"live coverage"

"bob" you are preaching to the choir on the relativistic realities. our
interest
was in what seemed like a conscious organizational decision, and what it
indicated about public relations.
bob

"Ten minutes ago the chute opened and here is the tone. Then minutes ago
the rockets fired, and here is the tone"

You an hallerb can discuss the public relations aspects.

Kent Betts wrote:

"Ten minutes ago the chute opened and here is the tone. Then minutes ago
the rockets fired, and here is the tone"

You an hallerb can discuss the public relations aspects.


I think the question is interesting from an almost philosophical
viewpoint; we don't often run into things where the speed of light
enters into the equation of what "now" and "live" are.

Pat

In article , Pat Flannery wrote:


Kent Betts wrote:

"Ten minutes ago the chute opened and here is the tone. Then minutes ago
the rockets fired, and here is the tone"

You an hallerb can discuss the public relations aspects.

I think the question is interesting from an almost philosophical
viewpoint; we don't often run into things where the speed of light
enters into the equation of what "now" and "live" are.

It's the first indication we ever had that light had a finite speed,
incidentally - complex calculations had been done to say when Jupiter's
moons should transit or be occulted, - and it was found that they worked
fine at conjunction but were reliably minutes off at opposition, or
similar...

The phenomenon is worth more than a footnote of interest :-)

--
-Andrew Gray

In message , Andrew Gray
writes
In article , Pat Flannery wrote:


Kent Betts wrote:

"Ten minutes ago the chute opened and here is the tone. Then minutes ago
the rockets fired, and here is the tone"

You an hallerb can discuss the public relations aspects.

I think the question is interesting from an almost philosophical
viewpoint; we don't often run into things where the speed of light
enters into the equation of what "now" and "live" are.

It's the first indication we ever had that light had a finite speed,
incidentally - complex calculations had been done to say when Jupiter's
moons should transit or be occulted, - and it was found that they worked
fine at conjunction but were reliably minutes off at opposition, or
similar...

There's a lovely SF story where that delay disappears - Philip Latham's
"The Xi Effect". But haven't you heard? Roemer's observations were
mistaken. There is no speed of light, which is why NASA keeps losing
space probes.
(Sorry - just filling in before the person who _really_ believes this
posts a response :-)
When I first watched "Deep Impact" I was quite impressed when they
mentioned the speed-of-light delay, though I can't help feeling that if
it was only 20 seconds it would be far too late to deflect
Wolf-Biederman.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"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.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


When I first watched "Deep Impact" I was quite impressed when they
mentioned the speed-of-light delay, though I can't help feeling that
if it was only 20 seconds it would be far too late to deflect
Wolf-Biederman.


I still like the Soviet nuclear bomb platform in dangerous decay from
its 1000 mile high orbit in "Space Cowboys"- this must have been the
solar maximum to end all solar maximums! ;-)

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


When I first watched "Deep Impact" I was quite impressed when they
mentioned the speed-of-light delay, though I can't help feeling that
if it was only 20 seconds it would be far too late to deflect
Wolf-Biederman.


I still like the Soviet nuclear bomb platform in dangerous decay from
its 1000 mile high orbit in "Space Cowboys"- this must have been the
solar maximum to end all solar maximums! ;-)


No no no... it's just REALLY HEAVY so it falls faster!



Pat