We can’t do that, the International Astronomical Union thugs would destroy the servers and salt the earth where they stood. (They’ll probably adopt the hamsters, they are not complete monsters).
(Also are the new Discord servers also Hamster-powered?, what happened to the old hamsters? are they in the mod’s houses now? or have they been er… “retired” to the proverbial upstate farm house?, so many questions…)
The Discourse servers are powered by much more powerful capybaras.. The hamsters have been “retired” to a commercial snake farm in Florida.
Ida was just the first asteroid to be definitely known to have a satellite, but it’s hardly the only one. Several hundred are known or suspected. According to Wikipedia, about 2% of all asteroids and 11% of TNOs are thought to have satellites.
If we’re going to accept Ceres and Pluto, there’s pretty much no way we can stop at just ten planets. In addition to Eris (the discovery of which is pretty much responsible for Pluto’s official de-planetization) there’s also Haumea and Makemake–which would bring us to thirteen–and possibly also Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, and Salacia, not to mention a bunch of things that (so far) are just strings of letters and numbers (“(307261) 2002 MS4”).
Like I said 13 years ago (wow, time flies), I think it would be shiny to have dozens and dozens of planets, but I guess the IAU isn’t likely to put me in charge.
Oh, and on the topic of “moons”, and whether having one makes you a planet or not, there’s something out there way past Neptune that’s over 600 kilometers across (about 400 miles wide) and has a moon that’s over 100 kilometers across. So, definitely more than just a boulder, although it may not be a fully solid object. Too bad, because I would love to add Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà (and its moon, Gǃòʼé ǃHú) to the official planets list. Memorize that ya little bastards!
As I said above, whenever the number of “planets” gets above 10, the astronomical community redefines planet to reduce the number again. Ceres was originally classified as a planet, then reclassified as an asteroid when more were discovered. But there’s no real conceptual reason that it shouldn’t be classified as a planet due to orbit, location, shape (it’s the only asteroid with a spherical shape due to its own gravity), and composition. It has much more in common with the rocky planets than it does with Pluto.
I don’t mind calling Pluto and other Kuiper Belt objects something else due to composition and location, but a highly contrived definition that puts Ceres in the same group IMO is ridiculous.
Never mind memorize. I’d love to hear one of you uitlanders just try and pronounce them with the words in front of you.
How about we group some of the planets based on for how long they were considered one of “The Planets of the Solar system”? We can call the group the neo-classical planets and teach those in school. And then the Astronomers can make up and rearrange whatever classifications they feel are useful like rockballs, iceballs, gasballs and blue balls, without it influencing what Joe Schmo remembers from school.
The Earth wasn’t considered to be a planet for thousands of years. It’s only been generally recognized as a planet within the past 400 years, a much shorter time than the other “classical” planets.
As always, there’s a Wikipedia article for that:
And the Sun and the Moon were considered planets, making 7 “classical” planets
And that’s why I suggested calling them “neo-classical”! I’m sure there won’t be any other issues and everyone will agree to this compromise. 
Really, the only reason to be concerned about the definition of a planet is to make a convenient list to recite. The eight bodies currently recognized as planets fall into two very different groups, while objects called dwarf planets, asteroids, satellites, and other bodies are more similar to one or the other of the two groups than the groups are to each other. Calling an object a planet doesn’t really tell us anything unique about it.
I guess much depends on what one considers to be the most important characteristics to establish “commonality”. I find a persuasive aspect of commonality to be the fact that the eight recognized planets orbit the sun close to the same orbital plane, in orbits that are nearly circular, all being a consequence of having condensed from the same protoplanetary disk. They are also large enough to be fairly easily visible from Earth; all except Neptune in fact at times visible with the naked eye, and Neptune visible with the kind of telescope easily accessible to the amateur backyard astronomer.
I’ve always thought of Pluto as the odd man out, even before its official demotion, because of its eccentric orbit that was also way out of the ecliptic shared by all the other planets.
I must say I was very surprised at the fascinating results of the New Horizons mission. I had thought of Pluto as an uninteresting piece of ice in the fringes of the solar system, and it turns out to be a very interesting and geologically active place (albeit a bit chilly – the kind of place where you’d need a quality overcoat and a good pair of mittens!). 
@wolfpup, that’s a reasonable standard, but note that it would also include Ceres and (arguably) Luna.
That’s a reasonable definition, but IMO the exclusion of Ceres is arbitrary. Rather than an artificial lower limit on size, it would be sensible to have one based on physical characteristics such as shape. Admittedly there’s a huge gap in size between Mercury and Ceres, but there’s a pretty big gap between Neptune and Earth too.
That’s where the “clearing the orbit” test kicks in, though. There have been three different measurements for how to define “clearing the orbit”, and all of them have a substantial gap between Mars, which has the lowest rating, and Ceres, the next one down. The wiki article on it describes it as being “orders of magnitude” different between the eight planets and Ceres, Pluto and the rest.
Fair. I would definitely argue against Luna as it does not (independently) orbit the sun. Ceres is pretty arbitrary, as @Colibri said. My view would be no, because it’s a particularly egregious case of having failed to “clear its orbital path”. Essentially Ceres is a very large rock among a whole orbital ring of other rocks.
But I would certainly acknowledge that these sorts of arguments begin to illustrate why many of these definitions are pretty arbitrary.
By this thinking, the hypothesized Planet 9 will not be a planet, even though it’s way bigger than Earth. It doesn’t check any of the boxes except having formed in the same protoplanetary disk.
BTW, the subject line of this thread is mistaken. Planet 9 is not in the Kuiper Belt. It’s way past the Kuiper Belt. And the last time I checked, they’d changed their guess as to its mass. Now they think it’s only about 5 Earth masses, rather than 10.
I’ve never been a fan of the “cleared its orbit” criterion, because Earth fails that one, too. Luna is an awfully big hunk of rock to be sharing our orbit with.