Newly proposed definition of "a planet" still excludes Pluto

Almost eighteen years ago, the International Astronomical Union voted to change the definition of a planet. The new definition excluded Pluto, formerly considered the ninth planet in our solar system, shortly after its discovery in 1930. This decision angered many people, from astronomers who weren't among the 424 who voted on the change to people who had previously barely given Pluto a thought

According to the new definition, planets had to meet three criteria, but Pluto only met two because it had not "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. Under the new definition, Pluto, Eris, and its moon Dysnomia were classified as dwarf planets. Pluto is also included in the grouping of trans-Neptunian objects, which I would argue is infinitely cooler-sounding.

A new paper in the Planetary Science Journal proposes refining the definition of a planet once again. The authors argue that the current definition is inadequate because it is vague and excludes exoplanets. They propose a new definition.

A planet is a celestial body that

(a)  orbits one or more stars, brown dwarfs, or stellar remnants;

(b) is more massive than 1023 kg; and

(c)  is less massive than 13 Jupiter masses (2.5 × 1028 kg).

A satellite is a celestial body that orbits a planet.

Quantitative Criteria for Defining Planets

This definition is more likely to satisfy scientists than armchair astronomers, as it does not change Pluto's classification as a dwarf planet. Anything that spurs people to talk about science is a good thing, even if it leads to things like Pluto being used as a marketing ploy.

Previously: Pluto should be reclassified as a planet, say some scientists