MENT OF ASTRONOMY
Telephone (505) 646-4438
January 10, 1979
"'Ue*^
Dr. Thomas C. Van Flandern
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, D.C. 20390
Dear Dr. Flandern:
I have the paper co-authored with Dr. R.S. Harrington, "A Dynamical Study
of Escaped Satellites of Neptune."
I found your paper most interesting. The celestial mechanics seems plausible.
Sorry to be so late with my comments.
For many years, I have felt that Pluto was the result of one of two possible
sources of origin: 1) Either Pluto was a captured interstellar tramp which
chanced to come too close to Neptune, which slowed its speed and allowed Pluto
to be captured by the sun; or: 2) That Pluto may have been a satellite of
Neptune originally and was hurled outward by the gravitational effect of a
close encounter with an interstellar tramp of several Earth-masses. Why should
the disturber have been a massive trans-Neptunian planet? If the latter were
true, I should have picked up the disturber in my extensive planet search.
I would certainly agree with the points you make in botton of page 4 and top
of page 5.
The orbital elements of Triton and Nereid strongly suggest that something
catastrophic happened to Neptune's system. Pluto's orbital elements certainly
bear an interesting relationship with Neptune. As you say, perhaps Kowal's
Chiron was involved, and Pluto got split in two during the encounter.
But, I am convinced that the massive disturbing body has long left the scene
back into the depths of interstellar space. I base this on the strength of my
extensive trans-Neptunian search which did not reveal anymore such bodies. See
Chapter 2 in vol. Ill "Planets and Satellites" edited by Kuiper and Middlehurst
and published by the University of Chicago Press in 1961, for a summary of my
planet search. Now with the low density and mass, Pluto gets more and more
interesting.
Thank you for sending to me a copy of your paper.
Sincerely,
Clyde W. Tombaugh \
Professor of Astronomy Emeritus
Harrington, Robert S.; Kuiper, Gerard P. (Gerard Peter), 1905-1973. Planets and satellites
Date Original
1979-01-10
Digital Publisher
New Mexico State University Library
Collection
NMSU Department of Astronomy: Clyde W. Tombaugh Papers
Digital Identifier
Ms0407pp091010_0010001.tif
Source
Scan produced from physical item held by the NMSU Library Archives & Special Collections Department
Type
Text
Format
image/tiff
Language
eng
OCR
MENT OF ASTRONOMY
Telephone (505) 646-4438
January 10, 1979
"'Ue*^
Dr. Thomas C. Van Flandern
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, D.C. 20390
Dear Dr. Flandern:
I have the paper co-authored with Dr. R.S. Harrington, "A Dynamical Study
of Escaped Satellites of Neptune."
I found your paper most interesting. The celestial mechanics seems plausible.
Sorry to be so late with my comments.
For many years, I have felt that Pluto was the result of one of two possible
sources of origin: 1) Either Pluto was a captured interstellar tramp which
chanced to come too close to Neptune, which slowed its speed and allowed Pluto
to be captured by the sun; or: 2) That Pluto may have been a satellite of
Neptune originally and was hurled outward by the gravitational effect of a
close encounter with an interstellar tramp of several Earth-masses. Why should
the disturber have been a massive trans-Neptunian planet? If the latter were
true, I should have picked up the disturber in my extensive planet search.
I would certainly agree with the points you make in botton of page 4 and top
of page 5.
The orbital elements of Triton and Nereid strongly suggest that something
catastrophic happened to Neptune's system. Pluto's orbital elements certainly
bear an interesting relationship with Neptune. As you say, perhaps Kowal's
Chiron was involved, and Pluto got split in two during the encounter.
But, I am convinced that the massive disturbing body has long left the scene
back into the depths of interstellar space. I base this on the strength of my
extensive trans-Neptunian search which did not reveal anymore such bodies. See
Chapter 2 in vol. Ill "Planets and Satellites" edited by Kuiper and Middlehurst
and published by the University of Chicago Press in 1961, for a summary of my
planet search. Now with the low density and mass, Pluto gets more and more
interesting.
Thank you for sending to me a copy of your paper.
Sincerely,
Clyde W. Tombaugh \
Professor of Astronomy Emeritus
