Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 271 to 288 of 288

Thread: NASA's PR problems

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    And everything mentioned in the TED talk was published 4 weeks ago. Far from the scientist discussing something that the team didn't want to announce - they announced it by publishing it already. I'm still not seing the problem here. I really would like a response to post 263 - and not a copy and paste from Nasa Watch.

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/0...-team-nee.html

    He says that the "statistical result is loud and clear" in other words he has data to back up his claims.

    Is the Kepler team hiding something?[/I]
    That's getting completely ridiculous.

    I have just spent 18 minutes watching the talk. The point this guy makes is the following: it was believed since ancient times that there are more small planets than big planets. The Solar System has 4 Earth-class bodies, 2 Neptune-class, 1 Saturn-class and 1 Jupiter-class. When we started discovering the extrasolar planets, we have found that Jupiter-class objects dominate. Scientists became uneasy.

    This is where the infamous slide comes in. He shows that the planets Kepler has found so far follow the 1/R^2 rule (where R is the planet size) -- i.e. we learn that what we believed all way back was right: lots of small planets (Earth-class). Which is all good, because small rocky worlds are what you need for the life as we known it to develop. Now, if the NASAWatch author cared to read the Borucki et.al. paper he has himself linked, he would have seen that the 1/R^2 thing is given in this paper! In other words, the guy is discussing the result which was published a month before the conference. It's the 1/R^2 rule that is coming across "loud and clear".

    The only difference between the talk and the paper seems to be that the talk is based on the full dataset, while the Borucki et.al. paper on the published dataset -- still, the 1/R^2 comes through in both cases. Which means also means that the suppressed planets were not chosen basing on the size criterion. Actually, if you look at the paper, there are no obvious holes in data, which would happen if only a specific class of objects was suppressed. That means that the embargoed planets were not chosen simply on the basis of orbital parameters or size.

    And the actual reason they have embargoed candidates is this: they want to get a confirmation through a different method. Now, if you are in the northern latitudes and look up at the sky at night at this point of the year, you are going to see the Cygnus constellation directly above. And the Kepler field of view is located in Cygnus. So if you want to use ground observatories to observe the Kepler FOV, the optimal time to do that is during the northern summer -- say March through October. Add in some time to post process data, and you get February. And February is when the embargo is going to be lifted.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,267
    Quote Originally Posted by djellison View Post
    I really would like a response to post 263 - and not a copy and paste from Nasa Watch.
    I would too (I say this as a member, not as a moderator).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/0...-team-nee.html

    Listen again to Sasselov's words: "You can see here [Chart] - small planets dominate the picture. The planets which are marked "like Earth" - definitely more than any of the other planets that we see. Now for the first time we can say that. There is a lot more work we need to do with this. Most of these are candidates and in the next few years - we will confirm them - but the statistical result is loud and clear - and the statistical result is that planets like our own Earth are out there." He says that the "statistical result is loud and clear" in other words he has data to back up his claims.

    Is the Kepler team hiding something? Why is Sasselov talking about data that the Kepler team said that they did not want to discuss yet? Does Sasselov not understand what he is talking about? Or is this an issue with a scientist with a tendency to exagerate combined with less than perfect English skills? This was a public presentation by a key Kepler scientist speaking in that capacity. Did NASA PAO screen these materials before the presentation?

    The Kepler folks seem to want to have things both ways. On one hand they want to tantalize us (and select audiences) with what they have found but yet at the same time they do not want to put their reputations on the line when people start taking their comments as fact. This project clearly needs to put some PR strategy in place.
    Just to be clear; when they didn't release data you weren't happy. Now they've released data and you're still complaining? Please tell us precisely what is you think they should be doing to make this data suitable for you.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,407
    I'm getting tired of repeating the same old question.

    There isn't any publication on NASA's webstie? Why? Why? Why? Why is nothing mentioned on Kepler's homepage?

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    I'm getting tired of repeating the same old question.

    There isn't any publication on NASA's webstie? Why? Why? Why? Why is nothing mentioned on Kepler's homepage?
    You seem bound and determined to see some sinister motive in all this, why not just state it openly?

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,407
    Sinister motive? Don't make me laugh! I just want to make my publication for my own website, and NASA's publications allow me to do that - after all the information is in the public domain. Science magazines? Nah...

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    Sinister motive? Don't make me laugh! I just want to make my publication for my own website, and NASA's publications allow me to do that - after all the information is in the public domain. Science magazines? Nah...
    So your entire position is nothing to do with science, just self gratification.

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,407
    I'd like to advise you to watch your tone. My people indeed enjoy what I do and I founded the biggest website dedicated to space exploration in my country. So far, so good...

    I wanted to say dozens of time that Borucki is a fame seeker who doesn't care about the general public, but I didn't said this until now, so what? Who are you to blame me for what I do... when I do it for FREE?

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    I'd like to advise you to watch your tone. My people indeed enjoy what I do and I founded the biggest website dedicated to space exploration in my country. So far, so good...

    I wanted to say dozens of time that Borucki is a fame seeker who doesn't care about the general public, but I didn't said this until now, so what? Who are you to blame me for what I do... when I do it for FREE?
    If you have a problem report it to the mods. And I don't see anything in your response to contradict my basic point. You have complained continually about the speed and volume of data release and it appears to me that your reasons for complaining are essentially egocentric.

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,407
    Listen, pal. Hear what I'm gonna tell ya.

    I give a significant monetary amount for web hosting and stuff like that. I decided to do it for free and I do get little from return. The checks I get from ads don't cover even 20% of my funds I spend. I find nothing egocentric here.

    But you know nothing of this, you're just a user that registers on a board.

    Please - stop teaching me, stop being a toady, stop licking the shoes of some specific people and stop calling black white.

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    I'm getting tired of repeating the same old question.
    There isn't any publication on NASA's webstie? Why? Why? Why? Why is nothing mentioned on Kepler's homepage?
    I agree there should be an announcement on the NASA web site. Perhaps you can write them to remind them of the oversight.
    But about the length of time some of the data is embargoed, this is common with regard to space missions. The scientists involved with the mission or research are given first crack to review it and write papers on it, before it is put in general release.


    Bob Clark

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,407
    I apologise to the others for being rude and thanks to RGClark for your agreement.

    I never said the scientists involved shouldn't have the first crack to review it, but hey - there are already conferences, there are already articles being written and the big bosses remain mum.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    I'm getting tired of repeating the same questions again and again also, so I'll just point to post 263 and ask you when are you going to grace us with a response.

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,477
    I don't care WHAT your motive is, Zvezdichko. You DO come off sounding whiney, egocentric and as a malcontent. What is so blasted important that this ONE publication is causing you so much pain? On the whole, NASA (well, its various centers anyway) does a phenomenal job making data and information available in a fairly transparent way. It's been pointed out to you numerous times the reasons why the Kepler data might be treated differently. If one of the Kepler scientists is being a little more protective than normal, SO WHAT? Get over it. Move on. It's sounding like the love child of a broken record and sour grapes.

    CJSF
    "Flipping this one final switch I'm effectively ensuring that I will be
    Overcoming all resistance long after my remains have been
    Vaporized with extreme prejudice and shot into outer space.

    I'll be haunting you."

    -They Might Be Giants, "I'll Be Haunting You"


    lonelybirder.org

  16. #286
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,564
    man.. all this drama because the PR honchos at NASA did not think that the results from this one project were interesting enough to make a big press release about? it's obvious enough that results have been submitted in due order. the only piece missing here are fanfares and big helpings of snacks at a press conference.

  17. #287
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    I'm getting tired of repeating the same old question.

    There isn't any publication on NASA's webstie? Why? Why? Why? Why is nothing mentioned on Kepler's homepage?
    Why do you insist that all the stuff has to be filtered through the PR department? Do you want to deal with this: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/arch...p?comicid=1174 all the time?

    And, besides, they have a new blog post, which you may find interesting: http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/kepler...268721769.html

  18. #288
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    I'd like to advise you to watch your tone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    Please - stop teaching me, stop being a toady, stop licking the shoes of some specific people and stop calling black white.
    Enough. This has been hacked at long enough and now that it's getting personal, this thread is closed.

    Zvezdichko,

    Your behavior has been getting more and more out of hand. You need to correct this trend immediately. No more rudeness. No more trying to moderate posts yourself.

    A note to others: Although his comments were the worst of the lot, Zvezdichko is not alone in getting too personal. Please watch yourselves.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Similar Threads

  1. Problems with DBK 21
    By astrogeorge in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-15, 07:58 AM
  2. You think you have problems? (like me)
    By JohnD in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-Feb-28, 01:40 PM
  3. Problems with MyNasa at nasa.gov
    By Sporally in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2008-Nov-10, 10:26 PM
  4. Is NASA hiding Phoenix Lander problems??
    By EndeavorRX7 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2008-Jun-16, 04:24 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Jan-19, 09:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •