Space Shuttle Return to Flight (part 4)

[vogon13]

...and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and my spirit moved over the face of the waters, and I said "Let there be light!"<br /><br />Bomb, Dark Star<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I already explained that to him.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/050624debrisrisk/<br /><br />At the end of the article:<br /><br />Play the ECO issue down as a wildcard and don't note any potential affect on the timeline.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Space.com via Florida Today go on the negative:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_050626_rtf_wiring.html<br /><br />Spaceref.com run a story on an SSME flaw that has been corrected...but run it just a few weeks before launch.<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1037<br /><br />There's also a growing rumour of a flawed/inaccurate simulation that led to the blame of the Diffuser with the Tanking Test pre-press over-cycling.<br /><br />None of the above are my words, I'm - like you - all ready for a launch. <br /><br />This is the first launch I'm covering as a pro-journalist (in this field) - is it usual for some level of scaremongering to happen prior to a launch in the US media?<br /><br />Nearly 2,500 media badges issues so far for the launch, by the way. There's some good news.<br /><br />Stafford-Covey's final public and media meeting on Monday...then we're into the FRR and Griffin's announcement of the launch date.<br /><br />Postive faces, people!

 

[najab]

><i>This is the first launch I'm covering as a pro-journalist (in this field) - is it usual for some level of scaremongering to happen prior to a launch in the US media?</i><p>Yes, and for two reasons. First is that bad news sells more copies ("If it bleeds, it leads.") The other, more cynical reason, is that if something goes horribly wrong, everyone wants to be able to add the phrase "...as first reported by this paper three weeks ago..." to their description of how it was all forseeable and preventable.</p>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Agreed on the first issue of bad news sells - created by the demands of the readership. The public all slated the media for hounding Princess Diana to her death, yet fed the media to intrude on her life prior to her death. The media/reader relationship is hypocritical at times.<br /><br /> />The other, more cynical reason, is that if something goes horribly wrong, everyone wants to be able to add the phrase "...as first reported by this paper three weeks ago..." to their description of how it was all forseeable and preventable.<<br /><br />Morbid foresight, assumed before and reported after the event, is usually the style of a reporter who believes him/herself to be above the station of the subject they are reporting. The sort of thing that gives media a bad name.<br /><br />Only ok if you're a 30-year veteran editor of Pop Music Magazine reporting a one-week old Boy Band. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Reporters have a very difficult job to do made more difficult by incorrect information being published by NASA itself. <<br /><br />Always best to go pass a story via an engineer for verification. One might lose half a day on publishing time (which is a lifetime in journalism now-a-days) but better to be accurate, than first to the story with your arse waving in the air for all to point at.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>An engineer I know has attempted to inform the authors of this story of miss-leading statements in and down right wrong statements this and other articles and however they apparently refuse to accept the comments. I admit many of their incorrect statements are due to NASA press releases. One example of this is a NASA Washington HQ release that stated incorrectly that the STS-114 ET LH2 pre-press issue was caused by the excessive number of cycles of the tank vent valve. This was picked up by Aviation Week and S.T. and many others such as Florida Today as fact.<<br /><br />I'm in no position to note any critical tone in regards to Florida Today - I in fact praise them for their extensive coverage. <br /><br />As far as the Engineer that tried to pull them up on this, I can only assume their sources on this are multiple and higher up than the Engineer in question. That would be - in my opinion - the only occasion I could see the story not being pulled until further verification had been sought. They must be confident with their story to that much of an extent.<br /><br />Again, I don't know and I'm not commenting on this story as I'm very wet behind the ears on this subject still.....just giving insight into how media work.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

That's also strange, given you don't have to do that.<br /><br />All you do is pick the best reply/soundbyte, and then do a piece to camera where you ask the question that was answered. Edit the two together and no one is the wiser <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I'd never do that, of course...I'd be too busy being a pain in the arse asking about ECOs and Diffusers, as opposed to the "Mr Wayne, are the Shuttles now safe, sir?" Ugggg!!!

 

[mrmorris]

SG -- a co-worker who is, if anything, more manic than I am about keeping up on the latest in space news & gossip indicated that he'd read they've just found problems in capacitors on all of the SSMEs. I didn't find anything with a quick Google. You know anything about this?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

That story is already linked up about 15 posts ago. I would respectfully ask everyone - and it's aimed at everyone as so many people seem to do it on this site - not to copy and paste articles away from the site they are published for obvious reasons such as copyright and more importantly it harms the writer in question as people aren't then going through to the site that paid to publish it (ultimately it's like pirated music, it harms the industry and the writers).<br /><br />It doesn't hurt to click a link and read it at the site that published it.<br /><br />Thanks.

 

[bpcooper]

I was going to suggest the same. It's hard to read here and takes up a lot of space. <br /><br />It's easier to link it, and also more respectful to the news websites, who I know tend to get annoyed when people do that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I mentioned this was already linked up, so consider what I said as accurate. Page 5 of this thread, three posts up from the bottom.

 

[nacnud]

What if you link to the site and cite the author if you past the whole text, is that acceptable?

 

[najab]

><i>However I will note that this article was just posted today so i do not think it was it's link was posted before.</i><p>And the nebulous quantity known as the "Internet publication date" strikes again. The article was posted on SpaceRef.com on the 26th (Sunday) but appears in the 27th's edition of Aviation Week (today).</p>

 

[bpcooper]

Do what most do:<br /><br />You post the author and site name, the first paragraph of the article as a teaser, and then the link. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Hardly anyone would go through to the site it was published on. Why would they, they can read the whole article on the thread. A headline, byline and abstract would be fine with a URL as people would be then interested to read the whole article on the site it was published.<br /><br />I would note I am aware no one is being malicious, it's just time someone said noted the way this works.<br /><br />Also, I'm not talking about my site here. We've not suffered with this - and I own the content, thus I'd not personally have a problem with this happening to NSF content. SDC is a good resource to us and I can justify a return of resource on this issue. I'm referring to other sites, those that don't have a voice on here and are bleeding because of this - despite the people causing the bleeding being unaware of their actions.<br /><br />Thanks again and sorry for sounding like an arse. It's not easy to get the tone right in text form, I don't mean any disrespect to anyone on here.

 

[najab]

For those in doubt of how to post-link to articles, check the Suggestions & Announcements forum.

 

[scottb50]

More and more of these sites require you to pay to get the information. Aviation Week is a prime example, though this article is published free a great many require you to buy a subscription. Yahoo News carries a lot of articles you have to pay to view, the Wall Street Journal especially. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Subscription sites have grown lately due to the very problem I've noted. It wouldn't justify people lifting the content?<br /><br />A lot of sites (not mine) are driven by advertising revenue, which can in turn be driven by the amount of exposure that advertiser recieves on that site (it's not always a case of the ad having to be clicked, but the page impressions it is exposed to). You see how people not having to go through to the site where an article is published can be a problem.<br /><br />Thanks NajaB for posting that on the Announcements thread. Nicely covered with the press release (free to use) note.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Right, sorry that took this thread off topic. <br /><br />Back to awaiting Stafford-Covey's final findings.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Stafford-Covey still has "open issues" but appear to be giving a 'green light' as such.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

This has got to be one of the most boring and unexpressive press conferences ever. They seem to have lost all passion since Griffin said they were not going to be relevant to the launch date. <br /><br />The media there aren't helping. Back-slapping boring questions.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Then, right at the end, they come out with a good closing statement...saying they have been a harsh judge to the RTF efforts, appreciated the opportunity and will officially take their green light to Griffin "in the right context."

 

[bpcooper]

The most definitive remark came as an answer to a question by Bill Harwood (CBS/SpaceflightNow). He asked whether slipping to September would be a good measure to take (a step forward; a safer choice). <br /><br />Covey said No, it would not, because NASA needs to actually fly the Shuttle in order to see whether many of the improvements have worked. The only way to know is to fly. <br /><br />They will present their final report to NASA and Administartor Griffin tomorrow for the Flight Readiness Review which starts Wednesday. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>