Just to add a little more to this, responsible media outlets usually have rules regarding anonymous sources. The best example was the Washington Post during Watergate (go read the book). Generally one of these rules is that the anonymous information has to be important/newsworthy. Another rule is that the source has to be corroborated (in other words, a single source is insufficient, you have to have two or more). And usually another rule is that the reporter's editor has to know the name of the source. I have doubts that any of these rules were followed for this article.There are other journalistic rules as well. For instance, the subject of a story is supposed to be given the opportunity to comment. Unless I missed it, if you look at the Orlando Sentinel article again, at no point does it indicate that the reporter actually called Griffin to ask if the story was true (maybe because the reporter was not interested in accuracy?).This was pretty sloppy journalism, regardless of the facts of the story.
Shall we give them Wayne Hale's number?
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/13/2008 06:22 pmJust to add a little more to this, responsible media outlets usually have rules regarding anonymous sources. The best example was the Washington Post during Watergate (go read the book). Generally one of these rules is that the anonymous information has to be important/newsworthy. Another rule is that the source has to be corroborated (in other words, a single source is insufficient, you have to have two or more). And usually another rule is that the reporter's editor has to know the name of the source. I have doubts that any of these rules were followed for this article.There are other journalistic rules as well. For instance, the subject of a story is supposed to be given the opportunity to comment. Unless I missed it, if you look at the Orlando Sentinel article again, at no point does it indicate that the reporter actually called Griffin to ask if the story was true (maybe because the reporter was not interested in accuracy?).This was pretty sloppy journalism, regardless of the facts of the story.Another good example is the reporter that was jailed for not revealing her source in the Valery Plame debacle. That reporter got screwed but she went to jail to protect a source. She deserves all the awards and cudo's possible. Few people would do that for their jobs.When's it's sloppy journalism then it gets very close to tabloid material. Sadly much of what is now called news is talboid or opinion articles or discussions. It's tragic.
If you're talking about Judith Miller of The New York Times, she was also later discredited because she bought and sold the White House's line on WMD's in Iraq. That's an example of journalism with one's head in the sand, among other things.
Quote from: rsp1202 on 12/14/2008 12:15 amIf you're talking about Judith Miller of The New York Times, she was also later discredited because she bought and sold the White House's line on WMD's in Iraq. That's an example of journalism with one's head in the sand, among other things.Who discredited her and how? I'm curious how any journalist was supposed to second guess the US government on such a thing.
So long as you report the facts (negative and positive) without opinion or agenda, then you're doing the job of a reporter, because you are reporting status. When you start reporting content on the basis of a source, you run the risk that the source may have opinion and an agenda of their own, which then filters through into your content - that's dangerous.
Quote from: khallow on 12/14/2008 09:23 amQuote from: rsp1202 on 12/14/2008 12:15 amIf you're talking about Judith Miller of The New York Times, she was also later discredited because she bought and sold the White House's line on WMD's in Iraq. That's an example of journalism with one's head in the sand, among other things.Who discredited her and how? I'm curious how any journalist was supposed to second guess the US government on such a thing.The Times fired her/she agreed to resign over her controversial reportage.Check http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10444 for background on the controversy.As for second-guessing, well the stories about this are everywhere. Read the papers.
I wonder how credible/likely having Mr. Stern return and become NASA administrator is? A bit OT I know...
Quote from: robertross on 12/14/2008 04:22 pmI wonder how credible/likely having Mr. Stern return and become NASA administrator is? A bit OT I know...I don't think he'd be too eager to return to a place he was forced out of because of trying to make some difficult decisions. People tend to be all in favor of his "let's get the costs right from the beginning" approach until it actually impacts their projects. He was basically forced to resign for trying to kill one of the MERs because it wasn't arguably doing any valuable science/buck. Got a good bit of public against him on that decision too, I haven't seen many folks defending him. Imagine how many toes he'd step on if he was the administrator.
Griffin : How to make friends and influence people Part 2http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa1408dec14,0,2552570,print.storyGriffin said NASA shouldn't be evaluated by how well it estimates the cost of projects."If we are to judge the worth of our work by our ability to estimate, then that is a standard I am not ready to apply or to accept," Griffin said."We are always going to be on [GAO's] high-risk list," he said.
Quote from: William Barton on 12/12/2008 01:07 pmI've said this before and I'll say it again. Griffin made one enormous mistake when he came on board, and that was to assume his solution to the VSE mandate could survive multiple election cycles and presidential transitions. That was utter folly. At a minimum, he needed to make sure a manned CEV had reached orbit by Fall of 2008 (ie, before the election). If that had been put before everything else (inlcuding his own favored architecture), it could have been done, and had he done it, it would be likely whoever won the election would have kept him on as a glorious success, and that would have bought him all the years out to 2016 to get to the Moon.History proves this out time and again. Kennedy wanted to get men to the Moon before he left office at the beginning of 1969. But for Apollo 1 (and the mistakes that led up to it), it's likely the first manned landing would have been in late 1968. Nixon wanted the Shuttle to fly by 1976. Reagan made a mistake letting the space station get out of hand. He should have made it small enough to fly by 1988. As it was, Clinton decided to "brand" it for himself, and then made sure at least a little bit of it flew before he left office. You can argue details all you want, but the fact is, the election cycle in this country, and the swing back and forth between party-in-power spoilage, determines outcomes much more than anything else. Deciding on an architecture that put men on the Moon eight election cycles down the road, and which wouldn't show a single tangible *result* for five cycles, was just plain stupid. Obama may make any kind of decision at all, including the really bad one he suggested at the beginning of his campaign. But if he wants to make Constellation his own, he's only got one rational course. Extend Shuttle to 2011 (ie., 2 to 4 more flights), make sure Orion is aloft by 2012 (during his run for reelection!), and make sure an American crew lands on the Moon before election day 2016 (nail down that part of his legacy and boost his chosen successor's chances of victory). I can think of several ways he can achieve that (EELV+Jupiter seems a pretty good bet, if you ask me). But it's too late now for a flat budget to handle it. I guess we'llfind out in the next few months.You would like the following:1. Extend shuttle till 2012--2 -4 flights2. Orion by 20123. Moon 2016 (EELV and Direct/Jupiter).My questions:1. Will/can Orion Block A be ready by 2012? What cost involved?2. What will Orion fly on--EELV? Projectwise--How much and what would it cost.3. Moon by 2016. Can Direct be ready even if only a flyby like Apollo 8. How much will this cost, since NASA already impacted by time and money to get Orion and EELV ready for 2012. Bottomline--budget may stay the same or just adjust for inflation/deflation. It looks to me--1 and 2 are very near term items. Direct gets $05-2b a year till 2012 to start process, etc. But as you said--President needs to see something fly in first term.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Griffin made one enormous mistake when he came on board, and that was to assume his solution to the VSE mandate could survive multiple election cycles and presidential transitions. That was utter folly. At a minimum, he needed to make sure a manned CEV had reached orbit by Fall of 2008 (ie, before the election). If that had been put before everything else (inlcuding his own favored architecture), it could have been done, and had he done it, it would be likely whoever won the election would have kept him on as a glorious success, and that would have bought him all the years out to 2016 to get to the Moon.History proves this out time and again. Kennedy wanted to get men to the Moon before he left office at the beginning of 1969. But for Apollo 1 (and the mistakes that led up to it), it's likely the first manned landing would have been in late 1968. Nixon wanted the Shuttle to fly by 1976. Reagan made a mistake letting the space station get out of hand. He should have made it small enough to fly by 1988. As it was, Clinton decided to "brand" it for himself, and then made sure at least a little bit of it flew before he left office. You can argue details all you want, but the fact is, the election cycle in this country, and the swing back and forth between party-in-power spoilage, determines outcomes much more than anything else. Deciding on an architecture that put men on the Moon eight election cycles down the road, and which wouldn't show a single tangible *result* for five cycles, was just plain stupid. Obama may make any kind of decision at all, including the really bad one he suggested at the beginning of his campaign. But if he wants to make Constellation his own, he's only got one rational course. Extend Shuttle to 2011 (ie., 2 to 4 more flights), make sure Orion is aloft by 2012 (during his run for reelection!), and make sure an American crew lands on the Moon before election day 2016 (nail down that part of his legacy and boost his chosen successor's chances of victory). I can think of several ways he can achieve that (EELV+Jupiter seems a pretty good bet, if you ask me). But it's too late now for a flat budget to handle it. I guess we'llfind out in the next few months.
Quote from: ugordan on 12/14/2008 04:34 pmQuote from: robertross on 12/14/2008 04:22 pmI wonder how credible/likely having Mr. Stern return and become NASA administrator is? A bit OT I know...I don't think he'd be too eager to return to a place he was forced out of because of trying to make some difficult decisions. People tend to be all in favor of his "let's get the costs right from the beginning" approach until it actually impacts their projects. He was basically forced to resign for trying to kill one of the MERs because it wasn't arguably doing any valuable science/buck. Got a good bit of public against him on that decision too, I haven't seen many folks defending him. Imagine how many toes he'd step on if he was the administrator.I wouldn't scratch a name off for the above reason and I'm not sure why anyone would. Just because someone had a bad experience in what sounds like an intractable position (that is, required to cut funding to the point that popular programs had to be affected) doesn't mean that they wouldn't reenter under better circumstances. Plus NASA administrator is a high prestige job with a lot of perks.
SSP is not viable at this time.