The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet by Neil deGrasse Tyson
Authors: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Ads: Link
distant, reaching a thousand times farther than Pluto, lies the Oort Cloud of comets.
Another innocuous paragraph. But the persistent (negative) attention received by the museum forced us to temper the storm. After I review the overall layout of the Rose Center, I describe in detail the “offending” part of our Scales of the Universe exhibit but remain firm about our intent:
About midway in the journey [along the Scales of the Universe] you come upon the size scale where the sphere represents the Sun. On that scale, hanging from the ceiling, are the Jovian planets (the most highly photographed spot in the facility) while a set of four small orbs are also on view, attached to the railing. These are the terrestrial planets. No other members of the solar system are represented here. This entire exhibit is about size, and not much else.
I then address the issue head-on:
But the absence of Pluto (even though the exhibit clearly states that it’s the Jovian and terrestrial planets that are represented) has led about ten percent of our visitors to wonder where it is.
Ten percent of the public bewildered is a large enough fraction to concern us as educators. The release continues:
In the interest of sound pedagogy we have decided to…add a sign at the right spot on the size scales exhibit that simply asks “Where’s Pluto?” and gives some attention to why it was not included among the models.
Shortly thereafter, we wrote, designed, manufactured, and bolted a “Where’s Pluto?” plaque to our Scales of the Universe walkway, adjacent to and visible from the rail-mounted models of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. No longer would people ask Pluto’s whereabouts among our exhibits, but these measures did nothing to stave off the fulmination that would follow.
We released the statement to general audiences on February 2, 2001, but it was specifically intended for the widely read, UK-based Internet chat group called Cambridge Conference Network (CCNet), moderated by social anthropologist Benny J. Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University. The primary interest of the network was open discussion of asteroids, comets, and their risk to life on Earth, but many other newsy subjects also found their way to these pages.
On January 29, 2001, Peiser posted articles from the Associated Press (AP) and Boston Globe that had been spawned by the original New York Times story on Pluto a week before. 29 The AP article contained a quote from me:
There is no scientific insight to be gained by counting planets. Eight or nine, the numbers don’t matter.
This was followed by a quote from David Levy, amateur astronomer extraordinaire (who we met in the last chapter at the museum’s 1999 panel on Pluto’s status). Levy drew first blood with the barb:
Tyson is so far off base with Pluto, it’s like he’s in a different universe.
Always remember that when an astronomer accuses you of being in a “different universe,” it carries extra meaning.
Sustained, verbal altercations followed immediately in the chat group. University of Hawaii’s David Jewitt, codiscoverer of the Kuiper belt of comets (along with Jane Luu, who we also met in our discussion of the Pluto panel), fully endorsed our exhibit treatment of Pluto:
They’ve done exactly the right thing. It’s an emotional question. People just don’t like the idea that you can change the number of planets. It’s inevitable that other museums will come around, though. The Rose center is just slightly ahead of its time.
Leonard David, journalist from Space.com, quoted space scientist Kevin Zahnle as saying:
Pluto is a true-blue American planet, discovered by an American for America.
I later learned from a colleague that Zahnle, of NASA’s Ames Research Center, in Moffett Field, California, is only capable of such a statement in jest, but others who did not know this took the jingoistic comment seriously. Joshua Kitchener, publisher of a Web-based asteroid-tracking
Another innocuous paragraph. But the persistent (negative) attention received by the museum forced us to temper the storm. After I review the overall layout of the Rose Center, I describe in detail the “offending” part of our Scales of the Universe exhibit but remain firm about our intent:
About midway in the journey [along the Scales of the Universe] you come upon the size scale where the sphere represents the Sun. On that scale, hanging from the ceiling, are the Jovian planets (the most highly photographed spot in the facility) while a set of four small orbs are also on view, attached to the railing. These are the terrestrial planets. No other members of the solar system are represented here. This entire exhibit is about size, and not much else.
I then address the issue head-on:
But the absence of Pluto (even though the exhibit clearly states that it’s the Jovian and terrestrial planets that are represented) has led about ten percent of our visitors to wonder where it is.
Ten percent of the public bewildered is a large enough fraction to concern us as educators. The release continues:
In the interest of sound pedagogy we have decided to…add a sign at the right spot on the size scales exhibit that simply asks “Where’s Pluto?” and gives some attention to why it was not included among the models.
Shortly thereafter, we wrote, designed, manufactured, and bolted a “Where’s Pluto?” plaque to our Scales of the Universe walkway, adjacent to and visible from the rail-mounted models of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. No longer would people ask Pluto’s whereabouts among our exhibits, but these measures did nothing to stave off the fulmination that would follow.
We released the statement to general audiences on February 2, 2001, but it was specifically intended for the widely read, UK-based Internet chat group called Cambridge Conference Network (CCNet), moderated by social anthropologist Benny J. Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University. The primary interest of the network was open discussion of asteroids, comets, and their risk to life on Earth, but many other newsy subjects also found their way to these pages.
On January 29, 2001, Peiser posted articles from the Associated Press (AP) and Boston Globe that had been spawned by the original New York Times story on Pluto a week before. 29 The AP article contained a quote from me:
There is no scientific insight to be gained by counting planets. Eight or nine, the numbers don’t matter.
This was followed by a quote from David Levy, amateur astronomer extraordinaire (who we met in the last chapter at the museum’s 1999 panel on Pluto’s status). Levy drew first blood with the barb:
Tyson is so far off base with Pluto, it’s like he’s in a different universe.
Always remember that when an astronomer accuses you of being in a “different universe,” it carries extra meaning.
Sustained, verbal altercations followed immediately in the chat group. University of Hawaii’s David Jewitt, codiscoverer of the Kuiper belt of comets (along with Jane Luu, who we also met in our discussion of the Pluto panel), fully endorsed our exhibit treatment of Pluto:
They’ve done exactly the right thing. It’s an emotional question. People just don’t like the idea that you can change the number of planets. It’s inevitable that other museums will come around, though. The Rose center is just slightly ahead of its time.
Leonard David, journalist from Space.com, quoted space scientist Kevin Zahnle as saying:
Pluto is a true-blue American planet, discovered by an American for America.
I later learned from a colleague that Zahnle, of NASA’s Ames Research Center, in Moffett Field, California, is only capable of such a statement in jest, but others who did not know this took the jingoistic comment seriously. Joshua Kitchener, publisher of a Web-based asteroid-tracking
Similar Books
