Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon | Hacker News Reader

Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

projectpluto.com

146 pointsmpitt55 comments

There is a photo/video of the booster by an amateur with a a nice telescope system of the alleged “Falcon 9” that went viral

https://twitter.com/virtualtelescop/status/14907828451446374...

https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/2022/02/09/spacex-falcon-9-u...

O wow, one of my first expensive pieces of software I bought when I was young. Guide for DOS by ProjectPluto. I wanted to find out if the so called predicted Galactic Center conjunction with the winter solstice really took place in 2012 (as popularized by John Major Jenkins in Maya Cosmogenesis 2021).

It turned out it took place - according to the algorithms and ephemerids of Guide - in 1998 or 1999, depending on the arc second definition you use. Great software.

DSCOVR is a pretty cool project. It always stays on the sunlit side of the earth and has a decent camera (called EPIC) viewing the full disc. You can view it here[0].

[0] https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Wow that is nice.

Does anyone know what that yellow spot in the middle of the image is?

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2022/02/12/png/ep...

I have two thoughts. 1. it would be near the tonga volcano 2. it is suspiciously right in the middle of the image. Sun glare due to the orbit matching the sun?

edit: added link to image in question as I realized the earth actually spins.

Definitely sun glare, this is a picture taken from a Sun-synchronous orbit.

edit: has been fixed, thanks hn

This title is incorrect and should be fixed. The actual title is "Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon" since the object has not been positively identified by anybody.

How can a non-existant identification be corrected?

The title here says "Object about to hit moon is from Chang'e 5, not SpaceX", the article says it is still not confirmed, and is just a best-guess.

The actual article title is, "Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon" - HN often fixes titles that have been paraphrased or inferred, like here.

Ah gotcha!

Pardon my hard italics, I thought you were just being sassy :)

It’s quite surprising how little verification went into the original claim that it was a falcon 9 before the outpouring of standard anti-Elon driven outrage.

There's a relevant Dutch saying here, "high trees catch a lot of wind"

If you're not making anyone mad, you're probably not doing anything important.

That is not a Dutch saying. In the Netherlands, there are literally rap songs extolling the virtues of Normal.

Interesting, I would love to hear more and/or read the lyrics!

Dutch culture favors blending in vs standing out. Another saying - japanese I think, that comes to mind, is "the nail that sticks out gets the hammer". I was sure there was a softer dutch version about "the tallest flower gets the snip" or something but I can't find a reference :)

I feel that this is not the same spirit as 'high trees catch a lot of wind' though, that one in particular is about how famous/important people will receive a lot of criticism, and does not refer to the 'be normal' attitude.

Along the same lines as "the tallest blade of grass is always mowed" and "the late worm misses the bird".

"The higher up the tree the monkey climbs, the more his butt is exposed." - Jack Welch (I think)

Tall poppy syndrome.

Honestly, it would probably help if American music and entertainment had more of a "here's how we overcome together" theme and less "sing about my bling and you don't get a thing."

Sure, but import doesn't imply good. Putin is arguably making people mad right now.

Viel Feind, viel Ehr!

What is surprising is that in 2022 people believe everything that they read.

It’s surprising, as GP said, how little verification was made by news outlets. Chastising people for believing “everything” simply because they believed this is a different matter. Especially when otherwise reputable sources such as ESA post the information.

https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Incoming!_D...

The media and organisations like the ESA have their biases and agendas.

yes the well known moon trash agenda of the far … uhhh

The fact that they have published this without even verifying it is the best proof that they have a bias or even an agenda, yes.

This is not something reported by ESA astronomers but a PR piece about recent news, relevant history, and pointing how ESA does it. The article explicitly links to its source about the attribution.

I don't know why people are downvoting you for what has become an objectively true position to hold. In just the past 10 years, journalism has taken such a nose dive that I'm legitimately nonplussed when people take everything they read in The New York Times Company's paper, or Jeff Bezos' The Washington Post as gospel fact.

Let's not even start with Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

Look back just to 2014 when Rolling Stone magazine published the completely unverified, and eventually debunked story, "A Rape on Campus". It was just a load of made-up bullshit. And then other outlets started to seize on the controversy and posted their own stories. The entire story was proven false, and it also resulted in a large settlement for the accused parties involved.

People have lied since the dawn of humanity whenever it suits their needs; there's no reason to think we've significantly changed now.

"Layers and layers of fact checkers"

"In a sense, this remains "circumstantial" evidence. But I would regard it as fairly convincing evidence."

"It's unclear when the Chang'e 5-T1 booster would have gone by the moon,"

Sure sounds definitive now... /s

Given what follows the second quote, it appears to be a simple typo: "It was unclear..." would better fit. Also given what follows, the author seems justified in writing that first quote, which follows the presentation of the reasoning suggesting that it is the Chang'e 5-T1 mission's booster.

edited: I should have included more context to the second quote. My point being, the one who misidentified it on the first first round due to circumstantial evidence, still is not sure and is basing this new claim on also circumstantial evidence. After that last quote, they go on to say, "If we assume", which is just a sign they are searching for a fit.

It is better circumstantial evidence, and, for reasons given in the article, it is unlikely that anything definitive will be found, at least unless the debris are examined in situ.

To say you should have included more context is something of an understatement. By removing the information between the two quotes and swapping them around, you removed all the context needed to come to a reasonable conclusion.

In retrospect I should have been more careful the order, as well as context, although I expect those commenting to have read the article too, and the full quote would have be far too long to be included, imho.

(edit)

If it would have been too long to do it right, you probably should not have done it at all.

Yeah I would try to locate the SpaceX suspected object just in case, and to establish how close it will pass by the moon.

The article gives reasons why a definitive answer cannot be given for either object, and also for why the SpaceX booster is a plausible but not-very-likely candidate.

I didn't participate in any outrage (actually, I'm behind here, this post was the first I'd heard of this story), but this seems like a particularly uncharitable take.

The story came from an otherwise-reputable source that made a mistake. Your average person (including even most space enthusiasts) doesn't have the knowledge and expertise to check it themselves other than seeing what other astronomers have to say, and the commentary I could find prior to the discovery of the mistake was in agreement.

Parent may or may not be trying to assign blame, but they do make a very salient observation: there is, as a rule, very little verification from initial reporting to strong global reaction. And that's a rule, not something having to do with this particular instance.

No, but you can wait a few days and reserve judgement until it's confirmed by several sources. It's not like it something you need or could act on.

Today, the news arrive fast, and the reaction to the news is instant.

On the other hand, after several years of covid crisis, my opinion on the whole thing is very much in flux, and when I discuss it with people, I don't give definitive statements, nor raise an outrage.

So yes, the reaction here seems it could be a problem... if confirmed :)

Where's the sources confirming this post? Shouldn't you wait a few days and reserve judgement? I (and I assume you) still don't have any astronomer credentials, for all we know this post is a load of bullshit and the anti-Elon posters were right!

Of course, these questions are rhetorical and to make a point. But I really dislike how when a mistake like this happens people roll out the "oh you should have just waited for fact checking" when it takes me 30 seconds to click their profile and see them commenting on news articles with no sources hours after release.

Hence the "if confirmed :)".

Yeah, I saw that, it was a funny joke. But I hope you aren't seriously implying suffixing your comment with a joke about confirmation changes the fact that you're doing the exact same thing as the anti-Elon comments you're complaining about - attacking someone based on news with little/no additional evidence.

> Today, the news arrive fast, and the reaction to the news is instant.

The reaction? Some people yapped in the general direction of Elon and SpaceX. They are grownups, they can take it.

Even with the original information it is and was a a big nothing-burger. Even if it were true nothing would, should or did come to adversely affect Elon or SpaceX out of it.

Maybe just don't worry about it?

Elon Musk fanboys always start a fight with "I don't understand why [entity] is so dismissive of [Elon Musk's project]" line, which fixate the view and prime the flamewar. Don't feed them.

You should’ve seen the storm of outrage on Twitter though. It’s actually rather a charitable take on the typical mob mentality that was on full display.

A single deep breath and a moment’s consideration would have revealed that this kind of thing is totally normal in space exploration. The outrage was driven purely bu the fact that it was Musk, and by the wording of the report, along the lines of “evil billionaire’s out of control rocket slams into moon.”

Twitter is social media. It exists so that people can express their feelings in a way that lets them pretend that others might care what they feel. Objective reality just gets in the way and should be ignored in such an environment. There is no point in, say, getting outraged that people are acting without careful consideration on Twitter.

Fair enough, but it speaks to the level of hate he inspires in a certain kind of person

>standard anti-Elon driven outrage.

Elon Musk might be the most lionized individual on planet earth. It's hilarious people think the love/hate for him is unbalanced, or that he's "picked on".

There's plenty to hate on Elon for but it's possibly clear that a lot of people are looking for a news article to bandwagon onto rather then having a specific issue or issues they care about.

There were definitely a bunch of people trying to cast around for some reason a booster hitting the moon was just clear disaster (it wasn't and would never be).

This always depends on where you look.

Where was this outrage?

Nice advertisement spacex

I dunno man, if Elon is willing to pay someone a small stack of cash to take down their Twitter account tracking his private jet, surely he'd be willing to pay astronomers to change their story

Reply on news.ycombinator.com