There’s a story over at the Grauniad today about the dotcom space millionaires, featuring Elon Musk and SpaceX. As usual, the reporter doesn’t understand what Constellation is/was:
His confidence has been boosted following last month’s decision by President Barack Obama to drop funding for the Constellation programme – the Nasa spacecraft intended to replace the space shuttle, which is to be grounded later this year.
Once again, Constellation is not now, and never was, a “replacement” for the Space Shuttle. If anything, it’s a replacement for Apollo. It’s an architecture of vehicles designed to get humans back to the moon, including launchers, capsule, earth-departure stages, and lunar lander and ascent vehicle. And the only parts that are really being cancelled are the Ares I launcher and the Orion crew module, because none of the rest of it was scheduled to start development for years.
Beyond that, the reporter doesn’t seem to understand the difference between suborbital and orbital, saying that Falcon I went to suborbit. Well, the first one did, but the other four went to orbit, albeit only the last two with full success. And all five were intended to.
Rand,
Gone are the days of guys like Jules Bergman, people who actually knew what they were talking about. These days, anyone who took (but not necessarily passed) a high school level science class gets to be the “science” correspondent.
Actually, Jules Bergman wasn’t that smart about science. There are lots of stories at JPL about some of the boneheaded things he would ask.
Didn’t know that. He had a long history of reporting science and seemed (well I was a kid back then) to know what he was talking about. Better than Hoagland I suspect.
It’s just one more instance where a news report is wrong with respect to FACTS. It happens so often, I doubt we could count them.
It seems to me that the older I get, the worse they get about misreporting. As I’m yelling at the talking heads or ripping up a news paper, I keep thinking, “…Hey, now I’M the old, curmudgeonly SOB I used to laugh about!!”
I never forgave Jules Bergman for his reporting of the mid-air collision between a Cessna and an airliner over San Diego back in 1978. Bergman got on the air and talked about how the Cessan rammed the airliner from behind – a physical impossibility because the max speed of the Cessna was far below the approach speed of the airliner. Bergman was a pilot and should have known better. I still hold a grudge against Frank Borman (then head of Eastern Airlines) for what he said following that accident as well. The fact of the matter is that the airliner ran over the Cessna the same as a semi truck running over a VW.
Every news report I’ve had personal info about has been sloppy. I think it’s just standard regardless of the subject.
“Actually, Jules Bergman wasn’t that smart about science. There are lots of stories at JPL about some of the boneheaded things he would ask.”
Is that like the saying, “no stupid questions, only stupid people?” Maybe Mr. Bergman asked “boneheaded” questions because he was trying to get the story straight?
I encourage my students “to embarrass themselves in front of their peers by raising a hand to ask a question” and the “ability to make a fool of oneself in front of others instead of keeping a doubt to oneself is the most important thing I could ever teach to anyone.”
Maybe Mr. Bergman asked “boneheaded” questions because he was trying to get the story straight?
Not according to them.
Better than Hoagland I suspect.
Talk about damning with faint praise…
Rand,
Wasn’t sure how people felt around here felt about him. He can be entertaining, provided you don’t take what he is doing as science.
Wasn’t sure how people felt around here felt about him.
I can’t speak for any “people around here” but myself, but Hoagland is a whack job and a charlatan, IMNSHO.
I don’t think someone can be both a whack job and a charlatan.. oh wait, Zubrin, right. 😛
The word charlatan implies that the person involved is knowingly engaging in fraud. In Hoagland’s case, I think he really believes in glass domes on the Moon, and monuments on Mars. He seems to have spent far too much energy and effort in “proving” his claims not to believe in them himself. The problem is that there are people who actually take him seriously.
Now Trent. Bob is not a charlatan. He can do what he says he can, if only someone will come up with enough money.