Oberg-msnbc: Did NASA space robot dodge disaster?

Did NASA space robot dodge disaster?

Launch managers pull the plug at the last minute

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6444226/

By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst // Special to MSNBC

Updated: 5:13 p.m. ET Nov. 9, 2004

HOUSTON - NASA's plans to test the technology for an automated
rendezvous in space may have been doomed from the start, the SpaceRef Web
site reported Tuesday. The payload, called DART, might have become crippled
before it even reached outer space.

Orbital Sciences threatens NASAWATCH with lawsuit:


NASA WATCH:
Orbital Demands Story Retraction
Editor's note: This email from Orbital's David Freeman arrived at SpaceRef
this evening - after business hours. As such, the person sending the email
is not available by phone. Aside from a call from a mid-level employee at
Orbital - someone not affiliated with Orbital's public affairs or legal
office - no one has contacted me by phone from Orbital in an official
capacity to say which items in this article are true or untrue. Nowhere in
Freeman's email does Orbital specifically admit or deny anything that
appears in my story. If Orbital wishes to provide a sentence by sentence
rebuttal, I will post it. If my understanding of what "Orbital officials or
others have subsequently rebutted" is flawed then perhaps Orbital will tell
me what I got wrong. If I am incorrect, I will apologize - and if need be,
retract. Please advise.

Now they are going to threaten me with legal action. Any help from NASA
Watch readers would be appreciated.

From: David Freeman
Date: Tue Nov 9, 2004 6:35:37 PM US/Eastern
Subject: Feedback Message from SpaceRef Web Site
Name: David Freeman
Subject: Libelous Article Regarding DART Program
Message: Dear Mr. Cowling:

I am an in-house counsel for Orbital Sciences Corporation, and on behalf of
Orbital I demand the immediate retraction of your article published at
SpaceRef.com, entitled "A DART Near Miss: Infighting at Orbital and
Deceiving NASA, and dated Tuesday, November 9, 2004.

The headline is absolutely incorrect and the article is packed with both
errors and innuendo. This kind of headlining and unsubstantiated
storytelling is irresponsible journalism at its worst, and we expect a full
retraction of this article by noon tomorrow, 10 November. Otherwise, we will
take appropriate legal action.

This demand is made even given the Update subsequently posted at the end of
your article. Rather than admit that there was no factual basis for your
original article, you have simply made limited revisions to your original
story solely on the basis of your own flawed understanding of what Orbital
officials or others have subsequently rebutted.

Please acknowledge this communication and state your intentions immediately.

Sincerely,
David B. Freeman
Vice President and Assistant General Counsel
Orbital Sciences Corporation
(703) 406-5521

Date sent: (11/9/2004 3:35:37 PM)

So, any guesses when or if DART will ever be launched?

Explorer8939 ) wrote:
: So, any guesses when or if DART will ever be launched?

Sort of puts the SST HST repair mission back on the manifest again, at
least in theory. No?

Eric

"Jim Oberg" :

Orbital Sciences threatens NASAWATCH with lawsuit:


NASA WATCH:
Orbital Demands Story Retraction
Editor's note: This email from Orbital's David Freeman arrived at SpaceRef
this evening - after business hours. As such, the person sending the email
is not available by phone. Aside from a call from a mid-level employee at
Orbital - someone not affiliated with Orbital's public affairs or legal
office - no one has contacted me by phone from Orbital in an official
capacity to say which items in this article are true or untrue. Nowhere in
Freeman's email does Orbital specifically admit or deny anything that
appears in my story. If Orbital wishes to provide a sentence by sentence
rebuttal, I will post it. If my understanding of what "Orbital officials or
others have subsequently rebutted" is flawed then perhaps Orbital will tell
me what I got wrong. If I am incorrect, I will apologize - and if need be,
retract. Please advise.

Now they are going to threaten me with legal action. Any help from NASA
Watch readers would be appreciated.

From: David Freeman
Date: Tue Nov 9, 2004 6:35:37 PM US/Eastern
Subject: Feedback Message from SpaceRef Web Site
Name: David Freeman
Subject: Libelous Article Regarding DART Program
Message: Dear Mr. Cowling:

I am an in-house counsel for Orbital Sciences Corporation, and on behalf of
Orbital I demand the immediate retraction of your article published at
SpaceRef.com, entitled "A DART Near Miss: Infighting at Orbital and
Deceiving NASA, and dated Tuesday, November 9, 2004.

The headline is absolutely incorrect and the article is packed with both
errors and innuendo. This kind of headlining and unsubstantiated
storytelling is irresponsible journalism at its worst, and we expect a full
retraction of this article by noon tomorrow, 10 November. Otherwise, we
will
take appropriate legal action.

This demand is made even given the Update subsequently posted at the end of
your article. Rather than admit that there was no factual basis for your
original article, you have simply made limited revisions to your original
story solely on the basis of your own flawed understanding of what Orbital
officials or others have subsequently rebutted.

Please acknowledge this communication and state your intentions
immediately.

Sincerely,
David B. Freeman
Vice President and Assistant General Counsel
Orbital Sciences Corporation
(703) 406-5521

Date sent: (11/9/2004 3:35:37 PM)

First, since when have real legal demands been conducted by email. Demand it
in writting with a signature first. Second considering how fast email
travels I find it odd that the email was sent afterhours when in contents
could not be confirmed over the phone.

Last but not least, while there are reasons for lawsuites to exist, if this
is real the idea of jumping into a threat of a lawsuite first without calling
in and discussing what is wrong with the article is a little smelly to me.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message ...
Did NASA space robot dodge disaster?

Launch managers pull the plug at the last minute

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6444226/

In which JimO wrote:

Eventually, the Russian system was perfected: More than 100 robot
resupply flights to space stations have been conducted with Progress
spacecraft over the past 25 years, and every single mission has succeeded.
Is this really true ? There have been numerous cases where Soyuz were
docked manually (included exp 10), after KURS failure, and ISTR a few
cases where progresses were docked using TORU (remote manual) as well.

So while you can say the mission succeeded, this doesn't imply that
the automated docking did.

Of course, in some of these cases, it may be easier to just let the
crew fly the ship in, rather than trying to work around whatever
problem cropped up with the automated system, and try again. Based on
the stated cause of the docking failure (one group of thrusters not
performing as expected) that seems to be the case with the EXP10
docking. Had the crew not been available, the ship could have been
configured from the ground to use another group of thrusters, and
automated docking accomplished.

"Explorer8939" wrote in message
om...
So, any guesses when or if DART will ever be launched?

Early next year. I hear Marshall is not enthusiastic about a December launch
campaign (can't let a little thing like a launch mess up those holiday
plans, can we?)

-Kim-

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
First, since when have real legal demands been conducted by email.

For several years now. It's that different from the phone call or
first class letter that formerly carried such requests.

Second considering how fast email travels I find it odd that the email was
sent afterhours when in contents could not be confirmed over the phone.

Folks do work overtime you know. Additionally, there was no need to
contact someone or confirm over the phone, the site was plainly
visible to all.

Last but not least, while there are reasons for lawsuites to exist, if this
is real the idea of jumping into a threat of a lawsuite first without calling
in and discussing what is wrong with the article is a little smelly to me.

The email does not threaten a lawsuit, however Kieth seems to think
so. However, his writing (in the email) is of his typical highly
strung style, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

(Derek Lyons) :

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
First, since when have real legal demands been conducted by email.

For several years now. It's that different from the phone call or
first class letter that formerly carried such requests.

Could you rephrase the above, I may be dense because I can't seem to
understand what you mean in the second sentence. Do you mean the legal
profession has changed that much or something else. Also email is the
easyiest type of document to fake, would you trust an email only about a
lawsuit?

Second considering how fast email travels I find it odd that the email was
sent afterhours when in contents could not be confirmed over the phone.

Folks do work overtime you know. Additionally, there was no need to
contact someone or confirm over the phone, the site was plainly
visible to all.

What I mean is emails can be faked, if I recieve an email about legal action
I would like to confirm the contents by voice or written signed documents.

Last but not least, while there are reasons for lawsuites to exist, if
this
is real the idea of jumping into a threat of a lawsuite first without
calling
in and discussing what is wrong with the article is a little smelly to me.

The email does not threaten a lawsuit, however Kieth seems to think
so. However, his writing (in the email) is of his typical highly
strung style, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Ok.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

h (Rand Simberg) :

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:08:43 -0600, in a place far, far away, Earl
Colby Pottinger made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Derek Lyons) :

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
First, since when have real legal demands been conducted by email.

For several years now. It's that different from the phone call or
first class letter that formerly carried such requests.

Could you rephrase the above, I may be dense because I can't seem to
understand what you mean in the second sentence. Do you mean the legal
profession has changed that much or something else. Also email is the
easyiest type of document to fake, would you trust an email only about a
lawsuit?

If it were digitally signed, I'd consider it better than a dead-tree
document.

Understand that point. I don't think that was mentioned, did I miss it?
And are digital signed legal documents really that common? If so another
change that I did not notice happening around me.

Earl Colby Pottinger



--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp