Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!space
From: REM@IMSSS (Robert Elton Maas, this host known locally only)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: nameing Uranian moons after the Challanger-seven
Message-ID: <8601301617.AA04738@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Thu, 30-Jan-86 11:19:40 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8601301617.AA04738
Posted: Thu Jan 30 11:19:40 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 06:49:11 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 53

(Gee, I came up with that C-7 hack as I was typing the header to this
message and the number 7 randomly triggered the Galileo-seven from
Startrek and some other seven from VietNam protest. But back to subject...)

It was suggested today that seven of the Uranian moons discovered this
month by Voyager 2 be named after the astronauts & technicians &
passenger who died on the shuttle this week. Some obvious questions/problems:

First names or last names?

Actual (English) names or greek translations of them?

Since we haven't staked claim on these moons, what right have we to
name them after citizens of our nation? All the other moons have been
named after greek mythological beings affiliated in myth with the
parent body. Do we want to start naming moons after real humans of the
nation that discovered them? Craters on the Moon discovered by
spacecraft follow the real-human naming convention in some cases, but
there's a mixture of discoveries from USA and USSR craft thus we
accept each other's names. Would the USSR and other nations accept our
breaking from tradition on naming moons of other planets?

Why not name three more after Grissom/Chaffe/White, or after Russian
cosmonauts who have died?

Wouldn't it be sort of a slap in somebody's face to name the seven who
died in the worst attempted-human-space-travel accident to date after
moons that were discovered by the most successful
unmanned-space-discovery mission to date, at a time when the contrast
between these two missions is used by some people to argue that manned
exploration should be totally stopped and everything should be done by
robotics?

By the way, I saw a fairly good picture of the moon that was
discovered just 4 weeks ago as Voyager 2 was approaching Uranus. I'm
used to seeing good pictures of moons already known where the
spececraft program can be set up to aim the high-resolution camera at
just the right spot, and little dots that occupy fewer than ten pixels
for moons that were just discovered on this flight. I was rather
impressed that they were able to get a good picture this week of a
moon that was just discovered in flight about a month ago! How did
they do it? Did they figure they had time to reprogram their
observation plan to get a good picture so they did it, or did they
just happen to have the camera aimed in about the right direction so a
trivial change in direction was able to get the hi-res picture without
adversely affecting the rest of the observation plan?

P.s. looks like we found a moon (Miranda) more complicated than Ganymede!!
If I ever have any children and they happen to be girls, maybe I'll
name the prettiest one Dione and the most complicated one Miranda if
my wife (if I ever find one) will let me and if I can predict their
features ahead of time. (My first choices would have been Drucilla and
Linda, but my mind is changing...)