Recognize Pluto as a Planet Again
The Issue
Our proposition? Give Pluto the recognition it deserves. For 76 years, Pluto lived in the spotlight as an equal member of one of our solar system’s nine planets, until, one day, there were suddenly only eight. In 2006, with just one swoop of a pen, Pluto suddenly did not meet the requirements of a “planet” How did this happen? The answer is the International Astronomical Union, or IAU. Here is some history on why this happened:
Controversy started with the Kuiper belt. It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is a lot bigger—20 times as wide! As more and more was discovered in the Kuiper belt, the IAU decided they would need to more strictly define what a planet is, because they were discovering a lot of new things there. In response, the IAU designated a set of properties that all objects must possess in order to be classified as a planet. These requirements are as follows:
A planet must be...
1) A body that circles the sun without being some other object's satellite (meaning it is not a Moon of some other planet). Pluto passes here!
2) Large enough to be rounded by its own gravity. Again, Pluto passes.
3) Able to clear its orbital path of other orbiting bodies. This is where Pluto does not meet the mark, according to the IAU. Because Pluto does not meet that third requirement, it was reclassified as a “dwarf planet.”
Our argument against this is simple- this definition, especially the third requirement, is incredibly vague. How much of its orbit does Pluto need to clear to be considered a planet? If it is meant to imply that the orbit must be swept clear of all objects, than virtually every planet in the solar system would be disqualified. The playing field for this requirement isn’t really level at all, either. The further you get from the Sun, the more difficulty a body will have in clearing its orbit. Pluto is the planet furthest from the Sun, so it’s at the biggest disadvantage. As Alan Stern, head of New Horizons (which is what flew by Pluto and took pictures of it for the first time) once said, “Any definition that allows a planet in one location but not another is unworkable.” If Earth were to switch spots with Pluto, it would not be able to sweep its orbit clear of debris, either. Obviously, nobody is debating whether Earth meets the requirements of a planet or not. Additionally, Pluto doesn’t have huge neighbors, such as Mars has Jupiter, to help with clearing out that orbit.
One of the biggest arguments for people who believe that Pluto is not a planet is that if we DID decide that Pluto could qualify, so would some other objects in the Kuiper Belt that also only fail to meet that third requirement. But this is not a valid reason to not acknowledge them as planets. We propose either restoring to Pluto the honor and title it deserves or creating a new definition of a "planet". If we changed the definition once, we can change it again.
For an example of a “new definition”, check out Tim DeBenedictis’s 1,000 km rule online!
The Issue
Our proposition? Give Pluto the recognition it deserves. For 76 years, Pluto lived in the spotlight as an equal member of one of our solar system’s nine planets, until, one day, there were suddenly only eight. In 2006, with just one swoop of a pen, Pluto suddenly did not meet the requirements of a “planet” How did this happen? The answer is the International Astronomical Union, or IAU. Here is some history on why this happened:
Controversy started with the Kuiper belt. It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is a lot bigger—20 times as wide! As more and more was discovered in the Kuiper belt, the IAU decided they would need to more strictly define what a planet is, because they were discovering a lot of new things there. In response, the IAU designated a set of properties that all objects must possess in order to be classified as a planet. These requirements are as follows:
A planet must be...
1) A body that circles the sun without being some other object's satellite (meaning it is not a Moon of some other planet). Pluto passes here!
2) Large enough to be rounded by its own gravity. Again, Pluto passes.
3) Able to clear its orbital path of other orbiting bodies. This is where Pluto does not meet the mark, according to the IAU. Because Pluto does not meet that third requirement, it was reclassified as a “dwarf planet.”
Our argument against this is simple- this definition, especially the third requirement, is incredibly vague. How much of its orbit does Pluto need to clear to be considered a planet? If it is meant to imply that the orbit must be swept clear of all objects, than virtually every planet in the solar system would be disqualified. The playing field for this requirement isn’t really level at all, either. The further you get from the Sun, the more difficulty a body will have in clearing its orbit. Pluto is the planet furthest from the Sun, so it’s at the biggest disadvantage. As Alan Stern, head of New Horizons (which is what flew by Pluto and took pictures of it for the first time) once said, “Any definition that allows a planet in one location but not another is unworkable.” If Earth were to switch spots with Pluto, it would not be able to sweep its orbit clear of debris, either. Obviously, nobody is debating whether Earth meets the requirements of a planet or not. Additionally, Pluto doesn’t have huge neighbors, such as Mars has Jupiter, to help with clearing out that orbit.
One of the biggest arguments for people who believe that Pluto is not a planet is that if we DID decide that Pluto could qualify, so would some other objects in the Kuiper Belt that also only fail to meet that third requirement. But this is not a valid reason to not acknowledge them as planets. We propose either restoring to Pluto the honor and title it deserves or creating a new definition of a "planet". If we changed the definition once, we can change it again.
For an example of a “new definition”, check out Tim DeBenedictis’s 1,000 km rule online!
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on June 21, 2016