I wasn't sure whether to categorize this as space, or media criticism. Jeff Foust reviews what sounds like kind of a mess of an article about NASA's space exploration plans at Rolling Stone. Don't these people have fact checkers? If I were a journalist working in a subject area unfamiliar to me, I'd run the piece past some people who might be expected to know what they're talking about, and I'd be embarrassed to get so much wrong in print.

But that's just me. I guess they don't mind being viewed as foolish by those more knowledgable.

What percentage of people that read Rolling Stone on a regular basis are going to know any better, or even call them on such inaccuracies? I'm sure they just plain don't care if they're accurate or not, because it's "not their bag".

Which is a shame, because it just perpetuates the misinformation and the "giggle factor".

Wallace-Wells' article is indeed a train wreck. Then again, both much of NASA's PR over the years and much of what passes for space advocacy have been slow-motion train wrecks, too.

My parents split their careers between journalism and PR (sometimes defined as "the care and feeding of journalists"), as I have split mine between science writing and marketing communications -- helping BigTechCorp explain to trade journalists or business partners or industry analysts why this billion-dollar bet on a network architecture, or turbine design, or cholesterol drug is a winner.

So I can't help seeing something like this from both sides: both the RS article's many avoidable flaws, and the many avoidable fumbles in the selling of VSE/ESAS (entirely aside from its intrinsic merits, if any). Sometimes one feels, with good reason, like shooting a mush-mouthed messenger. But at the same time, it wouldn't hurt to stop shooting oneself in the foot...

PS: of course right after posting that, I read further in Space Review to find Dinerman covering the same ground.

One of the most pernicious myths regarding space funding is the one that the monies are being spent “up there”. Excuse me, but that’s a remarkably foolish suggestion. Those monies wind up in the pockets of people, mostly American, who work the problems, develop the technologies, order the materials and engineer the product. All very terrestrial activities. Hell, some of them may even get paid, which can be promptly blown on subscriptions to Rolling Stone (after all, P.J. O’Rourke sometimes puts in an appearance). The writer probably thinks space technology “spin-offs” are as non-real as “Laffler Curves” And wasn’t it wonderful how he implicitly discussed the establishment and operation of a viable Lunar settlement to produce some of the Mars-Mission materials without realizing WE GET A VIABLE LUNAR SETTLEMENT as a sort of door prize. The effort to go to Mars might be “foolish” enough allow America to leap another generation ahead of the competition. Gosh, that could even be the fear/rationale which is causing the Chinese to develop manned space flight! Personally, I favor the X-Prize approach: Promise a tenth of that 500 Billion to the first organization who can operate a Mars settlement for a Martian year…tax free (and some legislation to kill the insurance and legal leeches looking for “damages”)

One of the most pernicious myths regarding space funding is the one that the monies are being spent “up there”. Excuse me, but that’s a remarkably foolish suggestion.

Well, most strawman arguments are. I know very few opponents of space who believe that the money is being spent "up there."

I wrote about this particular strawman a few years ago.

Mea culpa. You're right, I advanced a strawman which was not in your blog. My defensiveness regarding funding dates from the bloviations of William Proxmire and his "Golden Fleece". I have no doubt that the DARPA's work to network computers in the 60s and 70s would have earned a "Golden Fleece" (apparently such funding was below Proxmire's radar). But his antagonism towards basic research chilled our operations to a a significant degree.

I have no doubt that the DARPA's work to network computers in the 60s and 70s would have earned a "Golden Fleece" (apparently such funding was below Proxmire's radar).

Networked computers had obvious and immediate military and scientific applications. So by what mental process did you lose any doubt that Proxmire would have criticized it?

I've come to conclude, over the years, that the demonization of Proxmire, Mondale, Van Allen, etc. are symptoms of flaws in the space advocates, not in their targets. It's a defense mechanism to avoid actually having to address the criticisms honestly. If critics of the space program are to be castigated, we should do so by observing that, if anything, they weren't critical enough.

It's a defense mechanism to avoid actually having to address the criticisms honestly.

Also, to avoid recognizing that a majority of fellow voters and taxpayers shared the views of those politicians. When the Apollo budgetary tap was turned on, you see, that reflected a universal American yearning for space; when it was turned off, that reflected only the short-sightedness of special interests.