Nineteen years. That is how much time has passed since the controversial IAU vote in 2006. Planetary science has been in a long-term stalemate over the issue of planet definition. The IAU refuses to re-open the debate based on new information, including that returned by New Horizons. At the same time, a large number of planetary scientists are using the geophysical planet definition and ignoring the IAU altogether.
The conference “Progress in Understanding the Pluto System: Ten Years Since Flyby” focused heavily on the planetary characteristics of not just Pluto, but also Eris, Ceres, Makemake, Neptune’s moon Triton, Saturn’s moons Enceladus and Titan, and Jupiter’s moon Europa.
It also included presentations on the persistence of scientists in terms of Pluto’s discovery and in terms of getting the New Horizons mission off the ground.
The term “planetology,” now another name for planetary science, was first coined by the late Percival Lowell, who began the search for a planet beyond Neptune early in the last century.
In 1915, Lowell published “Memoir on A Trans-Neptunian Planet” outlining the reasoning behind his planet search—supposed anomalies in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune (later proven to be in error). Having founded the Lowell Observatory in 1894 to search for evidence of life on Mars, Lowell purchased an astrograph to capture wide-angle images of the sky and a blink comparator to switch back and forth between two images of the same part of the sky in an effort to find something that moved against the background stars.
Ironically, while Lowell died in 1916 thinking his search failed, Pluto appeared in photographic plates of the sky he took in 1915 but was not recognized and thought to be one of many background stars.
Twenty-four-year-old Clyde Tombaugh, hired by the Lowell Observatory in 1929 to continue the search, used the astrograph to image photographic plates and the blink comparator to compare images of the same parts of the sky taken several days apart. Within a year, he discovered Pluto.
It took until 1988, when Pluto was imaged using CCD cameras, for scientists to discover it has an atmosphere.
Similarly, getting New Horizons to launch was another protracted, long-term effort. Principal Investigator Alan Stern noted that the idea of a Pluto mission was first raised in 1989, after Voyager 2 flew by Neptune. Five separate mission proposals were made and subsequently canceled. But the scientists who advocated a Pluto mission, nicknamed the “Pluto Underground,” refused to quit. When the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHUAPL) was finally awarded the mission, they were given only a few years to build the spacecraft and its instruments to fit the necessary launch window.
“Pluto is the story of perseverance, of not taking no for an answer, of saying, ‘yes I can,” emphasized Lowell Observatory historian Kevin Schindler at the conference. “This is one of the reasons that inspires so many people about Pluto.”
Today, we are in yet another situation that requires perseverance, both in terms of getting a better planet definition that restores Pluto and all dwarf planets to full planethood, and in the effort to return to the Pluto system with an orbiter.
Two days ago, the publication Morning Overview reignited hope by publishing an article titled, “Why Pluto Could Be Reclassified as A Planet Again.” The article cited recent scientific studies that reveal Pluto to share many characteristics with the solar system’s larger planets, including a complex atmosphere, geological activity, and varied surface features, such as mountains, valleys, and plains.
“Pluto is unique in many ways. Its size and composition are comparable to other planets in the solar system, albeit smaller. It has a rocky core surrounded by a mantle of water ice, and its surface is covered in nitrogen ice, with traces of methane and carbon monoxide. This composition is not unlike that of terrestrial planets, further blurring the lines between Pluto and its larger counterparts,” the article noted.
The article goes on to mention the possibility of Pluto having a subsurface ocean and the uniqueness of Pluto-Charon as a binary system, the only one in our solar system.
Acknowledging the efforts by so many, not just scientists, the article credits popular culture for keeping the notion of Pluto as a planet alive for close to two decades.
“Popular culture, through media and educational systems, has maintained Pluto’s image as a planet…Grassroots movements and public interest can significantly influence scientific decision-making, as seen in past scientific debates and reclassifications.”
And there we have it. Our efforts have kept this debate and Pluto’s status as a planet alive in both culture and science. Though it may not always seem that way, our efforts are making a difference.
The article goes on to list the benefits of Pluto being recognized as a planet, which include more scientific research and funding to study Pluto and similar objects as well as renewed searching for hard-to-find planets both in our solar system and others.
“As discussions continue, the potential reclassification of Pluto as a planet remains an intriguing possibility that could reshape our understanding of the Solar System,” the article concludes.
Pluto’s story is one of perseverance, and that continues today. Regardless of how much time has passed since the IAU vote, we today need to call upon that perseverance and stick with the effort to undo the travesty of 2006 and gain a better planet definition. Never give up. Never, never, never give up.
No comments:
Post a Comment