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

I would just like to commend 99% of the commenters on this site for the well-reasoned and rationale opinions offered on the subject of Pluto's planet status.  I so rarely come across dignified web discussion, and it's been a real pleasure!  Thank you all.

P.S.--Pluto is not visible in sky with the naked eye or most handheld telescopes, so it certainly was not known to the ancient civilizations, or any other society until the 2oth century.
Ambiguity abounds in lots of fields. Take simple geography. Is Australia the largest island (surrounded by water) or smallest continent (bigger than Greenland). People who say history or custom define continents would have dificulty drawing the line between Europe and Asia (let's see, follow this mountain range, maybe this river, fudge it across this desert ...) or the realists would say Eurasia and ask what is the fuss about? Geographers know they aren't going to win any of these so leave them well alone.

By the way I am sure Piazzi in 1801 didn't look up from his telescope and say "I've discovered the first asteroid". He was looking for a planet and thought he'd found one. It took a few further discoveries before the penny dropped that there could be thousands of them. Then the name changed.

And Herschel thought he'd discovered a comet when he saw Uranus, so maybe we should go back to his original definition.

I personnally like the description of the solar system by (I think) Isaac Asimov: 'Jupiter, plus debris'.
There are sixteen objects in the Solar system larger than Pluto.  

Seven of them are moons.  Our own moon being the thirteenth largest object. (only four other moons are larger than it, and two of them are larger than the planet Mercury)

Even newfound Eris is larger than Pluto.

At seventeenth largest object to orbit the sun, or object orbiting an object orbiting the sun, Pluto is a speck among mountains.

After doing my research I've come to agree that Pluto probably shouldn't have ever been labeled a planet.  (Just as the asteroid Ceres had been centuries before and itself also demoted.  Yes, this whole Pluto debacle has happened before.)

Pluto is a doirdis. [dwor-dis]  It is fine as a doirdis.  It still has it's own distinct and exciting features.  With two moons, Hydra and Nix, and being a binary planetary system itself, along with co-pilot Charon, the two have potential to be kings among doirdes [dwor-deez](Ceres and Eris, and the hundreds of other neptaurines (my funny word for trans-Neptunian objects)and KBOs (Kuiper-belt objects) that by definition could soon also share in the recognition as planets of dwarf stature).

NOTE: doirdis comes from an alternate spelling of dwar (from the unofficial term "dwarf planet") added together with Dis Pater.  In honor of Pluto itself.  (Dis Pater being the Roman name for the Greek god Pluto/Hades .  Orcas being the other Roman name and having already been taken by a KBO.)
The IAS has concluded Rhode Island isn't a real state.   It is a dwarf state, or stateoid.  It's so small that if you get up to highway speed, you'll be thrown into another state or the ocean.    That goes double for Hawaii.

Given their petroleum reserves Alaska and Texas are gas giants.

Seriously, what more do we need to define planethood in a workable way than to say first that a planet must orbit the sun, and second that it must be masssive enough to be very close to spherical?  I think that bending the word "planet" to a new and unintuitive shape makes scientists look silly to the layman,

And, what benefit is there to all this fiddling?   So what if we end up with twelve or twenty planets.  Did we ever expect to find out some planets have dozens and dozens of moons?  We didn't see a need to mess with the definition of "moon".

Does it matter. I didn't realize a chunk of Ice being classified as a planet or not made any bit of difference to what matters most in life. Instead of arguing over whether Pluto is a planet, why not try to solve issues that are on this planet. A lot of you are smart enough to do so if you apply yourselves.
"I think it's funny that some join the debate by complaining that the debate is pointless."

Yes. Since I don't have an opinion I can't tell folks that I think the debate is pointless. Right.
The debate is silly and way past tiresome. Its something that the IAU should never have bothered to waste their time with. Now astronomers are having to deal with a preposterous public-relations problem, and for what? A lousy little DEFINITION???

Subtle Nature is often more ambiguous than our feeble attempts to stuff Her works into ridiculous pigeon-holes of mere definition. That's not what science is about.

BTW, it is startling to read so many comments that exposes a major misunderstanding - roundness and having moons are NOT good criteria for being a "planet"! Asteroids and moons can be round, and quite small irregular bodies can and do have moons.

I like Tom Lazarus' suggestion: what's wrong with using the word "planetoid" if there is any ambiguity or uncertainty in the matter? Its a perfectly sensible and consistently descriptive word to apply to "small worlds" that share a region of the Solar System.
BTW, again: If Pluto was defined as a "beachball", it would in no way "demote" it for the very real WORLD that it and potentially hundreds of other similarly-sized Kuiper Belt Objects with moons (known and probably yet to be discovered) in fact ARE.

Personally, I first think of a certain Disney cartoon character whenever I see the name in print. Last time I checked, Mickey's dog is not very spherically "round", nor does he have any moons. He would make a terrible "planet".

"Pluto" - its just a NAME. "Planet" - its just a WORD. Get over it already. Its a non-issue.
Pluto IS a planet, and it will prevail.  Those who talk about the need to "accept change" should realize that nothing real has actually changed.  The only thing that happened was the discovery of objects beyond Pluto that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, ONE of which--Eris--is slightly larger than Pluto.  This object should be designated a planet.  What did happen was that four percent of the IAU, or 424 out of 10,000 members took part in a vote via a flawed process and settled on what Stern rightly describes as a "sloppy" definition.  Why should the whole world be mandated to adopt their definition considering the many problems with both the process of the vote and the fact that the definition makes no sense in that it states a "dwarf planet" is not a planet at all?  There are also many astronomers who are not members of the IAU.  The IAU should not be given this much power to the extent that their word is law on the subject.

I made sure to buy my now four-year-old nephew books about the solar system that include Pluto, and I plan on buying him a children's model of the solar system with Pluto as well (Toys R Us here in NJ still sells them).  Teaching children only eight planets does them a tremendous disservice by denying them knowledge of a very intriguing world that in every way qualifies as a planet.  That said, I am also teaching my nephew about Eris, adding that it's not in many books because it was just found very recently.

Using the argument that we can't teach everything and that we have to draw the line somewhere is just as "sentimental" as is argument based on the tradition of nine planets.  If there are 200 planets in the solar system, then that's what we should be teaching.  My prediction is that within a few years, there will be multiple versions of posters, books, models of the solar system, some with eight planets, some with nine, some with ten, some with twelve.  This will likely reflect future changes to the definition of planet.

The IAU definition is a fiasco that most certainly "does not work."  I look forward to seeing it "fall by the wayside" where it belongs.  And next time the IAU votes on something of this magnitude, they should make an effort to include the other 96 percent of their members.
To Laurel (and generally to the respondents to this article): yes, of course, by all means, refer to Pluto as a "planet"! There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In the generic sense, the word is certainly applicable to any body in orbit around the Sun or a star, right down to the size of a speck of dust.

The word means "wanderer", and just because the ancients could identify only 5 of them (besides the Sun and the Moon, both of which were ALSO considered to be "wanderers" and therefore "planets") doesn't mean that the literally billions of other objects down to dust-speck size that can't be seen by the unaided human eye from Earth are disqualified as legitimate "wanderers" plying their own independent orbits around the Sun: they're ALL "planets". The scale and other circumstances have very little else to do with it. Every speck of dust is a "world". Ever single mote is significant, and they all follow the same rules that govern the motions of what we are all pleased to agree "ARE" planets, such as, say, Jupiter or Earth (NOT recognized by the ancients, who considered their own world entirely fixed in space: NOT a "wanderer" at all!).

Today, of course, we know a bit better. By all means, use the word "planet" with wild abandon, to refer to any material non-stellar bodies in orbit around a star. Or call a moon a "planet" of a planet. OR, if a poetic approach seizes you, go ahead and use the word metaphorically to refer any kind of wanderer-like objects that attend a larger object, such as birds clustering around a tree, or perhaps mosquitoes pestering a moose.

They're ALL "planets". Its just a "WORD"! The real things out there aren't be altered by what we decide to call them. They were all there LONG before we showed up to categorize them, with that peculiarly widespread notion that definition alone can assist us in our quest for "meaning".

There really ISN'T any great "magnitude" to this issue besides what people commonly misinterpret and internalize as such. Kids ought to be taught as much as they can absorb about the details and the hows behind the wonders of the universe they live in, as science has so spectacularly revealed them. Nature is a magnificent tapestry that is utterly indifferent to how little beings from a little world pigeon-hole Her in their little minds. She's much bigger than we CAN think.

Its OK to call Pluto a "planet" - no problem whatsoever - as long as you also let your nephew know (as I have my own nephews) that every mote of dust wrested from a comet or from the collision between two chunks of rock in the asteroid belt are ALSO a "wanderers": undeniably each worlds in their own right. Its just a question of scale and whether we can suspend our prejudices and accept the distinction between the words we use for designation and the objects of actuality themselves.

The IAU was wrong in tackling this definition because the issue has no "magnitude" whatsoever. It is a NON-ISSUE (scientifically) that has been suitably amplified. The perceived importance of definition on the matter was based on a rather trivial and misguided technical point among astronomers. That it had been magnified to hideous proportions by the media was every bit as wrongheaded as it was predictable.

But that doesn't mean science is wrong. It only shows that science is conducted by fallible human beings...who in this case decided that it was "important" to "define" exactly what a "planet" was.

Its entirely sensible to refer to Pluto as a "planet". Nobody from the IAU will attempt to prohibit anybody from saying so. Its NOT some kind of edict from some pulpit! They were only trying to digger something technically out between them, and the botch was in their gross inestimation of what the culture/media would make of it.
PLUTO IS A PLANET OKAY FINE GREAT
I THINK PLUTO SHOULD BE A PLANTET BECAUSE IT TRAVELS THE SOLAR THE SOLAR SYSTEM THE SAME AS ALL THE OTHER PALNETS.PLUT HAS BEEN CONSIDRED A PLANET FOR MANY MANY YEARS,I STILL CONSIDER IT PLANET BECAUSE IT ORBITS THE SUN(AS I SAID) THE SAME AS OTHER PLANETS AS THEY TRAVEL AROUND THE SUN.
Pluto should be considerd a planet because any thing that orbits around the sun is a planet.
As long as Pluto has a demoted status, then Neil De Grasse Tyson is happy and partying.
I think we should go look... and then decide
The ancients knew of the planet Pluto, and honored it as such, before the 'intellects' built a device with which to see it.
Pluto is a twin body, with powerful energy and great mystery. It is the weakness of mankind that feels it needs to name and define, in order to control.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...
"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!"
I agree with that.  
Unfortunately, Pluto should have been dubbed a comet all along.  
It's got the same makeup (ice and dirt),
same orbit (elliptical @ 17deg of inclination [all other planets are between 1 and 7, comets are around 20deg inclination]),
and the atmospheric conditions (the atmosphere swells during the perihelion stage so large that the atmosphere encloses Charon) of a comet.  The only argument against it being a comet is that it has moons.  And since it's the largest comet we've ever seen, that's not much of an argument since there's nothing else to compare it to.
If it looks, smells, acts, and tastes like a comet, it's a comet.
Just because it was classified incorrectly from the start does not mean that the error should go uncorrected.
Can you all please dedicate this same amount of time to helping me find my carkeys ??
Lost them in '86....behind Pizza Hut....

I Love it. You hit the nail on the head!

BTW Jeff,you never mentioned the make of your car. I might have the keys here.

Dan,Pizza lover


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