Feb 07 2014

Print this Post

Dueling “NASA’s search for meaning” articles

In this corner, we have NASA should focus on remote exploration. Key take-away:

NASA must adapt or die. In days gone by, it made sense to have a government agency spend untold billions to shoot people into space for God and glory. But those days have long since passed, and NASA’s continued willingness to let the costs of human spaceflight devour the money that it should be using to do what it does really well—remote science—guarantees that it is headed for extinction.

And in this corner, Slate’s misleading hit piece, which seems to argue that the Slate piece (in the first corner) was mean. For example:

I found this (a quoted paragraph from the Slate piece) to be a particularly low blow. See how the active verb is deployed here in a sinister way? Did NASA “kill” its astronauts? Why not “NASA has lost roughly 4 percent of the people it launched to space.” NASA didn’t line these astronauts up against a wall. It’s a nasty thing to say and something you deploy if you want to distract from a weak argument.

No, it’s a weak argument to complain about an antagonist’s literary style rather than counter with facts and logic.

Advantage, Slate.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.newspaceraces.com/2014/02/07/dueling-nasas-search-for-meaning-articles/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Powered by "To Do List Member"