I know, this is not a topic of great import or anything, but still. NASA has decided to name the new lunar lander Altair.
<img class=”center” src=”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2007/NASA_altair.jpg” al=”Drawing of the Altair lander on the Moon”
It’s a nice name. Altair is one of the brightest stars in the sky, and is one of the three stars in the Summer Triangle, easily visible in the northern hemisphere.
But I have two points to make.
1) Altair is the brightest star in the constellation Aquila, which represents an eagle. What was the name of Aldrin’s and Armstrong’s lander, the first to set down on the Moon’s surface?
Eagle.
Coincidence? Maybe. But it also means "flying" in Arabic, which is nice.
Note: I wrote that above paragraph before seeing the actual NASA press release, and now I see they make the same point about Apollo 11. Oh well. Great minds and all that.
2) The crewed vehicle that will take humans to the Moon is called Orion. Altair is up in the summer, and Orion in the winter. They can never meet, and in fact can only be up over the horizon at the same time for a couple of hours at most. That bodes ill for any docking maneuvers.
Or am I mixing metaphors?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:08 am
I think Altair (with its intentional relation to #1) is rather clever. As for #2… resorting to astrology, Doctor? For shame.
Look at it this way. Altair and Orion only get close to each other when they absolutely have to, and they never collide. Seems perfect for controlled docking maneuvers, which are all going to be (more like than not) automated.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:15 am
I think the names show that even scientists can be romantic and have a sense of poetry.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:15 am
Again with video games (I know, after the Neukum comment I should stop), Altaïr happens to be the main character from Assassin’s Creed. That being said I think it’s a great name for a lander! Now I only have to wonder what kind of technological advances will come from subsequent trips to the moon. The Apollo program was great for science in more ways that are blatantly obvious. Are we one step closer to practice habitation on the moon? I hope so…
December 21st, 2007 at 11:16 am
As long as they only dock once a year for only a couple of hours, it’ll be fine.
I propose that debris from the lander when it seperates should be named “altoids”
December 21st, 2007 at 11:25 am
Wasn’t Altair also the name of the first* home computers?
*Possibly the first, although since it was sold as a kit Apple was able to claim the title of first ready-to-use home computer.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:27 am
Altair was also the name of the system with the planet visited in Forbidden Planet, one of the greatest Science Fictions movies of all time. Probably has nothing to do with the name, but I can not turn down any chance to talk about a great scifi movie.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Argh, I missed being the first to mention Forbidden Planet. Curse my busy day! To be precise, the planet was Altair IV. And Anne Francis was hot.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
It’s a good thing that Orion is not going to be, well, an Orion…
December 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
The contellation of Orion was depicted in the original
NASA logo for Apollo:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/
Does anyone know why they related Orion with Apollo?
To be honest, there is nothing wrong with the names
Altair and Orion, but I was hoping for something a little
more interesting, or at least original.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
IIRC, in James Michener’s novel “Space”, one of the main characters (John Pope) named his CSM Altair.
Not a bad book, he seemed to get most of the science right.
Close to the end one of the characters is giving a planetarium lecture, and points out the supernova of 1054. His point was that even though the SN was visible over the entire Northern hemisphere, Europeans never mentioned it in any records, even though Russian and Chinese astronomers did. This happened to be during the height of the “Dark Ages”, when the Church was controlling virtually every facet of life.
His lesson was (paraphrasing) “An age is called Dark, not because the light does not shine, but because we refuse to see it”.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Nice name, but does it really matter? I mean, the next administration/Congress will probably cancel the Constellation program.
When it is budget slashing time, I think we all know what gets cut first.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
The mission name should then be Ladyhawke.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Altair is a pretty name.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Altair – Arabic, from [al] the + [ta'ir] bird
December 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I don´t know. I think the design is sooo retro… something from 1975, tops. I was expecting a lander more like Space 1999´s Eagles.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Yeah, the S99 Eagle would be cool. The lander shown here looks like something out of “Conquest of Space.” (Which is cool, too, in a retro sort of way.)
December 21st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Shaven, totally off topic here, but check out a WWII movie called Battle Cry. Anne Francis has a small appearance in that. She is not wearing any futuristic miniskirts, but she is just as hot.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
The original significance of Eagle was a metaphor for the United States. Actually I don’t think they needed to tie it in with the original mission. And also the emblem design is too much like the original.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
I think the “retro” design is NASA engineers going “OK. We have one of the worst federal budgets imaginable, and we’re going back to the moon. Why don’t we look at a proven design, modernize what needs to be modernized, and go with what works?” Keep in mind this will take -thirteen years- to come to fruition. Hardly the bold statement by JFK about reaching the moon within the decade, but back then, NASA had a better budget and far more public support.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 am
As others have noted, Altair is the name of the star system in “Forbidden Planet.” Orion is the name of the shuttle in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Both were MGM films. Coincidence?
Anne Francis is a very nice lady. At ~70 (I’m not telling) she is still very attractive. I got to interview her briefly last year for the 50th anniversary release of “Forbidden Planet.” Her daughter is just as nice, but somewhat protective of her mother.
- Jack
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 am
Great name – obviously named after Altair publishing which is a (mostly) SF books and former SF magazine in Australia!
I like the name with its echoes of the stars and of the “Eagle” on the Moon & I sure hope it isn’t cancelled by the new administration – I know what does need cutting budget~wise and that’s the huge amount wasted by the US on directly occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and, indirectly through Israel, occupying Palestine too!
Perhaps the BA and others should write to Barack Obama and try and convince him of NASA’s value and of tehmeritof human space exploration and science in general. he’d make a greatPresident but that unfortunate eroro. Hiliary would probably be okay too – again if she funds NASA and science generally. Any Democratic President would do a better job with science than a Republican though I’d reckon!
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:52 am
Correction for spelling,spaces & clarifying additions & coz I can’t edit posts here:
——————————————-
Perhaps the BA and others should write to Barack Obama and try and convince him of NASA’s value and of the merit of human space exploration and science in general.
From what I gather (I’m an Aussie and therefore living in one of America’s “client states” – heck, _everywhere_ just about is an American Client state Western~wise these days!) Obama would make a great President but for that unfortunate error of attacking NASA which can -hopefully – still be remedied. Hiliary would probably be okay too – again if she funds NASA and science generally. Any Democratic President would do a better job with science than a Republican though I’d reckon!
Amazing how everything comes down to politics (sigh) … and worse $.
Thanks for the good news about the ‘Altair’ naming – now we just need a lunar lander to go with the name!
Symbolism reflects the Zeitgeist or mood of the nation / culture. Nes carry connotations thataffect how we identifyand associate with and discuss things. As such I hold that they _are_ important and do matter.
I feel that Altair is a good, positive, optimistic name with connotations of flight and eagles and lunarlandings past and future!
PS. Altair a la the Aussie-based internat’l magazine /publishing house is also short for Alt~ernative air~ings : perhaps a good omen if y’think symbolically like that …
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 am
Sergeant Zim writes:
[[This [the appearance of the Crab Nebula] happened to be during the height of the “Dark Ages”, when the Church was controlling virtually every facet of life.]]
More like the nobles and kings were controlling virtually every facet of life. Don’t let your antitheist axe to grind mislead you about history.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 am
Kepler2:
Orion was used in the Apollo Program. It was the name given to the LM in Apollo 16.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 am
PHIL
…this Altair naming story is, kinda, old news (first reported on 13 Dec 2007)…ain’t it?
You need to check now and then on my Moon website — http://www.moonposter.ie/news.htm — (and, hint, hint, my MOONPOSTER — the most detailed around) for the latest happenings.
Cheers
John
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Barton: More like the Papacy controlling the kings and nobles.
Altair and Orion can never meet. Is NASA trying to tell us all something here? I for one have serious doubts about the Constellation Project ever getting off the ground. Maybe NASA knows this and is telling us through these names, Orion and Altair will never meet because they will never be built. *Sigh….
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Hi Michael:
I agree with you in part, we don’t really have all the ‘in-house’ facts. It’s going to be a mess, I grant you, as the unavoidable political, financial factors get in the way, however, whether it will be through an Orion or Altair or whatever named spacecraft that will go there, either way, someway, somhow, a type of craft will be built, will go there — that’s for sure. The trouble, as I’m sure you’ll agree, is when, when, when? Let’s hope NASA has learned something from the philosophical approach they took during the Apollo program, and get the Constellation Program off to a good start.
John — http://www.moonposter.ie
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Hi John, I do agree that a craft WILL be built and WILL go to the moon. The only question I have, is what language the lettering of the name of that craft will be emblazoned with on it’s side? Russian or Chinese? I’d place my bets on the Chinese getting there first.
BTW nice website! First time I’ve seen it. I was a little disappointed that there were no images of the structures they found on the moon though.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I have a strong wish to choke someone from NASA. They’ve spend a quite bit of money and 5 years to produce powerpoint presenations and design mission patches, and select spacecraft names.
And Ares I and V are still on the drawing boards, Ares V not even being looked at for at least next 5-10 years. And poor Ares I might end up as expensive as a shuttle launch and less capable than Saturn IB.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
OK, here’s an obvious question: Since the Saturn 5 worked so well for the Apollo program, why not go back to it? Or at least a variation of it? After all the Russians haven’t really changed the design of their Proton launchers and capsules for decades, and they do the job quite nicely. Also, could someone please either confirm or dispell, what U suspect is an Urban legend, but have never been able to confirm it one way or another. It goes like this: They could not build the Saturn 5 today, because the engineers that designed and built it destroyed all of the engineering blueprints upon completion of the Apollo Program. I have heard this more than once, from people that I consider to be rational, sane human beings. I suspect it’s a hoax.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
oops, It should read, “What I suspect is an urban legend”.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 am
Hi Again Michael,
Don’t know about that urban legend stuff re: blueprints being burnt etc., — but I wonder. While it was a great success, its design was really a monster, wasn’t it! Over six million parts made up its structure, it weighed six million pounds at launch, and it was said to have been 60 feet taller than the Stature of Liberty. I mean, talk about urban legends — there’s one right there (6, 6, 6)
I couldn’t blame the poor engineers for burning the blueprints (if true) however — they were probably delighted to see the back of them in some sense, as 150 foreign engineers and Von Braun (and his shameful past) were initially behind their succesful designs. The US was, after all, prepared to accept him into their mists at expense of advancement in tech know-how over the former Soviet republic. Hey, have I just created another ‘urban legend’…phew…these things are popping up everywhere
But seriously….urban legends are just just that — URBAN LEGENDS.
Thanks also for the kind comments about the site — there was so much I wanted to include but couldn’t. Maybe next version
Cheers
John — http://www.moonposter.ie
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 am
Michael Lonergan writes:
[[More like the Papacy controlling the kings and nobles.]]
And that explains the Avignon papacy how? Or the repeated failure of kings and nobles to listen to nearly anything coming from Rome, like the repeated pleas for days when combat wouldn’t be allowed?
If you would like to learn about medieval history, there are a number of good sources available. For church history I recommend the works of Roland Bainton, or the Oxford History of Christianity. For medieval history in general, Louis Halphen’s “Initiation zux Etudes d’Histoire du Moyen Age” (1952) is good, or Louis Paetow’s “A Guide to the Study of Medieval History)” (1980). For primary sources, can Caenagem’s “Guide to the Sources of Medieval History” is very useful. For the medieval worldview, C.S. Lewis’s “The Discarded Image” (1964) is still the best source.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 am
Sorry, that should have read “van Caenagem,” of course, not “can Caenagem.” Canning Dr. van Caenagem is a dreadful idea.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
John, yes the Saturn 5 was a monster, but it got the job done! At least it actually went somewhere, which is more than we can say for the Shuttle! Unless of course going round and round for several million miles a shot is going somewhere?
Reminds me of a joke, “What travels 3 million miles without ever going 250 miles from home? The Space Shuttle, of course!” Boo. Bad!
Isn’t the Ares launcher going to have to be on par with the Saturn 5? I would think that it will be boosting a much larger payload to orbit if one includes 6(?) crew-members, the much larger CEV, and the much larger lander? I had seen a comparative diagram, and I seem to remember it standing at least as tall as the Saturn 5. Apparently it will have 9 Main engines. It will be an impressive machine. I would love to be standing within earshot as that monster rises from the flames!
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I’ve heard that Altair does nice water.
“It’s a good thing that Orion is not going to be, well, an Orion…”
What you got against Orion? You seen their dancing girls?
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Darth, aren’t they the Green one’s? Hot!
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
John, I just read the Wiki on the Sat 5. All the blueprints and plans do exist on micro film. Another conspiracy theory shot down in flames!