This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I believe if you will check, you will find that NASA has NO official position on whether Pluto is a Planet or an Dwarf Planet and as such, I think the first sentence should read, Planet Pluto not Dwarf Planet. There maybe individual Scientist who work at NASA (But not paid by NASA) who support the View on Dwarf Worlds however. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
'Dwarf planet' is correct of course. However, in the context of the sentence "launched by NASA on 19 January 2006 to study the dwarf planet Pluto" it is slightly misleading, I think. Pluto was not officially a dwarf planet (it was still considered a planet) at the time of launch. So, at its inception (and even at launch) New Horizons was a mission to study the only remaining unexplored 'planet'.188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I see no relevance. The mission intends to study Pluto, regardless of the conceptual and arbitrary classification. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We say that "Columbus discovered America." Not "Columbus discovered what many years later became known as America." New Horizons is on its way to the trans-Neptunian object Pluto. What its status was at the end it was launched is irrelevant.JavautilRandom (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the stated tertiary objects is to look for rings. Does anyone know where this comes from? Is there any stated record of this being a goal? Is there any reason to believe any of these bodies could have rings? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Pluto has several small moons. Around Saturn, several of the small moons create rings because they do not have sufficient gravity to hold onto material after micro-impacts. This may be happening with Pluto, too. JavautilRandom (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If the community agrees, I would propose deleting the "Key mission dates" section from the article. The table itself looks misplaced in the article and a number of dates are unreferenced. Other than that, all of the mentioned dates and events are already mentioned in the appropriate sections of the article, with the most important ones in the lead section, so the table basically duplicates them for no reason. Regarding future mission milestones, they too are clearly stated in the "Kuiper-belt mission" and "Pluto flyby". I personally dislike going too detalied about future missions because they are clearly still being planned and the exact mission for New Horizons after the Pluto encounter is still unclear. Can I get some opinions on this? :-)--Saxum (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with its removal and I think it should be restored. There are plenty of citations available. The Mission website makes all of this clear. PS I'm pretty much retired on wikipedia and feel strongly enough about this to temporarily come out of retirement to address my views--T1980 (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)