maybe you know what should be done. FAR is probably the answer, though maybe the article should be simply stripped of its featured status. Artem.G (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Artem.G To delist an article it does need to go through FAR. Unfortunately, I wont' be able to nominate this for a while because there's a limited number of FAR nominations each editor is allowed at one time. I would encourage you to go ahead and nominate there; the process isn't too difficult. (t · c) buidhe 22:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

In case any page watchers have missed it: an FAR has been opened. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There are some new comments over on the review page, just in case anyone is watching here but not there. Input most welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Science

Hi there is actually 1000 million planets in the solar system because the different types of solar systems 86.13.15.62 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You mean 'planetary system'. There's only one Solar system: the planetary system of Sol (the Solar planetary system). Though some people get sloppy and say 'solar system' for 'planetary system', the way some people say 'Kleenex' for 'tissue', 'Hoover' for 'vacuum cleaner' or 'Coke' for cola. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Tables

I'm a little concerned that the article currently has too many small tables floating about, listing what bodies counted as which type of planet at which time. It makes sense to present this in a tabular way for at-a-glance reference, but spreading it across multiple boxes partly defeats that purpose. The repetition of symbols also seems like overkill. Perhaps the multiple tables can be consolidated somehow? XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be difficult to combine them because they have different numbers of columns. It would also be hard to give an overall list of bodies with dates, because there's no clear cut-off for many of them. (E.g., when did Ceres stop being counted as a planet? Or Io?) — kwami (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the tables in the History section add much (if any) value. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they add anything, and in fact, think they are actually just disrupting the flow. The symbols certainly aren't needed. If someone could find a way to make an overall depiction, that would be helpful, but it sounds like that would be hard to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Planetary-mass Moons table

This section of the article starts by stating that all planetary-mass moons are synchronous (tidally locked) and that their orbital period equals their rotational period. My understanding is that there are many solar system moons that ARE NOT tidally locked, and therefore would have a different rotation to orbit ratio. Hyperion of Saturn is not tidally locked. The moons presented in the table however may be incomplete, and therefore excluded some of the asynchronous ones?

I think the table needs the rotation period column added, similar to the planet table above. I think it would be helpful to also add a column identifying which planet each moon belongs to in this table.

Reference - https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/44688/moons-with-synchronous-rotation-in-our-solar-system SquashEngineer (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Every planetary-mass moon (i.e. moon big enough to be gravitationally rounded) is tidally locked. Hyperion is not a planetary-mass moon. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

The introductory paragraph, which outlines NASA's definition of a planet, contains some grammatical errors. Please revise this paragraph by devoting a separate sentence to each criterion, and supplanting the numerical terms that precede them, like "firstly" and "second", with more formal or appropriate terms, like "additionally"; amending the writer's use of the contraction "it's" in place of the possessive "its"; and amending the writer's erroneous capitalisation of the term "planet". 2001:1970:529D:2600:81B1:24B3:D3BF:65AF (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Spintendo  23:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

First Caption Readability

The caption for the first image reads "The eight planets of the Solar System with size to scale (up to down, left to right): Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune (outer planets), Earth, Venus, Mars, and Mercury (inner planets)" but with the directions given the ordering should be Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Earth, Mars, Neptune, Mercury, Venus. (This is because (up to down, left to right) implies you scan the image as vertical columns starting from the left and moving to the right.)

Even if the outer planets and the inner planets remained grouped in the caption, the inner planets should say Earth, Mars, Mercury, Venus.

Whatever, this caption needs to be changed to improve readability. 2600:1700:6E30:30B0:A1CD:CD28:3DCE:4BC9 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024

Let’s Imagine you’re playing catch with a friend. When you throw the ball, it follows a path through the air until it lands back in your friend’s hands. That path the ball takes is like an orbit—it’s the path something follows as it moves around something else.

In space, orbits are everywhere. For example, Earth goes around the sun, just like the moon goes around Earth. Even things we humans make, like satellites, have their own paths around Earth. These paths aren’t straight lines; they’re more like stretched-out circles, called ellipses.

Its Very Important to Make Understanding on orbits . it helps us travel with space . Imagine trying to send a rocket to Mars without knowing . With understanding orbits, scientists and engineers can plan out the paths of spacecraft,

Orbits also help us learn more about space. The study of Scientists is paths of planets, moons, and stars Give us understanding , how and Why they move . It’s like putting together a giant puzzle of the universe!

But orbits aren’t just about moving physically—they can mean other things too. Ever heard someone say they’re “in the orbit” of a famous person? That means they’re close to them or influenced by them. Orbits can also mean cycles, like the changing seasons of the moon.

Looking ahead, orbits will keep important. Imagine going on vacation to a hotel in space, where you can look out the window and see Earth below you! Or maybe one day we’ll get resources from asteroids by sending spacecraft around them.

Whether it’s planets moving or our adventures, orbits help us understand About the the world . So, next time When you look up at the stars, take a moment to think about the amazing paths things take as they travel through space. Who knows we’ll discover as we keep exploring the wonders of orbits.

Why does [[https://fresh-news-world.com/what-is-the-orbit-and-know-about-the-chandrayaan-3/|Orbit]] Chandrayaan-3 revolve around the Earth?

In July 2023, India sent a mission to explore the Moon. They planned for a spacecraft called Chandrayaan-3 to land near the Moon’s south pole. It had a lander named Vikram and a rover called Pragyaan.

The mission started well, with Vikram and Pragyaan landing on the Moon in August 2023. But soon after landing, they lost contact with Vikram, so it couldn’t work anymore.

While Vikram and Pragyaan stayed on the Moon, another part of the spacecraft, called the propulsion module, stayed in orbit around the Moon. It was supposed to work for three months, but it had extra fuel.

To use this extra fuel and learn more, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) decided to bring the propulsion module back to orbit around Earth. They did this by making the module do some controlled moves between October and November 2023, and it safely entered Earth’s orbit.

Bringing it back to Earth’s orbit was important for a few reasons:

Testing: ISRO wanted to see how well the module worked. This would help them plan better for future missions to the Moon.

Looking at Earth: The module had instruments to study Earth’s air and surface. Staying in Earth’s orbit meant they could keep studying these things.

Saving Fuel: Bringing the module back to Earth’s orbit instead of letting it stay around the Moon meant they could use less fuel and control it better.

As of February 11, 2024, the Chandrayaan-3 propulsion module is still circling around Earth in a steady path. They haven’t said yet what they’ll do next with it, but they might keep studying Earth or let it fall back to Earth when it runs out of fuel.

Even though the part of the mission Orbit with the lander and rover didn’t go as planned, bringing back the propulsion module gives them more chances to learn and get better for future trips to the Moon.

Singhharjeet23 (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 12:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)