NASA brother-in-laws and unnamed officials

I remember that space entrepreneurs used to joke about the "NASA brother-in-law effect". A potential investor would exhibit great enthusiasm after a presentation but a few days later would back away from any check writing. When asked why, the investor would say that he or she had asked a brother-in-law who worked for NASA for advice and the brother-in-law had trashed the whole idea. The effect occurred despite the fact that the brother-in-law usually had little or no knowledge about the firm's technology or plans.

I hope that the recent "unnamed NASA official phenomena", as observed here and here, will not be effective enough to warrant the "effect" label: Mixed messages on commercial space - Space Politics. See also FUD - Transterrestrial Musings.

I suppose the unnamed officials might be brother-in-laws of the reporters but I really wonder why anyone should take seriously the technical judgment of someone who will not put his or her name to that judgment.

Posted 07/31/09 | 13:51:44 by TopSpacer | Filed under: NewSpace

Comments

it is not uncommon for government officials to be prohibited from speaking on the record when
Public Affairs is not around.

I've worked in large entities, and, unless, I had cleared any statement through the chain i was prohibited from using the firm name.

Posted by anonymous at 07/31/09 21:54:14

The problem is that they are using the firm name without using their own. Using the percieved prestige of that large institution to say almost anything convenient without personal responsibility is a troll behavior. When somebody uses the NASA name to trash a concept, they should be held resonsible for that statement. If they don't want to be held responsible, then they should be accorded no more credibility than any of the rest of us.

Posted by john hare at 07/31/09 22:11:39

Not to mention, half the time they are a "Former NASA official". If they no longer work for NASA, and don't want to be named, it's just spineless.

Posted by Jason at 07/31/09 23:57:32

It depends upon the reporter and the situation.

If you are a former government official now working at raytheon, you can't use the firm name, and, for policy reasons you can't go on the record, so, you
say "A former government official".

Now done corruptly this gets you scooter libby and the Iraq War. Done, properly this gives you some real insight. There are some sharp people in DoD and NASA. Yes they may have axes to grind, but,
it sort of depends upon the reporter to square it away.

It's better to get some outsider though, that's why John Pike and Norm Ornstein get quoted on everything.

Look, I think the Ares is a POS, but I work around a lot of NASA people, they'll accept it when i tell them this, but I'm toast if i get quoted in the press.

Posted by anonymous at 08/01/09 14:17:49

So you can libel anything in the name of NASA by being an anonymous former employee? "Deeper investigative reporting revealed that the source was former NASA engineer, custodial."

Posted by john hare at 08/01/09 16:48:03

john

I've been bit by the "Brother in Law " thing.
I've had these MF'ers lie right to decision makers
in DoD and Congress about our work or state of the art, or even their own intentions.

That said, sometimes people honestly have to be anonymous.

That said, NASA people are stupid, dishonest and
incompetent. So, Libel is just another tool for them to get through their day.

Posted by anonymous at 08/01/09 18:11:20

I understand the need to be anonymous in some situations. The problem is when prestige without responsibility is used. "A member of Clark Lindsey's staff reports" borrows on the earned credibility of Clark without Clark or the individual having to answer for it.

If you see a reply by John Hare, you know how much weight, if any, to give to that reply, as well as the spin that will be put on it. And you can go back in archives to check on it. Even if we have never met, you have an idea of what you are dealing with. With a totally anonymous source such as yours, we have to read and decide based on the individual post. These people, by not taking responsibility, are by definition, irresponsible. Therefore they should be accorded less credibility than either of us.

Posted by john hare at 08/02/09 06:42:27

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.