So well get started with this, Here's an email i got at work today:

Quote :

"The Sunday Houston Chronicle contained an editorial highly critical of NASA. The editorial had a number of inaccuracies and misleading statements. I sent the following response to the Houston Chronicle today, in hopes that it will be printed in tomorrow’s edition. I wanted you to see the full text sent to the Chronicle. Mike Byline: Michael L. Coats, Director, NASA Johnson Space Center Expertise: Coats is a former Naval Aviator and astronaut. Selected as an astronaut in 1978, he flew three Space Shuttle missions, and has extensive human space flight experience in both government and industry. He is currently Director of the Johnson Space Center which is home to the nation's human space flight capability: the Space Shuttle, Space Station and Constellation programs. Sunday’s Houston Chronicle (Falling Objects) presented an unbalanced and biased portrayal of NASA and the thousands of people working in our space program whose technological achievements have been a major contributor to the robust economy we enjoy and largely take for granted. I must take this opportunity to correct the misleading and inaccurate information portrayed as fact: The rocket engine explosion that killed two people in California involved a private company unrelated to NASA operating at a facility miles away from the Edwards Air Force Base. The “facts” in the editorial are completely in error. To the events of the past year outlined in the editorial, I can honestly say NASA has made great strides in improving its financial accountability and we take pride in being good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. To list one incident of lost computer equipment, and then refer to general “financial irresponsibility” is unfair and sensational. The Space Shuttle is an amazing vehicle, and we will not see another vehicle like it for many generations. We are still in our first half century of human spaceflight experience, and learn more about operating in space with each mission we fly. To say that we have “failed to solve a problem … that makes every flight a disaster waiting to happen” is not only inaccurate but misleading. In 119 Shuttle missions, we have incorporated improvements and developed techniques to improve safety. On August 21 on the runway in Florida, we got our first look at the damaged tile on Endeavour. It looked exactly as we expected based on aero-thermal, structures and computational fluid dynamics models and tests conducted during the flight indicated it would. Endeavour returned home safely because of engineering expertise, not luck. To characterize a tragic murder/suicide and Lisa Nowak’s aberrant behavior as “lurid” is irresponsible. That tragedy was a first on any NASA facility in its 50 year history. The Nowak case is sad for all of us, but the same external review committee report referenced by the Chronicle confirmed it is highly unlikely her “act of passion” could have been predicted or prevented. Astronauts are human, with human frailties. Lisa is being held accountable for her actions, but it should not be forgotten that she had an exemplary career and her service to the country as a Naval Aviator, test pilot, and astronaut was simply outstanding. To condemn astronauts based on limited and uncorroborated comments in a report is inflammatory and unfair. The report chairman himself stated that “we cannot say with any certainty whether they, in fact, were at all under the influence or affected at the time that they actually flew.” Internal and congressional investigations are on-going, and I hope when the facts are known, the Chronicle will show the same enthusiasm for the story. Astronauts take great pride in this country and the people who make it possible to fly in space, and would never jeopardize a mission by drinking inappropriately. NASA’s flight surgeons are the finest group of medical professionals I have ever encountered. It is an insult to infer they would ever become indifferent to the health needs of the astronauts, or anyone under their care. NASA is not perfect. We have and will make mistakes and we will take responsibility for them. The Chronicle editorial was grossly unfair to the thousands of space professionals who enable this country to lead the world in technology and exploration. Michael L. Coats Director, Johnson Space Center "

I had no idea what the article said so I looked up the article

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5082865.html

Here is one of the responses to the article on that page

Quote :

"I just got off the phone with the Editor in Chief of the Houston Comical who first was OBLIVIOUS to the errors, factual and grammatical, in this editorial. This is over three hours AFTER the readers comments were posted identifying these gross errors and over 15 hours after Center Director Michael Coats refuted the article yesterday. Gibbons was comical in trying to diffuse responsibility by explaining the entire editorial board wrote the editorials. Yeah write ;-)Gibbons. When I pointed out that the entire editorial board overlooked an egregious grammatical error, sight instead of site he adopted the fall back position that these articles are written in "haste" (His words folks, not mine) and that his editorial board consists of several editors who must write four or five editorials a week. I replied that must account for the lack of fact checking that had the explosion at Burt Rutan's facility being included as a NASA failing. Folks, Gibbons made another slip and said well that's what I read off the wire report, which indicates he wrote the article he was loathe to name the author. He then asked me if they (Burt Rutan's company) wasn't a NASA contractor. I told him that Burt Rutan was a private enterprise COMPETITOR and no more a NASA contractor than the New York Times was a Chronicle contractor. Then I pointed out that the Chronicle had its own hypocrisy by pimping for every Get Rich Quick and Snake Oil salesman that would pony up the cost of a full page ad. He replied that was not his department (responsibility) for which he was accountable. I expressed disbelief that he had not even bothered to spend two minutes reading the reader's comments. In exasperation he asked me what it would take to get me off his back. I explained a retraction was in order. It's been an hour Gibbons, longer than you probably took to research your error riddled editorial. Where is your retraction and apology? I don't blame the Chronicle for the NYT's Jason Blair long running fraud. I don't claim the Chronicle is a criminal enterprise who falsifies its circulation count solely on the word of Mr. Rossi in Blair vs. Hearst (the Comical's parent company) so please extend the same courtesy and professionalism to us by sticking to the facts, and write objectively. BTW, since your article implies that Johnson Space Center is running amok with gun toting crazies, I challenge you to submit the roster of Chronicle employees for me to run criminal background checks on and have you publish the results. No charge. Lets find out how many thuggers, muggers and druggers are on your payroll."

sorry for the "WORDS"

8/27/2007 10:15:45 PM

holy crap, WORDS! as much as i love reading stuff about space and nasa and whatnot, i don't have the patience to read all that right now.

[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 10:17 PM. Reason : cliff's notes?]

8/27/2007 10:17:39 PM

Summary:

Someone wrote a column that gave crappy reasons for why NASA is so shitty now. NASA shills rebuffed the pitiful arguments in the column.

8/27/2007 10:21:20 PM

wait...was it an article or an editorial?

looks like it was an editorial



[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 10:24 PM. Reason : +]

8/27/2007 10:22:31 PM

alright so basically the article is from the editor of the only news paper here in Houston, and he made a lot of claims (not backed by fact) about NASA in general. the email i posted is a response the Director of the Johnson Space Center, telling him how wrong he is

The other quote i posed is a message posted on the newspapers webpage about how not only factually wrong the article is but also how grammatically wrong the papers article was. Such as the confusion of the word, site and sight. Also, mention was The rocket engine explosion that killed two people in California involved a private company unrelated to NASA operating at a facility miles away from the Edwards Air Force Base. This editor claimed that accident to be NASA's fault

theres more if you read it, its pretty interesting

8/27/2007 10:26:01 PM

well if it was a column (not an article,) you'll often find that people play hard and loose with the facts

like columns you read about global warming or the war in iraq...they're opinions and can often be dismissed outright

8/27/2007 10:27:49 PM

except this was not part of the "Opinion" section, therefore claims should be based on fact, especially for such a large newspaper

8/27/2007 10:28:56 PM

but the top of the page says "editorial"

that's weird that they would separate an editorial from opinion...they're almost the same

an editorial is an opinion stance the paper takes

[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 10:33 PM. Reason : eh]

8/27/2007 10:30:10 PM

^^ I guess reading comprehension ability is not required to work at NASA

Quote :

"Editorial Aug. 25, 2007, 1:32PM Falling objects NASA's rash of problems threatens to erode public confidence in the space program. NASA has had more than its share of problems. Apart from the routine leaks and other malfunctions, the space agency has endured both calamity and ridicule that threaten to erode public confidence in the nation's crucial space program......"

"Editorial" means opinion

[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 10:32 PM. Reason : what marko said]

8/27/2007 10:31:19 PM

i feel like deja vu, i think some people had that arguement at work today as well.

Quote :

"Editorials are (usually short) opinion pieces, written by members of the editorial board of the paper. They reflect the stance of the paper"

If the paper is going to take a stance such as this, then why should they not bother to base their opinion on concrete facts?

^I'm guessing you didnt read the full response, way to turn this into a shit slinging contest

Quote :

"NASA is not perfect. We have and will make mistakes and we will take responsibility for them. The Chronicle editorial was grossly unfair to the thousands of space professionals who enable this country to lead the world in technology and exploration."

[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/27/2007 10:37:09 PM

Quote :

"If the paper is going to take a stance such as this, then why should they not bother to base their opinion on concrete facts?"

it's the same with npr or fox news

only this is about nasa and not osama

anyways...

what happened with that viking microbes thing that was out a couple days ago?

[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 10:43 PM. Reason : +]

8/27/2007 10:39:31 PM

I think whoever wrote the original artical is just jealous that they don't work for NASA. It's cool though, NASA would rather hire a spider or a rat den u ur so ugly and fat.

8/28/2007 11:13:32 AM

Are you sure this guy doesn't work for NASA?

8/28/2007 12:14:40 PM

Quote :

"what happened with that viking microbes thing that was out a couple days ago?"

you'll have to inform me of that one

8/28/2007 9:51:56 PM

The problem was this:
While the article posted WAS an editorial (thus opinion), it was full of "facts" that it used to build a crappy case against NASA. It mentions specific times, places, and actions -- whether or not something happened isn't opinion, it's fact. Thus they need to be researched and reported as such.

If someone is going to try and build a case against something, they should use real facts instead of crap they made up or misunderstood.

8/29/2007 8:14:59 AM