Jay Barbree Gets It All Wrong – Again
Put space policy on the presidential to-do list, Jay Barbree, NBC
“Forty-five years later, one of the relative newcomers to the space business, SpaceX, is receiving roughly three-quarters of a billion dollars from NASA — while one of the shuttle program’s longtime contractors, ATK, is still trying to get in on the funding for space station resupply.”
Keith’s note: It is beyond odd that Jay Barbree focuses on the money spent on SpaceX but ignores the billions that NASA spent on Ares 1’s first stage – which is now being used as the first stage of Liberty. Ares 1 was, itself, a derivation of another government-funded research program to develop the Space Shuttle SRBs. Given th ebillions spent on SRB and Ares 1, SpaceX is an incredible bargain by an order of magnitude.
“Most space veterans agree with those goals, Mr. President, but with a cautionary note: Don’t prop up t.e newcomers while giving short shrift to America’s most experienced aerospace companies. This happened before, when the White House took the contract from the experienced and gave it to the inexperienced. In 1967, the Apollo 1 astronauts paid with their lives in a launch-pad fire.”
Keith’s note: Contrary to Barbree’s ill-informed statement, North American Aviation was far from being “inexperienced”. Once again, it is odd how Barbree focuses on one company and a fatal accident but does not bother to mention Morton Thiokol (bought by ATK to form the basis of its solid rocket business) and its involvement in the Challenger accident which resulted from the very same SRBs that from the basis for the basic Ares 1/Liberty design.
Liberty should be allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits. Yet Jay Barbree continues to write this one-sided, badly-researched revisionist history. Indeed, the things he writes are downright misleading and are fraught with inconsistencies and glaring omissions. Does NBC simply not care enough to provide Jay Barbree with a research assistant or fact checker?
– Jay Barbree Needs A Fact Checker, earlier post
– Jay Barbree is Stuck In The Past, earlier post
– A Confused Story and Things That Never Happened, earlier post
The rest of Jay’s piece is quite good. It’s too bad then that he jumps right in with the two things that Keith points out above. It really makes him sound like a paid lobbist for (or investor of) ATK. Being an elder statesman among journalists (or at least he would remind you so) he should stay above the petty quarrels of who is getting what contract/$ from NASA/Congress and stay focused on the bigger things.
That said, I disagree with how he pits ATK vs. SpaceX. The timing of this being so close to the CCiCap decision announcment is no accident (thus my “lobbist” statement above). I wonder who he has the ear of? Does he have the ear of Brian Williams, who has shown general enthusiasm for all things space, including the recent SpaceX mission? Does he have the ear of people in NASA who are making these CCP decisions? Congress members?
I wonder if Jay is getting money from ATK or was just brainwashed by him.
Certainly, ATK is laying it on super-think with propaganda on how Liberty is the “safest” and most “economical” means of human spaceflight, despite not having flown anything close to a real world configuration.
Certain people at ATK have a real [deleted] for SpaceX.
His third part is out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id…
And it sounds like you are right. He is ether being paid or
just brainwashed.
He makes Space X sound like a problem child and makes ATK
sound like a knight in shining armor. The laymen may buy it but most of us here
know better.
Sure the layman will buy it ! Why wouldn’t he or she??? Sad but spin works so well! Make sure you listion to all the high priced crap brain wash commercials before you vote too!! Yup it’s 1984 and THEY are watching. THEY controling! Lol and you and I are worried about flying a few rockets or what clowns like Mr. Jay have to say!
And y’all wonder why I joke and laugh out loud so much lolol because it’s all so sadly funny. Lolol
Old Space = Ugh
” Don’t prop up the newcomers while giving short shrift to America’s most experienced aerospace companies.”
Barbree is implying with this statement that SpaceX somehow got the contract on grounds other than merit. That’s an outrageous slander against SpaceX. SpaceX wasn’t the only awardee for any cargo development or operational contract, or for crew development. Boeing got even more money than SpaceX for crew. All of these were among the most open and transparent procurement processes ever used anywhere in government. In fact, it’s not just an outrageous slander against SpaceX but against everyone in NASA involved in this selection process.
ATK, on the other hand, got all of its Shuttle and Ares contracts through a closed process that gave nobody else a chance to compete. For SLS, Congress explicitly slammed their thumbs on the scale and wrote into law provisions that forced NASA to use shuttle-era contractors, notably ATK.
Barbree is either intentionally grossly distorting the facts or is deeply delusional.
I’m surprised to see that the boosters for the SLS have been designated and a contractor selected to make them. Boy are they moving along fast. Has the primary first stage been approved and let for contract, too?
Looks like someone got “briefed”.
(Actually, how much has ATK received for Constellation, Ares-1X launch, and current SLS work?)
((For that matter, how much did ATK receive to fix the o-ring problem that caused the Challenger loss?))
Jay’s a good guy, but he is way too enamored of the old way of doing things. This isn’t the 60’s, and the waterfall funding levels of that era are gone. NBC should be developing someone more objective to take over the space beat.
Chris,
The only problem I see with your suggestion is that NBC won’t replace him with anybody. I strongly suspect that once he retires they’ll do without an “expert” and their very limited space reports will be done by whoever is on deck, same as they would for a fire or human interest story. Sad.
Steve
Steve,
Of course, you’re right. We’ve seen CNN and others do away with science and technology reporters, and that’s a slap in the face to the legacy of Cronkite, Bergman and the others in the business who understood the significance of it. Apparently, science isn’t as important to today’s news producers and audiences as hearing the latest about Tom Cruise. (And yes, the audience research seems to support this. Maybe we should invent a crises about a giant asteroid hitting Earth? Hey, great movie idea!)
Jay said a few years ago he would retire when the shuttle did. I wonder how he remains on the NBC staff. Emeritus or something? If not, NBC should reexamine this.
C.
Maybe Barbree meant he’d retire when the Shuttle SRB’s retired, and Thiokol seems to get those darn things back in the mix time and time again.
Speaking of CNN’s mistakes- Miles O’Brien (Now PBS/Freelance) would be a good addition for NBC. I’m pretty sure that Brian Williams over there is interested in Space Issues.
Someone close to NBC News should drop Mr Williams a line about how capable Miles O’Brien is.
I agree that’s a good idea!!! I like his work! It seems to be fair
Yeah, he’s doing some good stuff now, just not enough of it. I recommend to all here his Frontline piece “Flying Cheap” about the sorry state of commuter airlines.
Christopher,
Miles has had to work damn hard to get what he has now after being CN-eNded. I wonder if he would walk away from it to go back to essentially the same risk again as nicked him before. Perhaps it’s better to have less that’s yours than more that’s capricious.
Steve
Maybe we can do two birds with one stone here. Let Jay Barbree fulfill a lifelong wish of going into space by letting him be the sole passenger on the first manned ATK-Liberty capsule. He can bring along a wheel of cheese.
But I seriously doubt ATK-Liberty will ever fly , no matter how much Jay wishes for that or was paid to promote it…
Funniest thing I’ve read all day. Thanks. 😉
Jay is the guy I heard say about Spacex, that they don’t know anything about Space flight they are just going to tie 9 little rockets together.
Yup, he should retire
Jay was with some shuttle NASA guys and he said Spacex are just babies and laughed. My first impression of him was that he was a short sighted person. This was before falcon 9 maiden flight I think.
Bob Hudson
At the time he made that comment I felt that he saw Spacex as a threat to his little club.
I sure wasn’t impressed. My point is he never liked them. Fear of the future.
He sure didn’t get me excited about space flight!!!
Joe Public
Funny. That Von Braun guy strapped 8 little rockets together and built a pretty good launcher. He probably didn’t know what he was doing either.
Chris,
For that matter, Soyuz — then and now — is just a a bunch of R-7’s strapped together, and Soyuz is considered state of the art by many since is it the only HSF LV flying (on the weak theory that China has only copied it). And an R-7 is basically just an upgraded V-2 (A-4.) Of course, taking it one step further, there is absolutely nothing more primitive in an LV than a solid rocket motor missile, which is all that ATK can do any more. So, poor old Jay has it exactly backwards. It makes one wonder if the whole field of History is valid.
Steve
Steve
ATK? They are no big deal they are only standing on the shoulders of Chinese R and D!
Are not they the ones they invented gun powered and flew the first rockets??
I seem to remember an American guy that invented the liquid fuel Rocket. I thought he made something better than gun powder fire cracker missiles lol
But what do I know lol
Joe Q lol
I have to wonder if there isn’t something else going on here that we dont know about. Jay¹s been at this for decades, he’s been ‘one of us,’ and he’s certainly not stupid. If it was just the ATK, old boy connection that he had to satisfy, he would have found a way to write what they wanted, yet at the same time 1) be more properly objective, and 2) not include such gross errors in the story (especially with 4 parts yet to go). At the risk of sounding like a bad TV plot, maybe someone has him over a barrel so he had to be biased, but by dong it so poorly he’s deliberately devaluing his opening comments as a message to us — take this “report” with a large grain of salt. And this is isn’t the first time he’s done this same thing. Then again, maybe he’s just getting old.
Steve
In Jay’s defense, the NBC pieces are clearly labeled commentary and not reporting. However, I think Steve and others are right in criticizing Jay’s comments WRT New Space. It’s a little distressing that Jay doesn’t see value in the cost modeling SpaceX and others are using to beat the old companies with. And that’s the critical factor here; can New Space deliver the same essential product for less money and benefit?
It is commentary and as such, it should be scrutinized and discussed. Jay’s conclusions are flawed. He may come up with some bad conclusions, but at least he does label his viewpoint as commentary unlike some in the media.
Jay Barbree is just one of few reporter left over from the 60’s era of reporting
on the Space Program His dedication to NASA and the government’s involvement is apparent and shows his lack of knowledge of the private sector’s involvement. He is needed to press upon the importance of the Space Program in today’s society but he also needs to be more aware of how the private sector can help and possibly reboot the program.
The problem with reporters today is they aren’t taught to be responsible,objective journalist, they tend to lean more on biasness than what is actually truth.They report strictly from “the hip” without gathering the facts first,misleading,misguiding the public.
Jay and others are the better of the reporting sector but in his case, he tends to report before doing real research on the subject.
Bob,
I absolutely agree with you about today’s reporters. Catering to the editors’ and owners’ biases is obvious. Past that, I have to wonder how much “bad reporting” is due to poor or no training, and how much is lack of resources to work with (based on low budgets brought on by competition). It must be hard to get all the facts right sitting at a desk in a noisy room full of people, armed with only a telephone and a computer, and not enough time to do things right (a new edition every hour/day). Still, they are being paid to do a job; they should be doing it well.
Steve
The resources available to the average reporter (or anyone) these days is nothing short of breathtaking. In the old days you just had a landline telephone at a desk (or wherever you found one to use) and the relationships you made with people on the inside. These days you have those things, plus your own smartphone/with internet connection with you at all times for 24/7 personal communication, Google for instant research, techs and engineers blogging and government agencies right there online for reference, and with your laptop you needn’t even go to the newsroom. Seems a reporter should be able to at least get the facts straight.
Bob,
Can’t resist commenting here, as I’m an old reporter myself. The problem with “reporters today” is that they are not trained as they once were. What I mean is that we all have our biases, but professional journalists are supposed to prevent those biases from becoming apparent in their reporting. Too many young reporters will leave the newsroom with the story already written and find the quotes/sound bites to suppor that concept.
That said, it’s not the obvious bias that readers/viewers should beware of. It’s the insidious, sometimes unintentional bias that is the worst flaw of all. Bernie Goldberg (formerly of CBS) does a terrific job of identifying those biases in the series of books he’s written.
I actually like Jay’s purpose in his commentary – advocating for the US to remain strong in space. Where he goes wrong is where he advocates for certain proposals over others without doing the necessary research to back it up. Like Heinlein said: the facts, the facts! What are the facts???
A report shouldn’t sound like a sales pitch for ATK should it?
Don, as noted earlier, this is not a news report. It’s commentary by Jay. Bad commentary, but that’s what it’s labeled.
Very true. But something reporters should keep in mind is that bad commentary that has the appearance of shilling, does make one question the accuracy of their actual reports.
Lighten up, Keith! There are many valid opinions
on NASA policy, and just because a loyal NASA fan does not 100% agree with you
does not necessarily make him wrong. What is more important to one person is
not necessarily more important to the next person. And in a strong democracy,
all sides should have a chance to be heard.
I can understand how you might be a strong proponent of NewSpace… Many are.
But in fairness, how come you never criticize gross press exaggerations about
the accomplishments of SpaceX? Or maybe you have, and I just never noticed.
Nelson,
Opinion, stated as such, is certainly valid, as you say. However, omission of important details and misrepresentation of facts — particularly when printed in a paper where most readers are not familiar with the details of the subject matter — is not valid. And doing so in order to sell your opinion can be downright irresponsible, as in this case.
Example: Jay talks briefly about safety, but not once mentions the fact that the Liberty first stage, a solid rocket, is a significant danger in HSF, since it can’t be shut down once started in the event of trouble. The best you can do is hope that your escape system can get the astronauts clear of a massive bomb going off right under their seats — which the Air Force showed couldn’t be done for the Ares I, and which is a function of the spacecraft, not the LV, anyhow.
Example: Jays claims that the Liberty is the result of all that Space Shuttle experience because ATK built the SRBs for the Shuttle. But — the SRB for Liberty is NOT the Shuttle SRB; it’s a brand new, yet to be proved 5-segment SRB, so it, in fact, has exactly ZERO launch experience, putting it last in the experience comparison, not first.
These are just two, more obvious, examples. And these are things that Jay certainly must have known. So, in the name of preserving lives, in my opinion, Keith can’t afford to lighten up until a lot of other people start to smarten up.
Steve
Nailed it again Mr. 20 20 lol
Steve: There are many that would agree with your valid points, but also many who would not come to the same conclusion. Bolden, in congressional testimony, said that his gut feeling was that Ares I would have been about the safest design. That does not make everyting that you just said invalid or wrong.
Nelson,
I hear what you’re saying, but that was a different time and a different set of choices. “Ares I would have been about the safest design” among which options? Not the same ones we have today, when Jay is writing this. As much as I respect and approve of Charles Bolden, in all honesty, what is his gut feeling really worth in this technical matter? He has done a lot of very impressive things in one lifetime, but rocket scientist isn’t one of them.
Getting back to the commentary. I don’t believe that anyone can justify completely ignoring the solid HSF LV danger controversy. There are opinions for sure, but there is also too much evidence to ignore the issue, and that aspect of Shuttle experience he completely ignored. We all know that HSF is dangerous, and unless I’ve completely missed the boat, everyone has agreed that we should always make it a priority to mitigate that danger to the maximum reasonable extent possible. Jay made a decision to pick and chose his facts, and now he’s being called on it, and I’m happy we’re discussing it. If we had all overlooked his omission, in my mind we’d be equally guilty. I guess I’m just a little touchy on this subject.
Steve
I don’t think we should pass up any opportunity to speak out against SRB’s. It seems that so many have been lulled into a false sense of security by the success record of SRB’s on the Space Shuttle at 134/135, or 269/270 if you count the individual SRB’s. Twenty-three straight years of apparently flawless Shuttle SRB performance from 1988 to 2011 sounds impressive to many people. However it’s like someone saying that they have been driving without a seat belt for twenty-three years and using that as proof that that’s a safe way to drive. To make that example even better would be if the person making that claim only drives a few times a year.
It was a different era in 1972 when the decision was made to use SRB’s on the Space Shuttle, for example the NHTSA wasn’t even doing crash tests of passenger vehicles (that was still five years away). Forty years later we live in a completely different world in terms of safety vigilance in all aspects of society, and that includes space travel. I am convinced that if it hadn’t been for the use of SRB’s on the Space Shuttle that no one today would even think about including SRB’s in a man-rated design. Instead we have seen them included in the designs for Side-Mount, Jupiter, Ares I, and now SLS and Liberty, and very few people seem to see any problem with that.
Keep speaking out.
My father always told me that even though as a kid he held roman candles on the 4th, that I should NEVER light one unless I had mounted on a safe stand because they are unsafe. Lol
Steve,
Thanks for that perfect analogy. I shall feel free to repeat it.
The other aspect of SRBs that seems to be forever overlooked is that (based on my reading) if the Space Shuttle hadn’t used SRBs — if it had used a single type (liquid) of rocket — then the processing and total costs would both have (theoretically) been much less, even if the ET and add-ons had used different propellants. And the turn-around time would have been (again, theoretically) much less. Had this been the case, then I think it is much more likely that we would have got the upgrades to the Shuttles that were talked about, but never happened, instead of running complex spacecraft that were out of date before they were first launched. I consider it much less likely that the two “disasters” would have happened. I think we would have had more Shuttles built, flying more missions for less cost — and they would still be flying today. Not only still flying, but flying safer and with greater capabilities. We lost it all based on one decision, a decision that was probably based much more on pork politics, bad information, and impatience than technical considerations. In three plus decades, I feel confident that an acceptable escape system could have been worked out, as well.
I find it utterly incredible that SLS with solids and Liberty are even on the table for HSF today. Maybe would should turn the whole thing over to hobbyist teenage rocket clubs; on average I suspect they’re more safety conscious and more thorough.
Steve
Steve:Truth be told, I am not sure that liquid fueled rockets are particulary safe, either. Look how quickly the Challenger orbiter and ET vaporized, whereas the SRBs just kept going. The scary aspect of an SRB is if the casing ruptures, as happened with the Delta II in 97.
Each of us applies different sets of evaluation weights. I think we need to recognize this, and stop acting surprised when we come up with so many different answers, all of which are right.
Nelson,
Challenger resulted from a human failure, not a technology limitation (they elected to launch outside of the acceptable environmental limits for the whole system), so I don’t see this as apples and apples. Having said that, it was an O-ring in the SRB that was the physical cause of the disaster; the ET, Shuttle and crew were simply in harm’s way, and they each had no problems with environmental conditions that took out the SRB.
However, an opinion is an opinion, and should be respected as such, so I’ll back off on this discussion (but not in general) and we can agree to disagree. Thanks for the exchange.
Steve
Extra note: the Delta II solids, even in the worst case, can not approach the destructive force of a Shuttle SRB. They’re a much smaller animal, and we don’t put living, breathing passengers on a Delta II.
Nelson, while I agree that there can be multiple “right” answers in an analysis (or to a problem) there are also definite and multiple wrong answers. Labeling a wrong answer an opinion does not shield it from being incorrect. Wrong is wrong. Not saying you’re wrong in this instance, but I can’t stand the idea that all opinions are valid or factual–they aren’t.
All that said, spaceflight is inherently dangerous. The best that can be derived in any system is something close to perfection. So while there are safer choices there is nothing 100% safe. Given the tradeoffs between SRBs and a liquid fuel rocket that can throttle, I lean in the liquid fuel camp. Maybe that’s the pilot in me, but I like the ability to control a craft more than Wiley Coyote could.
Regarding Bolden’s statement, whenever I hear a politician or administrator say he has a “gut feeling” about something, that means to me he hasn’t the data to backup his position. Always makes me cringe a little in an endeavor as complex and unforgiving as spaceflight.
Well if Jay can pitch ATK, I can spread Spacex’s new video around.
http://spaceref.biz/2012/07…
Sounds like a shrill for ATK and its propaganda blitz. The problem is that this sort of thinking (lets give the contracts to the good ol’ boys) is probably endemic in the NASA higher echelons, and would face less criticism in Congress.
I have a bad feeling that the 2.5 contracts will go to Boeing, ATK and human-rating the Atlas. Any genuine new commercial efforts will be sidelined. Sigh.
I hope you are wrong! If you are right they are all Blind!!!!
Why can’t they see???
Last few days I have listened to Spacex’s new highlight video of the maiden dragon ride to ISS
I wonder if others would think it’s as good as I do. Lol we don’t just see with our eyes, we see with our experience.
Mr. C was kind enough to give me/us another history lesson. Funny how when you read stuff like that. You think I knew that! Only now it’s more clear lol.
I have seen the moon landings watched the sprinters race down the track. Now the mile and two mile events are about to start. Most don’t like watching track cause they never ran. Lol they watch football or soccer, follow the crowd lol.
For me the mile event started late one night. I parked my car near a gas joint to pickup the internet. I waited, I listened, I watched. I heard the count down, the starter raised his gun. Then it happened, the falcon cleared the tower!!!! There were other fans nearby I could tell Tinker was emotional.
Yes the mile has started, I understand! The distance runners are doing their thing. The race to fulfill THE DREAM is now up to the distance men. We can win this track meet!!!
Why can’t Jay see this???
I can!!!!!
Mr. Mcgoo
Old pin spikes are still in the closet. lol
Zz Removed by author so as not to be redundant zzzz