Pluto on my mind

Posted 01-30-2009 by Matt Quandt

Pluto and Charon Senior Editor Michael Bakich’s last blog post, “Party in Pluto Park,” details his experiences at an event in New Mexico to commemorate Clyde Tombaugh’s 16-inch telescope. To be clear, Tombaugh discovered Pluto while he worked in Arizona, but he spent most of his life in New Mexico.

Bakich’s post from Wednesday, “Working on a classic,” received a passionate comment from a reader requesting that Michael not refer to Pluto as an “ex-planet.” It’s clear Pluto’s classification is a hot-button topic for many of you. Well, the planets must be aligning, because Pluto is showing up all over my pop-culture radar.

I came across a charming music video of a song by Jonathan Coulton called, “I’m your moon” from a few years ago. Perhaps some of you have already seen the video or heard the song. Coulton wrote it from the perspective of Charon serenading Pluto. In the song, Charon tries to remind Pluto that despite the International Astronomical Union’s 2006 decision to revoke its planetary status, “because you don’t have pretty rings,” Pluto should take heart in the fact that the two bodies “go round and round together.”

After I watched Coulton’s video, I remembered that Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, appeared on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Wednesday night to promote his new book The Pluto Files. So I headed over to The Daily Show web site to see what Tyson had to say about Pluto.

During the conversation with Stewart, Tyson — referring to the planet’s reclassification as a plutoid — suggested that “Pluto had it coming. ... He was an oddball from the beginning.” Shortly thereafter, Stewart shouted, “What did Pluto ever do to you?!!” Entertaining stuff.

We plan to post a review of Tyson’s book soon.

Comments (3) | Tags: Matt Quandt, planets

Comments

To comment on the blog, you must be registered and logged into Astronomy.com. To register, click here.

Sirius said:

It's good to know that Astronomy will post a review of Neil Tyson's book soon. But here's one reader who's wondering why no review of David A. Weintraub's book Is Pluto a Planet? has appeared in Astronomy's pages. To be sure, it was the small advertisement printed in Astronomy back in 2006 that led me to Dr. Weintraub's book in the first place -- but shouldn't the adherents of the geophysical side of the debate get equal time? In the interests of impartiality, of course!

January 30, 2009 2:11 PM
Matt Quandt said:

Reader Rick Blair sent us this comment:

I just finished reading Dr. Tyson's "The Pluto Files". I am convinced that he is correct about Pluto being much more like the other KBO's (for lack of a better term) than the terrestrials or gas giants, and that the word "planet", at least by itself, is not enough to properly describe the objects that orbit both our sun and other stars. Dr Tyson believes we should be going beyond whether or not some object should be called a planet or not, and not just memorizing a short (or long) list of "Planets", but rather studying the objects characteristics and using this information to achieve a better understanding of our solar system and the universe, which of course evolves over time. For now, even though the IAU has made an unclear definition of a planet, (which I hope will be clarified at the next general assembly in '09), I think Pluto belongs with it's Icy "Brethren" in the Kuiper Belt, no matter what anyone insists calling it. Pluto was a misfit planet for 62 years, now we know WHY. It fits very well with the similar objects found out there, this view reflects the knowledge we have gained about the outer solar system since 1992. No one has all the answers of course, and the way we see things now could change after more discoveries are made. Dr.Tyson seems to make the most sense in his views than any other scientist I have read on the subject, and I have been reading on this subject constantly for many years. I can't wait for your review of Dr. Tyson's book, I found it both very entertaining and informative.

Rick Blair

February 3, 2009 8:45 AM
laurele said:

That comment asking Bakich not to refer to Pluto as an "ex-planet" was from me, and I second Sirius' motion that you publish a review of David Weintraub's excellent book "Is Pluto A Planet?"

Tyson's weakness in classifying Pluto with its "icy brethren" in the Kuiper Belt suffers from one crucial weakness: it does not take into account the fact that Pluto--and a few other large KBOs--are in hydrostatic equilibrium, which makes them fundamentally different from those Kuiper Belt "brethren." The majority of KBOs are geologically inert, shapeless asteroids. Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris are more like the planets because their being in hydrostatic equilibrium makes them geologically differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, just like the larger planets. Not acknowledging this as a major distinction between dwarf planets and large KBOs is ignoring a major difference between them.

Tyson in his book treats dwarf planets as simply small planets without acknowledging that the IAU definition specifically states that dwarf planets are not planets at all, thus glossing over a major problem. Also, on the one hand, he says the IAU definition did not in any way clarify the planet definition issue, then contradicts himself by saying it vindicated his decision to leave Pluto out of the Rose Center's solar system planet display.

He is also way off base in attributing people's affinity for Pluto to the Disney dog. In my experience, most Pluto fans are people who already have an interest in astronomy and the solar system. The demotion only generated more affection for the little planet seen as wrongfully excluded.

I plan to write a book of my own about Pluto, and when it's done (it'll be a while), I hope you will review it too.

February 6, 2009 12:54 PM