CraigAug 15th, 2006 - 13:21:55

I've had my doubts about Pluto since grade school, and that was 50 years ago!

When I first heard about Kuiper Belt Objects, I thought that maybe they should be called 'KuBO's' (pronounced 'koo-boh').

Report this comment

xAug 15th, 2006 - 13:45:04

Astronomers should be brave and reclassify Pluto as an asteroid. The truth is sometimes hard, but worth it in the end.

Report this comment

BrieAug 15th, 2006 - 13:50:03

Pluto was always my favorite. I wish there was more conclusive physical evidence!

Report this comment

WebsterAug 15th, 2006 - 15:30:20

Calling something a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) assumes that there IS a Kuiper Belt -- hardly an established fact. Better is Trans-Neptunian Object (TNO), since it carries less semantic baggage. A KBO is supposed to be a potential comet: that doesn't fit Pluto or 'Xena'. A TNO is more simply defined: an object that orbits our Sun farther out than Neptune. (I know Pluto ducked inside Neptune's orbit 1979-1999, but that's a negligible fraction of its orbital period.)

Report this comment

TaterAug 15th, 2006 - 16:13:38

There is no 'truth' here, just people wanting change for its own sake. Pluto IS a planet simply because it has been called a planet and is recognised as one almost universally. The original meaning for 'planet' was a wondering star. Basically what we call a planet is and has always been a matter of interpretation. In reality those seeking to 'reclassify' Pluto are simply either mischievous, pedants, or fools. This is exemplified in the name of the so-called newly discovered planet 'Xena', named as it is after a second rate fantasy TV show character that featured laughable pop-culture interpretations of the Greek myths. This whole episode is a regrettable and disappointing degeneration of science and intellectualism in general.

Report this comment

Stephen LAug 15th, 2006 - 16:22:59

Any body large enough to become round due to gravity and orbiting the sun should be considered a planet. Just because a body is in the Kuiper Belt does not mean it should not be a planet. Pluto and (presumably) Xena are large round bodies which sets them apart from the rest of the KBOs. I say they should be planets.

Just my humble opinion.

Report this comment

Stephen LAug 15th, 2006 - 16:31:27

Tater,
Calling Xena a second rate fantasy TV show implies that there exists a first rate fantasy TV show. I would like to know what that (first rate) show is. It might be worth watching. Personally I liked Xena. Sure, it played fast and loose with history and legend, but it was fun to watch.

Report this comment

Astro9916AAug 15th, 2006 - 16:46:08

Pluto will be classifed as a 'Borch Planet'. So far from what I've heard, this will be the outcome. When the official announcement will be is still up in the air. I believe they are working out the definition now.

Report this comment

Bruce WestAug 15th, 2006 - 17:05:32

I believe the definition of a planet should be when a star has no

Report this comment

dumbassAug 15th, 2006 - 17:16:47

1.)yes, pluto dipped inside neptunes orbit '97-'99 and it will again.
2.)there are many bodies that are large enough to become rounded by their own gravity but are not.
3.)[just something I've been curious about] was the asteriod belt once a planet, but broken up by something cataclysmic sometime in the distant past? or is it just 'the asteriod belt'?

Report this comment

Raul TAug 15th, 2006 - 18:34:06

Clearly we have an audience of people who 'personally' believe that Plut should be classified as a planet without any expertise in the field of astronomy whatsoever. I say science changes our view of things every year. If we continue with the policy that Pluto should be classified as a planet simply because it has been popular for 75 years, then we might as well claim the earth is still flat.

Fact is Pluto is a questionable object, and if it requires reconsideration to an unknown class, then on with it.

As for the asteroid belt having been a planet destroyed some eons ago, that is an interesting point I hadn't thought about. I'm going to research if there have been any studies on that before. I'm sure there has.

Report this comment

FreddyMackAug 15th, 2006 - 20:23:17

I am in favor of the definition of a planet that requires roundness, layered formation, and stable orbit around the star or sun. I don't believe Pluto is round enough to be a planet, but I do suspect that it is a 'forming planet' with all the moons locked in a gravity bind. A couple alterations, and they'll probably all merge into one round, layered formation in a stable orbit.

Regarding the asteroid belt, I've been meaning to do the math on this, but I guess that the asteroid belt is roughly at the first gaussian point between the sun and Jupiter. This is the point where the gravity from the sun equals the gravity from Jupiter and 'guides' objects into that orbit. As things collide and break-up, they change velocities and orbits but more-or-less stay in the band.

Report this comment

DuncanAug 16th, 2006 - 22:34:24

I feel that we shouldnt be quick to dismiss planets or abjects as planets from their status. But...you gotta call them something. Lets GO Greek. 'Peran' (meaning beyond)

Report this comment

bobOct 26th, 2008 - 01:56:16

The only real solution to the threat of asteroids is the Global Asteroid Protection Society (stoprocks.com). The international space community has no real plan, no idea how to defend the human population.

Report this comment