Opposing Pluto's Demotion Does Not Equal "Whining"

    The distant Planet Pluto

Adam Frank’s April 28 Forbes column, “Quit Whining: Pluto’s Not a Planet” is not just written in a very condescending, patronizing tone. It also includes outdated information and lacks important data based on which many planetary scientists consider Pluto and all dwarf planets to be a subclass of full planets.

Words matter, and the words Frank uses are unprofessional, disrespectful, and downright insulting to those who don’t share his view and support a geophysical planet definition over the IAU’s dynamical one.

Using terms like “wailing, “whining,” and “crying” to describe the reaction of those who oppose the IAU vote sets the wrong tone for the article and amounts to putting down those with whom he disagrees with defamatory language.

Frank invokes the strawman argument that accuses Pluto supporters of being motivated by emotion. This completely dismisses the genuine objections by some of the world’s leading planetary scientists to the IAU definition that excludes Pluto, adopted back in 2006.

Just four percent of the IAU voted on that controversial resolution, and most weren’t planetary scientists but other types of astronomers. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition signed by an equal number of planetary scientists, led by New Horizons principal investigator Alan Stern.

Unfortunately, the media has barely covered this side of the ongoing debate.

Opposition to the IAU definition is centered on preference for a geophysical planet definition over a dynamical one. The geophysical definition puts primacy on a celestial object’s intrinsic properties; in contrast, the IAU definition, which is a dynamical definition, puts primacy on an object’s location.

Frank completely ignores the fact that the IAU vote was held in violation of the IAU’s own bylaws, which require any resolution put to the floor of the General Assembly to first be vetted by the appropriate IAU committee.

This was not done in 2006. The resolution adopted was thrown together the last day of the two-week conference, after most attendees, including the chair of the organization’s Planet Definition Committee, Owen Gingerich, had already gone home. No absentee voting was permitted.

In addition to objecting to a very flawed planet definition, opponents of the IAU decision also object to the problematic way in which the vote was conducted.

Alongside his article, Frank includes an image of the largest known Kuiper Belt Objects that is outdated by 15 years. That image includes a caption that says, “Pluto isn’t even the largest Kuiper Belt Object,” and portrays Eris, aka Xena, as bigger.

While Eris was initially thought to be bigger than Pluto, a team led by scientist Bruno Sicardy in 2010 measured Eris’s size when it occulted a star and determined it is marginally smaller than Pluto though 27 percent more massive. In 2015, New Horizons confirmed that Pluto is bigger.  Why is Frank making an argument using outdated information?

The biggest problem with Frank’s article is his blurring of the distinction between tiny, shapeless Kuiper Belt Objects and those large enough to be rounded by their own gravity. The latter threshold matters because this is when active geology begins.

Frank lumps all worlds beyond Neptune as “construction debris left over from the assembly of the solar system.” This fails to acknowledge the very important distinction between objects large enough to be rounded by their own gravity and the majority of tiny KBOs that are shaped only by their chemical bonds.

When celestial objects are rounded by their gravity, they begin to develop complex geology, which New Horizons found on Pluto. Most KBOs are tiny and shaped only by their chemical bonds. In contrast, Pluto is likely layered into core, mantle, and crust, and has weather, varied terrains, active geology, and a likely subsurface ocean. Frank never mentions any of this. In fact, he never says anything about Pluto’s intrinsic properties.

Pluto and Ceres are actually two of a growing number of solar system ocean worlds, worlds that have subsurface oceans that could potentially host microbial life. Other such worlds include Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus, Titan, and possibly Triton.

Pluto being smaller than Earth’s moon does not negate its planet status according to the geophysical definition, which considers dwarf planets to be a subclass of full planets, and does not require orbit clearing as a criterion for planethood. Any celestial object that meets the critical threshold of being rounded by its own gravity is a planet according to this definition.

This is very similar to the situation with stars, where variety in size and mass is even greater than it is among planets. The Sun is tiny compared to massive, giant stars. Red dwarf stars, whose planets may be a top target in the search for extraterrestrial life, are even smaller and less massive than the Sun. Yet no one claims they aren’t stars, just like no one claims dwarf stars are not stars, or dwarf galaxies are not galaxies.

By saying Pluto is not a planet but a Kuiper Belt Object, Frank presents an incomplete view of both Pluto and the solar system. There is no reason objects cannot be dually classed. Pluto is both a planet and a Kuiper Belt Object. The first tells us what it is; the second tells us where it is. Haumea, Makemake, and Eris are similarly dually classed.

The problem is not with the term dwarf planet but with the claim that dwarf planets aren’t planets at all but another type of object. This claim is contradicted by the Dawn mission’s findings at Ceres and the New Horizons mission’s findings at Pluto, both of which of which found these worlds to contain complex planetary processes.

Why should Earth and Jupiter be put in the same class but Pluto excluded? Earth has more in common with Pluto than it does with Jupiter. Jupiter has no solid surface, is composed of mostly hydrogen and helium like the Sun, and has its own mini-solar system of moons. In contrast, both Earth and Pluto have solid surfaces, active geology, nitrogen atmospheres, and interaction between those atmospheres and their surfaces.

The scientist who first coined the term dwarf planet, Alan Stern, intended it to designate a new subclass of small planets, not to designate a class of non-planets. The four percent of the IAU who voted in 2006 misused his term, stating in a vote of 186-183 that dwarf planets are not planets. They never revisited the issue in spite of the Dawn and New Horizons findings.

Yes, letters from children may be emotional, but as someone who has written and spoken publicly on this issue, I believe they reflect an inherent recognition of Pluto’s nature. Children look at its roundness and complexity and see a planet. They are not wrong.

Frank’s support of a dynamical planet definition is a legitimate scientific position. However, his mischaracterization of those who oppose it and why they oppose it, as well as his denial of the ongoing debate, detract from the credibility of his article.

Opposition to the IAU definition is a scientifically legitimate position, not “whining.” It will continue until a better definition is reached. If NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman wants to lend his support to this view, more power to him!

After all, it is NASA, through the New Horizons mission, not the IAU, to whom we owe practically all the knowledge we have about the Pluto system.

 

To NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman: Please Grant Kaela's Request

 

Twitter is currently buzzing with news of a 10-year-old girl named Kaela who has written to NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman urging Pluto’s planetary reinstatement.

Kaela, who was born 10 years after the controversial and wrongful IAU demotion of Pluto, is correct, and I wholeheartedly second her request. I have tweeted Isaacman myself asking his support for this.

Her request is noteworthy not just because it reveals the critical thinking of a precocious child, but also because it reveals the error of those who, nearly 20 years ago, claimed that younger generations would accept Pluto’s status as a non-planet and look askance at older people who refused to accept the change.

This clearly did not happen. To this day, children visiting observatories and planetaria regularly ask about Pluto and express their preference for it to be classified as a planet. Clearly, there are inherent, compelling reasons that transcend age and nostalgia, that compel people who look at this tiny, complex world to see a planet.

In this case, a child really does understand the situation better than the four percent of the IAU who voted in 2006 and those who support their decision.

Sometimes, claims are presented as scientific when they are instead political. An example of this is when oil companies conduct studies that conclude that fossil fuels are not causing global warming. In decades past, tobacco companies conducted similar studies claiming cigarette smoking does not cause cancer.

Coming up with a desired conclusion and then twisting the evidence to support that conclusion is not science but propaganda.

This is essentially what four percent of the IAU did in 2006. A majority of those who voted wanted Pluto out as a planet. They then contrived the reason of orbit clearing, which had never been used in planet definition, to get the result they wanted and exclude Pluto.

This is not to say that orbit clearing isn’t significant. That does not mean it should be a requirement for planethood. A 2000 study distinguished between “uber planets,” which clear their orbits, and “unter planets,” which do not. However, this study, which was cited by IAU members who voted in 2006, never said that “unter planets” should not be considered planets at all.

There is no reason why we cannot say that some planets gravitationally dominate or clear their orbits while others do not. This puts them in different subcategories but still under the general umbrella of the broad category of planets.

Evidence for the contrived nature of the IAU decision can be seen in the fact of who remained on the last day of the two-week General Assembly to vote on the resolution that “reclassified” Pluto. The chair of the IAU’s own Planet Definition Committee left before the vote because he had no idea there would be a vote! The same is true for the majority of IAU members who attended the conference.

IAU rules require any resolution put to the General Assembly to first be vetted by the appropriate IAU committee. This was not done in 2006, meaning the vote violated the IAU’s own bylaws! An earlier resolution that did go before the Planet Definition Committee was defeated at the General Assembly. At that point, the appropriate thing would have been to wait until the next General Assembly in 2009 and go through the proper channels.

But this was not done! A resolution hastily thrown together the night before the last day of the conference was put to a vote on that day, before most attendees had even had a chance to read its contents and consider its merits.

The IAU cited “new information,” namely the discovery of Eris, as a reason for the reclassification. However, they have been very selective in deciding which new information counts as a reason to reconsider the issue.

The New Horizons flyby clearly revealed Pluto to be a complex world with active geology and planetary processes, some seen elsewhere in the solar system only on Earth and Mars, yet this new information was never considered a reason to reopen the discussion of planet definition, as it should have been.

When the Internet first became a thing, people hoped it would serve as a democratizing influence, giving everyone a voice in issues important to them. While this has not always happened, the Internet has played a major role in opposition to the demotion of Pluto, and Kaela’s letter represents only the latest in nearly two decades of these efforts by people around the world.

I not only second Kaela’s motion, but genuinely urge our NASA Administrator to consider the facts surrounding the IAU vote and the reality of Pluto as discovered by New Horizons, to consult with New Horizons principal investigator Alan Stern, and to grant Kaela’s request.

Pluto Discovered 96 Years Ago Today

 

Today is International Pluto Day, marking the discovery of planet Pluto by Clyde Tombaugh at the Lowell Observatory 96 years ago, on February 18, 1930.

It is a day to celebrate all things Pluto, a planet whose understanding has eluded people for nearly a century.

When first discovered, Pluto’s planethood was questioned because telescopes of the time could not resolve it into a disk. Later, when it was revealed to be spherical, meaning rounded by its own gravity, many planetary scientists assumed it to be a dead world with no active geology or planetary processes.

The New Horizons flyby proved that wrong, revealing Pluto to be a surprisingly active world with complex processes, some of which are seen elsewhere in the solar system only on Earth and Mars.

Incorrect assumptions have often been made about Pluto because it is so small and so far away, making it a challenge to study and understand.

One of those incorrect assumptions, also a premature one, was the controversial decision by four percent of the IAU to label Pluto before the first reconnaissance of this world. Had the IAU waited for the New Horizons flyby, it would have become clear that Pluto, though small, has the same geology and processes seen on larger planets.

While Pluto was discovered in 1930, one could legitimately say people have been “discovering” its true nature for close to 100 years now, as Pluto continues to surprise us.

At last summer’s conference, “Progress in Understanding the Pluto System: Ten Years After Flyby,” possible next steps in the discovery of Pluto’s nature, namely hypothetical orbiter missions, were presented and discussed. As of now, there are no formal plans for any of these missions, but they are still worth being given serious consideration.

Planetary scientist Carly Howett, in her presentation titled, “Persephone: A Pluto System Orbiter and Kuiper Belt Explorer,” outlined a NASA-funded concept study involving returning to the Pluto system with an orbiter.

Orbiters are generally the next step in planetary exploration after the first reconnaissance of a world in a flyby, like that New Horizons did at Pluto in 2015.

The goal of the Persephone mission would be understanding Pluto’s composition, including its possible subsurface ocean, determining how Pluto’s surfaces and atmosphere evolved, and studying the diversity of the Kuiper Belt.

According to the proposal, the spacecraft would orbit Pluto for 1.3 years, then leave on an extended mission to explore the Kuiper Belt.

The proposal recommends a payload of 11 science instruments and notes that ice-penetrating radar would have to be powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), the nuclear battery that powers New Horizons.

The spacecraft would conduct high and low flybys of Pluto, use Charon to change its orbit, and image all of Pluto at high resolution.

Drawbacks include the $3 billion cost, excluding launch vehicles, and the fact that travel time from Earth to Pluto would take 27.3 years.

Another proposal, “The Gold Standard: A Combined Pluto Orbiter and KBO Explorer Mission” was presented by Alan Stern. This spacecraft would be powered by an electric propulsion system using RTGs but have a smaller payload than Persephone.

The spacecraft would orbit Pluto for two years, then go on to visit other KBOs.

Stern noted that braking the spacecraft to enter Pluto orbit would double the travel time to the planetary system.

Including launch vehicles, this mission would cost $2.7 billion. Using three RTGs, existing launch systems could launch this spacecraft with current technology.

Returning to Pluto is a worthwhile endeavor for many reasons. Pluto joins a growing number of ocean worlds like Europa and Enceladus, which could potentially host microbial life in their subsurface oceans.

Embarking on such a mission would also give humanity another chance to study the Kuiper Belt in situ rather than from a great distance.

Discovery is an ongoing process not limited to one person or one time period. When Clyde Tombaugh first found Pluto, no one really understood what it was. Today, New Horizons has given us more knowledge and understanding of this small world than ever, but that is only a beginning.

We do know that Pluto is both a small planet and a Kuiper Belt Object. Neither of these categories precludes the other. The first tells us what it is while the second tells us where it is.

One legacy of Tombaugh’s find is not just that there are more planets out there than previously thought, but there are more types of planets out there than we recognize, even today.

Exploring the frontiers of our solar system is just a first step in looking even further beyond to the amazing variety of worlds and phenomena waiting to be discovered.

I Heart Pluto Festival Returns to Lowell Observatory this Weekend

This weekend kicks off Lowell Observatory’s annual celebration of Pluto’s 1930 discovery by Clyde Tombaugh with its annual I Heart Pluto celebration.

The celebration actually began last night, with a Beer Unveiling and Astronomy on Tap where this year’s Pluto-themed beer was unveiled.

Tonight, there will be a Pluto Pub Crawl throughout Flagstaff, Arizona, where participants can enjoy custom-made Pluto-themed drinks and interact with astronomers and science educators.

The keynote of this year’s celebration will take place tomorrow night, February 14, with the Night of Discovery, whose theme is “Mother Road to the Stars,” honoring both Pluto and the centennial of Route 66.

It will be followed by several talks on Sunday, February 15, including “Fantastic Worlds and How to Find Them” with Dr. Alex Polanski, “Tour of the Solar System from the Sun to Pluto and Beyond” with Dean Regas, “Defending Earth: The Science of Planetary Defense” with Dr. Nick Moskovitz, “How Low Temperatures Enable Pluto’s Exotic Geology” with Dr. Will Grundy, and “Iron Rain to Supersonic Winds: Our View of Exo-Jupiters” with Dr. James Sikora.

Pluto’s Birthday Bash will take place on Monday, February 16, featuring a birthday cake, vendors, and crafts. There will also be activities at Lowell including a talk about Pluto, a special Pluto tour, a beer garden, and a celebration of the New Horizons mission at the Astrolab.

I don’t know whether any of the talks will be streamed online or recorded and put online later, but if they are, I will post the links to them.

For more details, visit Lowell Observatory’s I Heart Pluto page.

New Horizons Saved as Congress Reverses NASA Cuts

 

The New Year begins with some good news for New Horizons and for many other NASA missions. The US House and Senate have passed a bill that rejects the cuts to NASA first proposed in June by the White House and instead approved $24.4 billion for NASA this year, of which $7.25 billion will go to the agency’s Science Mission Directorate.

New Horizons will continue to be funded, as will all but one other NASA mission.
While the total NASA budget is slightly below that of 2025, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly rejected the controversial proposal to cut 24% of NASA’s total funding of which 47% would have been cut from NASA science missions.

This reversal did not just happen on its own. Credit goes to the Planetary Society for its tireless efforts in lobbying against these cuts. According to an announcement of the good news sent by the Planetary Society, these efforts included close to 100,000 messages sent to Congress, outreach to Senators and Congress members in every state and district, and two days of lobbying action on Capitol Hill in October in which 346 people participated.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the Planetary Society and all who took part in these efforts for saving so many valuable space missions, including readers of this blog.

No current mission can do what New Horizons is currently doing because it is the only spacecraft with operational science instruments deep in the Kuiper Belt. New Horizons continues to observe this region up close while also studying the solar wind as well as structures and processes in the Milky Way.

Efforts to find a third flyby target, another KBO in the spacecraft’s path, are ongoing.
Sometimes, it’s hard to remember that this overwhelmingly successful mission endured multiple cancellations before it even launched. It is a mission that happened because people believed in it and fought for it over years and even decades.

When the NASA cuts were proposed last summer, New Horizons principal investigator Alan Stern joked, “We’ve been dead before.” That statement held an underlying truth—that this particular mission has survived numerous attempts to cancel it. If it were as “dead” as it were those times, things might not have been as bad as they seemed.

And sure enough, New Horizons is once again back from the brink of death.

Advocacy and action by large numbers of people can and does make a difference. Democracy is not a spectator sport. The tireless efforts of many brought this and various other crucial NASA missions back from near death.

A third New Horizons flyby may not be a given, but I certainly wouldn’t count it out just yet.

 

 

 

Winter Solstice: Together at the Dark of the Year

 

“Even the darkest night will end, and the Sun will rise.” ~ Victor Hugo, Les Miserables

 For me personally, the Winter Solstice is the most sacred day of the entire year, as it is the day the growing darkness (in the Northern Hemisphere) is halted, the day the Sun appears to pause at its lowest point before embarking on a new orbital path and bringing the lengthening of the days.

Far back into prehistory, this day has been celebrated around the world as the point the tide turns, and the growing darkness is stayed. Ancient people had limited understanding of celestial mechanics and orbits, but through careful observation, they recognized this day as the rebirth of the light, the moment when life is spared descent into darkness and death.

For this reason, the Winter Solstice has been one of the oldest holidays celebrated by humans worldwide. Those in the Southern Hemisphere celebrate it too, but they do so in June, when the Sun reaches the lowest point in their sky.

The promised return of light at the darkest hour is and has always been a reason for hope. In a cyclical view of the world, there is no true end, as the end and the beginning stand back-to-back. The “old Sun” symbolically dies as an old man, and is reborn as a baby, a folktale that to many affirms there is no end to life, just the end of one cycle and the beginning of another.

2025 has been a dark and painful year for many worldwide. So many have been confronted with authoritarianism, cruelty, and indifference to the fate of this planet.

I sometimes like to compare the Winter Solstice to the end of the Star Wars movie, “Revenge of the Sith.” At that point, the Republic has fallen, and the Empire has triumphed. Anakin has become Darth Vader, and Padme is dead.

Yet at that same time, hidden from all but a few, the seeds of change have already been planted. Luke and Leia, who will turn the tide and eventually bring down the empire, have been born in secret and hidden away. Viewers know what they will grow up to do.

Light is born from the depths of dark. It is initially hidden and unrecognized, but as it grows, it will awaken the buried seeds that will eventually sprout new life.

This point is where we in the world are right now, and it goes well beyond the change of seasons.

The ultimate paradox is that “the height of power contains within it the seeds of destruction, and the darkest night is the birthday of the Sun.”

Of all seasons, winter most drives home the need for a “we society” rather than simply a “me society.” In the darkest and coldest time of the year, we have to come together to help each other, to create our own warmth and our own light. No one can survive the harsh conditions alone.

We are all in this together, and not just people but plants, animals, microbes, everything that makes up the living ecosystem that this planet is.

Many come together at this time to look back at the past year and celebrate the dawn of a new one. It is a time for togetherness, for feeding, clothing, and sheltering one another, and for celebrating the hope of the returning light.

In this particular year, the focus needs to be on resting and finding inner strength before renewing our efforts, together, to fight for a better world.

For those of us who continue to fight for a better planet definition, the upcoming year will mark the 20^th anniversary of the unfortunate vote by four percent of the IAU. While we never wanted the controversy to go on this long, we will continue working and fighting for a better planet definition and for recognition that this issue remains a matter of ongoing debate.

We pause, come together and celebrate before renewing our fight for a better world and for a better planet definition.

And we remember to keep hope alive as the year is born anew.

Here’s wishing everyone a wonderful Solstice season and new hope for a Happy, Healthy 2026.

 

“Eyes to the blind,

Legs to the lame,

Luck to the poor,

Planetary reinstatement for Pluto and all dwarf planets!

A Merry Solstice to everyone!”

 

~an old Solstice greeting, as amended by Plutogirl

Nineteen Years Later, the Pluto Resistance Continues

 

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.