Why is the orbit of Pluto tilted?
352951
Probably because, as many astronomers think, Pluto isn't really a true planet, but a huge asteroid that once had a very erratic orbit that has gradually stabilized over time.
287291
http://www.space.com/reference/pluto/moons.html
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.
932496
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.  for the time being, the iau classifies it as a "dwarf 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
250788
Because they are tilted with respenct to both the earth's orbit and with respect to Saturn's orbit. This means that we sometimes see them edge-on. But when Saturn has gone about 90 degrees further in its orbit, we will see the edges from a more open viewpoint.
275952
It is said by many prophets, that when Pluto is reached by man, that the end times have started. It may or may not be the reason. It might be that his cronies have little interest or capital in the manufacturer's of space technology or he can't find a way to funnel the tax payers money that supports space exploration.
790318
Let's consider the possibilities and address them one at a time.\n\n1) There is a large planet on the opposite side of the sun from Earth.\n\nThis has been proven not to be the case. Such a planet would cause the other planet's orbits to "wobble" in ways that have not been observed and besides, none of the probes which have been sent to other planets has observed any planets "hidden" behind the sun.\n\n2) There is a large planet in the outer reaches of the sun's gravitational field.\n\nWhile this is in fact a possibility, it is highly unlikely. Typically when "solar" systems are formed, the distribution of the planet sizes follows a roughly gaussian distribution, with the larger planets in a huddle (in our case, Jupiter, Saturn and to a lesser extent Uranus and Neptune). If there was a large planet in our solar system out beyond Pluto, it would be difficult to see, however there would be no other stars near enough to pull it away from the sun. It may, for example be hidden by the sun, but so far away that no "telescopes" on probes are powerful enough to see it (refer to option 1 above).\n\n3) There is a large planet made of anti-matter in the inner solar system (closer to the sun than Pluto) which we cannot see.\n\nThis is not possible. The visible planetary orbits would be perturbed, and we don't observe that.\n\n4) I have run out of options.\n\nThis is VERY possible!\n\nSo, there you have it. Make up your own mind.
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
800316
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto\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
2903
I quote : "Two small moons have been discovered orbiting Pluto, bringing the planet's retinue of known satellites to three and leaving scientist to wonder how it could be. ...The moons are catalogued as S/2005 P1 and S/2005 P2 for now. Once they are confirmed, the discoverers will suggest names, to be approved by the International Astronomical Union."\n\nFrom: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051031_pluto_moons.html
716811
Its both ways actually-an asteroid and a planet.pluto circles the sun.this is the reason why its called a planet.but it also cuts across the eliptical orbit (if you know what i mean)while the others dont.There was a big debate on what pluto really was.anyway right now i think pluto is considered an asteroid and not a planet.
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
800147
Average radius (in Astronomical units) of the orbit of:\n\nMercury = 0.38710 AU\nVenus = 0.72333 AU\nEarth = 1.0000 AU\nMars = 1.52369 AU\nJupiter = 5.20283 AU\nSaturn = 9.53876 AU\nUranus = 19.19139 AU\nNeptune = 30.06107 AU\n(Pluto) = 39.52940 AU\n\n1 Astronomical Unit (AU) = 1.49597870 E11 meters
711962
probably because it takes the same time for the Moon to rotate around its axis (a day) and orbit the Earth (a year) \nit is always facing the same side because it rotates in conjunction with its orbit (bit hard to explain)\nbecause it is also rotating at the same time, we always see the same side of the Moon
532695
there is a speculation of some eruptive volcano, because of  warmimg of pluto's atmosphere.\n\nVolcanoes on Pluto?\nJames Elliot of MIT led a team of astronomers who coordinated their observations and presented the findings today at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's (AAS) Division for Planetary Sciences in Birmingham, Ala.\n\nElliot hinted at the possibility of another factor fueling Pluto's warming trend.\n\nHe compared Pluto to Triton, a moon of Neptune. Both have atmospheres made mostly of nitrogen. In 1997, Triton occulted a star and astronomers found that its atmosphere had warmed since the last observations were made in 1989 during the Voyager mission. Back then, Voyager found dark material rising above Triton, indicating possible eruptive activity.\n\n"There could be more massive activity on Pluto, since the changes observed in Pluto's atmosphere are much more severe," Elliot said. "The change observed on Triton was subtle. Pluto's changes are not subtle."\n\nThere is no firm evidence that Pluto is volcanically active, but neither is there evidence to rule out that possibility. Even the Hubble Space Telescope can barely make out Pluto's surface.\n\nElliot added that the process affecting Pluto's temperature is complex. "We just don't know what is causing these effects," he said.\n \nGuess we will have to wait  as Tentative mission plans call for a robotic probe that would not reach Pluto for several years, making a flyby sometime prior to 2020 prior to investigating other objects deeper in the solar system.
872182
Because yesterday evening Mickey Mouse has left Pluto outside of the house door and he has spent the whole night under the open sky. Pluto hadn't either a dog house to keep warm and now is cold because is completely frozen!!!\nIf you mean the other Pluto is very simple;it's cold because it's much too far from the Sun being the farthest away planet of our solar system. Also there is no activity in its inside and that's why ,on the whole, it's extremely cold.
389936
Nope.  That's my professional (astronomer) opinon.  Here is why:\n\nPluto is a member of a large collection of similar sized objects that orbit the sun in the same region as it.  This is the same situation that Ceres, the largest asteroid is in.  Pluto was simply the first of these icy bodies to be found, we have since found almost 1000 other objects that share orbital space with Pluto.  Many of them are almost the same sice as it, and one (2003 UB313) is in fact larger than Pluto.\n\nNo good defination of planet exists that allows for pluto to be a planet without admitting about 10-100 other objects in as planets as well, unless you simple state that Pluto is a planet in an ad hoc manner.\n\nThe definition that I generally use in my work is that a planet is an object that has cleared it's orbital space of all other small bodies.  All of the main 8 planets satisfy the criteria.  Pluto, 2003 UB313, Ceres and other small bodies do not.