Not your standard '2005 in review' thread

In summary, the conversation discusses notable non-discoveries and failures in astronomy for the year 2005. One participant suggests discussing the best of the year instead, and proposes some prompts for discussion.
  • #1
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,401
3
You can read lots of these - http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1649_1.asp", for example - I thought it might be fun to take a different view! :smile:

What were the most notable non-discoveries for 2005?

What were the most outstanding failures?

I'll go first. In the second category, I nominate http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1564_1.asp".

Oh, and one more category - what was, in 2005, the most http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=serendipity" discovery in astronomy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Nereid, why not take the best of the year? We wade through the worst every day. You read all the papers.
 
  • #3
I will second the loss of the X-ray spectrometer. I was actually interning at GSFC this summer under one of the instrument scientists involved with the project, and was there when the failure occurred. He was extremely disappointed, especially since the calibration results came back looking so great.
 
  • #4
Chronos said:
Nereid, why not take the best of the year? We wade through the worst every day. You read all the papers.
Chronos, why not start your own thread on the best? I thought about it, and came up with some ideas ('which astronomy-related news item in 2005 stuck longest in your mind?', 'which caused, for you, the strongest feelings of wonder and delight, as you read it?', 'which lead to the most passionate/delightful/absorbing/{insert your favourite adjective here} conversations with co-workers, fellow students, family members, boyfriend(s)/girlfriend(s)?'). Feel free to take your pick :approve:
 

1. Why is this thread not a standard "2005 in review" thread?

This thread is not a standard "2005 in review" thread because it focuses on a specific topic or aspect of 2005, rather than providing a general overview of the entire year.

2. What makes this thread different from other "2005 in review" threads?

This thread is different from other "2005 in review" threads because it offers a unique perspective or analysis on events or trends that occurred in 2005.

3. Is this thread based on factual information?

Yes, this thread is based on factual information and data. It may also include opinions or personal interpretations, but these will be clearly stated as such.

4. Why is it important to have a thread specifically about 2005?

It is important to have a thread specifically about 2005 because it allows for a deeper understanding and reflection on the events and developments that took place during that year. It also provides a historical record for future reference.

5. Who would benefit from reading this thread?

Anyone who is interested in learning more about a specific aspect of 2005 or wants to gain a deeper understanding of the events and trends that occurred during that year would benefit from reading this thread. It may also be useful for researchers or students studying this time period.

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • Cosmology
4
Replies
126
Views
32K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
7K
Back
Top