Why were the Voyager spacecraft numbered “out-of-order”?
Voyager 2 was launched on August 20, 1977. Sixteen days later, Voyager 1 was launched on September 5, 1977.
Why was the first spacecraft numbered #2 and the second spacecraft numbered #1?
Clarification: One would expect that the first spacecraft to be manufactured would be the first ready for launch. Since that didn't happen, there is more to the story, and that is what this question is about.
voyager
asked Nov 12 '18 at 11:00
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,64111647
|
show 3 more comments
Voyager 2 was launched on August 20, 1977. Sixteen days later, Voyager 1 was launched on September 5, 1977.
Why was the first spacecraft numbered #2 and the second spacecraft numbered #1?
Clarification: One would expect that the first spacecraft to be manufactured would be the first ready for launch. Since that didn't happen, there is more to the story, and that is what this question is about.
voyager
asked Nov 12 '18 at 11:00
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,64111647
2
That still doesn't explain why #2 was launched first.
– Dr Sheldon
Nov 12 '18 at 11:12
2
Voyager 1 was started later but used a faster trajectory. From wikipedia "On November 7, 2012, Voyager 2 reached 100 AU from the sun, making it the third human-made object to reach 100 AU. Voyager 1 was 122 AU from the Sun" , "In 2013 Voyager 1 was escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.6 AU per year, while Voyager 2 was only escaping at 3.3 AU per year.[41] (Each year Voyager 1 increases its lead over Voyager 2) ".
– Uwe
Nov 12 '18 at 12:11
1
There is a very good documentary on the Voyager spacecraft called "The Farthest" available on Netflix. I watched it a few nights ago and the numbering was explained there as well.
– James
Nov 12 '18 at 16:57
1
While I don't know for sure, I would think that something like the Voyagers would be built in parallel, rather than one after the other.
– jamesqf
Nov 12 '18 at 17:57
4
On MER we numbered the builds, but used letters for the launches. So MER-1 was built before MER-2. MER-A would both launch and arrive first, and MER-B would launch and arrive second. We weren't sure which hardware would launch first, and in fact due to how system testing on the two units was laid out, MER-2 became MER-A (Spirit), and MER-1 became MER-B (Opportunity).
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:18
|
show 3 more comments
Voyager 2 was launched on August 20, 1977. Sixteen days later, Voyager 1 was launched on September 5, 1977.
Why was the first spacecraft numbered #2 and the second spacecraft numbered #1?
Clarification: One would expect that the first spacecraft to be manufactured would be the first ready for launch. Since that didn't happen, there is more to the story, and that is what this question is about.
voyager
asked Nov 12 '18 at 11:00
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,64111647
Voyager 2 was launched on August 20, 1977. Sixteen days later, Voyager 1 was launched on September 5, 1977.
Why was the first spacecraft numbered #2 and the second spacecraft numbered #1?
Clarification: One would expect that the first spacecraft to be manufactured would be the first ready for launch. Since that didn't happen, there is more to the story, and that is what this question is about.
voyager
voyager
asked Nov 12 '18 at 11:00
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,64111647
asked Nov 12 '18 at 11:00
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,64111647
edited Nov 12 '18 at 12:40
Dr Sheldon
asked Nov 12 '18 at 11:00
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,64111647
asked Nov 12 '18 at 11:00
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,64111647
asked Nov 12 '18 at 11:00
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,64111647
4,64111647
2
That still doesn't explain why #2 was launched first.
– Dr Sheldon
Nov 12 '18 at 11:12
2
Voyager 1 was started later but used a faster trajectory. From wikipedia "On November 7, 2012, Voyager 2 reached 100 AU from the sun, making it the third human-made object to reach 100 AU. Voyager 1 was 122 AU from the Sun" , "In 2013 Voyager 1 was escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.6 AU per year, while Voyager 2 was only escaping at 3.3 AU per year.[41] (Each year Voyager 1 increases its lead over Voyager 2) ".
– Uwe
Nov 12 '18 at 12:11
1
There is a very good documentary on the Voyager spacecraft called "The Farthest" available on Netflix. I watched it a few nights ago and the numbering was explained there as well.
– James
Nov 12 '18 at 16:57
1
While I don't know for sure, I would think that something like the Voyagers would be built in parallel, rather than one after the other.
– jamesqf
Nov 12 '18 at 17:57
4
On MER we numbered the builds, but used letters for the launches. So MER-1 was built before MER-2. MER-A would both launch and arrive first, and MER-B would launch and arrive second. We weren't sure which hardware would launch first, and in fact due to how system testing on the two units was laid out, MER-2 became MER-A (Spirit), and MER-1 became MER-B (Opportunity).
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:18
|
show 3 more comments
2
That still doesn't explain why #2 was launched first.
– Dr Sheldon
Nov 12 '18 at 11:12
2
Voyager 1 was started later but used a faster trajectory. From wikipedia "On November 7, 2012, Voyager 2 reached 100 AU from the sun, making it the third human-made object to reach 100 AU. Voyager 1 was 122 AU from the Sun" , "In 2013 Voyager 1 was escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.6 AU per year, while Voyager 2 was only escaping at 3.3 AU per year.[41] (Each year Voyager 1 increases its lead over Voyager 2) ".
– Uwe
Nov 12 '18 at 12:11
1
There is a very good documentary on the Voyager spacecraft called "The Farthest" available on Netflix. I watched it a few nights ago and the numbering was explained there as well.
– James
Nov 12 '18 at 16:57
1
While I don't know for sure, I would think that something like the Voyagers would be built in parallel, rather than one after the other.
– jamesqf
Nov 12 '18 at 17:57
4
On MER we numbered the builds, but used letters for the launches. So MER-1 was built before MER-2. MER-A would both launch and arrive first, and MER-B would launch and arrive second. We weren't sure which hardware would launch first, and in fact due to how system testing on the two units was laid out, MER-2 became MER-A (Spirit), and MER-1 became MER-B (Opportunity).
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:18
2
2
That still doesn't explain why #2 was launched first.
– Dr Sheldon
Nov 12 '18 at 11:12
That still doesn't explain why #2 was launched first.
– Dr Sheldon
Nov 12 '18 at 11:12
2
2
Voyager 1 was started later but used a faster trajectory. From wikipedia "On November 7, 2012, Voyager 2 reached 100 AU from the sun, making it the third human-made object to reach 100 AU. Voyager 1 was 122 AU from the Sun" , "In 2013 Voyager 1 was escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.6 AU per year, while Voyager 2 was only escaping at 3.3 AU per year.[41] (Each year Voyager 1 increases its lead over Voyager 2) ".
– Uwe
Nov 12 '18 at 12:11
Voyager 1 was started later but used a faster trajectory. From wikipedia "On November 7, 2012, Voyager 2 reached 100 AU from the sun, making it the third human-made object to reach 100 AU. Voyager 1 was 122 AU from the Sun" , "In 2013 Voyager 1 was escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.6 AU per year, while Voyager 2 was only escaping at 3.3 AU per year.[41] (Each year Voyager 1 increases its lead over Voyager 2) ".
– Uwe
Nov 12 '18 at 12:11
1
1
There is a very good documentary on the Voyager spacecraft called "The Farthest" available on Netflix. I watched it a few nights ago and the numbering was explained there as well.
– James
Nov 12 '18 at 16:57
There is a very good documentary on the Voyager spacecraft called "The Farthest" available on Netflix. I watched it a few nights ago and the numbering was explained there as well.
– James
Nov 12 '18 at 16:57
1
1
While I don't know for sure, I would think that something like the Voyagers would be built in parallel, rather than one after the other.
– jamesqf
Nov 12 '18 at 17:57
While I don't know for sure, I would think that something like the Voyagers would be built in parallel, rather than one after the other.
– jamesqf
Nov 12 '18 at 17:57
4
4
On MER we numbered the builds, but used letters for the launches. So MER-1 was built before MER-2. MER-A would both launch and arrive first, and MER-B would launch and arrive second. We weren't sure which hardware would launch first, and in fact due to how system testing on the two units was laid out, MER-2 became MER-A (Spirit), and MER-1 became MER-B (Opportunity).
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:18
On MER we numbered the builds, but used letters for the launches. So MER-1 was built before MER-2. MER-A would both launch and arrive first, and MER-B would launch and arrive second. We weren't sure which hardware would launch first, and in fact due to how system testing on the two units was laid out, MER-2 became MER-A (Spirit), and MER-1 became MER-B (Opportunity).
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:18
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Voyager 1 was the first to reach Jupiter and the first to reach Saturn, as it was launched on a "shorter and faster trajectory" (Wikipedia, NASA). So the numbering was chosen to reflect the order of the main part of the mission, not the launches.
I have not found any sources explicitly stating that as the reason, but the arrivals at Jupiter and Saturn received much more publicity than the launches, and at the time it certainly seemed natural that the first Voyager mission to reach Jupiter would be Voyager 1.
In Exploring Space by William E. Burrows, there is the following footnote:
Three weeks before the scheduled launch, the spacecraft that was
originally to be Voyager 2 developed mechanical problems. As a result,
a "spare" that actually carried the designation Voyager 3 became
Voyager 2. Once repaired, the original Voyager 2 was made Voyager 1.
The original voyager 1 was shipped back to JPL.
This at least shows that the naming had nothing to do when when each piece of hardware became available, since they renamed the hardware when they had to swap it out.
A reference to a NASA memo or even contemporaneous media coverage specifically supporting this reason would be a better answer, but this is what I have.
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Mark FoskeyMark Foskey
1,985917
3
It's not from a contemporaneous source, but here's something from NASA's Voyager mission page stating this is the reason: nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia01480.html
– Elezar
Nov 12 '18 at 17:36
1
This is correct. This is also covered in The Interstellar Age: Inside the Forty-Year Voyager Mission by Jim Bell.
– Brian Rogers
Nov 12 '18 at 17:37
1
The original Voyager 1 remains on display today in the von Karman auditorium at JPL.
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:15
Regardless of this clarification being a official statement or not. I found this is very convincing.
– Boosted Nub
Nov 27 '18 at 8:17
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31969%2fwhy-were-the-voyager-spacecraft-numbered-out-of-order%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Voyager 1 was the first to reach Jupiter and the first to reach Saturn, as it was launched on a "shorter and faster trajectory" (Wikipedia, NASA). So the numbering was chosen to reflect the order of the main part of the mission, not the launches.
I have not found any sources explicitly stating that as the reason, but the arrivals at Jupiter and Saturn received much more publicity than the launches, and at the time it certainly seemed natural that the first Voyager mission to reach Jupiter would be Voyager 1.
In Exploring Space by William E. Burrows, there is the following footnote:
Three weeks before the scheduled launch, the spacecraft that was
originally to be Voyager 2 developed mechanical problems. As a result,
a "spare" that actually carried the designation Voyager 3 became
Voyager 2. Once repaired, the original Voyager 2 was made Voyager 1.
The original voyager 1 was shipped back to JPL.
This at least shows that the naming had nothing to do when when each piece of hardware became available, since they renamed the hardware when they had to swap it out.
A reference to a NASA memo or even contemporaneous media coverage specifically supporting this reason would be a better answer, but this is what I have.
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Mark FoskeyMark Foskey
1,985917
3
It's not from a contemporaneous source, but here's something from NASA's Voyager mission page stating this is the reason: nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia01480.html
– Elezar
Nov 12 '18 at 17:36
1
This is correct. This is also covered in The Interstellar Age: Inside the Forty-Year Voyager Mission by Jim Bell.
– Brian Rogers
Nov 12 '18 at 17:37
1
The original Voyager 1 remains on display today in the von Karman auditorium at JPL.
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:15
Regardless of this clarification being a official statement or not. I found this is very convincing.
– Boosted Nub
Nov 27 '18 at 8:17
add a comment |
Voyager 1 was the first to reach Jupiter and the first to reach Saturn, as it was launched on a "shorter and faster trajectory" (Wikipedia, NASA). So the numbering was chosen to reflect the order of the main part of the mission, not the launches.
I have not found any sources explicitly stating that as the reason, but the arrivals at Jupiter and Saturn received much more publicity than the launches, and at the time it certainly seemed natural that the first Voyager mission to reach Jupiter would be Voyager 1.
In Exploring Space by William E. Burrows, there is the following footnote:
Three weeks before the scheduled launch, the spacecraft that was
originally to be Voyager 2 developed mechanical problems. As a result,
a "spare" that actually carried the designation Voyager 3 became
Voyager 2. Once repaired, the original Voyager 2 was made Voyager 1.
The original voyager 1 was shipped back to JPL.
This at least shows that the naming had nothing to do when when each piece of hardware became available, since they renamed the hardware when they had to swap it out.
A reference to a NASA memo or even contemporaneous media coverage specifically supporting this reason would be a better answer, but this is what I have.
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Mark FoskeyMark Foskey
1,985917
3
It's not from a contemporaneous source, but here's something from NASA's Voyager mission page stating this is the reason: nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia01480.html
– Elezar
Nov 12 '18 at 17:36
1
This is correct. This is also covered in The Interstellar Age: Inside the Forty-Year Voyager Mission by Jim Bell.
– Brian Rogers
Nov 12 '18 at 17:37
1
The original Voyager 1 remains on display today in the von Karman auditorium at JPL.
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:15
Regardless of this clarification being a official statement or not. I found this is very convincing.
– Boosted Nub
Nov 27 '18 at 8:17
add a comment |
Voyager 1 was the first to reach Jupiter and the first to reach Saturn, as it was launched on a "shorter and faster trajectory" (Wikipedia, NASA). So the numbering was chosen to reflect the order of the main part of the mission, not the launches.
I have not found any sources explicitly stating that as the reason, but the arrivals at Jupiter and Saturn received much more publicity than the launches, and at the time it certainly seemed natural that the first Voyager mission to reach Jupiter would be Voyager 1.
In Exploring Space by William E. Burrows, there is the following footnote:
Three weeks before the scheduled launch, the spacecraft that was
originally to be Voyager 2 developed mechanical problems. As a result,
a "spare" that actually carried the designation Voyager 3 became
Voyager 2. Once repaired, the original Voyager 2 was made Voyager 1.
The original voyager 1 was shipped back to JPL.
This at least shows that the naming had nothing to do when when each piece of hardware became available, since they renamed the hardware when they had to swap it out.
A reference to a NASA memo or even contemporaneous media coverage specifically supporting this reason would be a better answer, but this is what I have.
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Mark FoskeyMark Foskey
1,985917
Voyager 1 was the first to reach Jupiter and the first to reach Saturn, as it was launched on a "shorter and faster trajectory" (Wikipedia, NASA). So the numbering was chosen to reflect the order of the main part of the mission, not the launches.
I have not found any sources explicitly stating that as the reason, but the arrivals at Jupiter and Saturn received much more publicity than the launches, and at the time it certainly seemed natural that the first Voyager mission to reach Jupiter would be Voyager 1.
In Exploring Space by William E. Burrows, there is the following footnote:
Three weeks before the scheduled launch, the spacecraft that was
originally to be Voyager 2 developed mechanical problems. As a result,
a "spare" that actually carried the designation Voyager 3 became
Voyager 2. Once repaired, the original Voyager 2 was made Voyager 1.
The original voyager 1 was shipped back to JPL.
This at least shows that the naming had nothing to do when when each piece of hardware became available, since they renamed the hardware when they had to swap it out.
A reference to a NASA memo or even contemporaneous media coverage specifically supporting this reason would be a better answer, but this is what I have.
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Mark FoskeyMark Foskey
1,985917
edited Nov 12 '18 at 16:36
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Mark FoskeyMark Foskey
1,985917
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Mark FoskeyMark Foskey
1,985917
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Mark FoskeyMark Foskey
1,985917
1,985917
3
It's not from a contemporaneous source, but here's something from NASA's Voyager mission page stating this is the reason: nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia01480.html
– Elezar
Nov 12 '18 at 17:36
1
This is correct. This is also covered in The Interstellar Age: Inside the Forty-Year Voyager Mission by Jim Bell.
– Brian Rogers
Nov 12 '18 at 17:37
1
The original Voyager 1 remains on display today in the von Karman auditorium at JPL.
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:15
Regardless of this clarification being a official statement or not. I found this is very convincing.
– Boosted Nub
Nov 27 '18 at 8:17
add a comment |
3
It's not from a contemporaneous source, but here's something from NASA's Voyager mission page stating this is the reason: nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia01480.html
– Elezar
Nov 12 '18 at 17:36
1
This is correct. This is also covered in The Interstellar Age: Inside the Forty-Year Voyager Mission by Jim Bell.
– Brian Rogers
Nov 12 '18 at 17:37
1
The original Voyager 1 remains on display today in the von Karman auditorium at JPL.
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:15
Regardless of this clarification being a official statement or not. I found this is very convincing.
– Boosted Nub
Nov 27 '18 at 8:17
3
3
It's not from a contemporaneous source, but here's something from NASA's Voyager mission page stating this is the reason: nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia01480.html
– Elezar
Nov 12 '18 at 17:36
It's not from a contemporaneous source, but here's something from NASA's Voyager mission page stating this is the reason: nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/pia01480.html
– Elezar
Nov 12 '18 at 17:36
1
1
This is correct. This is also covered in The Interstellar Age: Inside the Forty-Year Voyager Mission by Jim Bell.
– Brian Rogers
Nov 12 '18 at 17:37
This is correct. This is also covered in The Interstellar Age: Inside the Forty-Year Voyager Mission by Jim Bell.
– Brian Rogers
Nov 12 '18 at 17:37
1
1
The original Voyager 1 remains on display today in the von Karman auditorium at JPL.
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:15
The original Voyager 1 remains on display today in the von Karman auditorium at JPL.
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:15
Regardless of this clarification being a official statement or not. I found this is very convincing.
– Boosted Nub
Nov 27 '18 at 8:17
Regardless of this clarification being a official statement or not. I found this is very convincing.
– Boosted Nub
Nov 27 '18 at 8:17
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31969%2fwhy-were-the-voyager-spacecraft-numbered-out-of-order%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
That still doesn't explain why #2 was launched first.
– Dr Sheldon
Nov 12 '18 at 11:12
2
Voyager 1 was started later but used a faster trajectory. From wikipedia "On November 7, 2012, Voyager 2 reached 100 AU from the sun, making it the third human-made object to reach 100 AU. Voyager 1 was 122 AU from the Sun" , "In 2013 Voyager 1 was escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.6 AU per year, while Voyager 2 was only escaping at 3.3 AU per year.[41] (Each year Voyager 1 increases its lead over Voyager 2) ".
– Uwe
Nov 12 '18 at 12:11
1
There is a very good documentary on the Voyager spacecraft called "The Farthest" available on Netflix. I watched it a few nights ago and the numbering was explained there as well.
– James
Nov 12 '18 at 16:57
1
While I don't know for sure, I would think that something like the Voyagers would be built in parallel, rather than one after the other.
– jamesqf
Nov 12 '18 at 17:57
4
On MER we numbered the builds, but used letters for the launches. So MER-1 was built before MER-2. MER-A would both launch and arrive first, and MER-B would launch and arrive second. We weren't sure which hardware would launch first, and in fact due to how system testing on the two units was laid out, MER-2 became MER-A (Spirit), and MER-1 became MER-B (Opportunity).
– Mark Adler
Nov 12 '18 at 21:18