what is the planet after pluto?
435627
many favor the reclassification of the bodies in the solar system into three groups, the rocky terrestrials, the gas giants, and the ice dwarfs.  there are hundreds of bodies that orbit the sun farther than neptune known.  these include bodies like pluto, quaoar, sedna, and 2003 UB313.  this is also called the kuiper belt.  pluto was the first kuiper belt object discovered.
1082359
New planet, discovered by the Samuel Oschin Telescope at the Palomar Observatory near San Diego, Calif., on Jan. 8, 2005,  is yet to be formally named.\n\n(This  newly-discovered object is more distant than the mysterious planetoid SEDNA discovered in 2003. Sedna is designated 2003 VB12.)\n\n Is at least as big as Pluto and about three times farther away from the Sun than Pluto. It is very cold and dark.It is currently about 97 times farther from the sun than Earth, or 97 Astronomical Units (AU). For comparison, Pluto is 40 AU from the sun. \n\nThis places the new planet more or less in the Kuiper Belt, a dark realm beyond Neptune where thousands of small icy bodies orbit the sun. The planet appears to be typical of Kuiper Belt objects--only much bigger. Its sheer size in relation to the nine known planets means that it can only be classified as a planet itself
425085
Pluto - 1930.\n\nPluto is still considered a planet and all the objects that Mike Brown et.al. have been finding (Sedna, 2003UB313, etc.) have not been granted planetary status, no matter how often Mike Brown says that 2003UB313 is a planet, quite simply it is not.\n\nThe IAU's Division of Planetary Science is currently working on the whole planet issue, and we are supposed to have some sort of resolution to this issue by august of this year.  Right now it seems that we are leaning to either strip Pluto of its planetary status, through making an actually definition of the word "planet," or to make Pluto the arbitrary cut-off line.  This would mean that 2003UB313 would become the 10th planet, but Sedna (being smaller than Pluto) would not.\n\nAs of right now there is no official motion in place to remove planetary status from pluto, although it may loose it through the adoption of a new definition of what a planet is.\n\nAlso, no matter how catchy the name sounds, or how often the BBC calls it that, the official name of 2003UB313 will not be "Xena," that was simply Brown's code name for that object.
638225
Pluto facts:\n\nDiscovered at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona where Northern Arizona University is located.  This observatory was initially used to look for canals on Mars.\n\nIt is debated as a planet, because it does not fit the density patterns observed from other planets in the solar system.\n\nIt has an atmosphere, which is odd given its size.\n\nIts moon, Charon, is actually located within its atmosphere, which almost makes it a double planet.\n\nIt is approximately 40 AU from the sun, which is 40 times the distance between the sun and the earth.\n\nPluto may not be the last planet in the solar system, as there is evidence of a planet, known as Xena.\n\nAfter the discovery of Neptune, some people were still concerned over a variation in gravitational forces, and the search began.\n\nPhotos of Pluto were taken in 1915 and were not discovered for almost 15 years.\n\nPluto has the highest eccentric orbit of the known planets, that is it is much more elliptical rather than circular.\n\nIs this enough?
1043732
First of all, it is not galaxy you are talking about, it is solar system. Secondly, a lot of people here are saying why ask such a stupid question. What most of them probably don't know is that while pluto is the smallest of our "officially classified" planets it has come to light in recent months that we may have more planets. \n\nThe debate has been raging on in the space exploration community that recently discovered bodies past pluto may actually be planets in our system as well. They are also saying they may take pluto off the official planet list because it is looking more and more like a captured asteroid compared to these new planets.\n\nFor those who want to read more about these new planets, do a search for the planet Xena (which is the temporary code name for the new planet). \n\nIn short, Pluto is "currently" the right answer but if it is removed from the list, then mercury will be the smallest planet.\n\nHope this helps!
86735
Well... Pluto isn't exactly a planet... some people speculate it is... others don't. Yes, another one has been discovered a while ago... I think it was Planet Nebula or something... in the far away galaxy of Cygnus (the constellation that resembles a goose)... You are talking about our solar system... right? I thought as much. In our solar system... there'd be 8 or 9, depending if you call Pluto a planet or not.\n\nEDIT: OK... there was one mass that could be considered a planet found in our solar system. It was called Ceres or something... found between Mars and Jupiter. Pluto may be an asteroid!
186108
Ten. A new planet has been discovered that is approximately the same size as Pluto. It has not yet been formally named. Check http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905-images.html for more info:)
806256
The International Astronomical Union decided that Pluto was no longer a planet. The reason is that while Pluto is round, orbits the sun, and has three moons, it has not cleared (via gravity) its own orbit of debris.  Instead, they decided to classify it as a "dwarf planet".\n\nSee the details below.\n\nRESOLUTION 5A\nThe IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:\n\n(1) A "planet" [footnote 1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.\n\n(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [footnote 2] , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.\n\n(3) All other objects [footnote 3] except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".\n\n\nFootnote 1: The eight "planets" are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.\n\nFootnote 2: An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.\n\nFootnote 3: These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.\n\nRESOLUTION 6A\nThe IAU further resolves:\n\nPluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.
785248
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto\nhttp://www.iau.org/fileadmin/content/pdfs/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf\n\non 24 august 2006, the international astronomical union reclassified pluto.\n\npluto does orbit the sun, is ball-shaped and is not a satellite, but it does not have an isolated orbit (a bunch of other similar bodies have similar orbits.) so it is not a planet.\n\ni have been waiting for this since i was about ten when i learned that pluto didn't fit the pattern set by the major bodies in the solar system so it was an anomaly. it just felt "out of place". now that astronomers have found hundreds of other bodies with similar orbits, classifying "134340 pluto" as a planet is even more irrational. i feel somewhat satisfied, but i don't know how long this will drag on tho. many planetary astronomers are satisfied that the definition is rigorous enuf. i can accept that the definition is flawed, but i can not accept that "134340 pluto" is a planet.\n\nthis was the right thing to do, believe me. this does not change anything about pluto or the solar system. this just corrects the mistake of classifying pluto as a planet initially.\n\nthis same thing happened has happened before.  in 1800, an astronomer found a body orbiting the sun between the orbits of mars and jupiter and thought it was a planet.  astronomers finally stopped classifying them as planets after they found several other bodies with similar orbits, and no one thinks ceres, pallas, juno, and vesta are planets today.\n\nmany astronomers consider pluto and charon to be a binary system, but two small bodies orbit that system. they are called nix and hydra.\n\nincidentally, "134340 pluto" was never a moon of neptune. neptune did capture triton. this is why triton has a retrograde orbit
919486
All of the above are incorrect in terms of the semantics of what "officially" makes a planet a planet. You need to look at the IAU (International Astronomical Union) definition of planet to see why Pluto is now defined as a dwarf planet\n\nFirst, why does Pluto not fit the IAU planet defintion?\n\n(1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.\n\nPluto fails in "c".  Personally, I think "neighborhood" should be definined in terms of an orbital dynamics phase space since it never comes close to Neptune due to the 3:2 resonance  of their  orbits: my opinion and $3.95 will get you decaf latte at Starbucks. (Hmm... Neptune has not cleared Pluto out of ITS orbit either. . . maybe they know about some other icy bodies in Pluto's orbit?)\n\nPluto DOES meet the qualifications  for a dwarf planet.\n(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
642503
Its a planet!!  On a serious note try this link\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto\n\n:) Hope this helps........
7411
You have to understand that as telescopic and computing power increase, we will be finding tons of new "planets" in the solar system.  Most people agree, that Neptune is the last "true"  planet in the solar system.  Pluto is likely just an object in the Kuiper Belt, an area on the outskirts of the Solar System, where the Sun's influence dwindles rapidly and there are tons of rocks floating around.  Pluto has a minor atmosphere and a moon, Charon.  There is a debate that starts up every time a new large object is found around where Pluto is, this happens every few years.  Bottom line: there probably won't be any more planets added to the roster, and Pluto won't lose its planetary status...there is just too much involved in changing things.  So, to answer your question, Poseidon probably exists, but its probably not going to be a planet.
745
There are actually several "planet like" objects beyond Pluto in an area called the Kuiper belt that contains thousands of objects that circle the sun.\n\nAt present none of them have been officially recognized as new planets. \nThe discovery of these new planet size objects including  2003 UB313 (nicknamed XENA), Sedna(in 2004) and Quaoar(in 2002 by the same team) have triggered a re-evaluation of the necessary criteria to call something a planet.\n\nIt is likely that this team at Caltech will  discover other objects to be added to the list of potential "planets" in our solar system.\n\n2003 UB313(nicknamed XENA unofficially) is larger than Pluto which leaves officials in a bit of dilemna.  How can they recognize Pluto as a planet and not this object?
1103000
They won't, because their orbits are so different. Pluto intersects the solar system's ecliptic, or orbital plane, twice as its orbit brings it "above," then "below" that plane where most of the other planets' revolve -- including Neptune. And, though they are neighbors Pluto and Neptune are always more than a billion miles apart.
766964
http://www.iau.org\nhttp://www.iau.org/fileadmin/content/pdfs/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf\n\non 24 august 2006, the international astronomical union reclassified pluto.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto\n\npluto does orbit the sun, is ball-shaped and is not a satellite, but it does not have an isolated orbit (a bunch of other similar bodies have similar orbits.) so it is not a planet.\n\ni have been waiting for this since i was about ten when i learned that pluto didn't fit the pattern set by the major bodies in the solar system so it was an anomaly. it just felt "out of place". now that astronomers have found hundreds of other bodies with similar orbits, classifying "134340 pluto" as a planet is even more irrational. i feel somewhat satisfied, but i don't know how long this will drag on tho. many planetary astronomers are satisfied that the definition is rigorous enuf. i can accept that the definition is flawed, but i can not accept that "134340 pluto" is a planet.\n\nthis was the right thing to do, believe me. this does not change anything about pluto or the solar system. this just corrects the mistake of classifying pluto as a planet initially.\n\nthis same thing happened has happened before.  in 1800, an astronomer found a body orbiting between the orbits of mars and jupiter and thought it was a planet.  astronomers finally stopped classifying them as planets after they found several other bodies with similar orbits, and no one thinks ceres, pallas, juno, and vesta are planets today.\n\nmany astronomers consider pluto and charon to be a binary system, but two small bodies orbit that system. they are called nix and hydra.\n\nincidentally, "134340 pluto" was never a moon of neptune. neptune did capture triton. this is why triton has a retrograde orbit
1133662
It's current name is 2003 UB313.  It is larger than Pluto.\n\nBut is not yet officially recognized as a 'planet'.\n\nThat may change later this year as the International Astronomical Union (IAU) firms up the definition of a planet.\n\nAt that point, it will probably be renamed.  The discoverers of the object have submitted confidential names to the IAU.  Some people call it Xena or Lila, but these are not official names, and are not among the names submitted to the IAU.  \n\nIt is not 'Planet X' ... this is a generic name for a theoretical large planet not yet discovered.  (Pluto was once thought to be 'Planet X', but it is too small.)  The Planet X theory has been disproven.\n\nSedna is a smaller object (smaller than Pluto), and may also be reclassified as a planet ... but I don't think it's likely.\n\nOne thing is for sure though ... Pluto will not lose its classification as a planet ... astronomers are sentimental too.
507031
It is not a planet.  \n\nIt is still classified as a trans-Neptunian object (TNO), even though it appears to be larger than Pluto.  In fact, some people wonder if Pluto is large enough to be considered a planet, but it's unlikely anybody will "downgrade" it.   I heard a lecturer at Berkeley say that Pluto should really be classified as a 'double-planet' with its moon Charon, which is almost half its size.\n\nIn September of this year (2006) the International Astronomical Union (IAU) will come up with a re-definition of how big something has to be to be called a "planet".  E.g. does it have to be large enough to support an atmosphere.  At that time UB313 may become a planet (and get a cool Greek name).