Bad Astronomy in Astronomy Magazine

[Plutocrat]

Page 44 of the June 2009 Astronomy has a big map of Mars that completely misidentifies Olympus Mons, the planet's tallest mountain!

In fact, what the label "Olympus Mons" points to is Elysium Mons, the fourth tallest mountain on Mars, which is located more than 150 degrees in longitude away from the actual Olympus Mons.

It's kind of like confusing Greenland and England.

Astronomy is the same magazine that told us a couple years ago that the Moon doesn't rotate....

[Swift]

No harm Plutocrat, but I think this is a better spot for this. Nice find.

[stu]

:(

I'm glad I cancelled my subscription a few years ago. I don't suppose you can post a scan?

[Disinfo Agent]

I like Astronomy magazine. Even a good publication makes has mistakes occasionally.

Plutocrat, you should write to the editor and report the error. I'm sure they'll publish a correction in the next issue.

[Plutocrat]

'twouldn't do any good....

Several years ago, Plutocrat pointed out errors in the often unreliable "Ask Astro" column. An editor wrote and admitted the magazine's errors.

But no correction ever appeared in the magazine.

Sky & Telescope is the same way.

[Plutocrat]

Well, page 12 of the September issue of Astronomy corrects the error about Olympus Mons. (In contrast, Sky & Telescope has yet to correct its Saturn error (http://www.bautforum.com/bad-astronomy-media/90383-sky-telescope-claims-saturn-spins-faster-than-jupiter.html).)

That's the good news. The bad news: the same issue of Astronomy has other errors:

Page 22:


VB 10 is the smallest star known to host a planet.

VB 10--better known as Van Biesbroeck's Star (http://www.solstation.com/stars/wolf1055.htm)--is a red dwarf. It is much bigger than PSR B1257+12 (http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/alex/pulsar_planets.htm), a star known to host three planets.

Page 49:


Cepheids take their name from the constellation Cepheus, where astronomers discovered the first example of this new class of variable stars, Delta Cephei.

No, Delta Cephei was Cepheid number two. The first was Eta Aquilae.

And page 55 contains the peculiar statement


Sirius B takes roughly 50 years to orbit Sirius A.

According to Jay Holberg's recent book on Sirius, the orbital period is 50.075 +/- 0.103 years. By what strange stretching of the English language is 50 only roughly equal to the true period?

[Gillianren]

According to Jay Holberg's recent book on Sirius, the orbital period is 50.075 +/- 0.103 years. By what strange stretching of the English language is 50 only roughly equal to the true period?

I'll defend that. It isn't exact. It's very close to fifty years, but it isn't exactly fifty years. "Roughly" is the term I'd use, too, or "about."

[peteshimmon]

Oh come on! Nothing is 100% in life! We all
make errors. Forgiveness is next to
Saintlyness.

Trust but verify!

[tdvance]

Well, page 12 of the September issue of Astronomy corrects the error about Olympus Mons. (In contrast, Sky & Telescope has yet to correct its Saturn error (http://www.bautforum.com/bad-astronomy-media/90383-sky-telescope-claims-saturn-spins-faster-than-jupiter.html).)

That's the good news. The bad news: the same issue of Astronomy has other errors:

Page 22:



VB 10--better known as Van Biesbroeck's Star (http://www.solstation.com/stars/wolf1055.htm)--is a red dwarf. It is much bigger than PSR B1257+12 (http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/alex/pulsar_planets.htm), a star known to host three planets.

Page 49:



No, Delta Cephei was Cepheid number two. The first was Eta Aquilae.

And page 55 contains the peculiar statement



According to Jay Holberg's recent book on Sirius, the orbital period is 50.075 +/- 0.103 years. By what strange stretching of the English language is 50 only roughly equal to the true period?


p.22 is an understandable one though--PSR.... is certainly more massive than VB10. And isn't the planet around PSRxxxx more like a "dwarf planet"?

[tdvance]

ok, I checked the link--two of them are legit planets.