Talk:List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System/Archive 1

Translation

this is a translation of de:Planet (tabelle)

2003 UB313

It is doubtful that this object will be named a planet. Instead, it is far likelier that what should have been done earlier, namely removing Pluto from the list of planets will occur. In any case, until the IAU decides that we have either added or lost a planet, this table should remain unchanged because of this discovery. Caerwine 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So why has Pluto already been removed? As of current, it's considered a planet. - Reed Braden 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can't seem to find any news of this in national newspapers, NASA.gov, IAU.org, etc. Shouldn't news of this magnitude be swarming all over the press? I thought the IAU meeting to redefine a planet and add/remove planets was today... this should be bigger than people are giving it credit for. Also, Ceres and Charon are on the list of planets under consideration. There were 12 others I'd never heard of before that were original candidates, but I guess they were too far to count as Solar System planets. This is deeply confusing. Why does nobody care? - Reed Braden 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A new planet

I heard there was a new planet that was discovered sometime ago. Nicknamed Xema it's about 10 billion miles away from the sun...anything on that?

It's nicknamed Xena. It has a moon, Gabrielle. These are just nicknames, however. The planet is 2003ub313. I heard there was an Internation Astronomy Union meeting today to discuss adding this to the canon of Solar sytem planets along with the "moon" of Pluto, Charon, and Ceres, another planet revolving around our system. Also, Pluto is - by definition - a planet. Why is it not in this table? Did someone remove it? Who gave them consent to remove this planet? - Reed Braden 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The IAU, apparently. They passed an amended resolution today. No new planets, and Pluto is officially demoted to dwarf planet. -- Shadowlynk 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ceres and Xena

If Pluto remains on this table, we should add Ceres and Xena, otherwise we should remove Pluto 132.205.93.19 02:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Ceres to the list, also listed as a dwarf planet. I have now also added 2003UB313 to the list (some boxes are left blankas the data is not availabe), I think the update tag can be removed now, does anyone disagree?

Keep It!(?)

For pedagogical purposes, I think that the distinct planets and dwarf planets would preferrably coexist peacefully (in the same table). I also think that the table should make the distinction clear, and that the title then should be Table of planets and dwarf planets in the solar system.

Just a reflection...

Said ... tomas.kindahl@comhem.se at CET09:49:45 25 aug -06.

I've restored the dwarf planet information. While I understand Seinfreak37's argument about the title, I still think that the information is much more useful when it is in one, easy-to-compare location - as opposed to being spread across two articles. I'm also proposing to move this article to Table of planets and dwarf planets in the solar system in a few days, if there is no objection. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Nightstallion (?) 09:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Table of Dwarf Planets

As the dwarf planets have been removed from this table, I there own article here. Should these 2 articles link to each other? User:Jebus0 8:35pm 26 August 2006 (EDT)

Sea Level?

Is it meaningful to talk about sea level for other bodies without seas? Would people object to replacing it with the term datum? --86.133.69.11 07:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the previous suggestion. Datum is more appropriate than sea level.

Smaller font-size...?

This is a wide table; anyone else think a smaller font-size (90%) plus maybe some blankspace reduction acceptable...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting into two tables

Recently, the table was split into two parts - planets and dwarf planets. While I respect UKPhoenix79's efforts, I have restored the combined version for one simple reason: it is much easier to compare data between all of the objects. If (and when) there are more dwarf planets, then it might be appropriate to consider splitting the list. However, for now, I think it is best as one unit. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch I spent a long time doing that :-( I would disagree for the simple reason that the table as it stands right now is too large and is quite cumbersome. It is a given that the list of dwarf planets will increase but that is not the reason for this edit, by separating them out it still allows for easy comparisons without the table being too large.

I have included the tables below so that they can be seen (and saved) or you can go to the original version in the pages history here.

Click here to see the separated Planets table

		Mercury	Venus	Earth	Mars	Jupiter	Saturn	Uranus	Neptune
Astronomical symbol
Mean distance from Sun	km AU	57,909,175 0.38709893	108,208,930 0.72333199	149,597,870 1	227,936,640 1.52366231	778,412,010 5.20336301	1,426,725,400 9.53707032	2,870,972,200 19.19126393	4,498,252,900 30.06896348
Mean radius	km :E	2,439.64 0.3825	6,051.59 0.9488	6,378.15 1	3,397.00 0.53226	71,492.68 11.209	60,267.14 9.449	25,557.25 4.007	24,766.36 3.883
Surface area	km² :E	75,000,000 0.1471	460,000,000 0.9010	510,000,000 1	140,000,000 0.2745	64,000,000,000 125.5	44,000,000,000 86.27	8,100,000,000 15.88	7,700,000,000 15.10
Volume	km3 :E	6.083×1010 0.056	9.28×1011 0.87	1.083×1012 1	1.6318×1011 0.151	1.431×1015 1,321.3	8.27×1014 763.59	6.834×1013 63.086	6.254×1013 57.74
Mass	kg :E	3.302×1023 0.055	4.8690×1024 0.815	5.9742×1024 1	6.4191×1023 0.107	1.8987×1027 318	5.6851×1026 95	8.6849×1025 14	1.0244×1026 17
Density	g/cm3	5.43	5.24	5.515	3.940	1.33	0.70	1.30	1.76
Equatorial gravity	m/s2	3.70	8.87	9.81	3.71	23.12	8.96	8.69	11.00
Escape velocity	km/s	4.25	10.36	11.18	5.02	59.54	35.49	21.29	23.71
Rotation period	days	58.646225	-243.0187	0.99726968	1.02595675	0.41354	0.44401	-0.71833	0.67125
Orbital period	years	0.2408467	0.61519726	1.0000174	1.8808476	11.862615	29.447498	84.016846	164.79132
Mean orbital speed	km/s	47.8725	35.0214	29.7859	24.1309	13.0697	9.6724	6.8352	5.4778
Eccentricity		0.20563069	0.00677323	0.01671022	0.09341233	0.04839266	0.05415060	0.04716771	0.00858587
Inclination	deg.	7.00487	3.39471	0.00005	1.85061	1.30530	2.48446	0.76986	1.76917
Axial tilt	deg.	0.0	177.3	23.45	25.19	3.12	26.73	97.86	29.58
Mean surface temp.	K	440	730	288-293	186-268	152
Mean air temp.	K			288		165	135	76	73
Atmospheric composition		He  Na+  P+	CO2  N2	N2  O2	CO2  N2  Ar	H2  He	H2  He	H2  He  CH4	H2  He  CH4
Number of moons		0	0	1	2	63	57	27	13
Rings?		No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Planetary discriminant		9.1×104	1.35×106	1.7×106	1.8×105	6.25×105	1.9×105	2.9×104	2.4×104

Click here to see separated Dwarf Planets table

		Ceres	Pluto	Eris
Astronomical symbol
Mean distance from Sun	km AU	413,715,000 2.766	5,906,376,200 39.48168677	10,210 million  67.6681
Mean radius	km :E	471 0.0738	1,148.07 0.180	1,200 0.19
Volume	km3 :E	2,800,000 0.0055	17,000,000 0.0333	18,000,000 0.0353
Surface area	km² :E	?×108 0.00042	7.15×109 0.0066	?×109 0.007
Mass	kg :E	9.5×1020 0.00016	1.3×1022 0.0022
Density	g/cm3	2.08	2.0
Equatorial gravity	m/s2	0.27	0.60
Escape velocity	km/s	0.51	1.2
Rotation period	days	0.3781	-6.38718
Orbital period	years	4.599	247.92065	557
Mean orbital speed	km/s	17.882	4.7490	3.436
Eccentricity		0.080	0.24880766	0.44177
Inclination	deg.	10.587	17.14175	44.187
Axial tilt	deg.	4	119.61
Mean surface temp.	K	167	40	30
Mean air temp.	K
Atmospheric composition			CH4
Number of moons		0	3	1
Rings?		No	No	No
Planetary discriminant		0.33	7.7×10−2	0.10

--UKPhoenix79 09:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm quickly reverting it back to the previous version to see if there is any other disagreement with the new format aside from Ckatz (hope you don't mind). This way we can at least bring others into the discussion. So if you could Ckatz please keep it this way for the moment so we can see if others disagree with this version :-) thanks! -- UKPhoenix79 03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eris

could we just fill in some of the boxes by using formulas to calculate the various values (such as density) ? 132.205.44.5 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Orbital period of the Earth

Orbital period of the Earth is shown as 1.0000174 years, however my dictionary, Australian Concise Oxford, defines a year as "the time occupied by the Earth in one revolution round the sun." I assume that is the generally accepted definition of a year so it follows that, irrespective of the frame of reference, by definition the orbital period of the Earth is one year exactly. John L Ryan 13:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out Sidereal year versus tropical year - I agree, it probably could use a minor rejig to clarify where the number comes from. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Inclination of Earth

It makes no sense that the inclination of the Earth is non-zero. After all, the ecliptic defines the inclination of other planets. Where is this value of 0.00005 from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.54.122 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

References

It is not proper to reference Wikipedia articles, is it? Jecowa (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Attributes of the largest solar system bodies

There doesn't seem to be any need for two sets of tables on the objects in our Solar System, and this one seems far more detailed and better organised than the one above. I think merging the info on the ten largest minor planets (excluding dwarf planets) and the ten largest moons would be a good idea. Serendi^podous 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is better to add the 7 largest moons into this article (as a separate table) and delete Attributes of the largest solar system bodies article. Ruslik (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, we should keep this article and make a separate table for the moons. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just performed a very crude merge. It will be a while before I get the hang of the layout. I replaced the four dwarf planets with the largest SSSBs. And I would also suggest moving the page to Table of the largest objects in the Solar System. Serendi^podous 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with List of planetary bodies

If we could get pictures into this article, there wouldn't be much need for that one. Serendi^podous 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The other article has, at least in theory, a definite criterion for inclusion. This one seems to be quite arbitrary. Peter jackson (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is that criterion? I can't see one. If it's roundness, then they're about 40 objects short.Serendi^podous 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The criterion is roundness, in principle, but it's applied inconsistently, I think. Dwarf planets are listed on the basis of official IAU recognition, which I imagine doesn't exist for satellites. I think there should be a section for uncertain objects. Peter jackson (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Serendi^podous What you did is a pure nonsence. Please refrain from such destructive edits. If you want to delete article, use AFD procedure.--Dojarca (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it was "pure nonsence", and AFD is not for discussing redirects. Ruslik (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Legend is inaccessible

An exclusively colour-based legend, such as those used here, is of no use to someone who is colour-blind; using a monochrome monitor; viewing a monochrome print-put; or using a non-visual device such as a text reader or Braille device. Please consider the additional use of text labels or characters such as daggers (†) or card-suits (♠♣♥♦). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There would need to be ten different symbols. Are there ten different symbols? Serendi^podous 08:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes; not least this set: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be too easily confused with refs and exponents.Serendi^podous 10:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest the use of an alternative set of symbols, or, as suggested above, text labels. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This was your idea. Please come up with some alternatives. You obviously have a far better idea of what symbols exist and where to find them than I do, so if you could just find five more, that would be appreciated. Serendi^podous 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As listed below the text-box where you edit this page:

Symbols: ~ | ¡ ¿ † ‡ ↔ ↑ ↓ • ¶ # ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ∞ ‘ “ ’ ” «» ¤ ₳ ฿ ₵ ¢ ₡ ₢ $ ₫ ₯ € ₠ ₣ ƒ ₴ ₭ ₤ ℳ ₥ ₦ № ₧ ₰ £ ៛ ₨ ₪ ৳ ₮ ₩ ¥ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ m² m³

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There. Serendi^podous 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

awkward title

change the object to atronomical bodies or simply bodies. Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That title would include every speck of dust in the Solar System. This list is limited strictly to those objects that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. I know "spherical" isn't entirely accurate, but "List of hydrostatically equilibirial objects in the Solar System" would be even more awkward. Serendi^podous 05:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant "List of spherical astronomical bodies in the Solar System". Also, why isn't Vesta here? Nergaal (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll do the move. As for Vesta, it doesn't even make the top 30 SSSBs. Serendi^podous 08:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "List of large spherical bodies in the Solar System"? "Astronomical" seems redundant when talking about the solar system. The article can say that large in this context means large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium.--agr (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid me doing a "Duck Season-no-rabbit-season-no-duck-season" on the redirects, I think it might be best if we have a vote on this. Serendi^podous 10:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What next?

There are two main considerations I have for this article's future. First, we need to decide whether to have the attributes listed along the side, as now, or along the top, as suggested during the AfD. Along the top would allow the list to be made sortable, as well as allow the moons to be combined into a single table. However, it might make the article too wide. The second issue is referencing. I do not really understand the standards used to determine a well-referenced list, but if this list were given the full treatment of a regular article, then between 200 and 400 refs would be required. Also, many of the infoboxes from which this information was taken appear to have no references for much of their information, so that will have to be tracked down. Serendi^podous 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merged from List of planetary bodies

I've merged information from List of planetary bodies which has been suggested to merge into this article, since some people agreed that horizontal layout better represents the structure of Solar System and better for search. I think no harn is to add another table in this article which also contains a number of tables. --Dojarca (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If this article is to be shifted to a horizontal layout, then it will be done with the tables already here, not from adding a table that merely repeats information already in the article. In the long run, if this article is listed horizontally, it may become sortable, which means that it probably could be merged with List of Solar System objects by mass, List of Solar System objects by radius and List of Solar System objects by surface gravity, but such a merge will take weeks, if not months, to complete. This is not and was never intended to be the end of this project. Serendi^podous 09:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ling.Nut has done a prototype of a horizontally aligned table. It is simply too wide to be practical. I think it's best if we leave it as is. Serendi^podous 09:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I got the table entries transposed in case anybody needs them. The too wide part: at the dwarf planet page I found it useful to split orbital and physical characteristics. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

test

this is the very raw data from transposing the tables that are now in the page. These tables should be easily sortable. Some work is still required due to some small glitches in the entries. I hope it helps. Nergaal (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

'

'

Astronomical symbol

Mean distance

from Galactic center

Mean radius

'

Surface area

'

Volume

'

Mass

'

Density

Equatorial gravity

Escape velocity

Rotation period

Orbital period about Galactic center

Mean orbital speed

Axial tilt[4] to the ecliptic

Axial tilt[4] to the galactic plane

Mean surface temp.

Mean coronal temp.

Photospheric composition

km

light years

km

:E[2]

km²

:E[2]

km3

:E[2]

kg

:E[2]

g/cm3

m/s2

km/s

days[3]

years

km/s

deg.

deg.

K

K

Sun

~2.5×1017

~26,000

696,000

109

6.0877×1018

11,990

1.4122×1027

1,300,000

1.9891×1030

332,946

1.141

274

617.7

25.38

2.25–2.50×108

~2.20×105

7.25

67.23

5,778

~5×106

H, He, O, C, Fe, S

'	'	Astronomical symbol	Mean distance	from Sun	Mean radius	'	Surface area	'	Volume	'	Mass	'	Density	Equatorial gravity	Escape velocity	Rotation period	Orbital period	Mean orbital speed	Eccentricity	Inclination	Axial tilt[4]	Mean surface temp.	Mean air temp.[7]	Atmospheric composition	Number of known moons	Rings?	Planetary discriminant[8]
			km	AU	km	:E[2]	km²	:E[2]	km3	:E[2]	kg	:E[2]	g/cm3	m/s2	km/s	days[3]	years[3]	km/s		deg.	deg.	K	K
¿ Mercury			57,909,175	0.38709893	2,439.64	0.3825	75,000,000	0.1471	6.083×1010	0.056	3.302×1023	0.055	5.43	3.7	4.25	58.646225	0.2408467	47.8725	0.20563069	7.00487	0	440		He Na+ P+	0	No	9.1×104
¿ Venus			108,208,930	0.72333199	6,051.59	0.9488	460,000,000	0.901	9.28×1011	0.87	4.8690×1024	0.815	5.24	8.87	10.36	-243.0187[5]	0.61519726	35.0214	0.00677323	3.39471	177.3	730		CO2 N2	0	No	1.35×106
¿ Earth			149,597,870	1	6,378.15	1	510,000,000	1	1.083×1012	1	5.9742×1024	1	5.515	9.81	11.18	0.99726968	1.0000174	29.7859	0.01671022	0.00005	23.45	288-293	288	N2 O2	1	No	1.7×106
¿ Mars			227,936,640	1.52366231	3,397.00	0.53226	140,000,000	0.2745	1.6318×1011	0.151	6.4191×1023	0.107	3.94	3.71	5.02	1.02595675	1.8808476	24.1309	0.09341233	1.85061	25.19	186-268		CO2 N2 Ar	2	No	1.8×105
†Jupiter			778,412,010	5.20336301	71,492.68	11.209	64,000,000,000	125.5	1.431×1015	1,321.30	1.8987×1027	318	1.33	23.12	59.54	0.41354	11.862615	13.0697	0.04839266	1.3053	3.12	152	165	H2 He	63	Yes	6.25×105
†Saturn			1,426,725,400	9.53707032	60,267.14	9.449	44,000,000,000	86.27	8.27×1014	763.59	5.6851×1026	95	0.7	8.96	35.49	0.44401	29.447498	9.6724	0.0541506	2.48446	26.73	134 [6]	135	H2 He	60	Yes	1.9×105
†Uranus			2,870,972,200	19.19126393	25,557.25	4.007	8,100,000,000	15.88	6.834×1013	63.086	8.6849×1025	14	1.3	8.69	21.29	-0.71833[5]	84.016846	6.8352	0.04716771	0.76986	97.86	76 [6]	76	H2 He CH4	27	Yes	2.9×104
†Neptune			4,498,252,900	30.06896348	24,766.36	3.883	7,700,000,000	15.1	6.254×1013	57.74	1.0244×1026	17	1.76	11	23.71	0.67125	164.79132	5.4778	0.00858587	1.76917	29.58	72 [6]	73	H2 He CH4	13	Yes	2.4×104

'	'	Astronomical symbol	Mean distance	from primary:	Mean radius	'	Surface area	'	Volume	'	Mass	'	Density	Equatorial gravity	Escape velocity	Rotation period	'	Orbital period about primary	Mean orbital speed	Eccentricity	Inclination to primary\'s equator	Axial tilt to orbital plane	Mean surface temp.	Atmospheric composition	Rings?
			km		km	:E[2]	km²	:E[2]	km3	:E[2]	kg	:E[2]	g/cm3	m/s2	km/s	days[3]		days	km/s		deg.	deg.	K
€ Moon			384,399		1,737.10	0.273	37,930,000	0.074	2.2×1010	0.02	7.3477×1022	0.0123	3.3464	1.622	2.38	27.321582	(sync)[11]	27.32158	1.022	0.0549	18.29–28.58	6.687	220	H He Na+ K+ Ar	No
₤ Io			421,700		1,821.30	0.286	41,910,000	0.082	2.53×1010	0.02	8.9319×1022	0.015	3.528	1.796	2.56	1.7691378	(sync)	1.769138	17.334	0.0041	0.05	0	130	SO2	No
₤ Europa			670,900		1,569	0.245	30,900,000	0.061	1.59×1010	0.07	4.80×1022	0.008	3.01	1.314	2.025	3.551181	(sync)	3.551181	13.74	0.009	0.47	0.1	102	O2	No
₤ Ganymede			1,070,400		2634.1	0.413	87,000,000	0.143	7.6×1010	0.15	1.4819×1023	0.025	1.936	1.428	2.741	7.154553	(sync)	7.154553	10.88	0.0013	1.85	0–0.33	110	O2	No
₤ Callisto			1,882,700		2410.3	0.378	73,000,000	0.143	5.9×1010	0.05	1.0758×1023	0.018	1.83	1.235	2.44	16.68902	(sync)	16.68902	8.204	0.0074	0.2	0	134	O2 CO2	No
$ Mimas			185,520		198.3	0.031	490,000	0.0001[10]	3.3×107	0.00003	3.75×1019	0.000006	1.15	0.0636	0.159	0.942422	(sync)	0.942422	14.32[12]	0.0202	1.51	0	64		No
$ Enceladus			237,948		252.1	0.04	799,000	0.0016[10]	6.7×107	0.00006	1.08×1020	0.000018	1.61	0.111	0.239	1.370218	(sync)	1.370218	12.63[12]	0.0047	0.02	0	75	H2O, N2, CO2, CH4	No
$ Tethys			294,619		533	0.083	4,940,000	0.001[10]	6.3×108	0.0006	1.0244×1020	0.000017	1.15	0.064	0.159	0.942422	(sync)	1.887 802	11.35[12]	0.02	1.51	0	64		No
$ Dione			377,396		561.7	0.088	3,965,000	0.0078[10]	7.4×108	0.0007	1.095×1021	0.0003	1.48	0.231	0.51	2.736915	(sync)	2.736915	10.03[12]	0.002	0.019	0	87		No
$ Rhea			527,108		764.3	0.12	7,337,000	0.0144[10]	1.9 ×109	0.0017	2.306×1021	0.0004	1.23	0.264	0.635	4.518212	(sync)	4.518212	8.48[12]	0.001	0.345	0	76		Yes
$ Titan		1,221,870		2,576	0.404	83,000,000	0.163	7.16×1010	0.066	1.3452×1023	0.023	1.88	1.35	2.64	15.945	(sync)	15.945		5.57[12]	0.0288	18.29–28.58	0	93.7	N2, CH4
$ Iapetus		3,560,820		735.6	0.115	6,700,000	0.013	1.67×109	0.0015	1.8053×1021	0.0003	1.08	0.22	0.57	79.322	(sync)	79.322		3.265[12]	0.0286	0.34854	0	130
₩ Miranda		129,390		235.8	0.037	700,000	0.0014	5.5×107	0.00005	6.59×1019	0.00001	1.2	0.08	0.19	1.414	(sync)	1.4135		6.657[12]	0.0013	15.47	0	59
₩ Ariel		190,900		578.9	0.091	4,211,300	0.008	8.1×108	0.0008	1.35×1021	0.00022	1.67	0.27	0.56	2.52	(sync)	2.52		5.50898[12]	0.0012	4.2	0?	58
₩ Umbriel		266,000		584.7	0.092	4,296,000	0.008	8.4×108	0.0008	1.2×1021	0.0002	1.4	0.23	0.52	4.144	(sync)	4.144		4.66797[12]	0.005[15]	0.26	0	61
₩ Titania		436,300		788.9	0.124	7,820,000	0.015	2.06×109	0.0019	3.5×1021	0.0006	1.72	0.39	0.77	8.706	(sync)	8.706		3.644[12]	0.0011	0.36[15]	0	60
₩ Oberon		583,519		761.4	0.119	7,285,000	0.014	1.85×109	0.0017	3.014×1021	0.00046	1.63	0.35	0.73	13.46	(sync)	13.46		3.152[12]	0.0014	0.34	0?	61
₫ Proteus		117,647		210	0.033	554,000	0.001[13]	3.4×107	0.00003	8×1017	0.0000001?	0.02?	0.06	0.16	1.122	(sync)	1.122		7.623[12]	0.0005	0.52	0	51
₫ Triton		354,759		1353.4	0.212	23,018,000	0.045	1×1010	0.00958	2.14×1022	0.00358	2.061	0.78	1.46	5.877	(sync)	5.877	(retro)[14]	4.39[12]	0.00002	157	0	38	N2, CH4
¶ Charon		17,536		603.5	0.095	4,580,000	0.009	9.2×108	0.00085	1.52×1021	0.00025	1.65	0.28	0.58	6.387	(sync)	6.387		0.2[12]	0.0022	0?		53

'	'	Semi-major axis	'	'	'	'	'	Mean radius	'	Surface area	'	Volume	'	Mass	'	Density	Equatorial gravity	Escape velocity	Rotation period	Orbital period	Mean orbital speed	Eccentricity	Inclination	Mean surface temp.	Number of known moons	Planetary discriminant[8]
		km					AU	km	:E[2]	km²	:E[2]	km3	:E[2]	kg	:E[2]	g/cm3	m/s2	km/s	days[3]	years[3]	km/s		deg.	K
♠90482 Orcus		5,896,946,000	39.419					473	0.0742	2,812,000	0.0055	443,506,000	0.0004	6.2×1020	0.0001	1.5	0.2	~0.44	0.55	247.492	4.68	0.22552	0.22552	~45	1	0.003
♠28978 Ixion		5,935,999,000	39.68					411	0.0644	2,122,000	0.00415	290,689,000	0.0002	6×1020	0.0001	2	0.23	<0.4346?	?	249.95	4.66	0.242	19.584	~44	?	0.003
♠(55637) 2002 UX25		6,212,804,940	41.53					~325	0.051	1,327,000	0.0026	143,793,000	0.0001	8×1020	0.00013	2	0.25	0.4811	0.6–0.7	277.31	4.54	0.142	19.482	~43	1	0.003
♠2002 MS4		6,268,156,200	41.9					~363	0.057	1,655,900	0.0032	200,358,829	0.0001	~1.3×1020	0.00001	2	0.12–0.33	0.22–0.63	?	271.48	4.58	0.139	17.667	~43	?	0.003
♠(145452) 2005 RN43		6,362,402,940	42.53					~365	0.057	1,674,000	0.0033	203,689,000	0.0001	?		?	?	?	?	267.6	4.63	0.023	19.3		?	0.003
♠20000 Varuna		6,451,398,000	43.13					294	0.0462	1,091,000	0.00214	107,217,000	0.0001	2.65×1020	0.00004	2	0.39	0.39	0.13216	283.2	4.53	0.051	17.2	~43–41	?	0.0013
♠(55636) 2002 TX300		6,453,572,000	43.14					437	0.0685	2,399,000	0.00469	349,420,000	0.0003	5.9×1020	0.0001	1	0.15–0.20	0.28–0.37?	0.33 or 0.66	283.35	4.52	0.124	25.856	<41	?	0.003
♠50000 Quaoar		6,493,296,000	43.6					625	0.098	4,906,000	0.0096	1,022,217,000	0.0009	2×1021	0.0003	2.6–3.3	0.28–0.38	0.276-0.376	?	287.97	4.52	0.0384	7.988	~43	1	0.01
♠(55565) 2002 AW197		7,073,647,000	47.28					350	0.055	1,359,000	0.003	179,518,000	0.0001	5.2×1020	0.00009	2	0.22	0.2216?	?	325.15	4.31	0.132	24.41	~39–40	?	0.003
♠90377 Sedna		78,668,000,000	525.86					745	0.0117	6,971,000	0.0136	1,731,298,000	0.0016	3 ×1021	5	2	0.33–0.50	0.62-0.95	0.42	12,059.06	1.04	0.855	11.934	<33	?	?

move

I moved the article from 'spherical bodies', since they're not spherical, and removed Proteus from the table, since someone scanning the list would likely conclude that it's in equilibrium too. kwami (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have preferred a vote, because everyone and his brother seems to have some idea of what to call this page. Proteus is an illustration of why nature can't be easily categorised. If Mimas is on the list, then Proteus, which is larger, should also be on the list. Serendi^podous 07:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I had originally just added a move suggestion, but then went ahead and moved it, because the old title was clearly wrong, and I didn't foresee any controversy. (We could call them 'ellipsoidal bodies', I guess, but then the question is why? Equilibrium feeds into the DP def., whereas ellipsoidal appears arbitrary except through its connection to equilibrium.) As for Proteus, I disagree. This isn't a list of bodies over a certain size, but of bodies that fit a certain physical description, and Proteus doesn't fit. It is of course important to mention Proteus in the text... Unless we want this to be a 'list of bodies larger than Mimas'. kwami (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit pedantic; obviously "spherical" does not mean spherical, because true spheres don't exist. When someone uses the term "spherical" it means "as close to a sphere as is reasonably expected." I don't think anyone looking at those moons would describe them as "ellipsoid". Serendi^podous 08:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't as close as can be reasonably expected. It's not just that there are ridges and craters, but that the ideal hydrostatic shape itself is not spherical or even spheroidal. I don't think that we should give three significantly different diameters for a scalene body and then say it's a "sphere". (You say 'obviously "spherical" does not mean spherical', but I expect many of our readers would be surprised by that.) Your term "round" is fine, though, because it's vague. kwami (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

# of known moons

should be "0" not "?" since the number is actually zero. Nergaal (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a difference between having no moons and having no known moons. Venus and Mercury have no moons, so they get 0. However, others have no KNOWN moons, so they should get some other signifier, otherwise people might think they have no moons. Serendi^podous 12:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What remains

This article is almost finished, but three issues remain.

• The axial tilts of the natural satellites need to be verified.

• Nergaal's calculation for the surface area of Haumea needs to be certified and worked out

Weirdly, when I used another formula in the web I got about 4.9 mil sqkm instead of 6.8. Nergaal (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• The surface temperatures of the dwarf planets and satellites need to be checked (Eris and Makemake are unlikely to have exactly the same surface temp., and Haumea really could use a better temperature estimate than the one it has)

Unfortunately, I am not qualified to do any of those things, so I will have to rely on the generosity of others to complete this article. So, in advance, may I thank you all for your kind assistance. Serendi^podous 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Temperatures of Eris and Makemake are differently defined. For Makemake it is the current temperature at the distance 52 AU from the Sun. For the Eris it is the average temperature (at the distance equal to the semi-major axis—67 AU). Also Eris reflects more light than Makemake. So, I think, it is reasonable to specify the intervals of min-max temperature. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Also, the note labels need to be fixed. In the bottom section there are 3 a's for example. Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The notes are OK in the edit window, but because they are divided into three sections they repeat themselves on the page. Serendi^podous 20:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There IS an easy way to solve this: now you used notes label of the type {{Ref_label|F|'''f'''|none}}. The uncapitalized f is what appears in the text. So if you replace it with say asad, in the text it will appear as "asad". Nergaal (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not the lower case letter that affects what is seen on the screen. If I got rid of all of the note subeadings and simply made the notes a single list instead of a group of lists, then the notes would correspond letter to letter (though they wouldn't be in alphabetical order). The reason the text repeats letters is because the note bot sees each subheading as a new list. I have to say I really don't see what the problem is. I like the subheadings, and each ref goes to the correct note; it doesn't really matter how they're lettered. Serendi^podous 14:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This might help determining the moons' axial tilts if I could decipher it. Serendi^podous 22:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclination of the orbit of the Earth

It is unclear to me why the inclination of the orbit of the Earth is not exactly zero. Bo Jacoby (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Well, the citation says zero, I suppose it should say sero. Serendi^podous 14:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)