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.



A Pluto pilgrimage

Posted: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:00 PM by Alan Boyle

  
Matt York / AP file
  Tourists hear the history behind the Pluto Discovery
  Telescope at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz.

The first thing you notice about the Lowell Observatory, the place where Pluto was discovered, is that the little guy gets top billing.

The road rises quickly from the city streets of Flagstaff, Ariz., up Mars Hill  and on to the entrance to the 115-year-old observatory's grounds. A pillar marks each side of the entryway. One pillar reads "Lowell Observatory," and the other pillar displays a column of nine runes that could have come from a chapter of Dan Brown's latest thriller, "The Lost Symbol."

These symbols stand for the solar system's worlds, and the symbol right on top is a combination of the letter P and L. That stands for Pluto, arguably the most controversial world in the solar system. It also stands for Percival Lowell, the observatory's founder - who was perhaps as controversial in his day as Pluto is today.

If any place on Earth should serve as a shrine to Percival Lowell and Pluto, it would be the 740 acres of forested grounds beyond the pillars. This is the place Lowell selected for his study of the "canals" he thought he saw on Mars. This is where he started the search for a "Planet X" that he was sure existed beyond the orbit of Neptune. This is where young astronomer Clyde Tombaugh followed up on Percival Lowell's predictions by poring through stacks of photographic plates. And this is where Tombaugh's painstaking effort paid off in 1930 with the discovery of Pluto.

It turns out, however, that the Lowell Observatory is about much more than the best-known dwarf planet.

For example, Vesto Slipher, the observatory director who presided over Pluto's discovery by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930, also came up with the telescope data that later led Edwin Hubble to conclude that the universe is expanding. Steele Wotkyns, Lowell's public relations manager, says that's one of the first things tourists are told.

"Of course we tell them about the discovery of Pluto, but we like to lead with that story about the expanding universe because it's a big one," he told me during my own tour of the place.

There are other big ones as well: Lowell's astronomers were in on one of the first direct observations of planets beyond our solar system. They've helped to chart clouds on Titan, arguably Saturn's most mysterious moon. They're part of the science team for New Horizons, NASA's mission to Pluto.

And that's just one side of the Lowell mission: The observatory is unusual in that it's also heavily engaged in public outreach. About 80,000 visitors come to the observatory's 740-acre spread every year, to see sights including the telescope involved in Pluto's discovery.


Alan Boyle / msnbc.com
A pillar at the entrance to the Lowell Observatory displays planetary symbols, with Pluto's symbol on top. Beneath Pluto are the symbols for Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury.

It was the Pluto connection that drew me to Lowell this week - not just because of the tourism angle, but also because the locale's history figures prominently in "The Case for Pluto," my newly published book about the controversy surrounding the whole idea of planethood.

For years now, astronomers and everyday people have been debating Pluto's proper place in the planetary scheme of things. Now that an array of Pluto-like worlds have been found on the edge of the solar system - including one that's bigger than Pluto - do all those things merit the "planet" label? It's my view that they do, but I wanted to see what Lowell's scientists thought.

It would be easy to enlist Lowell's scientists as the best defenders of the Plutonian faith - but that's not the case. Officially, Lowell's astronomers take no stand on whether the International Astronomical Union was correct when it voted to classify Pluto as a dwarf planet, yet a non-planet.

"I see it as an opportunity to talk about the process of science," Eileen Friel, the observatory's new director, told me. She said the debate over Pluto shows how new information can affect how scientists - and members of the general public - think about scientific concepts.

Just for fun, the observatory is conducting its own ballot on the issue. Donation boxes are set up in a row in the Rotunda, a 93-year-old exhibition space in the observatory's historic headquarters building. Visitors can register their "votes" on the planethood issue through their donations.

"At first, if you put something in the 'dwarf planet' box, people would give you this ugly glare," recalled Kevin Schindler, the observatory's outreach manager. As the controversy continued, the flow of donations ramped up to three times the normal rate, he said.

As of last month, $1,711.80 was tallied up in favor of calling Pluto a planet, compared with $640.05 for the "dwarf planet" label.


msnbc.com
Yours truly takes a look through the blink comparator Clyde Tombaugh used to spot Pluto in 1930. That's snow, not dandruff, in my hair.

The Rotunda also houses a contraption called a "blink comparator," which Tombaugh used to compare photographic plates from the observatory's 13-inch Lawrence Abbott telescope, now known as the Pluto Discovery Telescope. Tombaugh spent thousands of eye-straining hours at the comparator, checking plates for the telltale signs of small objects in orbit. Even today, you can click-click-click between replicas of the original plates on which Pluto was found and try spotting the dwarf planet for yourself.

Schindler said Tombaugh's achievement stands as "a testament to patience and dedication."

"In today's world of attention deficit disorder, I don't think anybody could do this anymore," he said. Nowadays, computers sift through databases of images taken by computer-controlled cameras, alerting the humans only if they find something worth following up on. That's how Pluto's long-lost kin are being tracked down on the solar system's rim.


Alan Boyle / msnbc.com
Percival Lowell's mausoleum sits on the grounds of the observatory he founded.

Many of the tourist stops on the Lowell Observatory's main grounds relate to its storied past: the 24-inch Clark telescope (which was installed in 1896 and is still used today for public viewing), Percival Lowell's mausoleum, the Pluto Discovery Telescope and the 350-foot-long planet walk that puts the distance between the sun and Pluto in perspective. (On that scale, the nearest star would be in Los Angeles, 464 miles away.)

To see Lowell's next landmark instrument, the Discovery Channel Telescope, you don't have to go as far as Los Angeles - but you would have to travel 40 miles southeast of Flagstaff, to a site known as Happy Jack. The telescope's 4.2-meter-wide (13.8-foot-wide) mirror is expected to reveal new frontiers in astronomy.

Friel said one of the telescope's first assignments will be to conduct an extended survey of the same region of outer space where Pluto was found. "It has direct relevance to the observatory's legacy," she said.

And so, almost 80 years after Tombaugh's discovery, the saga of Pluto and the Lowell Observatory is coming full circle.


Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or following b0yle on Twitter. And give a look to my brand-new book, "The Case for Pluto."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

As a point of historic interest, it has sometimes been claimed that Pluto was discovered because of effects it has on Neptune's and Uranus' orbits. But though Tombaugh was targetting his search based on such putative effects, in fact they did not even exist. Pluto is too small to have significant effects on either planet. Variations in Uranus' orbit were in fact due to the fact that they did not have a good value for Neptune's mass; ones in Neptune's orbit were just imaginary.

On another subject, scientists have little objection to people continuing to call Pluto a full planet, however in scientific circles it is now NOT considered one. While we understand the emotional appeal of Pluto, and the unwillingness of some people to evolve their thinking, the fact is that the old system (with Pluto as a planet) has become logically indefensible. This is not likely to change and is not subject to popular approval or disapproval. In short, it desn't matter on bit what the masses may think. So 'polls' on the matter are pretty meaningless since the poll-ees have no say in the matter.

[ALAN ADDS: Discussing the whole background of this planethood thing would take a book (heh, heh), but it seems to me that the term "full planet" is a curious one. If you were to say "dynamically dominant planet," then I might agree with your statement. But if you were to say "geophysically differentiated planet," the statement is obviously false.]

--
--
do you want that NASA and your country save over $35 billion?
--
if the answer is "yes", read and talk about this new article:
--
"Why the Ares 1-X test ISN'T a true success"
--
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/057afailedtest.html
--
--
All power to Pluto!  It will always be a planet to me.  I remember Carl Sagan mentioning this observatory on his Cosmos series.  I would love to visit it someday.
All that fuss about a label.  Yes, there are several other "worlds" similar to Pluto's characteristics, and which might be included in our list of planets. But whether Pluto is excluded, or whether it and all the others are included, the solar system doesn't care a whit; it's still the same as it used to be before our inconvenient discoveries; and what's out there is still out there.  Indeed, the issue of Pluto's planethood has become a debatable one -- but our debate and decisions on the matter won't change the stuff that circles the Sun.  Compared to the size of our Solar System and the Universe, the taxonomy of planets is a tempest in a teapot (not the one in Sagittarius).

There is no such thing as a "full" planet, so comments such as JC's come off as seeing the glass as half-empty.  The IAU ruling did not prevent us from calling Pluto a planet, and there is no reason to stop.  We just need to add the other Kuiper belt objects into our textbooks and discussion.  Between the 4th and 5th planets is this big group of asteroids.  After the first eight planets comes a group of smaller planets with irregular orbits.  No demeaning is necessary.

Interesting article Alan!  Poor little Pluto, the Rodeny Dangerfield of planets, it gets no respect now.  Still I think the astronomers got it right by downgrading it to a dwarf planet as it really is an outlier as far as planets go.  What a feat of patience and persistence Clyde Tombaugh made as he used the blink comparator method of finding it.
Science is dynamic...things are always changing as more information it brought to light.

After many years of study, it appears that maybe classing Pluto a "planet" was incorrect.

If you don't like the characteristic of science maybe you should look at a religious sect as a basis for your reality.

Get over it and get on with more exploration.
Flagstaff and Lowell Observatory are at the top of my list of favorite places to visit.

J.C. Fairbanks, your statement that "in scientific circles Pluto is not considered a planet" is a gross generalization. This may be true in some scientific circles, but it certainly is not true in all, as hundreds of professional astronomers led by New Horizons PI Dr. Alan Stern sigend a petition rejecting the entire IAU planet definition, which itself is highly controversial.

The IAU system is equally "indefensible" as the old system, in the way it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are and in its labeling of dwarf planets as non-planets. Supporters of the IAU decision love to cite "emotional appeal" as the reason for rejection of Pluto's demotion, but this is a straw man argument. There are strong scientific reasons for keeping Pluto and all objects in hydrostatic equilibrium that orbit stars defined as planets, then distinguished with multiple subcategories. This is the geophysical as opposed to dynamical definition of planet, and it is equally legitimate. In fact, the motives of some to artificially keep the number of planets in our solar system small for the sake of convenience could be construed as motivated by emotional concerns as well. If our solar system has hundreds of planets, then that is what it has, regardless of our need for a number small enough to memorize.

It does matter what the masses think when there is sound scientific reasoning behind their position and when that position is backed by many respected members of the astronomical community. It does matter when the process and outcome used to reach a decision was highly flawed and more political than scientific. I strongly disagree with your sentiment that things are unlikely to change regarding planet definition due to opposition to the IAU definition. Even many dynamicists know that definition is flawed. Exoplanet discoveries are revealing giant planets that do not "clear their orbits" and/or circle their parent stars in highly elliptical orbits. When we fully come to terms with these discoveries, there is likely to be recognition by most of the scientific community that there are many types of planets rather than just terrestrial and jovian ones and that dwarf planets belong to one of these subclasses.
Alan, nice story on the Lowell Observatory and Pluto. I had the opportunity to visit there in the summer of 2008 and to see the telescopes and listen to a few presentations there. It is a wonderful facility worthy of a visit by anyone interested in space or astronomy when in the northern Arizona area.

Unfortunately for me as a Virginian, I learned that July is the rainy season in Arizona and with that no obeservation time was obtained. The two-lane highway drive from Flagstaff to Sedona is one of the most amazing vistas on the planet; I highly recommend it.  

By the way, a final decision on Pluto's status should await until human beings manage to walk the surface of the solar system body orbiting the Sol. Yes, I am for the 'Dash Out of Low Earth Orbit' option for NASA.
Although I personally like the symmetry of eight planets - the four small rocky inner worlds against the four large gas giants, separated by the asteroid belt - I can easily accept Pluto as the harbinger of another class of yet-to-be-named type of Solar satellite.  Other stars may or may not have such iceworlds indicating the presence of water in a system in volumes sufficient to support life somewhere out there.  The important thing is that it
is there.  And it is certainly (as this article relates) a good example of Man's insatiable appetite for knowledge.
What does a simple label mean for Pluto? Does it get less funding for projects, less economic growth? Its pretty silly that there is so much debate on if it is a planet or not.
Sorry JIverson and Laurel, I refuse to join you in getting your undies all in a bunch over trivia. There are very sound reasons for not considering PL a 'planet' and I have better things to do than endless, useless debate...
i laugh at JC for adding that comment X-D...many of us have have our own opinions on it =P... many of us grew up with pluto being a planet and a planet it will always be to me...yup its true...no debate in that
I think one of the most touching sights on the grounds is the PL mausoleum. It's actually very lovely, with the purple stained glass overhead; his tomb is eternally watched over by a starry Van Gogh-esque night sky. Someone really cared about the old boy to design such a heartfelt crypt.
Science has a duty to classify, not to discriminate. Dwarven planets are planets too!
What are you "dwarf Pluto" geeks gonna do when one of your peers discover sea life on Saturn moon bigger than Mercury? That moon won't be called a planet? Scientists always complicate common labeling when in fact they are just in the infant stage of finding out what they are working with.  If you boys and girls want to get so serious about a label then the real issue now is "earth" given that every month we hear of scientists tell us of new planet discoveries in other solar systems yet there is no way to know what type of "planet" they are. Where is the next "earth"?  An earth is the real big deal now. This earth we spin on is completely unique since no other has been verified yet and so it's stands alone in the known universe. Labeling Saturn and Jupiter in with Earth is just plain stupid if you propose that Pluto is not the same as Mercury. Hearing "smart" scientists get upset that Pluto should not be included with Mercury yet they considered it perfectly acceptable that Earth is labeled the same as Venus or Neptune smacks of geeky know-it-all delusion about their own "ahead of you" intelligence.  All these other non-Earth orbs, no matter their size or the galaxy they are riding in, are planets and so far there is one earth and eight planets commonly named in our solar system.  The world "planet" goes back hundreds of years before any earthling realized there were things called Mars and Uranus gliding by in the heavens.  Mercury doesn't dwarf Pluto while Earth is dwarfed by Jupiter...yet Earth is not a dwarf planet?  Stop over complicating a very simple labeling system that worked great to teach the world what is up there.  All of us raised with the mindset of Pluto is a planet are the ones sending a probe there because it had meaning to us.  Downgrade the system and you downgrade the interest (exploration) of those who don't study this stuff for a living.  
Of the many problems with the IAU's definition of a planet, none is more obvious than its failure to include Trojan planets.  Consider a solar system where the parent star is 100 solar masses, a brown dwarf of 50 Jupiter masses orbits at 30 AU, and there is one Jupiter planet (both in size and mass) at each of the LaGrange points L_4 and L_5.  These two Jupiter sized planets have not cleared the neighborhood around their orbits since they would not have cleared out the brown dwarf at 30 AU nor would they have cleared out each other (at 30 AU).  Any reasonable definition of a planet must include them but the IAU's definition does not include them.  The problem with defining a planet as "nearly round" suggesting that pear shaped bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium do not qualify as planets, see http://www.josleys.com/show_gallery.php?galid=313.  Saturn is over 12% oblate and this suggests its planet-hood is ambiguous because "round" is quite often understood as spherical. Although the IAU listed Saturn as a planet, Saturn's planet-hood should be unambiguously deducible from the definition of a planet and therefore not require its presence on a separate list.  And the definition of planet should not be heliocentric.  Currently, the IAU has one definition for planets in the solar system and another definition for planets everywhere else.  In accordance with the Copernican principle, there should be one definition of a planet that applies everywhere.  The linguistic problem with dwarf planets not being planets and the ambiguity of "clearing an orbit" demand that the IAU planet definition be altered.  A more general problem is that there is now too much terminology for the outer solar system.  For instance, there are now Kuiper belt objects, Trans Neptunian objects, Plutoids, Plutinos, Scattered disc objects, cubewanos, etc.  There are other ways to fix up the planet definition problem and below is an example of one possible way of doing this.  This approach defines a planet in context with other bodies in the universe:

A star is a celestial body that sustains, has sustained, or is capable of sustaining nuclear fusion.

A brown dwarf is a star that is only capable of fusing deuterium and/or lithium even if neither is present.

A celestial body that has a barycenter continuously inside the body of another celestial body is a satellite of that celestial body.

A planeton is a celestial body that is not a star and has sufficient mass for its self gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium.

A planet is a planeton that is not the satellite of another planeton.

A moon is a satellite of a planet.
So do I, Mike D. I learned it that way a long time ago. To me, inside, Pluto *is* a planet.
In what I do now there has to a precise definition though. The whole thing has become so MUDDLED that it serves no one. What's your suggestion?
As I believe, and as I've seen written more than once, (and makes the most sense)- Any object that:

A> Has enough mass to obtain a circular form.
B> Orbits the Sun.
C> Does not orbit anything in the solar system BUT  the Sun.-Is a Planet of the Sun. Not so hard...
You call it what you like, it doesn't bother me, even a little bit. -lol:-)


JohnRN
Do we really know anything about pluto? Not what we think we know or have jumped to a conclusion. HA.


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=2114995

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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