1994 CC

[bellinghman]

the moons are at least 50 meters in diameter

I'm sorry, my mental image of what a moon should be does imply something a little bit larger than that. Given that the term 'planet' now has certain size restrictions, could we also have size restrictions on moons? Like, at least an order of magnitude larger than the ISS?

(Yes, I know that 'at least 50 meters' could include stuff a lot larger, but in this case, the primary is only 700m in diameter, and the satellites are unlikely to be over 100m diameter.)

Comments

[jon-a-five.livejournal.com]

"There is no accepted definition,"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_definition_040103.html

Personally I'd say if you can stand on it, it's a moon :-)

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

A good link. Though the fact it's talking about the difficulties with objects a mere km in diameter means that 1994 CC's satellites (a order of magnitude smaller) are really stretching things.

And you certainly can't stand on something only 50m in diameter. You can stick yourself to it, but something with an escape velocity of ~10 cm per second isn't going to hold onto you well enough for you to stay attached.

(Escape velocity there guessed - I'm making all sorts of assumptions about density and the like.)

[happydisciple.livejournal.com]

ObStarWars/B3ta:

That's no moon.