Does pluto have rings!!!???
924524
As far as I know, No Pluto does not have rings
664542
All orbits are elliptical (note that circles are subsets of ellipses.)  Exactly how Pluto go to be where it is (and where also includes its coordinates in a velocity space, in addition to xyz space) is not known.  One interesting thing about it is that it is in a resonance with Neptunes orbit, so that whenever it is close to Neptunes orbit, Neptune is on the other side of the sun. Neptune's mass can't perturb Pluto.  In other words, Pluto is in a special orbit that is stable. \n\nI doubt it had its origin as a moon of Neptune, or else it likely would have been flung into a very radical orbit by an encouter with that planet. More likely it is one of MANY objects that found itself orbiting in similar orbits; all the others have long ago been removed from the picture by Neptune encounters.
811501
Pluto is not a planet anymore... it is now a "dwarf planet."\n\nWhen it is outside Neptune's Orbit, it is 8 planets away from the Sun and when it is inside Neptune's Orbit, it is 7 planets away from the Sun.  \n\nPluto has a very eccentric orbit and spends 20 year chunks of time closer to the Sun than Neptune.\n\nAloha
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
1037864
There are a large number of balls of ice and rock of various sizes scattered around the solar system. Some are small enough that they are irregularly shaped. Some have highly elliptical orbits. Some are very, very small.  So part of the difficulty is that there is not an agreed upon definition of what a 'planet' really is. By one definition, Pluto is not a planet, but rather is the first of a class of medium sized balls of ice and rock to be discovered at the edges of our system (the Kuiper belt objects). There are many others, some of which are comparable in size. Furthermore, these objects are far enough away from the sun that they don't reflect much light back to us, so they are very hard to locate.\n\nOn the other hand, we can estimate the distances to some fairly bright galaxies and determine that they are billions of light years away. That means that the light from these galaxies has taken a billion years to get to us. That, in turn, means that we are seeing now what happened there billions of years ago. This allows us to say what the universe was like at that time with some confidence.
774555
Pluto has been officially demoted from its status as a planet.\n\nhttp://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/headline_universe/solar_system/stories_2006/pluto_nonplanet_aug_2006.html\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto\n\nExperts say Pluto is NOT a planet\n\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_5280000/newsid_5282400/5282434.stm\n\nhttp://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/news/story/0,6260,1333579,00.html\n\nhttp://hurricanes.nasa.gov/solar_system/science/pluto.html\n\nGood luck.\n\nKevin, Liverpool, England.
825827
read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto\n\npluto is neither a planet nor a comet.\n\npluto does orbit the sun, is ball-shaped, does not have an isolated orbit (a bunch of other similar bodies have similar orbits.), and is not a satellite so it is not a planet.\n\ni have been waiting for this since i was about ten.  i knew 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.  this 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\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.
871778
1) Perregrin Falcon both on land & in air (http://www.usefultrivia.com/science_trivia/animal_trivia_003a.html)\n2) Widely accepted Saturn  but Uranus, Neptune and Jupiter have rings as well (http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/ExploringSolarSystem/ExploringRings.html)\n3) 1/8 or .125\n4) Flying squirrel\n5)  Sherlock Holmes\n6) Superman (Ka-Leil)\n7) There's no universally-accepted answer as to just where, but there is a name for it: Ultima Thule. (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/13988)\n8) Underground\n9) Advise & Impart\n10) X= -22.5 \nUse BODMAS Rule (Brackets Of Division Multiplication Addition & Substraction)\n11) Usually 24 hours - but this varies a from state to state
829586
Pluto is the smallest planet, recent reports says that pluto is not further considered as one of the planet cause it is actuallay only 3/4 of the moon...........Pluto has one moon named Charon
927189
To answer your second question first (I'm just an ornery cuss), Pluto is still a member of the Solar System. It's no longer considered a planet, though. It is now called a dwarf planet because of its size and extremely anomalous orbit (so look it up already).Just like the moon. asteroids, etc. it is still part of the Solar System.\n\nAs to the 1st part of your question-------Usually, as long as Mickey gives him table scraps instead of that crap from the can.Woof!Woof!
406851
In our Solar System?  Unlikely.  There are a bunch of things orbiting beyond Pluto that are bigger than it that could be considered planets if size were everything... although Pluto is just a large Comet that orbits on the inside of the Oort cloud.  \n\nIf there was anything beyond Neptune of any consequential size, chances are we would have detected it by now.
40715
I cannot think of an example. Pluto, even if not considered a planet, is not a moon, but a Kuiper belt object. So the fact that Charon is a moon of Pluto is not sufficient. However, it's possible that we find such a rare phenomenon, since it's not against the physical laws.
122870
Go to the following website to get the latest news on the Pluto - Kuiper Belt mission:\n\nhttp://pluto.jhuapl.edu/
103893
Pluto is officially a planet. Although if it were discovered today it would almost certainly NOT get planet status.\n\nBecause of all the confusion with the recent spate of Kuiper Belt Objects, the International Astronomical Union (they are in charge of naming stuff) declared Pluto a planet for historical reasons.\n\nOf course, for astronomical research it doesn't matter too much what you call it...
233171
Seven.\n\nThe rings have been given letter names in the order of their discovery. The main rings are, working outward from the planet, known as C, B, and A. The Cassini Division is the largest gap in the rings and separates Rings B and A. In addition a number of fainter rings have been discovered more recently. The D Ring is exceedingly faint and closest to the planet. The F Ring is a narrow feature just outside the A Ring. Beyond that are two far fainter rings named G and E. The particles in Saturn's rings are composed primarily of water ice and range from microns to meters in size. The rings show a tremendous amount of structure on all scales; some of this structure is related to gravitational perturbations by Saturn's many moons, but much of it remains unexplained.
782519
read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto\n\nno, pluto does orbit the sun, is ball-shaped, does not have an isolated orbit (a bunch of other similar bodies have similar orbits.), and is not a satellite 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\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.