Should Pluto keep its status as being a planet?

Question

Pluto was discovered in February 1930 and held the status of being a planet. The status could change as astronmers try to re-define what a planet is. What do you think?

Answer 1

I am an amateur astronomer for 20 years. I have also discussed this subject with other amateur and professional astronomers in the past .

It have been known for decades that at some point Plutos position of a planet would be in Jeopardy. It was going to happen when another Pluto size object was found in the Kuiper belt. Pluto is a Trans-Neptunian object (TNO) in the Kupier Belt. For years astronomers have known this, it has just kept planethood because no others were know. Yet we all knew that it was just a matter of time. So Pluto is has it has been known by professional and amateur astronomers for years a TNO.

Pluto is different then other planets in quite a few ways. First Pluto is on in inclination to the planetary plane. That is high compared to the “real” planets. The other 8 planets lie on roughly a plane as you compare their orbits around the sun. Pluto is inclined on this plane by about 16 degrees. Pluto also have a very eccentric orbit, it is such an ellipse that it is closer to the sun for a short period of it orbit (this is many years) then Neptune it this is the reason why it’s a “trans-Neptunian “ object and not just a Kuiper belt object. Also Pluto is very small, when compared to all other planets then Mercury. Had Pluto been found to be a planet on size alone the argument might have been made that out own moon “Luna” is also a planet as the moon orbit’s the sun and not the earth, we only put a small scallop in it’s orbit so tha at some points it’s close the to the sun then the Earth and at other points it farther. Because of Plutos Size, orbit outside the planetary plane, and eccentric orbit Pluto has always been an “odd ball” planet. If Pluto had been found to be a planet along with all the other several hundred predicted objects yet to be found similar to Pluto, we would probably have to make a sub group of planets that describe the first 8 as they do have additional charticersiats that make the similar that other Kuiper belt and Trans-Neptunian objects don’t have.

I have always thought the professional astronomers who wanted Pluto and other Trans-Neptunian objects to be classified as plants all had a desire or at least the opportunity to discover a new planet. As defined now the chances of a new planets being discovered are very remote.

Answer 2

"If we could find a definition to include Pluto would that mean there are some asteroids and comets that we would have to say are planets too?? " That is the problem. There are several objects we know of that would fit a planet definition if Pluto fit the definition. There are four known dwarf planets- Ceres, Pluto, Makemake and Eris. Eris is more massive than Pluto. Many more “dwarf planets” are likely to be discovered soon. It is suspected that at least another 41 discovered objects in the Solar System might belong in this category.

Answer 3

Well, it was or less defined as a planet before anyone knew how big it was or even that it had a moon, so in my opinion it's better to take the time and effort to fix a mistake as soon as possible. Not that this is soon, but...

Let this be a reminder to people from UK and US - it's not funny anymore - stop being on the wrong side of the road and messing about with units that aren't logical or anything. I mean - what is a cubic feet? lol!

Answer 4

I think it should be. Since 1930 the children of the world have been taught that Pluto is a planet-- why change it now?

Answer 5

quite frankly, it shouldnet be a planet. There are many other objects in the Kuniper Belt that are as big if not bigger than Pluto. Pluto should be part of this belt, and not a planet.

Answer 6

no, the international astronomical union defined three terms "planet", "dwarf planet", and "small solar system body". this does not change anything about the solar system or pluto. it just corrects the mistake of classifying pluto as a planet initially. i actually feel somewhat vindicated. i have known since i was about twelve that pluto did not have the physical and orbital characteristics of the major bodies in the solar system. later, after the discovery of hundreds of similar bodies in similar orbits, i knew this was inevitable.

(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

(2) A dwarf planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

because pluto orbits the sun, is round, orbits the sun with a bunch of other similar bodies with similar orbits, and is not a satellite it is a dwarf planet.

look here:
http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html

Answer 7

It’s my opinion that just because we have been calling Pluto a planet (incorrectly) that doesn’t justify to continue calling it one. If something is inconsistent then let’s get it fixed. We used to use lead paint... that doesn’t mean we should continue using it just because it was popular 20 years ago :P

Answer 8

SO, LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT......

THE ENTIRE TIME, WE WERE BEING TAUGHT THAT PLUTO WAS A PLANET, AND NOW IT IS NOT? SO NOW ALL OF THE TEXT BOOKS HAVE TO BE CORRECTED, I WONDER HOW MANY MORE MISTAKES WERE MADE.

Answer 9

I think it should still be a planet. Mickey and Minnie would be much happier.

Answer 10

i think it should its been a planet all these years why change it now!