"Renaissance" sure would be less painful to type. I wish the powers that be who name these things would give some consideration to the poor folks who have to try to write about them for the public. At least "2001 Mars Odyssey" can be shortened to "Odyssey" without confusing people, but there's absolutely no convenient way to shorten "Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter" and still leave it obvious which spacecraft I'm talking about. I've made it my policy not to use spell-out-the-letter acronyms for naming missions (so "MESSENGER" and "SELENE" are okay, but "MRO" and "MER" are not), but I'm pretty tired of typing out "Reconnaissance," and now there's a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to spell out every d*** time. Oy vey.

--Emily

If you use a PC I'm pretty sure you can configure one of your "F" keys to insert a frequently used string of text (such as 'Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter'), but it's been a while since I've done that.

why not recon?

Try Tagkeys....

Or better yet, QuickSilver - which I swear by and is free*

*The program is open source, but does not include the required $2000 MacBook Pro since it's a Mac only app

Space shuttle Discovery goes to Mars:

Not so much inaccurate as... well, slightly late..?

Must.... not.... make... ESA.....joke......

not astronomy but amusing nonetheless

Earthquakes Became Five Times More Energetic, Discovers Australian Scientist Dr Tom Chalko
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25222766/

CBS had also briefly carried the "Earthquakes became five times more energetic due to global warming " article before pulling it citing the AP as a source which the AP denies.
edit: found google cache of cbs article:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:rkAyg...;cd=1&gl=us


if you follow the link at the bottom of the article to check other material from 'Dr Chalko' you will find this

No second chance: can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?
http://sci-e-research.com/geophysics.html

I think I'm gonna be very, very, very sick.

Two words: "peer review".

Uhh, wasn't that like the plot line for Space:1999?

Does this mean that global warming will allow us to encounter "a vast array of alien civilizations, dystopian societies, and strange phenomena previously unseen by man" all while wearing spiffy uniforms and 70's haircuts?

Only if we establish a Moonbase pretty doggone quickly; don't forget to build the Eagles, too! I'm already workin' on the 70s haircut, so everybody else better get busy!

EDIT: Oh, just for the hell of it: Space:1999 Opening Theme.

Look at the bright side. At least it isn't like Russian names. The repetitive nature of explaining Mars-X(whatever number) exploring Mars is frustrating. With Venus, we simply transliterated, and called the missions Venera. Russian for moon is a derivative of Luna, so we did that instead of calling the missions Moon-1, Moon-2, etc. Still, it does baffle me that they couldn't come up with actual names for the probes.

The Russian word for "Moon" is not 'a derivative of Luna', it is luna. That happens also to be the Latin (and Italian, Spanish, etc.) word for "Moon", but the Russian isn't derived from the Latin, or vice versa. The fact that the Slavic words and the Latin/Romance words resemble each other is a historical accident; they are indeed distantly related, as both come from a Proto-Indo-European word *louksnâ, but it's pure happenstance that similar sound changes in Latin and Slavic produced nearly identical forms.

Actually, I sort of miss named series of spacecraft; would have been delighted if the Voyagers had been Mariners 11 & 12, for example. Sometimes the naming of names in UMSF seems to be a bit out of control, but of course I understand the added PR value.

OT, I happened to enter into a conversation with someone about Phoenix yesterday, and she asked me why they sent Phoenix instead of "another" manned mission; was it because of budget cuts? Oy vey is mir...

This is no accident or purely a distant thing, it is a borrowed word with a Latin origin. Russian isn't a romance language, but some words migrated (such as Caesar, which became Czar). The reason I called it a derivative of Luna is because I was pointing out that, properly translated, it would by simply Moon-1, Moon-2, etc., and properly transliterated, it wood be Looni or Luny. We translated it in a selective way to avoid the Moon-# issue.

Well... some American probes have had names that are more-or-less descriptive of their functions, such as Ranger, Surveyor, Voyager, etc. But others have had far more prosaic names -- Lunar Orbiter, Lunar Prospector, Mars Reconaissance Orbiter, Mars Exploration Rover, Mars Polar Lander, etc., etc.

Yes, a few were given more poetic names (a la Spirit and Opportunity). But I just wanted to point out that we Americans have suffered from a lack of imagination at times, too...

-the other Doug

It's true that Russian contains many borrowed words (though Tsar' is not directly from Latin, but via Old Slavonic via Greek). However, luna -- a very old word shared with many other Slavic languages -- is not one of them. I'll find you a citation from a comparative Slavic grammar or etymological dictionary when I have time, if you're still interested; in the meantime you can look here.

But if you think about it, words for things of everyday (or everynight!) experience, like the Sun and the Moon, are rarely borrowed, while words for new technologies and institutions, or previously unknown plants and animals are commonly borrowed.

You might also consider that historically, the points of contact between the Slavic-speaking world and the Latin-speaking Roman Empire were tenuous to the point of non-existence. During the Imperial period, the Slavs were separated from the Romans by Germanic, Celtic, and even Iranian peoples (descendants of the Scythians) -- very unfavorable conditions for the transmission of such a fundamental vocabulary word as the word for "moon". By the time one group of Slavs came into contact with the Empire (southern Slavs, 7th century) its working language was already Greek (in which "moon" is selênê). When we first find a southern Slavic dialect written down (Church Slavonic, the dialect of Ohrid in Macedonia) its word for "moon" is not *louna but mêse~tsi (pardon the lack of appropriate diacriticals) -- showing that CS was not a medium for the transmission of that particular word to the northern Slavs, unlike the example of tsêsari > tsar'.

Where there are large numbers of languages with a common ancestor sharing related vocabulary, you will simply get parallel developments from time to time. For instance, beside Latin sôl we have Old Norse sól. But the evidence of the related Gothic sauil shows that the Norse is not a borrowing from Latin, but an independent development; sauil and sól from *sâwel-, Latin sôl from related *suwel-.

Yep -- there are many examples of parallel development of very similar words, the foremost of which is the word for "water" which, in almost all human languages, contains a "wa" sound considered onomotapeic with the natural sound of water running or being poured.

It's fascinating to me how the human mind, in parallel and not influenced by other, similar development, seemed to find a variety of "onomotapeic" stimuli for basic things like the Sun and the Moon. There must be some basic construction in the brain that sees a blindingly bright object in the sky and thinks the sound "so" in one form or another. More specifically, a vowel following an S sound. (Maybe that's because sunlight causes things to dry out and melt, and phase changes of water tend to make sibilant noises?)

-the other Doug

Speaking of how the uneducated human mind responds to nature, and completely off-topic here, I am strongly reminded of one of the finest speeches in the history of the American theatre:

Their Moon was cardboard,
Very apt to fray.
And what seems scenic in the Moonlight
Might seem cynic in the day.
The play's not done -- oh, no, not quite,
For nothing ever ends in the Moonlit night.
And despite what pretty poets say,
The night is only half the day.
So let us truly finish
What we've so foolishly begun,
For the story's never ended
And the play is never done
Until all of us have been burned a bit --
And burnished by
The Sun!

Introduction to Act II, "The Fantasticks", music by Harvey Schmidt, book and lyrics by Tom Jones.



-the other Doug

And don't forget mama and papa.

Interesting. Way OT, of course, but the Korean words for father and mother respectively (IIRC) are abogi (diminutive: apa) and omani (diminutive: oma). Korean appears to be related to the Finno-Ugaric group of languages, although of course has substantial Chinese influence.

What nprev is saying about the term for water is true, but the word, but this is a case of parallel evolution. Luna is taken from Latin, or more specifically, Roman mythology (As well as the names for the other planets, which the Russians also use). However, there is also a Prussian word, louksna [pronounced "luxna" in Prussian but becomes "luna" when slavic pronunciation rules are thrown at it], which translates "the bright/white object," and was often used to describe heat lightning and meteors, not just the moon. This is an indo-European word that came to the Romans through the Etruscans, who did use it to refer to the moon. Still, the fact that it fit the nomenclature accepted for the rest of the solar system helped establish it as a specific reference to the moon (although other meanings do exist). Czar/Tsar is definitely connected to Caesar. Caesar, which was a title derived from Julius Caesar but taken by the roman Emperors, continued to be used by the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire, which was of course largely a Greek entity. As the Byzantines weakened and fell, Russia dreamed of conquering Constantinople and becoming the "third Rome," which is why they adopted the title.

With regard to naming, I am not suggesting that American names are particularly creative. What I am saying is that when the name of the spacecraft and target are exactly the same, it can make for some really confusing reading and writing (not to mention the fact that searching databases and Google for information on "Mars-3" tends to pick up any chance sequencing of "Mars" and "3").

Ted, I'm sorry, but it's just not the case -- with reference to Slavic languages. In English and other western European languages, yes, when Luna appears, it's directly or indirectly from Latin. But in Slavic the origin is different. As the reference I directed you to says, "Eto slovo nye zaimstvovaniye iz Latinskovo..." -- "This word is not a borrowing from Latin".



The Etruscans weren't Indo-European; the Romans were. The word luna in Latin fits in quite nicely with other Latin light-words, like lux and is clearly of native Italic origin.

David, the Etruscan connection is via Losna, their moon goddess. Many speculate that their is a Luna connection.
I know what the link says, but it also lists the relationship with the Latin word. Even Louksna itself is, via the IE connection, related to Luna, and there is a parallel relationship. I can see this is going nowhere, so I am only responding to on-topic comments from this point on. The only reason I brought this whole thing up is to point out that it wasn't a direct transliteration, nor was it a direct translation, in that translating a word for moon into English as "Luna" would not be standard.

An article in the The Times today boldly asserts that an asteroid impact early in Mars' history left a 6,600 x 5,300 MILE crater (the Borealis basin).
This is amazing news, as the crater would have been vastly bigger than the planet itself
Even if the diameter quoted were in kilometres, the crater would still be only 100km or so smaller than Mars' diameter.
It's depressing that this comes from The Times, a generally well-respected publication. I'd be interested in what the correct figures for the basin actually were....
The article goes on to say: "A bigger impact occurred when Earth was struck soon after its formation producing clouds of debris that formed the Moon, but it was so catastrophic that there is no evidence left"
'Clouds of debris'????
For all the fun see here

Edit: Ok I've read the source article now from Nature, and it seems that there was a huge impact, but I don't think it can be characterised as a 'crater' that would remain after isostatic relevelling and the almost complete re-melting of the planet afterwards.

Sometimes even the researchers can contribute to the inaccuracies. JPL's release is entitled 'Spacecraft Reveal Largest Crater in Solar System' (link) though just a few paragraphs into the article they admit that "We haven't proved the giant-impact hypothesis." If the hypothesis isn't proven then the spacecraft haven't revealed anything yet.

Not knocking the theory, it's just that the headline is misleading.

The phenomena of "interesting paper in Nature" --> non-scientifc PR people at the researcher's institution --> press release --> non-science journalist writing the article --> sub-ed writes a sensationalist and wildly inaccurate headline is widespread throughout science (well, areas of science that sometimes generate MSM stories, anyway) and has been extensively covered at another site I frequent, RealClimate.org . Their subject matter has very little to do with UMSF, but it's interesting that the same woes afflict them. Coincidentally I just popped over there to hunt for the piece I remember going into this in some detail, only to find that the topic is today's front page lead. (See also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ess-advisories/ and especially http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-press-release/ , the latter being the article I was hunting for.)

I emphatically do NOT want to drift off-topic onto matters climatological (that's what RC is for) but it's interesting that they labour under the same curse as engineers and scientists engaged in astronomical and planetary research, and space in general -- that of public interest in their activities. Be careful what you wish for...

This thread overlaps what's being said on the 'Mars North Polar Basin' thread (apologies) but I'd like to concur with Imipak's view:

"The phenomena of "interesting paper in Nature" --> non-scientifc PR people at the researcher's institution --> press release --> non-science journalist writing the article --> sub-ed writes a sensationalist and wildly inaccurate headline is widespread throughout science"

Chinese whispers...

Not so much "inaccurate" as ridiculous...

Look at the advert banner splayed across the top of Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomer" blog today... I know it's not his fault, he doesn't pick the adverts, but BA Blog is now part of "Discover" science magazine's website, so they really, really shouldn't allow this to happen... should they..?

Click to view attachment

I concur completely. However, I doubt that Discover even knows the contents of the banner ads (other then that they are presumably G-rated) since they probably come from a third-party promoter who's paying them for the page space.

Still, saying that it's in bad taste is an understatement, and certainly underscores a huge problem. So many just don't know the difference between astronomy and astrology; I've probably explained that a hundred times to various people over the years. Not sure if it's because the two words are very similar in English, or if the superstition that gave birth to astronomy is just so deeply embedded in popular culture that defining boundaries is somehow difficult to do decisively. Do those of you who are native speakers of other languages (esp. non-Western European ones) see this phenomenon as well?

They are both "astro-" words, and who the heck knows the difference between -nomy and -ology (without looking it up)? This is basically a vocabulary memorization problem.

Another pair of confused terms is paleontology and archeology. Both bring to mind the image of a researcher hunched down in a pit dusting off some artifact, natural or man made.

WONDERFUL piece just now on the UK's "NEWS AT TEN"... not bad enough that the piece started off with a video clip of Phoenix's EDL, but in the piece, reporting on the wonderful Mars Express images of Echus Chasma just released, the "science correspondent" said the images showed that "Mars perhaps isn't the boiling cauldron we imagine it to be..."

I'll see if the report is online...

... it wasn't, sadly. Oh well, hope some people saw it.

In other news, could this headline BE more wrong..?? Expected better of The Times...

Where can I buy that lamp NASA is using to shine a light on the galaxy?

Just looks like clumsy grammar to me. Wouldn't "Shines new light on the galaxy" be just fine?

Come on guys, it's just an expression.

I agree - it's just a turn of phrase - but ' Sees the Universe in a new light' would perhaps be better.

ESA have pulled a blinder - as Phil Stooke pointed out...
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMVGAWIPIF_0.html
"As it flies by at a distance of 97 km, Mars Express will image areas of Phobos that have never been glimpsed before"

WRONG. It's been glimpsed in full by the Viking orbiters. No excuses for that sort of misinformation.

Isn't she normally their showbusiness/entertainment news correspondent?

A year or two ago BBC News had a report that mentioned how Hubble had "fired a beam of light across the universe" hmmm

Few employ dedicated science journalists, and certainly not those with specialised knowledge on specific subjects. How can you be knowledgeable in everything from stem cell research to cosmology.

I just think the media can't really be bothered with science stories, in all honesty their aren't a great number of people that are going to know much more about the story than the journalist reporting it, so factual inaccuracies, at least to them, don't matter as few will notice if they get it totally wrong.

I wonder if it's just as sloppy when dealing with other subjects.

No, because telescope = light IN, not OUT. That's er... oh, what is it, hang on... oh yes, a torch...

BTW, the ITN Mars Express piece is now online at http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Was-there...-930980581.html

I particularly enjoyed the Mars = boiling cauldron reference...

You must be familiar with the expression "to shine a light on" as in "to bring new understanding to", no?

Do you also have a problem with these headlines:

Cassini discoveries shed light on Saturn and Titan

Saturn's Shadow Sheds Light on Rings
Imagine that! A shadow shining a light!

Yes, I am familiar with that expression thanks; I think I've used it in at least one of my books.

As for those other headlines, they're totally different, because....

Oh, never mind, no big deal. I just thought this was supposed to be a light-hearted thread where we could draw attention to things we found funny or inaccurate. My mistake.

I agree with centsworth_II on this one, "on the galaxy" would be a better choice of words. Come on, are we really becoming this sensitive that we're starting to proclaim mistakes such as this one as woeful inaccuracies?

I agree about the comment on Hubble-fires-beam-of-light of an older release as that was simply idiotic, but this is really not in the same league. IMHO it's stretching this thread a bit too far. This is becoming nitpicking; we need to lighten up a bit!

"...lighten up a bit!"
shining a torch would work in this case!

I agree. Using that phrase isn't inaccurate - it's just a turn of phrase.

ESA's recent gaff, however, is inaccurate, and in quite a bad way.

One for the grammar nazis...

Click to view attachment

I'm including a 200K screenshot rather than just the text* because it was only after I'd finished reading the main story that my eye alighted on... well, I'm not going to spoil it, you'll just have to click through. Enjoy...

(*hope that's OK! )

[EDIT: I should explain the grammar nazi reference - I am known as one at work, as I have a deeply irritating bad habit of returning system requirement documents sent for a security review with the missing/surplus punctuation and so on corrected. This is a Bad Idea for many, many reasons, not least my own grammatical inadequacy. So that's a dig at myself ]

Shouldn't that be "...I'm not going to mar it..."?

Not necessarily "bad astronomy" but all newspapers I read this morning had a headline like "There's water on mars" or "NASA discovers water on mars".
<sigh>

Um, yeah. But to an extent, that's exactly what the Phoenix team announced, final "proof" that water exists on Mars.

Unfortunately, the American media sort of treated it as a joke. I saw one of the cable news networks greet this news with your basic "And this is what, the 20th time we've heard this from NASA? How is this time different from the last 19?" A planetary astronomer then explained how it's different, how this time we're not inferring water's presence at some time in the past, this time we actually *tasted* the water, to which the anchor's inevitable reply was "Really? How does it taste?"

The 24-hour news cycle isn't very friendly to complex scientific issues... *sigh*...

-the other Doug

I think the 'inferring vs. proving' argument has some interesting nuances. For example, not that I doubt at all the presence of extrasolar planets, we have actually only inferred their presence at the present time. The situation is analogous to the "discovery" of Neptune. Bouvard, Adams, and Le Verrier all inferred the existence of another planet after detecting perturbations in Uranus's orbit. It was twenty years from the initial detection of perturbations until the visual "discovery" of Neptune in 1843. So, when did the actual discovery of Neptune's existence occur? When it was first deduced mathematically, or when someone saw it for the first time as what it was?