Planetary model of atom still valid? When I was in school, I learned (from Democritus) that an atom was 
similar to a solar system, with the nucleus being the sun, and the 
electrons being the planets. Of course, there are some differences: 


*

*The "sun" isn't a single entity, but a collection of protons and nuetrons. 

*Two planets can share an orbit (which might be possible in a solar 
system too, but it doesn't happen in our solar system). 
Is this model still valid? Here are my problems with it: 


*

*In "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman", Richard Feynman implies 
that electrons are more a theoretical concept than real objects. 

*I have trouble understanding atomic bonds (ionic and covalent) in 
this model. 

*I also have trouble understanding electron "orbit jumping" in this 
model, as well as several other things. 
Is there a better model for someone learning this for the first time? 
 A: Yes the model is as valid as it has ever been and no there are not better models for explaining it to someone the first time (IMHO).
As Georg points out, the model wasn't ever mathematically valid; it is simply not possible to translate the relativistic model of a planetary system to atomic structure.  If the audience is expected, or intended, to actually use the model to make quantitative predictions, the planetary model is pretty useless...
However, people who are learning about atoms for the first time are almost certainly not going to be expected to use the model to make quantitative predictions.  Most school systems in the US introduce the concept of atoms before the age of 14.  When you have maybe one hour a day for a few days to talk about atomic structure, it is simply not going to be possible to address the subject with any more detail.
The planetary model neither corresponds with reality nor makes valid predictions, but for a 12 year old kid who has some concept of how things can orbit around eachother the planetary model at least gives some of the right ideas.  It allows the student to visualize and differentiate between a nucleus and electrons [nuclear physics]; to conceptualize electron loss, gain, and sharing [chemistry]; the movement of electrons along a material [electricity and magnetism]; and eventually photon emission and absorption [optics].
Considering that only a very small number of these students will continue on to learn physics at a higher level, the advantages seem to outweigh the flaws.  This is especially the case considering that those who do go on to learn more will tend to be the students most able to abandon the old model.
A: The model is very invalid, and for all the reasons you mention: chemical bonds are inexplicable in terms of this model, etc.  And for other reasons you don't mention but which were understood at the time: a rotating charged particle (such as the electron is supposed to be in this model) generates a radio wave the same way our antennas do, so it loses energy and has to fall into the nucleus within split seconds.
Pedagogy has not come up with a more-valid model that succeeds in all the things which Mr. Redwine correctly points out do get across using the invalid planetary model.  But perhaps if we try, something can be done with the de Broglie matter wave model or with Schroedinger's (early, naive, and incorrect) understanding of the electron wave.  Such a model is more valid, even when you leave out all mention of probabilities so it's not perhaps completely valid, and I think something could be done with it.  See my answer to the linked question. 
A: Yes, in some cases.

Nearly a century after Danish physicist Niels Bohr offered his planet-like model of the hydrogen atom, a Rice University-led team of physicists has created giant, millimeter-sized atoms that resemble it more closely than any other experimental realization yet achieved.
Using lasers, the researchers excited potassium atoms to extremely high levels. Using a carefully tailored series of short electric pulses, the team was then able to coax the atoms into a precise configuration with one point-like, "localized" electron orbiting far from the nucleus

