Pluto No Longer A Planet?

[bsu legato]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0608...definition.html

Capping years of intense debate, astronomers resolved today to demote Pluto in a wholesale redefinition of planethood that is a victory of scientific reasoning over historic and cultural influences.

Pluto is no longer a planet.

"Pluto is dead," said Caltech researcher Mike Brown, who spoke with reporters via a teleconference while monitoring the vote. The decision also means a Pluto-sized object that Brown discovered will not be called a planet.

"Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, eight planets in the solar system."

The decision establishes three main categories of objects in our solar system.

* Planets: The eight worlds from Mercury to Neptune.

* Dwarf Planets: Pluto and any other round object that "has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."

* Small Solar System Bodies: All other objects orbiting the Sun.

Pluto and its moon Charon, which would both have been planets under the initial definition proposed Aug. 16, now get demoted because they are part of a sea of other objects that occupy the same region of space. Earth and the other eight large planets have, on the other hand, cleared broad swaths of space of any other large objects.

"Pluto is a dwarf planet by the ... definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects," states the approved resolution.

Dwarf planets are not planets under the definition, however.

"There will be hundreds of dwarf planets," Brown predicted. He has already found dozens that fit the category.

Contentious logic

The vote by members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) came after eight days of contentious debate that involved four separate proposals at the group's meeting in Prague.

The initial proposal, hammered out by a group of seven astronomers, historians and authors, attempted to preserve Pluto as a planet but was widely criticized for diluting the meaning of the word. It would also have made planets out of the asteroid Ceres and Pluto's moon Charon. But not now.

"Ceres is a dwarf planet. it's the only dwarf planet in the asteroid belt," Brown said. "Charon is a satellite."

The category of "dwarf planet" is expected to include dozens of round objects already discovered beyond Neptune. Ultimately, hundreds will probably be found, astronomers say.

The word "planet" originally described wanderers of the sky that moved against the relatively fixed background of star. Pluto, discovered in 1930, was at first thought to be larger than it is. It has an eccentric orbit that crosses the path of Neptune and also takes it well above and below the main plane of the solar system.

Recent discoveries of other round, icy object in Pluto's realm have led most astronomers to agree that the diminutive world should never have been termed a planet.

Years of debate

Astronomers have argued since the late 1990s, however, on whether to demote Pluto. Public support for Pluto has weighed heavily on the debate. Today's vote comes after a two-year effort by the IAU to develop a definition. An initial committee of astronomers failed for a year to do so, leading to the formation of the second committee whose proposed definition was then redefined for today's vote.

Astronomers at the IAU meeting debated the proposals right up to the moment of the vote.

Caltech's Mike Brown loses out in one sense. The Pluto-sized object his team found, called 2003 UB313, will now be termed a dwarf planet.

"As of today I have no longer discovered a planet," he said. But Brown called the result scientifically a good decision.

"The public is not going to be excited by the fact that Pluto has been kicked out," Brown said. "But it's the right thing to do."

Textbooks will of course have to be rewritten.

"For astronomers this doesn't matter one bit. We'll go out and do exactly what we did," Brown said. "For teaching this is a very interesting moment. I think you can describe science much better now" by explaining why Pluto was once thought to be a planet and why it isn't now. "I'm actually very excited."

Oh em gee double-you tee eff indeed. Stupid astronomers have nothing better to do than to ruin my cherished memories of nine planets. Instead we have to live with their attention whorish retconning of our beloved solar system. Well I say "Leave well enough alone!" This is the worst thing to happen to my long ago elementary school education since the Brontosaurus became the Apatosaurus.

[Seven]

Makes sense to me. Pluto was a Kuiper Belt object due to its small size and elongated orbit. If they kept Pluto as a planet they would have had to label a bunch of other similar objects in the vicinity as planets, then you would have had 15-20 planets when you know they are just tiny balls of rock and ice. The term planet was ambiguous before anyways.

[bsu legato]

Makes sense to me.  Pluto was a Kuiper Belt object due to its small size and elongated orbit.  If they kept Pluto as a planet they would have had to label a bunch of other similar objects in the vicinity as planets, then you would have had 15-20 planets when you know they are just tiny balls of rock and ice.  The term planet was ambiguous before anyways.

428045[/snapback]

Just what I'd expect to hear from an "8-Planet Apologist."

[Lynx7725]

Nah, it actually is a good thing. We know we are very very unlikely to find another body the size of the 8 planets, and we know at least dozens of Pluto-sized objects are floating around out there.

Biting the bullet now and calling it 8 would prevent future mindless paper pushing when our solar system expand to say, a 13- or 15- or 24-planets system.

[Mr March]

Gustav Holst was right! There are only eight planets!

[Effect]

I always wondered when this would happen. It makes sense why they would demote it. Annoying, I agree since I'm so used to "nine" but not to big of a deal though. Space no longer really interest me as it used to when I was a kid. Real life wise I mean. Now talk about something going to hit the planet or advances on space ships and actual plans to colonize the moon or Mars or something would be useful and actually interesting. Yet haven't heard anything like that in a long time.

Guess my dream of living (at least my final years) and being able to die off planet won't happen, not that I held that much hope once I started being realistic about life in my late teens.

[Seven]

Makes sense to me.  Pluto was a Kuiper Belt object due to its small size and elongated orbit.  If they kept Pluto as a planet they would have had to label a bunch of other similar objects in the vicinity as planets, then you would have had 15-20 planets when you know they are just tiny balls of rock and ice.  The term planet was ambiguous before anyways.

428045[/snapback]

Just what I'd expect to hear from an "8-Planet Apologist."

428046[/snapback]

APOLOGIST!!! How dare you sir!!

[Sumdumgai]

I know what you mean bsu_legato. It killed me as a little kid: " What do you mean it's not a Brontosaurus?"

Okay Pluto's not a planet anymore. At least they didn't add like 100 dwarf planets for us to memorize!

addition: Hey effect, let's create a super dimensional fortress colony ship and fly off into space to go die of bacteria on another planet.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Sumdumgai

[bsu legato]

Personally, I blame that devious spacktard Neptune. Who's to say that Pluto is crossing the orbit of Neptune, but rather that Neptune is crossing Pluto's orbit? And while we're at it...you know, some people think that dandelions are weeds. But you know, I always think who the hell decided tulips were so great?

[Mr March]

I always wondered when this would happen. It makes sense why they would demote it. Annoying, I agree since I'm so used to "nine" but not to big of a deal though. Space no longer really interest me as it used to when I was a kid. Real life wise I mean. Now talk about something going to hit the planet or advances on space ships and actual plans to colonize the moon or Mars or something would be useful and actually interesting. Yet haven't heard anything like that in a long time.

Guess my dream of living (at least my final years) and being able to die off planet won't happen, not that I held that much hope once I started being realistic about life in my late teens.

428052[/snapback]

Wanna feel really depressed about progress? We're actually way, way behind. If science wasn't considered such an evil, heretical endeavour for hundreds of years, humanity would be exploring outside our solar system by now. Just imagine if your ancestors hadn't screwed up, you might have been born off world at this point. Imagine if we went through "modern" democracy 500 years ago and had a more advanced political/economic system now that we didn't have to worry about all these costs and complaints we suffer today. You might be bugging your parents for a starship for graduation rather than a car.

Puts a whole new spin on how you view what we have and how "great" our current countries are

Edited August 24, 2006 by Mr March

[Mr March]

Just what I'd expect to hear from an "8-Planet Apologist." 

428046[/snapback]

Hahaha! Shut up you sarcastic, small-handed, eye-squinter!

[Knight26]

The demotion of Pluto, while annoying to me and many others, does make sense, though we will have to see how large it truly is when SS1 reaches it in a few years. But at least this keeps us from having a tenth planet named Xena, man some astronomers need a life. Now we just have to look off the ecliptic and find Yoggoth the true 9th or 10th planet.

[Mr March]

I kinda feel bad about the redefinition. I don't really care that much about losing Pluto as a planet, since it's hard to justify as a planet anyway. I'm more irritated about the title a "dwarf planet" not being considered a planet. You just called it a planet! How is calling something a "<insert> planet" make it not a planet when the second word is planet! Argh!

What also bothers me is how far out into space this definition will reach. I mean, at what distance do you finally say "Okay look, we're not inside the solar system anymore." There are hundreds of small objects out there, but do we really want them classified as part of our solar system just because the are caught in Sol's gravity?

Edited August 24, 2006 by Mr March

[Twoducks]

Think of it this way, they may take away your Pluto but they can never take away Uranus.

……………. * silence* ………

Well anyways, I prefer to loose Pluto than have a “Ceres†between Mars and Jupiter and a ton of other stuff.

[sketchley]

There are hundreds of small objects out there, but do we really want them classified as part of our solar system just because the are caught in Sol's gravity?

428064[/snapback]

I think you just answered your own question.

Solar system = the system of objects orbiting Sol.

How far does it go out to? I think it's almost 1 light year... not sure the exact distance, but beyond the outer Oort cloud, and well beyond 'terminal shock'.

[sketchley]

Sorry, that's 'termination shock', and no I wasn't making a joke about these 'astronomical changes' <- that was a joke.

Seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_shock

[Phyrox]

...but do we really want them classified as part of our solar system just because the are caught in Sol's gravity?

428064[/snapback]

I'm pretty sure that is exactly the definition of what we should consider part of our solar system...so yes.

[Mr March]

There are hundreds of small objects out there, but do we really want them classified as part of our solar system just because the are caught in Sol's gravity?

428064[/snapback]

I think you just answered your own question.

Solar system = the system of objects orbiting Sol.

How far does it go out to? I think it's almost 1 light year... not sure the exact distance, but beyond the outer Oort cloud, and well beyond 'terminal shock'.

428070[/snapback]

I know what termination shock is. I suppose I should have been more careful how I worded it. My question would be more properly expressed by saying do we want everything within the zone to be considered part of the solar system. This could lead to hundreds of planets or "dwarf planets" that are not planets even though they are called such.

Granted, it's easy to classify everything within Sol's influence as the solar system, but it sounds messy the further out you go. Perhaps it would be more to our advatange to postpone a definition until we actually have all the objects within the 70-90 AU area accounted for. It's like trying to define the characteristics of a continent which you've yet to explore and quantify.

[chrono]

I kinda feel bad about the redefinition.  I don't really care that much about losing Pluto as a planet, since it's hard to justify as a planet anyway.  I'm more irritated about the title a "dwarf planet" not being considered a planet.

428064[/snapback]

Agreed! Science is supposed to be specific in nature not delibrately vague.

The only reason Pluto is now a non-planet is because someone was able to bring into the discussion solar system formation theory and every astronomer would do anything to get that theory proven. However because they've moved pluto into a new catagory they've now thrown every elipticle 'planet' into questionable light because they've stated, by infurence(spl), that elipticle objects can't clear their own orbital paths.

Shoddy near sighted & rushed science, especially given how if they'd wait a few years the Pluto bound probe would've given then TONS more factual information to work with!

[Lynx7725]

Wanna feel really depressed about progress?  We're actually way, way behind.  If science wasn't considered such an evil, heretical endeavour for hundreds of years, humanity would be exploring outside our solar system by now.  Just imagine if your ancestors hadn't screwed up, you might have been born off world at this point.  Imagine if we went through "modern" democracy 500 years ago and had a more advanced political/economic system now that we didn't have to worry about all these costs and complaints we suffer today.  You might be bugging your parents for a starship for graduation rather than a car.

428060[/snapback]

Without trying to get this thread locked, I suspect that humanity would, sooner or later, have gone through that religious hysterial, and that it's actually a necessary part of the evolution of humanity from a "natural" being into an "unnatural" being. It's just something that had to happen at some point, and I can see the benefits of getting all that messy burning-at-the-stakes stuff out of the way earlier rather than later.

(I'm seriously not trying to discuss religion here, but religion is, after all, the opiate of the masses. It's strong motivational force that is still a major driving force in our progress -- and regression, in certain places. Without such a force -- and the birth pangs/ death throes that comes with it -- it might not have been possible to achieve what we have today.)

Granted, it's easy to classify everything within Sol's influence as the solar system, but it sounds messy the further out you go.  Perhaps it would be more to our advatange to postpone a definition until we actually have all the objects within the 70-90 AU area accounted for.  It's like trying to define the characteristics of a continent which you've yet to explore and quantify.

428075[/snapback]

Err, that might take a while (accounting for everything within 70-90 AU). It's a big volume of space and as good as our tech is currently, we still miss some stuff.

I think the term "dwarf planets" is meant as a peace offering to the traditionalists. If you think calling Pluto a "dwarf planet" is bad, think about the stink resulting from calling Pluto an asteriod...

[Mr March]

Without trying to get this thread locked, I suspect that humanity would, sooner or later, have gone through that religious hysterial, and that it's actually a necessary part of the evolution of humanity from a "natural" being into an "unnatural" being. It's just something that had to happen at some point, and I can see the benefits of getting all that messy burning-at-the-stakes stuff out of the way earlier rather than later.

(I'm seriously not trying to discuss religion here, but religion is, after all, the opiate of the masses. It's strong motivational force that is still a major driving force in our progress -- and regression, in certain places. Without such a force -- and the birth pangs/ death throes that comes with it -- it might not have been possible to achieve what we have today.)

Err, that might take a while (accounting for everything within 70-90 AU). It's a big volume of space and as good as our tech is currently, we still miss some stuff.

I think the term "dwarf planets" is meant as a peace offering to the traditionalists. If you think calling Pluto a "dwarf planet" is bad, think about the stink resulting from calling Pluto an asteriod...

428082[/snapback]

Weird. I'm quite sure a "religious hysterial" could not rightly be called a necessary evolutionary step. That's like saying communism was necessary to facilitate capitalism. However, I will agree that religion is a method of facilitating human progress, albiet a very slow, inefficient method (which was my point). I'd also be reluctant to label our progress as chronological from "natural" to "unnatural." There are some philosophies that predicate humanity as never having been in a natural state at any time; our progress and constant state of change being the expression of our species's advancement toward that natural state of being that has always eluded us. A state of being in which all our needs are met; arguably our one true natural state of being.

But yeah, we better get off this one

Cataloguing the solar system does seem an important factor. I think the definition of a planet might be missing the big picture. Perhaps the reason we don't have a proper definition is because we lack the pertinent data to formulate one. Though I agree with you that cataloguing our system is daunting task which is not feasible at this time.

For a specific scientific term, "dwarf planet" seems contradictory to me and very non-specific. I can understand the political desire, but classifying something a planet then ignoring the term in practice is the antithesis of achieving a definitive terminology for "planet" IMO. Perhaps this "final" definitive description of a planet is meant more as a stopgap measure rather than what the publically released motive actually states.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Mr March

[sketchley]

Yes, there is more going on at the convention than the news briefs let on.

Personally, I think this whole thing reeks of politics - possibly even an attempt at limiting our view or understanding of what's "up there." Just think, how many other objects are out there, that people have found, charted, and photographed, but the average lay person isn't even aware of them, let alone that there are (or were) 9 planets! 10 if you include Ceres on the list (that on again, off again, is it a giant asteroid?, mini-planet.) Saying that there are only 9, or 8, or 12 planets sounds very definitive, and if further information isn't forthcoming, than the next generation of kids may grow up believing that there are only 8 objects orbiting the sun! Yes, it's a bit extreme of an example, but given today's acceptance of news at face value (and the news reporters themselves not having very good reporting skills), and little personal research further into the stories... or at least cross-referencing with another source...

I think the facts should speak for themselves, and we should all believe what we want to believe from them. I. for one, am going to teach my son that a) this conference is whacked, and b) there is a billion + 1 objects orbiting the sun. Most of them are rather unimportant, but they are all out there, doing something.

Edited August 24, 2006 by sketchley

[Nightbat]

They 'voted'?

bloody hell, I thought science based it's decisions on facts, not on

popular opinion

[Seven]

They 'voted'?

bloody hell, I thought science based it's decisions on facts, not on

popular opinion

428098[/snapback]

That's the thing, the scientists have an opinion on how to classify the facts and its the opinions that they need to reach a consensus on.

[Mr March]

Yes, there is more going on at the convention than the news briefs let on.

428094[/snapback]

Hmmm, that's a interesting line of thought but I doubt the motives of the astronomers involved were so regressive. This topic has been debated for decades now and wasn't politically motivated. At least not in the beginning. However I do think you may be right that it became political since the debate was so heated and they were unable to come to a definition.

[Zentrandude]

Meh could be worst. They put Jupiter into the catagory of condence sphereical nebulas instead of a planet.

Edited September 10, 2006 by Zentrandude

[JB0]

As far as brontosaurus vs apatosaurus...

They're diffrent. But only one ever existed.

The brontosaurus was an apatosaurus with the skull of a chasmosaurus.

Agreed! Science is supposed to be specific in nature not delibrately vague.

The only reason Pluto is now a non-planet is because someone was able to bring into the discussion solar system formation theory and every astronomer would do anything to get that theory proven. However because they've moved pluto into a new catagory they've now thrown every elipticle 'planet' into questionable light because they've stated, by infurence(spl), that elipticle objects can't clear their own orbital paths.

Shoddy near sighted & rushed science, especially given how if they'd wait a few years the Pluto bound probe would've given then TONS more factual information to work with!

Pluto's non-planet status has been debated ever since the discovery of Charon in the '30s. It was just a matter of time.

And the demotion is because Pluto's orbit covers pretty much the entire depth of the Kuiper belt. For it to be clear, there has to be a REALLY big hole in the KB. And there doesn't seem to be.

Yes, there is more going on at the convention than the news briefs let on.

Personally, I think this whole thing reeks of politics - possibly even an attempt at limiting our view or understanding of what's "up there." Just think, how many other objects are out there, that people have found, charted, and photographed, but the average lay person isn't even aware of them, let alone that there are (or were) 9 planets! 10 if you include Ceres on the list (that on again, off again, is it a giant asteroid?, mini-planet.) Saying that there are only 9, or 8, or 12 planets sounds very definitive, and if further information isn't forthcoming, than the next generation of kids may grow up believing that there are only 8 objects orbiting the sun! Yes, it's a bit extreme of an example, but given today's acceptance of news at face value (and the news reporters themselves not having very good reporting skills), and little personal research further into the stories... or at least cross-referencing with another source...

I think the facts should speak for themselves, and we should all believe what we want to believe from them. I. for one, am going to teach my son that a) this conference is whacked, and b) there is a billion + 1 objects orbiting the sun. Most of them are rather unimportant, but they are all out there, doing something.

Ceres is off the list. The promotion of Ceres was one of the things that killed the attempted definition that came up a week before this one(it opened the gates FAR too wide).

Interestingly, Ceres was ORIGINALLY a planet. As were Vesta, Juno, and Pallas. After Pallas, they realized they weren't finding isolated objects, but an entire freaking belt of rocks, and all 4 were demoted to asteroids. They remain some of the largest objects in the belt(Ceres is a third of the belt's mass. Vesta and Pallas are the next-largest objects, and Juno is the 7th-largest).

Pluto's in the same situation. It was originally a planet, and we later discovered it wasn't an isolated object, but part of the Kuiper Belt.

And dwarf planet, while a retarded term, has some precedent. Minor planet is a term that's been in use for a long time. It's basically synonomous with asteroid, but...

Ceres has also been promoted to dwarf planet status, apparently.

Edited September 10, 2006 by JB0

[sketchley]

From what I last read on the issue - the vote occured on the last day of the conference when the majority of attendees had left. There was also some controversy about 'in this day and age' only people who were physically present in the room could have a vote - and not those in other parts of the country or even in other countries.

Me thinks that it is a good enough reason to call for a revote on the issue - only a small percentage of the astronomers that belong to the group voted after all!

Here's the article in the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

[chrono]

JBO,

Pluto's demotion was political & not fact based because if they didn't change it's status then the KBO crowd would've cry foul over similar KBO sized objects being left out being called planets and practically no astonomer wanted MORE planets because that would've given someone else credit. With the term 'dwarf planet' being a handwavium move in the vein of the previous Pluton crap that they were first attempting. The only agruements the KBO crowd every had against Pluto was it's size and slightly comet shaped orbit. Which is pretty sad when you look at the KBO's orbits being far more comet like. As for the orbital clearing bit... no planet in the system actually qualifies for it because of the number of transorbital objects crossing those paths. Also since orbit path clearing is done by gravity influence and since Pluto has so little gravity that it's mostly a Binary system instead of a planet moonlet pairing it's orbit path would be far smaller. Like I said they'll know more about Pluto and the scope of the KB area when the probe goes there. Personally I wanna know why the rush suddenly to change it when you'll be getting solid info within 7 years!?!

I've read some sweet quotes from scientists on each side of the issue during the week it was voted on. But the best one was:

"When science votes we all lose."

[JB0]

JBO,

Pluto's demotion was political & not fact based because if they didn't change it's status then the KBO crowd would've cry foul over similar KBO sized objects being left out being called planets and practically no astonomer wanted MORE planets because that would've given someone else credit.

Are you aware of how stupid you are?

In point of fact, the FIRST proposed definition, which DID keep Pluto, was chased out because it opened the floodgates to everything else. Not Kuiper Belt objects, EVERYTHING. The only requirement was that it be round and the orbit's center of gravity not be inside a planet. There were at least a half-dozen asteroids on the list. The solar system would have something like a hundred planets before the dust settled.

Hell, it was even possible to have "sometimes-planets" because the orbital clause(intended to keep moons from becoming planets) couldn't handle elliptical orbits.

If you actually paid attention instead of just guessing based on media soundbites(and if there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that the media CANNOT get a science article right), you'd know that they did everything they could to keep Pluto, but found no way to make a definition that kept Pluto without defining every rogue piece of stellar debris as a planet.

Pluto has been the only thing holding a formal definition of planet up for several years. There's just no way to make a rational definition AND include Pluto. The only reason anyone fought about it is that Pluto has sentimental value. "My very elegant mother just sat upon nine" seems to be missing something.

With the term 'dwarf planet' being a handwavium move in the vein of the previous Pluton crap that they were first attempting.

Diffrence is pluton was intended to augment planetary status, not replace it.

Essentially would've divided things into the inner planets, gas giants, and plutons.

It was also purposely constructed to maintain Pluto's signifigance in the face of the bumrush of Kuiper Belt objects that would have joined it on the planet list within a year.

Dwarf planet is a formalization of the older minor planet status.

The only agruements the KBO crowd every had against Pluto was it's size and slightly comet shaped orbit.

Slightly?

And Pluto has been debated since 1978! Before we were even sure there WAS a Kuiper Belt.

I was mistaken earlier when I said '30s. That was when Pluto was found.

Some of Pluto's problems relative to the 8 planets:

It's orbit is highly elliptical.

It's orbit is inclined relative to the plane of the system.

It's absurdly small, and is in fact smaller than many known moons.

It's moon is almost as large as it is.

It's moon doesn't even orbit it. They actually orbit each other. This point was acknowledged in the former proposed definition, which promoted Charon to planet and the Pluto/Charon system became the first known binary planet.

Which is pretty sad when you look at the KBO's orbits being far more comet like.

Acutally, Pluto's orbit is probably the most elliptical of all the Kuiper Belt objects, given that it's apogee and perigee hit the inner and outer edges of the belt.

As for the orbital clearing bit... no planet in the system actually qualifies for it because of the number of transorbital objects crossing those paths.

Except if you bothered to read, you'd know that it was of objects of similar size.

All 8 planets have done that. Pluto has not. If it had, there would be no Kuiper belt.

Also since orbit path clearing is done by gravity influence and since Pluto has so little gravity that it's mostly a Binary system instead of a planet moonlet pairing it's orbit path would be far smaller.

So you're saying that it's orbit is clear because it's too small to clear an orbit?

Charon's existence shows it incapable of clearing an orbit.

Like I said they'll know more about Pluto and the scope of the KB area when the probe goes there. Personally I wanna know why the rush suddenly to change it when you'll be getting solid info within 7 years!?!

Quit saying suddenly. 2 and a half decades is not sudden.

And we have a good deal of info already. The New Horizons mission won't profoundly affect the mass of Pluto or make it's orbit any cleaner.

[Zentrandude]

cmon guys MW is just back and your already starting up a flame war.

To be fair I declare Earth as not a planet but a giant weapon of galactic anoyance of kfed music traveling out into space through radio signals.

Edited September 11, 2006 by Zentrandude

[JB0]

To be fair I declare Earth as not a planet but a giant weapon of galactic anoyance of kfed music traveling out into space through radio signals.

But it's okay, because the moon is now a "lunar planet."

[sketchley]

JBO, despite your lengthy post (or because of it?), I still lean towards chrono's side. Plus he's got a good point - why the rush? Is it based on the sudden increase of discovering objects in the solar system, or something else?

[David Hingtgen]

I'm interested, keep talking, just don't get into flaming.

[Lynx7725]

JBO, despite your lengthy post (or because of it?), I still lean towards chrono's side. Plus he's got a good point - why the rush? Is it based on the sudden increase of discovering objects in the solar system, or something else?

I think with the improvement in technologies, there's a marked increase in large objects. Sedna is a good example, as is "Xena".

Previously, most astronomers only look for planet-like bodies on the ecliptic (sp?). Sedna and "Xena" are found way above that particular plane, so it stands to reason that more astronomers are now looking in odd orbits -- and the odds are good that more of these biggish bodies would be found, or are already found. So yeah, there's some urgency involved.