Why Does The British Media Hate Nasa?, It seems they criticise whenever the can |
Why Does The British Media Hate Nasa?, It seems they criticise whenever the can |
Feb 1 2006, 03:31 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 123 Joined: 21-February 05 Member No.: 175 |
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. |
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 01:04 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 279 |
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. |
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 04:11 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
QUOTE (AndyG @ Feb 1 2006, 07:04 AM) ...when you get down to it, it's unquestionably correct: 5) Unmanned probes and missions have been limited by the spending on manned space flight.... 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 -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Feb 1 2006, 11:07 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 370 Joined: 12-September 05 From: France Member No.: 495 |
QUOTE (dvandorn @ Feb 1 2006, 06:11 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. -the other Doug From http://www.space.com/news/ft_060201_nasabudget.html QUOTE (http://www.space.com/news/ft_060201_nasabudget.html) The NASA budget to be released Monday will not include the $5 billion in extra money that agency officials say will be needed between now and 2010 to pay the higher bills for all of the shuttle missions currently on the schedule. That means other projects have to be canceled, cut back or postponed in order to free money for the shuttle's last missions. A steady trickle of reports in recent months indicate several space science and aeronautics projects are being cancelled or pushed back. The budget release is sure to include the details of exactly which programs might be in jeopardy, though Griffin said the agency's science portfolio is not being "whacked" for the sake of the shuttle or moon missions. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st September 2024 - 06:48 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |