(Viewed 1,324 times)

[Centaur]

It's amazing how a writer at a local suburban newspaper can so badly mangle the story about today's view of Saturn from the Cassini spacecraft: arlingtonheights.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/saturn-to-be-perfectly-visible-from-arlington-heights-july-19

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Curt,

I added my two cents there as well.

It was poorly researched from her source and was just taken as gospel.

Total rubbish....

Saturn to be Perfectly Visible from Arlington Heights July 19

Stargazers and astronomy lovers will be in for a treat on July 19 when Saturn is expected to be especially photogenic.

According to Corbis, the solar system will be backlit by the sun on Friday, making Saturn’s rings incredibly visible for the first time since 2006.

NASA’s Cassini spacecraft will be taking photos of Earth as it looks from Saturn on Friday as well, Space.com reports. Although the spacecraft has taken images from Saturn before, this will be the first time the public has been notified in advance.

Gee....


This is a poorly researched event from many angles. The Cassini Spacecraft, looking back at the Earth, has absolutely zero influence on what Saturn looks to us. The "Backlighting" only pertains to the position and viewpoint of the spacecraft in orbit around Saturn. Observers on Earth never get to see the outer planets backlit - but rather always fully face-on illuminated - simple orbital mechanics.

Saturn is visible practically 10 or so months of the year - every year, be it a morning or evening "star". No special Saturnian event to experience....move along. Seek out your local Astronomy organization for a peek at Saturn and her ring system...an unforgettable experience.

Chicago Astronomer Joe www.chcagoastronomer.com/forum

[Centaur]

Jul 20, 2013 0:47:03 GMT -6 Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe said:

Curt,

I added my two cents there as well...

www.chcagoastronomer.com/forum

Thanks for further public support on that matter, Joe. Astronomical articles in the general media are often inaccurate, but this one was especially egregious. I see it has been repeated in essence at other papers. It's something like the children's telephone game, but in these cases scientific misunderstandings become increasingly distorted as one reporter copies from another with "improvements" to hype the story.

The URL you provided in your comment to the "Patch" newspaper doesn't work due to a typo. If your comment can't be edited you, may want to add an amendment.

[magic612]

Joe, minor correction for you: My understanding is that orbital mechanics applies to artificial satellites, and how they orbit around celestial bodies. Celestial mechanics relates to the motion of natural objects.

Sorry to nitpick.

[Centaur]

Jul 20, 2013 22:07:53 GMT -6 magic612 said:

Joe, minor correction for you: My understanding is that orbital mechanics applies to artificial satellites, and how they orbit around celestial bodies. Celestial mechanics relates to the motion of natural objects.

Sorry to nitpick.

Joe was writing for laymen. In this case the jargon term celestial mechanics might have required a deeper explanation for laymen than the term orbital mechanics. The latter term immediately paints the desired picture in a reader's mind. A good writer seeks a reasonable balance between clarity and brevity.

I applaud Joe for his choice of language, even though an astronomer might correctly argue that it does not comply with some technical standard. My vote would be to modify the standard so that orbital mechanics becomes the general term and celestial mechanics a more specific one.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

What Curt said.

I coulda said, "The way things go around the Sun", but that would have been insulting to all levels of readership. I choose "Orbital" specifically, to help guide the talk back to a term that most could understand and apply.

Celestial mechanics is good too, but then people start to think of stars...I just wanted to bring it closer to home.

Buzz, (Dr. Rendezvous), would approve.

Nitpick accepted....

[magic612]

Curt, Joe - I understand the desire to communicate clearly. I work hard to do that every week with my videos. I, admittedly, even used orbital mechanics inaccurately once. I think it is important to remember though, that it is one thing to choose simpler language ("The way things go around the Sun"), as opposed to a term that for some, is known to refer to something entirely different for the sake of brevity (and especially if one is using to correct someone else's poorly written article), especially if we are going to be correcting others for their misuse of terms or poor journalism. We ought to have higher standard for ourselves as well.

Celestial mechanics is indeed the proper term, and if someone didn't know it, a Google search these days is one click away - or again, use simpler language. Using the inaccurate "orbital mechanics" merely furthers the idea that that phrase has another meaning, which it presently does not.

Again, just me nitpicking. I'm glad you two posted in the comments of that article. It is indeed important to correct things when the media get it wrong. Kudos to you both for doing so.

[Centaur]

Jul 21, 2013 16:52:49 GMT -6 magic612 said:

...as opposed to a term that for some, is known to refer to something entirely different for the sake of brevity...

I would argue that they are not "entirely" different but refer to essentially the same thing. Whether a body is natural or artificial makes virtually no difference in the physics for its trajectory. Just because some nerd implemented an apparent standard does not make it useful for all instances. Language is a living medium. It evolves as usage changes. The most useful or long lasting terms are not always those that had been approved by a supposed authority. Good writers use and often invent the most useful terms. If orbital mechanics were not already a term, I might have invented it for the matter under discussion. It conveys meaning to the reader. To most readers it is not viewed as a single term but as an adjective and a noun. Together they are nicely descriptive of the process to which Joe was referring.

[magic612]

Curt - I guess I just find it ironic that in the beginning of this thread, you were making the valid point that writers should be more precise about what they say. Now you are rationalizing away a lack of precision in writing.

I will simply conclude with the point that I really don't understand that rationalization.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

[Centaur]

Jul 21, 2013 19:17:18 GMT -6 magic612 said:

Curt - I guess I just find it ironic that in the beginning of this thread, you were making the valid point that writers should be more precise about what they say. Now you are rationalizing away a lack of precision in writing.

I will simply conclude with the point that I really don't understand that rationalization.

When did I ever use the words precise or precision? I referred to clarity and brevity when addressing laymen. Indeed, technical jargon can convey fairly precise meaning among experts who have mutually agreed on wording. It can fail when addressing those outside the in-crowd. Yet there is far too much of that in the popular literature.

The adjective orbital followed by the noun mechanics conveys meaning to laymen without the need for detailed explanation or googled research. The two words do not need to be considered a single jargon term when writing in the popular media. Try writing a primer for laymen on a fairly technical subject as I have done, and you will learn from your editor that it's best to avoid techspeak and instead use widely meaningful English words.

Joe was addressing an audience of laymen. Again I salute him for his choice of language.

[magic612]

Both orbital mechanics and celestial mechanics have well-defined meanings, and neither words' etymology indicates them undergoing a change. To use them in a way other than their present, widely-accepted meanings is to convey sloppiness on our part as communicators of science.

I would simply suggest that we ALL use them properly in the future, now that we know what they do - and do not - mean.

P.S. - I like turtles too, Joe.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

#beatdeadhorse#