Plutoids??? What Was the IAU Thinking???

Just when one thinks the IAU has done the extent of its damage in the planet debate and that things cannot get any worse, they do exactly that. With no advance notice to anyone but its Executive Committee, the IAU today announced that dwarf planets beyond the orbit of Neptune are henceforth to be called "plutoids."

And this is supposed to be a "bone" thrown to supporters of Pluto's planet status. Not quite.

After the resolution labeling dwarf planets beyond Neptune "Plutonian objects" failed at the IAU General Assemby in 2006 (that's the vote on the last day of the two week conference, by four percent of its members), the IAU Committee on Small Body Nomenclature and the IAU Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature set out to come up with a new term to define these objects.

After two years, all they can come up with is "plutoids?" And since Ceres does not orbit beyond Neptune, the IAU is now considering labeling it the lone "ceroid." Are you confused yet?

On one of many television programs covering the US presidential election, a commentator noted wisely that when one makes a mistake, the best thing is to admit to that mistake rather than to further compound it with additional spin and attempts at rationalization.

It's too bad the IAU cannot follow that advice. If it did, its members would admit they messed up in 2006 with the sloppy definition that states that a dwarf planet is not a planet at all and rescind the decision or at least put it to a General Assembly vote that made provisions for electronic voting.

Instead, they chose to further muddy the waters with a new definition that only further confounds the issue.

According to this new definition, no object beyond the orbit of Neptune, regardless of its size, can ever be considered a planet. What kind of science is that? What about the geophysical makeup of these objects? Does that count for nothing? The best way to remedy this is to overturn the decision that dwarf planets are not planets at all. Then we can say that Ceres is an asteroid belt dwarf planet, and Pluto, Eris, and other round KBOs are Kuiper Belt dwarf planets. That keeps things simple; it preserves the identifying feature for planets as being in hydrostatic equilibrium while recognizing the dynamics of these objects by noting they do not dominate the neighborhood of their orbits.

How many IAU members voted on this definition? Certainly far fewer than the 424 who voted for the initial demotion. Just because the IAU claims its processes are democratic does not make them so. Why were major planetary astronomers like Dr. Alan Stern, Dr. Mike Brown (co-discoverer of Eris), and Dr. Hal Weaver not even informed that this discussion was taking place?

IAU General Secretary Karel A. van der Hucht argues that the IAU is open to comments and criticism. But how can anyone comment or criticize when no one even knew this subject was up for discussion?

This was purely and simply a backroom deal, a political decision, not a scientific one. It was made behind closed doors with no attempts at peer review, as is normally done in science. Weaver rightly terms the process used by the IAU here as "archaic" and not befitting an age of transparency.

And Stern is correct in describing the decision as "irrelevant" since it is unlikely to be used by many scientists or lay people because it does nothing more than further the confusion. Additionally, it does not take into account any definition for similar objects found in other solar systems.

This decision does nothing to promote the IAU's International Year of Astronomy, an outreach effort aimed at generating public interest in astronomy; in fact, it does the very opposite by showing the IAU to be an elitist, closed organization out of touch with the public and even with professional astronomers.

I plan to be at the JPL conference in Laurel, Maryland, arguing for the most sane planet definition I have ever heard, courtesy of my astronomy instructor Al Witzgall. Specifically, he says, "a planet is a non-self luminous spheroidal object orbiting a star." That's it. Then we subdivide into terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, ice dwarfs, and perhaps additional categories as more discoveries are made.

A key factor the IAU, with all its PhDs, has yet to learn, is that the process by which something is done is just as important as that action itself. And the process by which they came to the word "plutoid," like the 2006 General Assembly vote, is irreparably flawed.

If Stern follows through on his suggestion to found a rival professional astronomical organization, more power to him.

There is a silver lining here for supporters of Pluto's planethood. Several astronomers, such as Stephen J. Kortenkamp, senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, and astronomy enthusiasts like Michael Burstein of the Society for the Preservation of Pluto as a Planet, have suggested that this weak, tenuous definition will only strengthen the voices of those of us who want to see Pluto's planethood reinstated.

If that does happen, then maybe this farce of a decision will have led to some good.

Streator, Illinois, Honors Tombaugh; More Good News for Pluto

This weekend, Streator, Illinois, birthplace of Clyde Tombaugh, is once again celebrating his life and accomplishments as part of the town's Heritage Days Celebration from May 23-26.

The celebration features a carnival, crafts, food, vendors, and entertainment.

Most significantly, the Streatorland Historical Society will dedicate a mural honoring Clyde Tombaugh tomorrow, Sunday, May 25, at 2:00 pm in the 300 block of East Main Street, downtown Streator.

Local artist John Betken designed the mural as a tribute to Tombaugh’s accomplishments. The mural depicts early astronomers, Tombaugh as a young stargazer on the family farm, his days at the Lowell Observatory where he discovered Pluto, and the New Horizons space mission currently on its voyage toward the planet Pluto.

Guest speakers from New Mexico, Annette Tombaugh-Sitze and Alden Tombaugh, (daughter and son of Clyde Tombaugh) will offer insight into their father’s life and discoveries. The public is encouraged to attend.

While I am unable to make it to this event, I want to thank Streator for honoring Tombaugh and hope to someday meet and speak with his daughter and son personally. Pluto supporters Kevin and Siobhan Elias will attend this event and get the chance to hear firsthand insights into Tombaugh's life and accomplishments, and I look forward to hearing about their experience.

As a followup to my previous message, I'm happy to state that after back and forth emails with astronomer Dr. Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac, it turns out that far from being "flabbergasted," regarding public concern about Pluto, he regards public attention to this issue as "all good." His main focus is having a consistent planet definition rather than outright support for or opposition to the IAU demotion. That means if Pluto is counted as a planet, other KBOs and small objects like Ceres that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium should be counted as planets too.

In his own words, "I do think that if you're going to count Pluto, then you should go ahead and add a bunch of objects of similar or slightly smaller mass.
In the end that would probably up the count by a few dozen. I'm also OK with that. In effect, this would use as a definition the criterion that a planet has to have enough self-gravity to be spherical."

Being the idealist I am, I personally asked him to support and vote for such a proposal at the next IAU General Assembly, which he agreed to consider if can stay long enough for the vote (or if the IAU finally institutes electronic voting).

During the last week, I have also had the honor of speaking with another Pluto supporter, Steve Kates, aka Dr. Sky, an astronomer and astronomy journalist who has done numerous television, radio, and Internet broadcasts on astronomy-related topics. A former resident of New Jersey now living in Arizona, Kates was a student of Tombaugh when he attended New Mexico State University and has very fond memories of him.

Kates, too, is doing public outreach aimed at getting the IAU decision reversed and Pluto officially reinstated as a planet. His web site, http://www.keepplutoalive.com/ , contains interviews he conducted with Tombaugh, with Tombaugh's widow Patsy, and with Dr. Mark Sykes, the planetary astronomer coordinating the Great Planet Debate conference in Laurel, Maryland, later this year.

I personally urge all Pluto supporters to visit this site, listen to the interviews, and find out more about what we can do for Pluto.

Pluto IS a planet, and this debate is definitely NOT over.

Many Are Still Passionate About Pluto

Talk about being out of touch. It seems there is a growing disconnect between astronomers who support the IAU's flawed planet definition that demoted Pluto and large segments of the public who are passionate about astronomy.

In an article published by the Canwest News Service, which can be found at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=61d118c4-9eed-4896-8c7b-b75ee20b8a16 , astronomer Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac, an instructor at McMaster University and editor of the Astrophysical Journal, states "Most astronomers, myself included, are a little flabbergasted at the level of intensity that people have brought to this question."

The writer of the article continues, "Astronomers are flabbergasted that people care so deeply about Pluto.Yet the 'Pluto-huggers' remain active, from experts writing in fancy science journals to the ultimate cultural status - its own Facebook groups."

Astronomers are "flabbergasted" that people care so much about Pluto? Maybe they're not spending enough time paying attention to the concerns of the people whom they seek to educate. The IAU and other groups have designated 2009 the International Year of Astronomy to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Galileo's first telescopic observations. From all the literature on this event, whose theme is "The Universe: Yours to Discover," it seems quite clear the year's central focus will be an outreach effort to excite people of all ages about astronomy, something definitely worth doing.

But if professional astronomers are going to make the effort to reach out to the public, they need to connect with the public and both hear and value their concerns. Most people's first introduction to astronomy is through learning about our solar system and its planets. The planets are arguably the most accessible area of astronomy, with many visible to the naked eye and observable in detail with telescopes. These exotic worlds are in many ways more concrete and real to the average person than other, more abstract areas of astronomy such as black holes, variable stars, cosmology and topics requiring more extensive technical background knowledge.

With so many planetary missions having been launched in the last few decades, we have more knowledge about our solar system's planets than about almost any other area of astronomy.

How many amateur astronomers, astronomy enthusiasts, and young people became hooked on astronomy when they first saw Saturn and its rings through a telescope? Professionals seeking to create a new wave of excitement about the field next year need to understand the mindset of the people they are trying to reach and connect with that mindset rather than denigrate it or express bewilderment without trying to see just where these people are coming from.

People enjoy hearing and reading about the discovery of new planets, about new "family members" joining our solar system. They are alienated when, for vague seemingly obscure reasons, astronomers "take planets away," especially when nothing has happened "out there" to change those planets. It isn't surprising that many people feel passionate about Pluto, the smallest and furthest planet, the only one discovered by an American and one replete with symbolism and many layers of meaning. Astronomers should not be surprised that so many people have reacted to the "removal" of Pluto from the planetary family by seeing it as an attack on the underdog, perpetrated by an out of touch elite in a backroom deal with little science behind it.

Astronomer and blogger Paul Smith reacted to one of my comments on Fraser Cain's Universe Today blog by stating, "why anybody would be passionate about how we catalogue solar system objects - I have no idea." Here again, we see the disconnect between the professionals who seem to want to keep astronomy as "their" domain and public sentiment, which tends to run two to one in favor of Pluto's planetary status.

Obviously, members of the public as well as artists and writers, as I have discussed in earlier posts, are in fact passionate about Pluto's planetary status. Why they are doesn't really matter as much as the fact that they are. Professional astronomers need to remember that they need public support for funding from both government and private sources such as The Planetary Society. And they need public support if they are to be successful in turning on a whole new group of people to astronomy. That won't happen if they continue to fail so completely to understand, accept and respect where public sentiment lies.

Of course, there is nothing wrong if in outreach, the astronomy community continues to portray this issue as an open debate. Why the IAU felt a need to come to a decision quickly in 2006 is hard to understand. We are making new discoveries all the time and finding out that the universe is far more diverse than almost anyone could have imagined. Is it that difficult to conceive of a spectrum of planets ranging from tiny ice dwarfs to huge brown dwarfs rather than an either/or situation where an object either is a planet or is not?

What is so terrible about teaching children and adults that the debate is still open, that we do not yet have sufficient information to definitively resolve the issue of Pluto's status one way or another? What is wrong with explaining that it is not the facts but how we interpret the facts that lead to one or the other conclusions? Why not raise public excitement by informing people that in 2015, we will have the Dawn spacecraft reach Ceres and New Horizons reach Pluto, at which time we will learn more about both those objects than we have ever known, perhaps enough to better inform how we classify them?

Meanwhile, the music and works of art honoring Pluto keep on coming, with the latest being "Ode to Pluto," which can be found at http://www.lorenz.com/Results.aspx?srch=quick&cid=pluto&c=pluto&pg=1&rpp=30

Whether the professionals like it or not, the public does care about Pluto and its planetary status. If the IAU and other like-minded groups want 2009 to be the year in which people feel the universe is "theirs to discover," they will take these sentiments into account and, rather than express incredulity, will embrace them as an opening to engage the public in this fascinating field.

Correction on Pluto Petition

In yesterday's entry on the Great Pluto Planet Debate conference, I mentioned a hard copy petition to the IAU along with a link to it in my Yahoo group. It has since been brought to my attention that this link is inaccessible to anyone who is not a member of the group. This is Yahoo's rule, not mine. The group is a newsletter about events in Highland Park, NJ, not a Pluto group. So here are two options for getting a copy of the petition, which is a Word document. Either join the group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friends-of-laurel and then click on Files and under Files, click on "Pluto Petition." You can download it and then, if you so choose, unsubscribe from the group. The other way is simply to email me at laurelkornfeld@netzero.net and I will send you a copy of the petition as an attachment. I don't think LiveJournal has a feature allowing the posting of Word documents, but if it does and you are aware of this, please let me know, as I would be happy to post the document on my home page.

I apologize for the inconvenience and hope this does not deter anyone interested in signing the petition or collecting signatures. Pluto needs our support!

The Great Planet Debate--A Stellar Idea Whose Time Has Come

It’s happening at last! The conference aimed at addressing the planet definition issue, announced by Dr. Alan Stern immediately following the IAU’s controversial demotion of Pluto nearly 20 months ago, has been scheduled for August 14-16, 2008, at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, MD (on a personal note, I can’t help but be amused at the name of the city chosen for the conference).

Co-sponsored by NASA, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, the Planetary Science Institute, the Planetary Society, and the American Astronautical Society, it is open to all interested members of the public and especially geared towards educators.

The conference title is “The Great Planet Debate: Science As Progress.”

While the initial idea of the conference was Stern’s, it is Dr. Mark Sykes, another leading proponent of Pluto’s planetary status, who is serving as event chair.

Days one and two will feature a discussion of both the IAU planet definition, based on dynamics, and an alternative geophysical definition. This portion will include a lecture and panel discussion and will be followed by a reception.

On the third day, an Educator Workshop will address the issue of dealing with the planet debate in schools and how to use it as a springboard to discuss science as a process.

The conference will feature a public debate--Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Mark Sykes.

Information about the conference, including a registration form, schedule, and conference information, can be found at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/

In an April 10 article, Scientific American makes note of the conference in an article titled “Is Rekindling the Pluto Planet Debate a Good Idea?”

A subtitle to the article quotes conference critics labeling the event “beating a dead planet.”

Naturally, proponents of the IAU decision want this to stay a closed subject. After all, if the debate is re-opened, the very shaky planet definition adopted by four percent of the IAU has very little real science on which to stand. When people think they have won a debate, the last thing they want to see is that debate re-opened.

But one cannot re-open something that has never truly been closed. And most certainly, the debate over Pluto’s planetary status has remained very much open over the last year and a half, beginning with Stern’s petition of 300 plus professional astronomers who signed within days of the demotion saying they will not use the IAU’s definition.

The objections by those who support the IAU decision, described in the article as “irking” some researchers, are worth examining exactly because, unintentionally of course, they reinforce the major problems with the decision.

Dr. Harold Levison, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado who agrees with the IAU decision, claims that fighting the decision does more harm than good to researchers’ reputations while in the same paragraph admitting he would have rather seen a more encompassing planet definition that divides planets into two subcategories, major and minor.

This appears to indicate he supports a definition with which he himself is not entirely comfortable. Why support something he recognizes as flawed instead of pushing for his superior definition? Sticking with a problematic definition is more likely to hurt researchers’ reputations than is keeping the issue open and standing up for an outcome he knows is better.

Levison also claims that Pluto’s orbital eccentricity somehow makes it stand out as less than a planet. Just how does that work? Mercury’s orbit is also somewhat eccentric, and Eris’ orbit is so eccentric it makes Pluto’s look ordinary. Why should having an eccentric orbit disqualify an object from being a planet? Many of the exo-planets we have discovered have very eccentric orbits. Does that make them not planets? More likely, the eccentric orbit of round objects in the Kuiper Belt simply makes them a new subcategory of planets, the ice dwarfs, still planets but with their own unique characteristics.

If there are dozens more objects in the Kuiper Belt that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and fit this decision, then there are dozens more of this subcategory of planets. It’s that simple.

Researcher and author Jack Lissauer, co-author of the textbook Planetary Sciences, is quoted in the article as recognizing the problematic nature of the IAU “dwarf planet” classification, claiming that if a Mercury-sized object were discovered in the Kuiper Belt, it likely would be considered a planet even though it doesn’t clear its orbital zone.

Now wait just a minute here. According to the IAU definition, even a Jupiter-sized object would not be a planet if it does not clear its orbit. So how and why could this Mercury-sized object qualify? That would imply that size rather than clearing its orbit is the criteria for planethood. Who decides, and based on what criteria?

It is through scenarios like this one that we can see just how flawed and untenable the IAU definition is.

Even more laughable are the “polls” cited by Professor Ed Prather of the Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who teaches Astronomy 101 to non-science majors.

A supporter of the demotion, Prather says he regularly polls his students about the issue, and 70 percent respond saying there is no reason to classify Pluto as a planet, that it is simply a rock sitting “way out there.”

Have Prather’s students had the opportunity to hear both sides of the debate, or more likely, is the majority of this group of people who likely had no prior exposure to astronomy simply parroting the biased view their professor has pounded into their heads all semester long? One has to wonder.

It turns out Prather doesn’t like the idea of educators or members of the public taking part in decision making on scientific issues. Once the public perceives scientists making decisions based on “personal feelings and historical convention…we’ve dropped the ball.”

Sorry, professor, but an international organization of scientists that cannot enact electronic voting and rushes through controversial decisions without sufficient debate with only four percent of its membership having a say has already “dropped the ball.”

As for the textbook publishers cited, they would do well to present the issue as an ongoing debate rather than rush to print new editions excluding Pluto from the cannon of planets. The issue is unresolved. Changing textbooks now is like the line from Kenny Rogers’ song “The Gambler” about counting the money when you’re still sitting at the table. If textbook companies insist on doing this, they likely will be caught up in an endless cycle of printings and re-printings each time a new decision is reached. Besides, what is wrong with portraying an issue as not having one clear answer?

Sykes is correct in his characterization of the IAU decision as “providing no insight” into the nature of celestial objects because it does not take into consideration the composition of those objects.

Like Stern and many other planetary scientists, he believes that an object that has achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning it has sufficient gravity to have pulled itself into a round shape, should be considered a planet.

These objects all have geological processes such as volcanism, erosion, and plate tectonics, all of which clearly distinguish them from the asteroids with which the IAU assigns them the same category.

In summary, the Pluto planet debate is alive and well and will likely remain so for quite some time. Nothing can sufficiently prepare us for the voluminous amount of information we will obtain on the Pluto system when New Horizons photographs it in 2015, information that is sure to one way or another change our view of this enigmatic planet. At least until then, the debate must remain open.

For anyone interested, my March 9 radio interview on WNTI, 91.9 FM at New Jersey’s Centenary College, can be heard at http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wnti/arts.artsmain?action=viewArticle&sid=9&id=1239341&pid=247
The recording is through the "Contours" program and occurs in the middle of the broadcast, about 17 and a half minutes in.

You can also find a hard copy petition to the IAU to download at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friends-of-laurel/Files
Scroll down the list to “Pluto Petition.” An amateur astronomer friend of mine will be compiling these and sending them to the IAU in time for their 2009 General Assembly, so if you want to or have collected signatures, email me at laurelkornfeld@netzero.net and I will give you the address to which you can “snail mail” them. Hard copy petitions usually carry more weight than Internet petitions, so I encourage all Pluto supporters to take part in this.

I also want to personally encourage anyone interested in this issue to seriously consider attending the Great Planet Pluto Debate in August. Discussions and ideas presented during the conference could potentially be brought to light at the next IAU General Assembly in 2009. For this reason, those of us who support Pluto’s planet status should make every effort to attend and make our voices heard.

Sign up for the conference at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/
I’m looking forward to seeing many fellow Pluto supporters there.

Support for Pluto Continues to Grow

Eighteen months have passed since the IAU's controversial demotion of Pluto, and it is fascinating to see how the passage of time has not diminished public support for Pluto's reinstatement as a full-fledged planet. If anything, public opposition to the demotion and conviction favoring Pluto's planet status have been growing stronger over the last year and a half.

National Geographic just recognized a fourth grader for creating an eleven-planet mnemonic that includes Ceres, Pluto, and Eris. They plan to publish a new book with updated information on the eleven planets. Notice the reference to eleven planets and the inclusion of "dwarf planets" within the broader planet category. That is what those of us opposed to the IAU decision have been advocating for a year and a half.

I want to give special thanks to New Mexico columnist Jay Miller for his ongoing support of Pluto in his writings, which are published in 15 newspapers in that state. New Mexico is where Clyde Tombaugh, Pluto's discoverer, worked for 50 years, among other things, as a professor of astronomy at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. Miller's latest column can be found at http://insidethecapitol.blogspot.com/2008/03/pluto-column-revision.html

Those of you who want to show your support for Pluto through wearing Pluto-themed clothing can purchase T-shirts and sweatshirts at http://www.savepluto.com/ A portion of the proceeds from the sale of items on this site will go towards lobbying efforts for Pluto's reinstatement by the IAU.

This Sunday, March 9, I will be interviewed on WNTI 91.9 FM, Centenary College radio station, at 7:30 AM by Science Editor Karl Hricko, on the subject of Pluto. The broadcast can be heard in the southern New Jersey area. It may also be podcast, so you can watch for it at http://www.wnti.org/ While you're at the web site, also check out a podcast of an interview with a friend of mine, Dr. Ken Kremer, NASA Solar System Ambassador, who discussed NASA's Dawn mission to Ceres and Vesta in an interview with Karl Hricko this past Sunday, March 2.

If you want to sign or circulate the petition Dr. Kremer is sending to the IAU asking them to reinstate Pluto as a planet at their next General Assembly in 2009, please email me at laurelkornfeld@netzero.net . I will be happy to email you a copy of the petition, which simply reads "I believe Pluto is a planet, and a better definition is needed." If you want to circulate the petition for signatures, I will provide you with contact information so you can snail mail the completed petitions back to me.

From me, they will go to Dr. Kremer, who will send them to the IAU. Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and strong Pluto supporter, is aware of and supportive of this effort. The petitions will be sent to IAU member Brother Guy Consolmagno.

It's only another year and a half until the IAU's next General Assembly in 2009. We have the power to get this unjust demotion reversed, so let's do it!

Lobby Congress for Pluto

Today is the 78th anniversary of the discovery of Pluto by Clyde Tombaugh, on February 18, 1930, at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. To commemorate this day, I urge all who support reinstating Pluto's planet status to contact your senators and representatives in support of a measure advocating such, recently introduced in Congress.

Thanks to the efforts of Siobhan Elias of Streator, Illinois, birthplace of Clyde Tombaugh, Illinois Representative Jerry Weller on December 19, 2007 introduced a resolution into the Congressional Record supporting the reinstatement of Pluto as the ninth planet in our solar system.

The text of the Weller's statement is as follows:

"Speaker: Representative Janice D. 'Jan' Schakowsky (IL)
Title: Support for Recognition of Pluto as a Planet
Date: 12/19/2007
Location: Washington, DC
Speech

SUPPORT FOR RECOGNITION OF PLUTO AS A PLANET -- (Extensions of Remarks -
December 19, 2007)
[Page: E2645] GPO's PDF

SPEECH OF
HON. JERRY WELLER
OF ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2007

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the renewed recognition of Pluto as a planet.

The planet Pluto was discovered on January 23, 1930, by Clyde Tombaugh.
Although just 24 years of age with no formal education beyond high school, Mr. Tombaugh discovered this new planet by painstakingly and systematically examining and comparing photographic plates he had made of the night skies over New Mexico. For this achievement, Mr. Tombaugh received a prestigious award from the Royal Astronomical Society along with a scholarship to the University of Kansas, which allowed him to continue his formal education.

Clyde Tombaugh went on to make a large number of additional contributions to our knowledge of the universe and to receive many more awards and honors before his death on January 17, 1997. I am proud to note that Mr. Tombaugh was born on February 4, 1906, on a farm near Streator, IL, in LaSalle County--a community which I am privileged to represent in the Congress of the United States.

Unfortunately, on August 26, 2006, the International Astronomical Union, IAU, meeting in Prague and relying on the votes of only a handful of its approximately 10,000 members, made the decision to downgrade the status of Pluto.

This decision was met with protests from eminent scientists and astronomers all over the world. Perhaps foremost among those in the international scientific community strongly disagreeing with the IAU decision was Dr. S. Alan Stern. Named earlier this year by Time magazine as one of the ``One Hundred Most Influential People in the World,'' Dr. Stern is also one of the lead consultants for the New Horizons Mission.

The New Horizons Mission is an unmanned spacecraft launched in January of 2006, which is projected to reach Pluto and the outer edge of our solar system in the year 2015. This spacecraft is carrying some of the ashes of Clyde Tombaugh.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to express their support for the reversal of the International Astronomical Union's decision and the official reinstatement of Pluto as the ninth and outermost planet in our solar system."


A direct link to the text can be found at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=E2603&position=all

When you get to the site, enter in the page # E2645 in the space next to "go to page" at the bottom of the screen, then click the go to page button. The record is in the column on the right. The end of the record is on the next page, so you'll have to click, "next page" to finish reading it.

You can find contact information for your senators at the following link:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

And you can find contact information for your representatives here:
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

A strong statement by both houses of Congress supporting Pluto's planet status may be largely symbolic, but it will send a clear message to the IAU and to the world that could influence the revisiting of this issue by the IAU at its next General Assembly next year. On this anniversary of Pluto's discovery, please take a few minutes to make your voice heard for our ninth planet, the only planet discovered by an American.

Also, for anyone interested, I would like to point out that a news article I wrote last year here in New Jersey on a talk about Pluto given by astronomer Guy Consolmagno has been posted on the blog of the United Kingdom Space Conference. If you are interested in reading it, you can find it at
http://spaceconference.org.uk/index.php/UKSC-Blog/Pluto-the-Planet-that-was.html

Finally, I would like to give credit to my astronomy instructor at Amateur Astronomers, Inc. in Cranford, NJ, for his planet definition, which is far superior to that of the IAU. Please note that this view is his individual opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the club, which has over 300 members with a wide variety of opinions and does not take a formal stand on this issue.

According to my instructor Al Witzgall, a planet is "a non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star." I hope IAU members seriously consider this definition at next year's General Assembly.

Save Pluto!!!