Category Archives: IAU

astronomy, IAU, Uwingu, Uwingu Fund

And Now We Suggest the Naming of Planets

27 Comments

Thus Stirring up a Tempest

The International Astronomical Union took the interesting step of announcing yesterday in a press release that IT and only IT is responsible for the final names of planets and other celestial objects. This is nothing new.  The IAU does have responsibility to coordinate the naming of objects in space for astronomical use. However,  the august body of astronomers seems overly concerned about the Uwingu Fund’s contest to suggest planet names for possible use. The proceeds of that contest will be used to fund science research and science education (a useful thing in these days of budget silliness and sequestration).

The contest seems to follow the IAU’s welcoming attitude toward popular names for exoplanets. On its own Web page about naming of objects, the IAU states,

“However, considering the ever increasing interest of the general public in being involved in the discovery and understanding of the Universe, the IAU decided in 2013 to restart the discussion of the naming procedure for exoplanets and asses [sic] the need to have popular names as well. In 2013 the members of Commission 53 will be consulted in this respect and the result of this will be made public on this page.”

Having popular names actually seems to invite public participation in suggesting names, no?

It is true that IAU has filled the role of arbiter for naming celestial objects— which serves a good function so that when astronomer A refers to a certain star by its name (say, Sirius, for example) that Astronomer B  doesn’t say, “Well, we’ve always called that star “Blargh”.  So, many years ago, IAU was given the responsibility of coming up with a procedure to name things in space.  I don’t see a problem with this because having a “bookkeeper” of nomenclature is an important function and keeping track of names helps astronomers avoid confusion referring to distant stars, galaxies, planets, etc.  But, it seems to me that IAU has normally been open to suggestions for names, along certain guidelines. Hence the idea that we name places on Venus’s surface after prominent women, for example.

The reaction to the IAU press release was swift, with some Web sites and self-proclaimed experts online claiming Uwingu was somehow doing something wrong or others saying that that IAU is wrong and overstepping its bounds.

So, to understand more about what Uwingu is currently doing and the function of the IAU in all this, I read the IAU pages about naming AND I took the radical step of actually READING Uwingu’s Web site to make sure I understood their project completely.

I’ve known about Uwingu since Alan Stern told me about it last year. And, it has always been clear to me that Uwingu is not seeking to sell planet names. In fact, their Web site is pretty clear about what they’re doing. In the Uwingu FAQ, it says:

“Here at Uwingu, we’re asking the public to create a vast list of planet names for astronomers to choose from. [emphasis mine] In fact, astronomers may not even have to choose, since they will eventually need 160 billion or more planet names! And, after all, who wants planets to be known solely by geeky technical identifiers, such as 51 Peg b or Upsilon Andromeda c?”

And, that’s the gist of it.  If you donate a few dollars, you get to suggest a name. You donate a  few cents and you can vote for the coolest names. The coolest names win prizes. The money goes to research and education.

Nowhere does it say that you’re buying the right to name a planet, as seems to be suggested by the IAU press release.

NOWHERE.

Some officials at the IAU seem to not understand this,  and in my opinion the organization  jumped the gun by misinterpreting the contest. (I wonder if anyone at IAU actually contacted Uwingu??)

As Alan Stern has said about this issue, suggesting names for astronomers to use for planets is a way for the public to get involved in the excitement of planetary discovery.  Even if a planet has the official name of “Alpha Centauri Bb”, having it also bear the unofficial name “Heinlein” or “Bardot” or whatever is NO different from a star having the officially “approved” name alpha Canis Majoris but also being known as Sirius, or HIP 32349 (in the Hipparcos catalog).  There are many new planets being discovered, and while they will have official designations, having popular names will bring the excitement of exploration to a larger public audience.

There’s a long tradition in astronomy (both amateur and professional) to give objects second and even third names. You see it all over the sky: the Pleiades are also known as the “Seven Sisters”; the “Coathanger” is named for a cluster also known as Brocchi’s Cluster, which lies in Sagitta,and is part of the Collinder Catalog of objects and has the number Cr 399.  There will be a tendency to give newly discovered exoplanets second and third names, and so a contest to suggest those names is a useful part of the process.

I suggest that IAU actually get in contact with Uwingu to clarify its understanding of the contest.  The IAU officers could start by actually reading the contest pages and the FAQ (just as I did, and I didn’t need a PhD in astronomy to do even that little bit of research).  That would be the respectful and adult way to come to an understanding of Uwingu’s mission to suggest names for distant planets. The fact that it seems to dovetail with IAU’s own openness to popular names should be a plus. And, perhaps a public apology for this misinterpretation on IAU’s part should be proffered to the scientists and educators at Uwingu (some of whom are also IAU members) who have poured so much time and effort into a project that is designed to get the public interested in astronomy.

[Thanks to D. Fischer for pointing out a couple of typographical errors; now corrected. Also, the link to the IAU press release (which was not responding when I first posted this entry) is now live, and included in the first sentence.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

astronomy news, Astronomy outreach, IAU, Pluto

And Now, Cooler Heads Will Prevail…

Leave a comment

or Not…

It seems the hoo-hah over Pluto and the newly-voted-upon definitions of “planet” and “dwarf planet” and “plutonians” (which reminds me of a race of science-fictional beings with green antennae wiggling around on their heads) is hardly over. Oh, at first glance, as I mentioned in previous entries, it seemed like a good way to finally get some definitions that make sense and help us figure out how to categorize things in the solar system.

Unfortunately, the new definitions don’t always help. If you apply some of the “rules” described in my previous entry, you could end up with some pretty ludicrous outcomes. Take, for example, the idea that a planet has to have “swept its orbit clean” dynamically. What, exactly, does that mean? Well, when a solar system forms, the larger pieces get glommed together (the technical term is “agglomerate”) from smaller pieces. The bigger agglomerations attract or sweep up the smaller pieces. Eventually a planet (or planet-like entity) forms out of these sweepings, leaving surrounding space reasonably clear of the planetary birth leftovers. While this is an important step in the creation of a planet, I’m not so sure it should be given as much weight as it has been in the IAU definition that was approved.

But, when you apply this “a planet sweeps up its surroundings” rule, you could get in trouble. Let’s say you discover a star that has a bunch of planets around it, and there’s one the size of Jupiter in the collection. Great, sounds like a planet, right? But, what if it’s surrounded by a huge ring of debris, larger than Saturn’s, and clearly the “stuff” hasn’t been swept up by the planet—yet. By strictly applying the definition, if it hasn’t cleaned up its environment, that bad boy ain’t a planet.

Of course, there’s the whole issue of whether that Jupiter-sized thing is in hydrostatic equilibrium and “roundish.” So, right there you have conflicting reasons to call it a planet—or not.

That’s just one example. People are discussing this whole thing. Planetary scientists like David Jewitt of the Institute for Astronomy in Hawai’i, are commenting on their web pages and publicly about the ramifications of the defnitions. More are coming up with other examples that provide tests of the system, and in some cases, point out how silly parts of the system are. Right there, it looks like cooler heads need to prevail over the small percentage of astronomers who took matters into their own hands at IAU and summarily rewrote definitions on the fly. Will cooler heads prevail? Good question, but in the meantime, we have been privileged to see “astronomers behaving badly” at the IAU (in the words of one of the attendees who was there for the discussion sessions and the vote). I think there’s some great street theater occurring in astronomy and planetary science circles, and that means this thing ain’t over yet.

Already there is a petition going around among some really well-known and respected planetary scientists denouncing the whole contretemps at IAU and refusing to use the new definitions. It may gather lots of steam, and that steam may come to a rather explosive head at the next IAU general congress in 2009.

Still, dissent means we should get a much better definition. And, as I keep saying, this can only serve to strengthen the science we do, and keep reminding us that the scientific process is not one of arbitrary standards and wishful thinking, no matter how badly some astronomers may behave at any given time.

Speaking of astronomers behaving badly, I am reading a really good book right now called Stargazer: The Life and Times of the Telescope. It’s written by Fred Watson, who is the astronomer-in-charge at Anglo-Australian Telescope in Siding Spring, Australia. Fred gave a talk at the International Planetarium Society meeting in Melbourne last month titled “Astronomers Behaving Badly,” in which he detailed some of the astronomical hijinks of past astronomers. He also explains these in great and amusing detail in his book. You also get a nice little introduction to the development of the telescope, which is sort of the whole point of the book. I wonder what Fred will write (providing he’s still around) in some future decade about the astronomer hijinks over Pluto?