9 thoughts on “Typical Space Reporting”

  1. It is indeed a lousy article. But it’s noteworthy that the anti-SLS campaign is now garnering attention outside the world of space cadets

  2. The placement in the article, back to back paragraphs, means you came to the conclusion the writer wanted you to. That isn’t lazy, it is slanting the article without being direct and without writing an opinion.

  3. “It is built for going to deep space. And right now, it’s the only vehicle that exists that can carry the Orion and take what it does to be able to go to deep space.”

    NASA is flat out lying these days. For starters, SLS does not exist, especially one that “can carry the Orion and take what it does to be able to go to deep space.” A vehicle like that isn’t slated to exist until 2023 (and that’s pretending Block 1B is for deep space and it is not). If we are going to play by the rules of what may exist 2 years from now; then SpaceX Starship and Super Heavy are fair game, no?

    But hey, it is Newsweek, and there is a reason it was sold for a $1.

    1. “But hey, it is Newsweek, and there is a reason it was sold for a $1.”

      I’ve always been astounded at that price. I can’t image how a buyer thought it’d be wroth that much.

  4. So who is “Ed Browne, reporter,” and how is he qualified in the field of tech journalism? I looked him up on UK LinkedIn, and it appears his main qualification is “100wpm shorthand.” So he’s basically a low-end secretary. Nothing wrong with that, but when I had a job, I wouldn’t have hired him to carry my TPS reports upstairs…

  5. And the cost of an SLS flight will never be as low as $800M.

    I mean, after all, we know that each of the RS-25 engines is costing NASA $150 million a pop. And there are four of them!

  6. Engineering jobs in aerospace must be hard to get. How else to explain that they can find people to work on SLS?

    1. I wonder how much of what we see is determined by the population of engineers rejected by SpaceX? Some years ago, I heard they were vacuuming up the American engineering graduates (restricted by ITAR) and culling the bottom performers every year. That would profoundly affect the talent pool, if true.

Comments are closed.