why is pluto no longer considered as the smallest planet?
2007-02-04 19:12:02 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Trivia
Sorry, didn't state it clearly. I mean why recently they said that actually Mercury's considered the smallest planet now, not pluto?
2007-02-04 20:05:01 · update #1
Poor Pluto, it recently got scrubbed from the official names of planets, which now makes Mercury the smallest.
Apparently, there's a handful of plutonian size rocks circling the sun and 'they' decided that Pluto didn't fit their qualifications as a planet anymore.
Read section in wikilink below towards the bottom.
2007-02-04 23:38:10 · answer #1 · answered by greebyc 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are two links I think might help. Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930. It's by far the smallest planet and orbits the sun 1 time for every 248 years. The moon of Pluto which is called Charon is actuallly bigger than it.
It's not just the size, it may be also the properties of Pluto that are lacking in all the other planets and there is speculation that Pluto broke off from Neptune. There's even another "dwarf" planet even further than Neptune or Charon that is temporarily being named UB313.
I think NASA is still figuring it out based on what is a definition of a planet. Check out these links.
2007-02-04 19:33:13 · answer #2 · answered by porselin 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
previous to pluto being declared a large rock body instead of a planet it made mercury which was 2nd smallest planet now the smallest
2007-02-06 09:38:57 · answer #3 · answered by brad g 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a giant chunk of dirty frozen ice with solid debris embedded throughout, per NASA.
2007-02-04 19:20:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
its a frozen rock
2007-02-04 19:19:27 · answer #5 · answered by fr33d0m09 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
too small, too far from sun.
2007-02-04 19:22:06 · answer #6 · answered by StupidMuck 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋