The water on the moon story seems to be pretty big today (NASA will be showing the press conference on NASA TV at 2PM Eastern). The story on Fox News just now had the title “NASA Unearths Water On The Moon.” Emphasis mine.
10 thoughts on “Trouble With The Concept”
Comments are closed.
See, there you go. Capitalization would solve this problem. You can unearth something on the moon, but you can’t unEarth it, and you can moon someone, by the light of the Moon.
(Maybe you launch a rocket from the moon with enough velocity to take it entirely out of Earth’s orbit, you’d be unEarthing it.)
I think that would be deEarthing. Maybe exEarthing.
(I still think “defenstrate” should mean to remove windows, while to throw somebody out of one would be to exfenestrate.)
We’re ok with the term “planetary geology”, aren’t we?
“Unmoons” just sounds awkward.
Well, I prefer “planetology.”
A planetologist would be more interested in gas giants than a planetary geologist, although both might want to use probes to get ground truth in order to become world famous.
I think someone should pick this up in the media, and seriously:
With VSE, the plan was for a rigorous robotic precursor program to prepare for human arrival. LRO is the first incarnation of it.
RLEP-2, a polar lander with major goal of getting the ground truth on water ice was to be the next one, planned for launch in 2010.
What happened to it ?
( from what can be gathered of old spaceref and nasawatch stories, MSFC took the project away from ARC, and then promptly figured out that its not going to work with Ares-I. Griffin announced cancellation to cover for budget overruns of AresI and Orion. Lawmakers pushed back, but eventually it fell by the wayside anyway )
Seems like a awfully smart decision in light of current news.
We’re ok with the term “planetary geology”, aren’t we?
Since we use “geometry” in space, why not?
When we finally meet space aliens, what do we do with the word humanitarian?
Alan, let’s hope they aren’t “humanitarians” themselves…