IAU: Pluto's friends left nameless
The final part of the planet definition resolution offered astronomers the chance to save Pluto fans from despair. If accepted, resolution 6A would make the planet (oops, of course I mean 'dwarf' planet, since Pluto is no longer a planet proper) the first of a new category of objects orbiting at our solar system's edge.
The vote was close: they had to count."If you’ve voting in favour of 6a, please stand with your little yellow card in front your heart," prompted the count's coordinator.
A little chaos later, the results were in. Verdict: 237 votes in favour, 157 [*] against and 17 abstentions. Pluto is, officially, "the prototype of a new category of tran-Neptunian objects".
But the resolution to name Pluto and the other 'dwarf' planets that will occupy this category "plutonian objects" was voted down. It was close. Very close. First we had 183 votes in favour. "Mr President, you’re going to love this," said the coordinator. "We have 186 votes against."
There was almost a vote to revote, after the incoming IAU president Catherine Cesarsky urged her colleagues not to leave the category nameless. "We will look a little stupid if we define a new category but have not given it a name," she warned.
It didn't happen. For now the new Pluto-like objects are to be known by nothing. But Ron Ekers, current president of the IAU, got the last laugh anyway. He pointed out that IAU rules allow the organisation to set up a body to decide a name for the category, without going having to go through the kerfuffle of a vote at a General Assembly. Maybe, just maybe, plutonian objects will be back.
That's it for now. Thanks for reading this blog. A proper news story will appear on the news@nature site shortly.
*An earlier version of this post said the number of votes against was 257. Thanks to the commenters who queried how this could mean the vote had passed. This was a typo -- the number of votes against 6a was 157. Jenny
Comments
Thanks for a great blog, Jenny. I am thrilled at the vote for reasons connected with a hatred of political correctness. In my view, planets should have names from classical mythology and no other source. Thanks to this vote, I won't have to look my kids in the eye and say yes, there really are planets with names like Mavis, Sharon, Tracy, Edna and Phwoooar, that have the same rank as, say, the mighty Jupiter and Neptune. The rules are rightly relaxed for the frivolous end of the spectrum -- minor planets, attendant debris, junk, space-fluff, candy-floss and associated rubble -- for which either classical mythology (Pluto, Ceres, Apollo, Icarus) non-classical mythology (Sedna, Quaoar) or popular culture (Zappafrank) are equally acceptable.
Posted by: Henry Gee | August 24, 2006 04:12 PM
Thanks for the great blog reporting! It has been very entertaining.
Just a question: is it possible the vote tallies were reported backwards?
"237 votes in favour, 257 against and 17 abstentions" indicates that resolution 6A would have been defeated... but it wasn't?
Thanks again!
Posted by: Daniel Morrison | August 24, 2006 04:37 PM
Wait.... According to this entry, there was more votes against 6a, but then it says that pluto is the prototype?? Is that a typo and the number of votes is the other way around??
[Note from Jenny: Well spotted. You're right, I had made a typo - hitting 2 instead of 1. The number of votes against, my notes tell me, was 157. I've corrected the post. Thanks.]
Posted by: aa aa | August 24, 2006 04:55 PM
This is only the end of the beginning of the "planet debate".
To think that the current definition will resist the test of time if pretty naive.
I am looking forward to the discovery of a "dwarf planet" both bigger and more massive than Mercury, then we'll have some fun relaunching the debate.
The most sensible decision would have to keep a very broad definition of a planet that follows only one major criteria: Size/Mass. The other criterias are fine for more advanced classifications.
Today, the media and the general public is confused. Never mind, scientists know fully well that each space object is unique no matter how we want to classify it. As long as the Earth don't get demoted as a dwarf planet, we're safe.
Sailom
Posted by: sailom | August 24, 2006 08:56 PM
Note that the full article on Nature's web site (Pluto loses planet status) unintentionally demotes Saturn as well! The fourth paragraph starts: "Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune all fulfil these criteria."
[Editor's note: whoops. This was indeed unintentional: as far as we're aware, Saturn is still a planet...]
Posted by: Matt | August 24, 2006 09:04 PM
It was remarkable that the IAU was able to agree upon anything, especially so quickly and with considerable consensus. It is unfortunate that this centered around Pluto being demoted to a non-planetary status. While the definition of a planet has been resolved I suspect this will ultimately do much more harm than good, on a more practical basis. Government funding of space programs is often directly proportional to public interest and good will. Had Pluto been demoted back in 1999 it is much less likely that the New Horizons mission would have been approved and adequately funded. Political correctness, in the astronomical sense, may end up cutting the budget for New Horizons and other projects over the next few decades, and should have been avoided unless the issue of Pluto being a planet was of critial importance and no other option to resolve the issue existed. Nasa budget cuts loom every year and tactical errors, such as the decision on the basic definition of what is a planet and what objects in our solar system are planets (which should have been done many years ago) will make it difficult to justify much of the funding for professional astronomers and may seem to make space research trivial. It will be difficult to explain to the general public that the billions of dollars already spent on studying Kuiper belt objcts, none of which are planetary objects, and future space missions to explore them, is justified or important. I feel the decision by the IAU was poorly timed and should have been done quietly, if at all, without all of the hype.
Posted by: Dr. Bruce J. Haggart | August 24, 2006 09:50 PM
Please don't turn Pluto into a Dwarf planet because that makes me sad. I'll miss Pluto a lot if it's not a real planet in our solar system ever again.
Sad Daniel
Posted by: Daniel Dauber, 6 years old | August 24, 2006 10:31 PM
Earth hasn't cleared its neighbourhood of debris. Think, for example, of the near-earth asteroids with earth-crossing orbits - especially those, e.g. 3753 Cruithne, that have horseshoe orbits with respect to Earth and therefore border on being moons. Clearly, under this new IAU definition, Earth is not a planet!!!
Posted by: chiz | August 25, 2006 08:51 AM
The article doesn't mention anything about debris, it just says that it has cleared its orbit from competing bodies. . . aka: Pluto cannot be a planet since it clearly crosses Neptune's orbit.
Posted by: Abarel | September 5, 2006 06:05 AM
lol that's interesting enough for them to agree on such a verdict. I still think there will be a lot of supporters of Pluto who will keep pluto as a planet in their hearts. However it really will be interesting to see them finally come to a conclusion about everything cause until they do, those school textbooks aren't sitting pretty.
Posted by: Mint | October 5, 2006 04:55 PM
This is only the end of the beginning of the "planet debate".
To think that the current definition will resist the test of time if pretty naive.
I am looking forward to the discovery of a "dwarf planet" both bigger and more massive than Mercury, then we'll have some fun relaunching the debate.
The most sensible decision would have to keep a very broad definition of a planet that follows only one major criteria: Size/Mass. The other criterias are fine for more advanced classifications.
Today, the media and the general public is confused. Never mind, scientists know fully well that each space object is unique no matter how we want to classify it. As long as the Earth don't get demoted as a dwarf planet, we're safe.
itirafChat web
Posted by: Chat | May 2, 2007 01:52 PM
It was remarkable that the IAU was able to agree upon anything, especially so quickly and with considerable consensus.
Posted by: Yosun | May 21, 2007 03:18 PM
that's interesting enough for them to agree on such a verdict. I still think there will be a lot of supporters of Pluto who will keep pluto as a planet in their hearts. However it really will be interesting to see them finally come to a conclusion about everything cause until they do, those school textbooks aren't sitting pretty.
Posted by: gazeteler | July 14, 2007 02:22 AM