Beyond that, though, the examples are few. The Soviets obtained a handful of pictures of the surface of Venus from a series of landers over nearly two decades, but survival time on Venus even for the most hardened of landers was measured in minutes. Asteroids Eros and Itokawa were more "bumped into" than "landed upon". Indeed, the Eros probe was never designed for landing and froze at -279 °F, whereas the Venus probes had baked at 869 °F. Life is harsh for a would-be extra-planetary lander. The Huygens probe transmitted from Saturn's moon Titan for two hours. Anything beyond these examples has been more missile than lander, designed to collect data before a destructive impact.
So you'd think the world would prick up its ears at the news of another landing attempt, particularly one as daring as Rosetta. And you'd think the European Space Agency would be anxious to get the news out. And so, it seems, they are. But not in the mode of JFK announcing the Apollo programme to a receptive USA.
No, it's more in the mode of Obi-Wan Kenobi announcing the coming of age of another Jedi Knight ... or something. To be honest, I don't know what to make of ESA's new promotional video:
As visually impressive as it is, it's a bit cringey. Not just because of Aidan Gillen's not-quite-Shakespearean north Dublin accent, or his mispronunciation of the "orangins of water" (how did that get past the editors, at 1:40?). The script itself is awful. To be honest, I thought the JFK speech was extremely hammy, but this ESA effort takes the biscuit. Is it even recognisably about a current real-life mission?
I wonder if ESA are making a mistake with this Star Wars-esque approach. Young people are quite capable of being enthused for the sake of the science, without the added sci-fi. I remember writing a hopeful letter to NASA as a young teenager, about the space shuttle programme then in development, and getting technical literature by return, not a Star Wars video cassette. More recently, NASA's "Seven Minutes of Terror" promotional video for the Mars Curiosity mission was dramatic, but still factual.
I'm sure the 1960s Space Race with all its propaganda gave a false impression about the proportion of people who were genuinely interested in space exploration. By the time Alan Shepard was hitting golf balls on the moon during Apollo's third moon landing in 1971, most people's eyes were glazed over. And maybe for some people it's even harder to get enthused about a robot drilling core samples than a human being's extra-planetary antics. But I still think that the target audience for space science promotion can do without the Obi-Wan treatment.
Let's face it, space agencies -- whether NASA or ESA -- promote their activities to justify their own existence. If they are indeed justified then maybe they should stick to what they do best, and not try to muscle in on the movie business. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical -- there is, of course, an alternative view.
36 comments:
I think I tend to agree with you about the Rosetta Mission & the NASA Mars promos, but perhaps we have to look at who these films are designed to appeal to and what purpose they serve.
If you are trying to appeal for funding then a film that does show the big picture, as your article pointed out, would be a better value. If you are trying to recruit future scientists for the space industry perhaps the NASA promo, with its focus on facts, all the dramatic music aside, would be the better fit.
Have you ever seen the movie "October Sky"? It is based on the memoir of Homer Hickam.
Inspiration can come from anywhere, even our chief rivals. But it is the determination and drive that an individual brings to their dream that can be the deciding factor in whether or not they achieve it.
(Yeah, Hollywood does a good job, but they have to have something to work with. :))
"…perhaps we have to look at who these films are designed to appeal to and
what purpose they serve."
The ‘Ambition’ clip looks like its target audience was grade schoolers.
Sometimes they are called voters. At least over here. ;)
Sometimes we are reminded that there is more out there.
Much more factual video included in this article. So there is still hope, Pete, for the ESA. :)
Slip sliding away, oh, just slip sliding away...
No! I absolutely refuse to turn the blog white yet! I don't care if IT has arrived in spades, I refuse to do away with the stars so quickly. Besides I have to look at IT outside my window from now til May. *sigh*
ESA TV live coverage of Rosetta's Philae landing on Comet 67P/CG starts this evening (Tuesday, Nov 11th) at 19:00 GMT and continues until the same time tomorrow. Much of this will just be live streaming from the mission control room, interspersed with planned programmes and commentary. This evening kicks off with the first of four go/no-go decision at 19:00.
Live webcasting here.
I remember reading that when the Neil Armstrong stepped down the ladder of Apollo 11's lunar lander, there was still some lingering doubt about the consistency of the lunar surface and whether it would support a person walking. Of course, there had been robotic landers earlier. In the case of Philae, there are no humans involved, but our ignorance of the surface is even greater. If it's a "dirty snowball", as comets are often described, there is little sign of it on the surface which is darker and warmer than expected. Philae is expecting to both harpoon the comet and screw a rotating foot into it, but there's still a chance that if there's a hard crust it could just bounce off. Will be fascinating to see how this unfolds.
(That's 14:00 Eastern, of course)
Turns out the lander did not bounce off after all. CNN
Congratulations ESA! Job well done.
"Turns out the lander did not bounce off after all. CNN"
Did she just say "a landing craft ... just landed on a comet whizzing through the atmosphere"??! (Where's her weird accent from, btw, sounds kinda west coast).
I don't think I'd be trusting much information from that source. As it turns out, the lander may well have bounced off. Seems that all three devices concerned with sticking it to the comet may have failed. The compressed gas thruster was known to be inoperative early this morning, the harpoons may not have fired after all, and the screw-down feet wouldn't have had much chance without the other two. There's some evidence the lander bounced and came back down, which would be a minor miracle since the surface gravity is tiny and escape velocity is about half a metre per seocnd ... half the landing speed. We won't know properly until tomorrow when the orbiter gets back in touch with the lander.
Latest info appears to be that the lander bounced and took a further two hours to come down! Quite amazing ... also means it's not where it was expected to be since the comet will have rotated under it.
Seems it bounced on the comet a couple of times instead of bouncing off.
Last I heard it bounced 3 times and is still riding the comet, as well as sending pics.
You have to have more faith Pete.
Bounced twice; came down three times.
"You have to have more faith Pete."
Don't worry ... I never doubted it had landed. But it is compromised. Insolation levels may not allow for an extended mission. And it mightn't be possible to deploy the all-important drill for testing water isotopic ratios and organics. Still an amazing mission which will do wonders for science.
"No! I absolutely refuse to turn the blog white yet!"
But you're forgetting the international dimension. We can alternate between white and grey. We've had days of rain, don't know how many inches have fallen. Temperatures are fine, and even plenty of green trees yet to change colour let alone shed leaves. But I don't think I could bear no direct sunlight from now til March. Thankfully just got all the gutters replaced in the nick of time.
Bounced twice; came down three times.
lol!
You're right. I stand corrected.
And it mightn't be possible to deploy the all-important drill for testing water isotopic ratios and organics.
Yes, that part was rather exciting. It would be a shame if it must be given up on.
I also heard that the place where it is located is close to a mountain which could prevent the solar power from being used, shortening the life of the mission.
We can alternate between white and grey.
Or we can change the walls to match the post as well. I rather liked that.
Btw, do you have another post you would like to do next? I am ahead of you by a couple. :)
Or would you like me to do one?
Bloomberg is telling us that China's real estate bubble is increasingly being funded by western financial institutions. That's not good. (But, it may be true; they are desperate to get in on the next bubble, and worried ‘bout increased regulation in the western markets.)
From the one chart it looks like the UK has the largest exposure, followed by the US.
What is that saying...a fool and his money are soon parted?
If the fool loses enough money the taxpayers have to bail him out. That rule was established last time. And this time the money will disappear into China, never to be seen in America again.
"do you have another post you would like to do next?"
Nah, been sick in bed all week and glued to every minute of comet lander footage, press conferences, online hangouts etc. Now I have to catch up on college work. So be my guest.
The dangers of deflation ... "Politicians and central bankers are not providing the world with the inflation it needs; some economies face damaging deflation instead"
Marcus, I notice that net of property price increases, Sweden has deflation too. Your housing bubble makes even less sense!
So be my guest.
Hmmm...I don't really have anything of importance to say, so I'll try to think of something Minnesota to write about. I have to be careful not to write too much about subjects my three readers know more about than I do! lol!
But I have errands and chores to do, so it will be later.
Sorry to hear you've been sick, Pete. Hope all is better.
If the fool loses enough money the taxpayers have to bail him out.
They have been doing stress tests on US banks. Hopefully they know what they can handle.
More dubious CNN science reporting. The comet is "ten years away"? ... that doesn't make any sense. Oh, ok then, it was a ten-year, 310 million mile journey. Except it wasn't -- it was a 6.4 billion mile journey as their own library piece at the bottom of the same article says. It's 310 million miles away now.
They tell us it's getting 1.5 hours of sunlight instead of the planned seven, but not that it's barely getting one watt of power during the 1.5 hours, instead of a planned six watts.
"Philae was supposed to transmit data from Comet 67/P for nine months as it passed the sun". Uh, not it wasn't. The nominal mission was the 60 hours that we got. The extended mission might have lasted three to five months (nobody really knew). The comet isn't "passing the sun"... it's in orbit around it. Oh, and it's not called 67/P ... it's 67P or 67P/C-G (or the long version with the discovers' names).
But the biggest giggle is this video from the weird-sounding blonde (who I now know is Rachel Crane, the innovation and technology correspondent whose degree is in religious studies). They've cut away from her embarrassing moment and edited her spiel so that she now says the comet is "whizzing through space" instead of "whizzing through the atmosphere".
"Hopefully…"
Un-hunh.
"not it wasn't" = "no it wasn't" :(
Oh, another thing. I can understand CNN wanting to play up American involvement in Rosetta, and NASA are indeed a (very) minor partner, even though the US pulled out of most collaboration with ESA a long time ago. But when they show NASA's Jim Green "celebrating with mission control", they cut from a brief congratulatory address he made, to a celebratory scene inside mission control. The person seen in the group hugs who is perhaps intentionally supposed to be mistaken for Green is actually Paolo Ferri, ESA Head of Operations.
Pete: "Marcus, I notice that net of property price increases, Sweden has deflation too. Your housing bubble makes even less sense!"
I think a possible gamechanger will arrive at the beginning of 2015. New loans will have to be amortized according to new legislation.
New housing loans are supposed to be paid down to 70% of "market value" at a pace of 2% of that market value per year, and then down to 50% at a slower pace of 1% per year. The market value will as I understand it be the purchasing price.
Coupled with the new regulations that require a 15% downpayment that could have some effects.
Say a house for 4 Million. You need 15%, that is 600K downpayment, and then another 600K are supposed to be paid off at a pace of 2% of 4 Million which comes to 80K annually or 6.667 monthly.
A couple of years ago people could, and did, buy such houses with just 5% down, 200K, and without any amortization at all. So the changes are quite dramatic.
I have made some observations that are less talked about. First of all I question that you can equal the market price with the purchasing prrice as the former is subject to change while the latter is fixed. I foresee that that will cause some issues.
Then they say it will "only apply to new loans". But I wonder about that. Say this puts downward pressure on prices because new loans are less favourable (more so really, but less in peoples minds). That downward price pressure will affect the real market value of the houses with old loans as well as new. If those loans become "under water" my belief is that the banks will have to apply stricker terms on them as well. So this will likely end up affectiong the whole market, after a while, and not just new loans.
They are trying here to prevent the spiralling prices and the over-borrowing that we've had for quite some time. But to do so without popping a bubble. The aim is to impose measures that pretty much stagnates the prices at present levels. But markets rarely work that way. My best guess is that prices will begin to fall sometime next year when the effects of these new rules start to bite.
Interesting Marcus. Here we are introducing a new 20% downpayment requirement at the start of next year, plus new loan to income restrictions to try to stop a new bubble that has broken out.
Btw, I agree with you -- if your bubble gets popped, then existing loans on the banks' books will have to be revalued ... unless you engage in the same can-kicking exercise that we have for six years whereby practically nothing gets sold or repossessed in order to maintain the fiction that the banks are solvent. Now that the housing shortage has led to a new price bubble, the central bank is imposing new loan restrictions. The banks are going nuts because popping the bubble wrecks their balance sheets again.
Pete: "Btw, I agree with you -- if your bubble gets popped, then existing loans on the banks' books will have to be revalued ..."
I am sure it will be told that way to individual lenders. The banks will put pressure on lenders who are "under water" but they will try their best not to stir up any fuss about the whole deal, because if they do their balance sheets will be scrutinized.
Pete: "unless you engage in the same can-kicking exercise that we have for six years whereby practically nothing gets sold or repossessed in order to maintain the fiction that the banks are solvent."
Might very well happen here as well. I believe that this new regulation coupled with our tax laws will serve to "lock in" people in their current homes, initially. People might stay in a home instead of moving not because of the home itself but because of the "favourable" old loan they have on it.
But once it becomes common knowledge that we have a crash there will be a rush for the exit.
Post a Comment