Sorry, Mike Brown, but the Debate Is Not Settled

Sorry, Mike Brown, but the debate over Pluto’s status and what defines a planet is not settled.

In response to Illinois’ proud proclamation of March 13 as “Pluto Day,” Dr. Mike Brown, discoverer of Eris and in his own mind, the person who “put the solar system in order by killing Pluto” claims in a National Geographic article of March 11, 2009 that the planet debate is “settled,” that there is no longer “ a vigorous debate” going on about planet definition, and that only a handful of scientists continue to lobby for Pluto’s reinstatement while the rest of astronomers have “moved on.”

Brown even goes so far as to condemn the Illinois resolution as “dangerous to public understanding of science.”

Talk about denial.

At the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, held at the American Museum of Natural History on March 10, 2009, a panel of six planetary scientists moderated by Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson made it abundantly clear that the issue of what constitutes a planet is far from settled--both at the lower end with small objects like Ceres and Pluto and at the upper end with brown dwarfs and sub-brown dwarfs that straddle the boundary between planets and stars.

Even dynamicists like Dr. Steve Soter and Dr. Jack Lissauer, who support defining only the eight gravitationally dominant objects in our solar system as planets, expressed dissatisfaction with the IAU definition and its vague wording requiring a planet to “clear the neighborhood of its orbit.”

“Now about clearing, that was an unfortunate term, because planets never fully clear their orbits,” Soter said.
Even Tyson departed from his usual “I killed Pluto” stance, admitting that “perhaps planetary science is still in its infancy and has no business classifying anything at all yet.”

Tyson should probably stop titling his lectures “How I Killed Pluto, and Why Pluto Had It Coming.” As glib as he is, he can certainly come up with a better titled that more accurately portrays his discussion and does justice to this issue. Leave silly titles like that to Brown.

With an audience of about 1,000 people seven astronomers who disagree on whether or not Pluto should be included as a planet all expressed dissatisfaction with the IAU definition, which Brown still claims “settled” the debate.

This was the third debate on planet definition that I attended personally. The first was in Brookline, MA, in February 2007, sponsored by the Clay Observatory. The second was, of course, the two-and-a-half day Great Planet Debate in August 2008 at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, MD.

Notably, Brown did not attend or participate in any of these events.

Every one of these public debates was congenial and friendly. Professional astronomers showed that they could disagree with one another and still laugh together and be entertaining. In each case, public input was welcomed and valued. In each case, presenters provided in depth discussion of the many nuances and factors going into the debate--how planets were formed, planetary migration, what we learn from exoplanets, the low and high end of planet definition, concepts such as gravitational dominance and hydrostatic equilibrium, and more.

In other words, in each case, the public was presented with the complexity of the issues involved, which all illustrate that what is needed most is time and deliberation, not a quick rush to a “solution,” as was done by the IAU in 2006.

Therefore, every one of these debates can be said to have successfully addressed this issue in a way that the IAU did not.
Yet Brown, who seems to get some strange pleasure out of repeatedly talking about nails and coffins in relation to Pluto, bases his claim that the debate is “settled” on this rushed, political IAU decision, in spite of the ongoing planet definition debates, including those held by the American and European Geophysical Unions, that continue to be held to this day.

It sure sounds a lot like denial to me--either that or some personal need by Brown to view himself as the one who put the solar system in order--a description that maybe could be applied to Nicholas Copernicus, Galileo, Johannes Kepler, or Isaac Newton, each of whom outlined a then-new set of principles about the organization of the solar system--if to anyone at all.

In addition to Brown’s having been for Pluto and Eris being labeled as planets before being against it, he intersperses discussion of his personal shaping of the solar system with strange comments about his family that contribute nothing to the rich discussion of what makes a planet and revolve more around himself than around planetary science.

One of the stories he loves to tell is how, on the night he discovered Eris, which he then considered the tenth planet, he phoned his pregnant wife to tell her the exciting news. Her response? According to Brown, it was “oh, that’s nice. Could you remember to pick up milk on the way home?”

Pick up milk?! Now imagine an actor who just won an Oscar or a politician who just won an election calling his or her spouse with the ecstatic news, only to have that spouse respond with, “remember to bring home milk!” Pregnant or not, many people would consider that grounds for divorce! So maybe Brown is trying to overcompensate for the lack of recognition of his accomplishments at home by exaggerating his “shaping the solar system” when discussing astronomy in public.

His other technique, the equivalent of politicians kissing babies, is the non-stop talk about his daughter, as if that somehow softens the image he cultivates as “the man who killed Pluto.” His blog entries, when not discussing nails in Pluto’s coffin, go on and on about his daughter saying, “daddy, daddy, daddy, look, look, look, I found a planet” when out observing the California sky. Personally, I can’t wait for the day in 2015 when she sees the photos of Pluto from New Horizons and says, “daddy, daddy, daddy, that Pluto sure looks like a planet to me!”

The point in all this is, Brown’s claim that the Pluto debate is “settled,” is far more about himself than it is about Pluto, Eris, or any Kuiper Belt Object.

And the statement that a non-binding, symbolic resolution is “dangerous to public understanding of science” is just plain ludicrous. If anything is harmful to public understanding of science, it is the notion that a self-appointed authoritative body such as the IAU can have four percent of its members adopt a nonsensical planet definition and then blindly expect the world to accept it because they, the “authorities,” have spoken.

In a Discover Magazine discussion of the Illinois proclamation, StevoR, a frequent commentator whose arguments make more sense than those of the IAU, listed twelve compelling reasons why Pluto is a planet, which, with his permission, I would like to quote here:

“_* 12 REASONS WHY PLUTO _IS_ A PLANET : *__
 1. The orbital clearing condition which was made up to eliminate Pluto is fatally flawed because it is itself too hard to define – what is meant by “cleared” & how far from the planet must the orbit be “cleared”? Strictly speaking this eliminates any object in our solar system as all planets have objects – comets and asteroids crossing their orbits, Jupiter has Trojan asteroids, Neptune has Pluto crossing its orbit, Earth has numerous near-earth asteroids such as Eros and so forth. A consistent application of this criterion would exclude all the planets of our solar system! (Even Mercury has sun-crossing comets and Icarus!)

2. A reductio ad absurdum approach reveals that this criterion fails because it leads to absurd results ruling out objects we’d clearly consider planets based on their location – a Jupiter or Earth-type planet hypothetically located in the Oort cloud would be excluded yet we’d clearly still call it a planet otherwise! Why then draw the line at smaller objects that would otherwise fit the planetary description ie. rounded by their own gravity and directly orbiting the Sun? (Or their common centre of gravity for “double planets.”)

3. In relation to forming planetary systems including historically our own, planetary orbits cross and interact in unpredictable ways. By the IAU’s “orbital clearance” criterion, these objects - even ones Jupiter sized and above – are NOT strictly planets because their orbits are not yet cleared – again failing the ‘reductio ad absurdum’ test. Eg : The earth before it was hit by the Mars-sized body that became our moon would NOT have been termed a “planet” because it had that Mars-sized object in its orbital path.

4. From point 3 above, we see that by IAU definitions planets cannot collide because their neighbourhood then isn’t clear – nor can they exist as binaries or “double planets” by the same logic. This appears contrary to common-sense and consistency. It also has potential for creating trouble with exoplanets given the so-far hypothetical but quite probable possibility that some extrasolar planets may exist in this form – even potentially twin Neptunes or Jupiters. Given that some would describe the Earth-Moon system as well as the Pluto-Charon one as such a ‘double planet,’ then a strict definition of the IAU rule may rule our Earth out of planetary status again clearly a ridiculous proposition!

5. Inconsistency and inapplicability in regard to exoplanets - the IAU definition excluded planets of other stars. Yet surely planets orbiting other suns are no less planets for not orbiting our star! Even more tellingly, at least one of the Pulsar planets, PSR B 1257+12 e is tiny – smaller than Pluto with only 1/5th our Moon’s mass raising a glaring inconsistency. Given PSR1257+12 e is counted as an exoplanet then Pluto, equally, should clearly count as a planet for the sake of consistency.

6. The “dwarf planet-dwarf” star analogy – just as dwarf stars are still stars so surely are dwarf planets still planets. Extrapolating the “dwarf planets don’t count” line to stellar astronomy would imply the Sun is not a proper star nor are 99 % of all stars – those 90% on the main-sequence and the 10 % of “stellar corpses” such as white dwarfs and neutron stars. Moreover, as with stars, the smaller the object’s size the greater its numbers! Therefore calling a planet “dwarf” should NOT rule it out of being considered a proper planet.

7. Problems with the “classical” planets term : the IAU defined “classical”; planets are restricted to our Earth’s solar system and it is hard to see how they apply to exoplanets or how the term can work usefully as a scientific description. Apart from differing immensely – Earth and Pluto are arguably far more similar worlds than Earth and Jupiter or Mercury or Neptune – they also clash with a previous understanding arguably much more apt of classical planets being those visible to the “classical” age peoples – the five original bright wanderers – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, & Saturn. If that ‘classical’ term is retained, it seems best used in this sense as a historical and descriptive sense.

8. Sentimental, cultural and historical reasons – noting Pluto’s long-established and culturally scientific place as a recognised planet from its discovery in 1930 until its demotion in 2006. This also covers the slight to Clyde Tombaugh’s memory, widow and family plus the perceived political aspect of stripping from planetary status the sole planet discovered by an American. (BTW. I’m an Aussie with no connection to the US.)

9. The undemocratic manner in which the IAU ruling was made. For instance, of the 10,000 IAU members only 2,500 attended the Prague meeting that demoted Pluto and rejected the other planetary candidates, Eris, Charon and Ceres from planetary status. Furthermore, of those 2,500 only the merest handful – just 424 actually got to vote making therefore a very unrepresentative decision. Among those to excluded from voting and arguing their case in that last minute meeting were some highly relevant and articulate people - notably Pluto expert Alan S. Stern, head of the New Horizons mission. Stern’s summary of the IAU judgment was blunt : “ … idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for this decision.” (Alan Stern, P.28, ‘Astronomy Now’, October, 2006.)

10. The decision to demote Pluto has had a generally negative reception from the general public and on public perceptions of astronomers - just ask the Illinoisans who must’ve had a fair number of people demand their action.
11. The first proposed IAU definition of ‘planet’ (that would have included Pluto, Eris and Ceres) was much better in terms of logical consistency and general application as well as being more easily explained, understand and applied - ie. two main criteria for planets are that they are objects circling a star directly which are not themselves stars or brown dwarfs and are rounded by their own gravity.

12. Pluto is a complex world with the key aspects of planets - it dominates its own satellite system of three moons (Charon, Hydra & Nix), has its own atmosphere, has a complex geology and weather system (of nitrogen frosting based on HST images and theory) and meets all the criteria for planethood with the sole exception of the problematic and, I believe, absurd “orbital clearance” criterion.”

As a personal note, I will add that I have the privilege of knowing the chief Illinois resident who lobbied for this resolution, Siobhan Elias of Streator, Illinois, the birthplace of Clyde Tombaugh.

Additionally, regarding the IAU ruling, most of the 2,500 attendees at the General Assembly who left before the vote fully believed that the resolution being voted on would be the one recommended by the IAU’s Planet Definition Committee, which advocated including Pluto, Charon, Ceres, and Eris as planets. They had no idea that a tiny group would violate the IAU’s own bylaws and push through a completely different resolution, the one that demoted Pluto, on the last day, with no vetting by the appropriate committee before placement on the floor for a vote. In other words, the astronomers who left early were deceived.

All this can be changed. One way you can make a difference is by joining the new Facebook cause, “Bring Pluto Back,” at http://apps.facebook.com/causes/241322?m=05304c83 . If you’re not a member of Facebook, joining is free, and there are a lot of pro-Pluto groups and causes to join and support. Organizers of this latest one encourage all to print out their protest letters and snail mail them back so they can be sent in bulk to the IAU.

The many issues involved in planet definition are presented in a thorough, objective analysis online at http://astroprofspage.com/ in a ten-part blog series by the Astroprof, a college professor of physics and astronomy, that began on February 2 and ended on March 10, 2009. Though there is a lot to read, I encourage anyone interested in this issue to take the time and read all ten entries.

Meanwhile, the real status of the Pluto debate? To be continued…

New Mexico and Illinois Have It Right About Pluto

The legislatures of New Mexico and Illinois seem to have much more sense than a certain 424 IAU members who voted in Prague on August 24, 2006. New Mexico, for the third year in a row, passed a resolution honoring February 18, the anniversary of the day Pluto was discovered, as Planet Pluto Day in their state. And Illinois, thanks largely to lobbying by Pluto supporter and Streator native Siobhan Elias, adopted a resolution recognizing March 13, the anniversary of the day Pluto's discovery was announced to the world, as Pluto Day in Illinois, honoring Clyde Tombaugh. Both states openly defied the IAU decree and declared Pluto to be a full-fledged planet, at least when it is over their skies.

Here is the text of both resolutions:

1) New Mexico

.177166.1

HOUSE MEMORIAL 40

49

TH LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, 2009
INTRODUCED BY

Joni Marie Gutierrez

A MEMORIAL

PROCLAIMING FEBRUARY 18, 2009 AS "PLUTO IS A PLANET IN NEW

MEXICO DAY" AT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HONORING THE

SEVENTY-NINTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DISCOVERY OF PLUTO BY CLYDE

TOMBAUGH.

WHEREAS, Dr. Clyde Tombaugh is best known for discovering

the planet Pluto in 1930, but he also discovered and named a

total of fourteen asteroids; and

WHEREAS, Dr. Tombaugh also engaged in serious scientific

research regarding unidentified flying objects; and

WHEREAS, on August 20, 1949, Dr. Tombaugh claimed to have

seen several unidentified flying objects near Las Cruces,

stating "I doubt that the phenomenon was any terrestrial

reflection because ... nothing of the kind has ever appeared

before or since"; and

.177166.1

- 2 -

WHEREAS, Dr. Tombaugh worked at the White Sands missile

range during the 1950s and taught astronomy at New Mexico state

university from 1955 until his retirement in 1973; and

WHEREAS, Dr. Tombaugh died in Las Cruces in 1997; and

WHEREAS, approximately one ounce of his ashes is being

carried on the New Horizons spacecraft that was launched in

2006 and that is scheduled for a fly-by of Pluto in 2014; and

WHEREAS, Pluto was recognized as a planet for seventy-five

years; and

WHEREAS, Dr. Clyde Tombaugh's discoveries have shaped and

advanced the field of astronomy; and

WHEREAS, his enduring scientific accomplishments and

personal contributions shine brightly on New Mexico state

university as well as the rest of the world; and

WHEREAS, New Mexico is proud to recognize these

accomplishments and contributions; and

WHEREAS, thanks to Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, Pluto will always

be considered a planet in New Mexico;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that February 18,

2009 be proclaimed "Pluto is a Planet in New Mexico Day" at the

house of representatives in honor of the seventy-ninth

anniversary of the discovery of Pluto by Clyde Tombaugh; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be

transmitted to the family members of Dr. Clyde Tombaugh.
2) Illinois




SR0046 LRB096 04130 KXB 14171 r



1 SENATE RESOLUTION


2 WHEREAS, Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of the planet Pluto,
3 was born on a farm near the Illinois community of Streator; and

4 WHEREAS, Dr. Tombaugh served as a researcher at the
5 prestigious Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona; and

6 WHEREAS, Dr. Tombaugh first detected the presence of Pluto
7 in 1930; and

8 WHEREAS, Dr. Tombaugh is so far the only Illinoisan and
9 only American to ever discover a planet; and

10 WHEREAS, For more than 75 years, Pluto was considered the
11 ninth planet of the Solar System; and

12 WHEREAS, A spacecraft called New Horizons was launched in
13 January 2006 to explore Pluto in the year 2015; and

14 WHEREAS, Pluto has three moons: Charon, Nix and Hydra; and

15 WHEREAS, Pluto's average orbit is more than three billion
16 miles from the sun; and

17 WHEREAS, Pluto was unfairly downgraded to a "dwarf" planet


Both proclamations have generated some less than complimentary responses by newspaper columnists and bloggers. Who are these politicians, who claim to know better than the IAU? the writers rant. Don't they have anything better to do? Why are they contradicting a consensus of the scientific community? What a lot of these commentators are missing is the fact that there is no scientific consensus on the status of Pluto among the scientific community.

Certain people with a particular agenda like to act as though such a consensus exists when it really does not. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Dr. Mike Brown both routinely give talks titled, "How I Killed Pluto, and Why Pluto Had It Coming." The two of them can compete with one another over who committed the dirty deed, but that does not change the fact that Pluto as a planet is not dead.

Journalists, if they do their job as it should be done, are responsible for telling both sides in any controversy. In the case of columnists who deride lawmakers in New Mexico and Illinois for enacting pro-Pluto resolutions, the writers fail to note that the 424 members of the IAU (out of a total of 10,000 members plus many planetary scientists who do not belong to the IAU) who voted on this acted more like politicians than like scientists at the 2006 General Assembly. Both the process and the outcome of the planet definition session are political. One need only view the video of that session, still on the IAU web site under the category of the 2006 General Assembly, to see a spectacle that is part politics, part circus, and no science whatsoever.

Legislative bodies at all levels frequently pass symbolic resolutions honoring individuals, ethnic and advocacy groups, awareness weeks and months for various causes, etc. These resolutions do not take up any significant amount of time and do not cost taxpayers any money. Any claims that these are being passed to avoid addressing other, more serious issues, are ludicrous.

Resolutions like the ones above, both of which honor a native son and his accomplishments (Tombaugh worked in New Mexico for many years and was born in Illinois) are not adopted with any notion of forcing their viewpoints on people. The legislatures of New Mexico and Illinois are not telling anyone they have to reject the IAU decree; they are simply expressing the sentiment of these governing bodies, in this case partly as a protest, with no illusion that anyone, including teachers, will be compelled to comply with that sentiment.

Hopefully, teachers are smarter than the journalists who have made fun of these efforts and understand that the best way to teach this issue is as an ongoing controversy. They can find a great resource in an educational activity created by Montana State University that was selected by NASA as an "exemplary product" at http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/What_Is_a_Planet.html

As I write this, it occurs to me that today is the one-year anniversary of my radio interview on Pluto with Karl Hricko on Centenary College's WNTI "Contours" program. Interestingly, while some who deride these resolutions note that March 13 falls on a Friday the 13th, there is another, more positive association with this week and month. Tonight and tomorrow mark the Jewish festival of Purim, a carnival like holiday of feasting and merriment. In the Jewish calendar, the month in which Purim occurs, named Adar, is considered especially lucky. And in addition to both Purim and Pluto being five letter words that begin with the letter "P," both have something else in common--a lesson about the inherent goodness of diversity.

About 2,500 years ago, the story goes, an evil Persian minister sought to exterminate the Jewish people in the huge Persian empire. His justification for seeking permission to do this went something like this, according to the Book of Esther in the Bible. "There is one nation, scattered and spread out among the peoples, and their ways are different from those of all others, and they do not follow the king's rules, and so for the king, it is not worthwhile to keep them around. If it pleases the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed..."

This sentence can be rewritten as follows: "There is one object in the solar system whose orbit takes it above and beyond the plane of the other planets, and its makeup is different from that of all the other planets, and it does not behave as a proper planet should, and so for the International Astronomical Union, it is not appropriate to continue including it. Therefore, if it pleases this Assembly, let it be stricken from the planet list..."

Along with the Jewish people of the story, Pluto shares the trait of being different, and unfortunately, some people are unable to grasp that diversity is not only favored by biology, but by the cosmos itself. That is what we are finding as we discover planets around other stars. One commenter responding to my previous entry on this blog noted that a total of three, not one, solar systems containing two giant planets in a 3:2 orbital resonance with one another, the same resonance shared by Neptune and Pluto, have so far been discovered.

How does one celebrate Pluto Day? some bloggers asked. The answer is actually quite simple. Advocate for Pluto. Email IAU president Catherine Cesarsky at catherine.cesarsky@cea,fr , email the IAU at iau@iap.fr , and cc the emails you send to CNN at headlinenews@cnn.com and to the BBC at newsonline@bbc.co.uk . Ask Cesarsky and the IAU to honor their commitment to communicate astronomy with the public, listen to the ongoing objections people are expressing to the 2006 planet definition, and reopen the planet definition issue at their General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro this August. The more people Cesarsky and the IAU hear from, the better the chances that they will consider this request.

Meanwhile, no matter what state or country you live in, Happy Pluto Day!

Celebrating Pluto

Today is the 79th anniversary of the discovery of planet Pluto by 24-year-old Clyde Tombaugh at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. The observatory is celebrating that milestone, "Pluto Night," tonight with presentations by astronomer and New Horizons team member Will Grundy and by Outreach Manager Kevin Schindler, who will share the exciting story of Pluto’s discovery and astronomers’ current efforts in trying to understand Pluto and its neighbors. Visitors will also have an opportunity to check out the Orion Nebula and other fascinating objects through their telescopes. More on this event can be found at http://www.lowell.edu/outreach/events.php . This is one event I deeply regret missing, but Flagstaff is a long way from New Jersey. Still, I do plan to make a visit to the Lowell Observatory one of the goals I hope to someday accomplish.

Interestingly, the anniversary of Pluto's discovery is being noted around the world by many articles, blog posts, and events, once again illustrating the compelling draw of this tiny body of which the world cannot seem to get enough.
Several weeks ago, I noted the dedication of Tombaugh's 16-inch telescope at Rancho Hidalgo in New Mexico. Pictures from the dedication ceremony can be viewed at http://community.livejournal.com/pluto_heresy/10456.html

How notable is it that fully two and a half years after the IAU--or, rather, four percent of the IAU--thought they had settled this issue for good, that it becomes more and more evident every day that the issue is not settled. Why should it be? Why should the world settle for a sloppy definition adopted in haste by astronomers more eager to get home after a two-week conference than to deliberate sufficiently so as to arrive at a thoughtful compromise? In the March 2009 issue of Sky and Telescope, Dr. David Grinspoon argues rightly that the world should not be forced to accept a flawed planet definition. His article and an 11-minute podcast on why the planet definition issue needs revisiting can be found here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/skytel/beyondthepage/38235059.html

Also fascinating to me is the reference to this blog in several blog posts by various astronomers and astronomy journalists. It seems the backlash against the IAU decision is gaining momentum. On four separate occasions in just the last few weeks, this blog was discussed in relation to the Pluto debate. These references can be found at the following sites:

http://philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com "Pluto: A Reader's Contribution" 2/5/09
http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1898 "Defining Planets" (Part 1) 2/2/09
http://physics.about.com/b/2009/01/31/the-other-side-of-pluto.htm "The Other Side of Pluto" 1/31/09
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/how-many-planets-do-you-want-in-the-solar-s ystem/ "How Many Planets Do You Want in the Solar System?" 1/10/09

The Internet has provided people the world over an opportunity to make a difference, to influence this debate in a way we never could have in its absence. In the pre-Internet world, four percent of the IAU would have voted, and that would have been the end. Many people, both scientists and lay people, would still have been unhappy with the flawed decision, but we would have had limited venues with which to express our views. Supporters of the demotion, especially if they are professionals with PhDs, would get the media attention, the op-eds and the interviews, and in spite of the definition's many deficiencies, there would have been precious little the rest of us could do to fight this. Thankfully, today, we have this venue that democratizes this debate, allowing all to have an equal say in this matter and, most importantly, allowing Pluto supporters to counter the claims of those who support demotion that our views are based solely on sentiment. They are not. There is strong scientific reasoning for the continuing classification of Pluto as a planet.

Here is one of the most compelling arguments yet. A newfound pair of exoplanets has been discovered, which has the same 3:2 orbital resonance as Neptune and Pluto. The two planets revolve around an orange dwarf star named HD 45364 in the constellation of Canis Major, about 110 light years from Earth. The inner planet completes three orbits around its star in the same time it takes the outer planet to complete two orbits. Therefore, the inner planet at times lies further from the star than the outer planet--just like Neptune and Pluto. For 20 years of its 248-year orbit, Pluto comes closer to the sun than does Neptune. Both of these exoplanets have elliptical orbits.

Both of these are giant planets; the inner one is at least 3.5 times the mass of Neptune. Its average distance from its star is approximately that of Venus from our sun. The outer planet is more massive, at least 2.2 times the mass of Saturn. It is slightly closer to its star than the Earth is to the sun.

According to the IAU definition, neither of these objects would be considered planets, as they do not "clear their orbits" of one another. According to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, crossing another planet's orbit is "no way for a planet to behave." What, then, are these giant objects? Are they really not planets, or more likely, did some astronomers hastily adopt a planet definition based on arbitrary constrictions? More about this planetary system can be found at http://kencroswell.com/HD45364.html

Another exoplanet discovery illustrates that having an orbit that is "comet-like" does not make an object a comet. A large exoplanet, HD 80606b, four times the size of Jupiter, circles its star in only a few days in a comet-like orbit. Is this object, which is bigger than any in our solar system, not a planet but a comet because of its highly elliptical orbit?

More information on this exoplanet can be found at http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=5767

The conclusion is clear. Unless astronomers want to blatantly exclude these giant objects from planet status, they have to recognize that an object not clearing its orbit, crossing the orbit of another planet, and/or having a comet-like orbit cannot be disqualified from being considered planets for any of these reasons. And it may be just a hunch, but personally, I have a feeling that we are going to see more, not fewer, strange exoplanet discoveries that will only confirm the ridiculousness of the IAU's 2006 planet definition.

Another interesting tidbit that further discredits Tyson's claim that affinity for Pluto is limited to the US is that just yesterday, I received a message from an astronomy journalist in Argentina stating his support for Pluto's planet status. People around the world are speaking, and they are celebrating planet Pluto. Forget the silly 1930-2006 line that has graced some blogs and T-shirts. It's 2009, and planet Pluto has not gone anywhere. The debate will not end with a nonsensical definition best described in Jonathan Coulton's song, "I'm Your Moon," as "they invented a reason."

For those further interested in Pluto's fate, Dr. Alan Stern will be at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on Tuesday, March 10 at 7:30 PM for the 2009 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, which will focus on Pluto. Dr. Tyson will act as moderator. Tickets are $18 and should be purchased in advance. More information can be found at http://www.amnh.org/programs/programs.php?event_type_id=3&bytype=1 . I hope to be there and to meet other Pluto supporters there.

On the next night, Wednesday, March 11, NASA Solar System Ambassador Dr. Ken Kremer, a friend of mine, will discuss Pluto and the New Horizons Mission at the Rittenhouse Astronomical Society at the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia from 8-9:30 PM. He will join Dr. Max Mutchler of the Space Telescope Science Institute, who discovered Pluto's two tiny moons Nix and Hydra. Mutchler will begin the evening program at 7:30 PM. More information can be found at http://www.rittenhouseastronomicalsociety.org/

Meanwhile, all the discussion resulting from Tyson's book has inspired me with the goal of writing a book about Pluto as well, one that will address both the scientific issues surrounding the debate and the cultural aspect of Pluto and worldwide support for its planet status--all from the viewpoint of an unabashed Plutophile. This project is still in the research state, so it's going to be a while before it becomes reality. However, I'm pretty sure the Pluto debate will continue for quite some time, creating a fertile climate for books and articles on this subject. I agree with Tyson, who responded to my project with "the more, the merrier." Of course, I better get it done well before 2015, or New Horizons data will make most of the information obsolete!

Happy Discovery Day, Pluto (not birthday, as Pluto was here long before we found it!)! This year, your planetary status is still a matter of debate. Next year, may it be a fact officially recognized worldwide.

Reading Tyson's "The Pluto Files"

Was I too hard on Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson in my initial post about The Pluto Files? Several readers thought so and sent me emails with that message. That post was not intended to be a review of the book but a commentary on Tyson’s public statements in various discussions of the planet definition issue.

I do thank Tyson for directing his publisher to send me a copy of the book, which I received last Saturday and read immediately. Going out of his way to make sure that someone who has publicly criticized him gets a chance to read, review, and keep his book is commendatory.

Contrary to some who communicated with me, I do not have any personal animosity toward Tyson. His endearing way of making astronomy accessible to the public is certainly a positive for him.

However, I do see some very real problems, including contradictions, in his public statements about Pluto. As for the seeking of “celebrity” status, I am in principle opposed to the concept of “celebrities” and don’t believe anyone should be paid thousands of dollars for a lecture or “personal appearance.”

And I wish Tyson had stayed for the entirety of the Great Planet Debate in August rather than just attend for his debate with Dr. Mark Sykes. The best of that conference, the rich exchange of ideas, took place mostly in the other, more participatory sessions throughout the two-and-a-half days.

But back to Pluto. My initial use of the word “preposterous” in the earlier entry was specifically aimed at the subtitle “The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet.” Pluto has not “fallen” from grace. This saga is far from over. Pluto has had its ups and downs, its detractors and supporters, since 1931, one year after its discovery. An assumption that the debate is over, inherent in the title, is unwarranted and in my view, preposterous.

Tyson’s book is a fun, entertaining read, and its pages contain many cartoons and illustrations. It is clearly accessible to children and adults alike. He even cites two songs I referred to in an earlier entry, “Planet X” by Christine Lavin and “I’m Your Moon” by Jonathan Coulton. I like that.

Defining “Planet”:

In an email to me, Tyson emphasizes his conviction that we are not on opposite sides of the planet debate, saying he does not care what the definition of planet is. He notes that he would have no problem with the term planet being defined as anything that is round but then opines that such a classification is not useful pedagogically or scientifically because it would leave us with dozens of planets.

I find those two statements contradictory. The latter sentence indicates he does in fact have a problem with using roundness as the criterion for planethood. Why would having dozens of planets not be “useful” education wise? We have billions of stars and billions of galaxies. Among objects known as stars and those known as galaxies, there are huge variations, which are designated by subcategories. Would it make sense to say the sheer number “devalues” the terms “star” and “galaxy,” and thereby makes these concepts unteachable? The answer is clearly no. Why then, should we have a different standard for planets?

And that is the beginning of where, in spite of recognizing the fun and entertaining tone of Tyson’s book, I disagree with his conclusions.

If Tyson really does not care what the definition of planet is, why then does he proceed to argue against using the criterion of hydrostatic equilibrium--roundness--by saying its resulting in numerous planets makes it not useful? Also, while he rightfully acknowledges the IAU planet definition as flawed, he then muddies the waters by invoking that vote to vindicate his decision to not include Pluto as a planet in the Rose Center display. Which one is it? Either the IAU definition is a step forward or it is not. If he believes it is not, then he should not be citing it to support his choice in designing the planetarium.

On page 132, Tyson states that the IAU “added the word ‘dwarf’ the way astrophysicists have used it for dwarf galaxy (which is still a galaxy) and for dwarf star (which is still a star). But to no avail. As far as anyone was concerned, the IAU killed planet Pluto.”

It seems he has forgotten about resolution 5b--the umbrella resolution that, had it passed, would have made dwarf planets a subclass of planets. Unfortunately, the IAU members participating voted that measure down, meaning they specifically intended to depart from traditional usage by adopting a definition that intentionally said a dwarf planet is not a planet at all.

If the whole “the IAU killed planet Pluto” was just media hype, why then does Tyson title many of his lectures, “How I Killed Pluto, and Why It Had It Coming?” Which one is it?

And, if he truly believes the IAU decision is flawed, why does he then proceed to argue that that vote is representative of planetary scientists around the world--a point widely contested since only four percent of the IAU’s membership voted on this and most are not planetary scientists. Why does he then go on to criticize the petition of scientists who rejected the IAU decision and point out how many signatories were American versus non-American? If he doesn’t care how planet is defined, he should have distanced himself from all sides of the 2006 dispute.

Voting is not the way science is done. If it were, a group of prominent PhDs could vote that the sky is green. Would that make their statement true? Did scientists vote on the theory of relativity? Dr. Alan Stern rightly points out that in science, ideas rise and fall on their own merit. That is a process that takes time. It does not provide instant gratification. It does not give a neat, clean, “planet or not planet” answer in time for
the next newspaper or textbook deadline.

Maybe we need to take the time to study Pluto, the Kuiper Belt, and extrasolar planets in depth before reaching a definitive conclusion. Contrary to the claims of some, children can be taught that sometimes, we just do not have enough information to make a final determination. And even determinations deemed to be final can be later reconsidered.

The point of the petition was to show that within days, hundreds of experts rejected the IAU decision. The only reason the petition had so many American signatories is that most planetary scientists are American.

It’s Not A Comet:

Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object, but Tyson is incorrect in describing it as a “large comet” and as just another member of the Kuiper Belt. He believes it is a choice to use hydrostatic equilibrium, which is expressed in roundness, as the fundamental criterion in planet definition. This is where his argument falls apart.

Ask anyone to draw his or her conception of a planet. Inevitably, everyone will draw an object that is round. Roundness is universally accepted as the way planets appear. For an object to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, it must be sufficiently massive so that its shape is controlled by gravity rather than by chemical bonds. Pluto clearly meets this criterion, as do Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, various other objects in the Kuiper Belt, and probably the “asteroids” Vesta, Pallas, and Hygeia. These objects behave like the larger objects in the solar system--the planets--and not like the tiny asteroids and majority of Kuiper Belt Objects.

Planetary scientists measure objects by mass, not volume. Pluto’s mass is 70 percent rock and 30 percent ice. Most of the rock is in the planet’s center and has less volume than the ice. Tyson departs from the convention used by planetary scientists and decides to use volume as an object’s primary characteristic instead. He states, “If volume is what matters to you, then you can rightly declare that Pluto is mostly ice. This fact sits within a long list of properties that are not shared with any other planet in the solar system” (page 33).

So in order to lump Pluto with comets and shapeless KBOs, Tyson must resort to using a different measure than that used as the standard in the field.

And even if by his definition Pluto “is mostly ice,” well, Uranus and Neptune have several Earth masses of ice within them. Are they then not planets?

The reality is that volume has nothing to do with whether or not an object is a planet.
As for his claim that if brought into the Earth’s orbit, Pluto would grow a tail, this is true. But it is also true that any planet brought close enough to its parent star would grow a tail due to the evaporation of its atmosphere. In fact, Earth in its current orbit has a magnetotail. If Earth were brought 30 times closer to the sun than its current orbit--the equivalent of placing Pluto in Earth’s orbit--it too would grow a tail. Some of the “hot Jupiters” found orbiting other stars have visible tails. Many are several times the size and mass of Jupiter. Are they comets rather than planets?

Tyson also argues that Pluto is a big comet because its eccentric orbit matches that of other comets and Kuiper Belt Objects. But Earth’s orbital parameters match those of about a million near Earth asteroids. Is Earth therefore an asteroid?

The answer to all these questions is no because celestial objects are classified by their intrinsic attributes, not by what orbits with them. Otherwise, we’re back to the same preposterous definition created by the IAU in which the exact same object is a planet in one location and not a planet in another.

If Earth were placed in Pluto’s orbit, it would not have enough mass to clear that orbit. This was definitively proven in calculations by Dr. Hal Levison, who interestingly is a dynamicist and therefore a supporter of the eight planet schematic.

Maybe the reality is that it was easier to lay out the Rose Center display into neat categories of terrestrial planets, asteroid belt, gas giants, and Kuiper Belt. After all, it would be a lot more complicated and probably cost more money to name and highlight a few round objects in the asteroid belt and another group, including Pluto, in the Kuiper Belt. Unfortunately for planetarium designers, the solar system is not so neatly arranged, messier than a simple display of four clear categories.

Why Do We Love Pluto?

A final area where I believe Tyson is wrong is his attribution of public affinity for Pluto to the Disney dog. Maybe this is because, as stated in the book’s acknowledgments section, his brother-in-law is a Disney expert. “I could find none,” he says in attempting to find a reason that explains Pluto’s continuing popularity.

Just because he cannot identify a reason doesn’t mean there isn’t one--or many. Most children and adults fascinated by Pluto already have some interest in astronomy and the solar system. When I pointed this out in an email, Tyson stressed that he is referring to the public rather than professionals in the field.

So am I. The public has always had some degree of fascination with the space program, with the discovery of “strange new worlds.” Of the solar system’s known planets, Pluto is one of the least understood. We have never seen images of it up close. We have no other binary planet systems, which Pluto and Charon essentially are. Therefore, Pluto is enigmatic, mysterious, the frontier of our knowledge, at least about our solar system.

That is appealing in the same way that Mars is appealing in that it is both known and unknown, Earth-like, yet different. More science fiction stories have been written about Mars than about any other planet. It is the same reason so many children--and adults--become fascinated with dinosaurs. There is that element of mystery, of something both like and unlike what we know, something remote, either in time or in space.

And yes, there is the appeal of the underdog. Pluto was discovered not by a professional astronomer, but by a Kansas farm boy who at the time had only a high school education. Inherent in that story is an anti-elitism, a conviction that anyone, regardless of the circumstances of his or her birth, can accomplish great things. Notably, Clyde Tombaugh himself was an underdog even once he obtained a formal post-secondary education. Not having a PhD, he was often looked down on by his peers in the field. Perhaps they resented the fact that someone with less formal training than they had had done something they did not--discover a planet.

The IAU decision very likely caused Pluto’s popularity to skyrocket worldwide. Like it or not, we all, scientists included, project our own sentiments onto the world around us. By demoting Pluto and singling it out for exclusion, the IAU effectively made it the Charlie Brown of the solar system. Who has not, at one time or another, identified with that?

As further illustration of Tyson’s generalizing, he comments on page 121 regarding the 2006 IAU decision, “Angry third graders from the year 2000 were now in high school with other (hormonal) priorities to distract them.” Personally, I was somewhat taken aback by his assumption that all the students who had cared enough to write letters in 2000 were now distracted by “hormonal priorities.” How does he know? Not every teenager is all hormones all the time. In fact, some may have maintained their interest in astronomy. How does he know they were not upset by the IAU decision? Their letters at this point would likely be typed on a computer, written in the same language as those of adults, and not include their age or grade. As with the attribution of people’s love for Pluto to the Disney dog, Tyson’s wholesale categorization of high schoolers as walking hormones is a gross generalization, not to mention it is demeaning to teenagers.

Tyson is certainly a highly credentialed astrophysicist, not to mention charming and entertaining. His book most certainly adds to the growing lexicon of literature on Pluto and the planet debate. I would never in any way begrudge him this. His chronicling of popular celebration of Pluto is itself an example of our ongoing fascination with this little world.

But that world has not fallen. It is not dead. The story continues. I believe planet Pluto will rise again, and I still hold out the hope that it will be in 2009.

Tombaugh Official Telescope Dedication

Today in Animas, New Mexico, at the Rancho Hidalgo housing development, the 16-inch telescope used by Pluto discoverer Clyde Tombaugh in his later years will be officially dedicated at its new home, where it will serve as a centerpiece in a new educational program.

Members of the Tombaugh family and Tombaugh biographer David Levy, one of the discoverers of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which hit Jupiter in 1994, will be present for the dedication.

As an interesting note, in his later years, Tombaugh was aware of the controversy surrounding Pluto's status. Levy reportedly promised Tombaugh that he would always be a voice for Pluto's planethood, even after Tombaugh was gone.

The 16-inch telescope at Rancho Hidalgo has been refurbished and updated for frequent use. Gene Turner, one of the developers of this community, emphasizes that there are many people eager to look through Tombaugh's telescope. Personally, he has set himself a goal of viewing Pluto and Charon through the telescope as two separate objects, a feat rarely accomplished by amateur astronomers. Charon is half the size of Pluto and very close to the planet, which is why for so long, astronomers believed Pluto was far larger than it really is.  Until the discovery of Charon by James Christie in 1978, nobody realized that they were actually looking at not one but two separate objects in very close proximity to one another.

The owners of Rancho Hidalgo also own the Arizona Sky Village, another housing development geared specifically to skywatchers and therefore also a dark sky site (something that those of us here in light polluted New Jersey can very much appreciate!).

At Rancho Hidalgo, Pluto is a planet, says Turner, who plans to put a provision stating so in the development's official documents.

More information on Rancho Hidalgo and the Tombaugh telescope can be found at http://www.hidalgonm.com/ranchohidalgo_025.htm

Who Are the "Plutophiles?"

After reading Time magazine's interview with Neil de Grasse Tyson, I would like to comment on a statement Tyson makes regarding "Plutophiles," a term he uses for supporters of Pluto's planet status. Tyson is wrong when he says "Plutophiles" are only Americans. I have heard from and read writings by people from all over the world who want to see Pluto reinstated as a bona fide planet, not a dwarf, people from Australia, England, Canada, New Zealand, Egypt, the Philippines, Morocco, India, Pakistan, and many other locations.

But one does not have to take my word for it. There are Internet groups and web sites all over the world organized by people who want to see Pluto reinstated as well as see dwarf planets categorized as a subclass of planets. There are astronomers worldwide, some of whom are IAU members, others who are not, who reject the IAU demotion of Pluto. Some of them were at the Great Planet Debate.  One can see names from around the world in Dr. Stern's petition of 300 professional astronomers who rejected the IAU decision, which can be found here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/

Tyson also overly emphasizes the connection with the Disney dog, to which he attributes much of the public's fascination with Pluto. This is quite a supposition and assumes he knows the motivation of people who want to see Pluto's planet status reinstated. What he does not take into account is that many "Plutophiles" are amateur astronomers and astronomy enthusiasts (both adults and children) whose interest in Pluto the planet is completely independent of Disney. Of the many adults and children with whom I have corresponded or whom I have met, none even mentioned Disney in connection with their convictions about Pluto.

I tried to email Gilbert Cruz, writer of the interview, but all four attempts resulted in a bouncing email address. If anyone has contact information for him at Time magazine, please share it with me.

The Preposterously-Titled PR-Driven "Pluto Files"

We are two weeks into the International Year of Astronomy, and already there have been fascinating new developments in the field, including the imaging of exoplanets’ atmospheres; the presence of methane on Mars, indicating it is not a “dead planet”; new information revealing that our Milky Way galaxy is far bigger than previously thought, and much more.

Significantly, today is the third anniversary of the launch of New Horizons, which is now six and a half years from reaching Pluto.

However, one Pluto-related news item this month turns out to be driven far more by the desire for press and public relations than by the quest for knowledge. Specifically, I am referring to the latest book by Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, titled The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet.

Rise and fall? To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of Pluto’s “death” have been greatly exaggerated.

Pluto is about as “dead” as a soap opera character who is presumably killed under mysterious circumstances, yet there is no body to prove the person is truly dead. Of course, everyone already knows the character mourned by others on the show will inevitably return in a few years when the actor renews his or her contract.

Tyson, whose presentation at the Great Planet Debate involved far more show than substance, appropriated the “Pluto is not a planet” stand about eight years ago when the Hayden’s Rose Center for Earth and Space re-opened in 2001, gaining him notoriety for his exclusion of Pluto from the planet display.

Since then, Tyson has used his stand on Pluto to catapult him to celebrity status, conducting tours, lectures, and TV interviews around the country proudly bragging about the hate mail he received from third graders when his exclusion of Pluto from the Rose Center became public knowledge.

Tyson is not a planetary scientist. In fact, he is not a research scientist at all. His interviews are characterized largely by sound bytes, theatrics, and wild statements such as “Pluto is happier with its Kuiper Belt brethren than as a planet.” I guess he has a direct line to Pluto since he comments with such certainty about how the planet “feels.”

In his presentations, Tyson frequently comments on Pluto having an elliptical orbit, claiming “that is no way for a planet to behave,” arguing that such an orbit is more typical of comets. Does he ever consider that maybe planets have a much wider range of behavior styles than he or anyone else has previously thought? Many of the giant exoplanets we have found, most of which are significantly larger than Jupiter, have very elliptical orbits. Does that make them comets instead of planets?

Tyson also likes to argue that if it were placed closer to the sun, Pluto would grow a tail like a comet. That is true, but it is only half the story. Any planet brought close enough to the sun (or to its parent star), including Earth and even Jupiter, would grow a tail due to sublimation and outgassing. Of course, Tyson won’t tell that second point to his audiences.

He also loves to portray “Plutophiles” as ignorant of the fact that there are moons in our solar system larger than Pluto. “How many of you know that?” he questions Pluto supporters in his audience, with the assumption they do not know.

Those who have spent any time studying the solar system are aware of this. However, many of us recognize that the round moons of planets are planets themselves in every way—they are in hydrostatic equilibrium and geologically differentiated, just as the primary planets are. Tyson’s claim that no one has proposed calling them planets is false. Nineteenth-century textbooks referred to them as “secondary planets”; this takes dynamics into account by still defining them as planets but as ones with a secondary orbit around the sun and a primary orbit around another planet.

Referring to these moons as secondary planets immediately does away with the size-based argument used against Pluto.

At the Great Planet Debate, Tyson proposed doing away with the term “planet” altogether and adopting a wholly new classification system where objects are grouped with other like objects. However, he never presented a comprehensive alternative schematic other than to articulate two groups of objects, the terrestrial planets and the gas giants.

If we are to group objects with those like one another, Pluto cannot be grouped solely with other Kuiper Belt Objects just as Ceres cannot be grouped solely with other bodies in the asteroid belt. To do this is to ignore the fundamental characteristic of hydrostatic equilibrium, that is, of being spherical and therefore geologically differentiated.

Tyson never explains why he is okay with glossing over this crucial difference between planets and asteroids. This is a major weakness in his arguments.

Supporters of Pluto’s demotion often discuss how even as children, they viewed Pluto as not fitting into either of the two categories of planets, the terrestrial planets and the gas giants. Quoting Sesame Street, they argue, “one of these things is not like the others.”

But what if there are more than two classes of planets? What if there is a third class, the ice dwarfs, which may lie among a belt of objects but have compositions that significantly distinguish them from most of the other objects in those belts? Isn’t it a disservice to not even consider this possibility?

Personally, I question Tyson’s motivation in his “demote Pluto” quest. A look at his web site shows a list of public appearances and TV interviews across the country. One can be reasonably certain that Tyson will repeat the same lines, practically verbatim, in each one of these presentations.

Those who buy his book or attend his lectures deserve to know that he is being paid well to do the lecture circuit and be the astrophysicist version of a celebrity. There is nothing illegal about this; however, it cannot help but lead many to question how much of this is about Tyson’s celebrity status. Much of his latest book is about himself. Has he been attaining money and fame at Pluto’s expense? Clearly, he benefits personally from this public stand. Could that be at least part of his motivation in being so adamant about categorizing Pluto as a non-planet? The public has a right to know.

Meanwhile, in spite of Tyson’s theatrics, there is a significant backlash underway to get Pluto’s demotion overturned, possibly even at this year’s IAU General Assembly this summer. The January 3, 2009 issue of The Independent article “Planetary Storm Over Status of Pluto,” which can be found here, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/planetary-storm-over-status-of-pluto-1222862.html describes efforts underway to get Pluto’s planet status reinstated.

New York Times science writer Ken Chang, in “How Many Planets Do You Want in the Solar System?” which can be found at http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/how-many-planets-do-you-want-in-the-solar-system/ , published on January 10, 2009, makes clear that Pluto’s status is still very much part of an ongoing debate and notes that he has not met anyone for whom the IAU definition clarifies this issue. I will note that I have a personal appreciation for Chang, who actually quoted me in the text of his article!

Yet a commenter who identifies himself only as “Wayne,” makes what I believe is the most important point in this debate when he points out that we are arguing over something subjective rather than objective. He says:

“It astonishes me that people talk about this as a matter of scientific inquiry, like the discovery of a new species or new information about the atom. This is nothing more than a matter of subjective definition that has no right or wrong to it. Some people say “I choose to define ‘planet” as such-and-such,” while others say “I choose to define ‘planet’ as so-and-so.” Nobody can say that Pluto is or is not a planet in the same sense that s/he can say that the Earth does or does not revolve around the Sun (emphasis mine). Opinions on this sort of question are just as subjective as whether or not Citizen Kane was a great movie (not). That doesn’t mean we can’t argue about it, but we should let go of the idea that we are pronouncing something of scientific objectivity when we make up our mind about our own opinion on the matter.”

Far from having “fallen,” Pluto continues to inspire children and adults, as can be seen from a new 13-minute film titled “Naming Pluto.” Produced by Father Films, it documents the naming of Pluto by British schoolgirl Venetia Burney in 1930 as well as her first view of Pluto through a telescope on her 89^th birthday. Information on the film and how to order it can be found here: http://www.fatherfilms.com/films/namingpluto/

In the words of Tim Ophus and Chuck Crouse, who respectively wrote the music and lyrics to “Dwarf Planet Nothing (The Pluto Song),” which can be found here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlkYe6i3Dns&feature=PlayList&p=C928956660965F3A&index=1&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

"Pluto’s going to rise once again!!!"

May it be in 2009.