Why Pluto Still Deserves to Be Our Ninth Planet Why Pluto Still Deserves to Be Our Ninth Planet By Irene C.Grade 6 Dear honorable Editor, Good afternoon, I hope this letter finds you well. Even though Pluto has reclassified as a dwarf planet many years ago, was that really the right decision? The debate about whether it should have become the first dwarf planet still flares. In the past, a planet only had to satisfy two conditions; it had to be round and orbit the sun. In 2006, everything changed. Starting in 2006, the definition of a planet was very murky. After the discovery of the Kuiper Belt, NASA found an object larger than Pluto, Eris, making the debate on whether Pluto is a planet boil. Therefore, researchers had to rethink their decision about the ninth planet. Even though Pluto is now a dwarf planet, I strongly believe that Pluto should be a planet because of the unfair voting process and the unclear and outdated definition of the term “planet.” To start, when the voting for the definition of planet occurred, out of the 10,000 International Astronomical Union (IAU) members, less than 500 got to vote. This made the voting unfair, and this makes the definition not fully reliable. If all the members got to vote, would the outcome have been different? To prove this, in the text “When is a Planet NOT a Planet?”, it says “Not enough IAU members could vote on the new definition.” (Santos 10). This proves hundreds of IAU members were left out on this critical vote. Thus, Pluto’s definition is not 100% reliable because many IAU members could not vote for the definition. Another key reason Pluto deserves planet status is that the definition of “planet” was not clear enough. The third definition was the one that was the most undefined. The third criterion was that a planet must be able to clear objects from its orbital path. Pluto can clear its orbital path; Pluto has simply had less success doing this than the other planets. Also, the third criterion does not state how far and how much a planet has to clear its neighborhood. In the text “When is a Planet NOT a Planet?” the author states, “But what does ‘clear the neighborhood’ mean? How big is the neighborhood? How clear must a planet make its orbit?” (Santos 8). Therefore, the third criterion of a planet was unclearly defined, not saying the distance a planet must clear its neighborhood. Aside from the unfair voting, when the IAU created the definition, they did not fully grasp Pluto’s geography, making the definition outdated and not 100% reliable. When the definition of ‘planet’ was made, it was in 2006. Technology has improved immeasurably since 2006. Scientists have much better resources today than in 2006, meaning that they didn’t understand Pluto’s geography as much as we do now, so when they made the definition, they were not fully aware of the different geography Pluto had. In the article “Yes, Pluto is a Planet Says NASA Scientists at the Site of its Discovery 91 Years Ago This Week” it states, “Not only is the IAU’s definition of a planet 15 years ago roundly ignored by planetary scientists, but the IAU’s use of a vote made science seem arbitrary and political, undermining trust in science itself.” (Carter 3). Overall, the scientists 15 years ago didn’t fully understand Pluto’s geography, making the definition unreliable. Some people may argue that Pluto doesn’t have all the factors a planet has, but I disagree. How can it not have factors if the definition isn’t clear about what the factors are? It’s like saying a dog is alive, has four feet, and has a tail. People could see a giraffe or a hippo and think, “Wow! Dogs come in so many forms!” The definition of planet is too unspecific and not clear enough. Therefore, Pluto can’t have the factors of a planet if the definition of a planet doesn’t specify. Others argue that Pluto can’t redirect incoming debris, making it a dwarf planet, but I believe it is incorrect. Pluto can redirect most of the space debris that catapults at it, but it just can’t do it as well as the other planets. Also, the definition of “clear its own neighborhood” isn’t clear enough. How far does a planet have to clear out its debris? How big is the neighborhood? These things aren’t in the definition, so Pluto shouldn’t be called a dwarf planet because of this. Ultimately, Pluto should still be the ninth planet in our solar system, not the first dwarf planet. For over seventy years, Pluto has been the proud little planet in the solar system. Therefore, Pluto should have stayed a planet instead of becoming a dwarf planet because of the unfair voting, the unclear definition of ‘planet’, and because textbooks and museums will have to change everything they say about Pluto. Pluto was an honorable ninth planet, and we can make it the ninth planet again by writing letters and voicing our opinions. We need our ninth planet back! Sincerely, Irene
