Time to truly define what a planet is. We are now loosing ground in the explored planet % area. We need to get crafts out to Pluto and start thinking farther.<br><br>This is amazing. I wonder if objects like this could be the culprit for sending far away comets into the warm and toasty area?

So was the debate over whether to classify these Kuiper belt objects (like Pluto) as planets settled? I know there was some discussion as to whether Pluto should really be called a planet. If they are planets then what is the lower size limit? I would guess that there are a few more Kuiper-belt "planets" waiting to be discovered.<br><br>In any case it's very interesting-I wonder how different this new object is from Pluto.

Since the discovery of "Planet X", with X being the obvious joke on the Roman numeral "Ten"...any ideas of what the IAU will use for it's name? The names for the planetesimals previously discovered by the same team used non-Roman, (dare I say "Politically Correct"?) deities.<br><br>Call me a traditionalist, but I think the "planets" should stick with the established naming convention.<br><br>If this convention had not been established earlier in history, we would've been stuck with King George III as a bloated gas giant in the outer solar system. Politically astute decision on the part of the discoverer to "immortalize" his benefactor, but it just wouldn't have fit in.<br><br>My two bits: Sedna and Quaoar (how do you pronounce that?) don't work for me either. But since they're not truly planets, it's ok with me if they hang out with the Mister Rogers asteroid!<br><br>