That was an attempt to preserve the order of planets, but a failed one since there are other non-planets with moons. xkcd.com/3063
The modern definition doesn’t depend on moons. Which is good because not all planets have them.
Comment on [deleted]
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 1 week agoThe explanation I heard back then was that Pluto wouldn’t qualify as a planet, EXCEPT that it has a moon. I’m not sure why that exception would apply, but it seems it’s no longer good enough.
zqps@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Well, there are seven other known sub-planetary bodies (dwarf planets) in the solar system that also have moons: Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus, and Salacia. Eris in particular is larger than Pluto. So then Eris would have to be promoted to being a planet, too. Along with the other six, plus any more we might discover later. At the time of its discovery I don’t think anyone had yet observed that Pluto has a moon, and it wasn’t discovered until even later that Pluto actually has five moons.