It's a planet folks! The first time the politicians have got it right. <img class='' src='http://new.astromart.com/astromart/javascripts/sceditor/emoticons/smile.png' alt='smile' title='smile'/>

It's about time! The word planet was derived from the Greek term wanderer. Pluto wanders; plain and simple.

Just don't declare it the home of the Roswel aliens <img class='' src='http://new.astromart.com/astromart/javascripts/sceditor/emoticons/wink.png' alt='wink' title='wink'/>

I agree the fiasco that went on to take away Pluto's planetary<br>status was absurd.<br><br>Oscar

This comes from the same group that wants to establish a "space port" for millionaires at taxpayer expense!

There were carefully reasoned scientific points why Pluto could not be classified as a planet. I've lived in NM for 17 years, and it never ceases to amaze me the idiotic things that are proposed by those in power.<br><br>If it were not for the laboratory work here, and the beautiful nature (and skies) I certainly would choose to live elsewhere. It is no wonder why all the educational, wage and standard of living numbers are at the bottom of the barrel compared to the rest of the US. A real third world 'country' down here, to be sure. This is just another example.<br><br>Best wishes,<br><br>Bob Campbell :S

I know how passionate people are about this whole Pluto thing, but I would like to through in my 2 centavos worth. As one who has had a near lifelong interest in astronomy I feel compelled to attempt to clarify the actions of the IAU in re-categorizing Pluto from a planet to a minor planet. I think most of the controversy can be eliminated by a small change in perspective of the situation. I present my own perspective.<br><br>Pluto as we can all agree has never been and never will be a typical "planet" as compared with the other eight. This can be attested to by its very small size, its composition, its highly eccentric orbit and its vastly exaggerated orbital inclination. It has always been and always will be rouge. Having said this, I want to make it clear that any of these aforementioned attributes in no way trivialize Pluto as a member of our solar system.<br><br>Most of the controversy has been in the semantics. Pluto has not physically changed through all of this. It is still the same size, still shines, albeit dimly, in the night sky, still has 3 moons. The change in classification has in no way changed the object itself. It has merely clarified some confusion and made us think of exactly how we want to classify the objects that inhabit our solar system.<br><br>As we all know, orbiting closest to the Sun we have the 4 inner terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). Following this is a boundary of objects we choose to call asteroids, made up of fragments of rocky and metallic debris which never coalesced into a single object, a failed planet, if you will. Next we have the 2 majestic gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn). Finally we have the ice giants (Uranus and Neptune). Now comes the little guy that has been causing all the trouble. He doesn't fit into any of the classic categories and doesn't even seem to belong where he is. NOW! Along come several discoveries of objects far beyond Pluto. One is even said to be larger than Pluto. The main feature, however, is that these new objects are identical, so far, in many ways to our little oddity we call Pluto. Now what?<br><br>As happens throughout history, when new discoveries are made it forces us to look at things in a new light. Remember when we thought the earth was flat? Remember when we thought the earth was the center of the solar system? Following these discoveries, our entire view of the solar system was turned upside-down. There were groups who maintained these nonsensical views long after they were proven erroneous. Even today I hear the argument that traditionally Pluto has been considered a planet and thus should continue to be considered a planet. If we use that argument, then by tradition we live on a flat planet in the center of the solar system and that is the way it should be. Period! After all, we certainly believed the earth was flat and the center of the solar system for much longer than we have belived otherwise! <br><br>I know many have thought that Pluto, and its good name, was trashed in this process, but I think nothing could be further from the truth. Pluto now holds the GREAT distinction of being the prototypical object of all the distant objects yet discovered called Kuiper Belt Objects. Yes, Pluto was #1, numero uno. And instead of looking at it that Clyde Tombaugh was a loser that discovered a loser planet...I see it that through his hard work and dedication he was the discoverer of the VERY FIRST Kuiper Belt Object. He did this by using primitive equipment and acute, refined powers of observation. The next one discovered took the use of unbelievably complex technology and 70 more years of time. This discovery was no trivial object and no trivial feat by Clyde Tombaugh!<br><br>I applaud the IAU in their thankless job of classifying the countless objects out there trying to make some sense and order of our vast universe. The new classification of Pluto does not make me think any less of the object OR its discoverer. Remember this was the first object of its type discovered by back-breaking, grueling dedication to a cause...this marks a new beginning in our understanding of our solar system. THIS IS THE REBIRTH OF PLUTO AS A UNIQUE TYPE OF NEW OBJECT, NOT ITS DEMISE!<br><br>