Five years from today, New Horizons will be rendezvousing with Pluto, and stunning the world by revealing the first close-ups of the scorned planet, images and data certain to transform our very understanding of this little world at the edge of the solar system.

The data we receive on July 14, 2015 will not be the first the little spacecraft sends from Pluto. Six months earlier, in January 2015, New Horizons will begin taking and sending home its first close-up images of Pluto. And data will continue coming in after the July 14 approach.

The progress of New Horizons can be followed at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/news_center/news/20100714.php

The last few months have been quite active on the Pluto front. A video here, http://bossblogster.com/gps/the-dwarf-planet-pluto-aggmanuk/ , in spite of its mention of the 2006 demotion as fact rather than as one interpretation, provides much useful information about Pluto and ends with announcement of the New Horizons flyby. David J. Eicher of Astronomy magazine provides a video tour of “How We’ll Explore Pluto” here http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9874 to accompany the magazine’s July 2010 article with the same title.

The “Naming X” contest to name an asteroid, which took place from April 30-May 30, recently announced its winners and runners up, here http://venetiaburneyphair.blogspot.com/2010/06/winners-runners-up-announced.html

According to the “Naming X” press release, “After hundreds of submissions from 34 countries during the course of a month, Naming X, a global online competition launched in honour and memory of Venetia Burney Phair, who named Pluto in 1930, aged 11, reveals its winners and runners up!

In April 2010, Naming X asked people around the globe to suggest a suitable name for a minor planet and a reason why. Applicants were required to adhere to competition guidelines and suggestions were accepted in three categories, under 11 years, +12 years, and schools & groups. The +12 group was open to all ages.

Competition organizers Thilina Heenatigala of Space Renaissance Education Chapter and Ginita Jimenez of Father Films commented, ‘This educational initiative was very successful and got learners thinking creatively; some educators preceded the competition with an activity explaining the definition of a minor planet, facts on characteristics, discovery and naming protocol. Other teachers asked students to imagine a minor planet, then draw and name it. An entire class kindly sent its drawings in to us!’ They add, ‘It has been an honour to have a world class team onboard as advisors, expert panelists and supporters and their endorsement and enthusiasm has been central to the initiative's success. The International Astronomical Union’s (IAU) Committee for Small Body Nomenclature’s (CSBN) endorsement gave Naming X a fundamental purpose.’ Winning names are Glissade, suggested by 10-year-old Erica Reed; Erytheia, suggested by 15-year-old Nathan Phillips and Virgil, offered by McKinney High School, USA.

Winners will receive a signed certificate, telescope time care of Bellatrix Observatory, Italy and a copy of the award-winning documentary of Venetia’s story, Naming Pluto and film poster, care of Father Films. Winners’ suggested names will be included in a formal paper to the International Astronomical Union’s (IAU) Committee for Small Body Nomenclature (CSBN). Special mentions in the form of runners up in each category originated from Belgium, Ghana, India, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom and USA.

The Naming X team is delighted with the international response and may even consider opening its doors for a longer period in 2011 to encourage as many creative scientific thinkers as possible, so watch this space!!" (link mentioned above).

It is my sincerest hope that the teachers who conducted activities on minor planets, their characteristics, discovery and naming protocol conveyed accurately that there is an ongoing debate about the planetary status of dwarf planets and specifically distinguished between “minor planets,” a term used to describe asteroids, and dwarf planets. The latter are small and shaped by chemical bonds while the former are small planets rounded by their own gravity. This is an important distinction children and adults deserve to know.

The reality is that there are hundreds of unnamed asteroids in the belt between Mars and Jupiter as well as centaurs, objects that are half comet/half asteroid in the outer solar system, and Kuiper Belt Objects, both those that qualify as small planets and those that are essentially asteroids. The IAU Committee for Small Body Nomenclature should consider the many other entries, some of which were submitted in memory of entrants’ departed loved ones, for these bodies.

Now that the competition is over, I can proudly report that my suggestion was MadeleineL’Engle, a one-word version of Madeleine L’Engle, a prolific writer who often incorporated astronomy into her novels, many of which convey a message of universal love and peace. She is one of very few writers who could weave both science and spirituality into tales that are fantasy on the surface, but at the same time contain universal truths about the human condition. My favorite writer, she died at age 88 in 2007, and I sincerely hope her name is considered, as she deserves a celestial body named in her honor.

Actually, my initial choice was John Goodricke, the name of a deaf-mute 19^th-century amateur astronomer who first discovered Cepheid variable stars at age 19 and unfortunately, died of pneumonia, which he likely caught as a result of his nightly astronomical observations, at age 21. It’s a good thing I checked the database of asteroid names first, as I discovered Goodricke already has an asteroid named for him.

And yes, I still owe readers a review of “Naming Pluto,” the DVD about Venetia Burney that was one of the prizes given to the winners, and of Percival’s Planet, a work of historical fiction by Michael Byers on the race to discover Pluto. Both are upcoming.

New York City’s Inwood Astronomy Project hosted a wonderful discussion on “The Problem with Pluto” on June 5. Speaker Jason Kendall, the Inwood Astronomy club president, pointed out that the only “problem” with Pluto is us, specifically human beings and our need to categorize things. Pluto itself is not experiencing any problems. Our very human problem is trying to fit it into the scheme of what we know, which is only a problem when one assumes there are only two classes of planets, terrestrials and jovians.

While the program was a presentation by Kendall, it morphed into a discussion, something for which I personally bear much responsibility (in other words, I wouldn’t shut up). However, it was a fun, friendly, and lively discussion, not a heated or angry one. Kendall, who is a NASA Solar System Ambassador, provided handouts on the New Horizons mission.

An interesting point was raised during this talk, one that goes back to the question of who decides what definition is used. Kendall discussed past discoveries, emphasizing there was no lack of controversy over many of those going back to Galileo finding the four biggest moons of Jupiter. The discovery of Neptune was so disputed that even today, four astronomers are credited with the accomplishment. Much of this is the same history presented by Dr. David Weintraub in Is Pluto A Planet? and by Alan Boyle in The Case for Pluto.

This history is crucial to understanding the present day debate. Yet today, there is one important additional factor, which is that knowledge previously held sacrosanct by a small academic elite is now available to all at the click of a mouse. This may very well answer the question as to why there was no known outcry over the 19^th-century demotion of Ceres. How many people then even knew that Ceres had been discovered? How long did it take for knowledge of its demotion to reach the public? How much of the reasoning behind that demotion (which turned out to be in error, as Ceres is in hydrostatic equilibrium) was available for anyone seeking to understand the decision?

For most of history, detailed astronomical knowledge was reserved to a small, “ivory tower” elite of scholars, who guarded it carefully. The average person simply didn’t have the data to argue with the PhDs. Today, that is no longer the case, and this may explain some of the resentment by supporters of demotion at the public outcry that ensued after the 2006 IAU vote.

Through books and the Internet, the same astronomical data accessible to academics is accessible to all. Even professional journals are online for the public to read, either for a fee or through connection with a university database—or even via an interested friend. This means anyone with an interest in debates such the one on Pluto’s status can now enter these debates armed with the same facts, theories, and detailed explanations as the so-called “experts.”

And more than a few of these “experts” are less than happy with this development. This is reflected in online comments where even people who present strong scientific arguments are told to leave decisions like this to the “experts.” But democratization of science and of scientific debates is here to stay, and it should not be viewed as a bad thing. The goal is to for everyone to become well-informed, and people who are well-informed will not just sit back and allow a small group who invoke “authority” to make decisions if those decisions make little sense and are of questionable utility.

The Inwood Astronomy Project is hosting the Pluto discussion again on Saturday, July 24 at 10 AM at New York City Parks’ Inwood Nature Center. While the focus will be on educating children, all are welcome to attend and participate. More information can be found here: http://www.moonbeam.net/InwoodAstronomy/events/2010/07/24.shtml

If you actually want to observe Pluto for yourself, this month is one of the best times to do so, as Pluto is currently transiting Barnard 92, a dark nebula in the constellation Sagittarius. Charts and advice for observing Pluto can be found here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/highlights/89002802.html and here: http://skywatchersodyssey.blogspot.com/2010/07/pluto-is-in-sagittarius.html . 

In that vein, I want to publicly thank my friends from Amateur Astronomers, Inc. (AAI) and the United Astronomy Clubs of New Jersey (UACNJ), who made a special effort to find Pluto as an early birthday present for me using AAI’s 14-inch telescope at UACNJ’s observatory at Jenny Jump State Park, NJ, on the night of July 3. It was a beautiful night, with the best possible observing conditions, and the night sky gave us all many treats, including, for me, my first ever personal view of the Milky Way. Unfortunately, we were not able to match the view showed by the computer software with the star field in the telescope, meaning we saw a field of stars, one of which was not a star at all, but Pluto itself. It was a magical night, but I still want to see my favorite planet and know which object in the eyepiece it is. We’ll just have to try again, hopefully sooner rather than later.

One of the latest developments in the planet definition debate is a request by Australian astronomers Charles Lineweaver and Marc Norman to expand the roster of dwarf planets to include up to 50 additional objects by reducing the minimum radius required for objects to be considered dwarf planets. Lineweaver and Norman do not address the issue of whether dwarf planets should be considered a subclass of planets.

Yet, in a bizarre and biased interpretation of this request, the media has repeatedly described this possible change as “an additional demotion for Pluto.” Those who understand Dr. Alan Stern’s initial intent in coining the term “dwarf planet”—specifically, to create a term referring to objects large enough to be rounded by their own gravity but not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits—know this interpretation is outrageous. The dwarf planet category was created with the assumption that it would encompass a large number of objects. Just as dwarf galaxies are the most common types of galaxies, and dwarf stars are the most common types of stars, dwarf planets are very likely the most common types of planets. Adding large numbers to the category does not amount to any type of demotion for Pluto—unless one goes back to the original, unscientific reason for demoting Pluto, specifically, objection to the solar system having “too many planets.”

Those who reject this notion have no reason to interpret additional dwarf planets as somehow equating to any sort of demotion for Pluto or any of the others. Anyone interested can read more about the proposal by Lineweaver and Norman at http://www.mrscienceshow.com/2010/05/ep-128-another-demotion-for-pluto.html and http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1091

Finally, I have always encouraged supporters of Pluto’s planet status to vote with our dollars. Here are links to the latest pro-Pluto products:

Solar System Jewelry by Laura Cesari accurately depicting distances between planets (some pieces include not just Pluto but asteroids as well!): http://www.lauracesari.com/blog/

Michael Byers’ book Percival’s Planet: http://michaelbyers.org/

Celestron Pluto Image (by company that makes telescopes and other astronomical equipment): http://www.celestronimages.com/details.php?image_id=6929&sessionid=0bdh3tm5ljahu6rh8d7d6apo52

Other interesting links:

Gene Evans’ New Horizons article in Muscatine Journal: http://www.muscatinejournal.com/news/opinion/columns/article_9c3013ca-8ba2-11df-8f2d-001cc4c03286.html

“Pluto Is A Planet” Chords by Mr. Seley: http://www.guitaretab.com/m/mr-seley/228338.html

“Pluto, Pluto, Pluto: A Sample Travel Commercial for a Grade 6 Unit on Space”: http://vimeo.com/10480190

“New Pluto Pictures Unveiled; Hubble's Sharpest Yet”: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100204-pluto-hubble-best-pictures/

“Pluto: Never Forget” Song and Music Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10kelW8Tb30

And finally, an article describing discovery of an exoplanet that challenges our understanding and definition of the term “planet”: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/03/full/ Interestingly, a planet formed orbiting a brown dwarf is suspected to have formed not the way we know planets to form, but the way stars do—directly from a circumstellar disk.

I am also especially excited to announce that I am working on my book about Pluto, tentatively titled The Little Planet That Would Not Die: Pluto's Story, with the goal of completing it by the end of this year. Anyone on Facebook can find its page at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/The-Little-Planet-that-Would-Not-Die-Plutos-Story/130622596958309?v=wall&ref=ts

Stay tuned…

#comment-723

This short video discusses Pluto as a dynamic world, a planet and not simply an "iceball."

Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto on February 18, 1930, but the discovery was announced by the Lowell Observatory nearly one month later, on March 13, 1930, to coincide with the date on which William Herschel had discovered Uranus in 1781. That makes today the 80th anniversary of the announcement, a day declared Pluto Planet Day, and the date of the third annual Pluto Is A Planet Protest in Seattle, Washington.

To their credit, several dozen people of all ages from children through seniors took part in the rally, which ended with a chance for children to read essays they had written both for and against Pluto's planet status. The Greenwood Space Travel Supply Company, which sponsors the event, is a non-profit writing center that helps kids ages 6-18 improve their creative and expository writing skills, so the focus on essays definitely made sense.

My immediate thought is, wow, a writing center that holds an annual Pluto protest? That's my kind of place! Unfortunately, it is also on the other side of the country, and less-than-wealthy writers who spend their time promoting Pluto's planet status tend  to be short on the money needed for such a trip. I would love to have been there, and I will order the new Pluto T-shirt the company is selling to add to my collection.

What I find troubling are some of the comments posted in response to articles depicting the protest, many of which border on "trolling." Commenters cynically state people should "get over it" regarding the IAU decision, that anyone who cares this much about Pluto is a "loser" and needs to "get a life," that the issue has no bearing on anyone's life, and various other insults. One commenter even claimed, falsely, that Pluto is not spherical! He took the time to comment on a web site about Pluto but never bothered to visit one of the many sites with real, Hubble images that would instantly have clarified his misconception.

Another commenter states that Pluto is just another bit of rock in the Kuiper Belt like all the others, completely ignoring the issue of hydrostatic equilibrium. Most other Kuiper Belt Objects are not large enough to be rounded by their own gravity; Pluto is. So are Haumea, Makemake, and Eris, as well as Ceres in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Most troubling is an underlying authoritarianism that characterizes many posts, a sense that the "experts" have spoken, and no one else, especially lay people, have the right to a say in the matter. "Science" they claim, has declared Pluto is not a planet.

It is disconcerting that so many people cannot distinguish "science" from 424 members of the IAU. At the root of the problem is a seeming unwillingness or inability to question. Questioning is at the heart of critical thinking. As soon as one reads "science says," questions such as "who speaks for science?" "who appointed these people as science's spokespeople?" "how did they arrive at this conclusion?" and "does their argument make sense?" should come to mind. The subject at hand matters far less than does the willingness by too many people to just accept any statement they are told has been decreed by an expert. This is not a good reflection of our educational system, to say the least.

About the claim that Pluto protestors have "no life"--the first question is, why does an interest, even a fascination with Pluto, constitute "not having a life?" Do we hear people make that claim about football fans or NASCAR fans, or followers of any sport who pay big bucks to attend games where chances are they will never meet their athlete heroes? There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone having an intense interest in sports. The question is, why is that interest viewed as "normal" and an interest in something that happens to be a more academic subject viewed as "strange?"

And going one step beyond hobbies, what about fans of so-called "celebrity gossip" who hang on to every word about and picture of their favorite actor or actress? I once knew someone whose entire life centered on Michael Crawford, to the point that she spent all her money going to conventions and performances of his, some of them overseas. How is latching on to a so-called celebrity so desirable? It is a life lived completely vicariously, entirely through another person. It is a passive life and to some extent, a sad one.  Why not do the exciting things yourself instead of just watching others do them?

In contrast, an interest like astronomy promotes an active rather than a passive life. Amateur astronomers and astronomy fans attend astronomy club meetings and lectures, where they socialize and meet friends. They have first-hand experiences of looking through telescopes and viewing celestial objects directly rather than through a photo. They engage with ideas, and even though many of those ideas are esoteric and may not directly affect their daily lives, the acts of thinking and debating are the equivalent of exercise for the brain. As with any muscle, the more people use their brains, the better they become at using them.

So to those who say, what does Pluto have to do with paying your bills, or getting a job, or your everyday life, one could similarly ask, what does Paris Hilton have to do with any of these things? What do pro sports have to do with any of these things? Does a hobby or subject even have to relate to paying bills or jobs or every day life to be meaningful? Young Clyde Tombaugh was a farmboy who taught himself astronomy, telescope building, and trigonometry for the love of these subjects. When the time was right, they became useful to him by helping him get a job during the Great Depression, but that never changed the fact that his true motivation was love for all these activities. That's how he ended up with all those unusual telescopes made from parts of old Buicks and lawn mowers.

Those of us who believe the IAU decision was wrong are motivated by a desire to obtain a better definition that reflects the amazing diversity of planets out there, who don't want to settle for a political decision masquerading as science, especially when that decision is imposed on children. We are people who ask questions, think, read, consider new ideas--the exact opposite of being "resistant to change"  or just like those who rejected the idea of a Sun-centered solar system. Whether lay people, amateur astronomers, or professional astronomers, we find it natural to question, especially when told something that just does not sound right. We want to be part of the discussion on planet definition and rightfully believe that any person who takes the time to learn about the subject has the right to contribute to the debate.

Not only do I find Pluto more interesting than any Hollywood actor (they're just human beings, and I also act, so what is the difference?); I also find that staying up to date on the latest about Pluto and researching Pluto are active pursuits that are personally rewarding and have had the side benefit of introducing me to many fascinating people. I have a life, and while Pluto is far from the only thing in it, it currently has star billing, and to me, that is a good thing.

In solidarity with the protestors, I'm wearing one of my many Pluto shirts today. This one reads, "A planet is a planet, no matter how small," with the word "Pluto" in the center. The statement is a reference to the central theme of a children's book by Dr. Seuss called Horton Hears A Who. In that book, Horton the elephant makes a shocking discovery of an entire world existing on a dust speck. Of course, no one believes him, and the various animals in his community go from mocking him to blatant paranoia accusing poor Horton of every conspiracy under the sun.

To save themselves from their world being boiled in oil, the inhabitants of this tiny world must make themselves heard to the "big people" or rather, big animals ready to throw Horton's dust speck into the fire.  They go on a noise frenzy, banging on drums, blowing horns, shouting and screaming, but their tiny voices just aren't loud enough--until Dr. Whovey, the scientist leading them, finds one baby who isn't making any noise at all. "This is your town's darkest hour," he admonishes the child, who hesistantly says he doesn't know if he even can make noise. But at Dr. Whovey's insistence, he tries. And of course, his one little voice puts the sounds made by the little world's inhabitants over the threshold, and those who hold their world in their hands finally do hear them. "They are there," the "big ones" say in wonder.

Dr. Seuss concludes the book with a statement designed to make children think. "The people had spoken, no matter how small. And their whole world was saved by the smallest of all." The musical video concludes with Horton paraded around town as a hero and everyone singing, "Be kind to your small personed friends...as they float around from one place to another. Remember, no matter how small, that a person is a person after all."

Pluto Planet Day is a celebration of the fact that no one, none of us, is too "small" or insignificant to make a difference. If we believe the demotion of Pluto is wrong, we can enter the debate and make ourselves heard, the same way an obscure farmboy took on the search for a distant planet even though he had no formal training in astronomy, the same way children and adults can come together and rally for our favorite small planet friend.

The message to the world: Be kind to your small planet friends--because the supporters of that small planet are not "giving it up" any time soon.

One week ago, I was pleasantly surprised while watching the PBS documentary "The Pluto Files," which was billed as a broadcast version of Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson's book of the same name, published a little over a year ago.

The hour-long show, done in the form of a road trip by Tyson intended to uncover why people on both sides of the debate feel so strongly about Pluto, differed from the book in several ways. First, it centered less on Tyson's views and more on the views of people with strong connections to Pluto. There were no statements that "Pluto is just a large comet," that the four percent of the IAU who voted on the demotion were an accurate representation of the organization, or overlooking of the fact that the IAU definition specifically precludes dwarf planets from being planets--all of which are characteristics of the book.

Instead, this was a fair--and humorous--work that made it very clear the planet definition issue is a debate in progress and gave equal time to representatives of both sides of the issue. It was definitely "fair and balanced."

Watching it was a very unusual experience for me personally because this was the first time I watched a TV show in which I knew most of the participants personally, some as good friends and some as acquaintances.  The blonde woman speaking for Pluto in the Streator, Illinois diner is my friend Siobhan Elias, who also attended the Great Planet Debate and subsequently lobbied the Illinois legislature to pass a resolution recognizing Pluto as a planet. Needless to say, seeing a good friend be interviewed and do such a great job advocating for planet Pluto was an exciting experience!

It was also exciting to see the Tombaugh family, including Clyde Tombaugh's daughter Annette, her husband Will Sitze, and her grandson Kyle, all of whom attended the Great Planet Debate as well. Patricia Tombaugh, Clyde's 97-year-old widow, was charming--who cannot help rooting for her to make it to 2015 to see New Horizons send back photos of Pluto!

Also featured were telescopes constructed by Clyde Tombaugh out of parts of an old Buick and a lawnmower, which while humorous, also drive home the intelligence and resourcefulness of the young farm boy who, with only a high school education, discovered Pluto at age 24.

This whimsical show traversed the country, stopping at Disney World in Florida, where Tyson met the dog to whom many still believe he gives far too much credit for people's affection for Pluto, and the great grandson of Walt Disney, who is reasonably certain his ancestor named the puppy for the planet. Other stops included the aforementioned Streator, Illinois; Las Cruces, New Mexico to meet the Tombaugh family; Pasadena, California to meet Eris discoverer Mike Brown; Harvard University, where Tyson and several astronomers used a football field to create a layout of the solar system; the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, to which Tyson invited Annette Tombaugh for a personal tour; and Laurel, Maryland, at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab--instantly recognizable to me as the site of the Great Planet Debate--to meet Alan Stern and the team working on New Horizons.

Also featured was a re-enactment of Tombaugh working at the telescope where Pluto was discovered, with Tombaugh played by his great-grandson Kyle, and a re-enactment of the breakfast scene where 11-year-old British girl Venetia Burney was told by her grandfather of the discovery of a new planet and her subsequent suggestion of the name Pluto.

In Las Cruces, even Tyson stood in awe of a beautiful stained glass window dedicated to Clyde Tombaugh at a local Unitarian Universalist Church. More about the window and its background can be found at
http://www.uuchurchlc.org/2009/11/tombaugh-window/

Science fiction fans likely noticed musical and other references to "Star Trek" and "2001: A Space Odyssey."

Admittedly, there could have been more in depth discussion of the main points on both sides of the debate. Several participants later noted that much footage of back and forth discussions on the matter never made it into the show. That sort of thing is typical of television and film. Editing is done for the purpose of creating a story. This story, as much entertainment as education, is more about the people to whom Pluto matters than the issue of Pluto itself.

If Mike Brown launched a diatribe on how he "killed" Pluto,  that ended up on the cutting room floor. Brown said that while he initially believed he found the 10th planet when he discovered Eris, he later felt that claim was "fraudulent." Why? His rationale is that the small object he discovered pales in comparison to Uranus, discovered by William Herschel in 1781. Of course, the implication here is that size matters in determining the importance of a discovery. Finding a remote small planet with early 21st century technology is no less a feat than finding a gas giant with late 18th century technology.

In deference to Dr. Seuss, on whose birthday "The Pluto Files" aired, "a planet is a planet, no matter how small." Yes, I have a T-shirt with this very slogan.

There is likely enough additional footage from the road trip to create one sequel if not two. I hope Tyson considers this.

Most significantly, Tyson ended the show with a clear confirmation that the status of Pluto is a matter of ongoing debate. There was no "it's over; the IAU has spoken." The IAU vote was shown but only as a representation of one point of view, not as some sort of gospel truth. At the Hayden Planetarium, Tyson added a plaque adjacent to where Pluto is portrayed stating that astronomers have not reached consensus on the matter. This is very different from his previous statements, expressed in wording identical to that used by Brown--"how I killed Pluto, and why it had it coming." It is to Tyson's credit that this is not his chief line about Pluto anymore.

In fact, in a separate interview, Tyson claims he never stated publicly that our solar system has only eight planets, that his main goal in organizing the new Hayden Planetarium was to "group like objects with other like objects."

Yes, the most obvious way of doing that is to have one display of terrestrial planets and one display of jovians. But how about a display of the third class of planets, dwarf planets, all shown together? There are also potentially other display designs. "Like objects" could consist of all those in the solar system that potentially might harbor microbial life--Mars, Ceres, Europa, Enceladus, Titan, Pluto, and perhaps others in addition to Earth. "Like objects" could consist of the two planets that have large moons formed by a giant impact and also have nitrogen atmospheres--Earth and Pluto. "Like objects" could feature the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn in one category, as all three are composed mostly of hydrogen and helium. Maybe the Hayden Planetarium needs to expand to make room for displays of the many different combinations of celestial objects that have "like" characteristics.

"The Pluto Files" is available on DVD at http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=4010463

Meanwhile, on March 13, the 80th anniversary of Lowell Observatory's announcement of Pluto's discovery, Pluto supporters in Seattle plan to again stage their annual rally in support of Pluto's planet status. I wish I could be there, but it is a long trip from New Jersey to Seattle. I personally congratulate all who take part in the rally for not giving up on planet Pluto. More information on this event and its sponsors can be found at http://www.greenwoodspacetravelsupply.com/events.html and at
http://www.greenwoodspacetravelsupply.com/catalog/pluto.html

Mike Brown's claims that the debate is over and that only a tiny leftover fringe of astronomers and lay people still reject the IAU definition are more and more ringing hollow over time. The geophysical definition of planet, which states that dwarf planets are planets too, is alive and well as a legitimate viewpoint and will remain so for the forseeable future.