#21 Is it the Beagle Rupes?

__________________
 
Did You Know?

Random Fact: Pell’s equation

OK, why not another round of 20 questions: What is the astronomical object I have in mind?
# 1: Yes, it is in the Solar system.
# 2: No, I haven't seen it.
# 3: No, it is not further from the Sun than Neptune
# 4: No, it is not a natural satellite orbiting a planet.
# 5: No, it is not an asteroid.
# 6: I honestly don't know. It seems possible, but I don't know enough details to be sure. To be more helpful, no intrument currently in existence on the Earth could visualize it.
# 7: Yes, I am indeed looking for a portion of a celestial object instead of the entire object.
Jeff - I won't count your question, as I probably mislead you with my answer to # 6. I should correct myself: The object in question cannot be visualized by any visual intrument on the Earth itself (I don't know about other parts of the EM spectrum). The reason has to do with the answer to # 7.
# 8: No, the existence of the object was not known before 1970.
# 9: Yes, it was detected by a robotic explorer.
#10: No, it is not on Mars. (I dare say that with so many possibilities left and just 10 more questions, ticking off solar system bodies one by one may be an inefficient strategy).
#11: Yes, the feature is a geologic feature.
#12: Yes, the robotic explorer was indeed flying through space when it first detected the object.
#13: No the feature is neither on an asteroid nor on a natural satellite.
#14: No, the feature is not an atmospheric component of one of the four gas giant planets. Bonus: And neither is it an atmospheric component of any other planet. Remark: I think this was answered in #11. Geology (or Hermetology, Aphroditology, Areology, Plutology, Charonolgy...) isn't about atmospheres, it it?
#15: No, it is not on Venus.
#16: No, it is not not on Mercury - Yes, it is on Mercury...
#17: No, it is not a volcano
#18: No, it is not an impact structure (and yes, I would have included rays and ejecta formations in that definition)
#19: Yes, it is an escarpment (rupes).
#20: No, it is not named after a ship by James Cook.
#21: No, it is not Beagle Rupes.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

#22 Does the rupes currently have an article devoted to itself on the English-language Wikipedia website?

If yes, this will narrow down the possibilities down to just two – and we will still have three guesses left. If no, well, then I give up.

__________________
 
Did You Know?

Random Fact: Pell’s equation

OK, why not another round of 20 questions: What is the astronomical object I have in mind?
# 1: Yes, it is in the Solar system.
# 2: No, I haven't seen it.
# 3: No, it is not further from the Sun than Neptune
# 4: No, it is not a natural satellite orbiting a planet.
# 5: No, it is not an asteroid.
# 6: I honestly don't know. It seems possible, but I don't know enough details to be sure. To be more helpful, no intrument currently in existence on the Earth could visualize it.
# 7: Yes, I am indeed looking for a portion of a celestial object instead of the entire object.
Jeff - I won't count your question, as I probably mislead you with my answer to # 6. I should correct myself: The object in question cannot be visualized by any visual intrument on the Earth itself (I don't know about other parts of the EM spectrum). The reason has to do with the answer to # 7.
# 8: No, the existence of the object was not known before 1970.
# 9: Yes, it was detected by a robotic explorer.
#10: No, it is not on Mars. (I dare say that with so many possibilities left and just 10 more questions, ticking off solar system bodies one by one may be an inefficient strategy).
#11: Yes, the feature is a geologic feature.
#12: Yes, the robotic explorer was indeed flying through space when it first detected the object.
#13: No the feature is neither on an asteroid nor on a natural satellite.
#14: No, the feature is not an atmospheric component of one of the four gas giant planets. Bonus: And neither is it an atmospheric component of any other planet. Remark: I think this was answered in #11. Geology (or Hermetology, Aphroditology, Areology, Plutology, Charonolgy...) isn't about atmospheres, it it?
#15: No, it is not on Venus.
#16: No, it is not not on Mercury - Yes, it is on Mercury...
#17: No, it is not a volcano
#18: No, it is not an impact structure (and yes, I would have included rays and ejecta formations in that definition)
#19: Yes, it is an escarpment (rupes).
#20: No, it is not named after a ship by James Cook.
#21: No, it is not Beagle Rupes.
#22: No, it does not have its own English Wikipedia article devoted to it.

By all means, Susannah - don't give up! You are close, and one could say that the anwer is in plain sight in more than one sense.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Are you saying I should have guessed?

Congrats Arneb! You are now one of the elite since you have gotten past the 20. [I think there may have only been one other, right?]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Well, I'd say that after reading the entire riddle as quoted above, you might as well have a shot. There was a strong hint, after all.

I feel most honoured .

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Is it named after a French ship?

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

OK, why not another round of 20 questions: What is the astronomical object I have in mind?
# 1: Yes, it is in the Solar system.
# 2: No, I haven't seen it.
# 3: No, it is not further from the Sun than Neptune
# 4: No, it is not a natural satellite orbiting a planet.
# 5: No, it is not an asteroid.
# 6: I honestly don't know. It seems possible, but I don't know enough details to be sure. To be more helpful, no intrument currently in existence on the Earth could visualize it.
# 7: Yes, I am indeed looking for a portion of a celestial object instead of the entire object.
Jeff - I won't count your question, as I probably mislead you with my answer to # 6. I should correct myself: The object in question cannot be visualized by any visual intrument on the Earth itself (I don't know about other parts of the EM spectrum). The reason has to do with the answer to # 7.
# 8: No, the existence of the object was not known before 1970.
# 9: Yes, it was detected by a robotic explorer.
#10: No, it is not on Mars. (I dare say that with so many possibilities left and just 10 more questions, ticking off solar system bodies one by one may be an inefficient strategy).
#11: Yes, the feature is a geologic feature.
#12: Yes, the robotic explorer was indeed flying through space when it first detected the object.
#13: No the feature is neither on an asteroid nor on a natural satellite.
#14: No, the feature is not an atmospheric component of one of the four gas giant planets. Bonus: And neither is it an atmospheric component of any other planet. Remark: I think this was answered in #11. Geology (or Hermetology, Aphroditology, Areology, Plutology, Charonolgy...) isn't about atmospheres, it it?
#15: No, it is not on Venus.
#16: No, it is not not on Mercury - Yes, it is on Mercury...
#17: No, it is not a volcano
#18: No, it is not an impact structure (and yes, I would have included rays and ejecta formations in that definition)
#19: Yes, it is an escarpment (rupes).
#20: No, it is not named after a ship by James Cook.
#21: No, it is not Beagle Rupes.
#22: No, it does not have its own English Wikipedia article devoted to it.
#23: Yes, it is named after a French ship.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Is it Astrolabe Rupes?

__________________
Science is like sex. Sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.
-- Richard Feynman

OK, why not another round of 20 questions: What is the astronomical object I have in mind?
# 1: Yes, it is in the Solar system.
# 2: No, I haven't seen it.
# 3: No, it is not further from the Sun than Neptune
# 4: No, it is not a natural satellite orbiting a planet.
# 5: No, it is not an asteroid.
# 6: I honestly don't know. It seems possible, but I don't know enough details to be sure. To be more helpful, no intrument currently in existence on the Earth could visualize it.
# 7: Yes, I am indeed looking for a portion of a celestial object instead of the entire object.
Jeff - I won't count your question, as I probably mislead you with my answer to # 6. I should correct myself: The object in question cannot be visualized by any visual intrument on the Earth itself (I don't know about other parts of the EM spectrum). The reason has to do with the answer to # 7.
# 8: No, the existence of the object was not known before 1970.
# 9: Yes, it was detected by a robotic explorer.
#10: No, it is not on Mars. (I dare say that with so many possibilities left and just 10 more questions, ticking off solar system bodies one by one may be an inefficient strategy).
#11: Yes, the feature is a geologic feature.
#12: Yes, the robotic explorer was indeed flying through space when it first detected the object.
#13: No the feature is neither on an asteroid nor on a natural satellite.
#14: No, the feature is not an atmospheric component of one of the four gas giant planets. Bonus: And neither is it an atmospheric component of any other planet. Remark: I think this was answered in #11. Geology (or Hermetology, Aphroditology, Areology, Plutology, Charonolgy...) isn't about atmospheres, it it?
#15: No, it is not on Venus.
#16: No, it is not not on Mercury - Yes, it is on Mercury...
#17: No, it is not a volcano
#18: No, it is not an impact structure (and yes, I would have included rays and ejecta formations in that definition)
#19: Yes, it is an escarpment (rupes).
#20: No, it is not named after a ship by James Cook.
#21: No, it is not Beagle Rupes.
#22: No, it does not have its own English Wikipedia article devoted to it.
#23: Yes, it is named after a French ship.
#24: Not, it is not Astrolabe rupes.

25 strikes you're out...

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

That leaves just one option. I'll let Susannah deliver the coup de grâce, as she did most of the work!

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

Pourquoi-Pas Rupes?

__________________
 
Did You Know?

Random Fact: Pell’s equation

OK, why not another round of 20 questions: What is the astronomical object I have in mind?
# 1: Yes, it is in the Solar system.
# 2: No, I haven't seen it.
# 3: No, it is not further from the Sun than Neptune
# 4: No, it is not a natural satellite orbiting a planet.
# 5: No, it is not an asteroid.
# 6: I honestly don't know. It seems possible, but I don't know enough details to be sure. To be more helpful, no intrument currently in existence on the Earth could visualize it.
# 7: Yes, I am indeed looking for a portion of a celestial object instead of the entire object.
Jeff - I won't count your question, as I probably mislead you with my answer to # 6. I should correct myself: The object in question cannot be visualized by any visual intrument on the Earth itself (I don't know about other parts of the EM spectrum). The reason has to do with the answer to # 7.
# 8: No, the existence of the object was not known before 1970.
# 9: Yes, it was detected by a robotic explorer.
#10: No, it is not on Mars. (I dare say that with so many possibilities left and just 10 more questions, ticking off solar system bodies one by one may be an inefficient strategy).
#11: Yes, the feature is a geologic feature.
#12: Yes, the robotic explorer was indeed flying through space when it first detected the object.
#13: No the feature is neither on an asteroid nor on a natural satellite.
#14: No, the feature is not an atmospheric component of one of the four gas giant planets. Bonus: And neither is it an atmospheric component of any other planet. Remark: I think this was answered in #11. Geology (or Hermetology, Aphroditology, Areology, Plutology, Charonolgy...) isn't about atmospheres, it it?
#15: No, it is not on Venus.
#16: No, it is not not on Mercury - Yes, it is on Mercury...
#17: No, it is not a volcano
#18: No, it is not an impact structure (and yes, I would have included rays and ejecta formations in that definition)
#19: Yes, it is an escarpment (rupes).
#20: No, it is not named after a ship by James Cook.
#21: No, it is not Beagle Rupes.
#22: No, it does not have its own English Wikipedia article devoted to it.
#23: Yes, it is named after a French ship.
#24: No, it is not Astrolabe rupes.
#25: Yes, it is indeed Pourquoi-Pas rupes.

And didn't I tell you all along? What a great finish!
Susannah wins this one with gracious support from a true gentleman and poses the next question.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Well, that was a tough one, but fun!

Anyway, I will let Eroica start the next game, since it was Eroica who should have wrapped up this game (and I’m already doing a game in the geography quiz). Thanks for letting me have the honour of having the last guess, Eroica!

__________________
 
Did You Know?

Random Fact: Pell’s equation

Thank you.

Identify the large dark object in the bottom right-hand corner of this image.

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

The object is Mare Humbuldtianum, at the Northwest limb of the Moon. The apparently basalt-filled crater to the left is Endymion.

You cannot get this view from the Earth. The image is a Lunar Orbiter series of photos (LO IV?), which you can glean from the strips that are stitched together, stemming from consecutive orbits. The strips have been reconstructed so that North is up, and Near side is to the left. The position of the spacecraft at the point of view would be approximately over the Western limb (from Earth). The darker material to the upper left is the Western end of Mare Frigoris.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

I got from the stripes that it was Lunar Orbiter, but gave up when I couldn't
match the feature to Mare Moscovienese (or however it's spelled) on the
lunar farside. I didn't bother to unfold the map all the way and examine the
smaller mare on the near side.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Ah, I found the original in the Lunar Orbiter IV Photographic Atlas. There is an annotated version besides the one Eroica posted.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Ah, now a true/false test! My guess is true.

__________________
Curt Renz - "Centaur"
For monthly astronomical calendar visit:
www.CurtRenz.com/astronomical

Well done! I thought that one was quite difficult, but it only took you 65 minutes to demolish it.

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

I thought the convention had been changed, so the Mare Humboldtianum is now said to be at the Northeast limb (and the Mare Orientale is, despite its name, on the western limb).

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

Well, yes. In fact I had it right when I wrote the post, but then I thought, "hey, if this is the Eastern limb, then it would be Mare Occidentale, right?", and changed everything the wrong way...

BTW, I used Charles Wood's "The Modern Moon" (great, great book!), the Rükl Atlas, the Clementine Atlas, and my old Moon globe from childhood. With this arsenal, it was a walk in the park. It couldn't be one of the great nearside maria because then it would have been easy to recognize (and it wasn't ), and it couldn't be one of the small farside things, because there was a little too much basalt in the image. So I scanned the limb...

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

OK, for lack of a clever riddle to give you, I'll go with 20 questions (yes-no) again: What is the pair of astronomical objects (i.e, two objects closely spaced on their own length scale) I am thinking of?

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Are they within our own galaxy?

__________________
Curt Renz - "Centaur"
For monthly astronomical calendar visit:
www.CurtRenz.com/astronomical

20 questions (yes-no) again: What is the pair of astronomical objects (i.e, two objects closely spaced on their own length scale) I am thinking of?

# 1: No, they are not within our own galaxy

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Are they within our local group of galaxies?

__________________
Curt Renz - "Centaur"
For monthly astronomical calendar visit:
www.CurtRenz.com/astronomical

20 questions (yes-no) again: What is the pair of astronomical objects (i.e, two objects closely spaced on their own length scale) I am thinking of?

# 1: No, they are not within our own galaxy
# 2: Not, they are not within our Local group of galaxies.

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Is one of them a really, really famous spiral galaxy, so famous that a BAUT
member uses its name as her screen name?

Don't you just love my questions?

Don't answer that! It wasn't supposed... oh, shoot.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

20 questions (yes-no) again: What is the pair of astronomical objects (i.e, two objects closely spaced on their own length scale) I am thinking of?

# 1: No, they are not within our own galaxy
# 2: Not, they are not within our Local group of galaxies.
# 3: No, none of the constituent parts is what an amateur astronomer would consider "prominent".

And yes, I luuurve your questions, Jeff. Hey, I counted one question, but I think my phrasing put an adequate amount of information in the answer

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Are they galaxies?

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.