Nostalgia for the NASA launch and mission tv broadcasts of old? ....
Skipping anything much autobiographical other than to say that I have tried to follow NASA spaceflight, space science and (to a lesser extent) aeronautics fairly closely since . . . well, not actually since the failed launch of Vanguard in December 1957 but by the time of Alan Shepherd's suborbital flight four years later, I was stridently captivated by NASA insofar as 1960s-era tv coverage (and kid-age books) allowed. I note this because when I think back to Jules Bergman's commentary during NASA crewed spaceflight missions, the viewing public obviously is not getting the same quality. Even set "only" in the anchorman role, Cronkite had such gravitas.
A caveat to the decline in useful and meaningful coverage is found in the appearance on CNN yesterday of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the noted astrophysicist. (Another prof also was present for the segment but I haven't recalled his name, unfortunately.)
Anyone missing those earlier eminences of broadcast coverage might find solace in two facts, one positive, the other not so much.
The current SLS upper stage is powered by an RL-10 engine (uncertain as to the iterated variant, though Wikipedia indicates it is an RL-10C-1-1, standard for the Centaur V upper stage). The RL-10 was developed in the late 1950s by Pratt and Whitney and in its manufacturing legacy, boasts as cool a space-truckin' name as Aerojet Rocketdyne. All the CNN etc blatherers in existence cannot detract from the continuity of "space coolness" represented by the role - the ongoing role - of the RL-10.
On the downside, though. A preeminent and prolific voice in what might be called the "space law pacifist and anti-U.S. cadre" is a certain attorney with several advanced degrees. I believe this person's original specialty area of law was international humanitarian law, or the law of armed conflict. As an academic pedigree, it's all just grand. But not unlike the blathering types, this attorney too often does not know what they're talking about, and it's embarassing. For example, in discussing some aspect of Space Law in a seminar presentation, the attorney stated that Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chafee had died in a launch accident. Which was true, in part - they died, and it happened on a launch pad. But as anyone who knows even the simplest things about space programs and technologies would be quick to point out, the Apollo 1 fire occurred during a test, not a launch attempt. Apollo 1 is not something anyone who wants to be taken seriously can afford to badly fumble in substantive terms and retain credibility - again, not unlike the blathering types unavoidable on broadcasts.
Almost as bad, the attorney repeated the same type of error recently. They referred to the wet dress rehearsal tests of the SLS/Orion stack which did not result in readiness for launch - as launch attempts which were "scrubbed". Not quite; no launch was scheduled for the date of those tests, kinda sorta like the nomenclature "wet dress rehearsal" suggests, no?
So a stack (pun intended) of advanced law degrees is not insulation against getting the facts wrong about fundamental aspects of space programs and technologies. At least this attorney did not refer to the RL-10 as being built by Boeing. At least, not yet.