Timeline for If there's nothing special about Pluto, why was it discovered so early?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2015 at 10:32 | comment | added | Hobbes | Edited to clarify my point. | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 10:32 | history | edited | Hobbes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved section on early KBO search
|
| Sep 7, 2015 at 9:47 | comment | added | Potatoswatter | … An odd sentiment for a scientist to express, especially considering that the enabling technology was still new. However, it seems to show that the research direction was considered fairly obscure at the time and, although the problem hadn't been sitting neglected by computer-savvy astronomers for many years, nobody was in immediate competition. | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 9:40 | comment | added | Potatoswatter | Then your meaning is a little unclear. The Kuiper Belt was hypothesized for various reasons since the early 20th century and named in 1951, according to that article. The discovery of Pluto and of the Centaurs were each additional evidence. But it doesn't follow that "people were looking for KBOs." As you said, the late 20th century is when computerized image processing made searching feasible. As Wikipedia details, In 1987, astronomer David Jewitt…, became… puzzled by "…emptiness of the outer Solar System". He encouraged… Jane Luu… to locate another object… "If we don't, nobody will." | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 9:17 | comment | added | Hobbes | No, I meant to link to the History section of the Kuiper Belt article. | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 9:17 | history | edited | Hobbes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
changed link
|
| Sep 7, 2015 at 9:04 | comment | added | Potatoswatter | You might have meant to link to Centaurs, which include Chiron. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 18:04 | history | answered | Hobbes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |