This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Space & Planetary Science

More Planetary Science Trash Talking

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
July 30, 2015
Filed under
More Planetary Science Trash Talking

Pluto’s dwarf planet status is ‘bulls—,’ says lead scientist of NASA mission, Business Insider
“The mission to Pluto was meant to complete the exploration of the planets in the Solar System. But scientists reclassified Pluto from a planet to a “dwarf planet” shortly after New Horizons launched in 2006. That reclassification split the space science community. But Stern has a clear opinion about Pluto’s demotion: “It’s bullsh*t,” he told Tech Insider (and said we could quote him on that).”
Keith’s note: (Sigh) once again this NASA principal investigator sets a new low standard for public discourse. At a time when NASA is focusing on education and inspiring the next generation of space explorers I find it rather odd that a NASA PI, speaking in an official capacity, would be putting forth such a crude example of how NASA scientists conduct themselves in the public’s eye – and that he does so over such a tired and worn-out issue. Pluto is Pluto. Get over it.
Planetary Science Trash Talking, earlier post
NASA’s Pluto Mission Seeks to Confuse People, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

18 responses to “More Planetary Science Trash Talking”

  1. Jafafa Hots says:
    0
    0

    There are so many forms of nerdrage I can’t keep track anymore.

    • intdydx says:
      0
      0

      Arguments about these sorts of things are one of the clearest examples of bikeshedding* you can find in pop science.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

      It’s so much easier to argue about pointless minutia that makes you sound smart than it is to have a meaningful technical discussion with the general public. Maybe because the former can be fit in 140 characters or less.

  2. Rich_Palermo says:
    0
    0

    Smart, blunt, and delivers the goods. More of Stern and Worden and less of the go-along/get-alongs who, increasingly, don’t go anywhere at all.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Using profanity like a 20-something is lazy. I am not paying to support a $700 million mission to hear the leader thereof to talk like he is ignorant.

      • Rich_Palermo says:
        0
        0

        To each his own. I’d like to work with or for the guy if by some miracle the opportunity arises. The well behaved rarely make history.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        On the other hand, those 20-somethings might feel differently. Perhaps a very formal (and clean-worded) style of communications makes NASA seem distant. It might be better to talk to the public they way many (most?) people actually talk to each other.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Actually milennials like to avoid confrontations like this in social and traditional media.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          You suggest that in order to get young people’s attention these days that one has to use rude language.
          I recall as a young man that many rock groups were rude and crude and anti this and anti that. Like there was a formula in the music industry of what worked and what didn’t.
          Being and old Spacer in music I have mostly listened to classic rock from my time.
          About a month ago I heard a song that caught my attention partly because it used a phase “build a rocket ship and fly it far away” in it. 🙂

          twenty one pilots: Stressed Out [OFFICIAL VIDEO]: https://youtu.be/pXRviuL6vMY

          So I investigated

          These two young men didn’t follow the norm. Only two guys in the group. They don’t do drugs, they don’t curse, they talk about respecting their parents, their music takes from the past but creates something new. They use some instruments previously considered uncool.

          They seem to me to be the new spacers in music.
          They ARE cool, evidence by the reaction of the young people that come to watch.

          Watch and see that there are creative ways to get attention without lowering your standards. Seems many of our young people understand this.

          Twenty One Pilots- Bonnaroo 2015: https://youtu.be/iqEs1akvLqk

          DTARS

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            “You suggest that in order to get young people’s attention these days that one has to use rude language.”

            No, actually, I’m saying that, if you want to communicate with the average person, it’s best to speak the same language the average person uses in day-to-day conversation. Cleaning it up to remove words some people consider rude or offensive language doesn’t help. It just gives most people the impression that your statements are stuffy and artificial.

  3. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    When I was a kid I wondered what the difference was between an asteroid and a comet. I was told comets are ice balls and asteroids are rock. Since, it seems to me that we have learned that most of the worlds (planets, moon’s dwarf planets asteroids and comets are made up of both “solids” and “liquids” and “gases”.
    Imagine Ceres or earth for that matter on an orbit where they fly close to the sun. Wouldn’t they make beautiful comets!!

    Maybe all this Stuff in our solar system should all be classified as comets.

  4. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    I say all these arguments are BS. Hey, it was only a few weeks ago we only saw Pluto as a point of light. Now we have photos and data that will keep geologists pulling allnighters for years. Arguments should be what planetary missions are selected, we can’t fund them all so arguments (actually intelligent discussions) on costs vs. return on science. Maybe consider wow factors for the public as they pay the bills.

  5. A_J_Cook says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think reclassifying Pluto has diminished it at all. Pluto is whatever it is. “Dwarf planet” adds some context-just as the terms terrestrial planet or gas giant planet serves the larger worlds. I find that to consider it together with objects such as Eris and Ceres elevates all of the smaller worlds. At least it makes me want to see more of them up close, too! Although I think the current IAU definition of “planet” needs a lot of work, we have also had to invent new classifications to picture the worlds that orbit other stars, , as in “super earths””hot Jupiters”, etc. In any case, the solar system does not stop with Neptune or Pluto. Just because Pluto is a complex world does not mean however, that it should be thought of as the same type of thing as or have the same importance as Uranus or Saturn, for example. Comet Churyumov Gerasimenko does not have to be a planet to be a complex and fascinating world!

  6. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

  7. Half Moon says:
    0
    0

    Dr. Stern seems more interested in his place in history, which is greater if Pluto is a planet, than if its not. He likes to get what he wants.

  8. Shar hendrick says:
    0
    0

    I find his candor refreshing.

  9. drakesfortune says:
    0
    0

    Ironic how you feel about public discourse, when you seem to be the most negative voice in the space community. Again, I say that as someone who checks in here from time to time. This is the snarkiest, most negative space website on the net. I’m not attacking either. That’s merely an observation.

    • Marc Boucher says:
      0
      0

      We certainly gets comments from both sides of an issue. But I take issue with NASA Watch being labelled “This is the snarkiest, most negative space website on the net.” It’s been pointed out to me on more than one occasion that in comparison to what’s out there, NASA Watch is actually pretty tame. But we moderate the site pretty well, while others don’t.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Pretty funny, really, looking at your choice of icons.