Author Topic: Biased article in The Hill regarding SLS & ISS  (Read 639 times)

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1287
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 253
Biased article in The Hill regarding SLS & ISS
« on: 10/21/2018 09:40 AM »
Today I found this very biased and misleading article on The Hill.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/412382-russian-launch-failure-proves-why-we-need-nasas-space-launch-system

I think the article is a collection of FUD, plus SLS appraisal on the following points:
- stating SpaceX was 5 years behind schedule on Falcon Heavy, so it's OK for SLS to be off schedule
- claiming FH is dead end technology just because it will not be man-rated
- mixing in (non NASA funded) sub orbital flight (Virgin) to increase FUD
- claiming that if everything goes wrong, SpaceX and Boeing will not enable access to ISS for years to come, but not mentioning that SLS would not be able to do that in the same catastrophic time frame
- indirectly claiming that SLS would be used for ISS access. Although possible, it would be a financial disaster.
- claiming that the cancellation of Constellation by Obama was a mistake. Here it is debatable.
- claiming that cancellation of the Shuttle program was a mistake.
- claiming that Obama delayed the CCDev by not properly funding it. AFAIK, this lack of funding came from congress
- complete incoherence in first stating competition is required, and in the same line, stating that SLS is the only capable launcher in construction that can give deep space access
- complete incoherence in first stating that Boeing/SpaceX could drop out of CCDev to lack of business interest, while not mentioning the same for Boeing's work on SLS.

« Last Edit: 10/21/2018 09:41 AM by IRobot »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2857
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1405
  • Likes Given: 1637
Re: Biased article in The Hill regarding SLS & ISS
« Reply #1 on: 10/21/2018 09:43 AM »
I saw that, it was so 'special' I diddn't bother posting it.
In retrospect probably a bad idea as important people do read it.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9642
  • UK
  • Liked: 1819
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Biased article in The Hill regarding SLS & ISS
« Reply #2 on: 10/21/2018 09:44 AM »
If the article is so bad why post it in this forum, especially if just causes yet another re-hashed debate about SLS/Orion because of course we havenít had enough of them on here?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2857
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1405
  • Likes Given: 1637
Re: Biased article in The Hill regarding SLS & ISS
« Reply #3 on: 10/21/2018 09:48 AM »
If the article is so bad why post it in this forum, especially if just causes yet another re-hashed debate about SLS/Orion because of course we havenít had enough of them on here?
It's an important source, and informative of what nontechnical people in washington may be reading.

If you approve of, or do not approve of SLS is not on topic here - there are glaring factual inaccuracies in the article even if you're pro SLS.
I want pro BFS articles to be accurate and not raise ridiculous benefits, similarly for SLS.
SLS for ISS servicing for example would raise great technical challenges, as well as financial, that would need addressed.

Thinly concealed fact-free hyperbolic adverts have no place in journalism.
« Last Edit: 10/21/2018 09:51 AM by speedevil »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9642
  • UK
  • Liked: 1819
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Biased article in The Hill regarding SLS & ISS
« Reply #4 on: 10/21/2018 10:16 AM »
If the article is so bad why post it in this forum, especially if just causes yet another re-hashed debate about SLS/Orion because of course we havenít had enough of them on here?
It's an important source, and informative of what nontechnical people in washington may be reading.

If you approve of, or do not approve of SLS is not on topic here - there are glaring factual inaccuracies in the article even if you're pro SLS.
I want pro BFS articles to be accurate and not raise ridiculous benefits, similarly for SLS.
SLS for ISS servicing for example would raise great technical challenges, as well as financial, that would need addressed.

Thinly concealed fact-free hyperbolic adverts have no place in journalism.

But those self same people have already made up their minds on this topic, so what difference is one bad article going to make in that respect. Iíd argue it will make no difference at all.

Plus badly written and badly researched articles about spaceflight are hardly new. I mean only this weak the BBC & other media organisations were referring to BepiColombo as British built. Someone obviously pointed this out to the BBC as being in error because in later bulletins it was corrected to European & Japanese, but other media were still incorrectly calling it British.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Biased article in The Hill regarding SLS & ISS
« Reply #5 on: 10/21/2018 10:38 AM »
Totally understand why people link articles like this, but guess what, it's what they want you to do. They (mass media, paid-for-articles, op-eds) don't care if you like it or not - some prefer you don't and then (via outrage) link it everywhere.

That gets them clicks (only mass media make any money out of clicks these days via that "we get a billion hits, so advertisers don't mind if ads are clicked on or not, they just want to be seen) and the angle of the article gets put into an even wider audience. For all the outrage, some people will believe it and that's job done.

So I'm locking this thread. Everyone with a basic understanding of the subject knows this includes elements of crap. It doesn't need a thread here to point it out.


Tags: