NASA |
A NASA graphic depicts planets and other solar-system objects (not drawn to scale). |
How many planets do you want with your Happy Meal? At McDonald's restaurants in Britain, they're serving up a solar system with nine planets - which has thrown some hot sauce (plus a dash of hilarity) on a cosmic conundrum.
The planetary faux pas came to light last week in The Register, a British-based tech Web site that published what it said was the "fairly damning evidence of Ronald McDonald's opinion on the matter."
McDonald's UK made a deal with Planet Cook, a venture that tries to get kids into cooking, to produce a series of planet-themed boxes for the restaurant chain's Happy Meals - you know, the ones that come with a burger or Chicken McNuggets, plus other kid-size nibbles and drinks.
One of the fun facts printed on the box proclaims that "the solar system is made up of all the planets that orbit our sun," and that "there are 9 planets in total." That claim runs counter to the International Astronomical Union's controversial resolution setting the planet count at eight - including Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, but not Pluto.
With its figurative tongue firmly in cheek, The Register accused McDonald's of spreading "U.S. scientific propaganda." (The nationalism angle supposedly enters the picture because Pluto was discovered by an American, Clyde Tombaugh.)
"This is what happens when you get your degree in astronomy from Hamburger University," one commenter joked.
Over the weekend, Britain's Sunday Mirror picked up on the story. The Mirror quoted Cambridge astronomer Paul Murdin as saying that the restaurant chain had "got it wrong."
"It's a shame they didn't check their facts," Murdin said.
Meanwhile, McDonald's told the Mirror merely that "we are aware of the debate about Pluto."
Eight planets, nine, or more?
As someone who has spent the past year researching and writing a book stating the case for Pluto, I'd have to say that Murdin is correct and McDonald's is wrong - but probably not for the reason Murdin has in mind. If you're totally on board with the IAU definition, you might think revising the box to read "there are 8 planets in total" would do the trick. But can anyone honestly say the solar system is made up of four giant planets, four terrestrial planets, and that's it?
I would argue that an eight-planet view of the solar system is only slightly less nonsensical than a nine-planet view. Any perspective that doesn't include Pluto and the other dwarf planets, the asteroid belt and the Kuiper Belt, the Oort Cloud and all those crazy comets would be woefully incomplete.
One of the saddest things about the Happy Meal misstep is that it could leave kids with the impression that there's nothing more to be discovered in our solar system. That'd be particularly sad for the British: A pilot survey of more than 200 schoolchildren in English schools, published in the February 2007 issue of the journal Space Policy, indicated that discovering a new planet was the top thing kids would want to do if they were space scientists. (The same study rated Pluto as a runner-up behind Mars as the kids' favorite planet in space.)
The nine-planet view of our solar system is gone forever, thanks to the discovery of Eris in 2005. Now it's up to scientists, educators - and yes, even Ronald McDonald - to present a view of the solar system that reflects our widening planetary horizons and inspires the next generation of planet-hunters.
'Three categories of planet'
Coincidentally, yet another perspective on planethood has just popped up in the form of the latest "Astronomy Question of the Week," presented by the German Aerospace Center to celebrate the International Year of Astronomy.
Most of the center's answer reflects the IAU's definition, including the confusing part about a "real" planet having to clear the area around its orbit of small bodies (like Jupiter's Trojan asteroids, for example?). But toward the end, the answer takes a turn toward a more realistic view of our solar system's planetary retinue by dividing it into three categories: the eight classical planets, a slowly growing number of dwarf planets and a large number of irregular planetoids.
If the IAU had gone along with that perspective, as outlined by astronomer/historian Owen Gingerich and his international colleagues, it would have saved astronomers a lot of trouble. And who knows? A "big tent" view of our solar system might yet prevail.
What do you think? Is the planetary discussion basically beating a dead horse, or is the golden age of discovery just getting started? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
Pre-order your copy of "The Case for Pluto" today, and join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or following b0yle on Twitter.
