NASA should stop over-hyping their success

NASA should stop over-hyping their success. Granted they are competing for
funds with other organizations in the government and have to play politics,
but come on I'm starting to roll my eyes at all their hype. People are
going to stop believeing them. I already have at least when it comes to
them explaining the importance of something.

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.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:19:22 +0800, "ahh" wrote:

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.

Then you are blind. :-P

I today was looking at that massive crater that they landed very close
to and wondering what that stripy stuff was down the bottom?

Then from these low res views that stuff looks not unlike a cross
between mud and fresh tarmac.

The interest should shoot up 10,000% when the high res scan is
returned over the next few days, when then you should see some very
interesting stuff and plain freaky things.

I think Jackpot would have been more correct if
bedrock existed and then over at another spot another type of rock existed.

Bedrock is a term to describe that what exists under a soil covering,
which means that there could well be a great amount of different forms
of bedrock around this region.

And hey no martian dust everywhere, where here you have a very strange
surface.

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

Ah well if you spent years on a project that could have gone splat on
Mars, then you would also be very happy to see those first pictures
and what this unusual surface is really like.

Also I noticed that this was a good event for the men there to give
the women there a nice long breast squeezing hug. :-]

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

"ahh" wrote in message ...
NASA should stop over-hyping their success. Granted they are competing for
funds with other organizations in the government and have to play politics,
but come on I'm starting to roll my eyes at all their hype. People are
going to stop believeing them. I already have at least when it comes to
them explaining the importance of something.
[snip]
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.

That's the same 'amazing!' hype from Apollo (Gee, lunar surface dust
really is grey!) that caused the public to lose interest after Apollo
11 was done, despite the actual impressive finds on later missions.
When they tell you everything is exciting, nothing is, even the really
exciting things.

It's one of two things--either (a) they're trying to make their niche
seem more important to journalists who they figure don't know any
better, or (b) they have extremely limited imaginations and never
thought that if they sent a rover to some place other than a rock
strewn flood plain it might look like something other than a rock
strewn flood plain.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on (a), and for the
moment it's working, mainly because the average journalist really
DOESN'T know any better. But shortly reality will set in and coverage
will sink into disinterest as the rover missions continue--unless they
actually stumble over a) an alien artifact or b) an obvious sign
Martian life, a scenario that seems ever more likely as detailed pics
are returned of a Mars less dry than we thought.

Tom Merkle

"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

Not being able to comprehend this excitement shows not only a lack of
understanding of their experience, but a lack of imagination.

You assume to much there. Its just my personal opinion that they should act
more like objective scientists in front of the camera. These guys are
teaching us and I want to believe what they say. Controling their emotion
and telling things exactly how it REALLY IS not only shows scientific
professionalism but also makes us understand better the situation. A good
scientist controls their emotion.

I don't have a real big beef about it. Just being like Dr Becker and
voicing my opinion.

January 25, 2004

ahh wrote:

Not being able to comprehend this excitement shows not only a lack of
understanding of their experience, but a lack of imagination.

You assume to much there. Its just my personal opinion that they should act
more like objective scientists in front of the camera. These guys are
teaching us and I want to believe what they say. Controling their emotion
and telling things exactly how it REALLY IS not only shows scientific
professionalism but also makes us understand better the situation. A good
scientist controls their emotion.

I'm imaginative. I can see it now.

Lander augers in. Crater imaged. Accusations fly. Mayhem ensues. Arrests made.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

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"


"Tom Merkle" wrote in message
om...
"ahh" wrote in message
...
NASA should stop over-hyping their success. Granted they are competing
for
funds with other organizations in the government and have to play
politics,
but come on I'm starting to roll my eyes at all their hype. People are
going to stop believeing them. I already have at least when it comes to
them explaining the importance of something.
[snip]
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.

That's the same 'amazing!' hype from Apollo (Gee, lunar surface dust
really is grey!) that caused the public to lose interest after Apollo
11 was done, despite the actual impressive finds on later missions.
When they tell you everything is exciting, nothing is, even the really
exciting things.

It's one of two things--either (a) they're trying to make their niche
seem more important to journalists who they figure don't know any
better, or (b) they have extremely limited imaginations and never
thought that if they sent a rover to some place other than a rock
strewn flood plain it might look like something other than a rock
strewn flood plain.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on (a), and for the
moment it's working, mainly because the average journalist really
DOESN'T know any better. But shortly reality will set in and coverage
will sink into disinterest as the rover missions continue--unless they
actually stumble over a) an alien artifact or b) an obvious sign
Martian life, a scenario that seems ever more likely as detailed pics
are returned of a Mars less dry than we thought.

Tom Merkle

"Tom Merkle" wrote in message
When they tell you everything is exciting, nothing is, even the really
exciting things.
A couple of days ago i figured whats so irksome about O'Keefe, he uses the
word "exciting" very annoyingly often. The guy could be talking about
layoffs, scrapping programs or stuff that may happen multiple decades into
future, its still always all very "exciting".

-kert

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:24:30 +0800, "ahh" wrote:

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.

Well the rocket was fired to stop it going sidewards, where avoiding
the crater was an added bonus.

I think I recall them mentioning they wouldn't want it to
go in the crater.

No in that the landing would have been a lot more "eventful" had it
landed in that big crater.

However with Opportunity it landed in a crater and they
call it a "hole in one" :-D

Opportunity landed more in a shallow depression, when it can already
see over the edge of this crater in places with hardly trying.

However, there appears to be a very big crater just a short distance
away, which they certainly could visit.

Maybe they programmed the flight computers in reverse on
Opportunity :-)

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

"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.

Just think of all the stuff that had to work in succession during the
landing process where they didn't have the option to exercise their
anal-retentiveness. If the engineers could have theoretically frozen the
entry, descent and landing at any time to obsess over details--maybe make a
one week study of wind conditions or something--they surely would not have
landed yet.