Jeffrey Bell is at it again

[thecolonel]

Harsh... I'm not going to claim I'm always right, I've been wrong before and very well may be in this case.<br /><br />I'm simply saying that it seems odd to attempt to ostrasize your audience when you're a specialized news sources. Opinions on space exploration might split 50/50 on general news sources, making op-ed for/against cater equally to either audience. But with a specialized news sources the split is much more uneven.<br />If 90% of your readers are pro-space and you post an anti-article, you displeased alot more readers than you delighted, and don't you want to keep your audience happy?<br /><br />Then again, if your objective is to make your audience hate you, then I guess go ahead and tell them what they don't want to hear...

 

[thecolonel]

Something just occurred to me, I think this is really just a clash of philosophies and nothing more.<br /><br />Personally I believe that people's well being is more important than the truth, other people may disagree but that's just how I am.<br /><br />If my girlfriend cooked me dinner and it was terrible, I wouldn't tell her how awful it was. Her feelings are more important than my tastebuds.<br /><br />Then again, this philosophy will make you popular with your friends, but probably isn't the best one to have in publishing. I've now strayed completely off-topic... my apologies.<br />

 

[bobvanx]

<i>Specialized news sources are not the appropriate communication medium to publish op-ed pieces.</i><br /><br />Actually, I would think these are the best places. Extrapolate out so you can see the absurdity of only reading or viewing or experiencing that which you expect to see, never coming across something that forces you to examine and consider.<br /><br />Without reflection, analysis, and the other strengthening tools we can use, we'll get soft and lazy, surrounded by yes-men, and we end up as the emporor with no clothes.<br /><br />Not wanting to consider information which challenges us is a big part of what downed Columbia. Engineers stopped wondering about foam hits, instead of holding their wonder and pursuing it.<br /><br />By eating a crappy dinner prepared by someone you love, you abdicate your responsibility to help them learn and become better. If you really loved her, you'd take the harder path and find a way to lovingly encourage her to do better.<br /><br />I've tossed most of my friends who could only tell me how great I am. I've finally found people who see my potential, and they challenge me to attain it. Holy holy, it is painful sometimes, and we get angry, or I get sulky, but then I learn what it is they see which I don't, and then I am a better husband, father, citizen, advocate...<br /><br />I'm just saying it gets boring unless someone is agitating. And I hate sloppy agitating. Well-considered contrariness is vital to our growth as a community, and even to our success in getting off this rock.

 

[thalion]

^<br />Ditto.<br /><br />I don't often agree with Jeff Bell, but I still think he occasionally makes good points. In all fairness I think opposition is every bit as important as support for a cause or movement, because it's when we have to justify our position against resistance that we examine our motivations, and hopefully establish the best case for our aims. Groupthink should be no more welcome in space exploration than in any other field.

 

[toymaker]

His latest ed wasfilled with so much hate that I found myself disgusted, opposition is one thing but writing simply to express hatred and personal dislikes is another thing.And his conclusions were so evidently influenced by personal dislikes rather then scientific facts that they reached a point of absurdity(Genesis means no Mars Sample mission, no manned Mars missiobns,I hate Zubrin I hate Zubrin I hate Zubrin)<br />It seemed more of trolls posting rather then an article.<br />Where can I write to issue a complaint to spacedaily.<br />It's a free service-but they are harming their quality by publishing such biased and worthless articles.<br />I expect editorials to be filled with valuable data and facts that will led me to judge in favour of the one writing it. I don't expect kiddy shouting a on a level of an internet troll.<br />So...where do I write to complain ?

 

[JonClarke]

I complained to them once and got no luck at all. I suspect that many actually agree with JB. Which suggest they are a lot of bitter people out there. But then many people who post here seem quite bitter about space as well, so it should not suprise us really.<br /><br />For me sites like Spacedaily should publish critical (i.e. in insightful, as opposed to hostile articles). Theyt have done so in the past, I learned a lot from discussion about the merits of winged vs ballstic reentry a couple of years ago in a series of op eds on the site. JB's pieces, however (and many others at Spacedaily) shed heat rather than light and more smoke than heat. In many cases they are factually wrong and their highly personal tone I find distasteful.<br /><br />I for one rarely look at Spacedaily anymore. It is not worth the aggravation.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[lunatic133]

I used to go to spacedaily for their forums, which were reasonably interesting if SDC happened to be down or slow. But then they went down for a while and were completely absorbed by everythingscience. Shame.<br /><br />Have you read this little gem by our friend?<br /><br /><i>The bottom line is: Genesis means there won't be a Mars Sample Return or any manned mission to Mars until the day that it is absolutely clear that Mars is lifeless. </i><br />Hmph. You'd like that, wouldn't you Jeff?<br /><br />Of course nobody ever made the connection that the Genesis failure served as an excuse not to go Mars UNTIL he brought it up. Do I sense an ulterior motive?

 

[orzek]

He is basically an idiot, most of what he writes is mindless drivel. I just don't see the point in spacedaily putting up his vitriolic garbage. His pieces just serve no purpose, if they were constructive critisism then yes but not this destructive ranting crap. I used to favour spacedaily to this site but when they were putting up so much negativity about space then they only cause harm to themselves amd make me less interested in visiting their site. I see that he is ranting at genesis now! What is up with the editor of spacedaily, he seems to like putting up bells opinions all the time! Maybe bell would be more comfortable working in MacDonalds serving burgers to spotty kids!!

 

[orzek]

<font color="yellow">The bottom line is: Genesis means there won't be a Mars Sample Return or any manned mission to Mars until the day that it is absolutely clear that Mars is lifeless.<br />Hmph. You'd like that, wouldn't you Jeff? </font><br /><br />Why, does Bell have something against going to mars?<br />He seems negative about most space related things, I wonder why he chose space science as a career?

 

[orzek]

shuttle_guy is there an email for spacedaily?

 

[jcdenton]

I must confess, I didn't know much about this Jeffrey Bell before looking at some of his past articles but now I can see that he is vehemently and unabashedly anti-space exploration. He has bashed just about every recent NASA project and has even made an article celebrating the failure of Beagle 2 and lambasting Colin Pillager, calling him a "mad" scientist. I can understand everyone's disgust with this columnist. Newspapers feature many op-ed pieces with many different opinions, however the more moderate pieces usually counter-balance the extremist ones. In this case, I think Space Daily needs to have more columnists that offer arguments counter to Jeffrey Bell in order to avoid being percieved as an anti-space site. I agree though with what one poster said, space exploration needs to be argued from both sides of the debate, although with constructive criticism.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thecolonel]

<i>I have complained about Bell to spacedaily twice. They did respond saying they were just being fair by publishing Bell's junk.</i><br /><br />I received more or less the same response...

 

[thecolonel]

<i>shuttle_guy is there an email for spacedaily?</i><br /><br />june2004@spacedaily.com<br /><br />I received a response from their editor at this address.

 

[thecolonel]

I revert once again to my analogy of a Duck Hunter writing an op-ed column for a Bird Watching magazine... it just doesn't make any sense to me...

 

[jcdenton]

However, this isn't a space exploration site, it's more like a general space news site. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I revert once again to my analogy of a Duck Hunter writing an op-ed column for a Bird Watching magazine... it just doesn't make any sense to me...</font>/i><br /><br />It got a lot of us to read the article who would not normally go there, which is a definite plus for them. On the down side for them, it may chase away a lot their regular visitors.<br /><br />I also think the on the whole the article will be a positive thing... more later.</i>

 

[lunatic133]

My problem is not that they publish him, but that thery publish him almost exclusively. If you look in their op-ed section, there are as many articles by him (all of which are scathing, bitter, and vitriolic so to get in the way of common sense) as there are by any other writer combined. Especially recently, I haven't seen an op-ed by someone else in quite awhile. Why is he so prolific, and why do they continually publish him, when I'm sure there are a lot of op-ed pieces from other people that are continually rejected?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">My problem is not that they publish him, but that thery publish him almost exclusively.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree, that is a problem. Perhaps he also runs the web site, or is one of the primary employees in the company.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">which are scathing, bitter, and vitriolic so to get in the way of common sense</font>/i><br /><br />I also agree with this. His provocative language (derogatory application of the phrase "Space Cadet" or "trashy" magazines) will probably drive away readers who might otherwise go "hmm... he has a point there".<br /><br />I personally like the editorial pieces at The Space Review. Their language is less caustic and they will publish rebuttals to their own essays. A good example is the recent piece by Alan Wasser (A better way to promote space settlement in our lifetimes) that rebuts a previous article by one of Space Review's regular contributors.</i></i>

 

[radarredux]

I have tried to extract several of the primary points of Bell's op-ed piece (see below). I have a number of quibbles with some of his facts, but many of his primary points are sound. My primary difference with his position is the conclusion.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">Technology Spin-offs A Myth</font>/b><br /><br />One of the interesting aspects of many of the proposed space exploration plans from the Planetary Society, the Mars Society, some NASA documents I have read, and other discussions is that they de-emphasize the development of new technologies. The approaches suggest that in order to achieve results on time and in budget, that known and mature technology should be used. The core idea is that unknown, untested, and unproven technologies should *not* be on the critical path of large projects such as manned Moon and Mars missions.<br /><br />So Bell will probably be correct: the <i>initial</i> plan to move mankind beyond LEO will probably not involve the direct application of new "gee wiz" technology. Longer term this may not and probably will not be the case, but that is for another discussion.<br /><br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">Unmanned Space Exploration Provides Better Science for the Dollar</font>/b><br /><br />This has long been the claim of many space scientists and has long been the position of the Planetary Society (which is why their support of the new space exploration program is so amazing). There is little new here. For example, Prof. Koss, who has flown numerous experiments on the shuttles (including three Columbia flights), has testified that the humans did not need to be part of the process. Even NASA held the position manned space flight not about science when Kennedy was trying to get their support for what became his moon challenge! They would not endorse it as science.<br /><br />Some will claim that a human can do more science in a day than the current Mars rovers can do in a month, but they must remember</b></b>

 

[toymaker]

"My position is that the primary reason to fund an expensive manned space program is colonization. The goal should be go out to live there, to establish permanent settlements "<br />Offtopic-I agree, public needs to be made more aware of Extinction Level Events-not just the overused asteroid scenario but others like global epidemic, methane gas eruptions, massive vulcanos, gamma radiation outbursts-all those things that make space colonization a necessity for human race survival.

 

[orzek]

<font color="blue">Unmanned Space Exploration Feeds the Public's Appetite</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">With the exception of problems (Columbia, space suit problems, oxygen generators failing) the public and even space fans like the discussion boards here rarely discuss what is happening with the [US] manned space program. We talk about MERs, Genesis, Cassini, Galileo, Hubble, etc. I bet 90% of Americans didn't realize Columbia was in space until she burned up on re-entry. I bet 98% of the American public could not give the names of any American astronaut (beyond Columbia) in the last ten years.</font><br /><br />I really disagree strongly with that! I don't think the public cares or understands that much about MER,genesis etc. (with probably the exception of hubble) True the media reports about the unmanned missions, but that does not mean the vast majority of the public cares or even understands what they are about. I bet you that within a few months if you asked a member of the public what genesis was or what it did, most wouldn't know what you are talking about! The fact is, science is not a strong point of the general public. The fact that a extra ring or moon was found or solar particles were captured, is not going to interest most people.! Sad but true. <br /><br />The public is more interested in human disasters, accomplishments, superstars, scandals and gossip etc. Even that has a short life span of interest. So trying to get the public interested in space by pointing out the science is not going to work. It didn't work before, it won't work now and it probably never will in the future!!!<br /><br />The only time unmanned missions generate a lot of public interest is when discoveries affect people lifes and beliefs on a fundamental level like life on another planet, earth sized planets around other stars, Aliens, cure for cancer etc. People have other things to worry about, its only when space affects the everyday lives of the general

 

[orzek]

<font color="yellow">"My position is that the primary reason to fund an expensive manned space program is colonization. The goal should be go out to live there, to establish permanent settlements "<br />Offtopic-I agree, public needs to be made more aware of Extinction Level Events-not just the overused asteroid scenario but others like global epidemic, methane gas eruptions, massive vulcanos, gamma radiation outbursts-all those things that make space colonization a necessity for human race survival.</font><br /><br />I am afraid that won't work. Most people will not believe you for one thing and probably don't see it as a priority. Unless the threat is imminent and obvious it won't scare people that much! Hyperthetical events that are far removed from the publics experience will not work as a way to justify space colonisation. People have more pressing matters to worry about in their lives. You will be wasting time and effort flogging that dead horse!!

 

[JonClarke]

Radar<br /><br />That is what he should have said. There is nothing new there but it is a logically valid and legitimate point of view. There is no personal attack in it either. That is how it should be done.<br /><br />I happen to disagree totally, but that is another story <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[thecolonel]

<i>On the down side for them, it may chase away a lot their regular visitors.</i><br /><br />This is really what I have been saying all along. The beauty of all of this is that I plan on proving my own point by seeking other sources for space news. After all there are others that don't run such outlier, extremist op-ed pieces.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"> My problem is not that they publish him, but that thery publish him almost exclusively. <br /><br /><i>I agree, that is a problem. Perhaps he also runs the web site, or is one of the primary employees in the company. "</i></font>/i><br /><br />I've seen several OpEd rebuttals to JB articles in Spacedaily. I would be more inclined to think that there aren't as many rebuttals posted simply because there aren't as many submitted.<br /><br />Acquiring experimental evidence of this then would seem to involve writing and submitting a rebuttal to one or more of his posts. It will either get published... or not.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"His provocative language ..."</font><br /><br />At the risk of being horribly flamed (pause to don asbestos long-johns) -- Bell's articles generally contain a kernel of truth to them. The main problem is that those kernels are surrounded by exaggerations, sarcasm, and worst-case thinking. Whenever I read his articles, I tend to automatically edit them in my mind -- discarding the vast majority of what he says and keeping only the kernel. I then may agree or disagree with the base premise. In most cases -- I tend to agree that his base premise is a valid concern -- but that he has overstated the importance of a particular problem, or understated the benefit of a given course of action.<br /><br />Just as an exmple -- here's a hypothetical snippet of Jefferey Bell providing a piece of information to a hypothetical acquaintance with that of anyone else providing the same info:<br /><br /><b>Bell:</b> George, The science of fastening devices has been around for centuries. Ties and drawstrings have been in use since the beginning of recorded history. Buttons appeared in Victorian times, zippers at the turn of the century, and velcro in the early sixties. A common trait they all share, though, is simplicity -- they're designed to be easily usable by almost any member of civilized society. The onl