NBC Spaces Out: Confuses Present-Day Rocket with 1960s-Era Booster
NBC's Tom Costello made a gaffe of planetary proportions on Saturday's Nightly News as he reported on the launch of NASA's latest Martian rover. The correspondent identified the rocket, which blasted the unmanned Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) probe into space for its eight month-plus journey to the fourth planet, as a "Saturn V." This is actually the name of the rocket that took Apollo astronauts to the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The last Saturn V flew in 1973.
The expendable rocket that actually blasted off on Saturday morning, taking MSL and its Curiosity rover beyond the Earth's atmosphere, is the Atlas V. It is the newest member of a rocket family that has been in service since the 1950s. John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962 after a modified first-generation Atlas launched his Mercury capsule into space.
Later in his report (video available here), Costello stated that "just traveling the 154 million miles to the Red Planet will take more than eight months." According to NASA's press kit for the Mars mission, this will be the distance between Earth and Mars when MSL reaches its destination in August 2012. However, the probe's total travel distance will actually be 354 million miles, more than twice the figure the NBC correspondent cited.
I actually had saw the Atlas V booster that launched MSL into space back in August 2011, when NASA invited me to attend the launch of the Juno probe, which will orbit the largest planet in the solar system, Jupiter (which also launched on top of an Atlas V rocket). As part of their NASA Tweetup outreach program with the public, the space agency gave an extensive tour of the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, including the facility which prepares the rocket for launch. The booster sat on its side inside a hangar until it was taken to a vertical integration facility near the launch pad, where a Centaur upper stage was stacked on top of it, along with the probe. (see photo above)
The full transcript of Tom Costello's report from Saturday's NBC Nightly News:
LESTER HOLT: The folks at NASA are calling it the monster truck of Mars, and tonight, the world's biggest extraterrestrial explorer is on its way to the Red Planet. For NASA, this new mission in search of life carries high hopes and high risks.
NBC's Tom Costello has our report.
GEORGE DILLER, NASA: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1-
TOM COSTELLO (voice-over): With a Saturn V [sic] liftoff at the Kennedy Space Center, NASA has launched its most sophisticated and ambitious mission to Mars yet. Just traveling the 154 million miles to the Red Planet will take more than eight months. Then, next August, a high-risk landing, as a supersonic parachute slows the science lab's descent to Mars. Sixty feet above the planet, a sky crane will gently lower the rover, named Curiosity, onto the Martian surface, leaving Curiosity on its own to begin looking for signs of life, past or present.
PAMELA CONRAD, ASTROBIOLOGIST: Do we anticipate that we'll learn a whole lot about Mars? Absolutely. Do we know what specifically that will be? No clue.
COSTELLO: Curiosity is a six-wheeled rover, standing more than six feet tall, able to drive long distances under a hot Martian sun, analyzing rock and soil samples and then, transmitting those findings back to Earth.
COSTELLO (on-camera): NASA has carefully selected the landing zone on Mars in the Gale Crater, where a huge mountain rises right out of the crater floor. Scientists believe they see layers of sedimentary deposit here that they hope will help them understand more about Mars history, but also, what happened to the lakes and rivers.
BRIAN HYNEK, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: This is Gale Crater-
COSTELLO (voice-over): Brian Hynek is a planetary science professor and Mars expert at the University of Colorado. The evidence he says now seems clear that Mars once had a very warm and wet environment.
HYNEK: Microbial life could have persisted for hundreds of millions of years on ancient Mars- and perhaps, even today.
COSTELLO: And that possibility poses a big problem. NASA has gone to great lengths to ensure Curiosity doesn't carry any Earth germs that could contaminate life on Mars. High resolution cameras have already detected what appear to be large ice sheets buried under the Martian surface. Curiosity's mission- to determine whether life is or ever was buried there, too. Tom Costello, NBC News, Washington.
[H/t: @LaunchPhoto on Twitter.]
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I guess accurately reporting
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sat, 11/26/2011 - 11:10pm.
I guess accurately reporting the news is rocket science, after all. But, they've had lots of practice in spreading scientific misinformation, given all their reports on the settled global warming science, right?
I also find it interesting that a "previous warm and wet Martian environment" is accepted without question. Yet -- when someone says the earth used to be a lot warmer than today, the words "deniers" and "skeptics" are immediately used to dismiss such conjecture. How does that happen, I wonder?
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
How indeed?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 11/26/2011 - 11:16pm.
The phrase "Truth is stranger than fiction" applies in this case, and given that truth IS strange to a liberal(they can't wrap their minds around it, after all, liberalism is a mental disorder), they fall back to what they know best, which is fiction.
That's how it happens.
Aside from that, what are the odds that THIS mission to Mars will succeed? There's been more failures or less success(meaning it got there, but didn't last long or didn't yield enough info) than there have been really good success. Come to think of it, I'm still iffy on the first rover that got there basically landing on a bunch of balloons before deflating and letting out the rover, and any of the other rovers after that. However, those were tiny rovers compared to the one that's going there now, but I'm not aware of the exact dimensions/size of the thing.
But isn't it a little odd that they identified this one as "Curiosity?" When I heard that, I immediately thought of the previous failures and remembered "Curiosity killed the cat."
So it remains to be seen what will happen in 8 months.
-Jon
It’s not an exaggeration to
Submitted by Reaver on Sat, 11/26/2011 - 11:44pm.
It’s not an exaggeration to say Mars is a spacecraft graveyard, half of all the NASA missions to Mars have been failures. The Russians have launched dozens of missions to Mars and not one of them has been one hundred percent successful. But we shouldn’t not do things because they are hard, in fact those are the greatest challenges. To paraphrase Kennedy, we chose to go to the Moon not because it is easy but because it is hard.
Reaver, you're right.
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 11/26/2011 - 11:59pm.
Oh, I heartily agree, Reaver, you're absolutely right. I never said we shouldn't stop or anything of that sort. Just that Mars has a bad record when it comes to anything we send there. It's just that it seems like sending this new probe there is just beating a dead horse because of the repeated failures, and a success rate of 50% does not fill me with confidence at all. Something different needs to be done.
And therein lies part of the problem with NASA and its current mission, which is more of a Muslim Outreach than space exploration. If anything, the feeling I get about this new rover is nothing more than a "feel-good" distraction.
Not to mention that the human equation was almost back in before it got yanked back out completely after shutting down the Orion/Constellation project which was supposed to replace the shuttle program. Granted, there were problems, but there were problems leading up to Apollo 11 before it got to the moon, to use your Kennedy reference.
It didn't stop us from learning and conquering those problems. But in this case, we aren't even going to be able to do that(Thanks, Soetoro!) and we have to rely on Russia's rockets for the ISS which are now questionable at best, and we're using left-over modified early-tech rockets(40+ year old tech!!) to send off our stuff like this rover. We should be pursuing research on new technology on how to survive in space, but that's not happening as much now!
What the hell kind of "advancement" is that with the space program?? And sure, we got the Virgin Galactic or whatever that space tourism thing is called, it's even looked at now as a possible replacement to send out astronauts up to the ISS, but even then, what good is that, they are still talking about scuttling the ISS because of the supply rocket problems, after billions and billions spent on ISS over so many years. Sure they could send astronauts up to the ISS, but it doesn't do any good without supplies and parts for living and maintenance that weigh tons more than a few people being sent up in a rocket plane.
That's not advancement, that's giving up.
-Jon
Way too many parts.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 2:04am.
That odd ball rocket fired lander is leaving way too much to chance. All them tangling and sticking cables? This Rube Goldberg part ski lift, and sky hook and part flying car. Just a vacuous space dream and unnecessary wasted payload baggage.. Come on when did anything ever land on a planet assisted with the use of cables, (other than attached to a parachute) gawd.
All other landers that used rockets to assist in landing had them solidly connected in one unit then separated after the retrorockets landed the entire system in a single package. That ol save weight design, duh
FYI Martian atmospheric pressure as about the same as 100,000 feet here on earth.
Where exactly did they test it? OHH ok the moslems helped, sorry it took me so long to figure that out, they must have a handle on the dust issues impacting the unfurling reels, and the clouds of dust blown up by the overhead rocket engines, no possibility of "brownouts" yea sure tested that...
Oh well maybe none of that matters...
I sure hope that machine makes it to the surface and runs for ever on it's atomic engine. Spirit rover lasted for years N years, RIP
The Opportunity rover is some great news...the lander has continues to function 30 times longer than the planned 90-sol mission.
Maybe this rover will drive by the viking landers and extract the atomic power units from those 1976 model space craft.
As if,, that's on the list, if so sure hope the plug/ receptacle units match.
You Didn't Build That.
This is very embarrassing.
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 11:40am.
I find it patently offensive that our space program has been reduced to this. It's safe to say that anyone else's space program on this planet is better than ours at this point. As an American, that offends me severely. A really good description is using whatever technology we have left over with nothing new to look forward to. Hell, it's just a roll of the dice at the craps table if this will succeed or not.
Your last line really says it all. An additional line should be added: "Let none forget that it was Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro who killed the American space program in the name of Islam."
Disgusting.
-Jon
A very sad day when the ISS, Will fall from the sky.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 2:53pm.
My idea for the ISS is to strap some additional engines to her and have the spacecraft explore the inner solar system.
If you have never seen the ISS ,While it's still up in orbit, you can see it on fly-bys.
To bad Clinton dumped this project for a repeat project in earth orbit. ISS is virtually the same project, as Skylab.. an orbiting lab that was launched in the 70's.
I'm not aware of any commercial break through, as promised with the ISS program.
Nuthun better than having the ruskies monopolizing the provisioning the ISS eh. Yes EMBARRASSING!
You Didn't Build That.
Actually Clinton attempted to save the Super Collider...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 3:38pm.
as this letter indicates.
The "dumping" was mostly the work of the House of Representatives at the hands of both Republicans and Democrats, with the GOP voting against the project in substantially greater percentages than the Dems. A price tag which had exploded from 4+ bil to around 12 bil didn't help.
Jer
Stating Regret, Clinton Signs Bill That Kills Supercollider
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 4:44pm.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/31/us/stating-regret-clinton-signs-bill-t...
Actions speak louder than words...
Before the two critical votes in June and October, neither Clinton nor Gore was willing to make personal appeals to House Members on behalf of the SSC, as Bush had in 1992.
You Didn't Build That.
The letter itself was a personal appeal.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 5:02pm.
Somebody should have been appealing to the Repubs in the House, nearly half of whom voted the SSC down.
But I did find the closing remarks by the editor of the blog you sourced rather interesting:
"And as for energy physics in the U.S. in general, President Obama tried to boost overall funding for the DOE’s Office of Science in his just-announced budget. But, naturally, Republican’s in the House are already clamoring for a nearly $1 billion dollar cut to the department, putting thousands of science jobs in jeopardy.
Here’s to losing one for the Gipper, dicks."
Jer
Yup, I knew you would pick up on that.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 5:12pm.
Obama likes to spend, and spend and spend ..so...
You Didn't Build That.
Are you offended that private enterprise has a greater
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 3:50pm.
role under this administration's plan? It's what many conservatives had been clamoring for in the past.
However, I will concede it's not quite as politically buzzworthy as the "Barry Soetoro/Islam" line.
Jer
Jeez,
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 3:55pm.
So how will Private Enterprise make money going to Space Jer, giving rides? It's about National Security, or do we care about that anymore?
Come on Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 4:02pm.
Private enterprise? This administration isn't interested in private enterprise. The Space Program was small potatoes and the reason it was terminated. Solar panels on the moon won't help us here. In fact, the more we seem to explore space, the more we're finding out that some of the claims regarding the chosen path to political strength -I mean, energy independence- aren't quite panning out the way some would prefer. Can't have that, now can we? Better to prop up a failing industry here on Earth.
Get off it, Jer
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 4:11pm.
It's not a buzz so much as it's the truth, did you forget the Muslim Outreach already?
And I have no idea what you mean about Private Enterprise having a greater role under this administration beyond being an elevator/taxi.
Did you also forget that Private Enterprise is part of the private sector, which is the enemy of this regime? They HATE private sector jobs and I'll be surprised if they are STILL allowed to get off the ground if they start actually making plans to take people up. What I see happening instead is Sir Richard Branson being told to delay his flights until a later time, one that won't be specified and left in limbo. Or he'll be allowed to take one or two flights and then he'll get the notice to cease and desist.
Private Enterprise played a HUGE role in the beginning of the space program back in the 60s, but that's not the case anymore, not when you kill the space program and put 10s of thousands of people out of work.
-Jon
Well, this is what Gingrich said in a debate response:
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 4:31pm.
Well, sadly—and I say this sadly because I’m a big fan of going into space, and I actually worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point—NASA has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy can’t innovate. If you take all the money we spent at NASA since we landed on the Moon, and you apply that money for incentives for the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the Moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles, and instead, what we’ve had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy, and failure after failure. I think it’s a tragedy, because younger Americans ought to have the excitement of thinking that they, too, could be part of reaching out to a new frontier.
You know, you had asked earlier, John [King, the moderator], about this idea of limits because we’re a developed country. We’re not a developed country. The scientific future is going to open up and we’re at the beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities, and unfortunately NASA is standing in the way of it, when NASA ought to be getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector.
More from Space Politics:
For those who have been following Gingrich, his comments are not that surprising: he has been supportive of private sector ventures over big government programs in the past, most notably when, last February, he and former congressman Bob Walker praised the White House for its “brave reboot” of NASA.
But I understand your impulse to disagree on the basis of "if Obama's for it, I'm against it."
Jer
Jer,Newt ain't much of a science guy, couch surfing with Polosy.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 5:09pm.
The new Orion project, is a RERUN into the past reviewing a 50 year old proven concept.
Looking at this flow chart reminds me of the Mercury program
Just when is this going to happen: MPCV is poised to take on increasingly challenging missions that will take human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit and out into the cosmos.
The first launch is maybe 2014... Funding for it is a total joke.
You Didn't Build That.
Somebody call me when
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 4:43pm.
the "C'mon Jer/Get off it Jer" crowd regains their footing.
Jer
What the heck does Newts opinion have to do
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 4:59pm.
With your claim of Obama's space program is more privet enterprise friendly.
Good freaking grief, it's a little tiring having libs justify their anal comments by pointing to someone who has suggested anything similar. So Jer, are we to take it your now a huge fan of Newt's?
Boudin...Do I always have to do your
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 5:08pm.
homework for you?
Sheesh.
Jer
Whoo hoo
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 5:21pm.
Obviously I am soo wrong. I mean only the blind could miss the massive investment of the Space program by Privet industry. This is clearly a booming industry.
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 5:46pm.
You make a persuasive argument for a state controlled economy. Have you considered becoming a socialist?
Jer
Send out bids to deliver goods and people to the ISS
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 5:25pm.
The [gag me] Ruskies have a no competition contract to deliver stuff to the ISS.
If somebody would think like a business man, these deliveries would go out to bid.
That is the first place that private industry could get involved with space, and make a profit!
You Didn't Build That.
Ahh, you omitted ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 9:29pm.
the 'left-leaning Democrat' Jer; defender 'par excellence' of the purple-lipped one; supporter of all policies 'Democrat'; and non-stop apologist for the stupidities inherent in Obama's administration.
The conservative crowd may reel occasionally as a result of the insipid nonsense promulgated by the Lib-Dims in D.C., but it is still on its feet.
It is the Obama crowd that has fallen on its ass.
MD
Welllll....rocket science is
Submitted by rockyracoon on Sat, 11/26/2011 - 11:34pm.
Welllll....rocket science is like....kinda hard an stuff!
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Not really liberal bias but
Submitted by Reaver on Sat, 11/26/2011 - 11:36pm.
Not really liberal bias but the poor reporting of science and technology in the news is appalling. Reporting is often littered with factual errors like this. I remember reading one reporters explanation for the poor state of science reporting. Reporters see the pinnacle of their profession as the “hard news “of Washington politics, being assigned to report on science is seen as a detour on their career path. So they have no interest in or knowledge on the subject and just want to get out of the assignment and back into hard news as soon as possible. Whatever the reason errors of fact like this are quite common in science reporting and are rarely corrected.
Boeing, Boeing ...
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 12:46am.
To be totally accurate, as Matthew noted, the Atlas Rocket family, begun in the 1950s, actually predates the Saturn rockets by many years.
The Saturn booster, incidentally, was built here at the Boeing plant in Michoud, LA.
The Atlas incorporated a really innovative lightweight system using pressurized fuel tanks to compensate for it's flimsy design and was steadily improved until its shorter range was increased and it was capable of delivering nuclear warheads at intercontinental range (that's across the ocean for you liberals).
It was made obsolete for military use by the development of solid fuel ICBMs.
The juiced up version in 2011 can deliver (I think) a couple of tons of payload into orbit or, in this case, a smaller payload to Mars.
Take that all you space cadets at NBC! ;-)
MSM science gaffes
Submitted by deadeyedan on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 1:03am.
On the night after the great 2004 Christmas Indian Ocean tsunami at around midnight CST a CNN anchor (can't remember who) asked Bill Nye the Science Guy if it had been caused by global warming.
CNN's Ric Sanchez thought that volcanoes could not happen in high latitudes because it was so cold(!) (He apparently had never heard of Mt. Erebus.)
And soon after it was reported that because of global warming high latitude volcanoes could erupt more easily since the glaciers on them were melting and thus relieving pressure.
Wait a minute! There is an Academy Award nominated documentary that shreds that one; "The Eruption of Mt. St. Helens". The first helicopter reconnaissance into the blast zone revealed very sizable craters in the landslide/pyroclastic flow for which there appeared no explanation.
The scientists realized that there was mud at the bottom of the craters and that could only be explained if the mountain had shot its glaciers to the stratosphere and upon landing in the seething rock exploded, forming the craters.
So much for glaciers thwarting volcanoes, and so much for scientific accuracy in
the MSM.
GLOBAL WARMING - authoritarian, rather than authoritative, science
CLIMATEGATE - the revelation that the pseudo-scientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution
Never mind....
Submitted by richflanj on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 1:10am.
Simple mistake. Nothing to see here, they aren't stupid. SARC OFF
Hello!!
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 1:51am.
Everyone knows you don't need a rocket to get to the desert in New Mexico, where the "Moon landing" occurred. They just have to use a reddish lens filter to document the "Mars landings."
Why would the left starting
Submitted by helomech on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 1:59am.
Why would the left starting stating fact now? Fiction is much,much more fun than truth-everyone knows this!
Maybe it's a bit understandable...
Submitted by sherlock1 on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 2:22am.
Maybe it's a bit understandable, if Costello has been around a while, for him to slip up and say "Saturn-five" instead of "Atlas-five". After all, the Saturn V has been in the national space lexicon for a lot longer than the Atlas V. There are plenty of outrageously stupid things said by the media to worry about without jumping on one that may be sort of understandable.
Okay, my pet media peeve is the media "military correspondents" that use the term "battleship" (instead of the generic "warship") to refer to any armed military vessel, even a patrol boat. Sheesh! I have actually seen a real battleship underway, and you don't forget them once you have seen one!
NYT Editorial and Goddard
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 2:30am.
This reminded me of the New York Times editorial in 1920 which dismissed Robert Goddard's views on rocketry as "absurd".
Since we are on the subject,
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 3:56am.
Since we are on the subject, anyone know how that NASA funded islamic space program is working?
V-1 Rocket
Submitted by P.J. Gladnick on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 7:50am.
At least he didn't refer to it as a V-1 rocket.
Good morning PJ
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 8:15am.
You get an A+ for sarcasm. I actually worked at Stage Test on the S1-B booster for the Saturn V launch vehicle. Your reference to the "V1 rocket" is hilarious. You are quite right , their historians couldn't tell you the difference between a buzz bomb and a rocket. They couldn't understand if you gave them a can of shoe polish and told them "This is Shinola".
Thanks,
Alton
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
cocodrie, My dad worked in the Atlas program, twice.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 3:17pm.
With Convair in the 50's.. Then a second time with a different company in the 60's placing then in underground silos as our ICBM.
All the rockets were ready to launch when Khrushchev took a train ride: Khrushchev wanted to visit both LA and SF. His American hosts could have arranged for him to fly or drive between those cities but they opted for the train because they wanted him to see the Vandenberg Air Force Base, where Atlas missiles aimed at the Soviet Union were visible from the train.
Where there is no vision, the people perish
Those were the good ol days
You Didn't Build That.
NBC/DNC
Submitted by Kleenex on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 8:24am.
Since Obama slashed the space program NBC can't easily weave together a JFK/NASA/Obama narrative like they would want. If I were a GOP candidate I would put together NBC clips showing their bias with the Brian Williams bow to Obama as the icing on the cake.
"How is this media bias?"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 8:57am.
Pleased to meet you,
Hope you guess my name.
They were liberal in their
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 2:17pm.
They were liberal in their distance estimate.
No surprise
Submitted by fatboy on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 10:51am.
NBC is wrong about everything else. Why would anyone expect their "reporting" to be any more accurate in covering something requiring 1/2 a brain...like the space program??
Get a life, nit-pickers
Submitted by JimOberg on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 5:11pm.
"NBC is wrong about everything else. Why would anyone expect their "reporting" to be any more accurate in covering something requiring 1/2 a brain...like the space program??"
Jeeez Looeeez, guys, get a sense of proportion. One misspeak in a long and insightful description of another major US success in space [in contrast to the ignominious Russian Mars probe flop]!
From personal experience I know that Tom Costello is a genuine expert on aviation and transportation in general, and also pays extremely careful attention to his stories on space flight. With my own eyes I watched him switch from covering a shuttle launch to doing a live ex tempore stand-up on an airliner crash landing in Canada, and he described in personalized detail the evacuation procedures because he had just returned from a long training program on emergency actions for that very same aircraft. He was able to explain HOW & WHY all of the passengers survived what looked on videotape to be a calamatous inferno. He has been through more such aerospace training and orientation programs than any other newsman I know aside from the 'Aviation Week' geeks.
Speaking on space, I know that NBC News goes to great effort and expense to anticipate, illustrate, and explain space and missile events -- because I'm part of their consultant team on these themes, on retainer since the shuttle Columbia disaster. Their broadcast, cable, and website stories often lead all other broadcast and print media in getting the story first and getting it accurate, and based on good consultants they avoid many notorious howlers such as that dear-to-the-rightwingers bogus 'Chinese sub missile launch off San Diego' not long ago.
If you want to concentrate on space-related nitpicks and gross thematic errors, there are many, MANY more worthy targets of your whines, all across the political and ideological spectrum. I direct my own fire at them, too -- see www.jamesoberg.com
But misspeaking "Saturn-V" for "Atlas-V"? Give him a break.
Did NBC publish a correction?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 5:22pm.
Or, are we all to assume that NBC believes what was said is correct -- and simply leave it at that, so that they can continue to mis-inform us on everything?
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Yes to the title question. No to the smarmy taunt. Your turn.
Submitted by JimOberg on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 5:19pm.
See http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/
Irony, indeed, JimOberg,--
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 5:34pm.
as "Get a life, nit-pickers" is in no way smarmy, now, is it?
MD
Ooh, ooh, Mr. Space Expert, is this nickpick worthy?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:27pm.
Who is this Yuriy Gagarin you speak of?