ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Will Pluto prevail?

Posted: Friday, August 24, 2007 8:10 PM by Alan Boyle

It's been exactly a year since the International Astronomical Union busted Pluto down a rank, from one of the solar system's nine major planets to one of potentially thousands of dwarf planets. Scientifically speaking, the debate over planethood for Pluto (and other denizens of deep space) will go on for years. But when it's time to buy that glow-in-the-dark planetary mobile, you're increasingly likely to get eight planets, plus an explanation.

If Alan Stern has his way, the makers of toy planets shouldn't be too quick to toss out their Pluto mold. Stern, one of the underdog planet's biggest proponents, is the principal investigator for NASA's Pluto-bound New Horizons probe as well as NASA's associate administrator for space science.


NASA / ESA / JHUAPL / SwRI
A Hubble photo shows Pluto with its largest moon,
Charon, as well as two moonlets, Nix and Hydra.

Stern thinks the scientific tide has actually turned in favor of Pluto's planethood over the past year: "Many people just refuse to use the IAU definition," he told me this week. "Although a lot of teachers think the IAU [decision] is a done deal, people are slowly coming to realize, 'Not so fast.'"

Even at the time that the definition of planethood was hammered out in Prague, the IAU faced a storm of criticism over some of the clauses in that definition - for example, the rule that a planet had to have "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit." That definition could conceivably allow someone to argue that Jupiter wasn't a planet, due to the asteroid belt or even perhaps the Oort cloud.

"It's like saying a cow is not a cow unless it's on a particular kind of ranch," Stern said.

The planethood debate arose in the first place because some of the worlds discovered on the solar system's icy edge were close to or even exceeded Pluto's size. That forced astronomers to choose between adding to the list of planets and subtracting from it. The IAU chose subtraction - but others have different ideas. Stern even noted that some experts have referred to Ceres, the biggest object in the asteroid belt, as a planet. Maybe there should be 12 planets rather than just eight or nine.

The fact that some scientific societies still haven't settled on the IAU's definition could leave the door open for Pluto's comeback.

Even if the "dwarf planet" designation sticks, Pluto still might hold its historical place of prominence - or at least that's Stern's hope. "A dwarf planet is still a planet, just like miniature dogs are still dogs, and dwarf people are still people," he said.

The IAU's defenders would agree that nothing about Pluto itself has changed, and that the plucky little world is still worthy of attention. It's not so much a question of Pluto, but of the pigeonhole you put it in. If you have only so much space in the pigeonhole, and only so much time to devote to the solar system in the classroom, where do you draw the line?

When you look at the issue that way, Pluto's chances for lingering on as the ninth planet aren't that great. Sure, you can still find the nine-planet set at most toy stores, but that might last only until the new stock comes in, said Carl Benoit, editorial director for Illinois-based Learning Resources, which sells educational supplies, toys and games.

"From what I've seen, it's eight planets - and then they will talk about Pluto being a dwarf planet," he told me today.

Anton Skorucak, chief executive officer for PhysLink, another online science store and Web portal, said he's seen mixed reaction to Pluto's demotion.

"Some still specifically want products that do have Pluto in the planets, particularly the older clientele," he told me. "A lot of people are buying products that still have Pluto left over because of the collectible value, because in five years or so, the products that have Pluto in them will probably be priced higher. It's very interesting."

The changeover from nine to eight planets depends on the product cycle: Web sites, for example, can change at the drop of a hat. Wikipedia already recognizes eight planets and at least three dwarf planets, including Eris and Ceres as well as Pluto. The widely respected "Nine Planets" Web site has had its logo virtually spray-painted with the number 8, and although it's accessible via nineplanets.org, you can also get to it through eightplanets.org.

When it comes to physical products, it's easier to change a planetary poster or place mat than a solar-system planetarium kit with more than two dozen parts. Skorucak admits that people sometimes ask for a solar-system poster that has Pluto as a planet. "But it's too late - the manufacturer has already changed its stock," he said. 

San Francisco-based Great Explorations currently sells a nine-planet set as well as an eight-planet set, but program manager Amy Rosen said the company hasn't heard strong feedback either way. "I don't think consumers think about whether there are eight or nine in the box," she said. "They just take what's available."

Most companies, like most scientists and educators, see Pluto's predicament as a teachable moment. "We do have several games and mobiles and puzzle pieces that have Pluto in there, but we're just using the opportunity to teach that things change in science, and that this is one of those times when Pluto has been declassified from a planet to a dwarf planet," Benoit said.

Maybe it's not so bad being a dwarf planet - considering that they'll be having their day in the sun in the years ahead. Next month, NASA is scheduled to launch the Dawn spacecraft toward Ceres and its smaller sister in the asteroid belt, Vesta. Then there's New Horizons, which is due to fly by Pluto and Charon in 2015 and perhaps see other icy worlds as well.

New Horizons famously flew past Jupiter earlier this year, and since then the spacecraft has covered half the distance between Jupiter's orbit and Saturn's, Stern said. The craft is due to go through a course correction next month and run through some instrument calibrations before going back to sleep.

As it makes its way into the outer solar system, New Horizons will periodically wake up to make observations - for instance, measuring the solar wind and taking pictures of Pluto ahead. "There are a half-dozen things that we're doing, and we're always on the lookout for something we can get relatively close to," Stern said. "If something pops up in our path, we're going to go after it."

Stern admitted that it can be hard to keep the public interested in a mission that will take nine years to reach its main destination. To humanize New Horizons' progress, Stern came up with the idea of selecting five kids who were born on the day New Horizons was launched - Jan. 19, 2006 - as well as five more who turned 10 on that date.

The first group of "Pluto Pals" made their Web debut this month, and the 10-year-olds (who have by now turned 11) will be selected this fall. The New Horizons Web site will check in on the kids annually through 2016 to find out how they're doing, and compare their milestones with those of the spacecraft.

Will the debate over eight vs. nine planets still be simmering when those Pluto Pal infants turn 10? Or will we instead be wondering how to classify hundreds of planetoids around distant stars as well as our own? Stern trusts that the scientific debate will eventually settle on the right answer - about Pluto, and about the worlds to come.

"Things that don't work fall by the wayside," he said. "Things that do work are the ones that we keep."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Clyde Tombaugh has probably completed a lot of turning over in his grave by now.


Since the ancient Greeks coined the term we should still be using their definition: Traveler, ie. a light that travels through the sky rather than being fixed.
under their logic, we'd go back to 49 states, since hawaii is "just" an "island" state...
what's wrong with the term 'planetoid'? sci-fi writers have been using it for decades. it's certainly shorter and more elegant than 'dwarf planet' and it splits the verbal and physical difference between asteroid and planet perfectly.
It's really simple.  Pluto is big enough to be round.  It has moons.  So it's a planet, dummy.  Let's not do something stupid as to compare Pluto with asteroids that are potato shaped and try to say they're the same thing.  Pluto has always been a planet and always will be.  And they're probably at least one or more planets out there, too.  The IAU should show some guts (and brains) and declare them to be planets, too.
I think it's a silly argument--Pluto's a planet, leave it alone.
The styrofoam kit I bought my kids has nine balls in it.  I wish it had twelve.  Painting that many balls would keep them busy longer.  Perhaps we should increase the complexity of our solar system.
I also consider the demotion of Pluto to be a double edged sword. One the one hand, it is unfortunate the we only consider our system to include eight planets, but at the same time, it's likely the children will become farmiliar with Pluto, Ceres, and Eris in gradeschool, whereas previously Ceres was as obscure as any of the other major objects in the asteroid belt.
"If you have only so much space in the pigeonhole, and only so much time to devote to the solar system in the classroom, where do you draw the line?"

This is outrageous thinking. this ammounts to dumbing down.
LIMIT the ammount of real information? who decides what there is "time for in the class room?"
I cant believe that the scientific community would take this approach, leaving out information just because it doesnt fit in a certain mold?
How about we leave the IAU out of the pigeon hole and out of the classroom, that would end the discussion.
I find the whole debate over planetary status to be somewhat like little boys hiding behind the barn, seeing who can "mark" the barn wall from farthest away.  You see a lot of the same in paleontology where scientific reputations are at stake over the latest interpretation of small collections of bones and skulls.  There's so much ego rubbing going on, the science takes a back seat to publicizing a point of view.  I would think that mostly round balls orbiting the sun directly (not following a bigger round ball around) are most likely closest to the definition of a planet. Small, irregular lumps are not.  Finer definitions seem to be straining at gnats.
If Pluto has three moons orbiting it, that makes it a planet, no?  It may be a "dwarf" planet, but it's still a planet.
I say it's a planet.  It was discovered, it was named after a God, it's a planet.  Can't demote that.  It will rise again!
Pluto is more of a planet than some planets since it has 2 and not one moon.  I have no idea how many times Clyde Tombaugh and Walt Disney have turned over in their graves.
Pluto will always be a planet regardles of the "new" rules.period.
Believe it or not.  Pluto still holds real power in the science of astrology...the harbinger of death and transformation. Where's your Pluto?
For some reason, while growing up, Pluto was always my favorite planet.  Its out there where its cold and harsh and dark, but it IS there.  It may travel an irregular path to the other planets, but it IS still there.  Also, it has been perceived as a planet for so long it should remain that way.
Alf said that there were 2 more beyond Pluto, my guess is that he was right.
If something is round, orbits a star (whether eliptical orbit or not), is not a moon, an asteroid, a comet, a meteor, or any type of star it should be a planet!  dwarf this, giant this.....blah blah blah. Actually I do like categorizing stars as giants and dwarfs but with planets it just seems much simpler and it should be.  Pluto in my opinion is a planet.  In 2014 when New Horizons gets there my opinion will change once I see some images.
The problem with defining a planet as something that's become round under its own gravity and isn't following something around is that Pluto's moon Charon meets this definition, too. Pluto and Charon orbit a point in space between the two bodies, and both are round. Also, some non-round asteroids have moons as well.
This is how they are spending time and the money??? How absolutely moronic...
Puerto Rico has its own branches of government, levies taxes, and its own constitution, yet it is not a state and is still part of the United States and most people are fine with that.  Pluto may be round and have moons (albeit the center of mass of the pluto system does not lie in any single body) and it still is part of the solar system, just under a different classification.  Leave your nostalgia behind and welcome to more concrete descriptions of a planet, dwarf planet, et cetera
Ok first off Pluto has been called a planet for thousands of years, why change it now? Second off, do you people -seriously- have nothing better to do than debate on weather or not a planet is a planet? I mean seriously people, what are you being paid for?
it should be classified as a planetary system, or a planet, in my opinion, because it contains itself to a spherical shape through its own gravity , and because it orbits a star, even though it also orbits around a common point in space with one of its moons, it does have a second moon which orbits it.

therefore i feel it should be classified as both a planet and a planetary system, depending on how you are describing it.
I personally think the definition should be broken down on two axis -- Gravity and Core Mass.

IE:
All planets are spheroid incapable of self-sustaining fusion that does not consume or involve enough mass to maintain a specific absolute brightness or magnitude.

size (minor < .5g, normal, major > 2g, giant > 8g)
core (rocky, liquid, ice, gas)

So we could say that Pluto was a minor rocky planet and Jupitor is a major gas planet....
Planet or not, consider the discussion this has raised. Before this debate I had never considered the concept of drawing a line between planet and non-planet. As a result of this conflict, many less-informed people such as myself have been educated. I don't care what you call Pluto (I doubt Pluto cares either), I think it's fantastic that the attention raised has educated so many.
Hmm, I thought the United Federation of planet decided
that the Sol-Terran system had 10 planets. starting with Appolo and ending with Pulto. Oh well animals aren't very smart anyway.
I think that many of the "definitions" created to describe what is and isn't a planet were so arbitrary and unscientific in their creation that they negate any validity.  Get the egos and politics out of science or you all fall in danger of becoming nothing more than another set of politicians.  We already have enough of those gumming up the works!
Whose idea was it to bring this planatary demotion up anyway? Don't they have more important things to do?
What happened to the scientific method?  Present a theory, debate it, knock it down, revise it, present the new theory, rinse and repeat?

Changing Pluto's classification as we learn more and revise our theories about the type and quantitative distribution of the objects within our solar system should be expected and respected.  Is this new classification the end of the debate?  Unlikely.  But the arguements for keeping the old system based on emotional attachment or familiarity, rather than on scientific merit, are missing the point.  

So keep beating on the current theory, not because we don't like change, but with an eye towards making the next theory better than the previous two.  
The center of gravity of the earth-moon system is about a thousand miles below the earth's surface.  The center of gravity of the Sun-Jupiter system is a point outside of the Sun (above the visible surface of the Sun), but a lot closer to the Sun than to Jupiter.  So -- is the Sun part of double-star system with Jupiter.  No, because Jupiter is not a star.
Luckily there was a new discovery to go along with the Pluto demotion: people discovered there's something called the IAU, which is probably what they were going for in the first place with this.
Given the rush of new planets we are discovering outside our solar system, it makes sense to have a newer classification system to cataloging these things. That being said, pluto is still out there, where it has beeen since mankind walked this planet. Why does it's classification (Which is really all we are talking about here) make a difference to why it is taught in classroms or why it should be part of planetary models? It is STILL there. there is still a lot of history around it, when you do into who discovered it and how.
If anything we should add these new bodies to the model and start teaching about some of these new planetary systems we are seeing. Pigeonhole? What a pile of garbage is that!? Well. I need more class time so we are going to need to get rid of "Z", "Q", and "V". Since not many people use them anyway and we just don't have the time in the classroom. LOL.
We all have to categorize things. As scientists, when new information comes available, we have to incorporate it into our existing picture. Sometimes it means changing something not everyone wants to change. Why not do as we educators have to do everytime a new change comes along - accept it and teach the reasoning behind it. It isn't like it was just U.S. scientists who came up with this new definition. It was a worldwide committee.
Note to Quietman -- Mork from Ork described Pluto as being a "Mickey Mouse" planet.

Note that Pluto was the only "major" planet discovered and named by an American, after its existence was postulated by another American.  It seems to me that Pluto's "demotion" was a result of the loss of international prestige by the United States.  I blame this on the policies of George W. Bush.  I think that Bush should immediately travel to Pluto (the planet, not the Disney character), in person, to apologize.
Is there somewhere that an "average joe" star gazer can see what the so called geniuses qualify a planet as?  Like the body must be round, in orbit around a star and be with in that star's oort cloud.  If we ever see a complex and complete solar system outside of our own, only then will we be able to start to qualify what is a planet and what is not a planet.
There is a funny article involving the demotion of Pluto, check it out:
http://www.daveobrien.com/popups/pluto.htm
Concerning the marketing aspect of solar system models... my bet is that this ordeal will last as long as "New Coke" did.... then we'll have to come up with a new name for the restored 9 planet system like... "Classic Solar System" with the old formula.    ha!
For CONSTANCE in Florida:  The planet Pluto was NOT discovered until ****1930****!!  "...the most distant planet in the solar system, inches across the sky so slowly that in the years since it was discovered in 1930,it hasn't even made it half way around the zodiac. It won't complete a circuit until 2176 !
Who cares? Is there a more mundane or pointless debate in science right now? I doubt it.
Constance: Pluto hasn't been considered a planet for "thousands of years," since it was only discovered in the 1930s.

I agree with the poster who lamented the "dumbing down" of science education, regarding the comment that "there's only so much time; what do we choose to cram into our precious children's minds?" Teach our children that there's debate over what to call Pluto and why, and let them draw their own conclusions. That's what science is about.
Lets see...

Scientists argue that since pluto is smaller than our own moon, it can't be a planet.

Hmm... since Wikipedia contains more information than the scientists do, they can't be scientists.

Lets use their own logic against them.

If a body in space has orbiting sattelites (or not) and it's not classified as a star, then it's definately a planet. I don't care if there's 9, 14, 55 of them, or whatever they finally classify it as finally being with this definition.

Look at it another way, we can limit the classification to the following definition:

If it has significant enough mass to form into a spheroid shape, meaning it is round, and in the case of multiple sized objects, is the largest object that orbits with another, then it's classified as a planet, provided it doesn't have enough mass to start nuclear processes within the core.

Brown Dwarfs do have some nuclear processes, just not significant quantity, so they are classified as stars, not planets. Nutron stars also have nuclear processes even though their physical dimension may be smaller than Jupiter.

If the object is or is not spheriod, but orbits a planet as a smaller mass than the planet itself, then it's classified as a moon.

If the object is a non-shperiod shape, then it's an asteroid or planetiod determined by placement of other similar objects. Meaning the belt region between Jupiter and Mars contains Asteriods. NEO's would be considered Planetiods.

I mean really... how hard can it be?
"Ok first off Pluto has been called a planet for thousands of years, why change it now?" -- Constance, Florida

#1. I think it's a little closer to 77 years.
#2. That's like saying, "We've been calling the world flat for thousands of years, why change it now?"  Because we know more about the earth than we did thousands of years ago.  And we also know more about Pluto and other bodies in the solar system than we did in 1930.  If we're going to call Pluto a major planet, then we don't have nine planets.  We need to include Eris, and maybe Quaoar, Sedna and others.  And what if we eventually find 500 of these bodies?  Our planet list is going to get a little unwieldy.

I think that sentimentality should have no bearing on scientific classifications, and I agree with Robert's comment about the scientific method.  We will probably find a better system, but I think that the decision to put Pluto in another category from the major planets was the right one.  Maybe something a little more dignified than "dwarf planet" could be used.  I like "plutino", myself.
Okay now, let me make this very clear...
Pluto IS a planet.
Always has been since it was first formed, and always will be, after our home star, Solaris burns, itself out, in the next few billion years.
I don't care what these conservative IAU
"fruit-cakes" think or say, or if they burn me to the stake for heresy....The truth is plain and simple:
PLUTO IS A PLANET!
And yes, I believe that there more than just the nine worlds in this star system, that are planets, waiting to be discovered and explored.
For those of you saying "Pluto has been considered a planet for too long, why change it now?"  What if we had said "The world has been considered flat for too long, why think its round now?"

Science is the search for truth, not the keeping of traditions and what makes things easier.  Therefore, scientific information should be allowed to change if the evidence points toward that need.
I think it's funny that some join the debate by complaining that the debate is pointless. I'll bet (very hypothetically) they'd yell "Quiet!" in a library too. Oh well, I can't believe I've wasted all this time wasting time. Go Sol! And ALL your children!
To all those who are complaining about the demotion of Pluto to "dwarf" planetary status, consider this: How many of you knew of Eris, Ceres, Vesta, and the like before all this came up?
As has happened and will (hopefully) continue to happen, the unintended "consequence" of this debate is that now people are a bit more educated about the world (and solar system) around us.

You may now return to obsessing over Brittany, Lindsey, and Paris....
I'm a big fan of Pluto and a strong supporter of NASA's 'New Horizons'

I worry that 'New Horizons' will lose funding due to Pluto's demotion and this will compromise the potential success of the mission.

Anything less than a fully successful mission of the spaceprobe to Pluto will jepordize technological advancement of America's space program and make it more difficult to deal with the Asteroids that are due to smash the Earth in 2017 and 2018.

Pluto's status is a matter of not only national security but world survival.

Pluto MUST be reinstated as a planet of our solar system with full rights and benefits.
Can you all please dedicate this same amount of time to helping me find my carkeys ??
Lost them in '86....behind Pizza Hut....
Don't even get me started on this... the I in IAU stands for incompetent not to mention a few other colorful adjectives that are not part of the full acronym.  Adding planets instead of subtracting was not only a just thing to do but would have added great excitement to each new find.  They are an embarrassment to their own field and ignored their own multi-year study on the subject.  As the one guy admitted here last time, they were just pressed for time and made a hasty decision just to go home... yeah, kind of like Congress...
Round, has a moon, orbits sun, not a moon of another planet

Anything else is ego driven, and mental self-abuse


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=332304

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google