Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: GregM Feb 1 2006, 03:31 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2015944,00.html

I know that a lot of folks here are from the UK (including our esteemed webmaster). I intend no offence to those folks, but I have just read yet another British criticism on NASA and feel the need to comment. It’s not that people don’t have the right to free speech – the right to speak your mind is all well and good. I guess though that I really have a hard time with a great deal of the British media’s consistent and unending hypercritical assessment of another country’s space program, while there is a general unwillingness of their own nation to step up to the plate and do better. It looks very petty. If the UK even spent half what the USA spends on civil space (even just as a percentage of GNP), there might be a firm moral footing from which to criticise the Americans on how they carry out their space program. But the UK does not, nor will they in the future.

I guess what I have a problem with the most is the attitude. I see it time and time again in the Brit media when it comes to the subject: a sanctimonious attitude, gross ignorance of the subject matter, ignoring the fact that the UK is in no position to criticise others, and hypocracy. I chose the above-noted article as an example, but I have seen many others.

The above-noted article goes so far to call NASA’s priorities of the past “criminal”. I guess that the UK in fact knows more about spaceflight than any other nation on Earth – and is endowed with the divine authority to judge all other nations for deciding on how they carry out their space programs – to the point of passing moral judgements. Funny, the author likely doesn’t even pay taxes or vote in America, yet harshly attacks what is for the most part a domestic American issue. Maybe it would be better for a UK citizen to criticise the UK government for not doing enough in the field of space science, as opposed to criticising the Americans for the same thing.

The article is also filled with several “facts” to support its arguments that are simply flat out wrong, and conveniently omits others that are unsupporting. This is also a common occurrence in the British media. Even the BBC is frequently terrible with even the most basic facts concerning spaceflight. When one criticises something and it becomes obvious that they really don’t know what they are talking about, their credibility is strained beyond the limit. It then seems like they are simply pushing a dogmatic agenda, or putting down others simply to build themselves up.

I find it a bizarre attitude concerning how the other nations with vastly more spaceflight experience, infrastructure, expertise, and commitment consistently get it all wrong. This is ironic considering that the UK’s space budget is somewhere at about tenth place globally (even as a percentage of GNP). NASA will spend more on Cassini than the UK will spend on all spaceflight in 5 years. NASA’s space science budget in any given year will be larger than almost any other space organisation’s ENTIRE space budget for that same year. Colin Pillinger had to literally BEG for donation money to finish the tiny, underengineered Beagle 2 (THAT is a national embarrassment, not Beagle 2’s ultimate demise). But hey, the UK knows what they are doing here. Everyone else, particularly NASA has got it all wrong – especially that murderous Space Shuttle.

Lastly, I find it bitterly ironic that a nation that carried out the largest, most expensive, dangerous, and exploitive agenda of exploration in human history can possibly criticise anyone else for attempting to do the same. The British Empire was the greatest that the world has ever seen. It wasn’t about science then either. It was about getting British people to new worlds with the aim to claim, populate, posses, and economically exploit. The UK got fat, rich, and powerful from global exploration in a previous era. There was no thought to quitting when things went badly then either. No questioning the wisdom or morality of such things. At the time, who called for the ending of the British global exploration program when the Franklin, Scott, Shackleton, or dozens of other expeditions went horribly badly? Now that era has passed, and the UK is no longer the global power it once was. However, it seems ok for the British to criticise other nations for trying to do the same now – and when things go badly for those nations on occasion, it is just fine to accuse them of the worst sort of thinking and behaviour for both the initial failure and then attempting to get over their tragedies and push on.

Posted by: djellison Feb 1 2006, 08:52 AM

Well - haiting STS isnt a British thing, you'll find that in many media around the world.

However - I find that the British media just likes to criticise anything that fills these two criteria

1) is expensive.
2) isn't a new hospital/police force/etc.

That's all you have to do to be guarenteed of being hated by the media. There's no point moaning about someone from another country criticising the US Space program - that's always going to happen. Criticising the US is the 'in' thing at the moment anyway, criticising it's Space Program ticks that box AND the two above.

It's nothing particularly space specific. Nothing particularly Brit specific to be honest. The media likes to lambast things. It's what they do best. There's no story in "The shuttle is nice, isnt it. It launch some people last years." There IS a story in criticism.

What is sad is that the media wont criticise the, as you say, pitiful UK spending on space. I've written to my MP (who just send some crap back to me about how the UK's space budget is split.....I didnt care - I just wanted to know why it is so small), I've written to the PM ( no response ), I've written to the Science Minister ( no response ) - there's nothing I can do to get a justification for our embarrasment of funding in this field.

But if they did spend an extra, say, $1B a year on space, then they'd get roasted in the press - because you could build a few hospitals for that, or X police men, Y firemen etc etc.

There is no "talk about YOUR country first" in international news media anymore. NASA is the largest space agency, so it get's the largest share of criticism.

It's just the media - we can't really ignore it, but we don't have to take it seriously.

MEDIA

MEDIA

Media and Public Opinion are very very rarely one and the same. That passion regarding exploration still exists within the public - their reaction to Beagle 2 DESPITE it being a failure was astonishing. If Beagle 2 had worked - I wouldnt have time to run this place, I'd be doing talks every night, across the whole country - people would be dying to hear about their mars lander. Even now - people realise I'm a space nut and ask "whatever happened to that Mars lander of ours?"

Remember - the voice of the media is not the voice of the people.

Doug

Posted by: SkyeLab Feb 1 2006, 09:23 AM

Is it worth pointing out that both the owner and the editor of The "London" Times are Australian?........................ I'll get my coat.........

Posted by: MahFL Feb 1 2006, 12:11 PM

Wow that article is pretty scathing. I disagree with a lot of it, though the Shuttle is expensive and a dangerous design. I still want to to see men and women in space and on Moons and Planets though.
Just my taxpaying cents worth of a Brit living in the good old US of A.

Posted by: AndyG Feb 1 2006, 01:04 PM

Thanks for the heads-up to the article, Greg...I opened it with a sense of expectant relish; eager to read something so badly put together, so disagreeable, that I'd wade in with a "me too" towards your comments.

...But I honestly have to say that I can't.

Yes, there's some incorrect facts in there, and yes, it's a polarised, pro-robotic point-of-view. But when you get down to it, it's unquestionably correct:

1) Manned spaceflight, using the shuttle, is inherently dangerous.
2) NASA is to blame for the loss of Challenger and Columbia.
3) The ISS is little more than a destination for the shuttle.
4) Robotic exploration of space has been a remarkable triumph.
5) Unmanned probes and missions have been limited by the spending on manned space flight.
6) Returning to the Moon will cost a lot of money.

I can't really disagree with any of that.

That said, I personally welcome the Return to the Moon (and the CEV route to get there) for both the US's political pride and for my near-spiritual requirement towards our species maintaining a manned presence in space.

Andy G, UK-based human and robotic spaceflight junkie.

Posted by: craigmcg Feb 1 2006, 01:24 PM

I do a lot of media relations for my job, and at the risk of generalis(z)ing, I would say the UK media have a different style than the US press. So I wouldn't say they are more down on NASA than anything else.

Posted by: brianc Feb 1 2006, 01:27 PM

Andy G

I totally agree with your sentiments, I would also say that the British press are intrusive and often very negative to both domestic and foreign issues. However the British press, to their credit do at least question their own governments actions and policies whereas the press in may other countries just go along with the policies of their leaders regardless, just towing the party-line.

I have also been a very keen enthusiast of the Manned Space program and NASA's open and sincere commitment to it since watching the moon landings in my school days, but at present it really is going no-where and eating up billions of dollars that could be spent on Unmanned spaceflight with far greater 'bangs for the buck' being returned. The ISS is just being built and manned just for the sake of it with very little benefit being returned in terms of scientific results or as part of a bigger exploration picture.


Brianc (UK based)

Posted by: Phil Stooke Feb 1 2006, 01:54 PM

Brief comment from an ex-brit.

Let's not forget that NASA doesn't make space policy. The President sets space policy and Congress decides on the budget. NASA's priorities are made for it. I'm sure Mike Griffin would love to ditch the shuttle and station right now, but he can't.

Oh - and the UK space budget situation is really pathetic, as Doug says. As for my new home, we also could do a lot more, but it would be very difficult sell in Ottawa.

Phil

Posted by: djellison Feb 1 2006, 02:02 PM

I wish I were able to do more about the UK space budget - but I just got utterly blanked by every govenement official I asked. It's like shouting at a big, fat, lump of lard. It doesnt do anything.

It's disgracefull.....next thing they'll be closing http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=ST&f=45&t=2166&st=0#entry39441 - that really would be a disgrace...

oops

Doug

Posted by: ljk4-1 Feb 1 2006, 02:31 PM

Perhaps you should contact Sir Patrick Moore and not the politicians first. He may have the connections to get things done.

As I recall when Huygens landed on Titan, Tony Blair practically bragged about the fact that he had neither the interest or the knack for science. Combine this with Mr. Pro-ID Bush and I fear for civilization.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Feb 1 2006, 02:35 PM

There's a real antipathy towards manned spaceflight among the powers-that-be in the UK, dating back to WWII. Perhaps having V2s fired at London had an effect, or something, but there you are. Even industry has abandoned spaceflight (try and find the 'space' in British Aerospace, and most spaceflight, or even science, reportage is mean-spirited at best, and downright negative the rest of the time.

(sigh)

Bob Shaw

Posted by: ljk4-1 Feb 1 2006, 02:47 PM

In the Fifteenth Century, China - having just explored the known world with a huge naval fleet - dismantled its navy and stopped exploration, as it felt that no other culture on Earth was superior to its own. Add to this their politicians demanding that the money be spent on domestic issues, and we see once again that no one seems to learn from the lessons of history.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/ming.html

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."

- Thomas Jefferson in 1798, after passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts

Posted by: dvandorn Feb 1 2006, 04:11 PM

THIS is the logical fallacy in the stop-manned-spaceflight argument. I absolutely guarantee you that a cessation of U.S. manned spaceflight will not result in larger budgets for unmanned exploration.

In fact, a cessation of U.S. manned spaceflight will inevitably lead to a cessation of U.S. unmanned space exploration.

If that's what y'all want -- if y'all REALLY want to leave unmanned space exploration to ESA and China -- then go ahead, side with that article.

Besides, I take UK criticism of anything American with a grain of salt -- the Brits really haven't forgiven us colonists for our little rebellion, and you guys on the other side of the pond can never pass up an opportunity to stick it to us whenever you can...

-the other Doug

Posted by: djellison Feb 1 2006, 04:31 PM

Again - you've confused the British media, and the British. They are not one and the same. The British MEDIA may enjoy 'sticking it' to the US wherever possible, but us Brits actually have a little more intelligence and a lot more respect than our newspapers and television reporters.

I agree, however, that an end to manned spaceflight would probably shaft the whole program all together. There is a balance, and whilst I dont think have got that balance in the right place - they're not doing TOOooo bad. It's an old adage, but robots dont have ticker tape parades ( infact, does anyone any more? ) - so they have a roll, but we still need hero's, one's that run on something other than ones and zeeros.


Doug

Posted by: RNeuhaus Feb 1 2006, 05:02 PM

I have the impression that the manned space has an important influence on unmanned space missions since it depends upon it. Before the man land on the other planet, the unmanned space mission is first conducted. I realize that without the manned space missions, the unmanned space missions would be of low interest and it will become only for Earth conservation with meterological and telecomunications spacecrafts.

On the other hand, as everybody knows that the economy is an important factor to drive the space business. It is very probably that the funds for space exploration will change for Earth conservation due to the "Greenhouse problems". I think it would be most probably scenary since without a good fund to combat the Greenhouse, our human specie will be in danger to be dissapared or extint.

Rodolfo

Posted by: Canopus Feb 1 2006, 05:02 PM

Is this the same UK which frequently gives the USA a scolding for having had a slave trade once (you know...the one they started)? And for colonialism too (nevermind we were once their colony, and they had colonies galore prior to any of ours). All's forgiven for them apparently...but not for us apparently.

What an odd double standard.

Doesn't surprise me that NASA's getting bashed. It's part of America...so what else is new?

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Feb 1 2006, 05:33 PM

For what it's worth, I think it's ridiculous to judge a country by its media. Only slightly better would be to judge a country by its used car salesmen, especially since the latter, at least here in the U.S., are rated higher in opinion polls than the former.

Posted by: dvandorn Feb 1 2006, 05:39 PM

First off -- Doug, you know I was exaggerating for dramatic effect -- -- although, as with all such things, there is a germ of truth there. After all, as Benjamin Franklin once said, all rebellions are illegal in the third person -- such as "their rebellion." It is only in the first person -- "our rebellion" -- that they become legal.

We can try (and, to a certain extent, succeed) in "sending our minds but not our bodies" to other worlds. But there is a satisfaction of exploration that cannot be achieved unless human beings actually trod the sands and shores of the new worlds. Why do you think we anthropomorphize these robots as much as we do? If we could bring Spirit and Oppy back home, there are those who would give *them* ticker-tape parades, as if they could appreciate the adulation...

Yes, we need heroes. And we need heroes who accomplish great voyages of exploration far more than we need heroes who have proven their prowess in killing. Enemies come and go, and more often than not become allies in the next war -- but explorations live on in human history, the first steps onto foreign soil being remembered long after the wars that preceded or followed them.

For those of you who insist that there is no place in space exploration for manned explorations, I ask of you -- why do we, then, make those who perform manned explorations heroes?

The answer to that rhetorical question, of course, is that we all, in our heart of hearts, truly want to do such exploring ourselves. We can satisfy that need vicariously when one of us, another human being whose life and experience we can truly share and understand, does that which we long to do. But no matter how hard we try, we cannot anthropomorphize robots enough to fulfill that same need by looking through their cold eyes of glass, metal and plastic.

Yes, there are places humans cannot go, and we will expand our horizons via robots as much as is necessary. But (as has been said before), there is a fundamental truth to our nature: man must explore.

-the other Doug

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Feb 1 2006, 06:29 PM

Wow. oDoug and I are in agreement on something bordering political.

Posted by: dvandorn Feb 1 2006, 07:59 PM

You see, Dan? There's room for common ground, even between conservatives and liberals!

Bodes well for the future...

-the other Doug

Posted by: hendric Feb 1 2006, 10:17 PM

Hell, I would go to a ticker tape parade for the MER rovers...Let's schedule one for the year after they both pass away! We could even use that 1/4 scale model someone is building, and mount it on a Mars float/diorama...

Posted by: Rakhir Feb 1 2006, 11:07 PM

From http://www.space.com/news/ft_060201_nasabudget.html

Posted by: ugordan Feb 2 2006, 08:45 AM

Now that's just fricken great...
I suppose that means bye-bye to the Europa Orbiter until god-knows-when. It's not like there could be *life* beneath all that ice or anything...

Posted by: abalone Feb 2 2006, 09:57 AM

Hey, don't judge a country by its megalomaniac....anyhow I believe he has given us the flick and has been a fully paid up Yank for years mate!!...and the irony is that one American is complaining about criticism from another.

Posted by: Sunspot Feb 2 2006, 11:35 AM

The British press isn't the only one bashing NASA.......

http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=6175

...this review of the new IMAX movie Roving Mars - says its little more than "an expensive, drawn-out commercial for NASA "

She's complaining that she had to pay $8.50 to see it and as expected the article is full of mistakes, so she couldnt have been paying much attention - stupid women lol.

I think you can add your comments at the end... perhaps she might like to know how popular the MER mission has been on the interent- how many hits has the website had?

Posted by: djellison Feb 2 2006, 11:53 AM

PAh - I've added a comment, but I doubt it will be read


""if the mission is successful"

Both rovers have been working on the surface for more than two years.

"The capsule's fiery descent into the Martian atmosphere at Mach-2"

The entry occured at Mach 25.

"This is essentially a tribute to a couple of robots"

And to the people that built them, designed them, and operate them to this day -unarguable the greatest team of engineers and scientists the human race has to offer.

If you are going to offer criticism, please do so accurately."

No doubt if the movie were free, she would moan that her taxes were being wasted in making it.

Doug

Posted by: Sunspot Feb 2 2006, 11:58 AM

I suspect her appalling journalistic abilities would be better suited to commenting on the fashion industry or the latest Brad and Angelina gossip .

Posted by: ljk4-1 Feb 2 2006, 12:37 PM

If you look at the header at the top of her "review", you will see that she is a "reporter" for a high school newspaper!

While she has the "right" not to be into science et al (the right to be ignorant?), it makes me wonder if she ever got the proper education/stimulation for the sciences?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm

Posted by: djellison Feb 2 2006, 12:43 PM

Oh - she's perfectly entitled to lambast the movie - but not to get facts wrong - that's the basics of reporting.

Doug

Posted by: dvandorn Feb 2 2006, 12:51 PM

The problem is that, at least in American media, it's become acceptable to state "facts" that you've made up (i.e., LIES) in order to support your own personal point of view (i.e., AGENDA).

If you want to listen to supposedly professional journalists stating incorrect "facts," over and over again, all day long, I suggest you spend some time watching Fox News. Some of the other cable news channels are nearly as bad, but that one's the worst.

As long as high-profile "journalists" are allowed to state lies and then claim they are facts, over and over again, it's a little difficult to teach our schoolchildren and our journalists-in-training that they ought to have some type of abiding respect for the TRUTH.

...*sigh*...

-the other Doug

Posted by: abalone Feb 4 2006, 02:46 PM

AH, there's that same theme cropping up again, Fox News, The Times and "high-profile "journalists" are allowed to state lies and then claim they are facts". I wonder if there is a link with an ex Aussie, and I dont mean Crocodile Dundee.