"live coverage"

"Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ...

If they want hype and TV ratings, they ought to let Pat write all the
press
releases and conduct mission briefings . . . ;-)

Please let the next mission be to Venus!

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:14:31 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
wrote:


"Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ...

If they want hype and TV ratings, they ought to let Pat write all the
press
releases and conduct mission briefings . . . ;-)

Please let the next mission be to Venus!

If Pat's doing the commentary, we won't know it's not if it isn't.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:

If Pat's doing the commentary, we won't know it's not if it isn't.


Oh, now that's a turn of phrase...ranks right up there with Bilbo's
birthday speech... :-)

Pat

so whats your point ???
do you need to get explained every single little fact when watching or
reading media?!
i think one can expect enough intelligence to understand what live means....



There is a discussion going on in a space oriented web log group about the
"live" coverage of the mars landing.

The point was, that unlike all previous missions we could remember, the
people at JPL/NASA were acting as if the landing confirmation signals they
were watching represented a live right now event, never mentioning, as
everyone seemed to on pathfinder/viking et al that in fact the event had
actually happened 10 minutes before, and this was just the first news we
had
of what had happened.

We all agree it was more exciting this way, and even went to the
metaphysical that in relativistic terms, "now" is defined by the speed of
light, and this caveat is nothing more than a de-energizing footnote.

however: the fact that it was not mentioned on any of the coverage we saw
suggested that the decision was made as policy to view incoming signals as
live for the sake of the public event.

Does anyone here know if this is in fact true, or did anyone here hear
NASA/JPL mention the 10 minute lag

Bob

"bob" wrote in
om:

There is a discussion going on in a space oriented web log group about
the "live" coverage of the mars landing.

The point was, that unlike all previous missions we could remember,
the people at JPL/NASA were acting as if the landing confirmation
signals they were watching represented a live right now event, never
mentioning, as everyone seemed to on pathfinder/viking et al that in
fact the event had actually happened 10 minutes before, and this was
just the first news we had of what had happened.

We all agree it was more exciting this way, and even went to the
metaphysical that in relativistic terms, "now" is defined by the speed
of light, and this caveat is nothing more than a de-energizing
footnote.

however: the fact that it was not mentioned on any of the coverage we
saw suggested that the decision was made as policy to view incoming
signals as live for the sake of the public event.

Does anyone here know if this is in fact true, or did anyone here hear
NASA/JPL mention the 10 minute lag

Bob



Sorry to disappoint you, but they *did* mention it quite clearly, (3
times!), during the 'Spirit' landing..
I did seem to miss any such reference during the 'Opportunity' landing.
Dont know if I was just less focussed or if the absence of mention was
real. There was a mention of it in the preamble to the landing when space-
prep of the craft for landing began. Venting of coolant, etc. But the
landign of mer-b was conducted much more like a live event.