I find it hard to believe that Popular Science would make such a mistake, but the author has reinforced the mistake by starting the article with "The dark side of the moon, despite its name, is a perfect vantage point for observing the universe."
But all the quotes from scientists correctly say "far side of the moon".
I know this isn't really "science news" but I couldn't find any other community to share this.
Dark side and far side of the Moon are equivalent terms.
Historically, yes. In modern science the dark side refers to the side facing away from the sun.
Which is the furthest side for us.
Only when the moon is full. When it's a new moon, the farside is in full sun.
Well yes, it waxes and it wanes, but like so many people have already said, most people know what you mean when you say "the dark side of the moon".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon
i think you may be a bit off base here
Relevant from the wiki:
The hemisphere has sometimes been called the "dark side of the Moon", where "dark" means "unknown" instead of "lacking sunlight"…
And if you continue the quote:
until humans were able to send spacecraft around the Moon, this area had never been seen.
Which implies that in terms of it being "unknown" saying the dark side is no longer relevant.
Logically you are correct, but human vernacular language rarely confirms to logic.
This is the correct answer. Language often evolves. I had never thought of the dark side as the side unexplored. It was always the side facing away from earth. That’s clearly what the author meant.
The complete quote:
The hemisphere has sometimes been called the "dark side of the Moon", where "dark" means "unknown" instead of "lacking sunlight" – each side of the Moon experiences two weeks of sunlight while the opposite side experiences two weeks of night.[1][2][3][4]
The wiki also mentions that it was sometimes called the dark side because it was unknown to people, a complete mystery, until we send people and probes to it. It implies that since we have seen it calling it the "dark side of the moon" is no longer relevant.
My issue here is that the term "dark side" by meaning is the side facing away from the sun.
We're talking about science here, which is a field where precise definitions matter.
I see this as no different than the debate between "poisonous" and "venomous". In basic language terms the terms are interchangeable, but biologists use the terms to mean very specific things, and are not interchangeable.
It's because in science the little differences matter. And in an article talking about an upcoming project involving a specific area of the moon, referring to it as "the dark side" is incorrect.
I was an engineer at NASA on the lunar lander program. The engineers I worked with were deeply involved in analyzing how the lighting conditions impacted the navigational dispersions during the landing approach.
Every one of those guys would have understood what someone colloquially means by “dark side of the moon”. There are other, more precise, terms for the unlit side.
Popular science is not really a science journal, it’s an entertainment publication. I don’t see an issue here.
We're talking about science here, which is a field where precise definitions matter.
Thankfully, everyone in the scientific conversations around the moon know exactly what the Dark side of the moon is.
My favorite thing about science and scientists is when they can put their egos aside, admit that they misunderstood something when they spoke up, and say "Hey, I didn't quite understand that, but now I do" instead of doubling down on their mistakes
There is no dark side in the moon, really
Matter of fact, it's all dark
the INside is probably pretty dark.
Pink Floyd's less well received album, The Inside of the Moon, about space conspiracy theories and the mega structures.
The Dyson Sphere was the follow-up, but it never released.
What's the difference to you?
I find it difficult to take a science based publication seriously when they use terms incorrectly.
really very few visualize how it actually orbits.
Add I understand it, one is an album from pink Floyd, the other not.
It's dark in terms of radio pollution from earth, which is why they're placing it there.
