RoR: Forum

Beautiful, Tony. Simple, direct, poignant & reverent, without being mawkish. Just the right touch. Nice work with the image, too, Jeff.

I'm inured to American presidents ruining great speeches with references to God. At such times I remember Ayn Rand saying she didn't mind the expression, "God bless you" - she just treated it as meaning "the highest possible for you." After the Challenger disaster, Reagan did a stunning speech in which he said the astronauts had "touched the face of God." I didn't find that offensive at all - in fact, that was the moment I choked up.

Linz

Post 1

Wednesday, February 5, 2003 - 5:02pm

Thank you Anton. A warm-spirited tribute that really captures your own sense of wonder and passion for this, literally the highest of human pursuits.

Like Linz, I'm not too troubled by the God reference. If I may be permitted to speak on a tangent and express something I have been thinking about often of late, I think George W. Bush has done a remarkable job whenever he has been called upon to lead his nation through disaster and tragedy. His speeches have caught the spirit of America and what it stands for in an inspiring fashion. He may not get things right all the time. He is mocked for being simple, and by the elites on the left, stupid. But he has what they lack, a genuine love for freedom and the best of America.

Thanks again - your tribute also has that same quality about it.

Post 2

Wednesday, February 5, 2003 - 6:35pm

Hi Anton,

Thank you.

Anton, I couldn't help but cry at the imagery you presented because I grew up when the space program was young, when it wasn't an issue that the government was involved. I was a kid, unware of the role of government or what it meant for the government to be involved in such an endeavor.

But I knew I wanted to be out there. I recall being afraid that everyone would leave without me, that I wouldn't be old enough by the time everyone left Earth for new adventures in space.

Of course, now I'm too old to consider pioneering new planets and that is a surprise to me and now I know that government isn't necessarily the best instrument for achieving Man's dream of going to space. I'm hopefull that my children will realize this dream. I know my son is completely fascinated and enthusiastic about that idea and is already working on designs for new rockets. He's 5.

What I admire most however is that individuals dedicate their lives to this dream. A friend of my husband's is training as an astronaut for NASA. She is an amazing individual and to me, represents the best that is to be found in our heroes.

In any event, I can't think of a better image of the importance of our dreams and goals than the painting by Bryan Larsen titled Heroes.

It can be viewed here:

http://www.cordair.com/larsen/heroes.htm

Joy

Post 3

Wednesday, February 5, 2003 - 9:00pm

Cameron:

Bush 2 has a genuine love for freedom? Surely you jest! Here's a man who has embraced welfare statism with a passion, just proposed sending over 2 trillion dollars of our money down the government's toilet, thinks laws against abortion and homosexuality are a good idea, and enthusiastically supports throwing thousands of people into jail for victimless drug crimes. Need I go on? I could, but I don't have time to write a book. Excuse me while I retrieve the barf bag I saved from my last airline flight. I agree Bush 2 sometimes makes a good speech or a nice comment, like Reagan, but both are con artists spouting free enterprise rhetoric while making our lives more miserable with socialist policies. And I certainly don't need to be lead through tragedy and disaster by a lying politician. I now roll my eyes towards the heavens.

Mark

Post 4

Thursday, February 6, 2003 - 5:12pm

Mark:

Of course Bush is far from perfect. But I do ask myself, why does the left detest him so? That's an interesting question. There's a mania to their dislike of him that I have rarely seen towards any other politician in the time I've been observing and studying politics. It's almost bizarre. My hypothesis is that it's the man's sense of conviction that they detest and also, there's a snobbishness among the leftist elite that despises Bush's common kind of simplicity. Those elites think they know best, and envy a non-intellectual getting into power.

No question many of Bush's policies are disgusting. But in an imperfect world where every side of the political spectrum is messed up, I'm happy to see someone in the White House who speaks with some moral certainty - especially on foreign policy, even if I don't always agree with him there either. Perhaps it's a case of him being the best on offer, but unusually good for the contemporary political culture and climate of appeasement and mealy-mouthed compromise. I hold the same view of Thatcher and Reagan.

Post 5

Thursday, February 6, 2003 - 10:49pm

Cameron:

If Bush 2 is the best President we can realistically have, we are truly screwed.

It is true that many on the left hate Bush for the wrong reasons: some foolishly believe he is a free market libertarian, and some can't stand even a trivial tax cut, for example.

But many of the left's reason's for hating, or at least strongly disliking Bush are legitimate: his childish and absurd religious beliefs, his anti-abortion views, his disturbing and dangerous views on many civil liberties issues.

I'm not going to be ridiculous and say Bush is as bad as say, Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro, but I believe he is a fundamentally evil man with an incredibly confused sense of morality. The fact that he has the incredible and truly obscene power of the Presidency is disturbing. Oh, I'm sure he would come across as "nice" in person, but I know many charming people who are in favor of truly rotten things.

In the movie "The Lord Of The Rings" the key point is that nobody can be really trusted with the incredible power of the ring, and the cursed thing must be destroyed for the good of the world. But in the United States, Presidents have lusted after and been given more power than any human being in history. Sooner or later, this power will be so misused that the country, and indeed the entire world, will end up in utter ruination. We've been pretty fortunate for 225 years, but our luck may be running out.

Mark

Post 6

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 6:36am

Your article reminds me of an experience I had years ago at college. My family and I, like many South Africans, were glued to our TV set to watch the latest shuttle launch - that of the fateful Challenger.
I don't need to go into the horror of seeing the Challenger explode, suffice it to say that I went about in a dazed shock for weeks after.
On campus the next day, I was outraged to find no outward traces of mourning for what had happened to the Challenger - I even felt an irrational anger that the sun was shining and the birds were singing. This feeling was further exacerbated by the fact that not one of my class mates or lecturers even made mention of the event. This apparent indifference has puzzled me for years.
Last night, I was discussing with my husband, Barry, an ad that had just appeared on TV. The offending ad was extolling the virtues of Samsung microwaves. It boasted that the same technology that protects the space shuttles (cue visual of space shuttle cruising through space) is the same technology that protects you from the microwaves.
I was being my usual vocal self in saying what bad taste (and bad marketing) it was to continue airing the ad instead of replacing it with another in their product range.
In mentioning this to my boss this morning, his response was, "Well, I don't think many South Africans would be worried too much about the death of the Americans, but it doesn't induce much faith in the product!" !!!!!!!
Again, this mind-boggling indifference!
My point is, it amazes me how so many people around the world don't seem to grasp the significance of disasters such as the Challenger and Columbia. Neither do they seem to grasp the significance and importance of venturing into space and the search to gain an understanding of our universe.
Why is it so hard to see how space travel, no matter who partakes - Americans, Russians, Israeli's or Indians - unites us all? That it reinforces how unique and special we "earthmen" are? And how alone.
Your article struck a very keen note - a reverence for the brave and inquiring spirit that has seen mankind reach for the stars and the incredible means and endeavour that has helped to achieve this dream.
I am with you in mourning the loss of the Columbia and its crew.

Betty

Post 7

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 12:04pm

Of all the deep emotions that I experienced at KSC - the old Mercury launch site, the Vehicle Assembly Building - the monument to those who were lost moved me not for the names it listed, but for the blank spaces after theirs, the ones yet to come.

As if Challenger were not enough, after Columbia, NASA became pathologically risk-averse. Of course, as a pilot myself, I agree that no one takes unnecessary risks. But crossing the street is a risk. Aviation, in particular, but human progress in general would be impossible without voyages of all kinds into the many different unknowns. Challenger and Columbia will always be a testimony to that.

The last generation to know only Earth as home has already been born.
Space Adventures here.

Smiley face

Anousha Ansari and I at U o M Flint 2008.
She, her husband and his brother created a high speed switching software for telecommunications which they sold for $60 million. They funded the X-prize. She paid the Russians to take her up to the ISS in a Soyuz.

Post 8

Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 7:38am