tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) (01/17/89)
As you have probably read by now, NASA announced their passenger policy
last week. Future Jake Garns and Christa McAuliffes are now officially
designated "Space Flight Participants" and there won't be any more for
a few years because of the risks. (Nothing I have read would tend to
indicate the risks will be any *less* in 1992, in fact quite the
opposite given the aging hardware and increased flight rate, so a cynic
might be tempted to interpret this timetable as really meaning "until
the flak dies down," but I'll play along.) NASA then added that if and
when SFP's are allowed back up, top priority goes to another try at
Teacher In Space because of "educational commitments," and that the
other SFP program, Journalist In Space, was indefinitely suspended.
With very great respect to Barbara Morgan, whom they will presumably
offer the TIS berth if she hasn't had enough after seven years, I think
this is a wrongheaded attitude on NASA's part. Let us agree that the
Shuttle is an inherently risky bird to fly. Which civilian profession
has a more appropriate role (and distinguished record) in dangerous
places? Journalists scramble for the opportunity to go in harm's way,
because that way Pulitzers lie (and other, nobler reasons, but you get
the point). It's their JOB to go to strange places and report back.
This is not true of teachers in general. We ask teachers to teach
about a great number of things without attending in person. Where was
the Teacher-In-Vietnam program, for instance? No one suggests that the
science teacher needs to go to Antarctica - or that ANY science teacher
per se need go to Antarctica - in order to teach about that subject
effectively. The reason is that teachers have all the classroom
resources they need - resources prepared by scientists and
*journalists*.
I welcome comments (posted or mailed) from others on this topic.
--
Tom Neff tneff@well.UUCP
or tneff@dasys1.UUCPda1n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel K. Appelquist) (01/18/89)
tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) Writes: >With very great respect to Barbara Morgan, whom they will presumably >offer the TIS berth if she hasn't had enough after seven years, I think >this is a wrongheaded attitude on NASA's part. Let us agree that the >Shuttle is an inherently risky bird to fly. Which civilian profession >has a more appropriate role (and distinguished record) in dangerous >places? Journalists scramble for the opportunity to go in harm's way, >because that way Pulitzers lie (and other, nobler reasons, but you get >the point). Remember that the main point of the "Teacher In Space," "Dentist in Space" etc.. thing was to show that space was safe. (ironically) Nasa wanted to bring across an immage of these flights being absolutely routine, with no danger. Putting a journalist in space would, as you point out, hearken back to the "journalists in vietnam" stuff, presenting an immage of space as a high-risk venture which would be better abandoned. Now, of course, even though this whole campaign has been shot to hell the comittments to various educational organizations have been made. The teacher thing has got to proverbally fly, and some sources of funds may be indirectly involved. Granted, a journalist would be the sensible choice at this point, but now Nasa's locked in. It's a damn shame, but that's the way it goes. Dan A.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/20/89)
In article <UXp5jly00XooM8aXAi@andrew.cmu.edu> da1n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel K. Appelquist) writes: >Remember that the main point of the "Teacher In Space," "Dentist in Space" >etc.. thing was to show that space was safe. (ironically) Nasa wanted >to bring across an immage of these flights being absolutely routine, with >no danger... Uh, can you cite references for that? I've never heard of that as having anything to do with the "Citizens In Space" program (which is, if I recall correctly, the proper term covering all those efforts). In the accounts I've heard, the motivation basically boils down to giving the public some vicarious sense of participation in spaceflight, after the original promises about "routine access to space" were quietly shelved. The cuts in the C-I-S program have nothing to do with the changed perception of safety, except insofar as it offers an excuse to do what some factions in NASA have wanted to do all along: restrict spaceflight to career astronauts, and ban passengers on the grounds that they're too much trouble. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu