Bob will probably have some comment on this, but I wondered if anyone else noticed it.
I've been listening to/watching NASA TV most of the week with the Shuttle mission going on, and was obviously interested to watch/listen during the spacewalks.
What I found especially interesting (or disturbing?) during the spacewalks was the announcers descriptions of the external payload boxes being worked on, like PCSat2.
When they worked on removing PCSat2 there was this (almost mumbled) dumb description of what is was -- something like "radio experimentation equipment". And that's about it. No mention of its name. No mention that it was built by students at the Naval Academy. No mention of Amateur Radio.
Yet, the next day when they were removing the other science experiments, there were long gushing words about all the peace, love, and worldwide joy that a box with 20 different pieces of metal stuck to the outside would bring as the scientists of the world, as they would be able to see the effects of being outside in space had on different metalurgical alloys.
Sorry - ok yes, I'm exaggerating. But my curiosity is still piqued.
Why was PCSat2 given such a "boring" billing during the announcer's time to speak about what the Astronauts were doing, versus all the glowing/gushing descriptions of the other scientific experiments?
Is radio science or the word "Amateur" in Amateur Radio a source of some kind of embarasment for NASA PR people these days?
Or, was there simply no good typed up description for the announcers to read from, so they skipped it? (I'm hoping here...)
In other words, was there a PR opportunity for Amateur Radio missed because no one had time to send a good description and make sure it got into the correct hands for reading during the spacewalks?
Was there anything anyone could have done to make the description of PCSat2 at least sound more interesting than a mumbled comment about a radio black-box the announcer seemed clueless about? Or at least even have its NAME mentioned so people with a web browser and Google could find the rest of the story?
Somehow I want to give the announcers more credit than that they were just "dumb" about it -- they all seem to be VERY well versed in what's going on in almost all aspects of Shuttle operations.
Along those lines, is there any reason they would be told NOT to say what it was, perhaps? (Hey, it's a possibility, right? I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but you have to consider all possibilities.)
I'm very curious. Probably more than I should be. :-)
Anyone else notice this?
Nate WY0X