Randy Cassingham's Blog

While I agree with the sentiment that all these solar system bodies are special and should be explored, I feel about Pluto and the other Kuiper Belt objects the same way that I feel about the asteroids: originally designated minor planets, once people figured out how many of them there were, it was decided that they deserved a separate name of their own. I feel the same way about the KBOs.

Or, if we're going to make Pluto a planet, it should be (at least!) the tenth, not the ninth, because of Ceres (and Pallas and Vesta and ...)

And Randy and all, if you don't read Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Blog, you might like it. Try this for one of his many posts on Pluto and terminology, and this for a post on Stern's new job at NASA (or is that already out of date, a month old?)

---

Stern starts in his new NASA position on April 2. -rc

As I understand it, part of the problem with calling Pluto a "planet" was the fact that pluto's moon is nearly the same size, and would therefore also be a "planet".

That would lead to other complications as the definition of "planet" doesn't include two bodies of like mass moving in the same orbit around the sun.

Isn't there also at least one asteroid that is nearly the same size as pluto? Wouldn't that also be jumped up to the same definition of "planet"?

I'm in favor of extending the designation of planet to however many bodies are out there orbiting our sun. It's just too much to think about otherwise.

---

Pluto and its moon, Charon, are a binary planetary system. The key is the root of the second word: planet. -rc

Boy, do I disagree with you here, Randy. Ever since I learned about Pluto in Junior High, I have never thought that it should be classified as a planet. It is just too different from all of the real planets. Perhaps the IAU's definition needs refinement but, in my opinion, the idea is sound.

From the outset relabeling Pluto has elicited a very emotional reaction by everyone opposed to it. But, this is science not religion or politics. In science labels do not change the value of a thing. In this case, the new classification results from a better understanding of the objects in our solar system not from an attempt to denigrate Pluto.

---

I do agree that in science, labels don't change a thing. That's why my argument had to do with the public's understanding and the human knowledge base. That's what's in need of inspiration. And heck, even scientists need inspiration sometimes too. Maybe that's why the majority of them want the definition revamped with more care. -rc

"Fundamental knowledge is worth far more than that."

You're so right. My grandfather, who died weeks short of his 93rd birthday with his mental faculties intact, always said, "The day you stop learning is the day you start to die". I try to live by that statement. I can't understand people who don't want to try new things, or learn anything. Learning something new is the most exciting thing you can do (in public) for your entire life.

Keep Fighting the Good Fight for sanity, tolerance, and using one's brain.

As always I thoroughly enjoyed your newsletter. However, this week I particularly enjoyed your discussion of Pluto's status as a "planet". I didn't really appreciate the importance of its status until I read your editorial. Thanks for encouraging me to think (yet again.)

While I certainly understand (and to an extent share) your views about how the IAU definition was perceived, there was actually some decent science behind it. I agree that the definition was extremely poorly worded, but I suspect that the wording was a result of the resolution being put together overnight after the first proposed resolution failed.

For those interested in learning more about the way planets are defined, and the concept at the heart of the IAU's definition, a draft version of a recent paper called "What is a Planet" (Soter, S. 2006, AJ, 132, 2513) is available (free of charge) on the arXiv science pre-print service in its astrophysics section here. The paper is short (7 pages), but quite well written. In particular, I draw your attention to Figure 1 (on the second page) and Figure 3 (on the fourth page) which provide part of the rationale for why Pluto wouldn't be considered a planet (nor would the other KBOs, or larger asteroids).

Although I agree that, to some extent, the definition can be seen as saying that Pluto and the Kuiper belt "aren't important", I think that the "Dwarf Planet" category actually deals with that to some extent, and I think that the definition used by the IAU is probably the best one they could have come up with (although I don't see why "planet" had to be defined in the first place as a scientific term). And I would argue that if a definition has to be made, the IAU is a more appropriate body than either the EGS or the AAAS.

For reference, while I am neither a member of the IAU nor a professional astronomer, I am a doctoral student in Astronomy and I have found that, of the planetary scientists I spoke with about the definition, the majority support the IAU's definition (or at least its intent -- everyone seems to feel that it was worded badly). Either way, it's something to think about.

Call me a sick person: I actually watched IAU conference, noting few attended the conference. Some in the sparse audience stood expressing their disapproval of what deemed to me as predetermined by those who were on the stage. I hold with as much reverence with the decision that Pluto is not a planet as I do the nutritionists that claim milk, honey, raisins, butter, cheese, apples, water, etc. are bad for you.

As for the thinking class of people, a debate can be brought up on any subject. It is the foolish ones who push their beliefs when there were so few scientists or great minds at the venue then claim that they are right since there was agreement with those who attended the event. By my observance they were not in agreement. Many were not able to share their concerns of the forced issue of Pluto not being a planet. In my opinion this was a gross misuse of power that neither is just or correct.

---

It is my understanding that only 324 members of the IAU were in Prague for the meeting. I'm not surprised to hear that there was plenty of dissent, but this is the first I've heard about the proposal being railroaded in that way. Quite interesting indeed. -rc

Thank you for your editorial on the importance of space exploration. I get so TIRED of people saying what a waste of money it is. As you pointed out, every successful mission gives us entirely new information about where we all came from. Although its underpinnings are engineering, space exploration is probably the most exciting example of "pure" research around right now - research done for its own sake, and for the sake of what we might find. There may be "practical" applications in the future, which would be great, but it's important to continue to value knowledge for its own sake.

"We pompous humans NEED to understand that we occupy a minutely tiny part of the universe"

Here Here!

But that extends to a smaller scale as well. How many Americans actually know what's happening on earth? I used to read New Scientist to get IMPORTANT news about what's happening in the US. New Scientist is pubished in the UK.

Thanks for the Pluto story. I'm glad you made a new friend and made a difference our perception of what's in space.

I'm not particularly interested in astronomy nor space exploration. But even I can see the benefits we've already received from such endeavors. For those who wonder why we 'waste the money' on it, consider that the invention of solid state electronics (transistors) and, subsequently, micro-electronics in the form of chips back in the 60's were driven by necessity of size and power management. Such necessity additionally led to the creation of micro-computers now used in your homes, geosynchronous orbiting satellites that provide over 100 channels of television for your entertainment, and the proliferation of the Internet.

When you consider that a 25" color TV sold for upwards of a $1,000 in 1975 (nearly $3,000 in 2007 dollars) and now you can buy a 50" LCD set that's sharper, brighter, and lasts years longer, consider the earthbound benefits of space exploration.

Sure, such benefits would probably have arrived without so much expense, but not for 50 or more years longer, if then.