Letters to the Editor: NASA Disappearances, Narcolepsy, and Runaway Blimps

Dearest readers!

Motherboard UK Editor Victoria Turk at your service. I've been rummaging through our digital mailbag for this week's round-up and it's always (well, usually) a pleasure to hear from our readers. And no one called us fucking morons this week! Don't be shy: Send an email to letters@motherboard.tv, drop us a tweet, or send us a love note by carrier pigeon.

I hope our spooky themed week didn't scare you too much—you can catch up on all the stories from the All in Your Head series here in time for Halloween.

Over to you now, with this week's letters.

No one will take you seriously after removing comments

So, you're basically saying you don't want feedback about your articles to be publicly displayed for the readers to evaluate.

You want to hand pick the criticism and mold the narrative to your liking.

Good job, now no one will ever take you seriously (not that anyone was, you're just lucky enough to get the bad exposure from eliminating comments by the people that make you relevant).

-Rich McKee

Removing comments was not a decision we took lightly and we agree no one's found the perfect solution yet. We aim to include a mix of views, including Rich's, in our letters roundup, and we encourage readers to publicly discuss our stories on social media platforms—even if we don't agree with what you have to say. You can also talk with or about us on the r/motherboard subreddit.

Abandoned space equipment is cropping up everywhere

I had a client (I am an attorney) that was a demolition contractor and had the successful bid to scrap the Launch Umbilical Tower 1 (I think it was 1). NASA wanted it out of the way so there was plenty of room for the shuttle program. That tower had launched the Apollo 11 mission and it was the 'youngest' historical structure in the registry under the national historic preservation act.

After the contract was signed a small groundswell of public opinion urged NASA not to destroy it. Under the contract my client owned it. We went to Washington to meet with NASA about whether it could be saved somehow. NASA said they were willing to consider it. My client proposed relocating it in the area at Cape Canaveral where NASA already maintained and exhibited space program artifacts. The client's idea was to place some attractions and rides inside the LUT - it was of course huge- and charge admission. The consultant my client hired had them look at the California exhibits of the Spruce Goose and the Queen Mary as similar attractions that might generate a profit.

NASA had us meet with the outside contractor that ran the Cape exhibits to see if we could work out a deal with it to manage the LUT display. NASA also undertook an extensive study to see if the new location would interfere in any way with its continued operations.

The client ultimately abandoned the idea. The money to move it and fix it up for use was fairly steep. NASA also didn't seem that enthused about the idea. So the valuable metals that made up the LUT were disassembled and scrapped.

I was disappointed at the time and even today wish that that particular historical piece of mankind's quest into space could have been saved.

-Drew Patterson

***

There is or was a Lunar Command Module mock-up sitting in a field near Bow, NH about twelve years ago. The mock-up was used by Navy divers in sea rescue and recovery operations during the Apollo Program.

- Kpvint

***

WRT the lunar rover disappearance—well done! Alas this is not an uncommon occurrence at NASA

- Keith Cowing, Editor, NASAWatch.com

I loved Jason's story this week about the NASA rover that was sent to an Alabama scrapheap (but then rescued, with NASA admitting they would like it back but probably can't legally claim it). Your letters make me wonder what other technological history is lying forgotten out there, and I have a feeling this won't be the end of the saga… If you've got a tip about some abandoned spaceships, drop us a line!

The link between sleep paralysis and narcolepsy

Why did you not mention "narcolepsy" by name in this piece? It is a hallmark symptom for those of us who suffer from it, and one doctors can use to help diagnose us.

- Mary Lou Olson

Editor-in-Chief Derek's response:

Hey Mary, thanks for writing. When you say "those of us who suffer from it," are you referring to sleep paralysis or narcolepsy?

We didn't purposefully ignore narcolepsy, I believe it didn't come up in the story because of the way the writer approached the piece: Based on some cursory research by myself, sleep paralysis appears to be more common in narcoleptics than narcolepsy diagnoses are in people who have experienced sleep paralysis, so it likely did not come up in Brian's interviews, which focused largely on symptoms and history of the condition.

Thanks,

Derek

I didn't know there was a potential co-occurrence between narcolepsy and sleep paralysis, but now Mary's brought it to our attention it makes intuitive sense. It seems that, in some cases, sleep paralysis can be a symptom of narcolepsy.

Is finding oxygen on Rosetta's comet such a big deal?

Articles such as this need more scientific rigor if you mean to compete in the science publishing space. Otherwise it's just more Pop culture "science stuff" that contributes to public misunderstanding.

I understand your desire to publish something of note from the Rosetta mission, but this is an asterisk. We've long known that comets contained oxygen (ice) as well as amino acids which some theorize could have implanted both organic life and bodies of water on Earth. There are competing theories on that but primordial oxygen in a comet is hardly a surprise. As the article states, such oxygen has been detected it the primordial clouds from which these comets formed. Indeed one of Rosetta's missions was to verify the probable existence of same on this comet. The fact that it had never before been verified as a primordial element in comets before is more due to limits in remote sensing re comets and the fact there has only been one other closeup visit, the impactor of a couple of years ago.

The angle of this article is more Rosetta cheerleading than an announcement of a major discovery.

Less hype, more science please.

- Mike Stenson

My response to Mike:

Hi,

I'm the writer on this piece – thanks for your note! Scientific rigour is important to us.

I think the news of the detection of oxygen on Comet 67P was definitely worth covering; it was the first detection of molecular oxygen at a comet, and even if it's partly because previous technology wasn't up to the task, to me that's a pretty noteworthy scientific and technological advancement.

The details of the finding were also interesting. To recap, the researchers found molecular oxygen (O2, not just in H2O or other forms).

While molecular oxygen has been detected in those two interstellar clouds, its presence on Comet 67P at the quantities and ratios measured was surprising, as O2 is highly reactive. This raises questions for models of Solar System formation which would expect more of the O2 to have reacted and turned into other forms. If you're interested, the researchers suggest a few possibilities for the presence of this oxygen on 67P that I didn't get into in the news piece—this post from ESA summarises a few.

Thanks for your interest!

Victoria

I won't deny that I get very excited about ESA's Rosetta mission—we landed on a fucking comet! It's true that we can't cover everything, and deciding which stories are most worth pursuing is a constant challenge. In this case, I'm convinced that Rosetta's discovery was notable, especially as it may change our understanding of how our Solar System was formed.

Why do some people like horror films but others don't?

I'm new to your website, and wanted to compliment the writer of the article I read about personality types and the consumption of horror/terror types of entertainment. This is an oft pondered question of mine, so I particularly appreciate review of various studies on this topic.

Primarily, I want to compliment the writer on his deft use of language and construct in the article. It was a true pleasure to read. Perhaps I am spending too much time on political blogs!

Thanks, Kailyn

Glad you liked the story Kailyn! The writer of the story on why some people like horror films was actually a "she," Sarah Rose Cavanagh.

Runaway JLENS blimps, and other aerostats

Motherboard,

Usually I enjoy your articles, as the majority of your writers tend to be well informed of the topics they choose to write about. Unfortunately, one of your recent articles, "A Runaway Military Blimp Is Floating Aimlessly Over Pennsylvania" is laden with lazy, uninformed statements. Its obvious the author, Jason Koebler, did little research on this topic, choosing instead to lazily quote a few equally unmotivated journalists. The following are a few examples:

1) Raytheon's 243-foot long JLENS blimp, part of a $2.7 billion program, was installed above Maryland's Aberdeen Proving Ground last year, with the idea of putting the mid-Atlantic under "persistent surveillance."

Why is persistent surveillance in quotes? Its an airborne camera, which enables persistent surveillance. The quotations add a snarky elitist sound to this sentence which is entirely unnecessary.

2) In 2005, each individual blimp was slated to cost $180 million, though the project has cost $2.7 billion thus far and only two aerostats (stationary blimps) have been put into service.

This is blatant misinformation. On Bagram Airforce base in the Parwan province of Afghanistan, there are over 4 JLENS blimps in service, with multiple backups on hand in case of technical or real world issues. There are a multitude of American military bases throughout the middle east that use these blimps. This information is readily available to the public.

3) The project has been a colossal failure, as is detailed in a lengthy Los Angeles Times article: It's run over budget, has taken longer than expected to get up and running, and its overall utility is unclear.

Making such a bold statement with only a Los Angeles Times article to back it up is ballsy at best, ignorant at worst. According to non classified, public information, this system has been up and running for the last 8 years. It is far from useless, as it aids in saving lives daily by thwarting mortar attacks, rocket attacks, insurgents attempting to plant IEDS, as well as many classified uses that are vital in protecting a multitude of NATO assets and lives.

4) "You can keep it up for virtually a month or so at a time with very little maintenance," Carey said. With no onboard navigational abilities, it's unclear how long the blimp will stay floating in the air.

How is it unclear how long it will stay in the air. Would a prolific aerospace engineering company just shrug their shoulders about something as simple as time spent in the air when bidding for a government contract?

I love the majority of Vice's work, with Motherboard being my favorite subsection, but the laziness of this article was so clearly evident I felt obligated to say something. Many people who read Vice expect you guys to be different than the major news networks. We trust Vice to have the types of articles that carry less of a bias, are more informed, and avoid all the hyperbole nonsense these major news networks use to boost ratings. With all that said, thank you for your contribution to information and entertainment, and I will continue to read VICE in the future.

Regards,

Aaron

Jason's response:

Aaron, thanks for reading. JLENS is currently a domestic program. The military uses aerostats overseas, but they are not JLENS.

From an October 2012 Government Accountability Office report:

"GAO identified 15 key aerostat and airship efforts that were underway or had been initiated since 2007, and the Department of Defense (DOD) had or has primary responsibility for all of these efforts. None of the civil agency efforts met GAO's criteria for a key effort. Most of the aerostat and airship efforts have been fielded or completed, and are intended to provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support. The estimated total funding of these efforts was almost $7 billion from fiscal years 2007 through 2012."

There are dozens of other aerostats deployed overseas, with their own budgets.

Again, JLENS is currently a domestic program. The plan was to originally perhaps use it overseas, but it hasn't been deployed there and there are currently no plans to, because it has run over budget, has taken longer than it was expected to, and has been plagued with mishaps. The Los Angeles Times article cites dozens of sources and is the best I've read on the subject so that's why I linked to it. For previous articles, I have spoken to members of the military involved in the program and with Raytheon, and it's clear that the program has not delivered on what the military asked for. In fact, I put "persistent surveillance" in quotation marks because it was a quote from a Raytheon executive who I spoke to for an earlier story, which is linked in that same sentence.

As I mentioned, it's not just the Los Angeles Times. From that same Government Accountability Office report:

"The Army initiated JLENS system development in August 2005. JLENS consists of two large aerostats—over 240 feet in length—each with a 7,000 pound payload capacity for cruise missile detection and tracking. As we have previously reported, the program has experienced design issues associated with the mobile mooring transport vehicle, as well as schedule delays caused by synchronization of JLENS with the Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense program. JLENS was originally scheduled to enter production in September 2010. However, that same month, an aerostat accident resulted in the loss of one of the JLENS platforms.

The accident, as well as recent system integration challenges, led to a decision to not procure production units. JLENS also incurred a critical Nunn-McCurdy program acquisition unit cost breach with the submission of the fiscal year 2013 President's Budget due to a 100 percent reduction in planned procurement quantities—the program previously planned to procure 16 aerostats. Now, the program is scheduled to only acquire 2 aerostats using research and development funding, and is not expected to enter the production phase."

The military spent $2.3 billion to make deploy two blimps which must, by design, work in tandem. One of them has now floated away and been destroyed, leaving the Department of Defense with one blimp it can't use. Whatever the future of the project, it has been a disappointment by any measure.

-Jason Koebler

A thorough critique merits a thorough response, and I hope Jason's reply answers a few questions about the military blimp that went walkabout this week. We amended the headline regarding the cost of the blimp and added a correction.