IAU Demotes Pluto to 'Dwarf Planet' Status

davidwr writes "It's official. Pluto's been demoted. It's now one of several 'dwarf planets.' I guess we can drop the 'Period' from 'Mary's violet eyes make John stay up nights.'" (Of course, no one says you have to privately agree with the International Astronomical Union.) Several readers have contributed links to the BBC's coverage of the downgrade, as well as the usefully illustrated story at MSNBC.

Comments

Re:my take on it:

[Adhemar]

I wouldn't call it a screw-up.

The draft proposal was:

A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

Pluto would continue to be a planet, and Ceres, Charon and 2003 UB313 would become planets. However, this criterium is reached by hundreds, even thousands of other celestial bodies in our solar system. Under that proposal, all could gain planet status.

The final text is:

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 neighbourhood around its orbit.
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 neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
Pluto is a dwarf planet by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.
All other objects orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

This definition does not define the terms "nearly round", nor "neighbourhood". But having a definition, rather than just an enumeration, is in my opinion a big leap forward. Demoting Pluto is a small price to pay.

I quite like the additional criterion of dominance of a body in its neighbourhood. It's not as arbitrary as simply requiring a minimum mass or size.

On the other hand, I do not like the fact that a planet should orbit to Sun to be called a planet. On this point, I preferred the original proposal in orbit around a star. I don't see why our solar system should be any different, why planet-like celestial bodies orbitting other stars are not called planets.

Re:So why does Neptune qualify?

[shma]

Actually, while Pluto comes closer to the Sun than Neptune, they are never that close. Pluto's erratic orbit ensures that it is well above the solar system equator when it does cross. The chart here shows how far it really is at the cross (chart is in AU =~ 149 billion meters).

Re:Anyone? Anyone?

[Nemosoft Unv.]

Is it possible for Pluto and Neptune to one day (like within the next couple billion years) collide?

Nope. Their orbits are in 3:2 orbital resonance; basicly this means they constantly miss each other (a bit like your average commuter bus and train schedule :P). Also, due to the declination of the Pluto orbit it doesn't even touch the Neptune orbit. When seen straight from above, the orbits overlap, but if you go off-angle to just the right spot the Pluto orbit can be seen to be completely separated from Neptune.

Re:So why does Neptune qualify?

[phlegmofdiscontent]

"Clearing" basically means that all other bodies within an orbital range are much smaller. There are many asteroids that cross Earth's orbit, but none are larger than a few tens of km. All 8 planets have cleared their orbital zones. The remainder of objects in those oribtal zones are assorted junk (comets, Trojans, NEOs, Centaurs, Atens, etc). Pluto and Ceres do not qualify because there are objects of comparable size in their respective orbital zones.