Tag: bankruptcy

Junk science now dominates the reporting of the propaganda press

12:32 pm

The Sciences, when science journalism focused on reporting real discoveries
The Sciences, when the goal of science journalism
was to report real discoveries

When I started my career as a science journalist in the early 1990s, Peter Brown, the editor of award-winning magazine The Sciences (now sadly discountinued), assigned me the job of writing short news pieces. He pointed at a three-foot-high pile of press releases, and suggested I go through them to find some scientific discovery worth reporting.

As I went through this pile each month, I found that 90% described results that while interesting certainly did not merit any news coverage. Many described theories that “might” or “could” be true, hardly examples of solid new knowledge. I would find a handful of releases worth a news report, while the remaining 90% would get thrown in the dumpster.

Unfortunately, limited space in the magazine often meant that only one of the stories I thought worthwhile would be reported, but it also meant the story we picked was of real significance. The reader was guaranteed to read about important research results, because the technology then forced us to be discriminating.

That was then. Today, things are very different. The web allows modern news outlets to report about practically every press release they get. Nothing gets thrown away. If anything, new outlets today relish reporting on the least significant science results, merely because the scientists speculate about some amazing final events that “might,” “could,” or “may” happen, if their theories are right. The press eats this junk science up, because it produces great clickbait that, while as vapid as cotton candy, sounds really cool or exciting. That these speculations have no basis in reality is irrelevant.

To give you an idea of what I mean, here are a few examples from our modern propaganda press that I have gathered in just the past week:
» Read more

15 comments

Study: Car design has worsened, increasing blindspots which cause accidents

9:21 am

The view out of a modern car
The view out of a modern car

Our present dark age: According to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in the past two decades the design of cars has drastically decreased the visibility for drivers so that blindspots are larger, resulting in an increase in accidents.

Puzzled by traffic accident data showing that fatalities for cyclists and pedestrians had risen over the past 25 years, while car passenger deaths had come down, IIHS researchers wondered whether drivers might be finding it harder to see those more vulnerable road users.

And they discovered that successive versions of long-running popular cars had obstructed, more and more, a driver’s view of the 10 meters (33 ft) of space they were about to drive into. That near-car view, from the eye point of the average male driver, had shrunk on every one of six long-running models tested, IIHS testing showed, when an early (1997-plus) version was compared with the version on sale in 2023.

In the case of traditional cars, the near-car viewable area had contracted only slightly, the 7-8% reductions from the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry possibly even attributable to measurement error.

When it came to SUVs, however, the shrinkage was dramatic. The driver of a 1997 Honda CR-V could see 68% of a forward half-circle whose perimeter was 10 meters (33 ft) from their eye point – slightly more, in fact, than from the sedans that were tested. The driver of a 2023 CR-V could see just 28% of that semi-circle. In relative terms, the driver of the 2023 CR-V could see only 42% of what they would see from a 1997 model.

You can read the IIHS study here.

Why are designers doing this? One theory is that they are increasingly relying on cameras and software to replace the driver’s sight, and thus feel free to add obstructions to the car body that make it look cool. The problem is that these mechanical non-human solutions simply don’t work as well as the human brain, and thus drivers are hitting things more often.

But don’t worry. Soon AI will soon make it possible for cars will drive themselves! We will even be able to eliminate the windows entirely so that car travel will be an utterly private thing!

20 comments

New Horizons placed in hibernation, possibly forever

9:05 am

The science team running the New Horizons probe, now more then 5.7 billion miles from Earth, has placed the spacecraft into what will be its longest hibernation period so far, with the possibility that it could even last forever.

New Horizons, which had been in active data-collection mode since April, will now remain in hibernation. Pending a final Fiscal Year 2026 budget, the spacecraft may be awoken in late June 2026. This will be the longest hibernation period of the mission so far, surpassing the previous mark of 273 days from June 2022 to March 2023.

But the spacecraft won’t be completely at rest; New Horizons will continue to take round-the-clock measurements of the charged-particle environment in the Sun’s outer heliosphere and the dust environment of the Kuiper Belt using three different onboard scientific instruments. These data will be transmitted back to Earth when New Horizons wakes up. [emphasis mine]

Though the NASA press release puts up an optimistic front, it is very likely that this hibernation period will last significantly longer than planned, due to those budget negotiations. Trump’s budget proposes eliminating all funding for New Horizons, which will mean this hibernation period will be permanent. There will be no money to hire anyone to reactivate it.

Even if the budget is cut, it is probable that NASA management in the future will provide some cash. At the moment there is little for it to observe on a daily basis. All that needs to be done is to turn it on for short periods to download the heliosphere data. Management could simply decide to turn it on once every five years or so.

0 comments

Court rules in favor of SpaceX’s lawsuit against the NLRB’s legal status

9:36 am

NLRB logo
Now standing on feet of clay.

The Fifth Circuit of the US. Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) unfair labor practice cases against SpaceX and two other companies should remain suspended until the legal challenges by those companies to the NLRB’s legal authority is settled.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said Tuesday that being subjected to an unconstitutional administrative proceeding was an irreparable harm that justified preliminary injunctions halting NLRB cases. “The Employers have made their case and should not have to choose between compliance and constitutionality,” Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, wrote for the court. “When an agency’s structure violates the separation of powers, the harm is immediate—and the remedy must be, too.”

You can read the court decision here [pdf].
» Read more

1 comment

Starmer government consolidates the UK Space Agency into larger agency

9:08 am

Gone, and likely soon to be forgotten
Soon to be gone, and likely forgotten

The Starmer Labor government in the United Kingdom today announced that it is stripping the UK Space Agency of its independent status and absorbing it into a larger agency, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology,

Taking place by April 2026, the new unit will keep the UK Space Agency (UKSA) name and brand and will be staffed by experts from both organisations. This will drive up efficiency in line with the government’s Plan for Change, cutting red tape and making Whitehall more agile.

Today also sees the publication of over 60 recommendations from industry leaders on how to improve regulation for space missions, including Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (RPO) – where spacecraft work together in orbit.

The press release is filled with similar language extolling this bureaucratic change as guaranteeing a reduction of the red tape that has squelched the space industry in the United Kingdom, but a close review should make us all highly skeptical. The link for those “60 recommendations” lists nothing of a kind. Instead, it provides a second link to a report describing a government simulation of a licensing process for a commercial rendezvous and proximity satellite mission (RPO) (working with three different commercial companies) which is filled with bureaucratic language that is practically incomprehensible. For example, from the executive summary:
» Read more

0 comments

Oh by the way, the FAA has approved the August 24th launch of Starship/Superheavy

12:07 pm

Increasingly irrelevant in the right places
Increasingly irrelevant in the right places

My headline reflects the sense of utter irrelevance of the FAA in announcing its approval of the launch licence for the tenth test launch of Starship/Superheavy (now scheduled for August 24, 2025) as well as its “closing” of its “investigation” into the failure during test flight nine.

As per the FAA in its statement, “There are no reports of public injury or damage to public property. The FAA oversaw and accepted the findings of the SpaceX-led investigation. The final mishap report cites the probable root cause for the loss of the Starship vehicle as a failure of a fuel component. SpaceX identified corrective actions to prevent a reoccurrence of the event.”

The FAA did not “oversee” SpaceX’s investigation. No one at the FAA has the slightest qualifications for doing so. All its bureaucrats did is sit in and watch, and when SpaceX’s engineers completed their work and “identified corrective actions,” the FAA paper-pushers pushed some paper to rubber stamp those conclusions.

Moreover, unlike during the Biden administration, the FAA did not waste any time or money retyping the SpaceX investigation. They simply approved it as is, and issued the launch license. And they apparently instantly agreed to the schedule proposed by SpaceX. In fact, it appears almost as if SpaceX announced the date before the FAA announced the license approval.

Elections matter. And they would matter less if we had had the sense in the past century to not cede so much power to an unelected federal bureaucracy that is really unfit to do the work we gave them. The goal now should be to take that power away from them, and to do it as quickly as it is humanely possible.

It appears at least when it comes to FAA launch licenses, Trump has made some significant progress towards this goal.

8 comments

California’s Coastal Commission again rejects an increase in SpaceX’s launch rate at Vandenberg

9:21 am

Wants to be a dictator
Wants to be a dictator

As expected, the California Coastal Commission yesterday again rejected the proposed doubling of launches by SpaceX at the Vandenberg Space Force Base, from 50 to 100 launches per year, claiming this time it would destroy the environment.

“The sonic booms and their impacts on California’s people, wildlife and property are extremely concerning,” Commissioner Linda Escalante said at a hearing Thursday in Calabasas. “The negative impacts on public access, natural resources and environmental health warrant our scrutiny under California as a standard of review.”

The commissioners and its staff also argued that the launches were not related to national security or military purposes, but instead acted “to expand SpaceX’s commercial telecommunications network rather than serve federal agencies.” See the staff report [pdf] issued prior to the meeting.

The simple fact remains that it is a privately owned company engaged in activities primarily for its own commercial business. It is not a public federal agency or conducting its launches on
behalf of the federal government. It should therefore be regulated accordingly. [emphasis mine]

How dare SpaceX try to make a profit as a private company in America? And how dare the Space Force act as a servant of the people to provide this private company service? What have we come to?! Is communism and top-down authoritarian rule no longer America’s fundamental purpose?

Nor are the claims of the commission about the environment valid. » Read more

11 comments

Jared Isaacman proves in an op-ed today why Trump dumped him

4:03 pm

Jared Isaacman
Jared Isaacman has now proven he was
the wrong man for NASA administrator

In an op-ed posted today by Jared Isaacman and Newt Gingrich, the two men pushed the idea that NASA should lead a new “mini-Manhattan Project” to develop “nuclear-electric-powered spaceships” in order to conquer the heavens.

The President’s budget calls for an eventual pivot away from NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS)—leaving the heavy-lift rocket business to a capable commercial industry. That pivot should be toward something no other agency, organization, or company is capable of accomplishing: building a fleet of nuclear-electric-powered spaceships and extending America’s reach in the ultimate high ground of space.

The NASA centers, workforce, and contractors that manage, assemble, and test SLS are suited to take on this inspiring and necessary challenge. NASA Center at Michoud, for example, built landing craft during WWII, the Saturn V during the space race, the Space Shuttle, and the SLS. It is now waiting for the next logical evolution to ensure the competitiveness of our national space capabilities.

Oy. What piffle. » Read more

41 comments

New study: Both PR departments and the press love to speculate wildly about science, even when the scientists don’t

1:28 pm

The attitude of our modern press about science
The attitude of our modern press about science

A new study looking at 630 articles in popular press about the study of astrobiology (the possibility of life on other worlds) found that the press frequently exaggerated the findings, often taking relatively minor results that only vaguely and with great uncertainty suggested the presence of biology to speculate wildly that life had been found.

The research also found that university public relations departments tended to encourage this behavior with their own speculations in press releases. From the paper’s abstract:

Findings reveal that speculations and promises/expectations are more frequent in news articles and press releases compared to academic papers. Speculations about conditions for life and the existence of life beyond Earth are common, particularly in news articles covering exoplanet research, while promises of life detection are rare. Press releases tend to emphasize the significance of research findings and the progress of the field. Speculations and promises/expectations in news articles often occur without attribution to scientists and in quotes of authors of the studies, and slightly less so in quotes of outside experts. [emphasis mine]

The study looked at articles from the New York Times in the U.S., the Guardian in the United Kingdom, Folha and Estadão in Brazil, Público in Portugal, and El País in Spain. It consistently found these news sources consistently exaggerated the discoveries, often speculating with little evidence that the research had found evidence of life.

This paper merely confirms what I have reported repeatedly in the past few years. When scientists report that they may have detected a molecule in Venus’s atmosphere that on Earth is associated with life, the press immediately screams “Life found on Venus!” Or if scientists detect with great uncertainty similar life-related molecules in an exoplanet’s atmosphere and gently suggest it might mean life, the press screams “Exoplanet has life!”

In both these examples the research was very uncertain, and in both later research failed to confirm these conclusions.

Sadly this pattern now applies to almost every scientific result. Uncertain results based not even on observations but on theories are routinely touted these days by both press departments and news outlets as big discoveries, even if they are only describing uncertain theories that may prove true.

In fact, words like “may”, “might,” or “could” in headlines are always a give-away. They tell you that the story is not about an actual discovery, but a speculation that remains unproven. Such stories rarely get linked to here at Behind the Black, and if I do link to them, I spend a lot of time noting the uncertainties and weakness of the research.

If only all news outlets did the same.

8 comments

Founder of SaxaVord spaceport passes away

10:04 am

Frank Strang, who first proposed the SaxaVord spaceport on the island of Unst in the Shetland Islands in 2017, died yesterday at 67 from cancer, having never seen a single launch from the spaceport almost entirely due to the odious red tape of the United Kingdom.

When Strang announced last month that he had cancer, he also said he hoped to live long enough to see the first launch. The German rocket startup Rocket Factory Augsburg plans its first launch later this year, though this schedule is not firm. Its launch attempt last year was cancelled when the first stage failed during its last static fire test on the launchpad. Whether the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority will issue a launch permit on time remains decidedly unclear.

1 comment

Virginia’s politicians whine about a NASA plan to close the visitor center at Wallops

10:09 am

Chicken Little on the march! Virginia’s representatives are now in a panicked tizzy because it appears NASA is considering closing the visitors center at the Wallops Island spaceport on the Eastern Shore of Virginia.

Members of Virginia’s congressional delegation were shocked by news of the potential closure of the NASA Wallops Flight Facility Visitor Center and worry it will negatively impact the Eastern Shore’s economy.

Employees at Goddard Space Flight Center and Wallops received word last week that management planned to close several facilities, including NASA Wallops Flight Facility Visitor Center — and federal workers asked for congressional support to preserve the local landmark.

Congresswoman Jen Kiggans, a Republican who represents Virginia’s 2nd District, said the proposed closure came as a shock. In a statement, she said was committed to supporting NASA Wallops staff. “This is an unacceptable and drastic step that will have a significant impact on local employees, residents, and visitors,” Kiggans said. “My staff and I are in contact with NASA to better understand the reasoning behind this reported decision as it is contradictory to the proposed House budget. Wallops has long been a vital part of our community, and we will do everything we can to support the work that’s done there and the people who work there.”

Nor is Kiggans the only politican whining. The article includes similar quotes from Democrat senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, as well as local state representative Rob Bloxom. All make the absurd claims that closing this one visitor center will destroy American civilization in Virginia.

And as usual for our propaganda press, no alternative opinions are offered. The only side that gets pushed is the pro-spending side.

What crap. NASA’s job is to foster a vibrant American space industry, by either developing or encouraging the development of actual technologies that can be used for this purpose. A visitor center has nothing to do with this job.

Moreover, such a visitor center employs a relatively small number of people. The economy of the Eastern Shore is not going to collapse by its closure. In fact, the economy won’t really notice it is gone in any significant way.

If we can’t cut the budget in this small way, we will never cut anything, and the country is doomed.

13 comments

FCC eliminates red tape for both satellite companies and space stations

9:29 am

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this week announced [pdf] that it has changed a number of regulations to streamline its licensing in connection with satellite constellations, ground stations, and new space stations.

Today’s reforms intend to boost the nascent Ground-Station-as-a-Service (GSaaS) business model that allows multiple satellite systems to share the same ground station. The new rules eliminate needless paperwork and clear regulatory barriers to GSaaS, a business model that gives satellite operators—especially startups and emerging growth companies—the ability to send and receive signals without having to build their own ground infrastructure.

…The Order establishes a new process for ground station operators to receive a baseline license without first identifying a specific satellite point of communication. For each new point of communication, only a simple FCC notification will be needed. This one change would eliminate approximately 49% of earth station modification applications.

Today’s action further streamlines and expedites the application process for space stations and earth
stations by moving away from regulations that require FCC approval for making even the smallest
changes to a satellite system.

The direction of regulation has shifted 180 degrees since Trump’s election. Under Biden, federal agencies were constantly tasked to increase oversight so that it often took years to get approvals. Under Trump, those same agencies are now beginning to eliminate regulation across the board.

Elections matter. Anyone who says all politicians are the same is either ignorant or lying.

1 comment
1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 239