Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

Phobos · 2002-10-12 14:15:50

Londinium is a good name for a Martian settlement.

I dunno. Londinium sounds like something that should be on the periodic chart of elements. It is interesting though that the name is tied in with the Mars god. Maybe we should just name the colony New London.

Aetius · 2002-11-05 18:23:17

Since I've always had a weird fascination with the Byzantine Empire, I like "Constantinople". This polysyllabic tongue-breaker conjures up images of vast wealth, imperial grandeur, and sophisticated, cosmopolitan inhabitants for me. Perfect for a megalopolis situated at the base of a space elevator on Pavonis Mons.

And I don't think there's currently another Constantinople anywhere!

Of course, I doubt my idea would be all that popular...

Phobos · 2002-11-05 18:53:46

Actually, I think Constantinople would make a good name for a Martian settlement. For me at least, it does bring up cosmpolitan images of abundance and progress.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-11-05 20:58:37

Actually, I think Constantinople would make a good name for a Martian settlement. For me at least, it does bring up cosmpolitan images of abundance and progress.

I like Constantinople too. But, in order to avoid interplanetary confusion, let's use the name Oplecontinstan. The "stan" belongs on the end, as in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Bananastan, etc.

John Archibald Dortmunder

Aetius · 2002-11-05 21:09:38

Constantinople was named after the Roman emperor Constantine. Though the city, currently named Istanbul, is ruled by the Turks (and has been since 1453 AD), the word element "-stan" (common to Turkic place names) in Constantinople is purely coincidental.

Even its modern name, Istanbul, is derived from a Greek phrase meaning "The City".

Maybe the Turks should have changed the city's name when they conquered it, though! Your idea certainly makes it fit more smoothly within Turkic nomenclature!

Palomar · 2002-11-06 12:56:01

*The word "Ruby" has got to fit in somewhere, somehow, for a Marsian nameplace.

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-11-06 16:23:10

Istambul was constantanople.
Now it's istambul not constantanople.
Been a long time gone, constantanople.
Now it's turkish delight on a moonlit night!

Every gal in constantanople live is istambul not constantanople.
So if you've a date in constantanople she'll be waiting in istambul.

Even old new york was once new amsterdam.
why'd they change it I cant say.
People just liked it better that way.

Take me back to constantanople.
No, you cant go back to constantanople.
Been a long time gone, constantanople.
Why'd constantanople get the works?

That's nobody's business but the turks!

Istambul!

Aetius · 2002-11-06 17:47:33

I love that!

Cindy, 'Ruby' is pretty cool, too.

turbo · 2002-11-07 17:03:55

I like it too! "Ruby Station" "Diamond Dome"
and of course, the "Emerald City"
Go Cindy!

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-07 17:49:36

Ruby is at 25.5S 17.1W

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04 … 100658.jpg

See the three craters between the two big ones near the bottom? Ruby is the first one on the left.

Palomar · 2002-11-07 21:01:55

Ruby is at 25.5S 17.1W
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04 … 100658.jpg
See the three craters between the two big ones near the bottom? Ruby is the first one on the left.

*Josh, you are just too much of a sweetheart! Thanks for this. I guess the namers of Marsian things anticipated this...

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-08 16:26:38

It looks kind of like a ruby, too.

You know how gems have a glint of light? That one crater as a tiny crater that can be seen as a glint of light. True, those small craters on the edges of large craters are fairly common (indeed, there are actually others in that very same picture), I think this one is one that really shows. Plus, I'm sure there were other reasons they named it that.

Interestingly, a lot of the formations in that area are unnamed. In fact, many many many craters are still yet to be named. I think the IAU is still naming formations. I suspect a lot of them won't be named until we actually get there!

Interestingly, the crater to the right of Ruby is named Bison. And the very tiny crater to the left of Ruby (it's small) is named Romny. Can anyone think of the significance of that?

Palomar · 2002-11-09 09:05:19

Josh: It looks kind of like a ruby, too. You know how gems have a glint of light? That one crater as a tiny crater that can be seen as a glint of light. True, those small craters on the edges of large craters are fairly common (indeed, there are actually others in that very same picture), I think this one is one that really shows. Plus, I'm sure there were other reasons they named it that. Interestingly, a lot of the formations in that area are unnamed. In fact, many many many craters are still yet to be named. I think the IAU is still naming formations. I suspect a lot of them won't be named until we actually get there!

*Do you know if the IAU is open to the suggestion of names for formations, craters, etc.?

Josh: Interestingly, the crater to the right of Ruby is named Bison. And the very tiny crater to the left of Ruby (it's small) is named Romny. Can anyone think of the significance of that.

*Cool! I'm impressed with your working knowledge of these names. Bison -- I think of buffalo. As for Romny...hmmm, the only thing that comes to mind is a twist on a movie name, i.e. "Romi and Michelle's High School Reunion."

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-09 10:58:39

It's not very hard. It's not like I knew them by heart until I looked them up, or anything. I know quite a few formations by heart, but not every single crater!

http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/

And as far as I know, you cannot petition the IAU for names, but I have not read their charter, it may be in there somewhere.

http://www.iau.org/

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-10 22:51:51

Byzantium was in many ways a beautiful civilization, but progress is certainly not something it, or its capitol Constantinople, was known for. Also the association with wealth is mostly unearned. Sure, it had fabulous wealth compared with the Western Europe of the time, but remember what time that was.

Aetius · 2002-11-11 18:01:40

You're right about the Byzantine preference for cultural continuity versus technological progress. Constantinople was, however, richer than any other city on Earth due to international trade...the Islamic realms included. Its reputation for fabulous wealth was earned, and its citizens were also better educated than those of many other civilizations.

Of course, Western Europe resembled today's Third World during Byzantium's apogee of power (Macedonian Dynasty). But aren't all comparisons of the wealth of nations based on the examination of other, contemporary civilizations? It would be hardly fair to say that 21st century America's reputation for wealth is "unearned", by comparing it to the relative affluence of people in the 31th century.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-11 19:22:56

I suppose I was thinking more of Constantinople when Byzantium was in its later stages (after recovering from the Crusaders' sack), but you're right that at one point it was richer than any other city in the world.

Aetius · 2002-11-11 19:43:33

Absolutely correct. The Crusaders took 57 years to systematically loot the city of all its tangible wealth...even many of the stone buildings were carted away. The nominally Christian 'holy' warriors of the Fourth Crusade, when not engaging in other favorite Crusader pursuits like rape and pillage, spread their ill-gotten treasure far and wide across the castles and churches of medieval Western Europe.

Constantinople was indeed an impoverished collection of ruins after all that, albeit inhabited ruins.

Sorry to rant. Specializing in Byzantine history tends to make you somewhat hostile towards the Crusaders.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-12 21:40:22

And the Doge was a scheming little bastard.

Dorothy · 2003-03-17 11:09:28

Hello everyone,

if you name places, ships etc. after people remember that 52% of the people are women.
There are many who deserve to be remembered - scientists who did great work like Marie Curie and women like Olympe de Gouge who were killed because they asked that Human Rights apply to women.

Sincerely,
Dorothy

Palomar · 2003-03-19 11:34:28

Hello everyone,
if you name places, ships etc. after people remember that 52% of the people are women.
There are many who deserve to be remembered - scientists who did great work like Marie Curie and women like Olympe de Gouge who were killed because they asked that Human Rights apply to women.
Sincerely,
Dorothy

*Hi Dorothy:

I also suggest Caroline Lucretia Herschel. Not an hour ago, I discovered information about her at "Astronomy Picture of the Day." I posted the following to my 18th century Yahoo! mailing list:

Dear list members:

Clicking on the link below will take you to a beautiful photograph of
The Sculptor Galaxy, discovered in 1783 by Caroline Lucretia
Herschel. In the "Explanation" paragraph, beneath the photo, click
on the words "Caroline Herschel"; this will take you to a web page
devoted to her discoveries, a brief biography, and further links:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030316.html

As I've mentioned previously, I am an amateur astronomer. I am
familiar with Caroline's brother, William, as discoverer of the
planet Uranus; I'm sorry to say I have not been as familiar with his
sister until today. Caroline is also credited with having discovered
8 comets between the years 1786 and 1797. She was also musically
inclined, among other things.

I will search for more information on this wonderful lady as time
permits. If anyone can provide us with additional information,
please do.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-03-19 12:00:05

I suggest "Eve", to remind us all of the cause of Mankinds Fall.

*Was there such a person as Eve? Or is it more likely that Eve (and Adam) were mythological figures created by the writers of the Bible (none of whom were female) -- religionist propogandists -- for various self-serving, selfish reasons (pushing the notion of the alleged superiority of the male and the alleged inferiority and subjection of the female, for the sole benefit of men)?

We've had this discussion before, in at least 1 other New Mars thread. I think you all know where I stand on the issue (latter view; not interested in rehashing it).

Happy fishing, Clark (I knew you'd have to stick your foot in it sooner than later).

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-03-19 12:41:19

Me: "Was there such a person as Eve?"

Clark: "Hmm, was there a female progenitor of our species? I'm going out on a limb and guess, yes, there was a female progenitor of our species."

*Obviously there was a female progenitor of our species. But that wasn't my question, now was it?

Me: "Or is it more likely that Eve (and Adam) were mythological figures created by the writers of the Bible (none of whom were female) -- religionist propogandists -- for various self-serving, selfish reasons (pushing the notion of the alleged superiority of the male and the alleged inferiority and subjection of the female, for the sole benefit of men)?"

Clark: "Well, at least you haven't formed a conclusion yet.... And what's this stuff about 'alleged'? Hmm, male dominance of the world for all of recorded history... 'alleged' superiority my rear."

*You make an interesting point, Clark: Since it's HIStory, WHO should take the blame for it?

Me: "Happy fishing, Clark (I knew you'd have to stick your foot in it sooner than later)."

Clark: "[grin] Women have such easy buttons."

*Oh, I don't know. You poke someone, they'll react (unless they're dead). Aren't you happy I at least reacted? You wanted my attention, no? Of course I reacted: It's a matter of honor. I could have ignored you; I chose not to. Just like you may be inclined to defend your race and gender against an African myth (believed by some African Americans in the U.S.A.) which states white man was the result of an evil spell cast by an African practitioner of black magic. Get my point? No, probably not.

Have a nice day, sugarplum.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-03-19 13:53:58

Clark: "Eve". It is a concept."

*So is Ku Klux Klan propoganda.

Clark: "That was, and still is my point. You react to one world view of a basic concept. Why? So it is a myth perpetuated to explain our origins, why do you take it as a personal affront to yourself?"

*You -have- to ask this? Honestly? Why wouldn't I take it as an affront to myself? Should I be happy about and support a myth which preaches that I am to be forever subject to and submissive to men, to -obey- my husband like a dog obeys its master, because of what 1 woman allegedly did in a garden thousands of years ago? You can't see the sociopolitical ramifications of this myth? Please...I will credit you with more brains than that. I no more like this sexist myth than a black person in the USA of the 1920s liked the myth that all blacks are stupid and made to be servants (except that notion wasn't incorporated into "holy writ"). This isn't just about male-to-female domination with me, btw; I was formerly (years ago) checking into a spiritual movement which, as it turns out, believes men should be subject to and submissive to women; the literature included a drawing of a man on his knees before a woman dressed as a goddess figure. I've mentioned this before. I threw it away, and refused to have anything to do with that spiritual movement. Why? Because I feel the genders are equal but different (Tao).

Clark: What are you more bothered by Cindy, people having faith in something you can't, or people not seeing the world as you do?

*I'm only bothered by belief in fairy tales with huge and long-lasting sociopolitical impact. The blacks of this nation didn't settle for being told they are inferior and stupid, worthy only of subservience, etc...I can't for the life of me imagine why so many women have accepted the "holy writ" which essentially tells them the same.

Me: You make an interesting point, Clark: Since it's HIStory, WHO should take the blame for it?

Clark: Argh! Touche, I bleed from your speedy and accurate foil.

*Does your owie need a kiss?

Clark: "Yep, men have been in the drivers seat, so ultimetly the responsibility falls upon us. But perhaps all we need is a better navigator to sit shotgun... woemn apparently are not up for the task. "

*Are we not up to the task? Or have we not been allowed to be up for the task? A mere 40 years ago, most non-blacks in the USA believed blacks couldn't ever be "up to the task" of guiding and steering humankind. Why? Because they weren't allowed the opportunity to get in the driver's seat (until lately...like women).

Me: "Just like you may be inclined to defend your race and gender against an African myth (believed by some African Americans in the U.S.A.) which states white man was the result of an evil spell cast by an African black magician. Get my point? No, probably not."

Clark: "You know, they may just have a point...So white men were created by an evil spell. Now what? Am I to believe that I am somehow evil becuase some poor shmuck has it stuck in his head that the toothfairy and the easter bunny have worked dark magic too make me this way?"

*Likewise on the gender issue.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-03-19 15:32:24

Me: "Should I be happy about and support a myth which preaches that I am to be forever subject to and submissive to men, to -obey- my husband like a dog obeys its master, because of what 1 woman allegedly did in a garden thousands of years ago?"

Clark: "Have you been asked to be happy, or support any myth which you don't believe in? Are you being forced?

*If I lived in Afghanistan or Iran, or 16th century Europe, this myth and its sociopolitical ramifications would be enforced upon me (subject to punishment of varying degrees of severity for attempting to buck it).

Is there something wrong with people who do choose to be happy, or support such myths? Why? If no one is being forced, and if all follow upon their own will, what harm is there?"

*Oh, but there -has- been harm done in the name of this myth. It has also been enforced. It's easier now, I suppose, for people to embrace it -- given that the Enlightenment philosophy of reason has defanged the beast somewhat. For centuries women were denied the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to divorce -- even denied the right to use birth control methods without their husband's approval and knowledge. The list goes on and on. Why do you suppose, Clark, that the worlds of art and literature are predominated by men? Because men are so naturally vastly intellectually superior to women? Or because someone had to be coerced and pressured (not to mention be subject to laws carrying the very real weight of punishment with them) into playing the role of welcome mat and drudge so the other could accomplish something of importance?

Me: "Please...I will credit you with more brains than that."

Clark: "Praise from Ceaser, all hail. LOL."

*Praise Ami Hemf, all hail!"

Clark: "If you give me credit, then hear me out, what is gained by confonting every misguided half-bent philosphy that you find personaly repulsive?"

*Where and when do I do this? Actually I spend as little time as possible confronting ideas/ideals I disagree with (mostly because the effort usually proves futile...and also it depends on how important I find the matter).

Me: "I no more like this sexist myth than a black person in the USA of the 1920s liked the myth that all blacks are stupid and made to be servants (except that notion wasn't incorporated into "holy writ")."

Clark: "Actually, the notion was DERIVED from holy writ, but I digress. There are a great number of bizarre fantasies that people trouble themselves with. Ultimetly, this ideas are a means to understand, and in some way, control, their outside environmet. So someone believes that women are the cause of all evil. Stupid people will exsist forever more. Why allow them such power over yourself?

*The fact that I've rejected such claims proves it has no power over me. Am I and everyone else to always remain perfectly quiet when we disagree with something, otherwise it "demonstrates power over us"? No.

Clark: "Why play the victim? A reaction to such sentiments is based on a fear that such ideas MAY be true, or others MAY think them true. I would think a student of Voltaire, and indeed Enlightenment itself, wouldn't fear such blatant ignorance. Truth is self-evident afterall. Why spend such effort on the loons?"

*How am I playing the victim? History itself bears out the way women have generally been treated as opposed to men. The facts have nothing to do with me being "a victim." As for "why spend such effort on the loons?" -- I'm only answering you, here. I don't often get involved in this particular topic of conversation anywhere. The fact that I oppose the sexist notion of male superiority and female inferiority based on the Genesis myth proves I'm -not- willing to "play the victim." As for my being a student of Voltaire and the Enlightenment, again -- you demonstrate your ignorance of what the Enlightenment was about. You have stated more than once, previously, that you have not studied Enlightenment material and don't know much about. Voltaire himself, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Rush, M.D., are 3 luminaries of the time who took a stand for equal treatment of women. Denis Diderot and his contemporaries made it clear that the purpose of the Encyclopedia was to tear down old, hoary prejudices in order to make way for the flow of new thought and freer modes of expression. Not all of them were revolutionaries per se, but rather were reformers. They attacked things which they considered "blatant ignorance"...I'm inclined to do the same. The only fear I have in regards to this issue is that it will continue to be propogated for centuries more, with my fellow females continuing to be hobbled and crippled by it. I have no fear of calling it for what it is (sexist stupidity) or taking a stand against such a thing; no more than Voltaire "feared" taking a stand against the authorities who wrongly put to death a man named Calas (for a crime he didn't commit) or Denis Diderot "feared" taking a stand against the superstition which later imprisoned him for suggesting that blind people can just as well rely on their other 4 senses as we do on all 5. And why do you always refer my opinions back to Voltaire and the Enlightenment? I think for myself, believe it or not. That I have a strong affinity with my friends from the 18th century doesn't mean that I go along with what they wrote or did hook, line and sinker. You often criticize my affinity for this philosophy and group of people...yet you easily sympathize with religionists. The greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment didn't always agree with each other, but one main area of agreement was this: Individualism. You don't understand my viewpoint on this, and again you have admitted your unfamilarity with the era and its philosophies known as "The Enlightenment." I definitely have areas of DISagreement with even Voltaire (shocking as that may sound). If you would study the era FOR YOURSELF, perhaps you would understand me a bit better. Based on what I know of you and your opinions, I think you've got it backwards with regards to me versus the religionist mindset. One last word on this particular: Months ago, you said you wanted to join my "Age of Voltaire" mailing list, and asked me to add you to it. I told you that as I don't know your e-mail address, you would either a) have to send the command to join yourself or b) give me your e-mail address to add you through the Management section of my group. You then declined to do either. You've admitted that you don't know much about the Enlightenment, and you later backed out of joining a group which is devoted to it. That's your prerogative, but it also makes you a lame duck as regards this element of our conversation.

Me: "I've mentioned this before. I threw it away, and refused to have anything to do with that spiritual movement. Why? Because I feel the genders are equal but different (Tao)."

Clark: "Okay, whatever gets you there. But let us put this sentiment in th context of the Adam and Eve mythos: Eve ate of the fruit first, yet Adam partook of the Apple too. And to each, an individual punishment was given, and a shared burden was imposed upon all of their decendants. In thism, we see the genders receiving equal punishment."

*It's myth. But for the sake of argument: God punished Adam by telling him that he would, from now on, "work by the sweat of his brow." Eve's punishment, of course, was to bear children in pain and be subject to her husband. They were both cast out of the Garden. Why, then, do women do more hard labor around the world than men? It's a statistically proven fact that women work, on average, 3 hours per day more than men, consistently...anywhere you look. And for less pay/reward. Looks like women got stuck with that punishment, too.

Clark: "The word of God is more than just a few words, no? So how can understanding be achieved if only a few select words are used to understand Him?"

*It's allegedly the word of God. If there is a God.

Clark: "But perhaps these questions are better suited to those with whom you deal with regarding the role of women."

*The "role" of women...the "role" of men. I dislike these cookie-cutter notions of how 1/2 of the world's population is "supposed" to behave in comparison with how 1/2 of the remaining population is "supposed" to behave. Most rebels don't like these implications -- "roles" limit EVERYONE.

Me: "I'm only bothered by belief in fairy tales with huge and long-lasting sociopolitical impact."

Well then, do you go to the same lengths to dispell the myth of Santa to 4 year olds? The toothfairy?

*The myths of Santa Claus and the toothfairy don't have the sociopolitical results that anti-female sexism has had. C'mon Clark, you know better than this. It's been well proven and documented throughout history.

Me: "The blacks of this nation didn't settle for being told they are inferior and stupid, worthy only of subservience, etc...I can't for the life of me imagine why so many women have accepted the "holy writ" which essentially tells them the same."

Clark: "They accept the "holy writ" because they don't see it the same way you do. They understand the teachings of their beliefs in a way you don't."

*They're sheep.

Clark: "They see what you apparently cannot, or willl not see."

*I think that should be rephrased, "They can't see what I can, or will not see what I can."

Clark: "Does this bother you?"

*Only to the extent that it impacts my life as a woman, and that of women of the future who deserve as much freedom and liberty as men like to allow themselves.

Me: "Are we not up to the task? Or have we not been allowed to be up for the task?"

Clark: "How would you react if I said women were up to the task, but men are better suited for the job to begin with?"

*I'd say you're entitled to your opinion, and then ask what you base your opinion on.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-10-12 14:15:50

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#27 2002-11-05 18:23:17

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#28 2002-11-05 18:53:46

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#29 2002-11-05 20:58:37

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#30 2002-11-05 21:09:38

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#31 2002-11-06 12:56:01

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#32 2002-11-06 16:23:10

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#33 2002-11-06 17:47:33

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#34 2002-11-07 17:03:55

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#35 2002-11-07 17:49:36

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#36 2002-11-07 21:01:55

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#37 2002-11-08 16:26:38

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#38 2002-11-09 09:05:19

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#39 2002-11-09 10:58:39

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#40 2002-11-10 22:51:51

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#41 2002-11-11 18:01:40

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#42 2002-11-11 19:22:56

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#43 2002-11-11 19:43:33

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#44 2002-11-12 21:40:22

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#45 2003-03-17 11:09:28

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#46 2003-03-19 11:34:28

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#47 2003-03-19 12:00:05

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#48 2003-03-19 12:41:19

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#49 2003-03-19 13:53:58

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#50 2003-03-19 15:32:24

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

Board footer