|
Well they took one vote and it was in - why complain when they took one vote to take it out?
One reason for doing it now is the large number of discoveries of objects so similar to Pluto. More than 800 discovered since Dave Jewett and Jane Luu discovered the first (well, the second now - Pluto being the first) 1992 QB1.
I agree it was likely pressure applied by JPL/NASA scientists to have their new discoveries classified as planets (would have done wonders for their budgets and public image) but it is more likely that it was a catalyst to force an outcome on an argument that had been going on for 70 years. It would have been just as easy to add the new objects to planetary status as to remove them so one can't actually blame the discovery of such objects on pulling Pluto's status!
I have to disagree with your last point. Prior to this 'ruling' what was the definition of a planet? For the very first time they actually made an attempt to provide some 'rules' for catagorising what a planet is, as well as those other objects in the solar system. As things stood, anything that orbited the sun could be called a planet. If fact everything except comets were called planets (asteroids were called Minor Planets!)
Cheers
David
|