Repugnant Behavior on the Part of One NASA Employee

The blog you refer to is probably among the least useful (most worthless?) of the lesser-known space blogs due to the over-the-top, all bias, all bull, attitude of the writer - as well as due to the juvenile, storybook setting he types his posts in. Occasionally, some of the accompanying comments can be interesting, but overall it seems to be a watering hole for disgruntled armchair space "enthusiasts". I don't give any weight whatsoever to anything that appears on the front page, there.

Rocketsandsuch has his .... issues. I suspect he'd see a Mike Griffin plot if a reliable informant hinted to him that the sun had been known to rise in the east.

Provoking a thought or two. Should we hope that Obama gives a space program that meets the emotional needs of the blogosphere, or something that serves the entire American nation?

And is NASA the ONLY government agency that provokes this kind of emotionalism? I mean, did you ever run into a website -- or even a concerned citizen -- jumping up and down on say the Weather Bureau or the Army Corps of Engineers or Coast and Geodetic Survey for years on end? Even the Federal Reserve Board does't seem to provoke such a degree of sentiment.

>>is NASA the ONLY government agency that provokes this kind of emotionalism?

Should we hope that Obama gives a space program that meets the emotional needs of the blogosphere, or something that serves the entire American nation?

And what would the latter look like? Surely not Constellation...

Rocketsandsuch has his .... issues. I suspect he'd see a Mike Griffin plot if a reliable informant hinted to him that the sun had been known to rise in the east.

Provoking a thought or two. Should we hope that Obama gives a space program that meets the emotional needs of the blogosphere, or something that serves the entire American nation?

And is NASA the ONLY government agency that provokes this kind of emotionalism? I mean, did you ever run into a website -- or even a concerned citizen -- jumping up and down on say the Weather Bureau or the Army Corps of Engineers or Coast and Geodetic Survey for years on end? Even the Federal Reserve Board does't seem to provoke such a degree of sentiment.

Be skeptical of RocketsandSuch at your own detriment. His opinions jump the shark most of the time, but many of his facts are irrefutable. The next time you don't believe something on there, call a level-headed friend and check it out. You'll find the veracity is about 6 parts out of 7. Smart people should be using facts and data to form their own opinions, not the opinions of any blog poster. NW, R&S and NSF are all quite complementary. R&S has the best signal-noise ratio, if you've got the decryption key.

Editor's note: I have the "decryption key". The author of that blog is dead wrong on this issue. I know it - and he knows it - and the people who actually made the decision know it. To top things off he won't even allow my comment to be posted ...

To each his own.

There was some lack of honesty involving the accident. This activity promotes this type of writing, such as it is.

The same can be said for TWA 800, the NTSB did the best they could at fact finding and reporting the facts. There still is discussion about the event and what really happened.

JSC likes Drama, it promotes it. This is why agency decisions should only happen at HQ with a balanced review process.

This is how the report was released,from HQ, unbalanced. The timing could have been at the Ares PDR not during the 2008 new years holiday week.

My two cents

I don't get the "following morning" comment. The report couldn't possibly have been completed that soon. But ignoring that, a delay in the release may have been for the sake of the family but the release date is still a little suspicious.

Keith -

Your defense of the astronauts families is admirable here, but (unless the R&S posting was changed) you've got your quote wrong. The text as posted now doesn't make the accusation you imply that it does, that family sensitivities were not really the reason for the scheduling of the release. I'm assuming that the post was revised.

The post now refers noncommittally to NASA concern about sensitivities with the astronauts families, and then rants about how the report allegedly serves as a "design guide".

The poster's issue seems not that it was released on this particular day (as opposed to a week before, or a week from now, relative to a school schedule), but that the report was released at a time (as opposed to a year ago) when the Administrator was especially desperate for some rationale for shuttle termination.

I agree that the reference to seven dead crew is still totally uncalled for but, in all fairness, there may have been some ambiguity about scheduling that was corrected. If it was indeed corrected, it might have been done with an explicit apology.

Morris

Editor's note: Sorry, I beg to differ and my sources are vastly better than yours on this. This date was decided upon some time ago and for the precise reason given. Rocketsandsuch is wrong. Period.

Mr. Cowling...from a comment above "and to do so anonymously at that - is cowardly and beyond repugnant"...I have suggestion for accepting comments to this web site...adopt a policy of only allowing comments to be shown from those that provide name, address, and phone number...kinda like a newspaper requires for submittal of letters to the editor...
Regards,

Milt Heflin
15506 Seahorse Drive
Houston, Tx 77062
281-488-5903

Editor's note: Sorry, I beg to differ and my sources are vastly better than yours on this. This date was decided upon some time ago and for the precise reason given. Rocketsandsuch is wrong. Period.

Not sure what you're begging about. Your quote from R&S as presented by you is, as of earlier today at least, formally incorrect. I'm suggesting (and you're free to confirm this, but you have not), that R&S has edited the original post since when you took your quote from it.

I'm sure your sources are better than mine, and I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation of and your exasperation about the quote as you gave it. This isn't about sources. Just that your quote is, at least now, literally incorrect, and has a different meaning than the words that are on the R&S site now.

The way the R&S post reads now, it doesn't explicitly suggest that the timing of the release was NOT, in fact, linked to family sensitivities. That linkage is acknowledged, but not explicitly questioned.

Morris

Mr. Cowling...thank you for posting my December 31 comment...here's a thought you might consider for NASA Watch that just might improve the quality of serious debates...at this writing this particular issue has 11 comments, including mine...four of them appear to have actual names, i.e., not anonymous...the other seven have what I would consider to be anonymous, several with "internet handle signatures" (other NASA Watch comment sections have similar trends)...for those readers interested in serious debate on a number of space flight issues, these "internet handles" do not allow the reader the opportunity to judge the credibility or integrity of the author...of course, even with full names that might be difficult as some may not be widely known...however, at a minimum, requiring the authors to use their real name might focus the debates better...I recognize this might add a burden to your process but I suspect you are more interested in providing a forum for people with credibility and integrity to have constructive discussions about this noble business of space flight...requiring a full name, address and phone number with comments to your web site might also take some of the "personal attack" tone out of the discussions...
Regards,
Milt Heflin

I would suggest to Mr. Heflin that constructive discussions about space flight should not necessarily discourage anonymity, especially to the extent that the arguments within them are self contained. Credibility or integrity of the author has nothing to do with such arguments. Either the logic presented is consistent with common knowledge, or it isn't. Now, where this fails is the "take it from me, I know (but I can't tell you how, heh, heh)!" argument. When a blog commenter says something like this, I just dismiss it out of hand, even if the name looks familiar. Mr. Heflin should recognize the distinction between these different kinds of discussion. Sometimes it is professionally awkward for someone with "integrity and credibility" to present ideas that really need to be aired without doing so anonymously. In fact, sometimes that very "integrity" demands that these things be aired.

I have no idea who "Mitt Heflin" is, actually, so by his suggestion, I should simply dismiss his words without further thought. Whether Keith Cowing knows Mr. Helfin and can vouch for him doesn't mean that much to me either. On the other hand, I could just take his words as being worth consideration, and take it from there. He has a point, and it's worth the consideration I've just given it. Keith does a service to the community in welcoming ideas, though it should be clear to everyone that, like a newspaper, he doesn't print everything he gets.

For what it's worth, RocketBoy is having one of his (or her) intermittent flirtations with modded posting to RocketsAndSuch at the moment. However, in the past, he or she has left posting to the blog open and my comments have appeared immediately and uncensored.

On the flip side, I do get the impression that the blog owner isn't exactly a fan of Dr. Griffin. Therefore, when comments are moderated, I couldn't see them allowing any view that does not match with the presupposition that the current NASA administration is anything other than the Devil's own.

Editor's 1 Jan note: The editor of Rocketsandsuch blog posted 8 comments - but not mine. So much for tolerance of different opinions on that site. Keep that in mind when you read it.

Since when does NASA Watch post all comments that are sent to it? It doesn't, and that's fair enough as a moderated forum. But I keep that in mind when I read it.