karn@allegra.UUCP (12/09/83)
Now I'm really mad. On the 6pm news, Channel 7 (WABC) here in New York ran an opening story saying that "when the Columbia astronauts tried to fire their rockets to return to earth, the Columbia shook violently and they couldn't return to earth...They'll try again to return to earth this afternoon..." Then they went on to show a little clip of Apollo 13, comparing this incident to it!! It's bad enough that the media selectively reports only the bad news. Its totally inexcusable when they distort the news beyond recognition in order to create a "life-threatening crisis" as they have in this situation. If I had not already been familiar with the situation through other means (like listening to the un-talked-over mission audio via amateur radio station WA3NAN) I would have been very worried, thinking that the OMS fuel tanks had exploded or something. Furthermore, they didn't consider it worthy to interrupt their "important scoop" on steel animal traps to carry the landing live until about 1.5 minutes before landing!! I would urge anyone who also saw this miserable piece of yellow journalism to write WABC and protest. I certainly am. Phil Karn
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (12/09/83)
On the other hand, I watched the landing live on CBS tonight, and I was impressed. The commentators both seemed to be making a point of not talking while there was direct audio coming out - they would even stop in mid sentence to let you hear. Also, the photography was spectacular! The chase plane had the shuttle in site, filling the picture, which was rock steady, for about a minute before the landing. Wow! Of course, I assume the other networks had the same picture. Did Young wait until the last minute to bring down the gear on purpose, or was that controlled by a computer? Is there some aerodynamic reason for waiting so long? Our local TV station said that "a belligerent computer refused to allow the Columbia to land". Now THAT I resent. If an athlete hurts his knee, we're all concerned about his injury. But if a computer gets fried by a jet flame, then it's the computers fault! And it's not just person vs machine - you know if the jet had fried a tile or some other part of Columbia, they'd all be concerned about Columbia.
karn@allegra.UUCP (12/09/83)
I wouldn't know about the audio being talked over on the networks. I turned the TV volume down and listened instead to the un-talked-over audio being retransmitted by the club amateur radio station at the Goddard Space Flight Center. Until the local stations pre-empted their shocking steel animal trap exposes and vital football score reports to bring us their extensive coverage of the landing (all 2 minutes of it) this was the only way to follow Columbia's progress short of paying $.35/minute to the phone company. By the way, any of you out there who did listen to WA3NAN's retransmissions should definitely send them a reception report. It must have gotten very lonely running the station 24 hours a day over the past 10 days, and the only reward a bunch of volunteers can get is the satisfaction that their service was appreciated. I would certainly like to see it continue on future missions! Phil
mac@allegra.UUCP (12/09/83)
I also object to the way ABC handled the Shuttle story for the rest of last night - in those obnoxious little news promos that they run between programs, they kept saying "Malfunction delays Shuttle landing...details at 11". If I had come home late and relied on these bozos for my news, I would have assumed that the Shuttle hadn't landed yet! At least CBS was showing a scene of the landing in their "newsbreaks". Also, the ABC people said the problem was with "a navigational device". I heard John Young clearly say that he had a problem with one of the IMU's. According to my shuttle operator's handbook, the IMU controls are on the same panel with the atmospheric (life support) controls. What IS an IMU? Is it life support or navigation? Jim McParland AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ allegra!mac