|
Author
|
Topic: Terminology: 'On orbit' and 'to space'
|
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-20-2018 02:15 AM
   
Here is yet another take on the "in/on orbit" debate. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-20-2018 07:45 AM
Video: LSP Earth's Bridge to Space quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
...but I don't believe, based on my own memory of those days, that it was a common expression. I believe it is a modern invention
We have shown that to be wrong. It was a common expression from the 60s. |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-20-2018 08:47 AM
I have just re-read Maxime Faget's 1997 Oral History Program interview. Quote: As a matter of fact, we have not had any test stand failures since we started flying, but we had some after we thought we were ready to put the engine on orbit. This interview pre-dates the TV show "Big Bang Theory," and was made by someone involved in very early spaceflight. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-20-2018 12:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
We have shown that to be wrong. It was a common expression from the 60s.
Huh? You post a recent video (GREAT video, by the way!) and you say that tells us how people spoke and wrote in the 1960s? I don't think so. Simply contradicting what I say does not prove your argument. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-20-2018 12:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by oly:
This interview pre-dates the TV show "Big Bang Theory," and was made by someone involved in very early spaceflight.
Oly, you have confused the two issues. The "Big Bang" point relates to "to space" not "on orbit." I'm not particularly surprised that Max Faget used "on orbit" in a 1997 interview. That was in the latter half of the shuttle era and I have already pointed out that "on orbit" seems to be shuttle-era jargon. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-20-2018 01:13 PM
How's this for a double whammy... from LIFE Magazine's Aug 22, 1960 issue, in an article titled "To Space and Back!": The Agena was first to be put on a predetermined orbit, a nearly circular orbit, and the difficult polar orbit; first to be commanded, monitored and maneuvered on orbit... |
ManInSpace
Member Posts: 114
From: Brooklin, Ontario Canada
Registered: Feb 2018
|
posted 07-20-2018 03:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Simply contradicting what I say does not prove your argument.
It's more than a contradiction!We have stated that we used the term in our younger days. Just because you have no personal recollection of hearing it where you lived; does not give you the right to say it did not exist. |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-20-2018 03:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:For reasons that I can't adequately explain, I have a visceral dislike for two spaceflight-related expressions which I frequently hear...
People have provided opinion, advice, evidence and personal experience to support both of these expressions. We have tried to help with your dislike and lack of understanding. Between cross culture and evolution of language, combined with interdisciplinary mixing of military, scientific, engineering, aerospace, and many other disciplines, and the intermixing of many nationalities and cultures into the evolving space program, the result so far has led to the language used today. quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:Oly, you have confused the two issues.
I was not confused, Slade asks Faget in this same interview, "Why go to space?"As you state that you have neither the patience nor the skill to check citations, I understand your reply. |
ManInSpace
Member Posts: 114
From: Brooklin, Ontario Canada
Registered: Feb 2018
|
posted 07-20-2018 05:10 PM
Thank you. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-20-2018 08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by oly:
As you state that you have neither the patience nor the skill to check citations, I understand your reply.
Now you're just getting personal. You know I didn't say that: I referred to a specific citation of Mike Dixon's dated 19th July which was several lines of text. You will note that Robert has converted that to a one-word link. And if you check your original quote from Max Faget, you will see that it was limited to the "on orbit" point, and therefore has nothing to do with "Big Bang." But since you mention Faget's 1997 interview, it is worth noting that Faget said in that interview: "We took the viewpoint that if you want to go into space...." At no point in the interview does he say "to space." And for good measure he said: "(Mercury) didn't do anything except stay in orbit..."; "resupply it, leave it up in orbit"; and several references to "in Earth orbit" and "in lunar orbit." |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-21-2018 12:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
But since you mention Faget's 1997 interview...
As you have found from the 1997 transcript, both versions or these phrases are both common and pre-date your recollections. I hope you are now more comfortable with their use, or understand that industry and media are comfortable with such. I also hope your visceral dislike is now more logical. |
YankeeClipper
Member Posts: 617
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Mar 2011
|
posted 07-21-2018 07:43 AM
Now was it Wilde or Shaw who spoke of two countries divided by a common language?Somewhere in the cosmos there is an advanced form of intelligent life, reading this thread and shaking their collective heads in quiet resignation and despair!  |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-21-2018 09:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by oly:
...both versions or these phrases are both common and pre-date your recollections.
Incorrect. Faget did not use the term "to space" in the 1997 oral history. He did use "into space." Whatever you make of that, you cannot use it to back up your case.I think we have broadly established that the term "on orbit" (or "on-orbit" as an adjective) is mainly used by "space insiders" including people who actually work in the space business. This thread contains several posts from people who seem to be "insiders" and seem to accept that "on orbit" is essentially a shuttle-era term. I think that point is neatly summed up by Robert in his post of 14th July (11.36am) and in Robinson Meyer's article "Grammar in Space" (cited earlier) which concludes that "in orbit" is much more common, but use of "on orbit" is increasing. That might explain why, in recent years, I have picked up on its usage. I also note the comment in the article you cited on "English language & Usage" that if you are talking to space insiders and you want to sound knowledgeable, use "on orbit." It is probably that hint of ingratiation which explains why "on orbit" grates on me. quote:
Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
Somewhere in the cosmos...
Yes, I was thinking much the same. But as I have recently retired, I have the time to engage in such debates and we are always advised to exercise our brains to keep them active! But it would wrong to imply that this debate is without merit. Some of the citations (for instance, the Robinson Meyer article) show that others have addressed these linguistic issues in great detail before we did. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-22-2018 01:23 AM
So, to sum up – it’s alright to say that we’re going to send a probe to orbit Mars and once in orbit it will provide useful information. To get there, we will need to launch it into space though the cost of getting to space might be prohibitive. |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-22-2018 01:51 AM
 |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-22-2018 11:20 AM
Well, to sum up, I recently told my wife I have always wanted to go into space. She said she would give me £50,000 as an anniversary present to fly with Richard Branson. I pointed out the round trip would cost £100,000. She just smiled coyly. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-22-2018 01:50 PM
One has to ask how much your life insurance is worth to her. £100k might be a good investment for her. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-23-2018 08:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
..."on orbit" is essentially a shuttle-era term.
Predates shuttle. For example, Agena program and its use as a spacecraft bus and upperstage simultaneously. quote:
Well, as boys growing up in the 1960s, we must have lived on different planets.
We did. You were on the other side of the pond with a different language. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-23-2018 03:48 PM
Different language? You mean the English language? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-24-2018 12:47 AM
Geoffrey, I'm with you on this. Before one starts throwing quotes about to support one side or the other, one needs to look very closely at the time they were made and in what circumstances.
For example, when I was young and most of the contributors to this thread were but a twinkle in their fathers' eye, I could quite happily say, "Yeah, I had a gay time", meaning it was good and I enjoyed it. Today, it means something totally different.What people forget is that English is a living language, it is constantly evolving as new words are added and old words come to mean something else.
I suspect that the phrases that grate with you started in some obscure corner of the NASA network and as people heard it they thought that to use it would make them seem "with it" and that it would be "cool" to use. Yuk! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-24-2018 02:38 AM
They may not have been as widely used as they are today, but the outlier here is that LIFE Magazine used the phrases "to space" and "on orbit" as far back as 1960 in the same context as they are used today. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-24-2018 06:43 AM
And yet a quick glance through LIFE magazine dated 21st April, 1961, reveals five uses of "into space" and none of "to space." What a surprise. (You can't entirely rule out the possibility of a simple typo in your 1960 example).In passing, the same edition contains an editorial comment which quoted an unnamed scientist who had testified that putting an American on the Moon would cost "between $25 - $40 billion." He wasn't wrong, but as I recall, the bottom figure was approximately correct. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-24-2018 09:47 AM
"On orbit" is used twice in the same 1960 article, so it isn't a typo. So we've now established that phrase as significantly pre-dating the space shuttle era (though its wider adoption came in the 1980s). As for "to" versus "into," why must it be one or the other? Both were in use over the years. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-24-2018 10:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Different language? You mean the English language?
Yes, vs American or spaceflight industry speak. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-24-2018 12:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
"On orbit" is used twice in the same 1960 article, so it isn't a typo. So we've now established that phrase as significantly pre-dating the space shuttle era (though its wider adoption came in the 1980s).
With great respect Robert, you cannot claim that. One article hardly relates to the phrase being in common usage pre-shuttle. It could quite easily be an author wanting to be "with it" and using an expression that he's heard because he thought it "cool."Further, before making the claim you need to show in what context the expression was used. As I pointed out in my earlier post it is quite acceptable to send a probe "to orbit" another planet but to do that it has to be placed "into orbit" round that body. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-24-2018 12:37 PM
As with most major publications, LIFE Magazine had editors that kept the language use consistent throughout. Journalists were not free to use their own style.As for the context, the citation was included earlier in this thread: "The Agena was first to be put on a predetermined orbit..." and "monitored and maneuvered on orbit." There is no difference between that use and how the phrase is used today. As for "to space," it was in the headline of the same article, "To Space and Back!" Even if this was a singular example (which it is not), it establishes that the phrases were in use in popular media well before the space shuttle era. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-24-2018 08:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
One article hardly relates...
I did a search of my hundreds of NRO documents for "on-orbit" and I got hundreds of hits. It shows up in a 1962 document "The Air Force in Space Fiscal Year 1962." It shows up dozens of times in each of the volumes of Robert Perry's "A History of Satellite Reconnaissance." And the earliest use I could find was in several documents dated 1958. It shows up here in a document title: Declassified Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) Records. Search on "going to space" and see how many hits there are. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-25-2018 09:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
Search on "going to space" and see how many hits there are.
One of the first results I found was a video by Chris Hadfield explaining the requirements to become an astronaut to go "into space." But what would he know?You are quite right that there are millions of "to space" hits. A quick search shows vast numbers of those to be hits on deeply irritating videos made by teenagers or twentysomethings who all seem to be trying to sell stuff to their vacuous followers. I don't doubt that "to space" has been turned into a hip phrase in recent years (and whether "The Big Bang Theory" helped to start it or was simply picking up on it, I can't say). That, of course, brings us right back to my original post about expressions "grating" on me, so perhaps, like space, this argument is endless. However, it has occurred to me that one simple explanation is that "to space" is slightly shorter, snappier, and takes a fraction of a second less time to say. I know that is very important nowadays. Similarly, the expression "in the light of" used to be universal (at least on this side of the Atlantic) but, for no obvious reason except that it takes less time to say, I now keep hearing "in light of" which doesn't even make proper sense but — hey! — it's quicker! But that's a debate for a different site... |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-25-2018 10:02 AM
My hits were different. Are you using google and putting "to space" in quotes? quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I don't doubt that "to space" has been turned into a hip phrase in recent years
Again, it is not recent. It was very commonly used in my childhood in the 60s/70s, in college in the 80s and in the spaceflight industry since then.Again, it is the different language thing. American English vs British English. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-25-2018 10:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
...irritating videos made by teenagers
At this point your argument has boiled down to, "You kids get off my lawn!" This phrase presents the supposed reaction of a stereotypical elderly middle-class homeowner confronting boisterous children entering or crossing his property. You either cannot or do not want to accept that while the phrases may be grating to your ears, they are nonetheless well-established, long-in-use phrases that are not driven by a TV show or limited to youth. I am not sure that any citation put forth now would change your mind. |
ManInSpace
Member Posts: 114
From: Brooklin, Ontario Canada
Registered: Feb 2018
|
posted 07-25-2018 02:29 PM
Thank you, Robert. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-25-2018 06:21 PM
Robert, by now you are no longer a spring chicken yourself!It is disappointing that you have misrepresented my previous comment: I referred to those videos which are irritating because the clearly cynical makers are so often trying to sell stuff to their vacuous followers. Vacuousness is by no means limited to teenagers, but the younger you are the lower your defenses to insidious commercial pressures. (And, I acknowledge, this also applies at the other end of the scale which, fortunately, I have not yet reached). As for my lawn, anyone is welcome on it who isn't trying to sell me stuff I don't want. And as for your last sentence, that could clearly be applied to others on this site. Bearing in mind that I have been following space news by every available means over many decades, specifically including all the best-known American commentators and reporters, it seems unlikely that the two specific terms ("on orbit" and "to space") would never have come to my notice until more recent years, unless they are, by and large, recent terms. Hearing doesn't usually get more acute as the years go by! Your implication that nothing would make me change my mind on this is unfair. I think it is clear from my past posts that I have been persuaded to alter my stance on the "on orbit" point. I am content to accept the conclusions set out in the two citations mentioned by you (the Robinson Meyer article) and by Oly ("English language & Usage.") As for "to space" — I can only repeat that I never remember hearing it until perhaps the past decade. If I had heard it years earlier I think it would have grated on me then, since the "grating" is not without reason, but based on the point which has previously been done to death: that space is not an actual specific location, but a universe-wide near-vacuum through which our probes must pass to reach their destinations. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-25-2018 07:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I am content to accept the conclusions set out in the two citations...
So the hundreds of uses of the term in NRO documents dating to the late 50s have no bearing on the matter? quote:
...which our probes must pass to reach their destinations.
Which is no different than going to sea. Space is a location or destination, it is anywhere not within Earth's atmosphere. And one can go to it. |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-25-2018 09:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
At this point your argument has boiled down to, "You kids get off my lawn!
Thank you Robert, you beat me to it by this much > <. quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
As for "to space" — I can only repeat that I never remember hearing it until perhaps the past decade.
Memories fade. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-25-2018 09:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Your implication that nothing would make me change my mind on this is unfair.
Here is the problem: You have been provided numerous examples dating back to the 1950s and 1960s, in external and internal publications, and have heard from other members who have their own set of memories counter to your own. Instead of considering, perhaps, that this wasn't an issue for you until it became an issue and therefore has become more noticeable (a common occurrence for everyone), you have decided it is more plausible to dismiss the citations as typos and invalidate the experiences of others. It is one thing to debate the validity of the terms, but to selectively ignore evidence is a sign that this discussion is without meaningful purpose. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-26-2018 12:12 AM
As I have pointed out in a previous post, to search for the words "to space" and simply say that there are numerous instances of it being used to validate the claim that it was in common usage pre-1970 is not really good enough unless their use is shown in context.In may be that some of the use of these contentious words are correctly used but equally it may well be that "into space" would be a more correct expression. Context is everything. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 07-26-2018 01:14 AM
I agree with Blackarrow and moorouge that in the U.K. people would say they wanted to go "into space" not "to space", but I'm also quite willing to accept that the term go "to space" was and is common parlance (alongside "into space") in the U.S.If people who grew up in the U.S. are telling us that "to space" was the more common version used when they were children and is still commonly used there today why would you argue with that? I don't think they need to provide citations and references to prove their point. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 07-26-2018 10:40 AM
As far as usage of words (phrases) that differ on different sides of the pond, take a person that has been injured. That person is taken to the hospital in the US, but to hospital in the UK.
Just a difference in the common language prevalent on either side. Same as to space and into space. |
ManInSpace
Member Posts: 114
From: Brooklin, Ontario Canada
Registered: Feb 2018
|
posted 07-26-2018 11:05 AM
As someone who has previously posted memories of myself and friends using the phrase "go to space," I believe fredtrav has it right.I am a first generation Canadian whose parents emigrated from the west coast of England in 1962 and can attest to many differences in syntax between the two countries. The same language yes; but used in different ways. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-26-2018 05:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
That person is taken to the hospital in the US, but to hospital in the UK.
That's not actually a good example. Living in a city with five hospitals, I know from personal experience that people (at least in this city!) say they were taken "to the City" or "to the Royal" etc. |
advertisement