Tabloid Headlines At New Scientist
For the third day in a row @Newscientist wins the stupid space headline of the day award. They said they'd fix it but its still wildly inaccurate clickbait @jjaron https://t.co/PvvH9wPavx
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) October 17, 2018
As I said, I am happy to fix any specific inaccuracy. You have not pointed one out.
— Jacob Aron (@jjaron) October 17, 2018
The Soyuz did not "crash". It landed safely. The failure of this mission will not "Kill ISS", and nothing connected to this event would "set back spaceflight by decades" Are you folks really this clueless about the topic? @jjaron @newscientist
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) October 17, 2018
Not just ridiculous as a headline – it’s irresponsible. It’s also what some editorial types WANT to happen
It’s all about generating clicks. Every online news source is guilty of it. The more they can make something look like a disaster the more interested people will be.
I’m afraid this goes back way before online news sources. Newspapers have always used sensationalist headlines and stories to sell their content, even if it means making things up. Remember the Maine? I think it goes all the way back to the first proto-newspapers in the 1640s and the political disputes during England’s Long Parliament.
It looked to me like the first few lines of the article repeated the “crash” statement. So it’s not just a click-bait headline.
When I first read that headline, I thought it would be about the possibility of a docking accident and the implications that would have.
Same here. But the article says (incorrectly)-
So, that’s Strike 2 against the editor, the first being the headline; and the second- was it the launch site, or the crash landing, that was 400 km away?
I just copied that to show that the term “crash landing” was also in the main body of the article. From what I’ve read elsewhere, the landing was indeed a few hundred km from the launch site.
I’m less than happy with a number of other news sources, since they’ve been saying the cause of the Soyuz failure has been identified. What they have identified is that one of the first stage boosters didn’t separate cleanly and hit the core stage. That’s like saying the cause of an airplane crash was hitting the ground. I suppose it’s technically true, but the real question is why that happened.
Most likely an explosive bolt failed to fire for some reason.
That’s a guess. Possibly a good guess, but still a guess. Before saying you really know the cause of a failure, you need to go over the telemetry and all of the other, available data.
Imagine if the unmanned Dragon 2 test experienced a problem. NASA would expect a very detailed analysis of all the data. Can we accept “most likely” or “probably” ideas about a Soyuz launch failure? If that standard isn’t adequate for Dragon 2, why should it be good enough for Soyuz?
Unfortunately quality control problems have been developing for several years in the Russian program. There may be little choice but to return the Soyuz to operational capability, but we should accelerate development of both commercial crew programs, including propulsive landing for the D2, and provide funding for the BFR and human rating for the Glenn, which will both be needed as followins.
Dragon 2 and Starliner would be my preferred solutions. BFR and New Glenn seem like overkill, and I’m not sure about their schedule and cost turning out as advertised. But others may disagree.
I note the media campaign to support SLS is alive and well. According to the headline of an editorial in The Hill, “Russian launch failure proves why we need NASA’s Space Launch System.”
https://thehill.com/opinion…
I saw another, similar, piece over the weekend. Apparently, eccentric billionaires can’t be counted on with anything so important, and the cost of SLS is too irrelevant to be worth mentioning. (The other editorial included the argument that SLS will be a low cost alternative, since it will allow single launches and avoid the need for expensive on-orbit assembly.)
There was a funny twitter bot a few years back called @NS_headlines that would tweet fake-yet-totally-plausible script generated New Scientist headlines. Glad to see their style hasn’t changed much.
And here I thought FOX was the only source of fake news.
It’s actually surprising coming from a generally reputable source.
Was that the Daily Express or whatever it is? I heard the Yellowstone Supervolcano is about to blow any second.
https://twitter.com/janinek…
https://twitter.com/janinek…
Some of us here were speculating similar things…however we admitted that it was speculation before better facts had been released.
New Scientist has always been negative to Human space flight , this nonsense does not surprise me .
Given the record of Soyuz booster/spacecraft launches, it would appear unlikely to be a design defect. I don’t know if Capt. Murphy is still alive (yes, there was a real Murphy), but if not, his spirit is mightily alive and well! As to the “probable cause” unless we have access to the Russian telemetry data, it is difficult for any of us to make a statement about it! The Soyuz booster crashed; the Soyuz spacecraft did NOT crash. Its escape system worked as intended, and the crew walked away from the landing! It may well be that there is a Quality problem. But we won’t know, and the Russian may be reluctant to disclose if that is the fact.
With several commercial launch and spacecraft systems coming along, there is no danger of human space exploration and operations being in jeopardy. If American companies don’t do it, the Chinese or Russians or India or Japan will! It is just a matter of time!
Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! AD ASTRA!