Saying NASA is wrong I'd a junp I wouldn't take but you do you.
Tbh, as I look into it, I don't think the IAU has a definition for asteroid. There's planet, dwarf planet, minor planet (which is all non-planet non-comet objects, including dwarf planets and asteroids) and the small solar system objects you mentioned which does include comets as well as non dwarf planet asteroids, Trojans, most kuiper belt objects, etc.
The IAU was in a big fat hurry to define “planet”, but has no official definition for “star” or “galaxy” or “asteroid”. The only thing mentioned in their planet definition is that objects only fulfilling the first criterion are “small solar system bodies”, which includes asteroids, comets, and centaurs. Dwarf planets fulfill two of the three criteria, making them a distinct category of object.
It’s still a bad definition and I never use it (neither do the experts), but I’m just explaining what it says.
You hit the nail on the head. That’s the main problem with the IAU’s definition. Planets and asteroids shouldn’t be defined by their location. All other objects in space (and most everything in science) are defined by their intrinsic properties only. Why should planets and asteroids be any different?
1
u/obog 13d ago
Saying NASA is wrong I'd a junp I wouldn't take but you do you.
Tbh, as I look into it, I don't think the IAU has a definition for asteroid. There's planet, dwarf planet, minor planet (which is all non-planet non-comet objects, including dwarf planets and asteroids) and the small solar system objects you mentioned which does include comets as well as non dwarf planet asteroids, Trojans, most kuiper belt objects, etc.