It is not old news that Pluto has lost planet status. The definition of a planet has been changed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and according to the new definition, Pluto is now categorized as a dwarf planet. A round celestial object, which orbits the moon, should have enough gravitational force to 'dominate' the objects around it to be defined as a planet. The latter is a difficult requirement for Pluto to manage because of its small size.

Many dwarf planets have already been discovered and many are, in fact, larger than Pluto. According to a National Geographic article by Mason Inman "there are more than 40 of these dwarfs, including the large asteroid Ceres and 2003 UB313, nicknamed Xena—a distant object slightly larger than Pluto discovered by Brown last year." Pluto would be in a very awkward position because of all of the larger asteroids and other planets that are being discovered and defined as dwarf planets. The line between planet and dwarf planet would be far too thin for Pluto to remain as a planet.

I think of it as scientific progress that the definitions of planets are being changed and that we can re-evaluate the objects that make up our solar system. We have discovered so many other objects in space that we now have to categorize them differently.

Here is the National Geographic article.

The Dangers of Private Space Flight

This article details how private space flight could potentially be very dangerous. The writer uses records for past private space flights do make his point that private space flight is not space.

The problem with these records is the records are all from Cold War era private space programs. He is neglecting that since those programs went on, private space industries of today, such as Virgin Galactic have gone much further in craft design. Companies are using other methods, such as motherships(carrier airplanes that loft spacecraft) , as opposed to conventional launches. This author gives no mention at all to the safety records of current companies. As the main point of his argument, he is saying that it is not worth the money to fund these companies.

There is no evidence of argument from the side of the private flight companies themselves. It is most likely that companies are aware of any dangers, such as those presupposed here, and have or are currently coping with that specific danger that could hurt the prospects of space tourism as a successful industry.

Does anyone have a spare $200,000 lying around?

That's how much it costs to book a trip on the Virgin Galactic shuttle.

This whole private space travel thing is really exciting. While most private companies aren't necessarily going into space for scientific reasons, this is still a large stepping stone for space travel.

We can only hope that someday everyone without $200,000 will spend some time among the stars.

If we need to find some habitable planets, we'll know where to look.

According to recent findings, white dwarfs may be the best places to find those heavily sought after, habitable planets. That's thanks to the fact that the habitable zone around a white dwarf is very close to the actual star.

An exoplanet that close is observable by earth based telescopes.

These planets in the habitable could, of course, harbor liquid water, an proponent aspect of a planet that may have the potential for life. Here's the link.