The problem is that the language that they used, when taken at face value, their claim is true. You pay and they include you in their registry. The deception is by implication.

As I understand it, the lawsuit they actually won was against a competing star registry that virtually cloned their site. They have had to put "International Star Registry star naming is not recognized by the scientific community. Your stars name is reserved in International Star Registry records only." This is, of course, in tiny print at the bottom of their page. Their tactic is to threaten to sue individuals and planetariums that can't afford to fight them in court.

I just googled "cartographic nomenclature conventions" trying to find out how terrestrial mountains, rivers, etc. get their names established and found a truly bewildering hodgepodge; doesn't even seem to be an international standard extant, just the ancient principle of the discoverer makes the call. (This is interesting because there are a lot of mountains, lakes, rivers, etc. on Earth, esp. in remote regions like Alaska, that have yet to be named!)

Astronomical nomenclature assignment actually seems to be much more disciplined then the terrestrial process via the IAU conventions, which is a bit surprising. Watch out for the next wave of scams: "Name an Alaskan lake after a loved one!"

Slightly OT, sorry, but I thought it might give people a giggle or roll their eyes in horror...

I was in my local library the other day, handing back an overdue book - so overdue the machine went off like a Geiger counter when the book was scanned, v embarrassing! - when one of the assistants there asked me if there was "anything interesting happening up there at the moment". Yup, I told her, May 25th, a new probe lands on Mars, it'll be big news, look out for it on TV... I'm giving a talk about it a few days later at the Museum, etc, etc... "Hang on," she says, "I'll put it in the diary. She gets the diary out, flicks thru to May 25th and writes...

"probe from Mars lands..."

Probe FROM Mars?!?! Wow, that would make the news wouldn't it?!

"No," I corrected her, "we've sent a probe TO Mars... it lands there ON the 25th..."

"Oh," she replies, "can't they send us probes, then?"

I know, I know... I despair too, but sometimes the kindest thing to do is to just walk away, shaking your head...

I believe the 'invading probe' discussion is over here, Stu.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.......!!!

(but laughing, guiltily...!)

Obviously she's thinking "sample return". Excellent!
Keep the momentum building!

That's in the 'They have the internet on computers now?' ballpark of utter subject-unawareness.

That almost defies belief. You really have to wonder just what kind of a mental picture of the Universe such people have...

You SURE she's not the same as the blond big-wigged martian lady from MARS ATTACKS! ?

ack! ack-AkAk!

Ach-thbt! <no.. that's Bill-the-Cat>

Seen in a discount bookstore recently...

( People of a nervous disposition might want to sit down before looking at this picture... )

Click to view attachment

Yes, you did read that correctly...

Ummm. OK.

Maybe the directions are to use the telescope to view the Horoscope section of the local newspaper held upside down 100 feet away.
And BTW, you could probably also use the telescope to look at the moon and stars and stuff like that....

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The Oxford University association is particularly poignant.

If anyone can contact Stephen Hawking, send this along; he'll rip someone at Oxford a new one.

The charitable Stu thinks "Printing error, crept through quality control, should have been spotted but wasn't..."

The world weary Stu thinks "IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!" (slap slap slap!!!)

Uh, gotta go with 'world-weary' here, big guy; this is just plain unforgiveable.

I mean, seriously: this is just beyond belief, and I'm certain that the Oxford astronomy department faculty will absolutely flip out if they see this! Somebody's head is gonna roll like a bowling ball.

And here's another example of what this thread is about:

I'm sitting here watching "Faces of Earth" on the Science Channel, a geologic history of the planet, and they've gotten around to mentioning the K-T impact. The exact line they used was "Something, likely an asteroid from space, hit the Earth."

No kidding! Gee, and here I was always under the assumption it was an asteroid from New Jersey... but hey, if they say it was from space, who am I to argue?

*D'OH!*

-the other Doug

No...despite this error, be afraid of New Jersey, be very afraid! They're gonna pour "kawfee" all over the planet, and convert it all into diners just off the Turnpike!

At night, the Sopranos come...

I showed the "astrology telescope" pic at my astronomical society meeting last night, and I swear several people almost fell off their chairs laughing... or was it crying? Hmm, not sure...!

... actually, that's a VERY clumsy way of passing on my thanks to Doug for coming up to talk to us all at that meeting here in Kendal last night. It was a superb evening, Doug's talk was brilliant, no other way of describing it, and he really impressed everyone there. There's a full report on the meeting on my blog here if anyone wants a look.

Thanks Doug!

Actually Stu we want to hear the post-event pub crawling report.

Afraid there was no "crawl" to report, not with some of us at work at 7am next morning and Doug on an early train home again... just a quiet (well, 'quiet' apart from the ignorant SOB who was swearing loudly at the bar, trying to prove how hard he was...) pint in an old-fashioned pub around the corner, setting the world (well, ESA!) to rights while the pub darts team got soundly thrashed in the room next door...

.

May be this telescope is only limited to Zodiacal contellations observations?

Stu and I got into full on ESA ranting mode in the pub

All credit really has to go to Stu for pulling together an excellent astronomy society - friendly, interested etc. Without a proper audience, I would essentially be a mad person in front of an empty room going 'Look, MARS'.

You guys need to take it on the road...let me know when the LA tour date is!

The only problem with having Doug as a guest speaker is that he's an impossible act to follow. Not (just) because he's a genuinely brilliant speaker, but because his laptop has more frakking special effects than Industrial Light and Magic, and I know from past experience that next month, when I give my news round up, each time I change the Powerpoint slide there'll be people whispering in the darkness "Huh... call that a transition? Doug's pictures rippled... or burst into flames... or dissolved into lovely twinkly stars..."

Rarely a day passes...

Getting the award tonight has to be the BBC (once again). This story informs me that a laser has created temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun.

Ok, so 10 million degrees Celsius is technically hotter than 5800K. But we know what they meant to say...

Andy

Edit: The story has been altered. The website, I'll grant them, shows good editorial response by the BBC - but shouldn't sloppy-copy be nipped in the bud?

Er, isn't that what all of us essentially are most of the time? God knows I've endured enough weird looks, nicknames such as "Mr. Mars", and other such things over the years from friends & colleagues. I just applaud you guys for having the guts and motivation to do it in front of a mass audience!

(Sorry; just had to mock the state of being!)

Has anyone else noticed that the science channel keeps running ads across the bottom of the screen for the landing of the Phoenix rover? Sigh.....

You gotta be kidding me. (Have to admit I'm hooked on The Deadliest Catch, so watching that now...)

I know I shouldn't laugh at this coverage of the Phoenix landing, seriously I do, but, well, I couldn't help it. It's inaccurate and disrespectful, and a part of me feels really guilty for laughing outloud like I did, but...

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

... and watch the little video at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1211879.ece

Shocking, I know, but DEFINITELY going to be used in my Phoenix talk on Saturday morning...!

Funny, I admit... ...but one does have to wonder how much damage has been done to human progress over the millennia by mocking asses.

BBC News did very well on Monday evening.

Phoenix will be on the surface for 90 days ( and then what, it's coming home? )
Jet engines helped it land on the surface ( what, like on a Jumbo Jet? )
It will look for signs of life ( this is pure fiction, coming from every side of the media, and it drives me bad )


Doug

I know, but The Sun isn't really a widely-read journal of popular science anyway, to be honest I just thought it was a bit of fun. Every other newspaper I've seen has supported the mission's objectives and covered the story really well, which was good to see.

And Euronews also...
I remember on the landing day morning they keep on repeating that Phoenix took nine years reach Mars...and no...it was not mpletaphorical...

I tend to ignore reporting on traditional news sites... the inaccurate reporting just annoys me too much. I suppose they think it just doesn't matter, because people won't know any different.

Although nothing quite compares to BBC's TV's News piece about a year ago on how Hubble had "fired a beam of light across the universe"

I hear you, brother. I'm having seizures looking at how much crap local media puts out when it comes to astronomy. Just when I think they cannot possibly get any more ignorant, they redefine the boundary.

My best advice now to friends reading astronomy news in the media is: DON'T.

The other side of the coin is...

Quite a few of my work colleagues saw The Sun's coverage and asked me about it, giving me a great opportunity to tell them what was REALLY happening on Mars with Phoenix, and explain why it was so exciting and important. It was an open door I could walk through, and at the end of the day I had given out half a dozen Phoenix stickers to some of my fellow workers to pass on to their kids. A couple are going to bring their kids along to my Outreach talk at the Museum on Saturday morning, too.

Result!

So, you got lemons, you can either wrinkle your nose up 'cos they're too bitter, or you can make lemonade. OR you can stick an umbrella and some sparklers in the glass, and make great lemonade!

On the positive side...I e-mailed around the MRO Phoenix pics yesterday to my co-workers and not only got tons of oohs and ahhs but some genuine interest and good questions. One guy's in-laws live in the Phillippines, and he forwarded my e-mail there; another has friends in Germany who thought that they might be interested as well.

Maybe one grass-roots countermeasure to the stupidity of the media is for each of us to stand up & represent even in very little ways. We can't all be Doug, Stu or Rui (at least I know I can't!), but it is possible to pass along at least a small taste of the magic and wonder we all feel to others.

In yesterday's Times: a 2-page article on Phoenix. Excellent! However..
<rant>
The (big) headline says: "Flight of Phoenix can answer the big question: was there life on Mars?"
eeehmm...wasn't the phoenix team quite careful in pointing out Phoenix was not in fact designed to detect life?
What's with this fixation on the life question anyway? Sure, it's something the public is interested in, but I'm sure they could be interested in other things too if they were given a chance. But instead the media is only paying attention to the life question, and scientists often seem to spin their research such that it is related to life, since that will give them more chance of funding perhaps. It's a endless circle, pushing out attention to all other subjects in planetary science for the general public. I think it's a shame...
</rant>

The Phoenix team has been doing their level best to manage expectations from day one, which was extraordinarily wise of them. I'm sure that they were well aware that the mass media would blow this up into at least a "maybe" search for life; if they'd done otherwise, it would have undoubtedly turned into a pass/fail for the whole question.

It seems impossible to overestimate the power of the popular press to exaggerate!

Seems Phoenix sunk deep into the ground......

"TUCSON, Ariz. - A day after an orbiter's radio shutdown blocked NASA from telling its newly planted Phoenix Mars lander what to do, orders were on the way to get its robotic arm moving." By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN, Associated Press Writer

LMAO, and at the same time shaking my head slowly.....

and from the BBC.....

"It will begin examining the site for evidence of the building blocks of life in the next few days".

That's not totally accurate is it ?

The first sample tested will be from the very surface. I don't know specifically what tests will be done, but I kind of hope they won't waste precious recourses looking for organics in that sample. They will eventually be looking for for organics, the "building blocks of life", but not in the next few days, I think.

They have everything planned to the last detail, they won't be wasting anything.

Two ways to look at it:
1. To do good complete science, test a surface sample for organics even though there likely will be none.
2. To conserve resources, assume there are no organics in the surface and save the resources for deeper samples.

I suppose they could put off testing the surface (for organics) at first and test it later (or not) depending on how the testing on deeper samples goes.

Interested as I am in big engineering stuff, I just watched Megastructures (Channel 5 UK) about the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Research Station.

Apparently the IceCube neutrino detector situated there under the ice will...detect neutrinos frozen in the ice millions of years ago.

Or to ruin the chances for follow up missions, look what happened to Viking after I & II came back with ambiguous results...

Well, case in point, and the reason for expectation management.

The Vikings were very ambitious in their goals re life detection, but the pre-mission criteria for interpretation of the results did not fit well with the actual observations, so the Viking findings have been contentious.

Detection of organics as a mission goal is much better defined with no core assumptions about the existence or non-existence of extant life, and therefore it's significantly easier to derive a useful conclusion from the results (confined to the potential habitability of this particular locale), which is eminently sensible. Gotta bound these problems in order to make any sense of the results.

I saw this article too remcook - the funniest part of it was where the journalists obviously ran a spellcheck program, as they refer to a photo taken of the descent of Phoenix by the 'Mars Renaissance orbiter'

That's my bad http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000715/

...Somehow, I doubt that the MRO team is in any way displeased; it's not an inaccurate characterization.

Well - at least I did it on purpose.