Comments on: Swift Newsletter

By: The Bad Astronomer

The Bad Astronomer — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:52:51 +0000

Oh– my mistake, you are talking about when I did E/PO. Well, I worked for a group that got money from Sonoma State University that was paid for with grants from NASA, so I was one step farther removed from being an employee of NASA.

Honestly, he might as well have said “the American public signs my paycheck.”

By: The Bad Astronomer

The Bad Astronomer — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:50:32 +0000

Bzzzzt. Try again, Ed. Sibrel said that NASA signs my paychecks. That is a lie.

And being a contractor is a whole different story than being a NASA employee. It really is. So again, I didn’t work for NASA, nor have I ever.

By: Ed Minchau

Ed Minchau — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:10:46 +0000

Point is, Wayne, that Phil called Sibrel a liar. And Phil knows that what he claimed to be a lie, wasn’t – as he so proudly stated in the very first line of this blog post. Call Sibrel an idiot, call him a fool, call him whatever you like – but don’t call him a liar when you know that he is speaking the truth.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:38:23 +0000

Ed, you obviously have a lot to learn about how NASA and the federal government operate if you think Phil was a NASA employee. By your definition, nearly every astronomer, space physicist, and aerospace engineer in the country is a NASA employee since most of us receive some sort of grant money from NASA at some point during our careers. Your EMPLOYER is the person who signs your PAYCHECKS, not the ultimate source of the funding.

By: Ed Minchau

Ed Minchau — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:03:25 +0000

Moose, if his paycheck was coming out of the NASA budget, then he was a NASA employee no matter how thinly one splits the hair.

BTW, Bart Sibrel is an idiot.

By: Moose

Moose — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:32:51 +0000

You don’t have to be a NASA employee to be “on the education and public outreach efforts for Swift”, Ed.

By: Ed Minchau

Ed Minchau — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:36:07 +0000

“Sibrel claims I am a NASA employee and “thatâ€™s where [I] get my paychecks.” That is not true, of course: Iâ€™ve never been a NASA employee, and that is something Sibrel should have known before he said that. Either he didnâ€™t know and was making that up, or he did know and said it anyway. Either way, itâ€™s a lie, and so I can honestly, and with evidence, call Bart Sibrel a liar!” — Phil Plait, October 30, 2007 (emphasis mine)

“I used to work on the education and public outreach effort for Swift, one of NASAâ€™s most successful missions.” — Phil Plait, November 9, 2007

By: Moose

Moose — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:50:22 +0000

Name overloading! Yeah, I managed to be confused for more than a few seconds. I was thinking “Swift has investigators? Swift has outreach people? I thought it was just Randi’s blog/newsletter.”

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:03:23 +0000

But Harold, your results completely ignore the elusive Principal Principle investigators!

By: Harold

Harold — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:23:57 +0000

Googling “principal investigator” yields “about 328,000″ results, while “principle investigator” yields “about 274,000″ results. So by a result of 54.5% vs. 45.5%, the consensus view of reality is that people favor “Principal Investigator.” Which is really too bad; I think the world would benefit from more Principle Investigators.

By: The Bad Astronomer

The Bad Astronomer — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:09:00 +0000

Y’know, it’s funny– I always spelled this incorrectly on our stuff, and my boss would correct it. I meant to look it up before publishing the post, but I’m tired. It’ s been a long few days. What’s funnier though is that I found NASA sites with it spelled the other way too.

By: Annie

Annie — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:55:59 +0000

PrinciPAL!

By: Trebuchet

Trebuchet — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:19:56 +0000

That was Spirit that locked up. Not its fault, just too many files in the flash drive.

Coincidentally, I came here directly from reading the JREF newsletter. Which is called “Swift”! So when I saw “Swift Newsletter” as a blog topic I naturally thought it was about Randi!

By: Jack Hagerty

Jack Hagerty — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:51:23 +0000

The Centipede says: “991 days in space without a hardware fault? Thatâ€™s quite impressive, considering thereâ€™s no maintenance whatsoever being done.”

Except software. I, too, find that exceptional; both the reliability of the hardware and the fact that you can “tweak” a vehicle once it’s in flight. The Mars Rovers left Earth with their final programs still in development. They were loaded en-route. They even had to do a “three finger salute” (CTL-ALT-DEL) for Opportunity (?) when it locked up.

Amazing.

- Jack

By: The Centipede

The Centipede — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:24:04 +0000

991 days in space without a hardware fault? That’s quite impressive, considering there’s no maintenance whatsoever being done.