NASA chief wants to make “Pluto great again”

NASA chief Jared Isaacman was on Capitol Hill recently for a meeting with the US Senate Committee on Appropriations. After more than an hour of testimony, Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas asked Isaacman about his thoughts on Pluto. Isaacman replied, “Senator, I am very much in the camp of ‘make Pluto a planet again.”

While that statement was interesting, NASA’s chief administrator went on to add that his agency is currently working on several papers that will attempt to get the scientific community to re-examine the former planet’s candidacy. And earlier this year, he told the Daily Mail, “I 100% support President Trump making Pluto great again.”

Ultimately, the decision will rest with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)—the organization that demoted Pluto to a dwarf planet in the first place. However, a bit of added pressure from the leader of the world’s largest space agency can’t hurt. 

As someone who grew up with Pluto as the final planet in our solar system (and someone who may or may not take far too much pleasure in largely pointless debates), I’d love to see it restored to full planetary status. It wasn’t until I looked into Isaacman’s comments a bit further, though, that I realized how deep this particular rabbit hole goes. 

So, if you’ll indulge me for a few minutes, I believe it’s worthwhile to take a look at the debate, what led to the decision to make the change, and why restoring Pluto’s status continues to be a pet project for so many. 

Good news in desperate times

Part of why Pluto feels so personal to many in this country is that it is the only planet discovered by an American. When Clyde Tombaugh’s fascination with astronomy eventually earned him a place at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, the odds of him actually finding the planet scientists believed existed at the edges of our solar system were pretty low. 

Astronomer Percival Lowell spent much of his career looking for “Planet X” based on what he saw as irregular motions of Uranus and Neptune. He believed there must be another planet they hadn’t found yet that was exerting enough force on them to change how they acted in their orbits. While he died before ever finding his mystery planet, Tombaugh used his research to eventually stumble across it. 

The irony is that Lowell was wrong. Back in the early 1900s, scientists’ understanding of planetary masses was not very accurate, and modern calculations can explain their planetary orbits without the need for an external force. As such, finding Pluto where Lowell thought it would be was “a good bit of dumb luck” more than anything else.

Still, the discovery came near the height of the Great Depression, and people were desperate for good news (or at least something to distract them from the bad news that filled every other page of the newspaper). As a result, people embraced Pluto in a way that is difficult for us to fully understand. And while that fervor eventually faded, it still felt like our planet for enough people that interest was often passed down from generation to generation. 

That all changed in 2006, though, when the IAU decided to create a hard-and-fast definition for what qualifies as a planet, and Pluto didn’t make the cut. 

Should Pluto be a planet?

The IAU chose three criteria to define a planet:

1. It has to have been made round by its own gravity
2. It has to orbit the sun rather than another planetary body
3. It has to have cleared all debris (think asteroids and dust) from the region around its orbit

Pluto checked the first two boxes, but not the third, and was thus demoted to a dwarf planet, alongside several other planetary bodies in the vicinity. Not everyone agreed with the IAU’s list, though, even back then. 

A study from the University of Central Florida in Orlando found that only one publication in the last two hundred years used the clearing its own orbit idea as a measure for what qualifies as a planet, and their reasoning has since been disproven. Alen Stern, who helped lead the New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto in 2015, simply uses a different definition altogether, one that relies more on the geophysical characteristics of a planet than what goes on around it. 

When New Horizons reached Pluto, it sent back pictures of large mountains, a thin atmosphere, and possibly even an internal ocean. In short, it looks like what most people would consider a planet, especially in comparison to several of the larger planets like Jupiter and Saturn. 

It’s worth noting that the IAU didn’t have access to New Horizon’s findings when they made their initial decision. That the information hasn’t caused them to revisit its status in the years since is frustrating to many, though.

And so the debate rages on, with figures like Isaacman, former NASA chief Jim Bridenstine, and luminaries like William Shatner—who pleaded with President Trump to “sign one of those Executive thingies to make Pluto a planet again”—all in favor of seeing the dwarf planet restored to its former glory.

Regardless of whether that happens, though, none of Pluto’s physical characteristics are going to change with its planetary designation. It’s not going to get any warmer or larger. It’s not going to change its shape. And it’s not going to orbit the sun any faster (248 Earth years, to be exact). 

So why do people care?

The answer is relevant to far more than our discussion of Pluto’s planetary designation.

A right God reserved for himself

Whether it’s the insects on the ground or the planets in the sky, what we call something has a direct influence on how we see it and, by extension, how much value it has in our eyes. It’s not a coincidence that one of the first tasks that God gave humanity was to name the various parts of his creation (Genesis 2:19–20). It gave Adam a sense of responsibility and helped to reinforce his role as the steward of what the Lord had made. 

In fact, the only creature in all of creation that Adam didn’t name was himself. God reserved that right and exercised it when he said, “Let us make man [adam in Hebrew] in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). From the very beginning, God wanted us to know that we are special, called, and set apart from the rest of his creation for a purpose that no other creature can fulfill. 

Yet, far too often, we try to take that authority back from God. Like those who built the Tower of Babel, we’d rather try to make a name for ourselves than embrace the name that God has given us (Genesis 11:4). And from then until now, every time we choose that path, it will lead to disaster, especially if you’re a disciple of Jesus. 

You see, for those of us who have been adopted into the family of God through salvation in Christ, we’ve been given the chance to be known by his name. Christian literally means “follower of Christ” or “little Christ,” and how we choose to live out that identity will reflect directly back on our Lord. 

So, if you’ve inherited his name, embrace the privilege and responsibility that comes with representing him to the world around you. While none of us will ever do that perfectly, our job is to live in such a way that when people see us, they don’t have to turn much further to see Jesus. 

How far will those you meet today have to turn?

Quote of the day:

“The more we let God take us over, the more truly ourselves we become—because He made us.” —C. S. Lewis

Our latest website resources:

• Sabastian Sawe’s sub-two-hour marathon honors the Imago Dei
• Assassination attempt, why we’re becoming numb, Kimmel-Disney-Melania feud & King Charles in DC | Ep. 67
• Why AI can’t replace God’s plan for community
• How should Christians think about America’s 250th anniversary?
• Will we all be driving Chinese cars someday?