"live coverage"

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

I don't quite know what you line of thought is here, in an exact sense of
the word, is anything 'live'?
Even seeing someone walking across the other side of the road, the time that
it takes for the light to meet your eye has a time lag ... although very
small.
There is no way that you can compensate for the speed of light, therefore
the events on Mars are 'unfolding' in a form of real time.

How else can it be presented?

Mick.

"bob" wrote in message
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

"bob" wrote:

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.

The previous landing were not the media spectacles that such events
are today.

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.

Welcome to the Brave New World of space exploration, where excitement,
hype, and headlines are the primary products of the mission.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Derek Lyons wrote:

"bob" wrote:

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.

The previous landing were not the media spectacles that such events
are today.

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.

Welcome to the Brave New World of space exploration, where excitement,
hype, and headlines are the primary products of the mission.

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

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

when the delay is long enough to allow comment on the fact that the event
has already happened, is the limit we came up with. This only happens in
space travel.

in 97, and in the 70's the story was framed by "the probe has already
reached mars, we are now just waiting to see what happened". While one other
in this thread said he heard it mentioned this year, clearly it was not
emphasized in the same way it was previously (at least 4 of us who watched
both landings missed any mention of it), and mission control reported it ("t
minus 10 to atmosphere entry" when in fact what was ten seconds away were
the signals indicating atmospheric entry, opportunity was already on the
ground by that point.)

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


"Mick Hyde ntlworld.com" mickhyde@remove wrote in message
...
I don't quite know what you line of thought is here, in an exact sense of
the word, is anything 'live'?
Even seeing someone walking across the other side of the road, the time
that
it takes for the light to meet your eye has a time lag ... although very
small.
There is no way that you can compensate for the speed of light, therefore
the events on Mars are 'unfolding' in a form of real time.

How else can it be presented?

Mick.

"bob" wrote in message
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

"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

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


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... :-)

Yeah, what he said :-)

What struck me several times in watching the MER EDL coverage was when
they said something like: "We're go for cruise stage separation." As if
mission control had a decision to make at that point.