Planet Pluto Lives

This is a day I long hoped would not come, a sad anniversary for astronomy, and one that could have been avoided if even one IAU member had had the courage to stand up at this month’s General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro and ask fellow members to admit the mistake made three years ago in the infamous vote on planet definition and take action to set it right.

But out of 2,100 attendees, not a single person exhibited that courage. At a General Assembly that started with a lower attendance than the notorious one three years ago in Prague (that one began with 2,500 attendees out of nearly 10,000 IAU members and ended with 424), the major denial of this ongoing issue amounted to the huge elephant in the room that everyone pretended not to see.

And so it is August 24, 2009, the third anniversary of the bizarre drama that resulted in a planet definition so poorly cobbled together that even dynamicists, who favor planet status for only the largest eight bodies in the solar system, admit is so flawed as to be practically useless.

Instead of recognizing its mistake and making an effort to set things right, the IAU has continued its disappointing refusal to re-open this issue, ultimately digging itself into a larger and larger hole.

The only one bright hint of progress was expressed in the August 13 issue of the General Assembly’s daily newspaper “Estrela D’Alva,” where the new IAU president Robert Williams notes that the Executive Committee is “debating the possibility of allowing Union-wide electronic voting on some issues.”

That’s right, they’re debating whether to allow electronic voting, something that should have been discussed and enacted at the General Assembly where, once again, only those in the room on the last day of the conference were permitted to vote.

For those who want to view the General Assembly proceedings, they can be found online at http://www.video.rnp.br/overmedia/videos.jsp?_contexto=grupo&_idContexto=57

And in spite of my disappointment with the non-action in Rio, I do thank the IAU and the editorial board of its General Assembly newspaper “Estrela D’Alva” for publishing a very non-partisan, information-only article I wrote about Pluto in its final issue on August 14, 2009. That can be found here: http://www.astronomy2009.com.br/10.pdf . It’s quite a feat for a group like the IAU to publish an article by someone known as a vocal opponent of their position, a feat that my political opponents here in Highland Park, NJ have yet to accomplish in more than ten years.

The good news is that the IAU is not the only venue to look to for renewed discussion and decisions on planet definition. Anyone can claim to be an authority, as the IAU does regarding astronomical matters. But action—or in this case, inaction—speaks louder than words. By refusing to fix its mistake and clean up its mess, the IAU can be considered to have effectively abdicated its responsibility on this matter.

The Rio conference does mark a turning point, a transition from astronomy having one central authority to becoming a decentralized field of study with multiple sources of expertise, interpretation, and even authority. Some have half-jokingly compared this evolution of events to the Protestant Reformation, arguing that a planetary scientist asking the IAU to reconsider its stand on planet definition is akin to Martin Luther petitioning the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals to vote on his 95 theses (no offense intended to Catholicism here).

It is an appropriate analogy. Where before there was one central, hierarchical organization, now, there are multiple groups, and the erstwhile “one true church” is now just one of many.

Continuing to petition and write to the IAU is still a worthy endeavor, as such action compels the organization to face a strong, consistent public voice rejecting the 2006 decision. But this alone will not suffice toward the goal of bringing about a better, more inclusive planet definition.

What we need to emphasize now are the continuing statements, writings, and discussions on planet definition where scientists opposed to the IAU decision speak out and offer an alternative. The issue is certain to remain a central topic of discussion at scientific conferences. Books on the subject continue to be published and generate interest, with the latest being Alan Boyle’s The Case for Pluto coming in October. Also in October, NOVA plans to film a discussion of planet definition at Harvard University, with Brian Marsden and Neil deGrasse Tyson speaking on behalf of demotion and Mark Sykes and Owen Gingerich presenting the opposing view. No airdate has yet been set, but I will announce it here as soon as the information becomes available.

The long and short of it is, advocacy for Pluto and all dwarf planets being recognized as planets will now have to occur in a more diffuse environment and over a longer period of time. Those of us who want to see a change will need to look to multiple sources, to the many scientists who actively dissent from the IAU view. We will need to cite these scientists and work with them in generating educational materials for classrooms, textbooks, and schools ranging from preschool to graduate school. We will have to generate websites and publications backed by recognized astronomers that credibly maintain a more inclusive schematic for defining planets. And most importantly, we will have to teach both children and adults that no one authority has “the answer,” that they will have to sift through multiple sources with competing views and arrive at their own conclusions.

Real data, of course, always takes precedence over rhetoric. That real data will become available over the next few years, as Dawn flies by Vesta in 2011 and then explores Ceres in 2015, the latter just at the same time New Horizons will be sending home images of Pluto and Charon. All of these missions will clearly show worlds that are not only in hydrostatic equilibrium, but geologically differentiated and far more like Earth and Mars than like shapeless asteroids. Interestingly, the IAU will hold a General Assembly in Honolulu one month after the New Horizons Pluto-Charon flyby; one can only imagine the impact this data will have on discussions at that time.

Personally, I don’t want to wait six more years for vindication. But it might just take that long. Sometimes, it’s better to let time and usage, which evolves over time, especially in the presence of new data, win the day in establishing a new perspective, rather than rushing a process, as the IAU did in 2006. In the meantime, it’s perfectly fine to note in as many venues as possible that there is more than one legitimate perspective on this issue.

I always like to note the cultural and artistic side of this issue, the continuing songs, poems, etc. inspired by Pluto’s plight and the planet debate. Just this month, I found an online video made by children titled “For the Planet Pluto,” at http://www.mergerecords.com/blog/2009/08/the-music-tapes-present-for-the-planet-pluto/ . The fourth graders of Athens, Georgia, who created this video, show more sense and understanding than do many professional astronomers.

A full three years after the decision that was supposed to end the controversy once and for all, the debate is more alive and well than ever, even if it isn’t happening at the IAU. And in a phenomenon that practically defies understanding, Pluto remains one of if not the most popular, most loved, most inspiring of the planets in the hearts and minds of millions. A tiny planet that continues to be talked about, sung about, written about by people of all ages all over the world is most certainly not “dead.” Maybe that is what bothers people like Mike Brown so much. Pluto has resisted all efforts to “kill” it. The more Brown and like-minded astronomers insist the debate is over, the more it sounds like the people they are most trying to convince are themselves.

Once again, in the words of the song by Tim Ophus and Chuck Crouse, who respectively wrote the music and lyrics to “Dwarf Planet Nothing (The Pluto Song),” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlkYe6i3Dns ,

“Pluto’s Going to Rise Once Again!”

An Open Letter to the 27th IAU General Assembly

August 6, 2009

Dear Dr. Cesarsky, Members of the IAU Executive Committee, Members of the 

         Secretariat, Members of the Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature,

         and Delegates to the 27^th IAU General Assembly,

I am writing to urge this General Assembly to officially reopen the planet definition issue, in light of the tumultuous, controversial, and abrupt manner in which it was addressed at the 26^th General Assembly in 2006. Specifically, I ask that you reconsider and add Resolution 5b from 2006, which would establish “planets” as a broad, umbrella category under which both classical and dwarf planets would be included.

Doing this amounts to reconsidering a simple amendment that, if adopted, would supersede the 2006 vote on this resolution and thereby establish dwarf planets as a subcategory of planets.

Additionally, I urge you to place a resolution on the table to allow electronic voting on all resolutions by all members of the IAU, for the purpose of including the voices of astronomers who for various reasons, including financial difficulties and family responsibilities, are unable to attend the two-week General Assemblies in person. This will make IAU processes more inclusive of its membership and bring them in line with the digital reality of the 21^st century.

Undoubtedly, you are all aware that a significant number of planetary scientists and professional astronomers, as well as amateur astronomers and interested members of the public, have been dissatisfied with the IAU planet definition adopted in 2006. That is why I and many others are asking that a better planet definition be adopted, specifically one that includes exoplanets in its classification system and also reassigns dwarf planets as a subcategory of planets, as had been proposed by 2006 resolution 5b.

This is not about Pluto; it is about the need for a more useful, clear definition that encompasses both dynamics and planetary geophysics. The 2006 definition fails to do that on two counts. First it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all, which is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. This results in blurring the crucial distinction between those objects located in belts but in hydrostatic equilibrium, with shapeless asteroids. Second, it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to this definition, it would not be considered a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially unusable.

Additionally, the process through which the 2006 definition was adopted was flawed, as it violated the IAU’s own bylaws requiring such a resolution to be first vetted by the appropriate committee before being put on the General Assembly floor, a practice not done in this case.

With planetary science still in its infancy, it is understandable that first attempts at defining terms such as planets will be difficult and may need reconsideration. In that light, the 2006 resolutions represented a good, valiant first attempt in this direction. There is no shame, however, in admitting that this first step is flawed to the point of requiring amending. Specifically, the requirement that an object “clear the neighborhood of its orbit” to be considered a planet is vague; if taken literally, it most certainly excludes Neptune, which does not clear its orbit of Pluto and could also be construed to exclude Earth, Mars, and Jupiter, which share their orbits with large numbers of asteroids.

Significantly, only 424 out of 10,000 IAU members took part in the 2006 vote, and of those, only 237 approved the 2006 planet definition resolution. In no way can this be considered a majority consensus. It is noteworthy that immediately, hundreds of professional astronomers around the world, led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto, signed a formal petition rejecting the IAU decision entirely, adding that they will not use it.

A conference titled “The Great Planet Debate,” held in August 2008 at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, focused solely on planet definition, with open discussion of the fine details representing both the views of dynamicists and planetary geologists on this issue. Even among dynamicists, there was consensus that the 2006 decision needs to be amended. This same view was unanimously upheld at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, “From Planets to Plutoids,” held in March 2009 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where six panelists (three dynamicists and three planetary scientists) and moderator Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson all agreed that a better planet definition is needed.

In her opening statements to the 27^th General Assembly, Dr. Cesarsky noted that while 142 nations are participating in the International Year of Astronomy, only 63 countries are national members of the IAU. I ask that you consider the possibility that this notable difference results from a dichotomy in public perception: much of the general public is fascinated with astronomy, but many have lost respect for the IAU, not because of Pluto, but because the IAU’s decision-making processes appear to be driven more by politics than by science.

In the GA newsletter “Estrela D’Alva,” on August 4, 2009, discussion of a decadal plan to stimulate astronomy education around the world opens with the statement, “the IAU regards stimulating astronomy education and development throughout the world to be one of its most important tasks.” This is in line with the IAU goal of “safeguarding the science of astronomy” and communicating astronomy with the public.

Communicating with the public means listening to members of the public. It is a two-way street. Members of the public around the world, not just in the US, feel disenfranchised and ignored by the IAU planet definition resolution, both in its process and outcome. As an amateur astronomer, writer, and astronomy student, I have personally experienced, both in person and online, this dissatisfaction and disconnect that ultimately turns people away from science, thereby defeating the goals above. Among those most dedicated to astronomy, large numbers worldwide are dissatisfied with the 2006 decision, and many refuse to use it. How will the IAU successfully raise funds needed for its planned Global Development Office and general decadal plan if its processes are alienating so many potential donors?

That is why, to further respectful two-way communication with the public, I urge the IAU to also actively seek input on important issues such as this one from a broader population, including professional astronomers who are not IAU members, amateur astronomers and groups representing them, and astronomy students at all levels.

If the IAU continues to deny that a controversy remains over planet definition and the 2006 resolution in spite of clear data to the contrary, the organization risks becoming less and less relevant and less and less influential on astronomical matters. In the US, a guiding principle is that government operates by consent of the governed, and that the people can withdraw that consent at any time should an existing government begin conducting itself in an unsatisfactory and tyrannical manner. The IAU claims to be the governing body on all celestial objects and phenomena. In this light, the IAU should very strongly consider that public and scientific consent to its dictates are not absolute and may be withdrawn at any time if enough people view the organization as irrelevant or as failing to do its job in “safeguarding the science of astronomy.”

Should the IAU fail to appropriately deal with this issue and the broader question of its closed decision-making process, it is inevitable that other groups and individuals will emerge to fill that void, further eroding the IAU’s credibility and respect in the field of astronomy.

Therefore, regardless of the fact that no action on this issue has been planned for this General Assembly, I implore the IAU’s leadership, delegates to the GA, and members to do what needs to be done, to show courage and sensitivity to both scientists and lay people in admitting the planet definition issue remains unresolved and place a resolution on the General Assembly floor for a vote on August 13, 2009, which will officially adopt resolution 5b of 2006 and establish dwarf planets as a subclass of planets. I further ask a resolution allowing for electronic voting be adopted before any other resolutions are considered to allow the IAU’s full membership to vote on all relevant issues.

Sincerely,

Laurel E. Kornfeld

Highland Park, NJ, USA

Writer, amateur astronomer, astronomy student and blogger

http://laurele.livejournal.com

July 2009: A Great Month for Astronomy

The month that ended yesterday was simply terrific for astronomy and anyone with an interest in the subject. Specifically, the third week of July featured three major astronomical events--the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, the discovery that a comet had impacted Jupiter, and the longest total solar eclipse of the century.

I was four at the time of the first moon landing but have no memory of it whatsoever. In fact, my first memory of an Apollo launch is likely Apollo 17, judging from my memory of where my family lived at the time and still live. Luckily, the History Channel actually showed the initial 1969 broadcast by CBS with Walter Cronkite, so I got to see it this time. With all the commemorations and the good fortune of all three Apollo 11 astronauts still living, the media and the Internet were filled with personal recollections of the special moment, what it meant then, and what it means now.

That translated into discussion of the question, should we go back to the moon or should we aim straight for Mars. It tied into the disappointment of so many who 40 years ago, believed space travel would be common in 2009. It turns out that the lack of money for NASA now stems from the same reason as the lack of funding to continue the Apollo program--too much money is being spent on war, then in Vietnam, now in Iraq and Afghanistan. The conflict is not between funding the space program and funding human needs but about the funding the space program versus funding questionable wars abroad, both for the US and for other nations.

Unlike Shoemaker-Levy 9, the comet that hit Jupiter was never seen in advance this time. Significantly, the discovery of its impact spot was made by an amateur astronomer in Australia, illustrating again the important role amateurs play in observation, discovery, and as ambassadors of astronomy to the public.

Unable to afford the expense of being an eclipse chaser, I had to settle for watching it online, where many broadcasts suddenly disconnected due to servers and web sites being overloaded. Viewing a montage of images from different locations was quite an experience, but it would have been nice to have watched one area continually as the eclipse progressed. I've been warned that solar eclipses are highly addictive, that the minute totality ends, those who traversed half the world to see it immediately plan the next trip. I'm hoping to make it to the one that will cross North America in 2017 in spite of the risk of addiction.

Again, for a brief time, international news focused on astronomy, and people around the world experienced the thrill, wonder, and beauty so many too often ignore. If only every week could be like that one in terms of media coverage!

Now, with August here, comes what I once referred to as "the moment of truth." The IAU will again hold its General Assembly, this year in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  Although I was given approval to attend and cover this event as a journalist, something I never thought would happen, neither the newspaper for which I write nor I can financially afford the trip. It was genuinely heartbreaking to have to send an email to the IAU saying I would not be coming after all.

Much more significantly, many of the high profile advocates of Pluto's planet status are staying away, convinced that there are other, better arenas than the IAU to promote the view that dwarf planets are planets too. I understand the choice, but I still wish they had decided differently, that they went to the General Assembly and demanded the reopening of this issue. It is still possible one or more of the delegates will do this, and even if he/she/they do get the issue on the floor, it is unclear whether electronic voting would be allowed so that all members could vote even if they couldn't attend. The IAU does not pay fees or expenses for its members, and quite a few astronomers are in the same boat as I am, being financially unable to afford traveling to Rio.

One who is attending is Mike Brown, and it's just an instinct, but I have a bad feeling that his purpose in attending is specifically to squelch any effort to resurrect the planet debate. He has already stated publicly that he would vote against any reinstatement of Pluto or dwarf planets as planets.

Yet so many Plutophiles, children and adults alike, still cling to the hope that in 2009, the IAU will face up to the mistake made in 2006 and this time, do it right when it comes to planet definition. Doing this will not make the IAU look foolish or stupid or harm its reputation in any way. It is far better to admit to a mistake and do everything possible to set it right than to keep the mistake going. Only two weeks into his term, President Barack Obama showed the courage to admit that he messed up in his choice of nomination for one of the Cabinet positions. If President Obama can admit to a mistake, why can't the IAU?

I plan to send several pages of signatures from a hard copy petition I and others have been circulating for three years, which quotes the 300+ professional astronomers who signed Alan Stern's petition rejecting the IAU demotion, stating simply, "I believe Pluto is a planet, and a better definition is needed," to the conference in Rio. Never have I had such an easy time getting any petitions signed. So many are/were eager to put their names on paper in support of Pluto's planet status.

A "better definition" is needed, not just because of Pluto, but also for other spherical bodies like Ceres, Vesta, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, and Sedna.

One article on the upcoming General Assembly quoted a professor named Nick Lomb, of the Sidney Observatory in Australia, saying that we cannot have too many planets because memorizing their names is a crucial part of astronomy education, and children will be unable to memorize the names of up to 100 planets. He actually claims having too many planets will do harm to science! What a poor argument for a PhD to make! No one would suggest limiting the number of Jupiter's moons because 63 names are harder to memorize than four! No one suggests artificially restricting the number of stars and galaxies to a "memorizable" amount or cutting down the Periodic Table of the Elements to eight. As I and others have said many times, memorization is not that important. For stars, we learn the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which delineates categories of stars by size, color, and stage in their lives. Why can't we do the same with planets, establishing multiple subcategories and learning the important features that define each individual category?

Even more ridiculous is Lomb's citing of the importance of everyone learning the name of the "classical planets." If he really means this, he should not expect anyone to learn the names of any objects beyond Saturn, as Uranus and Neptune were discovered relatively recently (1781 and 1846 respectively), and even the Galilean moons of Jupiter were only found around 1610.

2009 is not the only chance for Pluto to regain its planet status. Dr. Mark Sykes believes it will be the new discoveries, in this solar system and in others, that will compel astronomers to re-examine just what makes an object a planet. Then of course, there is New Horizons, which will give us a tremendous influx of data on Pluto at the same time Dawn gives us similar data on Ceres. Both encounters will take place in 2015. An up close view of these bodies will clearly show them to be geologically differentiated, tell us about their composition, and illustrate their difference from shapeless asteroids.

It may not be now or never, but I'm still holding out hope for 2009 even though there are venues other than the IAU and many opportunities for more knowledgable debate about this in the near future. To that end, I urge all who want to see dwarf planets made a subclass of planets, now more than ever, to email the IAU and its officials, especially the Executive Committee and the Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature.

The IAU web site can be found at http://www.iau.org/ . The chair of the Division III Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature is Rita M. Schulz, who can be reached at Rita.Schulz@esa.int . For Americans, the US representative to this Working Group is Edward Bowell of the Lowell Observatory, who can be reached at ebowell@lowell.edu . The web page of this working group is http://www.iau.org/science/scientific_bodies/working_groups/98/members/ . You can click on any member's name to get his/her web page and email address. The president of the IAU Executive Committee, Catherine Cesarsky, can be reached at catherine.cesarsky@cea.fr  while the president-elect, who will take office at the General Assembly, is Robert Williams, who can be reached at wms@stsci.edu . The Secretary General, Karel van der Hucht, can be reached at K.A.van.der.Hucht@sron.nl , and the Deputy Secretary General, Ian Corbett, can be reached at icorbett@eso.org .

The web site of the 2009 General Assembly can be found and the Assembly's program book can be found here: http://www.astronomy2009.com.br/

I believe the people of the world have spoken, and a majority want Pluto and the dwarf planets to be considered planets too. That is why I implore all who feel the same way to email the people above and as many IAU members as possible, and, using logical, informative, and civil arguments, implore them to reopen the issue of planet definition.

On a lighter note, I am reposting a limerick I wrote in November 2007 in response to one written for me by Stuart Lowe of Jodrell Bank, the author of Astronomy Blog at http://www.strudel.org.uk/blog/astro/000734.shtml

There was a group called IAU
Who were mad no one knew what they do
Members said, we need press
Make a solar system mess
That should get us an article or two

On and on for two weeks they debated
'Til the brilliant plan was created
Pluto isn't a planet
From the other eight, ban it
And TV coverage will show that we've "made it!"

On the last day the scientists voted
And Pluto was formally demoted
But most people's reaction
Was not to the IAU's satisfaction
"It's sloppy," other scientists were quoted

It turned out most did not like the change
Found that "clearing its orbit" thing strange
So musicians and writers
Became Pluto's fighters
A backlash they began to arrange

The IAU learned its lesson in time
Don't mess with a system that's fine
And at last came admission
"We made a bad decision,
Reverse it in 2009!"

As Captain Picard would say, "Make it so!!!"

Pluto Speaks Out: Scorned Planet Defiant about Status

As a writer and actress, I blatantly reject the so-called “celebrity culture,” which was especially over the top by the media during this past week. As a rebel and stickler for fairness, I believe that talent is talent, and should be valued on its own merit, not because it is attached to a “name.” An actor the industry refuses to recognize can be just as talented as a "name actor," and worship of people almost as gods is just plain unhealthy. In that context, I was inspired to write about the similar phenomenon taking place in our solar system.

Pluto Speaks Out: Scorned Planet Defiant about Status

Recently demoted by Earth’s International Astronomical Union, Pluto has endured three tough years, not just among Earth’s humans but in the solar system as a whole, facing ridicule and discrimination from other solar system bodies for defiantly clinging to its planet status. In an exclusive interview for this web site, Pluto speaks out about planetary discrimination, and solar system hierarchies, revealing the inner workings of a system riddled with patronage, favoritism, and jockeying for position.

Interviewer: Pluto, I’m going to start out being blunt. After all, facts are facts. The solar system has seven moons larger than you. Another Kuiper Belt Object, Eris, is bigger than you are, and at least two others are pretty much your size. How then can you justify putting yourself in the same category as the eight Big Guys?

Pluto: The problem here is that you’re arbitrarily choosing size as somehow being of more value than a whole host of other criteria. Size isn’t everything. I say, look at shape. I’ve achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. I’m shaped by my own gravity. That’s what puts me in the same category as your so-called “Big Guys.”

Interviewer: Honestly, Pluto, how many moons of other solar system planets are also in hydrostatic equilibrium? They don’t insist on being called planets. They accept that they’re not in the inner circle. They understand that they’re just not in the big leagues.

Pluto: We’ve got a couple of misconceptions here. First of all, I never denied them the status of planet. In fact, in my view, if they’re in hydrostatic equilibrium, they’re planets too. For some reason, maybe their own low self-esteem, they feel the need to center their lives around other planets instead of maintaining their own orbits.

Interviewer: So you have no problem with calling these moons planets.

Pluto: Of course not. I just feel bad that they don’t think enough of themselves to recognize that they can orbit the Sun directly. They don’t have to attach themselves to the so-called giants to be important. Unfortunately, they’re buying into the propaganda that they’re somehow inferior and will get nowhere unless they faun all over the giants.

Interviewer: And Eris and those other round Kuiper Belt Objects? They’re planets too?

Pluto: Of course. And they’ll tell you that themselves. It’s only these so-called Big Guys who are spreading the lie that if you’re not one of their “Big Eight,” you’re not a planet, and that the best you can do is hang onto their coattails. Here in the Kuiper Belt, we laugh at their self-importance.

Interviewer: But realistically, you can’t say you have the same degree of influence as the giants. Jupiter regularly intercepts comets, stopping them from impacting other planets, including Earth. What do you do that is comparable?

Pluto: First of all, you’re assuming Earth is somehow more deserving of protection than any of the rest of us. Not to mention, what’s wrong with comets? They hang out with me here in the ‘hood all the time. If they want to take a trip into the inner solar system and see what it’s like near the Sun, why should they be prohibited from doing that? We don’t tell Mercury, Venus, Earth, or Mars not to get near the Sun. This is just the same old size discrimination again. That or special favoritism to Earth because it’s directly related to humans.

And you know what? Most comets who take that trip, once they get close to the Sun, they realize it’s hot as hell over there, and they come racing back into the outer solar system very happy to get home. Some of them come back broken and damaged from all that heat, and once they’re back, they choose to live here in the ‘hood, what those Big Guys ridicule as the boondocks.

Interviewer: So comets should be allowed to roam freely all over the solar system.

Pluto: Of course. Why should there be one set of rules for the Big Guys and another set of rules for the little guys? That’s a blatant double standard.

Interviewer: Yet every day comets leave your ‘hood trying to get closer to the Sun. Thousands of asteroids compete just get closest to Jupiter or Saturn. For every one that makes it, thousands don’t. You don’t have asteroids clamoring to orbit you. The overwhelming majority want to be part of the Big Guys’ kingdoms, even if it means just being a speck in their ring systems.

Pluto: You see; that’s where their value systems are all screwed up. Why make your whole life revolve around another planet when you can be one yourself, when you can have your own orbit? Okay, I’m small, but I orbit the Sun directly. They only live vicariously through attaching themselves to the giant planets. Why would I want to orbit another planet when I can have an orbit of my own? Yes, it’s kind of different, but you know, I like it, and I have complete freedom to do what I want.

And you know, having moons isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. And I say this as someone who has three moons myself. The whole planet-moon thing is part of the hierarchical mentality that is the root of most problems here in the solar system. Why can’t we all be planets? In fact, Charon and I are unique in that we co-orbit one another. Ours is an orbit of equals. I love Charon, and I don’t feel the need to make myself superior.

Interviewer: You do have Nix and Hydra orbiting you though.

Pluto: Because they choose to. They happen to like our different way of doing things. And Charon and I are fine with that. If they ever want to go off on their own and be their own planets, we’ll wish them well. We won’t try to keep them in our shadows.

And, you’ve actually made another good point. Charon and I have a system of four. Mercury and Venus have no moons at all. Mars has two little asteroid moons who were rejected by Jupiter. Why should they be planets and Charon and I be some sort of second-class citizens?

Interviewer: You don’t clear your orbit of other Kuiper Belt Objects, and those planets do have clear orbits.

Pluto: Only because they were born in an advantaged location. Put them out here in the Kuiper Belt, and they wouldn’t clear anything.

Interviewer: Many astronomers consider you most like Triton, a moon of Neptune. Why should you be given the coveted title of planet, yet the larger Triton just be a moon?

Pluto: Again with this size issue. We keep coming back to that. Look, I know Triton, and once upon a time, he was a planet just like me, with his own orbit—until Neptune lured him in with all this rhetoric about how popular he’d be if he were associated with a giant planet. Unfortunately, Triton bought into this propaganda, against my advice by the way. And you know what? It’s all going to end in tragedy. His orbit around Neptune is unstable. One day, he’s going to crash into his big blue idol and completely self-destruct. Of course, Neptune never told him that in advance. All because Triton chose to give up his individuality and worship one of the so-called Big Guys. I, on the other hand, will still be here when he’s long gone.

Interviewer: So you really believe you’re as important to the solar system as giants like Jupiter and Saturn?

Pluto: Yes I do. And I’ll tell you something else they don’t want you to know. Those two, especially Jupiter, really wanted to be suns, but they just couldn’t do it. Hell, Jupiter tried and tried but couldn’t even fuse deuterium, much less hydrogen. These guys are wanna bes. That’s why they’ve got their own little solar systems going. And Uranus and Neptune just copied them. They’ve collected all those moons because they want to act like suns, but deep down, they know they’re not. And so they’re compensating. It’s the same thing with the rings. Saturn started the whole thing as one big show of ostentation. Then the other three gas giants copied him. Oh, they love to brag about how objects all over the solar system would kill just to be a tiny moonlet in their rings. So egotistic, so self-important. And they don’t even have surfaces. You can’t stand on them or land a rover on them, but you can do both of those with me.

Interviewer: Then what about Ceres and Vesta? They’re round, but they don’t mind being considered asteroids.

Pluto: Really? Did you ever ask them what they think? Or did you just take Jupiter’s word for it? Nobody even bothered to consult Ceres, Vesta, and a couple of others in that area who happen to be round. No, it’s just, you’re in the asteroid belt, so you’re automatically no better than any little rock floating around out there. Don’t you humans have words for that kind of discrimination on your planet?

Interviewer: I think we’ve pretty much covered everything. It’s clear you’re sticking to your guns on this one.

Pluto: You bet I am. We’re talking about my identity, who I am. And not just my identity, but the identity of every small object in the solar system, especially those of us who have worked hard to attain hydrostatic equilibrium. If it’s good enough for Jupiter, it’s good enough for all of us. I’m not just going to sit here in the Kuiper Belt and let these Big Guys call their reality the only reality. No, I’ve already started mobilizing the little guys here in the Kuiper Belt who are in the same spherical shape as Jupiter. And the asteroid belt is next. Then the Oort Cloud. Some of those over-inflated gas giant egos may start to see their moons suddenly floating away and establishing their own orbits as planets. There is a revolution underway in the solar system, and it starts here.

You know, if they hadn’t messed with me, I might have just left things the way they are and been content to do my own thing. But the humans and these big planets that follow their every dictate made a huge mistake. They picked a fight with me, so now they’re getting what they deserve. The new rallying cry among the solar system’s underdogs is, “let a thousand planets bloom!” And mark my words, they will.

Laurel Kornfeld's Planets: Adventures in Studying Astronomy

Okay, I admit it. I ripped off the title of this entry, or at least its style, from Mike Brown’s blog.

One of the most frequent questions I am asked when I advocate Pluto’s reinstatement as a planet is, what difference does this make in my life or in anyone else’s life? In many entries, I have discussed the disservice being done to children and to those of all ages studying astronomy who are being taught about only eight planets in our solar system or are, as Dr. Mark Sykes reported, wrongly being told that Pluto is an asteroid.

Most people upset by the 2006 IAU decision expressed their displeasure and moved on to other concerns. I may be wrong, but my guess is very few felt motivated to make major changes in their lives, such as going back to school and studying astronomy with the goal of learning as much as possible about the subject in order to best advocate the decision be overturned.

But that is exactly what I did. I have always had many interests and activities, all of which I love, and all of which compete for my attention. Astronomy was not at the top of the list in August 2006. All of that changed when the IAU issued its infamous ruling. I knew, felt as strongly as possible, that this decision was wrong. And I set about doing whatever I could to counter it, which started with educating myself on the details of planetary science.

I knew then that arguments such as “Pluto should stay a planet because it has always been one” or “because that is how I was raised,” or because “the mnemonic won’t work without Pluto” were not scientifically valid. If a case were to be made for Pluto retaining its planet status, that case must be built on logical arguments stemming from a solid foundation of scientific knowledge.

After reading more web sites about the solar system than I can count, I joined an astronomy club and took a class for volunteers who become qualified observers on open public nights. I spent a lot of time at weekly meetings listening to lectures on every aspect of astronomy. Then I took an un-graded online course offered by Swinburne University, based in Melbourne, Australia, titled “From Planets to the Universe.” That six-week course offered interaction with students worldwide discussing a lot of material in a very short time.

The benefits of online education are that students from very different backgrounds have the opportunity to learn from one another, to exchange differing perspectives, to throw around ideas and bounce them off one another. I enjoyed this to the point that I applied to Swinburne Astronomy Online’s Graduate Certificate program and was accepted.

Unlike the other courses, the courses in this program are graded. And here I was, with no real math or science background, in a course with high school teachers of chemistry and physics and people who had actually worked professionally in planetariums and observatories. The course title was “Exploring the Solar System.” And the instructor as well as the program director are members of the IAU! Thankfully, they were always fair and never used my online criticism of the IAU against me academically.

There is no way to summarize everything learned in a 12-week semester, but suffice it to say that our exploration of the solar system was comprehensive and detailed. This is not the solar system many of us learned in grade school, which was mainly a list of nine objects revolving around the Sun. This was an in-depth look at a solar system far more diverse, hosting a multitude of different objects, no two of which are exactly alike.

Some supporters of Pluto’s demotion argue that Pluto unfairly gets more attention than the larger moons of the gas giant planets because it is deemed a planet, and they are not. That certainly was not the case in this class. At one time, we knew little about the planets themselves and even less about their moons. Today, 40 plus years of robotic explorations have given us so much data about these moons, which really should be classified as secondary planets, that classes like the one I took spend an entire two-week period just on the moons and rings of the jovian planets. We do not have to choose between Pluto and these other, fascinating worlds. We can teach and study both.

One important lesson from studying the planets is that the robotic missions have given us much of our current knowledge of the solar system, knowledge that dispelled many previously held notions. Only 50 years ago, many believed Venus hosted lush vegetation and that Mars may host intelligent life. Now we know that although it is sometimes called Earth’s “sister planet,” Venus’ heavy atmosphere of sulfur dioxide and its high temperature and pressure make it impossible for any life to exist on that planet. We have explored Mars from orbit and on the ground and now know that its tenuous atmosphere and lack of a magnetic field preclude anything other than microbial life.

We have learned that while the four jovian planets used to be lumped into one group, “gas giants,” Uranus and Neptune are actually different enough from Jupiter and Saturn to merit being placed in a separate category, the ice giants. While Jupiter and Saturn are composed mostly of hydrogen and helium, the two outermost jovians, Uranus and Neptune, are made up of hydrogen compounds such as methane, ammonia, and water plus small amounts of hydrogen, helium, and rock. Uranus and Neptune are believed to have liquid cores just as Jupiter and Saturn do, but their densities are akin to those of ices, likely a mixture of water, methane, and ammonia.

Mercury is now recognized as having a tenuous magnetic field and a very thin atmosphere, facts that contradict long-held views among astronomers that it had neither. The moons of the jovian planets are believed to have formed with those planets from the solar nebula, unlike Earth’s moon, which most scientists view as having been formed from a giant impact by a Mars-like body. Interestingly, Pluto’s moon Charon is believed to have been formed by a similar impact.

The point of all these facts is that in exploring the solar system through ground-based telescopes and robotic missions, we have come to learn that much of what was previously believed and even viewed as fact is wrong. Even though the largest planets are divided into the two categories of “terrestrials” and “jovians,” we have learned that no two planets in either category are exactly alike; in fact, each one is far more unique than its categorization would lead one to believe.

In astronomy, the more we learn, the more we find out we didn’t know and still don’t know. That is where the question of Pluto comes into the discussion. Pluto is estimated to be 70 percent rock and 30 percent ice. Uranus and Neptune are very icy, yet no one cites that fact to disqualify them from being considered planets. Earth in many ways is more similar to Pluto than to Jupiter, whose composition is similar to that of the Sun. Like Earth and the terrestrial planets, Pluto is differentiated geologically into core, mantle, and crust. The jovians are differentiated too, but they have inner cores of liquid molecular hydrogen, outer layers of hydrogen and helium (and several other gases in the case of Uranus and Neptune), and none has a solid surface.

With such a variety of characteristics and so much diversity, how can we possibly choose one factor and use that as the measuring stick for planethood? The answer is that we cannot because any characteristic chosen would be arbitrary. In the presence of so many factors and features, we need a planet definition that is broad enough to encompass all these objects. That leads us back to what it is they all have in common. And that answer is that they are all large enough to be shaped by their own gravity, which pulls them into a round shape, a condition known as hydrostatic equilibrium.

Among objects in hydrostatic equilibrium, we are likely to discover bodies with characteristics we cannot even imagine, both in this solar system and in others. Some may revolve around other planets. These differences do not mean the new objects are not planets, just that we may need to add new subcategories of planets as more is learned. As even Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson admits, planetary science is still very much in its infancy. And that is not a time to be establishing narrow definitions, especially when we know an infusion of data about Pluto and the Kuiper Belt is coming within the next decade.

One of the best things about studying astronomy is the opportunity to “meet” and converse with people all over the world. These conversations have continued beyond the online classroom. Having been in the political world and dealt with very negative people who loved to put me down, publicly demonize me, and repeat ad nauseam how I was not good enough, I appreciate all the more the very positive, supportive classmates I’ve had. When I was afraid of failing the class—and the subsequent online ridicule if “Pluto haters” ever found out that “Plutogirl” failed astronomy—fellow students offered much valued encouragement and moral support. Their message was always, “you can do this.” Outside the classroom, that has largely been my experience with friends and acquaintances in the astronomy community, people who, ironically, I would never have met had Pluto not been demoted.

In the end, I passed the course with an 83 and discovered that one does not have to receive a perfect grade to have learned a tremendous amount. I look forward to doing a lot of writing about astronomy, including, as previously announced, writing a book about Pluto. Yet the fact remains that while most people go back to school to further their careers, I plan to continue this program because I want to do all I can to get Pluto reinstated as a planet. And in that process, I have re-discovered a fascinating field and many wonderful people, all of which make this a most worthwhile, meaningful effort.

"Moving On" Is Not An Option

Last week's planet definition discussion at the American Astronomical Society's meeting in Pasadena, California, started the latest round of Internet discussions on the question of what is a planet. A portion of the session can be viewed online at http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1633104 via Ustream, thanks to Pamela Gay of "Astronomy Cast." This hour-long broadcast covers only the second half of the discussion. I am trying to find out if there are any online broadcasts of the first half and of the question and answer session following the entire discussion. If anyone reading this is connected with the American Astronomical Society and knows of links for these, please post them in the comments section of this blog entry.

Dr. Alan Boyle twittered notes from the entire discussion, which he put together on the following site: http://family.boyle.net/plutonotes.htm . I encourage anyone interested in this debate to read these.
In a column written after the conference, which can be found here, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/10/1959870.aspx , Boyle quotes Neil de Grasse Tyson saying it's time to move on from the what is a planet debate and address the many categories into which solar system objects can be classified, based on aspects such as shape, composition, geology, and suitability for life. "This is what we should be thinking about now, not arguing over the fricking definition of a planet," Tyson is quoted as saying.

It is interesting that of all speakers, Tyson is the one who makes this comment, as he is the one who re-energized this debate in the first place when he chose to design the solar system display at the American Museum of Natural History's Rose Center with only eight planets. He has done speaking tours as well as radio and TV interviews on this subject. He wrote an entire book on it. But suddenly, he decides it's time to move on? What gives?

In response to Tyson, Alan Stern, as quoted by Boyle, emphasizes that the way we think of planets should reflect the diversity of the solar system. Objects like Pluto make up the largest class of solar system planets, he notes.

An important aspect of diversity is the concept that many very different items can be encompassed in a broad category. Just think of the terms "plant" or "animal," and this is obvious. Why then, do some insist that there can be only two classes of planets, the terrestrials and the jovians? If we artificially limit our definitions that way, we will be forced to create "wastebasket categories" to accommodate the objects that do not fit our narrow proscriptions.
"Moving on" from a bad decision such as the IAU planet definition by letting that decision stand is a terrible idea and makes no sense. The fact that this issue continues to be debated illustrates that the IAU decision satisfied few people and created tremendous confusion.

Jean-Luc Margot of the University of California at Los Angeles proposed sticking to the IAU definition but defining all round objects, whether they are gravitationally dominant or not, whether they are moons, planets, or dwarf planets, as "worlds." Using this concept," some worlds are planets, and others are not," he said.

Margot's approach does not really offer much that is new. By sticking with the IAU definition and then adding the term worlds plus the caveat "some worlds are planets, and some are not," he puts us right back at the problematic point we started from--the fact that the IAU definition classifies objects by where they are while ignoring what they are. If we're going to stick with the term planet, why not just come up with more adjectives to describe the many different types of planets we are discovering? Satellites like Titan and Ganymede can be referred to as "secondary planets" since their primary orbit is around another planet, and their secondary orbit is around the sun.

It is interesting to note that Mike Brown said he tries to avoid the discussion of whether or not Pluto should be classified as a planet altogether. He was for these small round objects being classed as planets before he was against it, and his blog title, "Mike Brown's Planets: Full and Dwarf" implies he considers dwarf planets a type of planet, which contradicts the IAU definition he now claims to support. Maybe he doesn't want to discuss the subject because he isn't sure which position he is taking on any particular day!

The opinions expressed at this conference reflect similar views expressed online covering the full spectrum of this debate. I am going to print one comment, written in response to a comment by me in the journal Nature in response to a June 3, 2009 article, "Quaternary Geologists Win Timescale Vote." The author sought to use the Pluto issue to illustrate an example of scientists reaching consensus, saying, "In 2006, astronomers reached a decision on the planetary status of Pluto; now, geologists may have done the same for the status of the Quaternary, the time period in which humans evolved and live today." The site is here: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090603/full/459624a.html

When, in the comments section, I pointed out that saying "astronomers" reached a consensus on the status of Pluto is incorrect and disingenuous (given that, clearly, a consensus has not been reached), one respondent accused what he called the "Pluto is a planet gang" of hijacking the entire thread! Here is what he said:

"Incredible to see the Pluto-is-a-planet (because it was discovered by an American) gang highjack (sic) this item. Please, people, get over it! The decision has been made by the acknowledged international organisation (sic) in question. Feel unhappy about that? Your problem only! And don't come with that crap again about 'only a minority voted.' Only a minority seemed to be really interested to come to the vote. If this was important to you, you should have been there and have voted yourself. Every IAU voting member could have voted if he/she wanted. And those 'many astronomers' and the public said to be opposing the vote result: this is almost solely an American phenomena. It has much to do with the fact that Pluto was the only of the former 'planets' discovered by an American. The anti-movement regarding the IAU decision doesn't have a strong international footing at all..."

Another commenter said, "The reclassification of Pluto, it seems, is an accepted part of the curriculum and new teaching materials have already been produced. These things happen. Scientists redraw old conclusions based on new evidence. I can't see how correcting an error, even if it means some level of relearning, is a bad thing.

Unfortunately, the comments section was closed before I could respond to the remarks by the poster who repeated the false claim that it is only Americans disturbed by the IAU ruling--the writer who accused the "Pluto is a planet gang" (I'm in a gang?! Wow, I didn't know. Are pro-Pluto T-shirts going to be outlawed in schools now???) of hijacking the discussion.


Hijacking is an interesting choice of words given that the writer of the article chose to evoke the Pluto example to illustrate scientists reaching consensus. She brought the subject up, meaning it is fair game for comments. She should have known that Pluto is most certainly not an example to use of successful scientific consensus.


The author of the first comment (which is actually the last one on the page; I chose to quote it first because it is so outrageous) may be an expert on geology but clearly is out of touch when it comes to astronomy and public perceptions of it. He provides absolutely no proof to back up his statement that it is only Americans  who oppose the demotion. He would know this is not true if he took the time to join the many astronomy communities online, composed of both amateurs and professionals. On these sites, intense debate continues, and opposition to the IAU definition is expressed by people all over the world.  At Swinburne University, in Melbourne, Australia, which runs an online astronomy program, students from all over the world come together, and in the class I just completed, "Exploring the Solar System," many non-Americans clearly stated their unhappiness with the IAU planet definition.


"The decision has been made by the acknowledged organization," the commenter says. Has it? What makes the IAU the acknowledged organization? Many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU. Most IAU members are not planetary scientists. The writer believes the claim that only a minority of IAU members voted is "crap." Maybe he is used to Iranian style votes. The fact is, out of 10,000 members, 424 voted. No absentee voting was allowed, so if for some reason a member could not stay until the last day of this two-week conference, he or she could not vote. Additionally, most of the original 2,500 attendees left assuming the resolution on the table would be the 12-planet one recommended by the IAU's own committee. How were they to know that one particular group of astronomers would violate the organization's own bylaws by proposing a new resolution without first vetting it by the appropriate committee as required, and then putting it to the floor of the General Assembly for a vote?


The other commenter reflects a sentiment that makes equally little sense--the view that what's done is done. "These things happen," he says, as if he were talking about a natural disaster such as a tornado or earthquake, something over which we have no control. He can't see how correcting an error is a bad thing? Then he should have no problem with voiding the IAU definition, which most certainly is an error. Why is it that when it supports his view, sticking with a problematic definition is okay, but when it does not support his view, the "error" must be changed?


I could not personally have been there and voted, as I am not a professional astronomer. But that raises yet another issue. There are up to 20 amateur astronomers for every professional. Amateurs do actual research and make discoveries. They are the ones who do most of the communication of astronomy with the public.  Many amateurs are as well-versed in the field as their professional peers. Several such people are active my astronomy club in Cranford, NJ, alone.


Why not give amateur astronomers a say in this discussion as well? This could easily be done through organizations such as the Astronomical Society of the Pacific or through establishing a new class of IAU membership for amateur astronomers. These people give many hours to astronomy with no compensation, simply for love of the subject, and they are the ones who are left trying to communicate the IAU's sloppy definition with a very confused public.


So much of this comes back to education and the concept that planets are names of important things to memorize. Before the age of space exploration, we knew little about the planets in our solar system, and even less about their moons. Children were taught to memorize because there was not much else to teach. The film "Universe," made in 1960 and once shown in introductory college astronomy classes, does no more than mention Uranus and Neptune by name as the planets between Saturn and distant Pluto.


That is far from today's reality, which is of a diverse, active solar system with a multitude of objects, certainly too many to memorize, but all of which have unique, fascinating features. Today we can substitute an in-depth education about the solar system and the different ways objects can be classified, as Tyson mentioned above, for simple memorization. It is less important that students be told that we have four jovian planets than that they understand what makes an object a jovian planet. Some say this is asking too much, especially of kids, but frankly, that is a cop out. Kids are smarter than we think. As many have said, children interested in dinosaurs learn, on their own, the many different names and types and what the characteristics of each type are. My nephew, not quite six, is fascinated by marine life. One day, he saw me wearing a dolphin T-shirt and pointed to one of many images on that shirt saying, "that's an electric eel!" I had owned the shirt for years and had never noticed this!


And unlike those who voted in Prague, he recognizes a planet when he sees one. One day, we were looking at pictures in Galaxy, a coffee table book I have with beautiful pictures of stars, planets, nebulae, galaxies, star clusters, etc. We looked at the section on asteroids and at several different asteroids, all with irregular shapes. Then we looked at Vesta, which is mostly spherical except for its south pole, which likely was knocked off by an impact with another asteroid. I asked him how this one (Vesta) is different from the other asteroids. "It's round," he answered immediately.


Even my younger nephew, age two-and-a-half, knows what a planet looks like. He cannot pronounce the letter "L," but he can look at an astronomy-related T-shirt I'm wearing, point to the round object, and say "panet."


And the older one understands fully well that Pluto is a planet not because his Aunt Laurel says so, but because it is round and circles the sun.


Charles Beichman, Executive Director of NASA's Exoplanet Science Institute, said, significantly, that he is all for teaching that there are 359 planets, counting exoplanets as well as those in our solar system.  


Mark Sykes emphasizes that any definition must be useful, noting that the geophysical definition that classifies an object as a planet if it has attained hydrostatic equilibrium, is much easier to both teach and understand than the dynamical definition. The latter is a subset of the former, but the opposite is not the case. And as my little nephew demonstrates, even a two-year-old can recognize something round.

Avoiding this topic will not make it go away. A mistake was made, and it must be corrected, whether by the IAU, by another body, or by public consensus and usage. There are many people, including professional astronomers, amateur astronomers, and lay people who will never accept the IAU definition and will continue to fight it. I'm proud to be one of them.  We are nowhere near "the last word" on this topic, and as Weintraub said, we shouldn't be, as we know far less about the many types of planets out there than many so-called experts think.

Weintraub hit the nail on the head when he said, "the decision should be made by people in the trenches, not the IAU." That could be understood to include amateur astronomers, planetary scientists who are not IAU members, educators, planetarium directors, writers, and more.

Meanwhile, I encourage everyone to express your views on planet definition by commenting on science blogs when this topic comes up. You can arrange to get Google alerts for "Pluto," which will give you links whenever the subject is mentioned.

And keep supporting Pluto's fans in the arts! If you haven't done so already, consider purchasing Elias Fey's "Tribute to Clyde Tombaugh and the New Horizons Mission," an inspiring song that can be purchased online or as a single CD, from here: http://www.eliasfey.com/newhorizons.html

And don't move on!

Pluto, Pluto Everywhere

Once again, Pluto is showing up everywhere--in books, DVDs, at conferences, even in a new wine created to honor the little planet.

Tonight, the debate over Pluto and what defines a planet will be discussed at a conference of the American Astronomical Society in Pasadena, California. Once again, Alan Stern and Neil de Grasse Tyson will be on stage together.  Even though I've heard all the arguments--and made most of them myself on the pro-Pluto side--I can't help but feel a twinge of regret at not being able to attend this conference personally. However, if Alan Stern is batting for Pluto, then at least I know the pro-Pluto side is in good hands.

David Grinspoon will be speaking for Pluto as well. You can read some of his views on this issue at http://flyingsinger.blogspot.com/2009/02/giving-pluto-another-chance.html

Just the fact that this discussion is taking place as we approach the three year mark of the IAU's horrendous decision is noteworthy in and of itself. The IAU wanted to "finish this," to "settle" it once and for all at the 2006 General Assembly. Whether in conferences, in print, or in culture, over and over again, the evidence is overwhelming that they failed miserably in that goal.

The number of Pluto-related items coming up could make a collector's dream. The DVD "Naming Pluto," which tells the story of how 11-year-old British schoolgirl Venetia Burney named Pluto in 1930 and subsequently shows her viewing Pluto through a telescope for the first time on the eve of her 89th birthday, can be purchased here: http://www.fatherfilms.com/shop . I already have my copy and will be posting a review of the DVD shortly. Father Films is also selling a "Naming Pluto" poster along with the DVD. Given Venetia's passing away only this April 30, it is fortuitous that the film was made while she was still around to be part of it.

Astronomy Now, a British astronomy magazine, is holding a contest for a free copy of "Naming Pluto." For details, visit http://www.astronomynow.com/AstronomyNowNamingPlutoCompetition.html . Anyone who wants to participate should act quickly because the deadline is this Friday, June 12. The winner will be chosen randomly from the entries who submit the correct answer to a specific question regarding Pluto and does so following the instructions on the web site above. Only one person can win, but everyone interested in the solar system and in public contributions to astronomy is encouraged to buy a copy of this DVD.

A group of California high school students didn't want to wait until their 80s to view Pluto through a telescope. They spent Memorial Day weekend conducting the first Salinas Valley Pluto Expedition over two nights. Read more about it here: http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20090530/OPINION03/305300002/1014/RSS03 . Pluto reaches opposition, the best time of the year for viewing it, when it is opposite the Sun and out all night, on June 23, so now is an excellent time to try and see it. This is one of my personal life goals, but the weather here in central NJ on the weekends when observatories are open has not been cooperating so far. In this state, we need a dark sky site, as even the most powerful telescopes cannot resolve such a tiny, far away object with the light and air pollution in our many heavily populated areas.

In March and April, NASA ran an online contest called "Mission Madness" in which people could vote for their favorite NASA missions, past and present. Out of several rounds, New Horizons finished in the Final Four, showing once again the widespread interest in exploring Pluto.

And not one but two new books will soon be published on the subject of Pluto. As I said in an earlier post, I plan to write a book about Pluto as well, but in this case, these are not "competition." It's a matter of "the more, the merrier," about putting out as much information from as many viewpoints as possible so the ultimate decision can be made by the people, not by a tiny percent of a closed group.

The first book, by award-winning science writer Alan Boyle, is called The Case for Pluto, which makes the case that Pluto should be reinstated as a planet and counters arguments made in previous publications against this viewpoint. Current plans are for it to come out in October of this year. You can learn more about this book and order a copy from http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470505443.html. If you're one of those people who wants to present strong, credible arguments for Pluto beyond simple statements such as "it was always considered a planet," this book should be a great resource. I will write a review of it in a future blog entry. The timing of that entry will depend on when I receive and read the book.

Another book, one I just found out about last night, is co-written by two authors representing opposing sides in this debate. Pluto Confidential: An Insider Account of the Ongoing Battles Over the Status of Pluto was co-authored by Laurence A. Marshall, an astronomer and educator who voted for the IAU resolution, and by Stephen P. Maran, a NASA scientist who signed the petition opposing the IAU planet definition. That book, which comes out in August of this year, can be ordered from http://www.amazon.com/Pluto-Confidential-Insider-Account-Ongoing/dp/1933771801 or from another bookselling website. It is always good to be familiar with both sides of a debate, even if one is very partisan on one side, so this should be a great resource. Again, I will write a review of it as soon as I obtain and read the book.

Speaking of presenting both sides, I do give credit to the IAU for including this blog in its International Year of Astronomy Portal to the Universe Project. You can find this link here: http://www.portaltotheuniverse.org/blogs/feeds/view/105/ featuring my picture with a spacescape and Pluto in the background!

A third book, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, examines science illiteracy in the US, beginning with the example of the Pluto debate. Authors Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirschenbaum are strong supporters of Pluto retaining its planet status and begin their book by discussing the Pluto debate. The book will be available at http://www.amazon.com/Unscientific-America-Scientific-Illiteracy-Threatens/dp/0465013058 . It has not been released yet though you can read more about it here: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/12/unscientific_america.php Again, a review will be forthcoming here once I obtain my copy of the book.

Anyone taking a trip to the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, the site where Pluto was first discovered in 1930, can literally vote with their dollars for Pluto's planet status. The observatory features donation jars with four categories asking what Pluto should be called: planet, dwarf planet, other, and "I don't care; I just want to support Lowell!" You can see the donation jars here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rqd6DTuStOE/Si4T9IH82JI/AAAAAAAAAIo/0lLhHre5qvk/s1600-h/Lowell-Pluto_donations.jpg . As of June 4, 2009, the Planet jar is ahead with $1,049.65 compared with $739.21 for "I don't care; I just want to support Lowell," $417.06 for Dwarf Planet (note it never says dwarf planets are not planets at all!), and $162.52 for Other.

T-shirt afficionados can wear their support for Pluto by purchasing shirts with many designs from http://besttees.org/cgi-bin/cpshop.pl?i=pluto or from the ever popular Cafe Press.

Anyone on Facebook can join the fast-growing cause, "Bring Pluto Back" at http://apps.facebook.com/causes/241322/14617099?m=830bc981 . The rapidly-growing group has 593 members and counting, including a few professional astronomers.

2 Skinnee Js have released a tune, "Pluto," where they act as "attorneys" representing Pluto. More about this song can be found at http://johnstrophyrun.blogspot.com/2009/04/pluto-is-planet.html

And difficult as this may be to believe, you can now support Pluto by drinking wine--specifically, "Planet Pluto Meritage Red Table Wine" made in California, created to oppose the IAU demotion and support Pluto's planet status. The wine can be ordered from this site: http://planetplutowine.com/planetpluto/home.html

Over the last three months, I have been busy completing an astronomy class, "Exploring the Solar System," through the Swinburne Astronomy Online Graduate Certificate Program. As a writer with no formal training in astronomy, I felt this program would provide me with that training in a stimulating online environment, where I could "talk" with people all over the world via class newsgroups. It has been an amazing experience, and I will write more about that too. Anyone interested in pursuing courses in astronomy should consider this program.  It is most certainly not a "degree mill"; be prepared to work hard and be challenged. But it is well worth it. More information is available here: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/

Finally, in line with the theme of scientific illiteracy, I would like to share a story that to me illustrates the core of the problem with the IAU and its planet definition. Writers, bloggers, educators, astronomers, etc. are of course free to say and print whatever they want online. That does not mean their comments are some sort of gospel truth, even if they are written by astronomers. In the Discovery Space "Twisted Physics"  blog, writer Jennifer Ouellette, in discussing the passing of Venetia Burney, refers to Pluto as an "erstwhile planet," (erstwhile meaning former) meaning of course, she subsequently received an immediate objection comment from me regarding use of the word "erstwhile," as saying that amounts to taking the IAU definition as fact rather than as one interpretation in an ongoing debate. Ouellette responded by writing, "Pluto is an erstwhile planet. Deal with it. If/when the IAU reverses its decision, we'll all revise our descriptions accordingly." The link is here: http://blogs.discovery.com/twisted_physics/2009/05/rip-venetia-phair.html?cid=6a00d8341bf67c53ef011570a25cf3970b

Now just a minute. "If/when the IAU reverses its decision, we'll all revise our descriptions accordingly???" Is the IAU the arbiter of reality? Do they decide what is "Truth," and do all of us just blindly follow? Isn't science supposed to involve at least some brain activity, in other words, thinking for oneself? "We'll all follow" is, at least to me, a frightening statement. As Star Trek's Dr. McCoy would say, "What is this, the Dark Ages?"

Instead of "following," let's all lead. The IAU is only one venue in this debate, but as we approach their August General Assembly, it is crucial that they continue to hear from as many people as possible requesting they re-open the planet definition issue. Keep writing to IAU president Catherine Cesarsky at catherine.cesarsky@cea.fr and to the IAU in general at iau@iap.fr ;cite the professional astronomers who dissent with the 2006 definition, and ask that this year, the organization clean up the mess they made of this issue. It's not over!!!