POLL: Should Pluto's Planet Status Be Revisited?

[doublehelix]

New observations of the dwarf planet Eris, once thought to be larger than Pluto, now suggest the icy world is – in fact – smaller. The discovery of Eris in 2005 ultimately led to the downfall of Pluto's status a a full-blown planet (it's a dwarf planet now) in 2006.

But if the latest observations of Eris pan out, should the case of Pluto's planet status be reopened? Weigh in now with your vote.

More resources:
Dwarf Planet Eris May Be Smaller Than Pluto After All
Dwarf Planet's Claim to Fame Is Unshaken by Lingering Mysteries
Frozen World of Eris Looks a Lot Like Pluto
Top 10 Extreme Planet Facts
Gallery: The New Solar System

 

[Vazquez_J]

I voted no because I personally feel if its not in a circular orbit within the orbital plane of the other 8 planets, its not really an original planet. Most likely an escaped moon of one of the giant planets IMO.

 

[Jawamaster]

I've never really understood the emotion surrounding this issue. Pluto is what it is, regardless of how we classify it. However, further classification and categorization on our part is an aid to science and understanding, not a hindrance. As we learn more, we will likely have further classes of planets. I wish they would re-classify planetary moons in a similar way (e.g. moons and moonlets/dwarf moons).

 

[MeteorWayne]

No, and not because the IAU says so. Based on mass, orbital inclination and eccentricity and it's resonant orbit with Neptune, it is just the largest of a dozens of Plutinos.

 

[mark_d_s]

Not sure what the fuss is all about....

If it's round and it doesn't burn, it's a planet. What sort of planet? Gas giant? Terrestrial? Water world? Ice planet? Dwarf? We'll keep adding to the categories as we understand more about exoplanets.

As for the orbital resonance with Neptune, I don't think that really applies - many planets we'll discover will have similar properties, as of course do moons. Speaking of which, I think that we should worry more abouts moons right now - they're far more varied. Is Phobos a moon? I doubt it.

 

[bystanderOK]

Let's leave this can of worms unopened. Too many other dwarf planets that are just as deserving of planetary status. Leave Pluto as a dwarf planet, KBO, and TNO. If you want to upgrade its status, consider making it a binary dwarf.

 

[Patronaut]

When I taught astronomy in the late 90s, early 2000s, I always mentioned how Pluto did not really fit the criteria we have for planets, either terrestrial or Jovian. It is half as big as its satellite, has a very elliptical orbit, and is strongly tilted with respect to the ecliptic. It is not a planet, period.

 

[saintneko]

The first question on this poll is very disingenuous, "YES – The fact that dwarf planet Eris is smaller than Pluto proves that Pluto is a planet, Eris is not."

Eris is, at most, a few KM smaller in diameter than Pluto. Barely smaller. Not even one percent smaller. All this says is that Pluto is the largest dwarf planet.

Eris is a good name for that particular chunk of rock - look at all the discord it's sown here on earth among astronomy nerds.

 

[Patronaut]

If Pluto is reclassified as a planet, then the IAU will have to look at satellites around some of the planets. Titan, Callisto, Ganymede, and the Moon are all larger than Pluto. Should they be classified as planets? What about Ceres? What the IAU needs to do is create a firm definition of what a planet is. About what does it orbit? Is there a size limit? Does it have natural satellites or not? -(this wouldn't fly, because both Mercury and Venus do not have any satellites) I think the two definitions that we have, terrestrial and Jovian, are all we need. Terrestrial planets are Earth-like in that they have similar compositions and sizes (small and dense) while the Jovian planets are like Jupiter, large and consisting mostly of gases. Pluto does not seem to fit either of these. Let IAU decide what a planet is, then we can return to this argument. But in my opinion, Pluto is not a planet.

 

[gmcdavid]

I don't see why. Eris still has the larger mass, and that is what counts on an astronomical scale.

 

[dryson]

Pluto is was the last planet discovered before new technology opened up the Solar System to new discoveries. If Pluto is declassified as a planet then the declassification is demeaning to the astronomer's efforts in finding Pluto. Demeaning Pluto will also tell young astronomy prospector's that regardless of what they find they find is meaningless which would take away from the excitement of discovering something new that would de-evolve into "We already know everything we know about Space so let's no worry about what is up there but rather what is going on on the planet." WHich is nothing more than the same old corruption and greed to subjagate another for power and money.

All of the real fun is out in space and through the looking glass of a telescope.

 

[EllenRose]

Pluto is a planet. It's right in its name! Dwarf planet, terrestrial planet, gas giant planet -- all it really means is that Pluto's the one that prodded us to add a new adjective.

 

[General_Kenobi]

I voted no, only because there was not a "Who gives a $h*%" option. Honestly I think it's funny how some folks nearly give themselves a coronary over this issue. And apparently the new claims of it possibly being a whole mile wider than Eris (big whoop) has blood pressures shooting up all over the world. It's just a name. Call it "Mamba-Jahamba" for all I care. Keep in mind, however, if you wish to refer to it as a planet, then you are, by definition, WRONG. Ultimately though, it's merely a mysterious, frozen rock that is so far out it takes even our fastest ships the better part of a decade to reach.
Personally, I like the fact that a true planet must "dominate" its orbital path. Once again, that is "dominate," not "clear" its orbital path.

I recently finished reading Dr. Tyson's "Pluto Files." What he did at Hayden, not classifying any bodies as planets or asteroids, but rather grouping them in with other like bodies (terrestrial, Jovian, TNO, etc.) from similar areas in the solar system was genius. He knew, like the IAU knows, Pluto is different in how it orbits the Sun & interacts with other bodies...regardless of what you or anyone else wants to refer to it as.
On the lighter side (as we'd expect from Dr. Tyson), he brought up an interesting fact about the name Pluto & its previous uses. We all know that Pluto was the Roman God of the Underworld, & that he was also Mickey's dog, but were you aware of this? http://www.poopreport.com/Consumer/the_perils_of_pluto_water.html

 

[ZenGalacticore]

A think Pluto is a hybrid. It's a cross between a planet and a comet. Had it been knocked into a wider orbit and further knocked around by Jupiter, it would've become a periodical comet. A big one.

Still, I like the word "planetoid" better than "plutino". "Plutino" sounds like a subatomic particle. And that makes Charon a "paisano", just a little smaller than a "plutino" and in orbit around it.

 

[LostTraveler]

The size of Eris is meaningless and the Vote in 2006 was one of the biggest shams since the first W. Bush election. But now that it's out there, we might as well get more information.

 

[RJEvans]

The only problem with the definition I have is a planet must clear its orbit. There is ambiguity there and anyone can make the claim that half of the planets are not planets based solely on this clause. People claim if you remove this clause then we could have hundreds of planets, but I don't see how that's a bad thing. The definition should be simple and universal.

 

[Scimajor]

All you have to do is "think Sesame Street". "One of these "planets" doesn't belong with the others."

Pluto is clearly NOT like the other planets and the classification of "Dwarf Planet" is more appropriate. The official criteria for being a planet, however, is very flawed. The Earth doesn't even fit the new criteria. I'm all for a better set of criteria but Pluto clearly can't be classified in the same group as the 8 planets.

 

[MuddyBuddy]

Pluto is not a planet and Neptune is not either. I demand immediate removal Neptune's planet status or upgrading of Pluto to planet status along with Eris and any other planetoids they find.

Power to planetoids, we will hold Neptune hostage until rights of all planetoids are acknowledged

 

[PeterMarcus]

Classically, we started with 4 elements that had nothing to do with modern science (much like astrology or wandering gods today). Then we isolated a few real atomic elements, then more, then 92 (or maybe 94) naturally occurring elements, and some man made ones after that, all with different properties -- gasses and metals and semiconductors and insulators and different valences and colors and all react differently when you poke them with a stick.

Why does it matter if we have 92 planets or whatever in the solar system? If they're roundish and layered in structure and have some gravitational influence in their neighborhood, then why not call it a planet? It seems to me the big freakout came with the discovery of the Kuiper Belt objects, but who cares? That's Terra Incognita. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[RJEvans]

I don't buy this argument that Pluto does not fit in with the rest. Hypothetically, what if there is a Pluto-like object the size of Earth that has an inclination of 90 degrees. Is that not a planet too? Whose to say it is not planet because its composition is like Pluto or it does not orbit with the classical eight. It's a ridiculous argument that a Planet should not be a planet because it does not orbit within the plane of the rest of the planets or its composition is too different from that of a rocky planet or gaseous planet. Lets keep the definition of a planet simple, then have classifications of different types of planets, such as a star.

 

[Karl296]

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck and it flies like a duck and it swims like a duck, it's probably a duck. Pluto is a planet and Eris is a planet. Whether it's an original or captured makes absolutely no difference. :lol:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Pluto is was the last planet discovered before new technology opened up the Solar System to new discoveries. If Pluto is declassified as a planet then the declassification is demeaning to the astronomer's efforts in finding Pluto. Demeaning Pluto will also tell young astronomy prospector's that regardless of what they find they find is meaningless which would take away from the excitement of discovering something new that would de-evolve into "We already know everything we know about Space so let's no worry about what is up there but rather what is going on on the planet." WHich is nothing more than the same old corruption and greed to subjagate another for power and money.

All of the real fun is out in space and through the looking glass of a telescope.

Not true at all. Pluto was the first trans Neptunian object discovered, and has eternally secured it's place in history. It hasn't been demeaned at all; in fact it is the first of a whole new class of objects.

 

[MeteorWayne]

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck and it flies like a duck and it swims like a duck, it's probably a duck. Pluto is a planet and Eris is a planet. Whether it's an original or captured makes absolutely no difference. :lol:

But if it walks like a robin, and sounds like a robin, then it's a robin.

No one ever stated it is a "captured" object.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't buy this argument that Pluto does not fit in with the rest. Hypothetically, what if there is a Pluto-like object the size of Earth that has an inclination of 90 degrees. Is that not a planet too? Whose to say it is not planet because its composition is like Pluto or it does not orbit with the classical eight. It's a ridiculous argument that a Planet should not be a planet because it does not orbit within the plane of the rest of the planets or its composition is too different from that of a rocky planet or gaseous planet. Lets keep the definition of a planet simple, then have classifications of different types of planets, such as a star.

Let's see, it's now a dwarf planet, a different classification of planet, just as a dwarf star is a different classification of star. It's what you asked for. So what's your beef?

MW

 

[Admiral_Lagrange]

The IAU had no right to lay down the law about anything.

The IAU should be unrecognized for attempting to take away the right for an explorer to name his discovery !

The IAU is an enemy of humane space flight. They have made many statements in the past to the effect that humans should not be allowed to go forth in our solar system because humans are dirty, they will contaminate and spoil everything.