He has a typically ignorant opinion piece over at Yahoo News on SLS:
The proposal to stretch out the Space Launch System, crucial for plans to send astronauts beyond Earth orbit to the moon and other destinations, is an ill-advised attempt at predatory budgeting. It would increase the cost of developing the SLS while not addressing the reasons that the JWST has gotten into trouble.
SLS is not only not “crucial” for plans to send astronauts beyond LEO, it will be the death of any such plans, because even if it ever flies (unlikely) it will eat up all the available funding for the hardware and technologies needed to actually do that. We now know that NASA itself has identified several ways to send humans beyond LEO without SLS, and that all of them are much less costly, and can happen much sooner, than an SLS-based scenario.
…underfunding the SLS will disrupt a program that has finally gotten on track, which NASA insiders believe will be ready to finally take astronaut explorers beyond low Earth orbit before this decade is out.
In what way is the SLS “on track”? He doesn’t say. Which “NASA insiders” believe this? What pharmaceuticals result in such a belief? There have been no credible scenarios put forth for the SLS do a mission beyond LEO before this decade is out. Does he just make this stuff up?
[Evening update]
I hate to give his web site hits, but this is hilarious. What’s particularly hilarious is that after all these years, he still can’t get his permalinks to not have a double hash tag.
Rand Simberg really should get out more often and read more than just the latest press release from “Tea Party in Space.”
This is stupidity on a monumental scale. I don’t get my information from “Tea Party In Space.” They often, in fact, get info from me. I work on this stuff for a living, while Mark is too innumerate to even understand it. And note, he has no response to my question of who his “NASA insiders” are, or what drugs they are on.
Oh the program is on tracks allright. The edge of the cliff is fast approaching.
Even a casual observer like myself can see that SLS is destined to be canceled in the not too distant future (sometime during the next administration would be my guess) in any case. It’s designed as a money hog, which is the one function it is best suited for. If slowing this pig down a bit will help save JWST, it’s worth it.
Has Whittington “reported” on his blog on the recent exposure of NASA’s trying to cover up studies showing cheaper and quicker alternatives to SLS?
I didn’t think so. Odd that, don’t you think?
Does he just make this stuff up?
It certainly looks that way.
Where the facts won’t accord with his delusions, the latter always win.
“What pharmaceuticals result in such a belief?”
We might ask those who assert that Ares-I was ‘almost finished.’ They likely have a stash…
“Ares” actually is its street name…
I guess he considers Chris Bergin at NSF an “insider.”
certainly explains why he bans anyone who doesn’t like the music. http://quantumg.net/nsf-lady-gaga.png
I see no evidence that Mark knows any “insiders” other than, ahem, Robert Oler.
Even at JSC, no one seems to believe the things Mark does. The JSC employees I’ve spoken to Seem to be divided into two camps. One believes SLS is a mistake; the other thinks they can kinda, sorta, maybe make it work.
Of course, those are MS and PhD engineers. They don’t have BAs in History, so of course, they’re incapable of understanding things at Mark’s level.
Rand – Don’t worry. You don’t give me all that amount of extra hits. Most people who read you read me and the other way around.
And while I am not a recovering rocket scientist, I do from time to time talk to those who are of the unreconstructed kind. Your attempt to appeal to your own authority is rather funny.
Oh. and as to Rand’s last question, I’m certainly not prepared to reveal sources. If he knew anything about journalism he would not even ask the question. But there is enough public evidence to support my thesis, given the caveats I have made.
His last question was in relation to pharmaceuticals, and in light of SLS taking astronauts beyond low Earth orbit before this decade is out, I’m guessing he was at least somewhat serious.
If he knew anything about journalism he would not even ask the question.
If you knew anything about journalism, Mark, you would know better.
Real journalists document their claims.
Until recently, journalistic ethics prohibited stories based on anonymous stories, except in very rare, special circumstances — e.g., a mob informant whose life might be in danger if his identity were revealed.
That hardly applies here. Your “unreconstructed” rocket scientists would not be in danger of being rubbed out merely because they were associated with your statements. Laughed at, yes. Killed, no.
The use of anonymous sources became much more common after Watergate, but even today, there are standards which you fail to meet. The Associated Press handbook, for example, says “Use anonymous attribution only when essential and even then provide the most specific possible identification of the source.”
Anonymous sources have been called “a crutch for lazy reporters.”
Allen Neuharth has said, “I think there are a few major historical developments that happened in journalism – the Pentagon Papers, maybe Watergate – where anonymous sources had a more positive influence than a negative impact. But on balance, the negative impact is so great that we can’t overcome the lack of trust until or unless we ban them.”
By publicly embracing the shoddy standards of modern hack journalism, you merely confirm the reputation you have acquired here.
Best comment ever.
Mark Whittington said …
“Oh. and as to Rand’s last question, I’m certainly not prepared to reveal sources. ”
Is one of them named Harvey? He definitely isn’t Jimmy Stewart.
Rand’s last question was about the drugs Mark is on, and he shows up to say he won’t reveal the source of these? Brilliant