NASA should stop over-hyping their success

Seriously, all the self-congratulation and constant proclamations that
they
are the smartest people in the universe is getting really smarmy.

Uh, congratulating each other is perfectly fine. I don't see themselves
proclaiming they're the "smartest people in the universe". You people
bitching about this are amazing, not to mention the original poster seems to
be utterly confused not only about what they're doing but what they say they
wanted to do. Hint: a crater is not a crater is not a crater.

"Julius Kilo" wrote in message igy.com...
"ahh" wrote in message
...
I just though of another example and have to share it. During the Spirit
landing they mention during landing how rockets were fired to keep the
craft
out of a crater. I think I recall them mentioning they wouldn't want it
to
go in the crater. However with Opportunity it landed in a crater and they
call it a "hole in one" :-D Maybe they programmed the flight computers in
reverse on Opportunity :-) Reminds me of the old joke saying "I planned
it
that way"

I think you mean Pee Wee Herman when he went over the handlebars of his bike
and said: "I meant to do that!"

Seriously, all the self-congratulation and constant proclamations that they
are the smartest people in the universe is getting really smarmy. It
accounts for about half of any press briefing. Maybe it's a JPL thing--the
manned types don't seem to act that way. One guy said that the discovery of
bedrock will rank with the discovery of volcanoes on Io, or geysers on
Titan.

Meanwhile, the glitch on Spirit has not increased their resolve to actually
*do* anything with all this expensive hardware that could fail at any time.
Spirit will now gaze at its navel for another *three weeks*. Might as well
give it a chance to fail completely? On the other side of Mars, Theisinger
says that, sure, Opportunity has a clear path off and no hi-gain antenna
problems like Spirit, but it won't leave its nest for two weeks, just as
before. Not even an allowance for a learning curve! There seems to be no
equation where a decision to keep a Rover on ice costs anything. They have
however noted that the solar panels are degrading every day at the expected
rate. Well, that's a science experiment of sorts I guess.


When people rush bad things tend to happen. The problem with Spirit
based on some technical info I've heard about it is solvable... but the
press conference briefings they give on it is too vague and non-technical
for anybody to say that. Maybe part of the problem is just how they
communicate with the public. Their press conferences are geared up for
people with only a 7th or 8th grade education. It comforts that audience
to hear the kinds of stuff spouted at the press conference. Somebody
like you needs a higher level of info to think about.

-McDaniel

I not sure I'm explaining myself right here so bear with me. I'm talking
how they don't seem to level with us when it comes to the reality of the
situation. Like the position of oppurtunity. They describe it as
"jackpot". Granted there is some bedrock there to check out but thats it!
I don't see nothing else. I think Jackpot would have been more correct if
bedrock existed and then over at another spot another type of rock existed.
Almost everything that happens that can be hyped does get hyped.

I don't understand this. The landscapes of the Viking, Pathfinder
and Spirit landing sites are pretty similar, light red brown/tan
soil and dark boulders. This is to be expected, because they
had to pick the same kind of landing sites (ie, safe). This site
is also a safe landing site, but doesn't look at all like the others.
Hardly any boulders, dark red brown soil, and white or very lightly
colored outcrops of rock. It sure looked strange to me when I
first saw it, relative to the other landing sites. Now, if they could
land anywhere, I'm sure you could find even more spectacular
sites from what I've seen of the MGS pictures, like inside
a crater with sedimented deposits, such as here

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/.../26/index.html

or maybe near some frosty sand dunes

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/.../27/index.html

but let's be reasonable. In any case, the mission is not to
provide "jackpot" pictures for the public, but to do some science,
and it looks like they are going to be able to do some great
science at both sites. The "hype" that goes on at the press
conferences is understandable, since the public is where
they get their funds, and putting on a show is a necessary
evil, but I'm not so sure it's hype rather than just genuine
excitement. I'm excited about it, and I have nothing to
do with the project, so why shouldn't they be?


Patrick

You people
bitching about this are amazing, not to mention the original poster seems
to
be utterly confused not only about what they're doing but what they say
they
wanted to do. Hint: a crater is not a crater is not a crater.

Like I said I don't have a big beef about this but I do have beef about
people assuming things wrong about me (achiles heel) :-) So I got to keep
going. Huh!

There searching for past water evidence be examing rocks (pretty simple).
All rocks come from bedrock. It is better to get bedrock that is broken up
than bedrock that is one big sheet. The lander can only "shave" It can not
dig. They did imply they didn't want to go in the crater on Spirit. One
reason is perfectly clear by looking at Opportunity pictures is all the fine
material collects in the hole. Dirt blows in but doesn't blow out. They
want broken up rock MORE than they want fine grain material. Its better to
land on the outside of the crater were particles were thrown than in the
crater with possible chance of not getting out. Though it looks like this
crater should be no difficulty.

I'm bowing out of this argument because I can't believe I'm bitching about
this either. I just wanted peoples opionions on it and I got it.
Personally I think Sprits landing site is more of a "Jackpot" than
Opportunities. It would be nice if I could just trust the opinions of the
scientists without having to second guess thier hype and emotion. But thats
the way its I guess and I'll be able to manage.

Adios


"t_mark" wrote in message news:kOaRb.4$ay1.0@okepread05...
Seriously, all the self-congratulation and constant proclamations that
they
are the smartest people in the universe is getting really smarmy.

Uh, congratulating each other is perfectly fine. I don't see themselves
proclaiming they're the "smartest people in the universe". You people
bitching about this are amazing, not to mention the original poster seems
to
be utterly confused not only about what they're doing but what they say
they
wanted to do. Hint: a crater is not a crater is not a crater.

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...
"Tom Merkle" wrote in message

Almost everything that happens that can be hyped does get hyped.

agree 100%. When I hear that NASA scientists are 'astounded' and
'don't know what to think' over current pictures from Opportunity, I
imagine that they must have found an alien artifact or something--only
to discover that the jaw-dropping was from seeing the two different
types of rock, which the same people who are 'astounded' originally
listed as a reason for sending MER B to that location in the first
place! Gee, what a miracle.

We've seen the same thing happen when a probe arrives pretty much anywhere
in the solar system. For Mars, we only experience a growth of close-up
experience a little at a time. The early moments of revelations of new
vistas -- after a period of years of hard work, and following the risky and
exhilirating EDL process -- is always breathtaking. I think it's great to
see this cohesive team of competent people experiencing what I am sure will
be a career high for them, and observe how their curiousity drives their
motivation.

Not being able to comprehend this excitement shows not only a lack of
understanding of their experience, but a lack of imagination. It takes no
effort to mentally temper their colorful statements if you are put off. Let
them be excited.

Jon
I am all for excitement in one's field.
After an extra day of reading & listening, it's clear that media
misquotes are more to blame than NASA hype. The initial reports made
it sound like NASA was exceptionally excited to have landed in the
type of area they had aimed for. Later stories have more accurately
made clear that the excitement was caused by initial proximity to
samples and likely high science return being less dependant on a long
rover life.

I saw the main public spokesman even attempt to correct CNN's initial
impression that JPL had aimed for that exact 20 ft crater, explaining
that "hole in one" meant not an extremely accurate landing, but an
extremely fortunate random starting location for the rover.

Tom Merkle

"t_mark" wrote in message news:kOaRb.4$ay1.0@okepread05...
Seriously, all the self-congratulation and constant proclamations that
they
are the smartest people in the universe is getting really smarmy.

Uh, congratulating each other is perfectly fine. I don't see themselves
proclaiming they're the "smartest people in the universe". You people
bitching about this are amazing,

If you don't have access to NASA TV and your only insight to the
briefings is what CNN shows, it gives you a really smarmy impression
and the self congratulation really does appear to be flowing, because
nobody at CNN understands what really is so exciting, so that's what
they show. But that's what CNN shows. I got a chance to watch a
webcast an hour ago and that was far different.

I think having watched this all unfold the majority of the impression
is due to CNN types not reading the pre-landing briefs thoroughly, so
they seize on whatever words they do understand and they're the ones
that provide the unnecessary hype. Probably the way it happened for
Apollo too, I'm sure.

So I'd like to retract the bitching I did towards the rover team and
lay it on the media.

Tom Merkle

Cardman wrote in message . ..

Unfortunately, the landing system on these MERs is not programmed to
handle or avoid craters.

Reminds me of the old joke saying "I planned it that way"

Ok...

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

(I'm sure Andy knows this but others might not)

The Mega Monster Rover currently planned for 2009 is supposed to have
a system that can handle, avoid, and if it chooses to, land in a
crater.

Tom Merkle

In article ,
(Hobbs aka McDaniel) wrote:

Maybe part of the problem is just how they
communicate with the public. Their press conferences are geared up for
people with only a 7th or 8th grade education. It comforts that audience
to hear the kinds of stuff spouted at the press conference. Somebody
like you needs a higher level of info to think about.

Press briefings are geared towards those who are not specialists in the
field(s) in question. That includes those with university degrees in
other fields. Someone with a doctorate in medicine or physics or media
studies watching on NASA TV, for example, can be expected to have had
more than a 7th or 8th grade education, but that does not necessarily
mean they would not also be at sea if Squyres et al started spouting at
them the specialist jargon of the practicising geologist.

Those who want the more technical details will need to wait for the
scientific papers to be published,

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

"ahh" wrote in message

I'm bowing out of this argument because I can't believe I'm bitching about
this either.

:-)

It would be nice if I could just trust the opinions of the
scientists without having to second guess thier hype and emotion. But
thats
the way its I guess and I'll be able to manage.

Things will probably settle down for them in a few days. They won't be
Spock, but maybe closer to Scotty.

Jon