[June 4, 1960] The Solar Frontier (Pluto: 9th “planet”?)

Pluto is big news right now; no wonder since this year is the 30th anniversary of its discovery.  But what do we really know about this enigmatic ninth “planet?” (quotes used advisedly, more on this later.)

Not much.  We know that it is an average of forty Astronomical Units from the Sun; that is to say it orbits forty times farther from the Sun than does the Earth.  At this distance, its surface temperature must be a balmy -380 degrees Fahrenheit, cold enough to freeze almost all gasses.  We know that it reflects the sun’s light ,displaying the feeble brightness of a 14th magnitude star–about 1600 times fainter than the faintest star that can be seen with the naked eye.  We have some guesses about its mass… which is how the body was found in the first place.  That remarkable story is worth review.

After the discovery of the 8th planet Neptune by measuring the wiggle it caused gravitationally on 7th planet Uranus’ orbit, there was the fervent hope that finding further, unexplained wiggles in those outer planets’ orbits would betray a 9th planet.  Famed astronomer and Mars enthusiast, Percival Lowell, spent the last years of his life trying to find it.  As it turns out, he did spot Pluto and even snapped pictures of it, but he took it for a star at the time, so slow is the planet’s movement at the far end of the Solar System (similarly heartbreaking stories abound regarding early sightings of Uranus and Neptune.) In fact, the existence of Pluto was not confirmed until Clyde Tombaugh definitively found it, right around my 11th birthday, on February 18, 1930.

But is Pluto the planet Lowell was looking for?  “Planet X?”  There were doubts as soon as Tombaugh made his announcement.  For instance, per Lowell’s calculations, for Pluto to have the effect it did on the orbits of the outer planets, it would have to have a mass seven times that of Earth (if, indeed, the effect is genuine–we haven’t even mapped Neptune through a complete orbit yet, so the non-Neptune-caused Uranus wiggle is our only source of data).  Yet Pluto is so tiny, optically, that for it to have a mass that high, it would need to be a fragment of a dead, collapsed star.  In fact, early on, that’s just what was opined by some–that Pluto was a piece of an old White Dwarf.

Well, soberer heads did the math and determined that, based on its size (computed from its brightness at its distance) and its confirmed effect on Uranus, Pluto couldn’t have a mass of more than that of the Earth, and probably somewhere between .5 and 1 Earth masses, depending on who you ask. 

So, Pluto is not Planet X, which may still be floating out there.  One astronomer suggests that there is a big planet nearly twice as far from the Sun as Pluto perturbing Neptune’s orbit.

Then the next question is: Is Pluto even a planet at all?  This is probably a good question to settle before everyone gets so comfortable with the idea that there are nine planets in the Solar System that they become stubbornly resistant to any change in that perception.

As early as 1936, a Raymond Littleton proposed that because of Pluto’s unexpected tiny-ness and its strange orbit (it is tilted nearly 17 degrees to the plane in which all the other planets orbit, and the orbit is much less circular than that of the other planets–almost halfway to a comet’s orbit), it is actually probably some rogue moon of Neptune that somehow got separated from the giant planet, perhaps via some primordial impact when the Solar System was formed.  Further evidence in favor of this hypothesis is the fact that Neptune’s moon, Triton, orbits backwards, and at a weird angle.  Gerard Kuiper recently endorsed this origin story for Pluto.

My views tend to be more “Uniformitarian” than “Catastrophic,” so I hold to the hypothesis of Dr. Frederick Leonard of UCLA.  In August 1930, just six months after Pluto’s discovery, he suggested that Pluto might not be unique: “Is it not likely that in Pluto there has come to light the first of a series of ultra-Neptunian bodies, the remaining members of which still await discovery but which are destined to still be detected?”  Compare this to Ceres, the body discovered in 1801–it was once thought to be a planet, but it turned out to be the first of a new class of worlds, the asteroids. 

Is there a slew of Pluto-like objects in the outer solar system?  Only time, and more observation, will tell.

12 thoughts on “[June 4, 1960] The Solar Frontier (Pluto: 9th “planet”?)”

  1. Remember, a couple years back, Pluto featured prominently in Heinlein’s story in F&SF – Have Space Suit-Will Travel. If Mr. Heinlein considers it a planet, that’s good enough for me.

    Where are you on the Steady State v. Big Bang debate. I’m a Steady State guy. I don’t think the universe had a beginning.

  2. You and Hoyle, who is highly popular these days. 

    I hold to the Big Bang theory.  I think the discovery of the Microwave Background Radiation will be one of the most exciting scientific events of the century.

  3. My sources tell me that a cover story featuring the planet (?) Pluto is coming up very soon in F&SF.  I suppose that SF writers are convinced that it’s a planet, for now.

    1. I’ve just finished it.  I was looking forward to it, as it is by Wilson Tucker, who did The City in the Sea.  It does not disappoint.

      Apropos of this article, Pluto in that story is a rogue moon of Neptune, and there is actual legal debate as to whether Pluto qualifies as a planet or satellite.

      Sounds like the jury is out!

  4. Maybe one of the most interesting things about Pluto is that it will spend a couple of decades at the end of the century inside the orbit of Neptune. That means that for a while it will be the eighth planet rather than the ninth.

    I’m not entirely convinced by the rogue Neptunian moon theory. For one thing, that doesn’t really account for the fact that Pluto’s orbit appears to be highly inclined to the plane of the ecliptic. If once had motion around Neptune, and thus in the plane of the ecliptic, the energy necessary to move it into its current position would probably have pulverized Pluto. There’s also some question about the orbital resonance with Neptune. It’s entirely possible that the two bodies never come anywhere near each other and never have. But confirming that will take a lot of number-crunching on some pretty powerful computers.

    I’m content with calling it a planet for now, but I suspect that you’re right and we’ll have to come up with some new name for bodies like this.

    The discovery of Pluto also had an impact on popular culture. HP Lovecraft crammed it into several stories between its discovery and his death a few years later, though he always called it Yuggoth. And of course, that where Mickey Mouse’s dog got his name.

    1. I didn’t know that about Mickey Mouse’s dog.  I thought he was some avatar of death.  My imagination is rather overactive, admittedly.

      I agree with you on your points–orbital angle changes are expensive energy-wise.

  5. It seems like meaningless pedantery to me.  Mercury has a highly eccentric orbit too.  Earth/Luna might as well be considered a binary planet.  Mars is freakishly small.  Then they handwave the asteroid belts away, and then we move from four stony planets to four gas giants.  Jupiter has a red spot that moves around.  Saturn has rings.  Uranus lays on its side and spins horizontally instead of vertically.  Neptune looks pretty normal, except one moon has one of the most eccentric orbits in the solar system and the other orbits backwards.

    So Pluto stuck its finger in the astronomers’ collective eye by not conforming to their theories.  When confronted with fact, the correct action is to fix your theory, not try to change your definitions.  If the wahoos get their way and manage to redefine Pluto as “not-a-planet”, their theory doesn’t explain why Pluto is sitting smack where their theory said a planet should be.

    1. “If the wahoos get their way and manage to redefine Pluto as “not-a-planet”, their theory doesn’t explain why Pluto is sitting smack where their theory said a planet should be.”

      Not “a” planet; a specific planet with a specific mass.  Pluto just happened to be in the way…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.