0, 6 just to be different

Thanks, aldo. I had a dim memory that there was a restriction for the special regions, but I wasn't sure what it was.

Actually, and I may be wrong about this, my understanding of the current planetary protection plan is that we want to avoid sending missions to these gullies to ensure that they stay in pristine state. I would be very, very uncomfortable having MSL trundle up to one.

I agree. It may also preserve ability to do Moon science needed for VSE if the robotic portion of that program gets axed.

Given the missions selected, I think the odds are HEAVILY slanted towards the next Discovery selection being VESPER.

The real issue I see here is a fundamental misuse of science.

The question "What is a planet?" is not a scientific question! There is no Platonic "planetness" out there which can serve as a referent. Any "tests for planetness" are simply an application of more-or-less arbitrary boundary conditions.

What bothers me so much about this is that we see scientists, who for various reasons believe something, employ an argument from authority as opposed to a scientific inquiry on the subject. Of course, they have to do this--a scientific inquiry into the meaningness of the word "planet" would quickly descend into philosophy.

Anytime, anytime I see argument from authority it makes me question the agenda and motives of those making the spurious call. It is particularly obnoxious in science because the whole point of the enterprise is that truth claims can be tested without reference to the individual making the claim.

If an astrobiologist claims that certain tests prove life on Ganymede, the testing procedure can be examined and duplicated. Independent inquiry will settle the truth value of the claim.

THERE IS NO TRUTH VALUE TO THE IAU'S POSITION. IT CANNOT BE TESTED. It is SIMPLY a statement of opinion...and the underhanded and devious manner with which it was arrived at suggests, strongly, that the motives behind those pushing the demotion of Pluto are not good.

Nonsense. Since when does the IAU have the "power" to determine what is in the end a cultural determination?

As far as I am concerned, Pluto is still a planet and the IAU can just sod off!

They went far, far beyond the scope of their authority--to settle scientific nomenclature issues--and tried, unsuccessfully to meddle in a cultural issue.

What is particularly obnoxious is that they had a panel with folks who at least had the qualifications to address the larger issues behind the classification of Pluto...and yet the brown shirts still staged a coup and imposed their point of view in opposition to what the panel convened to advise the IAU suggested. And then hid behind "science" as a justification for their political manuevering.

'Tis a shameful chapter in the history of the IAU.

I'm really intrigued by that layering on the eroded middle layer of Cabo Verde....

Anyone else intrigued by the thin white layer that cross cuts the crater near the top of the stratigraphic column?

I wonder if something they might try to do is pick a mission with a fairly rapid science turnaround. That would (to an extent) make up for the massive delay in this latest round. A quick simple mission to Venus or the Moon might be just the trick!

Absolutely, it was a political hatchet job from start to finish. The "science" behind the definition is simply gloss to hide a naked policy preference.

Take it from someone in the dirty business of politics!

Boy, those bastards at the IAU and MPC really know how to rub salt in a wound, don't they!

Why aren't Pluto and other big KBOs planets, karolp?

YOU and others have an emotional, not a scientific, belief that "planet" SHOULD mean something "special." As a result, you seek criteria to eliminate bodies from planetary status because you believe, a priori, that the number of bodies with that status should be sharpply limited.

That's a pretty poor justification for constructing a typology or definition.

I disagree. Planet was a word for a category of objects long before science came along.

Definitions are, at some level artificial constructs. There is no "scientific" answer to the question "What is a planet?" because the question itself is not one with truth value. Given a set of criteria, science can determine whether an object matches or fails...but the criteria used are, in the end, subjective.

My wife tolerates my space exploration obsession, teasing me about going to JPL websites and the like. She's your basic, educated person for who space is at most a passing thought.

This Pluto thing got her pissed off enough to rant about it. Which is surprising.

Her beefs:
1) What the heck is the "IAU" and who gave them the authority to determine something like this?
2) Historical precedence ought to count for something.

Getting her riled up is an indication of how foolish this decision was.

Now, I'm not an astronomer. But I am a political type, and from my professional perspective this issue was handled incredibly poorly.

First, the IAU did not have to create a set of exclusive definitions. Doing so ensured that the Pluto decision would be a hardball choice over which there could be no compromise. That's a bad situation to be in. The original committee suggestion was quite clever in this regards; by keeping Pluto a planet, while including it in a separate category, the path was laid out for the gradual elimination of it. Without a fight. As the planets of the KBO proliferated, the shorthand would have become: "We have eight classical planets and ### "plutons" beyond Neptune of which we know the most about Pluto." In a generation or two, Pluto and the rest of the planets are separated.

Second, the whole rejection of the committee report was a really bad scene. It looks like a cabal of anti-Pluto types threw out a lot of serious work and imposed their policy preferences over the vocal objections of a significant minority. The small group that actually voted on this only adds to the sense that Pluto was convicted in a kangaroo court.

Third, and this bears on my wife's first point: the IAU has nothing but its internal credibility behind its decisions. By engaging in a hack job on this issue, that credibility has been undermined significantly. That lack of credibility is likely to bear noxious fruit in a host of policy choices: "Well, you all can't even decide what a planet is, when any sixth grader can tell you that! So why should this Congress give you more money?"


In summary, it was exceptionally foolish to allow astronomers, untrained in linguistics, semantics, or politics to have free reign in determining the answer to the Pluto question. The IAU obviously realized this with its initial committee selection. It is most unfortunate that the professional anti-Pluto crowd did not take their advice into account in favor of their ill-considered jihad.

If I were a PI proposing a mission now, I would carefully consider how I could engage the significant technical talents of volunteers on this site and elsewhere to beef up my data processing ability.

There's an IMAX movie of this mission! That's about as much publicity as I can imagine for an unmanned probe.

After the landing, it was my extravagent hope that the mission would make it to Bonneville with Spirit and Endurance (for a quick and dirty look) with Oppy. I had faint hopes that one of the rovers might be able to hit a second major target.

I thought there was a minor chance that one of the rovers would be be able to survive as a stationary outpost through the winter...like Spirit is now (her, I suspect, final resting place).

Bruce, would the procurement rules for Discovery allow a PI to add capacity to a mission if it is selected as a candidate for further study?

I sense PFS Discovery proposal memos being generated by researchers as we speak....

Just remember that the Senate is called the "upper" house for more than one reason....

What about a Saturn/Uranus or Neptune flyby (with perhaps one probe for the second target)? Seems to me if you're flinging an expensive piece of kit out there you ought to try for at least two planetary encounters.

I don't know about this. There is so much active hardware up there now (two MERs, MGS, Odyssey, MRO, and Mars Express with MSL and baby-MTO to come) that you would have to go a couple of decades before it ALL failed. I just don't see that happening. We may not have hit the point of permanent landed monitoring of Mars, but I don't think we will ever see a time without at least one functioning orbiter.

Wow, that SRC picture is...unimpressive.