One more key requirement agreed upon in 2006 was that a planet must have enough mass to sweep its orbital path clear of all other objects, and Pluto doesn't live up to this. There already known Kuiper Belt objects larger than Pluto, so should school children memorize ten, eleven, or even more, planets? And is minor planet such a bad designation? -----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:01:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Pluto Planet Status Message-ID: <634580063.1148653.1437426112126.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
A much stronger argument about it is that Pluto may be a great deal like other Kuiper Belt objects, and we can't have dozens of small objects identified as planets.
From: "baxman2@q.com" <baxman2@q.com> To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:58 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Pluto Planet Status
I would personally favor Pluto being returned to official Planet status for the following reasons. It is spherical, has five months, and surface geological activity. The only argument against it, is Pluto's size being smaller than Earth's Moon, making it somewhat comparable to a number of known minor planets.