Unbelievably stupid shuttle article in the Times (london)

[botch]

I've just read an article that could only be described as complete and utter trash - and it was written by their US editor too.<br />To be fair, it makes a few justified criticisms of NASA, but in this case they carry little to no weight because the journalist is spouting out such rubbish elsewhere in the article.<br />I don't have time to type the entire thing, but i'll type in the worst bits:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"For most of us the world has moved on, but not Americas most glamorous and generously funded agency. Today, in a blaze of media publicity and self referencial glory, NASA will launch into space a piece of technology that was as novel as an Austin Princess when it first appeared in 1981"</font><br /><br />"Generously funded?????? It has less than 1% of the US budget.<br />"Self referencial glory?" That is a huge disrespect to the mamouth efforts done by people who are passionate about space travel.<br />Yes, the space shuttle is old, but putting aside the fact that there is much new technology in the vehicles, the russians are using capsules that are twice as old as the shuttle. It's still one of the most advanced vehicles on and indeed off the planet.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"But as it usually seems to do, NASA was able to wave off critics and win support to continue the shuttle until 2010."</font><br /><br />NASA didn't set the 2010 date, Bush did! And Griffin is looking to reduce that date too so america can move on. Is THAT forward thinking enough?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"If NASA had been a private enterprise... It would have been liquidated years ago."</font><br /><br />Hear's some news for this wayward journalist, space travel is extremely dangerous, we are always going to lose people. And if NASA was a private enterprise, I highly doubt the space program would be as far along as it is. There's a place for government and private organisations.<br /><br />Finally, and you're gonna love this - it's so outrage

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> I don't have time to type the entire thing, but i'll type in the worst bits:<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> The good old copy n paste is the way to go!<br />Also a link to the news feature would've been handy. Give me a shout if you require some guidance with this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[botch]

If you could help me with hyperlinking that'd be a great help, i'll send you a message later <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />I found the article in question on the Times website;<br /><br />IT IS a commonplace that technological progress has moved at breakneck speed in the past quarter-century. Extraordinary advances in biotechnology and medical methods are extending the length and improving the quality of hundreds of millions of lives. Most homes in America and Britain have a computer or two. Everyone loves the iPod. <br /><br />The most up-to-date technology at your disposal in 1981 was probably a car with hand-cranked windows and a radio, maybe even a cassette player. Your only means of telecommunicating was by operating a rotary-dial device from inside your home, workplace or a specially designed booth that was largely unchanged in the 50 years since it was invented. You were still almost a decade away from being able to possess a mobile phone that was about the size of a clothes iron. <br /><br />In 1981 you would satisfy your musical cravings by turning on a record player and dropping a metal needle into a groove on a rotating piece of vinyl. At the office maybe one employee had a computer, whose circuitry occupied a space the size of a bathroom. <br /><br />For most of us the world has moved on, but not, it seems, for Nasa, America’s most glamorous and generously funded agency. Today, in a blaze of media publicity and self- referential hype and glory, Nasa will launch into space a piece of technology that was as novel as the Austin Princess when it first lifted off in 1981. The space shuttle Discovery will take off, weather permitting, this afternoon from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. It will be the first flight since the Columbia tragedy in February 2003, when the shuttle broke up on its return to Earth’s atmosphere with the loss of seven astronauts. <br /><br />The Columbia loss was followed by months of soul-searching in the US Government about the va

 

[nacnud]

Yep, that’s a stupid article alright.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Columnists, I hate them, especially when they are stupid.

 

[wvbraun]

Just ignore it. In the end we (the space advocates) will be proven right and moronic columnists like the one who wrote this garbage will be proven wrong. The NYT ridiculed Goddard and yet men walked on the Moon.

 

[botch]

I obviously disagree with people who are against manned spaceflight, but as long as they have clear and well thought out reasons for their opinion then i'm not dismissive or angry with them. The reason that this particular article ticks me off is that it reaches many thousands of readers who don't know anything about the shuttle, and after reading the article they won't be any more informed on the subject, pro <i>or</i> con. It's insubstantiated drivel.<br /><br />Shuttle_RTF, being as you're a journalist, do you know how people like this can end up writing in a national newspaper? How can they get jobs when they can't get their facts right?<br />Oh and I should stress that I am not painting you with the same brush as this Times journalist; I bet you are far more versed on the shuttle than I.

 

[spacefire]

I tend to enjoy anytghing that bashes NASA. But I don';t have time tor ead it right now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[peterweg]

Nasa want to get rid of the shuttle as soon as possible. It has completly failed to deliver low cost space launches - its extremly expensive. Its dangerous - fundermentally. <br />Why do you object when the obvious it pointed out - don't shoot the messenger; the shuttle has been a failure.

 

[botch]

Failure is too strong a word. It has been a mixed bag, with some elements suceeding and some not.<br />If you'd read my post properly, you would realise that the point of me starting this thread was that the journalist in question has made some stupid mistakes with his article, misrepresenting missions and organisations when just a little bit of research would have allowed him to be less factually challenged. It was not a debate on the value of the shuttle.<br />It's misleading to the public and therefore unhelpful to people on both sides of the shuttle debate.<br />Now if you want to start a thread on the value on the shuttle, then by all means go right ahead, but that's not what <i>this</i> thread is about.

 

[the_ten]

I must say... It takes a real idiot to write something so incorrect and absurd.

 

[lunatio_gordin]

But it's clear this author had a very minimal understanding of the shuttle and knew little about it's history. Not to mention it doesn't affect him at all. the article represents an ignorance that i have to wonder if he's related to that Sirius radio DJ.

 

[chriscdc]

I think that it was the congressmen that realised how usefull the employment was. Any look at the development of the shuttle will tell you that. <br /><br />As per normal the average journalist shows no understanding of science. Have they even heard of orbital mechanics. <br />I suppose we should blame the education system were the closest you get to orbital mechanics are keplers laws at a-level.<br /><br />I'm all for critizing the ISS and the shuttle but why don't the journalists highlight the cheaper ways to get into space, and the ways the shuttle is over complicated.<br /><br />Oh well, i stopped reading the times since it was taken over by rubert murdock and i see that the quality has predictably declined.

 

[peterweg]

The only people who have a positive view of the shiuttle seem to be the people who work on it or benifit in some way. Justifying its existance on the jobs it provides is silly. Out side of a few fans and fanatics I'm afraid everyone else views the shuttle as a white elephant. Instead of getting hurt and emotional, try and justify the shuttle in its entirity. I know its got a big cargo bay, but does it make logical sense ?

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow"> try and justify the shuttle in its entirity. I know its got a big cargo bay, but does it make logical sense ?</font><br /><br />It can do so much more than any other spacecraft, what's always been lacking are the rest of the programs that would have used it to it's full potential. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

You're too kind sir <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Shuttle_RTF, being as you're a journalist, do you know how people like this can end up writing in a national newspaper? How can they get jobs when they can't get their facts right?<br />Oh and I should stress that I am not painting you with the same brush as this Times journalist; I bet you are far more versed on the shuttle than I.<<br /><br />Great question. <br /><br />This is complex, so bare with me. <br /><br />There are two types of writer (and then subsections of "columnists" - opinion based, and "journalists" - information based) - but to answer your question we'll use this example: <br /><br />Media companies usually hire a mix of the two, the two being 1) English Lit graduates, writers who can write near perfect grammar, etc. They are usually given a floating mandate of coverage, i.e "Today you'll be asked to do an article on the Space Shuttle." <br /><br />Now that guy may or may not have any interest in the Space Shuttle - but he'll do his limited background research and compose it from there. <br /><br />2) Writers who are subject specific, can write professionally, but have automatic background research and are willing to constantly keep building understanding for the subject matter. <br /><br />I've always been a "2", the Times article is written by a guy who's a "1". <br /><br />To better show a difference in style, the Times article might of taken a day to produce, but falls flat on its face given the inaccuracies because his 'opinion' is flawed by not fully understanding the subject matter. The Subeditor who will have tasked this columnist with the article will be more concerned about filling column space and thus you end up with what you've seen. <br /><br />Journalists just want to get the info out there. You rely on sources and official information because YOU are't telling people what's going on, the people who work on the Shuttle are...your job is to collate it and be able to produce the info into readable form. I'm not an engineer and I wouldn't even kn

 

[botch]

That's a better answer than I could have hoped <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br />Is there any wisdom in blending the two types, so that you get an article from someone who is specialised in one subject and derive opinions from that specialism?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Not sure if it's a good idea, but take for example...You could have two articles from a journalist (say the pre-launch and then the scrub) and then a columnist doing an overview opinion piece whining on about how the STS is this that and the other.<br /><br />Washington Post did that on another subject just the other day.<br /><br />

 

[le3119]

"Keep supporting NASA or the Earth will explode?" Walter Cronkite, is that you?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Out side of a few fans and fanatics I'm afraid everyone else views the shuttle as a white elephant.</font>/i><br /><br />As a frequent shuttle critic I have to disagree with this statement, at least when "everyone" refers to the general public.<br /><br />For example, a recent USA Today article states that a Gallup Poll shows nearly 75% of Americans support the shuttle program and only 21% say it should not continue.<br /><br />I do not know what the general feeling of the space industry is (which includes a lot of people working on the space shuttle and ISS programs). The feelings of those wanting a more commercial enterprise approach to space generally seem against the shuttle. But again, I have not seen any specific surveys.</i>