First ISS Sabatoge, Now Drunk Astronauts?

Maybe, maybe not: but that's not necessarily what you'll hear on the news.

"Soyuz, Shuttle Cited in Drinking Reports" is an attention-getting headline in the UK newspaper, The Guardian.

The article, from the Associated Press, appears in other news sources online, and seems to be taken seriously. In fact, I've run into television news spots that treat the "allegations" of sabotage and report of drunken astronauts by an "independent panel of outside experts" as carrying equal weight.

The difference is that the allegedly sabotaged computer component really has cut wires inside, and the experts are passing on "unverified interviews."

I'll give the AP and the Guardian credit: "unverified interviews" is a quote from the article. And, in an impressive show of openness, the online AP article gives the name and rank of the panel of experts' head.

That puts this well above the anonymous "experts say" sort of report. Someone whose name is attached to a statement is, in my opinion, more likely to be careful about accuracy, than someone who remains a safely-anonymous "expert."

I don't have trouble with the report, as understood by someone who reads to the end of the article. "While the report was vague and gave no names, panel chairman Col. Richard Bachmann Jr., provided a few details. He said the panel was told about multiple instances involving alcohol, but the most detailed involved two astronauts." puts the allegation of inebriated astronauts in perspective.

So far, it's at the 'that guy told me' level of reliability.

Colonel Bachmann was also quoted as saying "There's certainly no intent to impugn the entire astronaut corps, ... "We don't have enough data to call it alcohol abuse. We have no way of knowing if these are the only two incidents that have ever occurred in the history of the astronaut corps or if they're the tip of a very large iceberg."

The AP article gives a reason why the allegations were unverified: "Bachmann said it was not the panel's mission to investigate allegations or verify them and that NASA would have to ferret out details."

We even learn that the panel of experts interviewed people directly involved with the U.S. space program: "Fourteen astronauts, all but one with spaceflight experience, were interviewed by the panel, as well as five family members. In addition, eight flight surgeons were interviewed."

What I see as a potential problem is the alleged habit of NASA brass had a habit of disregarding what flight surgeons said, unless it was good news. If true, that's stupid and dangerous.

If true.

I suppose I should be used to this sort of thing by now, but I'm still bothered by the apparently inability of journalists to

1. See that there is a difference between allegations that have "that guy told me" as evidence and those that have physical evidence - cut wires, in this case
2. Let the masses in on that not-so-minor distinction

Oh, well, at least that sort of sloppy reporting keeps guys like me busy.

NASA's public statement is "Findings of Astronaut Health Reviews," in the NASA website's "For Media & Press section."