New Horizons

[Shpaget]

Nope, Pluto pictures for me.

Looks like you have some browser redirect malware.

[Frida Space]

Nope, Pluto pictures for me.

Looks like you have some browser redirect malware.

Yes, using adblock it works now, that's why I deleted my previous post.

ICYM, here are some unofficial names

[Nuke]

i am disapoint, not one dune reference.

[Camacha]

Yes, Pluto loses 500 tons of N2 every hour due to hydrodinamic escape, according to New Horizons' preliminary data. A lot of papers suggested Charon might collect some of that material and have a transient atmosphere, however the occultation data (again, it's preliminary data) suggests no atmosphere whatsoever. However, we're going to have to wait for the spectral data to confirm that. Also, many scientists think that Mordor (Charon's reddish polar cap) is a thin veener due to volatiles coming from Pluto, freezing onto Charon's coldest spots and being chemically transformed into non-volatile tholins. So even if Charon really had no atmosphere, not even a transient one, that wouldn't mean there can't be an exchange of material between Pluto and Charon.

Though my thoughts were not that explicit and comprehensive, that sounds like what I thought might be happening

[*Aqua*]

IMO all the informal names are bad.

I was always fine with having names of mythical / mythological beings and literary characters for planets, moons and geological formations. But using Charon to promote past TV shows and movies is stupid.

[Scotius]

Hey! Where are Stargate landmarks? I demand O'Neill Crater and Sheppard Montes That guy from Universe can go swim in liquid helium.

[Superfluous J]

But using Charon to promote past TV shows and movies is stupid.

Oh come on. VADER CRATER. That's the best named crater in all of history.

[Mitchz95]

I was hoping for a Kerman Crater somewhere, but oh well.

[Camacha]

I was always fine with having names of mythical / mythological beings and literary characters for planets, moons and geological formations. But using Charon to promote past TV shows and movies is stupid.

You must hate the Alice and Ralph instruments.

[Thomassino]

IMO all the informal names are bad.

I was always fine with having names of mythical / mythological beings and literary characters for planets, moons and geological formations. But using Charon to promote past TV shows and movies is stupid.

In some ways, those TV shows are mythology of 20th century.

[lajoswinkler]

Several new raw LORRI photos were released.

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php

[*Aqua*]

You must hate the Alice and Ralph instruments.

No, I don't. Nobody except for some historians will care about the instrument names. But a Uhura crater will be something people talk about in 500 years in the future. And they will ask where the name comes from. And when they hear it's from a TV show they'll question our sanity.

In some ways, those TV shows are mythology of 20th century.

That might be true for you but it's not true for the rest of us.

Somehow this reminds me of what NASA calls Mount Sharp. The real name still is Aeolis Mons. It's the mountain in the center of the Gale crater where Curiosity came down.

You can't go around and name things ignoring all the rules.

[Mitchz95]

No, I don't. Nobody except for some historians will care about the instrument names. But a Uhura crater will be something people talk about in 500 years in the future. And they will ask where the name comes from. And when they hear it's from a TV show they'll question our sanity.

What's the difference between naming a crater after a fictional TV character, and naming it after a fictional mythological character? We've named plenty of moons after Shakespeare characters, and asteroids get pop culture names as well.

[*Aqua*]

The fictional TV character is created to make money. A mythological character was made to "explain" natural phenomena. You could say it's an ancient form of science.

Let's assume in 30 years we'll be able to freely and quickly travel through the solar system. Where do you want to go to, Mount Pepsi or Olympus Mons?

[LordFerret]

Assuming in 30 years we can, imagine all the bodies fully explored ... we'll run out of names. As it is, were we to name every single crater on the Moon alone, we'd likely use up the entire Webster's dictionary (I'm guessing of course). So at that point, 30 years from now, when you're asked if you want to take a quick ride over to Olympus Mons ... you'll need to reply "Moon? Mars? Ceres? etc? etc? etc?"

[Thomassino]

Exactly. Star wars, Star trek, Doctor who etc. are mankind's cultural heritage as well as mythology and Shakespeare. People in, let's say, 24th century will learn about classic TV shows in the late 20th century and see them similarly as we see Shakespeare's work today. People today just see these TV shows as something temporal and empty, but the truth is that until today, 3 generations grew up watching these shows.

[*Aqua*]

People in, let's say, 24th century will learn about classic TV shows in the late 20th century and see them similarly as we see Shakespeare's work today.

I don't believe so. Or do we get education about the early movies and TV show of the 1950s?

[Thomassino]

I don't believe so. Or do we get education about the early movies and TV show of the 1950s?

We don't because they are not as popular as for example Star Trek series. It was created in 1960s and people love it even today. I do even think that more people saw at least one episode of Star Trek than watched at least one Shakespeare's game. So it's undeniably part of culture and I believe that it won't simply be forgotten.

[NFUN]

I don't believe so. Or do we get education about the early movies and TV show of the 1950s?

Some people do; many college courses likely teach about 50's culture, and even high school history classes spend time on the values expressed in the period's media. In any case, you are building a strawman. He already made an analogy, don't counter it with a similar but more extreme (50 years vs 400 years) example and present that as an argument.

[*Aqua*]

More extreme? I don't think so. Ok, then let's pick a famous theater play (that should be almost equivalent to modern TV shows) from 400 years ago. I bet you can't name one without using Google or Wikipedia. The same fate will happen to Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. They'll be replaced by new TV shows and forgotten eventually.

And that's the reason why I believe it's not good to use names from contemporary art which sole reason to exist is to make money.

[Godot]

There are surely movies of the 50s or earlier which count as classics (and, I guess, are watched/taught in courses about cinematography) ...

for example Fritz Langs Metropolis (1927), Ben Hur (1959), The 10 Commandments (1956), Casablanca (1942) and many more

I am sure they will be watched even in 50 years from now on (as long as they get transferred into data formats that are readable at this time, of course)

[Streetwind]

I don't really understand the intense discussion about those informal names tbh.

They're just that, informal names. They are the result of the New Horizons team goofing off as the stress of 10 years waiting and the intense final encounter wears off. Most of them literally have no meaning whatsoever and will not be submitted to, nor adopted by, the IAU. The few ones that were submitted so far, like Tombaugh Regio, are fully sensible names and clearly shows the people on the team know what they're doing. Not to mention that the IAU has had rules in place for decades that prohibit frivolous naming.

Getting hot under the collar about these names feels like... I dunno. Getting angry at someone on facebook calling his dog "Lassie" even though it's a golden retriever and not a collie.

[lajoswinkler]

To put lore that has survived millenia together with commercial stuff that is forgotten in a few decades in the same basket... Not my cup of tea. Every educated person on the planet knows who Shakespeare is. Only a small fragment of them know who "Ralph from that one old show" is, and the number of those is decreasing.

[PB666]

In some ways, those TV shows are mythology of 20th century.

Not is some ways, in just about everyway, mythology to us is storytelling to those that created these things for the purpose of educating or spreading news in the flavor that the masses found most entertaining. The only difference between mythology and TV dramas is the ancients have good reason for confusing myth with reality, and educated societies like ours do not, and yet we not only fall for myths of old, we also fall for new-age myths also (Obama born in Kenya, No moon landing, etc.). In fact mythology is a crafty tool that politicians have used in the past to just that, manipulate the masses.

[Vanamonde]

Rather than fight over the relative merits of each other's taste in fiction, please get back to discussing planets and space missions and stuff.