Thursday, August 09, 2007
|
|
... And Touched the Face of God
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:34 AM
|
So last night, I'm having a drink with a few friends at Austin Grill, and all of a sudden, we're watching the Space Shuttle Endeavour lifting off. Frankly, it was a surprise to all of us.
Now, in truth, I had heard something about the launch, but I certainly hadn't planned my schedule around watching it. Which makes me ponder a few things...
1. Why is this same looking vehicle as when I was 12 years old? I mean, cars don't look the same, heck, sneakers don't look the same ... so why does the Shuttle look the same as it ever did?
2. In the past, Presidents took the time to challenge Americans to go into space. JFK challenged America to go to the moon. After the Challenger disaster, Reagan talked about Sir. Francis Drake and the importance of exploration. So how come nobody today is going on TV and explaining why we are doing all of this? If not the president, then how about the head of NASA (in fairness, they do have a cool website). Come to think of it, who is the head of NASA?
3. Americans used to sit around the TV waiting for a Shuttle launch. Heck, one of the reasons the Challenger disaster was so devastating was that thousands of children were watching it on TV at the time. Now, guys like me, are surprised when they break away from Hardball to go to the launch. What happened? Are Shuttle launches merely suffering the same fate as the evening news (too many other options crowding them out on TV)? Or have we merely grown bored with this stuff? ... Or is it that we're not being challenged and inspired anymore?
... In recent years, Astronauts have lost prestige. Sure, some of that has to do with driving around wearing diapers -- but a lot of it have to do with the fact that our leaders have failed to push this program into the future, and have also failed to explain why this program is important.
Is this another missed opportunity for Bush?
|
|
|
something to market, the reality that the moon was not really made of "Cheese" became a disapointment. Perhaps Mars has warehouses filled with "Ray Ban" sun glasses? |
|
I think it is more that we have been watching the same thing over and over for 20 years. How many times can you watch the same thing on TV and still be excited about it.
Add in that we are no longer school kids and no longer have their sense of awe, and suddenly you care more about paying your mortgage and the happy hour special going on than the launch.
I assumed they still watched the launches in schools, planned assignments around it and that kids still got excited about it. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
1.
-An orbiter is a little bit more expensive than a car and sneakers so I doubt much thought goes into the spoiler and 22 inch spinner rims that I'm sure adorn your car. Unless you're willing to pay more in taxes to replace them more often, I find it surprising you'd even mention this.
2.
-Dubya expressed his desire to go to Mars and got a lot of guff for it because it's expensive. What did we gain going to the moon? It was cool, it showed we could do it, but did the taxpayer really get his money's worth for that project? I wonder if Hubble weren't actually more valuable than a moon landing.
3.
-If you'd listened to the news when they were broadcasting the launch (and truly for the entire 2 weeks leading up to it), they were playing up the connections to other failed missions. They WANT another Challenger or Columbia disaster. They probably broke away from covering the bridge disaster and the mining accident to broadcast a potential orbiter explosion. Vampires.
... In recent years, Astronauts have lost prestige. Sure, some of that has to do with driving around wearing diapers -- but a lot of it have to do with the fact that our leaders have failed to push this program into the future, and have also failed to explain why this program is important.
- She wasn't wearing diapers, despite what the press reported (and of course this is what you cling on to) and I think the latest revelations about alcohol abuse in the hours leading up to a launch are more shocking than some silly love-triangle. |
|
|
I don't know about you all, but I still want to be an Astronaut some day. When NASA starts signing up web-geeks, I'll be first in line. |
|
|
It looks the same, but all of the orbiters have been substantially modified over the years such that their internals are vastly different. |
|
Space exploration is an important aspect of the modern expression of American Exceptionalism.
After all, Switzerland, Iran, and Venezuela aren't going into space.
Neither is...France.
I think some people on the left may not be terribly excited about cheering for NASA because doing so in effect does affirm American Exceptionalism, and the lefties simply don't subscribe to the idea that America is exceptional.
Matt, I have to chuckle about how you mentioned that sneakers and cars having evolved since we were kids.
Yet you're still a devoted fan of that old guard liberal, Chris Matthews !
Matthews is one guy who is definitely trapped in the year 1960.
|
|
Yikes...I should have written, "sneakers and cars HAVE evolved since we were kids."
|
|
we used to feel is now tinged with trepidation. We have seen tragedy, and this brings back those memories.
Even the shuttle launches of the '80's were nothing compared to the cool stuff going on in the 60's. We had a "space race" to win. For a kid, there was nothing cooler than Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. Moonwalks, for crying out loud....!
My favorite astronaut perished in the Apollo I fire, but my astronautical dreams never dulled. I would still go up in a heartbeat! |
|
|
Don't hold your breath too long, but the current Space Shuttle will be retired in 2 1/2 years with the completion of the ISS. THAT is why it remains the same, because it was designed for building the space station. You should do a little bit of research before posting such things. They will be replaced by, I believe, the Crew Expeditionary Vehicle that will take up the race to Mars. |
|
In all fairness, I understand what Matt meant by mentioning the lack of cosmetic differences in shuttles over the last twenty years. Obviously, this isn't a complaint, as much as it is an acknowlegement of our current American cultural trend: many people care more now about whether or not John Edwards really pays $300 per haircut than they do about what he actually says.
Of course, if John Edwards actually said anything of relevance, this might be different. The point is that many Americans would rather watch a reporter staking out the California jail in anticipation of Paris Hilton's release than tune in to watch a space shuttle, looking no different today than last time, being blasted out of the atmosphere. I mean, we have to see how Paris is wearing her hair as she exits to freedom...right!?!
The change in attention to NASA space missions simply reflects the overall trend towards shallowness and the desire for everything entertaining. |
|
The Voice of Reason writes: "An orbiter is a little bit more expensive than a car and sneakers so I doubt much thought goes into the spoiler and 22 inch spinner rims that I'm sure adorn your car."
BAD argument. The U.S. Navy is still commissioning brand-new multi-billion dollar nuclear aircraft carriers. Many of the old ships in the active naval fleet back when the Shuttle were first designed have since been decommissioned.
And Boeing just started marketing a brand-new jetliner, the 787 Dreamliner. When the Shuttle was first designed, most commercial airline passengers were still flying 707s and DC-8's. Not any more.
Yet the U.S. hasn't designed any new manned spaceships in nearly 40 years.
That's because national defense and commercial air travel are far higher priorities for this nation.
|
|
People forget why we started the manned space program in the first place. There were two reasons: Military and national prestige. And both of those were directly related to the U.S.-Soviet competition in the Cold War.
After the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, military planners feared that a logical next step was the emplacement of Soviet nuclear warhead platforms in Earth orbit. At a moment's notice, the Soviet leader could fire off those warheads and they could wipe out the U.S. in even less time than with missiles. So the U.S. determined it was going to exploit space for military purposes.
But advancing technology and international treaties banning nukes in space eventually enabled America to accomplish its military goals with spy satellites rather than manned space stations. And ALL manned space missions were taken away from the Air Force and given over to a civilian agency, NASA.
The other reason was national prestige. The Soviets were demonstrating the power of their rockets by launching ever more sophisticated space missions. And those self-same rockets were being given nuclear warheads targeted against the U.S. The U.S. decided to beat them at this game, a case of "my missiles are better than your missiles."
But with the Cold War over, nobody cares about that kind of competition anymore. National prestige these days is coming from computer and electronics technology and robotics: Japan's "prestige" and world's respect comes from Honda, Toyota, Sony, Panasonic, etc., rather than from manned space exploration. And the real "race" these days is between HD DVD and Blu-Ray for the high-density DVD format standard.
So the original reasons we started a manned space program have evaporated.
|
|
|
|