Talk:Protoplanet

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

A bit into the first section it says "According to the Chamberlin–Moulton planetesimal hypothesis and the theories of Viktor Safronov, a protoplanetary disk of materials such as gas and dust would orbit a star early in the formation of a planetary system." I'm confused by the mention of the Chamberlin-Moulton hypothesis as when you look at that page, it seems it is no longer the accepted theory. Wouldn't it be better to cut the mentions of it entirely? Makemathpagesgood! (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Are protoplanets also dwarf planets? 198.151.130.31 (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would seem so. Internal differentiation would imply hydrostatic equilibrium. But the context is different: formation of the Solar system vs. current geology.

Hm, I take that back. You could perhaps have partial differention without full equilibrium. Also, what about a case like Vesta, which was (presumably) once in equilibrium, but no longer is? It's a protoplanet, but is it a DP? — kwami (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Going out on a limb, I would say all dwarf planets are proto-planets, but not all proto-planets are dwarf planets?! -- Kheider (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do we even know enough to say? The current definition of pp's would probably make them all dp's, but the current definition does not include Ceres. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Vesta and Pallas are proto-planets, but not accepted as dwarf planets. I will be very curious to see what we learn of Vesta's interior and crust. -- Kheider (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The definition of a 'protoplanet' gives a size and mass range much larger than the Main-Belt protoplanets given as examples. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Planetary embryoPlanetary embryo redirects here. According to this report, Mars is a planetary embryo. Should it be mentioned here? 65.94.44.141 (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it should. What is a protoplanet might be in flux, but somebody said that "Mars is different, it is a protoplanet". Or maybe an "oligarch". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 23:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Space.Com: Mars Formed Fast in Massive Early Growth Spurt says

These findings suggest that Mars was a protoplanet that escaped merging with its siblings.

and still is, of course. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

With so much Fe-Ni on the surface, it seems pretty likely that 9 Metis is also the core of a disrupted protoplanet like 16 Psyche. Its article at least appears to say so. Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, added Metis (sourced). Double sharp (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply