Binaries in the Kuiper Belt

Binaries have played a crucial role many times in the history of modern astronomy and are doing so again in the rapidly evolving exploration of the Kuiper Belt. The large fraction of transneptunian objects that are binary or multiple, 48 such systems are now known, has been an unanticipated windfall. Separations and relative magnitudes measured in discovery images give important information on the statistical properties of the binary population that can be related to competing models of binary formation. Orbits, derived for 13 systems, provide a determination of the system mass. Masses can be used to derive densities and albedos when an independent size measurement is available. Angular momenta and relative sizes of the majority of binaries are consistent with formation by dynamical capture. The small satellites of the largest transneptunian objects, in contrast, are more likely formed from collisions. Correlations of the fraction of binaries with different dynamical populations or with other physical variables have the potential to constrain models of the origin and evolution of the transneptunian population as a whole. Other means of studying binaries have only begun to be exploited, including lightcurve, color, and spectral data. Because of the several channels for obtaining unique physical information, it is already clear that binaries will emerge as one of the most useful tools for unraveling the many complexities of transneptunian space.Comment: Accepted for inclusion in "The Kuiper Belt", University of Arizona Press, Space Science Series Corrected references in Table

Moons Are Planets: Scientific Usefulness Versus Cultural Teleology in the Taxonomy of Planetary Science

We argue that taxonomical concept development is vital for planetary science as in all branches of science, but its importance has been obscured by unique historical developments. The literature shows that the concept of planet developed by scientists during the Copernican Revolution was theory-laden and pragmatic for science. It included both primaries and satellites as planets due to their common intrinsic, geological characteristics. About two centuries later the non-scientific public had just adopted heliocentrism and was motivated to preserve elements of geocentrism including teleology and the assumptions of astrology. This motivated development of a folk concept of planet that contradicted the scientific view. The folk taxonomy was based on what an object orbits, making satellites out to be non-planets and ignoring most asteroids. Astronomers continued to keep primaries and moons classed together as planets and continued teaching that taxonomy until the 1920s. The astronomical community lost interest in planets ca. 1910 to 1955 and during that period complacently accepted the folk concept. Enough time has now elapsed so that modern astronomers forgot this history and rewrote it to claim that the folk taxonomy is the one that was created by the Copernican scientists. Starting ca. 1960 when spacecraft missions were developed to send back detailed new data, there was an explosion of publishing about planets including the satellites, leading to revival of the Copernican planet concept. We present evidence that taxonomical alignment with geological complexity is the most useful scientific taxonomy for planets. It is this complexity of both primary and secondary planets that is a key part of the chain of origins for life in the cosmos.Comment: 68 pages, 16 figures. For supplemental data files, see https://www.philipmetzger.com/moons_are_planets