Inaccuracy in reporting astronomy and science Options

[As old as Voyage...]

I have just watched the BBC's report on the newly created 3D map of dark matter using Hubble data; and it made my heart sink.

I applaud the BBC for giving airtime to such discoveries, but for such a respected organisation their research was awful.

It's no wonder the vast majority of people are either bewildered or disinterested the the universe as a whole when the facts they are given are completely wrong.

It's a shame that tonight 60 million or so people in the UK and many other people around the world were told Hubble shone a beam of light out into the depths of the universe and studied how it was bent by the gravity of dark matter billions of light years away!

And this was a report from the BBCs science correspondant!

I remain downhearted that perhaps the most important story of the week was reported in such a shoddy manner.

Does anyone else feel space is being let down by TV coverage?

[Ames]

Yes I do! Don't get me started...

Only programs worth watching are the xmas lectures and The Sky at Night - just caught up with the 650th edition - Fab!

Nick

[Guest_Sunspot_*]

I saw that report too, without a doubt the worst piece of journalism i've ever seen. Also, I think he said Hubble "fired a beam of light" LOL

[Stu]

Absolutely appalling and - after yesterday's insulting scheduling of the 650th edition of THE SKY AT NIGHT at 01.55, another sign of BBC TV's disgraceful "dumbing down" of its science content. I was in another room so only heard the "fired a beam of light" line in the background, and was sure I'd misheard, but had it confirmed at my astronomical society's meeting tonight.

COME ON!!!! It's not rocket science... well okay, it is, kind of... but any 9 yr old space mad kid knows that Hubble COLLECTS light, not fires it out of its end like some ***** James Bond villain's laser cannon.

I'm literally baffled how a so-called "science correspondent" could get the story so totally wrong. But then again, this is the same broadcasting company that had Jonathan Cainer on a HORIZON talking about Pluto - the same Jonathan Cainer who wrote in his column today about how Comet McNaught is "a portent" and WILL shine "brighter than anything you've ever seen in the sky before..."

Unbelievable.

[Bob Shaw]

The thing that worries me is that there must be many things reported by the media which I might accept, but which are just as badly mangled as those subjects about which I know something. Whether through sheer laziness, inertia, or their own agendas, I don't even trust the 'quality' media any more. I used to work for a TV and newspaper group, and I have to say that my illusions were shattered very early on.

Oh, and in case anyone is interested, HRH The Queen Mother *was* a reptiloid alien. Well, I can certainly attest to the fact that the picture desk guys always had to paint her teeth a different colour before publication - they really were quite, er, green...

One of the joys of the WWW is that at least we have somewhere like UMSF; as for the general space policy issues, well...


Bob Shaw

[Guest_Sunspot_*]

Quite a contrast the BBC online News report about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6235751.stm

The problem is News networks employ a "science correspondent".... who must cover every aspect of science, which is impossible to do properly. And clearly this one knew absolutely nothing about astronomy/space science.

[ynyralmaen]

Unbelievable.

I just viewed the report myself. A link is at the top right of this page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6235751.stm

Incredible. If it was a live broadcast, then I'd have put it down to a slip-up... but an edited piece which surely must have been reviewed when it was written and put together... Argh!

[tedstryk]

The thing that worries me is that there must be many things reported by the media which I might accept, but which are just as badly mangled as those subjects about which I know something. W

I feel the same way. And not just because of space exploration. Whenever I see a local story covered that involves events I witnessed, or, occasionally, when things I have been involved in have been on the news, it is shocking how wrong reporters get it. I have reached a point in which I don't accept information from television news until I have verified it elsewhere.

The problem, I feel, comes from the fact that news reporters are, by and large, communications majors. In other words, they have been taught how to put together a story that will draw in readers, but they may have no background (and often don't) in the subject they are talking about.

I realized how pathetic the media situation in America has gotten while speaking to a friend of mine, who works for our local NBC affiliate.. She is trained in meteorology, as well as communications. Here in the Knoxville, Tennessee area, we live in a valley, between the Cumberland Plateau and the Smoky Mountains. She was trying to explain why we have had warmer air here in Knoxville than these two regions. She nearly lost her job for using the words "topography" and "altitude." According to NBC management, this was "too sophisticated" for ordinary viewers. This left me speechless.

[nprev]

Wow. I have to say that as an American I'm probably even more appalled when hearing this. The BBC is considered the gold standard of English-language broadcast journalism by many of us (we're pretty accustomed to extreme scientific ignorance in our own media ) Well, there goes another fond illusion...

[climber]

Wow. I have to say that as an American I'm probably even more appalled when hearing this. The BBC is considered the gold standard of English-language broadcast journalism by many of us (we're pretty accustomed to extreme scientific ignorance in our own media ) Well, there goes another fond illusion...

We've got the same feeling in France too and I stongly back Bob and Ted when they say that, as I see how bad they report on what I know, it has to be the same for all subjects.
I just finish "Moondust" which is about how the Moonwalkers "felt down" to Earth and all the meaning of the Apollo program (highly recommendable). To give an exemple of how bad the general puublic understand "space" there is an exemple of somebody telling Denis Tito after he completed his flight to the ISS : so, you went to the Moon?!!!
I can hardly stand such ignorence.
I'll never thank Doug enough to have created UMSF.

[Tesheiner]

We've got the same feeling in France too and I stongly back Bob and Ted when they say that, as I see how bad they report on what I know, it has to be the same for all subjects.

Same here, and I'm pretty much convinced it's worldwide and not limited to TV but general media (read newspapers). When I do the every morning scan thru my bookmarks, I always start by UMSF and space related stuff and finish with the local spanish newspapers. Their coverage of space news is simply s*** and I have the feeling that in case I was on the medical business, for instance, I would say the same about med news coverage.

[ugordan]

The thing that worries me is that there must be many things reported by the media which I might accept, but which are just as badly mangled as those subjects about which I know something. Whether through sheer laziness, inertia, or their own agendas, I don't even trust the 'quality' media any more. I used to work for a TV and newspaper group, and I have to say that my illusions were shattered very early on.

Hehe Bob. You sound just like me a while ago. I don't think there's anything we can do about it, however. Realistically, we are the minority here...

[4th rock from th...]

It's not just the news that are incorrect and dumbed down. You see it everyday business. I work as a web designer and with most clients it is difficult to explain some concepts... like server space! It's like someone buying a car and not wanting to know that it as a tank.
I think that this type of thinking is one of the root problems in todays world. Although we live in a technological society were knowledge means power, most people prefer to know as little as possible... Media just adapts to the market :-(

[TheChemist]

My latest Sunday newspaper included as a gift a Discovery channel VCD documentary about colonizing Mars (of all things !).
Although it was supposed to be © 2005, I soon realized it was much much older, since it talked about plans to send Pathfinder to Mars !
It also mentioned that Cassini would reach Saturn at 2014, and how wonderful it would be that we would have something landing on Titan at the time

(This is as far as I was able to watch, at this point my wife suggested that I should either stop yelling or stop watching )

This was a documentary that reached about 100,000 homes last Sunday

[ngunn]

Yes I saw that ridiculous dark matter report on BBC news as well. Has anybody contacted the BBC about it? I've noticed this kind of thing before when they make a brave effort to report a breaking scientific news story. Thery're usually much better when they've had time to digest the information and produce a properly researched documentary. It seems to be within the news team itself that the necessary science background is decidedly patchy. I wonder if anyone in news management actually comprehends how bad the howlers sometimes are?

[Stu]

Yes I saw that ridiculous dark matter report on BBC news as well. Has anybody contacted the BBC about it?

Yep. I sent in a complaint last night. No reply yet.

I know, I'm amazed too.

[ngunn]

Yep. I sent in a complaint last night. No reply yet.

I know, I'm amazed too.

Well done. Too many of us (like me) just grumble silently.

[ynyralmaen]

... It seems to be within the news team itself that the necessary science background is decidedly patchy. I wonder if anyone in news management actually comprehends how bad the howlers sometimes are?

Considering the reporter's academic background, I'm extremely surprised that this particular howler was broadcast.

[ollopa]

They've pulled it.

However............

............to enjoy this gem again, simply paste the following into your browser and it should open in Windows Media Player. Quick - while stocks last!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/vide...046_16x9_nb.asx



(Poor Andy Coates - NOT his fault, of course!)

[Guest_Sunspot_*]

The weird thing is, they must have deliberately played the animation of Hubble observing the universe in reverse. It shows Hubble "firing it's beam of light" lol When in fact the light should be shown entering the telescope.

[nprev]

...wow. Thanks for the clip, ollopa; now I fully understand the outrage.

My hypothesis: The unfortunate correspondent confused Hubble with the "Doomsday Machine" in the original Star Trek:

http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:...y_Machine_2.jpg

[AndyG]

Thanks, Ollopa, for posting the link.

I didn't see it live, and was trying to put off watching it until I'd summed up the courage: but now I see that it's one of those things - like moments in Fawlty Towers - which are just so embarassingly awful that I cringed while seeing it. Toe-curling, "please make it stop" comedy.

I rather hope there's been a dreadful misinterpretation of a more technical press release: perhaps with a title something like "Hubble shines light on the Universe's dark matter".

But flip. That's awful.

E- ...And I'm being generous.

Andy

[Stu]

I rather hope there's been a dreadful misinterpretation of a more technical press release: perhaps with a title something like "Hubble shines light on the Universe's dark matter".

No, that's not going to wash. The guy was a "science correspondent", he gets paid for reporting science news stories. The story didn't break at five to 6, it was all over the net 24hrs earlier, so all he had to do was go online and read the info while having a cup of coffee. During the afternoon I put together a 30 slide Powerpoint presentation on the item for my astro society meeting that night, with consideably less resources than the BBC has.

Hubble has been up there since (gulp!) 1991, and there can't be many people who don't know that it takes pretty pictures, so is a CAMERA, and cameras COLLECT light, they don't shoot it out of their lenses.

This was lazy, poor and frankly stupid reporting, and it shouldn't be just dismissed as silly. The BBC is publicly funded over here through the licence fee, we have no choice - unless we want to sample prison food - but to pay the annual fee, even if we don't particularly want to watch so-called celebrities poncing around ballroom floors in acres of swishing taffeta, or standing beside has-been singers murdering our favourite songs, or sit through humour-free episodes of "My Family" or other shows. Every year the Beeb takes over £100 from me, and although I can't say it's not worth it - I get to listen to 5 Live while I sit here writing, and get to see The Sky At Dawn, and Spooks - it's episodes like this that make me genuinely angry.

I'm giving a talk to a Women's Institute meeting tonight in a tiny village hall in the wilds of Cumbria. There'll be maybe 10 people there, plus as many bourbons as I can eat and as much tea as I can drink. It's people like that who rely on the BBC and other broadcasters to inform them accurately. They were told that a telescope shot a beam of light out to the edge of the universe. Some will have believed it, because, well, come on, it was on the BBC News... I'll have to set them straight tonight, when they ask about it, as they surely will. I don't mind, but I shouldn't have to set them straight because it's not my job to, it's the science correspondent's job.

God help us when we finally find life on Mars, or receive a SETI signal.

[karolp]

Hello everyone,

I must admit that I stopped wathching ANY tv about 5 years ago. But a year ago I was still downloading the Polish headline news off the internet as an *.asf file. And in January '06 they told the 40 M people here in their prime time edition that the Stardust spacecraft sampled the comet by firing a probe towards it. And the name of the probe was... Deep Impact. How about that?

And similarly to the BBC, the ONLINE reports issued the same day were well researched and NOT inaccurate. I guess the "internet" people tend to have a better background in sci tech than the "screen" people they employ.

And by the way, to cheer up a bit - presenting sci tech on tv also has some positive aspects to it. I noticed that Polish TV resumed airing reruns of a 1980s French-made science cartoon series. I was wondering whether our members from France could recognise it by the appearance of the depicted character:

Louis Antoine de Bougainville

There was also another series about biology and about space science (the latter featured a flying character named Ordie or something close to that).

Best regards from Poland,

Karol P.

[ElkGroveDan]

This one has always been one of my favorites:

[dvandorn]

This one has always been one of my favorites:
-image removed -

Yow!!!!! No wonder she broke up... I'm pretty certain that the airframe was never rated for exceeding C!

-the other Doug

[ynyralmaen]

My favourite was in print, not on the telly...

The Times a couple of years back had a report on an exoplanet I think around 10 times as massive as Jupiter. It was accompanied by the Times's own diagram, showing three disks of vastly different sizes, "to scale", to demonstrate to the reader that the exoplanet's diameter was 10 times that of Jupiter, and around 100 times that of Earth.

Maybe they had a flat-Earther in their graphics dept.

[nprev]

[rant mode]

You know, I'm still after all these years trying frantically to figure out why truly momentous events & sights like the journeys of the MERs, Cassini, the Hubble Deep Fields, etc., etc, just can't compete in the public's eye with the latest breathless update on Brangelina.

I've been blaming this on poor PR on the part of the space community, but clearly it's much more fundamental than that, and apparently global to boot. It's very easy to blame substandard science education, but again that begs the question: who really enjoyed the regimen of school for its own sake in any subject? Bottom line is what really guides whatever evolves into people's interests, and therefore attention to accuracy, demand, funding...?

It's paradoxical and quite bitterly ironic that fictional, usually puerile 'spaceoperas' flourish commercially while actual space research activities draw minimal media attention, most of which is inaccurate and/or equally puerile when reported at all (at least in the United States). The public's interest in space seems to be there, but tragically disconnected from reality...how to connect these vital dots????

[/rant mode]

[mchan]

...wow. Thanks for the clip, ollopa; now I fully understand the outrage.

My hypothesis: The unfortunate correspondent confused Hubble with the "Doomsday Machine" in the original Star Trek:

No, he wouldn't. Any correspondent would know that the Doomsday Machine fires an anti-proton beam, not a beam of light. Then again maybe he would if he though protons and photons are the same.

[edstrick]

".... just can't compete in the public's eye with the latest breathless update on Brangelina. "

Find and read Cyril Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons" <classic sf short story or novellete from the 50's> and realize he made a simple numerical mistake. He put the story 300 years in the future and it was only 30.

[Ames]

"Comet McNaught is passing close to the Sun, whose gravity pulls material off, giving it a big and visible 'debris field'"



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6251663.stm

[MahFL]

I just read that also and was going to post it. Another pearler eh ?

[Jeff7]

"Comet McNaught is passing close to the Sun, whose gravity pulls material off, giving it a big and visible 'debris field'"



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6251663.stm

Nice.

Another favorite was the article that talked about dust on the Mars Rovers, but how the designers planned for this, and attached small fans to the top of the deck to keep the solar panels clean.

[mchan]

"Comet McNaught is passing close to the Sun, whose gravity pulls material off, giving it a big and visible 'debris field'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6251663.stm

That caption has now been edited.

[nprev]

Mchan: Sadly, I think that most of these guys think that photons and (if they know of them at all) antiprotons are tangible objects about the size of a tennis ball, color-coded for easy identification and only found in mysterious labs located in European castles on cliffs surrounded by continuous thunderstorms and populated by clinically insane, cackling near-sighted old men with tangled long white hair. (If I missed a stereotype here, please feel free to fill it in! )

Ed: Thanks for the tip; heard of the story, now have to read it. A fav of mine is Pohl's The Space Merchants...looks like it's almost in the same vein.

[EDIT]: Just had a weird thought, and please forgive me if it's OT. What if UMSF PIs & astronauts commanded huge salaries & led lavish lifestyles? Do you think that public attention to space would increase to the same level as "entertainment"?

This may sound facetious, but it's not. Operational analysis of systems sometimes points to very odd-seeming solutions. This conjecture is purely intuitive, but let's fantasize for a moment that fame & fortune are very visible rewards of scientific excellence; would public attention be refocused thereby? [/EDIT]

[djellison]

That caption has now been edited.

Damn right it has - should have seen the email I sent

Doug

[edstrick]

"...A fav of mine is Pohl's The Space Merchants...."
I think that's a collab between Pohl and Kornbluth. Many years later, (90's?), Pohl did a sequel by himself. Kornbluth, as I recall, died of malignant hypertension induced heart attack or stroke. The hypertension was supposedly post WW-2 stress related or something. A great loss to the field. (I may be confusing this with Henry Kuttner, who also died young in the 50's)

[Stu]

They replied to my complaint re the now infamous "Hubble shooting a beam of light" report...

Dear Mr Atkinson

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the 'Six O'clock News' broadcast ton 08 January 2007.

I understand you found a factual error in the programme regarding the Hubble Space Telescope. Let me assure you that we aim to keep all of our reports factually accurate on all occasions, however it is inevitable that some mistakes may occur on occasion; obviously we aim to keep this as minimal as possible. We always aim for the highest standards in reporting.

Nevertheless, please be assured I have registered your comments regarding this issue and have made them available to the 'Six O'clock News' production team and the senior BBC management. Feedback of this nature helps us when making decisions about future BBC programmes and your comment will play a part in this process.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Regards

Adam Sims
BBC Information

Not good enough, just a fob off letter. I'm taking it further, particularly in light of yesterday's comet caption (well done Doug!)

[djellison]

A total fob-off.

The problem isn't that they reported things totally factually incorrectly - the problem is that such a thing is able to happen when the facts are all set out ready to understand on multiple web-pages.

I've written to correct perhaps a dozen science stories over the past couple of years - all things that 10 seconds with google show to be wrong, but still they - the BBC - one of the most highly regarded organisation in the entire industiry - get badly wrong.


Doug

[MahFL]

Another one from Yahoo's slideshow....

"The McNaught Comet streaks across the evening sky over Devil's Head mountain......"

[ngunn]

Another one from Yahoo's slideshow....

"The McNaught Comet streaks across the evening sky over Devil's Head mountain......"

Now that was indeed naughty, if true - but I could have sworn McNaught was quite decently attired in a long flowing gown . . . .

[edstrick]

This "Streaker" is clad only in long flowing hair, like Lady Godiva.

[Bob Shaw]

Mchan: Sadly, I think that most of these guys think that photons and (if they know of them at all) antiprotons are tangible objects about the size of a tennis ball, color-coded for easy identification and only found in mysterious labs located in European castles on cliffs surrounded by continuous thunderstorms and populated by clinically insane, cackling near-sighted old men with tangled long white hair.

Rubbish!

I've had a haircut, ooh, not six months ago!

Ygor did it, and very stylish it was, too - the extra fingers help with the scissors.

Bob Shaw

[nprev]

...yeah, I'm convinced that Franky lacked the fine manual dexterity required for the job!

You know, that sure is part of the problem, though: the public fears science, in whatever form, and the media knows this & tries to make it warm and fuzzy, never placing any burden on the audience to think. Fear usually does result from (and I do not use the word pejoratively) ignorance.

Sigh...I was going to write "how do we make people less afraid of science?", but that's definitely not a morally appropriate way to frame the problem. Maybe the question is how do we make science as interesting to the general public as the latest antics of Donald Trump & Rosie O'Donnell? (Surely some of the dogfights that inevitably occur during project development could at least compete with that! )

EDIT: Got it!!! How about a reality TV series called "The Mission"? Premise here is to follow the late developmental stages of a medium-class project (say Mars 2011?) all the way until launch, complete with headaches, squabbles, joy, and triumph. If done correctly, this would be truly compelling viewing and thereby a huge boon for UMSF.

[Steffen]

Newspapers even get the basics wrong, adding the wrong spacecraft photo to an article etc...

[djellison]

Premise here is to follow the late developmental stages of a medium-class project (say Mars 2011?) all the way until launch, complete with headaches, squabbles, joy, and triumph. If done correctly, this would be truly compelling viewing and thereby a huge boon for UMSF.

Well - technically the NOVA 'Mars Rocks' and 'Welcome to Mars' programs kind of did that - An anxious Steve watching one of the Mini-TES getting shock tested etc.

Doug

[climber]

Well - technically the NOVA 'Mars Rocks' and 'Welcome to Mars' programs kind of did that - An anxious Steve watching one of the Mini-TES getting shock tested etc.
Doug

Yep, and that's why I recognized Adam and the gang the other day in LA
May be I'll be in the MSL's

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

Not Astronomy, but spaceflight this time ...
On 23rd January, a Belgian newspaper published 2 full pages on the upcoming Moon program and that China will beat the USA to the Moon by 2024... while Japan & India will just start with unmanned probes in 2009.
Moreover, even the UK will start a separate program " Moonlight " to start exploring the Moon by 2010...
And the Moon should be point of departure for a Mars mission ...
Top of the bill, the article stated that it was possible to buy real estate via crazyshop website and that Israeli's were buying it all ...
Seriously...

[Tesheiner]

A local newspaper published this monday an article about Corot's "first light".
The "bad astronomy" in this case was due to an incorrect (imo) translation of "Corot sees first light" into something like "Corot detects the first light of the stars".

[djellison]

You would expect space daily to do better than put a picture of THEMIS the INSTRUMENT (in space aboard Mars Odyssey since '01).... On a page about THEMIS the MISSION ( 5 spacecraft launching this month to study Solar interaction with the earth )

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/THEMIS_L...Feb_15_999.html

[ngunn]

Yes you would, but...

Hands up anyone (other than Doug and Emily) who doesn't find all these acronyms confusing? They fail completely in their purpose as names because they are 1/ on the surface meaningless 2/ unimaginative and therefore unmemorable and 3/ not even unique, apparently. I'm just glad Cassini is called Cassini and not something like SOASHIVS.

[nprev]

Well - technically the NOVA 'Mars Rocks' and 'Welcome to Mars' programs kind of did that - An anxious Steve watching one of the Mini-TES getting shock tested etc.

Doug

That's true, but unfortunately PBS only reaches a very small audience here in the US, and they don't do much advertising. It would be a lot better if one of the major commercial networks here (CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) did something similar with all the bells & whistles involved in the reality TV genre.

[dvandorn]

I have a slightly different issue to bring up, though it sort of fits in with this general topic.

Last night, The Science Channel (formerly known as Discovery Science) ran a show on its Tuesday night "space lineup" that talked about how Cassini was *scheduled* to arrive at Saturn in 2004, and in the meantime let's look at the Pluto Express probe that's currently being designed...

And then there is the "By Jupiter" documentary they run once a month or so, which is an hour-long promotion of the "upcoming" JIMO mission.

Why not just run documentaries on how VentureStar will soon replace the Space Shuttle, or even better, run some of those old ones which promise us that men will walk on the Moon sometime in our lifetimes?

In other words, there is either a really severe lack of up-to-date documentaries on space and astronomy, or the people who run The Science Channel are so ignorant of what's really happening that they think it's OK to keep repeating these dated programs, which refer to probes that never were and never will be.



-the other Doug

[nprev]

Yeah...I've noticed that too.

I think they're trying to squeeze every last bit of return-on-investment from these old chestnuts, accuracy/currency be damned. Unfortunately, they almost certainly won't ever get called on it. Specialized cable channels like this are designed for relatively small audiences, so informed criticism from the knowledgeable few among those is unlikely to amount to much pressure to reform from their viewpoint.

People like UMSFers are watching these shows already knowing the details of what they should tell us & hoping for a few nuggets of new information. The real tragedy is that the majority of the audience (which is watching out of genuine curiosity & a desire to learn) is getting outdated information which will warp their understanding and potentially diminish their interest/arouse suspicion if they later receive contradictory information. In this way, it's a real disservice.

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

Luckily there're some good programs around as well

[Guest_John Flushing_*]

It's a shame that tonight 60 million or so people in the UK and many other people around the world were told Hubble shone a beam of light out into the depths of the universe and studied how it was bent by the gravity of dark matter billions of light years away!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that despite all of our modern technology, we simply do not have a light bulb powerful enough to do something like that.

[ElkGroveDan]

This one's not TV but I though it deserved notice:

Telegraph U.K.
Broken wheel reveals water on Mars

By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent, Last Updated: 1:59am BST 23/05/2007

.... Spirit, and Opportunity, its twin, have been sending back information and images from the surface of Mars for more than three years. They were only expected to be there for three months when their missions started in 2004....

[Stu]

They were only expected to be there for three months when their missions started in 2004....

Easy mistake to make; the poor lad obviously didn't know that the final design review removed the little R2D2 rockets from the rovers' wheels that were going to blast it back off Mars and bring it back to Earth again...

[ElkGroveDan]

Here's a good one. I saved a pdf in the event AP corrects the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_...6eFZ.CCaMNK2ocA

Asteroid belt is named for George Takei
By SAMANTHA GROSS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Oct 3, 9:07 AM ET

A piece of outer space named for George Takei is in kind of a rough neighborhood for somebody who steers a starship: an asteroid belt.

An asteroid between Mars and Jupiter has been renamed 7307 Takei in honor of the actor, best known for his role as Hikaru Sulu in the original "Star Trek" series and movies.

"I am now a heavenly body," Takei, 70, said Tuesday, laughing. "I found out about it yesterday. ... I was blown away. It came out of the clear, blue sky — just like an asteroid."

The celestial rock, discovered by two Japanese astronomers in 1994, was formerly known as 1994 GT9. It joins the 4659 Roddenberry (named for the show's creator, Gene Roddenberry) and the 68410 Nichols (for co-star Nichelle Nichols, who played Lt. Uhura). Other main-belt asteroids have been named for science fiction luminaries Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov.
......

[nprev]

I was afraid of this. George Takei has cornered most of the accessible resources in the Solar System!!!

EDIT: After rereading the byline, this is obviously a Gross error...

[edstrick]

I keep hearing the news as the asteroid was RENAMED.. Uh.. I don't think it ever had a name... just a number.

"Who is Number 2?
"You are Number 7307."
"I am not a number, I am a free asteroid!"

It's not just the press...yesterday, driving home from work, a radio news item on the San Diego sinkhole/landslide detachment pit or whatever. A local government official "blamed it on gravity".

Well... duh!

[Stu]

Don't know if any other UK viewers caught it, but reporting this story on ITV's 6.30pm news last night, the gorgeous but occasionally slightly scientifically-challenged Nina Hussein said that the 180LY distant star was "in a galaxy far, far away..."

Wow, how did we miss a galaxy just 180LY away?!?!?!?!

[Stu]

Off topic a wee bit, I know, but doesn't seem worth starting a new thread...

Just saw this page up on Space.com...



Can't help thinking that advertising an online astrologer on one of the world's most viewed space-related websites is just... oh, what's the word... ah yes, that's it: stoopid...!!!

[tty]

Wow, how did we miss a galaxy just 180LY away?!?!?!?!

We didn't, it's called the Milky Way, and 180 LY is certainly far, far away....

[ngunn]

Don't know if any other UK viewers caught it

Yes. They just can't stop themselves. Every astronomy-related story has to be introduced by some sci-fi cliche. The fact that in this case the choice of phrase has the effect of reinforcing an especially persistent strand of public ignorance is clearly of no concern to the news editors. 'Far, far away' is (of course) anywhere north of Watford, and a Galaxy is a large family car.

[Mongo]

'Far, far away' is (of course) anywhere north of Watford, and a Galaxy is a large family car.

I thought that 'Far Far Away' is where Shrek went to meet the in-laws?

Bill

[nprev]

I'm waiting to see what will happen if the potential Martian asteroid impact becomes likely enough for the mass media to get excited about. The sheer torrent of stupidity would be entertaining indeed...and depressing.

BTW, here in LA on the CBS AM radio news station I keep hearing these annoying commercials for some outfit called the "International Star Registry" that purports to name a star for your friend or loved one for a nominal fee (fifty bucks, I think). I know that this is complete @#$%, but of course the general public doesn't. IIRC, this group or another got sued by (I think) Sky & Telescope, and the plantiffs lost!

Still think that the IAU should get into that business and generate official star names for a nominal fee, then use the proceeds for astronomy-related grants, scholarships, etc. Much better than lining the pockets of these bloody con-artists.

[hendric]

Will all the deep surveys going starting up, I'm surprised nobody has started an International Galaxy Naming company. Hell, maybe I should...

Name-a-Galaxy! Who would want a single star, when you can have a whole island universe named just for you or your loved ones! Tiered pricing, starting with ellipticals ($25), going up to spirals ($50) and barred spirals($100), and ending with the choicest: Galaxy Mergers! ($250)

[nprev]

Oh, crap...dude, PLEASE no!!!! I could live with a star officially named "Mildred P. Snordwinkle", but a whole damned galaxy???

Does make you wonder if this scam has occurred elsewhere in other times, in other civilizations. Maybe we live in the alien equivalent of the Mildred P. Snordwinkle Galaxy (translation permitting), which name precedes our own moniker of the Milky Way...which, in its way, might just serve as the ultimate proof of Mach's Principle...

[Stu]

At first glance this is quite an amusing subject, I know, but for us "community astronomers" the whole star-naming thing is a nightmare, and worse than that it actually causes some people quite a lot of hurt.

Several large national retailers were offering "Name A Star" gift boxes for Christmas presents this year in the UK, and I had - as usual - a dozen or so phone calls, or conversations with people in the street or at work, with people either asking me if they should name a star after a loved one, or telling me they'd already bought one for someone, and I had to tell them that, as lovely an idea as this is, it is a total waste of money, because no-one has the right to offer star names for sale. It's not illegal, but I could set myself up in business and charge people to have a blade of grass by Kendal Castle or a grain of sand on Arnside beach named after them or a loved one and it would be just as "official" as offering to name a star for them. Some people take this news in their stride, and just decide not to go ahead with the present and buy a book token or something, others get angry that they might have been conned. The ones who have already "bought a star" are usually either gutted or angry, or both.

But worse are the phone calls I get from people at other times of the year from people who want to know if I can come around to where they live and show them, and/or their family, the star they have had named after someone who's died. I've had children calling asking me to show them where the star they named after their mother or father is, grandparents asking where the star is they've named after a dead grandchild, husbands and wives wanting to see the star named after their deceased partner, it's just awful to have to tell them that... well, to have to tell them the truth.

This really annoys me, and has done for years, because people buy these "stars" in good faith, often for a loved one as a romantic gift, thinking they can take them outside on a clear night and, standing there arm in arm or hand in hand, show them "their star". That’s not possible because the stars on offer are all far, far below naked eye visibility. Other people “buy star names” in memory of someone who's died, thinking it will somehow immortalise them. It doesn't; that star would only bear the buyer’s chosen name on a list in that company's database, not on any official star catalogue or registry that astronomers or scientists use. Patrick Moore will never mention “Irene’s Star” on The Sky at Night, Neil deGrasse Tyseon will never mention “Tiddles’ Star” in one of his books because the names are 100000% unofficial.

One of the companies does say this on its website: “Will astronomers call the star by its new name? No. In professional astronomical and scientific circles the star you name will be referred to either by telescope co-ordinates or by identity number.” but of course it's buried away in the small print in these packages and people have already paid for the thing by then, so it's too late.

So yes, this is amusing at first thought, but when you've had someone break down in tears at a "skywatch" event when they've found out that the star they "named" after their beloved grandmother isn't actually theirs at all, it isn't quite so funny.

And that's why I hate the whole star-naming thing. It's just wrong.

[nprev]

...thanks for the wake-up call, Stu. Did not realize that there was sometimes such a brutal emotional toll from this chicanery.

[lyford]

In my wild and impetuous youth I did this for my fiancee.... found out the real deal a few years after and was quite embarrassed. Still, it IS named after her, but the name is just not recognized officially by the IAS....

I agree with you 100% about the scamminess of the companies involved, especially if you are expecting to pay for an actual registration service. I would definitely steer people away if they have not done so yet. But if someone has already done it, I would phrase my critique a little more carefully before crushing their fantasy - since the act is undoubtedly tied in to emotions of some strength.

We often go to a campsite and have special names for "our trail" - but that name is never going to be recognized by the Forest Service. The hopeless romantics among us have "our song," etc, so "our star" is not that off base.

If you view them as more like the astronomical equivalent of the guy that goes around Saturday nights selling roses to all the couples during dinner, it makes more sense. Or else think of the fee as being paid to have someone record and remember that star in the name of someone.... just like "our tree."

You do get a framed plaque.... and unlike selling real estate on the moon, I never really expected to get something REAL, any more than if I took my family to Medieval Times and was expecting to see "real" knights. The romantic and entertainment value was worth the cost, even if it was based upon a fiction, and many people pay much more for their frivolous date night excesses. The geek side of me is VERY upset that it is not the actual official agency recording, but I don't think that matters as much to most folks.

I am not defending the practice of the companies, but rather think we can spin it a little better for the "victims." (Actually I am just trying to rationalize for myself since I fell for it...)


EDIT

PS - this whole discussion reminds my of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's essay, "Naming Rights."

[Stu]

I try not to crush people when I tell them the truth; I can actually - believe it or not - be very subtle and sensitive when I need to be.

But I can't agree that this practice is anything other than a scam and anything less than cruel in many cases. The differemce between romantically naming a trail or a rock or something is that these Star Registry companies very deliberately and shamelessly market their services in such a way as to look very official, and they deliberately target kind and good-hearted people in their advertising, playing on people's desire to express love for family or partners, and suggesting that their deed will somehow immortalise the person the star has been bought for.

We often go to a campsite and have special names for "our trail" - but that name is never going to be recognized by the Forest Service. The hopeless romantics among us have "our song," etc, so "our star" is not that off base.

I think it's a long way off, sorry. These companies are taking money off people for something they don't own the rights to, which is just wrong. Seriously, if you'd seen the looks on people's faces that I have when I've had to tell them that no, actually their grandmother or dead husband isn't "up there" for all to see - and these are people who've come to me for an honest answer because they've suspected the truth, I don't just shout it out without being asked - then you wouldn't think this so harmless.

Still, it IS named after her, but the name is just not recognized officially by the IAS....

Actually, it isn't. It bears her name in that company's database, and that's all. No-one else who looks at the night sky - from now until the Sun swells into a red giant, and beyond - will ever call it by her name. If you really want to immortalise her, you great softie, do it the old fashioned way - discover an asteroid or a comet and name that after her.

[lyford]

Still, it IS named after her, but the name is just not recognized officially by the IAS....
Actually, it isn't. It bears her name in that company's database, and that's all. No-one else who looks at the night sky - from now until the Sun swells into a red giant, and beyond - will ever call it by her name. If you really want to immortalise her, you great softie, do it the old fashioned way - discover an asteroid or a comet and name that after her.

Well, that's what I meant - I named it unofficially and paid too much to have someone print a pretty plaque and keep track of the coordinates in their database. That's how I can rationalize it now.

But I know that the companies only make money by giving the impression that they are official, which is at the very least unethical. It is a scam.

And as for discovering and then naming, that didn't work out for Herschel and George's Star, did it? Or Xena and Gabrielle.... *Sigh* Or maybe I am misinformed on that as well.

Stu, I know I got nothing to stand on, but I was young at the time. I am not disagreeing with your argument, just telling my story.

[nprev]

Hate to say it, but the continuing & widespread deceptive practices committed by these parties really can only be redressed by the IAU getting into the business and driving them out of it. 'Star naming' clearly isn't going to go away of its own accord; the only way to make it something real (yes, I do use the term loosely) for people is to have the IAU assign star names, which at least would have some sort of enduring status.

Of course, nobody's gonna call, for example, SAO 133390 "Bill Smith's Star" except the person's loved ones; still, it's a trivial effort to record the moniker, and who knows; someday, it might well become a true memorial if the record survives & the star becomes important in some way. As a charitable act and, happily, a smart business move, the IAU could accept a significantly smaller fee for the service (by not providing the claptrap props) and thereby drive these <unspeakably obscene epithet/noun>s out of business for good.

You got my back up on this, Stu; it was heartbreaking to hear that you've encountered people who have been emotionally injured by these bastards, to say nothing of ripped off. It damn sure isn't right, but this is all I can think of to fix it since court challenges to the 'industry' have failed.

EDIT: I went here: http://www.iau.org/CONTACT_US.25.0.html --and sent this:



Sir or madam, I am a member of the online forum unmannedspaceflight.com, and recently the obnoxious new 'industry' of naming stars by numerous companies was a topic. One of our members, who is a local observational astronomy popularizer, told us that some people he'd encountered were literally heartbroken to discover that a star that they'd "named" for a deceased relative had no official standing. Clearly, these unsavory firms are not only deceitful, but also actually causing emotional damage.

Therefore, I propose that the IAU should begin its own star-naming service in order to end this shameful, and apparently global, exploitation of the general public. This could be easily done in a Web-based schema by providing a random star from the SAO or other surveys and subsequently recording the chosen name in a database. The current star-naming companies provide elaborate certificates, etc. in order to justify their fees (which seem to be on the order of US$50), but an IAU service of this nature--minus the accoutrements as described-- could charge considerably less while providing an officially sanctioned name for the object. This is in fact the goal of these well-meaning but uninformed people.

Given the apparently large market for this service, the funds acquired could be used for charitable endevours such as grants and scholarships for students in the space sciences. Certainly this would be a far better application of the results of this phenomenon than the current situation, which merely enriches unscrupulous opportunists at the financial and emotional expense of a great many people, and furthermore casts the entire field of astronomy in a bad light. Thank you for your attention.

[lyford]

Good idea, nprev.

You know I just realized the disconnect here - for me it was just some fun - but from your comments now I can imagine how harmful it would be if someone was doing it seriously as a way to honor a loved one. It would be a shock like finding out the ashes you paid to have scattered at sea were just dumped in the drain that runs to the ocean.

I was coming at this from a completely different angle, hence my Medieval Times analogy, and now I see what the furor is - and can completely understand the outrage.

[djellison]

I know of a case where a family 'named a star' after their son who tragically died aged a few months old. I couldn't bare to tell them the truth after seeing the finder chart on the wall with the name at the bottom. I hope they never find out to be honest.

[Stu]

I couldn't bare to tell them the truth after seeing the finder chart on the wall with the name at the bottom. I hope they never find out to be honest.

I know what you mean, it's a dilemma sometimes. But I have no doubt - at all - that some of the companies rely on knowledgeable people's "don't upset them with the truth" instincts to protect themselves and maintain their business.

[nprev]

To say nothing of the embarassment once they realize that they've been had; probably a lot of customers just don't want to mention it to anyone, so the scam goes on.

God, Doug; that's just awful about that couple and their son.

I encourage everyone to go to that IAU contact link in my previous post and ask them to start naming their own stars. With any luck, the first use of the proceeds could be to buy the customer lists of these charlatans (once the IAU puts them out of business once and for all) and legitimize them...

[ollopa]

Another cool project for Google, methinks. Since there are more stars than people who have ever lived (or likely ever will), this has real outreach potential. Even an informal database on Google Sky might give a new impetus to skywatching. "Aunt Ethel is just to the right of Regulus. Whaddya mean you haven't heard of Regulus?"

[Stu]

Another cool project for Google, methinks. Since there are more stars than people who have ever lived (or likely ever will), this has real outreach potential. Even an informal database on Google Sky might give a new impetus to skywatching. "Aunt Ethel is just to the right of Regulus. Whaddya mean you haven't heard of Regulus?"

... except - as I understand it - all the stars these companies offer are far below naked eye visibility, so a Google-type database would be next to useless for people who a) don't know the sky, and don't have a telescope.

This is something only people who have actually spent years looking at and studying the sky can understand, just how hard it is to find things in the sky. The bright stars might be obvious, but none of those are up for naming, only mega-faint stars are. So a Google-type database/interface thingy would have to be written in such a way as to give people who have no knowledge of the sky whatsoeever directions to "their" star. That means locating the constellation it's in by entering its exact co-ordinates. Then you'd need to determine that constellation's location in the sky... that constellation's visibility in the sky for that viewer (no point someone in New York looking for Crux Australis or Pavo, etc)... that constellation's visibility in the sky at that time of year if it is visible from their latitude (no point our New Yorker looking for Orion in July, etc). Then, with all those things tackled, you'd have to find a way to teach the viewer how to "star hop" from a bright nearby star to the area where their target star is, and then you'd have to help them distinguish that star from all the others.

Sounds easy? Just pour some sugar or salt into your hand, tip it out onto a tabletop and look at it...

...that's what a starfield looks like through a telescope.

The best astronomy outreach is still organising a star-watch or an eclipse-watch in a park or school field, getting together a whole bunch of amateur astronomers with telescopes, inviting the pubvlic, and then just showing people cool things in the night sky. Whenever we hold one here in Kendal I come away bouncing like Tigger, it's such a buzz. The looks on people's faces when they see a galaxy, or Saturn's rings, or the Moon's craters through a telescope for the first time is just incredible. And introducing people to the stars... pointing out Vega, Deneb and the Pole Star to them, helping them find Orion and Taurus in the sky, introducing them to the characters and legends behind Perseus, Andromeda etc, it's just magical, and as good as Google Sky gets it will never replace the experience of having someone stand with you on a cold and frosty night and tell you "See that star overhead? That's..."

[akuo]

The bright stars might be obvious, but none of those are up for naming, only mega-faint stars are.

Not so. There are only a couple of hundred stars with proper names. There are plenty of naked eye stars with just Baeyr or Tycho catalogue number at best.

[Stu]

Not so. There are only a couple of hundred stars with proper names. There are plenty of naked eye stars with just Baeyr or Tycho catalogue number at best.

I meant that they're neither offered by the star naming companies, or by the IAU. As far as I know. But even if I'm wrong in that, here's the bottom line - none of these companies has any right to name a single star in the night sky. No getting around that.

Think of it this way. Here's a pic I took of Kendal Castle (where I hold the Kendal "skwatch" events at, by the way) back in September...



Now, if I set up a website, offering to let people name the blades of grass on that hillside and hilltop after a loved one for £25 a time (or for another £20 you can have one of the stones in the castle wall named after your loved one instead, let's call it our Deluxe Package) for which they would get just a fancy-looking certificate, how hard would you laugh? Well, that's what these star registry companies are doing. Taking money off people for giving names to things they don't own.

[nprev]

Well, that's what these star registry companies are doing. Taking money off people for giving names to things they don't own.

Just so. That's why the IAU, the only agency with the internationally recognized authority to assign nomenclature to astronomical objects (by definition!), needs to step in & derail these predators.

[gndonald]

Not really from the Television Media, but something that I spotted today in the NZ Herald, its an article about someone who works for Virgin Galactic entitled "Selling Earthings Trips to the Stars..." which included the following piece of information about the trips to orbit Richard Branson is planning to offer:

The aircraft will then reach the speed of sound in less than 10 seconds and nearly four times the speed of light in under 30 seconds.

Emphasis mine.

I'd like to know just how they plan to deal with the time dilation...

[dvandorn]

Reminds me of the only morbid chuckle I came across on February 1, 2003. In CNN's coverage of the Columbia disaster, at one point, the titles that run under the talking heads read "Columbia broke up while traveling at 15 times the speed of light." I looked at the person I was watching the TV with and said "Well, that was the problem, right there!"

-the other Doug

[nprev]

"C: It's not just a good idea, it's the law!" (An oldie but a goodie...)

I wonder how much the lines have blurred between TV & movie space operas (did not say 'science fiction', because so few actual SF shows have ever been made, IMHO) and reality in the eyes of many people in the general public. Reason I ask is that I've met many people over the years that are surprised to learn that we haven't had a manned Mars landing yet, and seem to take for granted that people are zooming all over the Solar System, if not the Galaxy. (Amazing, but true!) One of the main questions I get is whether the MERs or Cassini are manned...

The depressing flip side to that is why aren't these people clamoring to sign up for the next flight out? God knows I would be if I thought that space travel was easy and routine.

[ElkGroveDan]

Avalanche Photographed on Mars
By SPACE.com staff, posted: 03 March 2008

...The camera was tracking seasonal changes on Mars when it inadvertently caught the avalanche on film...

[nprev]

Dan, think I'd have to call that hilariously ironic rather than inaccurate...yep, bet that's a seasonal change alright, moving at 15m/sec!!!

[elakdawalla]

um, nprev, I hate to say it, but I think Dan was referring to the space.com reporter's take on what medium was being used to record the avalanche

--Emily

[As old as Voyage...]

A little off topic, but an inaccuracy nonetheless...

In Sheffield (UK) there used to be a bus called the 'Bright Bus' which ferried (gifted?) school kids around the city.

To enhance its 'Bright' (ie intelligent) image it was adorned with the names of many luminaries of physics such as Einstein and Newton.

What detracted from this was that the name 'Hawkins' was also emblazoned across the vehicle's side....guess the signwriter wouldn't qualify to ride the bus!

[nprev]

um, nprev, I hate to say it, but I think Dan was referring to the space.com reporter's take on what medium was being used to record the avalanche

--Emily

Splarg; of course, thanks, Emily, and sorry, Dan! Gonna go drive a few more nails with my forehead before the short bus comes...

[centsworth_II]

Porno at CERN
"The claim is that... the LHC might produce not only black holes but also another class of objects
called wormholes... mostly in tabloids like the Sun and New Scientist.... science pornography."
http://resonaances.blogspot.com/

I thought this was so funny: "Tabloids like the Sun and New Scientist", that really puts New Scientist
in its place. I like New scientist, and I wouldn't say they are inaccurate, but they do skew toward
the sensationalist. I think science pornography is a good way to put it. But as I already said... I'm not
complaining.

[gndonald]

I've picked up the April 2008 edition of APC (Australian Personal Computer) and there is an (advertising) feature article entitled "Computers in Space" (paid for by HP).

Most of it is a fairly accurate descriptions of the constraints facing the use of computers in space (power, gravity, radiation).

It also has a picture of what they claim to be the Shuttle Discovery, it is in fact a picture of the first launch of Columbia. (See: here The article (credited to one David Braue) also has the following when it starts to discuss future uses of computers in space:

Missions such as next years Mars Telecommunication Orbiter...

I thought that NASA had canceled this one two years ago

I wonder where on Earth (or off it) the author did his research.

(Correction made after confirming picture in article is of Columbia)

[Stu]

BTW, here in LA on the CBS AM radio news station I keep hearing these annoying commercials for some outfit called the "International Star Registry" that purports to name a star for your friend or loved one for a nominal fee (fifty bucks, I think). I know that this is complete @#$%, but of course the general public doesn't. IIRC, this group or another got sued by (I think) Sky & Telescope, and the plantiffs lost!

Resurrecting an old topic, I know, but if anyone wants to read an interesting debate on the star-naming issue, this week's CARNIVAL OF SPACE has two rather opposing viewpoints...

[laurele]

Resurrecting an old topic, I know, but if anyone wants to read an interesting debate on the star-naming issue, this week's CARNIVAL OF SPACE has two rather opposing viewpoints...

I find it hard to imagine that anyone could believe they actually "own" a star. Aren't there international agreements in which countries reject any concept of "claiming" celestial objects such as the moon, planets, etc.? One would think anyone "naming" a star would understand that the act is symbolic. How can someone own something no human being can even reach and can only view from afar? We don't even know that the names currently being used will still be in use by our descendants 100 or more years from now. I do agree that the companies charging people for this are predatory, as anyone can use computer software to create their own certificate and print it out, which is really the only thing recipients are getting.

Since there are funding issues regarding space exploration, how about considering the idea of universities and agencies like NASA or the ESA selling people the right to symbolically name a star with the proceeds going towards research, exploration, etc. as another person in this thread suggested? Universities and agencies could join to create a single large database to coordinate such an effort. Donors could choose the projects they want to support (for example, funding of a specific telescope or mission). At least purchasers would know that what they are really doing is making a contribution towards the advancement of astronomical research and exploration as opposed to handing over money to charlatans.

[volcanopele]

Io is my moon. It's mine. I own it.

I guess one fund raising effort would be to to sell the naming rights to dunes on Titan or minor craters on Mimas.

[nprev]

Why not? I'm certain that the IAU would put the money to far better use then the hucksters ever could. I like the idea of using it for scholarships & fellowships for space science grad students.

[ElkGroveDan]

I think it's a bad idea. Once you start bringing money into the picture you make the IAU controversial. People will argue and debate where the money should go, which nation's universities got more etc, etc. What happens if some really rich person decides to blow a whole bunch of money naming stars after their favorite politicians? Meanwhile you've given credibility to the whole silly notion and the hucksters will continue to ply their trade since there is no means of enforcement of the IAU designations anyway. I might start a company and say that I don't recognize IAU and half of my profits will go to feed starving children in Africa so register with me. There's really no end to where this could go once the concept is given some kind of serious sanction.

The best response is information. I would venture that civil remedies for fraud are even possible in the U.S. right now if enough people wanted to get together for a class action suit forcing a more clear disclosure by these companies that the "naming" has no real standing anywhere.

[nprev]

Hmmm...persuasive, Dan.

I may be being naive about this. You're right, once money enters the equation then things get very complicated indeed. The only thing I can think of is if the IAU set up an independent trust for the funds and contracted or established a third-party non-profit organization to manage the finances, but of course the registration effort would require capital to accomplish, presumably from the name sales....argh.

Not seeing a way to make this unmistakably clean all the way through, in addition to your concerns about special interests naming things en masse for less-then-honorable and certainly not traditionally heraldic purposes.