|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Newsweek International: Space Race
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-28-2007 09:36 AM
   
The cover story in the European, Asian and Latin American editions of Newsweek this week is the "Space Race," with images of launching rockets including the space shuttle, Soyuz, Shenzhou and others. "The New Moon Race" appears to be the lead article, which can be read online here. |
kosmonavtka
Member Posts: 170
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-28-2007 09:43 PM
Describing Sergei Krikalyov as "something of a grump" is a bit unfair, though!  |
Dwayne Day
Member Posts: 532
From:
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 01-29-2007 09:06 AM
There's a lot wrong with this article. I think the biggest problem is its overall tone. This is clearly a case where the reporter found an angle to his story--the United States is in a Moon race and is falling behind--and then tried to build a story around it, warping facts and interpretations to fit his theory. But it's a lot of bunk. There are a lot of misleading assertions in the article, and lousy interpretations of the facts, as well as stupid errors. I think that this is a classic case of what happens when a reporter with little knowledge of a subject tries to tackle it.Here's some examples: quote:
Last year the Parliament voted a 33 percent increase for Roscosmos, the Russian Space Agency, bringing its budget, including income from the sale of launch services, to $1.7 billion a year. That money has given Russia the luxury of once again turning its eyes to the moon. It plans to send the first of five robotic probes in 2010 and follow up with a permanent research base by 2012.
First, most of the increase is going to military space projects. And we have yet to see much evidence that Russian space science is actually getting more money. But my real problem is the claim that Russia will "follow up with a permanent research base by 2012." What kind of "research base"? This implies a Russian MANNED base on the Moon by 2012. There are NO such plans. quote:
"In spite of the fact that we have less money, Russia's piloted space programs are still more effective than America's," says Igor Panarin, a Roscosmos official.
I guess you could argue that it all depends upon what he means by "effective," but the argument is a rather goofy one. Although the Russians are able to launch humans into space much cheaper than the Americans, they don't actually do much of anything in space. They don't have an actual research program. quote:
Japan is moving ahead with a moon program.
Actually, Japan just canceled the lunar probe that they have been trying to get off the ground for the past 10 years. The Japanese lunar program has been in disarray for some time now. quote:
All this comes at a time when NASA, the world's premier space agency, is floundering.
The reporter presents no evidence at all for the "floundering" claim. Did he bother to actually look at what NASA did in 2006? How many successful spacecraft launches? The recovery of the Space Shuttle program? The re-start of ISS construction? How, exactly, does this constitute "floundering." quote:
Now, after spending roughly $250 billion on the space shuttle and the International Space Station and other projects since the mid-1970s, NASA will have to spend another $200 billion to reinvent the Apollo program.
First, I'd like to know where the $250 billion figure comes from. Is that the agency's entire budget for the past 30 years? Is the reporter implying that all of that money was wasted? Including Hubble, the Mars rovers, the asteroid rendezvous, the comet collision, etc.?Second, I'd like to know where the $200 billion figure for the Vision for Space Exploration came from. That is not NASA's official estimate. One can argue that NASA's estimate is wrong, but if a reporter makes that claim, they need a source for their alternative figure. quote:
The new plan could be read as an admission of failure.
I have problems with this interpretation. "Failure" is not the same as an incorrect choice. But I doubt that the reporter would be able to understand the complexities of this issue. quote:
Europe is now moving ahead with a plan to collaborate with Russia's Clipper project to build a ship capable of ferrying astronauts to Earth orbit.
First, is Clipper still alive? I thought that the Russians had essentially failed to fund it. Second, didn't ESA specifically reject involvement in Clipper? quote:
Its Proton booster—a heavy-load rocket similar in some respects to the Saturn 5—is perhaps the most successful rocket so far.
Ugh. The Proton has a payload capability of 22,000 kilograms. That's roughly the same as the Delta IV or Ariane 5. The Saturn V was 118,000 kilograms. How are the two "similar"? As far as the claim that the Proton is "perhaps the most successful rocket so far," what is the basis for this claim? Proton has a success rate of around 96%. That's actually not all that great. Shuttle is 98%. The Delta II is around 99%. This looks to me like a case of the reporter claiming that the Russian rocket is great--as good as the most famous American rocket--and using bogus figures to support it. quote:
The chief motivation for China and Russia is energy. With demand soaring into the foreseeable future, Beijing's engineer-leaders are particularly keen to find alternative sources. One possibility is helium-3, an isotope of helium that is rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. Helium-3, scientists think, would make a clean source of nuclear fusion power—burning it would be nonpolluting and leave no residual radioactive waste. For years scientists have bandied about schemes to mine helium-3 on the moon and return it to Earth in cargo ships for use in reactors, but so far nobody has had the audacity to make plans. The Chinese and the Russians have now crossed that threshold.
Helium-3! This is demonstrable proof that the reporter doesn't understand the subject. Now everybody, repeat after me:What. Fusion. Reactors? The fact that the Russians and Chinese talk about mining Helium-3 on the Moon (something that NASA does NOT talk about) is an indication of how NON-serious their plans are. If the Russians and Chinese had said "We're going to the Moon to collect fairy dust to power our flying carpets," this reporter would have scoffed and walked away. Instead, he takes them seriously and thinks that their plans indicate that they are ahead of the Americans in the race to the Moon. Pffffftttt!!! quote:
In the end, the shuttle wasn't built to take off from a runway; instead it was strapped on the side of a booster with two solid-fuel rockets on either side.
More demonstrable proof that the reporter doesn't understand anything about this subject. The Shuttle was NEVER conceived as launching from a runway. It was always going to take off vertically and the two key questions were whether it would be mounted on the nose of the rocket or the side, and whether the rocket would be reusable (the flyback booster) or expendable (the ET and SRB option that NASA selected). If you're going to criticize a bad decision by NASA, then at least get the facts right. quote:
Designed to take advantage of the shuttle capabilities, the station has proven hugely expensive—$200 billion and counting, even after downgrading its capabilities and crew size.
I'd like to see a source for that cost estimate. It is far higher than any legitimate cost estimate that I've seen.There does not appear to be a method for contacting the reporter or his editors to complain about how bad this article is. However, you can visit the link and rate the article at the bottom. I gave it one star out of five, but only because I could not vote with negative numbers. [Edited by collectSPACE Admin (January 29, 2007).] | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
