[The Antiyuppie]

After seeing these bodies, I wonder if a lot of experts are rethinking the “dwarf planet” label. With an obviously active geology (no craters), in some ways Pluto has more of a claim on being a planet than does Mars. Those images were shocking to many.

[dr_lew]

For my part, as an independent consciousness in the universe, granted several nugatory degrees, I wonder at the reliance on cratering as a yardstick of age, since the Pluto system is so distant from the sun. It certainly can’t be compared with Ceres, in the midst of the asteroid belt.

OTOH, it seems Charon has a number of obvious craters, but still, it’s hardly blanketed with them. It’s just hard for me to picture an engine for “active geology” for Pluto, but we’ll see what they say.

[SunkenCiv]

I remained convinced that the vote against Pluto was a knock against the US, and brought on by hostility toward the GWB administration.

"To Pluto And Far Beyond" By David H. Levy, Parade, January 15, 2006 -- We don't have a dictionary definition yet that includes all the contingencies. In the wake of the new discovery, however, the International Astronomical Union has set up a group to develop a workable definition of planet. For our part, in consultation with several experienced planetary astronomers, Parade offers this definition: A planet is a body large enough that, when it formed, it condensed under its own gravity to be shaped like a sphere. It orbits a star directly and is not a moon of another planet.