I watched it on TV within moments of the happening. I know much time and
analysis has passed since then (I had a lot of company this weekend), but what
struck me the most was two things: How inane radio and television commentators
and analysts can be (seeing the Dallas video and saying things like "what
would the various rescue scenarios be?" when there aren't really any) and how
seemingly artificial their veneer appears, moreso in the light of serious
events.
And of course, thinking of 7 brave men and women, who reminded me of a number
of other brave men and women in space programs the world wide. Men and women
who reached for the stars we all dream about, who were making happen the bold
future which is the stuff of our games. I feel great sorrow for their
families, but I feel a great pride in them
for the crew of STS-107 and other space
missions who are or were living the dream and taking the great and knowing
risks of visiting the harshest environment known to mankind and who carry with
them not only the mundane (well, pretty neat) experiments and working
satellites and such, but who also carry with them the dreams of an entire
world.
As someone said, Ad Astra, Per Aspera. And to which I must add a hearty thank
you and a promise to remember and perservere in supporting their noble aims.
Some journeys are made only in the physical world, and some few special ones
are made also in the mind and heart (and this, I think, is one of those).
R.I.P. STS-107. God Bless Your Families and
Friends.
Tomb
<Rant> Remember the days when if Newscasters had no information they would say
"we don't have any details right now, stay tuned for further developments". Is
a
frontal lobotomy a pre-requisite for being a talking head on CNN?
</Rant>
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net> wrote:
These folks are taught to read what is on the prompter (sort of), not to think
or make rational comments! Rather good at their job, aren't they!
Bye for now,
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 17:20:44 -0500, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:
> I watched it on TV within moments of the
For me it was several hours. I turned on the TV at around noon to the weather
channel. It was there that I got a first inkling of what happened, and that
was only a brief mention in close captioning as I had the sound off. I swapped
over to CNN and saw the coverage. I was stunned.
> I know much time and analysis has
This is a function of the number of cable news networks. Instead of cutting to
something else when there is nothing new, they have to fill the time. They do
this with speculation, as they are scared of saying, "Nothing new" and having
the channel surfer shift channels.
I noticed this effect a lot this year. Remember the aircraft that crashed into
the hangar in Charlotte last month? The CNN reporters were suggesting that
casualties on the ground could be high because the plane crashed just before
9, a time when people typically go to work. I was shaking my head and yelling
at the TV. It was a hangar, and so there is no reason to believe that
maintenance workers work 9 to 5. As it turned out, no one was on the ground in
that area.
I hate when they speculate. I don't so much mind the questions they pose, such
as "What would the rescue scenario be?" as that's a question the layperson
asks. Believe me, the average layperson knows very little about the space
programme. I know this from a trip to Kennedy Space Center in 1991, where I
heard incredibly uninformed and inane questions from the people there (though
they were, of course, there to _learn_ something, which was a good
thing). As far as people know, the shuttle has ejector seats and parachutes.
They don't understand the physics of travelling in an atmosphere at Mach 18.
What bugged me was the so-called knowledge the talking heads impart.
When asked about how long the shuttles would be grounded, Miles O'Brien said
it would be "at least as long as after the Challenger disaster" (2.5 years). I
said, out loud, "The hell it will be! They have people in a space station to
deal with!" In the end, it appears 5 months is more realistic, and that they
are hoping to use a shuttle to replace the space station crew before their
supplies run out in June.
A positive, of course, is seeing the Russian Progress rocket launch. Hopefully
docking with the station will be good. This is the reason for having an
international space programme: no single point of failure. I hope if the
Chinese succeed in putting up a human, which they suggest will happen soon,
that they will be involved, eventually. The more redundancy, the better.
> R.I.P. STS-107. God Bless Your Families and
I wish I knew if there was a way to send condolences to the families...
The disaster has hit this area of the US pretty bad. There are NASA facilities
in Houston and just outside New Orleans. I'm in northeast Louisiana, in
Monroe. A former astronaut, and now manager, comes from West Monroe. The
shuttle can regularly be seen from this area when it is returning to Florida.
The shuttle break up was seen as close as Ruston, some 20 or 30 miles west of
here. Debris has been reported in this Parish (Louisiana has parishes instead
of counties), or less than 10 miles from here. Ouachita (wash-i-tah)
Parish is between 2 and 3 hours from Sabine County in Texas where much of the
debris has fallen. There is debris, apparently, in Lake Charles (a town, not a
lake) Louisiana, which is about 4 hours south of here. That means a debris
field about 180 miles wide at the widest point. This is a huge area to look
for potentially tiny bits of evidence.
I find it heartening, though, that there is no cry for a stop to the space
programme. The vast majority of e-mails in to CNN this morning have
called for a continuance of the space programme. I think people are much more
aware of the dangers of space travel, but also the potential benefits of it.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:41:30 -0800 (PST), John Leary
<john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> These folks are taught to read what is on the
As I pointed out, they have to fill the gap with sometimes nothing. So, they
ask the same questions the average person is asking (sometimes they sound
inane to those of us who follow such things and have better knowledge) but
they are the sort of questions I hear from friends and family who know little
about it. They also want to keep people glued to _their_ channel, not
hopping around.
Remember, too, that many of these talking heads know more than they appear,
but they are taught to keep the technical stuff down for the average viewer.
Miles O'Brien said a couple of stupid things on the weekend, but I saw him at
a NASA briefing. He asked a question that shows he has a fair bit of knowledge
in this area. His question was technical, and was not fluff by any means.
Let's face it, folks, the people on this list are generally _not_ the
target audience.
> At 5:20 PM -0500 2/2/03, Thomas Barclay wrote:
You can put some of that down to a hard glazed exterior. At CNN, just working
as a tech, I often see raw video footage of things that are as awful as they
come. AP, Reuters and BBC will roll an entire tape. Everyone tends to cut out
the really harsh material, but it's there in the raw feed.
You can also put some of that down to the reporter/anchor not knowing
anything about anything but how to read the story, spell words and attempt to
engage the audience. John Holiman would have been better than Brian, but he
got himself killed getting maple syrup one morning.
I'm not only worried about those families that had people die, I'm also
worried about the space program. Thousands of contractor jobs are up in the
air if the put a hold on launches for the next 4 years and bring the
Spacestaton crew down on the Soyuz module. I suppose they could continue crew
rotations with Soyuz, but the Russians would have to step up their program
first. Not a short lead time thing I suspect.
> At 2:40 PM -0800 2/2/03, Michael Brown wrote:
Is a
> frontal lobotomy a pre-requisite for being a talking head on CNN?
It depends on what the anchor is being given for material to read or
whether he's flying by the seat of his/her pants. They aren't rocket
scientists, they're news anchors. They don't spend time reading technical
journals. I've tried what I can to educate some of them on particular things.
(Just what a.223 bullet looks like and why its not "high powered", Daryn in
this case)
Ryan, CNN.com Data Center manager. I don't speak for CNN, nor they for me.
***
> For those very few of us who might be monitoring e-mail, and no other
msnbc says debris has been seen over Dallas.
***
At the time I'd sent out the original note, I'd already seen the video tape
from the NBC affliate, and knew what it meant, but a) was stunned and in more
than a bit of a state of denial, b)am too aware of announcements made from too
little info.
Just after I'd gotten the above reply, Dan Rather, who'd apparently come in to
the broadcast when it turned into 'important news', was saying how the first
bits of info can be misleading. I'd heard plenty contradicting, and downright
silly to as uninformed a layman as myself as I was switching channels. I knew
to err on the side of restraint.
I forgive those who have to sit in front of the camera, whose need to chew
scenery to claw ratings is greater than journalistic integrity can bear. I
know I don't want that burden.
By the way, I still don't know about a central location to send condolences to
the families, but I just heard there's another fund for the children of the
crews.
Is it time to stop kvetching on the media yet?
The_Beast
> devans@nebraska.edu wrote:
[...]
> By the way, I still don't know about a central location to send
Try http://spaceflight.nasa.gov for more information. It might
be overloaded right now, though. I'm having difficulties accessing the page.
Memorial services are scheduled for tomorrow ~1pm EST.
Mk
I have the opportunity to write an editorial on the benefits of the space
program (ie "why spending it Up There makes more sense than putting it into
social programs"). I can wander around the web looking for the data but I
figured it's likely someone on this List can point me in the right direction.
Suggestions?
> "laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:
> At 3:05 PM -0500 2/3/03, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
Well, for one materials research in microgravity can yield interesting results
that you can't duplicate on the surface with gravity. For example,
http://www.uah.edu/HTML/Research/ResRev/MMS/story5.html
http://www.nas.edu/ssb/mgoppappendb.htm
http://cwisdb.cc.kuleuven.ac.be/research/T/team241211.htm
http://cwisdb.cc.kuleuven.ac.be/research/P/3E02/project3E020399.htm
http://mgnews.msfc.nasa.gov/Fall99/sciprogramreport.html
> At 04:11 PM 2/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
GPS, in particular the marine safety aspects and the geological aspects (Use
of GPS stations to feed data from active volcanoes, active fault systems).
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Indy wrote:
> "laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:
I'd say that Hubble is a success purely as an asthetic project, a producer of
fabulous images, in addition to it's more scientific achivements. NASA has
sponsered space art projects in the past, but Hubble should go down as their
greatest to date!
My favourite Hubble image is that "deep star view" set - every little
dot
of light in it is an *entire*galaxy* - and the field of view of that
image is about the same size as a grain of sand held at arm's length... wow.
Not scientific, but my $0.02,
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Brian Burger wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Indy wrote:
:-/
> I'd say that Hubble is a success purely as an asthetic project, a
NASA
> has sponsered space art projects in the past, but Hubble should go
I'd have to argue the "purely as an asthetic project" bit. It may not have
given immediately practical things like velcro or pharmacueticals to the
public, but the understanding of the universe surrounding us has led to a
greater understanding of our own planet and environment
(such as understanding weather on Mars and Neptune) and planetary/solar
system evolution. Building blocks for the future. What you've seen come from
the Hubble has only been a fraction of a percent of the information that it
has taken. Most of that information is not in the form of pretty photos,
either.
> My favourite Hubble image is that "deep star view" set - every little
*grin* The Hubble Deep Field. My favorite image right now, as well (though
soon to be replaced). Without going on my usual spiel, there are only 7 stars
in that image that are in our own galaxy (each with the radiating spikes). As
you stated, everything else is an entire galaxy of stars. And the research
team who first took this image stopped counting galaxies at 3,000 (trivia: 2
years later a similar program was done in the southern
hemisphere and comparable numbers of stars/galaxies were found). I'm
thinking the relatively new image, the Tadpole Galaxy, will replace
the Deep Field as my favorite - because it was taken in 1/12th the
time as the Deep Field (which was done over a period of 10 consecutive
days and is the result of 350 images co-added together), and there are
in excess of 6,000 galaxies in the background.
It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.
***
I'd have to argue the "purely as an asthetic project" bit.
***
He'll have to speak for hisself, but I think it was not artsy only value he
was arguing, but the artistic beauty produced is SUFFICIENT justification.
Everything else is gravy. ;->=
If that his intent, I certainly understand what he's saying!
The_Beast
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 devans@nebraska.edu wrote:
> ***
My apologies, Brian. I misunderstood what you were saying.
Mk
> "laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:
Communications Satellites and Satellite TV Weather Satellites
Terestrial imagery and environmental monitoring- mapping, forest fires,
military spy satellites, Ozone hole monitoring, pollution tracing, sea level
measurements, archaeological surveys....
That said, I don't like the simplistic line of arguing you seem to
propose -
either space exploration or social programs. There are other aspects of
government spendng that might be considered and argued for or against in
that context - military, infrastructure, other science, administrative
costs, economic suppport of ailing industries, foreign aid. And - quite
important - money well spent or squandered even in a good cause. We all
know
of acquirement scandals, pork-barrel and corruption.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Dances With Rocks wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 devans@nebraska.edu wrote:
You bet! I hit the Astro Pic of the Day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html in the morning at work,
and save the good stuff to a directory that is used for both desktop pics and
screensaver (OS X is very nice for this, every half hour I get a dissolve
effect on the desktop).
> Brian Burger wrote:
> I'd bet that everyone on this list has, at one time or another, had a
)
> Brian.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:32:56 +0100 "K.H.Ranitzsch"
> <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> That said, I don't like the simplistic line of arguing you seem to
Oh, so true, Karl. But laserlight has a point: "social programs" and their
proponents are always hungry for money, and it doesn't matter how
much they are given, it's never enough -- not least of the reasons for
which is that the proponents are always thinking of more "good" that they
could do... "if we only had the funding." So anything that they can decry as a
waste of money that could be put to "better" purposes is fair game.
It's like the arguments put up by some politicians and pundits (here
and elsewhere) against certain kinds of military spending -- that
such-and-such a new weapons system is too expensive and the money would
provide tons of proven weapons instead (e.g., nukes vs conventional weapons,
new aircraft vs continuing production of existing ones); thay argument always
makes the assumption that the money in question would be spent on the other
stuff; it's far more likely, IMO, that it'll be grabbed as a "peace dividend"
and used for social programs and the like, or just to balance the govermental
books!
What I have always thought is the best argument for the space program is
that it's one of the few human endeavours that truly looks to the _long_
term. That makes it unpopular with politicians, very few of whom can see
beyond the next election, but doesn't change the facts. Jerry Pournelle has
written loads of stuff showing that many current problems could be eliminated
or greatly alleviated with a really good space capability, and I would refer
anyone looking for arguments in that respect to look to his work.
And the fact is, if the human race is to survive in the long term, we need to
get off this mudball and out into the universe. The Earth is a lovely world
for us to live on, but it's not the only one and I would
hate for short-sighted Proxmire-wannabes to make it into a prison for
us.
Phil
----
> > That said, I don't like the simplistic line of arguing you seem to
I don't either, but a) that's the way I usually hear the question put: "why do
we spend All That Money Up There when it could Do So Much Good Right Here";
and more importantly b) I have a limited amount of
column-inches to work with.
***
> > That said, I don't like the simplistic line of arguing you seem to
I don't either, but a) that's the way I usually hear the question put: "why do
we spend All That Money Up There when it could Do So Much Good Right Here";
and more importantly b) I have a limited amount of
column-inches to work with.
***
Hell, I'm a liberal; it don't take much to convince me we can do both.
;->=
Mind you, I'm not of the blank check variety, so evaluation is important, but
that's more of how, not of what.
Has this OT thread run it's course yet?
The_Beast
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:30:57 +0000 (GMT), Phillip Atcliffe
> <Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk> wrote:
> What I have always thought is the best argument for the space program
It's also unpopular with the working poor who can't afford medical insurance,
or the unemployed who can't find work because of a poor economy. It's kind of
hard to justify spending billions on a space programme in these situations.
One of the strongest reasons for the space programme is that it is a pure
science endeavour by the US government. As such, it results in a lot of spin
off technologies that either wouldn't be done, or would be done at a slower
pace. I heard the other day that MRIs are a spin off from the shuttle
programme.
My fiancee works for the State of Louisiana as a Medicaid analyst. It's hard
to justify billions of dollars on the space programme when the state has just
dropped the number of prescriptions it will cover for its poor, elderly
citizens, and when it's cutting back in its education programmes (while
handing out tax cuts). We both believe it's important to continue the space
programme, but it's not just politicians who are wondering if the country's
priorities are correct.