Mars Rover? Big deal, we did the same thing in 1997.

[dajabr]

I thought I was going nuts, because the reports of the Mars Rover are treating like the first time we've ever sent a vehicle of this type to the Red Planet.

But, I kept thinking, "This sounds just like that mission a few years ago. Why are they playing this up like some kind of new thing?"

Am I the only one who remembers?

I don't watch a lot of cable news. Has anyone seen or heard the Media mention Pathfinder during all this?

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/past/pathfinder.html

[Fenris]

1. But the rocks are different!

So there!

[Cannikin]

5. Leno did a great monologue on the return to the moon...

He mentioned how Bush is unable to recall the 60's, thats why he doesnt realize we've been there already!

[pmbryant]

2. Pathfinder was a lot smaller and a more modest mission

So I don't find the lack of mention of it very noteworthy.

What I did find ridiculous was the huge hype Pathfinder got a few years ago.

You'd have thought the incredibly successful, and much more amibitious, Viking landers had never happened. Even this time around, Viking is still getting no mention it seems like. The press has an awful short memory.

--Peter

[BigDaddyLove]

3. I thought the very same thing.......

:shrug:

[Caution]

4. totally differnt

Pathfinder was basically a camera on wheels. Rover has a ton of scientific equipment. By the time this mission is done there will be a ton of new scientific data collected on mars.

[dajabr]

10. OK, but it seems like they are ignoring that it has been done at all.

The mission may be different, but aren't the basics (vehicle type / landing method) very similar?

To me, they make it sound like we've never rolled anything around on the planet before.

I could get really excited about the science they are doing, if I wasn't being bombarded by all the drama about something that we've done before - ie. land a rover in a big bunch of balloons on Mars.

[Pillowbiter]

13. That's not true

pathfinder had sample collecting and testing machinery as well as various spectrometers and other meters.

I think the big deal about this one is that they are planning on drilling for water.

PB

[BurtWorm]

6. We've also mapped the whole planet using a spy satellite

with the kind of detailed imaging Earth-centric spy satellites get.

[DrWeird]

7. They said the same thing about the subsequent moon landings.

The fact that we were putting more people on the moon wasn't as cool to the american public as John Travolta and Laugh In reruns.

[Buffler]

8. Maybe this rover

will make it over the the American flag planted by the astronauts on Mars for Sheila Jackson Lee to see.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I laugh every time I think about her asking about the rover and the American flag on Mars.

[TexasMexican]

9. 2004 election, big deal we had one in 2000.

that would be about the same line of thinking wouldnt it?

Space exploration is important.

[dajabr]

12. Only if it were played by the media...

As the first US Election ever...

[dave29]

11. The Spirit and Opportunity Rovers

will be looking for evidence of water - and checking the minerology of the soils and rocks. It's quite possible there will be some very exciting information to come out of these missions - but only if you give a damn about the nature of the Universe.

[dajabr]

14. Yeah, I get it. The Mission is more advanced.

And I'm thrilled about what they are trying to accomplish. But, all I keep hearing about is this NEW wonderful miracle rover and landing system, without any mention of Pathfinder.

[Ediacara]

19. Well it is a technological step from Pathfinder in terms of landing

As you can see in a post lower in the thread, Spirit and Opportunity are HUGE compared to Pathfinder, yet had to fit on the same rocket, and land within the same landing pod that Pathfinder did. To do that, the new rovers had to be modified so that they could unfold like a transformer, and the airbags and parachutes had to be modified so that they could deal with the increased mass of the rovers, yet not take up any more space or add any more mass than the older systems built for Pathfinder.

[dajabr]

20. Ok, I'm not denying that that it is a step forward.

What I'm saying is I don't hear in the news any mention of Pathfinder at all. Like it's been erased from memory.

I've learned more about the differences from reading your posts than from anything I've heard in the news.

Even if they just said something like, "In the US's SECOND rover mission...blah,blah,blah" I'd be happy.

Why do you think there is no mention of the first rover mission?

[Zero Gravitas]

23. Wrong Media

You'll never learn anything by watching TV news or going to the mainstream media websites. Take a look at Space.com or www.spaceflightnow.com they haven't forgotten about pathfinder, but be prepared they don't compare the MERs to pathfinder in every paragraph. News about Pathfinder, after all is 5 years old, they assume their readers DO remember the mission and that they are more interested in the NEW developments related the MERs.

[Darkseid69]

15. Comparison of the rovers

[Ediacara]

17. That's a pretty sweet picture

I've never seen them side-by-side. Thanks for posting it!

[Ediacara]

16. This one is much better

Better wheels and suspension so it can drive over more extreme terrain, plus an engine that can go over 100 feet per day, rather than the mere 3 feet per day that Pathfinder managed. There is also a greater scientific payload onboard, although it's still SERIOUSLY underwhelming. Pathfinder was basically a camera mounted on a remote control car, but Spirit and Opportunity are quite a bit more advanced.

I think the neatest thing about the recent probes is the airbag landing system. It's such an intuative idea (so intuative in fact, you think it can't work), yet it's only been developed fairly recently.

[meisje]

18. Are you still using DOS or MacOs 6.0, no? Same situation here

Better tools on the new rover, microscope.. thermal imaging... and a new supply of tang for the little green men

[dajabr]

21. Maybe my original post was not clear?

Sorry.

I'm trying to find out why I have not heard anyone in the News talk about the fact that we've landed a rover on Mars in a similar fashion before.

Sorry for the confusion.

[gbwarming]

24. Not enough time in the broadcast after the Jacko and Kobe updates...

During the daily press breifing the science and engineering teams talk about the Viking and Pathfinder missions as they relate to the current mission. I've caught a couple of these on CSPAN but don't know if they have a regular schedule but you might catch the briefings on NASA TV at noon est every day. There's a lot the Teevee news isn't covering.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

[ElementaryPenguin]

22. I had the same discussion with my wife, who couldn't remember this!!

I said "we already did this - I've seen pictures of the Martian surface!" - and she assured me I had imagined the whole thing!!

:grr:

:crazy:

[dajabr]

25. See! That is what I'm talking about!

I would suspect that most people are like your wife. I was even beginning to think I had imagined the whole Pathfinder mission myself.

Why, do you suppose, is the mass Media playing that way?

[ElementaryPenguin]

26. I think they're trying to give BushCo as much credit as possible!!

What other success has Bushler had to report??

:crazy:

[dajabr]

28. Agreed...

Any mention of a Mars Mission / Rover under Clinton would detract from Shrub's glory in sending a rover to Mars first (as the media would have you believe).

[ieoeja]

27. Worse Than That

TV in Chicago reported that we tried and failed several times at landing anything on Mars, and that this was the first successful attempt. When the first rover was sent over I was a member of the Planetary Society. The Society was involved in certain aspects of the rover's creation, so I had see lots of info about it, tests in the deserts, etc. When they reported THIS was the first successful landing I actually decided I must have mistaken rover tests for the real thing!

Glad to hear I wasn't imagining it after all. I really must remember that when the choice is "either I am wrong, or everybody else is" the correct answer is invariably "everybody else is".

Note: they said it was the first landing of ANYTHING on Mars. Even the Vikings disappeared.

[dajabr]

29. Wow! That is INSANE!

I feel better somewhat, knowing I was not alone in this perception.

[DjTj]

30. Haha - I guess the press is just stupid...

...but it's not like the mainstream press ever does a great job reporting on science anyways. How many journalism majors took even one science class in college?

[pmbryant]

31. Poor quality of science journalism at news outlets

The quality of science journalism at the vast majority of news outlets is quite embarrassing.

There are a few exceptions, of course.

--Peter

[marigold20]

32. Yes! I knew I'd seen pictures of the Mars surface before.

And yes, the media reported this event as a first. I'm so glad everything worked out for the rover and we'll get even better pictures than 97 but it was just silly to act like this is the first time we've had pictures of the surface of Mars.

[dajabr]

33. You too!

I'm starting to think I'm on to something here...

:evilgrin: