Thirty Years of the Shuttle

Well, I knew I wasn't going to get through today without some sort of retrospective thought on the Space Shuttle. So, here it goes.

Just to age myself neatly, I was just about 12 years old when the first flight of Columbia occurred, April 12, 1981 (the 20th anniversary of the first human in space, Yuri Gagarin). I was 12 when STS-2 flew in November of that year. My dad arranged for a car pass for the causeway six miles away from the launch site (Launch Complex 39A, as I recall). I was a nutcase. Florida, in November, and with a chance to get away from junior high for a couple days? Perfect!

STS-2, November 12, 1981

Near as I can recall, Dad had a friend with a condo on the beach near the Cape. I got awakened at sunrise and was treated to a splash of gold across a placid sea. Spent a lot of time reading, as I recall. Dad got me the STS-2 press kit, which I held onto until my late 20s ("NEVER loan a pretty girl anything!" became my new motto on that for awhile), so I stayed entertained until launch time. I came well equipped: a pair of binoculars and two cameras. I looked like an overachieving tourist, which I was. Anyhow, come launch time, my jaw dropped, cameras and binoculars forgotten. I needed to see this with my own eyes. Meanwhile, as Columbia ascended skyward, my dad was trying to grab the camera from around my neck and take pictures. I was already a Star Wars fan by that point, so I had John Williams music going through my head as the mighty beast roared into the air. I think I was shuddering for a couple of days.

So okay, fast-forward 30 (yep, 30) years later. Through various twists and turns, I've found myself living the dream that my 12-year-old self scarcely believed was possible: writing for NASA. I know how the rockets work now. I have more reasons to get keyed up and nervous as the time approaches T-minus 1 minute.

I've got divided duties now: part supporting Marshall Space Flight Center, part supporting the SERVIR program, and I split my day 50/50 between them. Unfortunately, the launch occurred when I was at SERVIR. I say that because Marshall is the place where they design and manage the Shuttle propulsion systems: the four-segment solid rocket boosters and the three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), fueled by thousands of tons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen from that big, orange external tank. There are lives, careers, and a great deal of pride tied into those things that make fire and smoke.

As it was, a couple minutes before launch, I went downstairs to watch the big TV, where maybe a dozen others had the same idea. As zero time approached, I found myself fidgety, even emotionally stirred (okay, yeah, I was holding back tears). My eyebrows raised as the countdown stopped at T-minus 31 seconds and listened to the radio chatter, quickly clueing in on the fact that they were worried about a d@mned camera. Nothing critical. And sure enough, the countdown restarted, and the fire started. I was so glad I emailed my sister and got her to have her kids--7 and 5--to watch the launch. They needed this feeling.

STS-135, July 8, 2011

Atlantis headed up into the clouds. Much to my surprise the cameras stayed locked on for much of the ascent. My eyes are watching the details like a professional now: are the SRBs doing anything funky? How much foam is coming off the external tank? Is the bird getting all the way to orbit? (And there I had a media-criticism moment, as these TV people think once the fire and smoke is no longer visible from the ground, the "launch" is over. It isn't, people: the bird has to get all the way to orbit, Main Engine Cutoff--MECO--before the job is done.) So I hauled myself back upstairs and watched the rest of the ascent. The tank fell away clean, though I did see some other little bits of junk flying off of it. At the end of it, I was comfortable enough to think to myself, "Well done, guys," and relax. Maybe the media will get their coverage right when SpaceX starts launching people to orbit, but I'm not holding my breath.

And there we are. Thirty years later, and the Space Shuttle program is about to come to an end. What does this mean for NASA, for the future of human spaceflight? I'm going to offer some Bartish thoughts here, none of which is particularly controversial, but some of which will still irritate one or another friend of mine in the space business.

In the near term, any future astronauts, experiments, or food and water will be shipped up to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard Russian Soyuz and Progress rockets. In the next 2-3 years (hopefully), American private-sector companies like SpaceX will be launching crew and cargo. But for now, there is nothing on this continent to replace the Shuttle, and the Constellation program to send human beings to the Moon and Mars has been scrapped, taking thousands of jobs with it. We have lost something critical to our national character, but I don't think everyone has felt it yet.

Do I want the commercial guys to succeed? Absolutely. The sooner the better, because as soon as the Shuttles are sent off to museums and the workers laid off, the price for a seat on the Russian rockets will probably (pardon the expression) skyrocket. But I liked Constellation. I wanted the U.S. committed to a 20- or 30-year plan to establish bases on the Moon and Mars. That is now not to be. The future is uncertain. Is it improvable? Yes. But that won't stop those of us who like the Shuttle from feeling that, yes, we're losing something important.

Potpourri CLIII

Diving in...

I will do a more detailed analysis of these two articles at some point, but it is interesting to contrast the views of Kim Stanley Robinson, who believes that scientists should assert themselves as some sort of scientific leftist elite while Anthony Gottlieb believes that scientists need to be more humble about forcing their conclusions on people.

From Hu, the latest proposed outrage from the airline industry: even less leg room.

The only thing more arrogant than asserting that human beings alone are capable of "destroying the planet" might be human beings asserting that we can fix the planet. Makes for interesting science fiction, but we're a ways off at this point from doing either.

Here's an editorial from The Space Review on the Space Shuttle's imminent demise and the programmatic mistakes made along the way.

Feeling snarky? Sarcastic? Pessimistic about the state of humanity or the world in general? This site might be for you.

From Twila: an editorial on bringing back the manned space program. Caveat visor: I haven't read this one yet.

This amuses me greatly: a terrorist made the mistake of asking one of his captives to help him set up his smart phone. This is a truly Ayn Randian moment--or at least a teachable moment, to use the current political lexicon. The assumption on the part of the terrorist is that the civilized person will comply with his wish to keep the machinery of civilization working at the point of a gun. This stuff needs to stop.

Melissa forwarded me this site of videos about the Periodic Table of the Elements after I explained that I was learning about them via another class-on-CD from The Teaching Company, "The Joy of Science." You know: because I don't have anything else to dod with my free time.

From the MSN Lifestyle section, a little helpful primer for women on rejecting men who ask them out.

I was feeling pretty good about my salami and provolone sandwich I was eating the other day, then I ran across this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310805/TV-chef-Martin-Blunos-creates-cheese-sandwich-costs-incredible-110.html

From Lin:

• An editorial pointing out that private property rights in the U.S. are deteriorating. How badly? Well, when China and Ghana(?) are ahead of us on that score, you've got to wonder.
• An editorial on the fact that the U.S. is now getting cozier with Vietnam, a place where we once had quite a nasty war. This isn't terribly surprising. I see it as part of an ongoing effort to surround China with U.S.-friendly nations on the Asian mainland: Vietnam, Thailand, India, and some of the Central Asian republics. The Spanish Hapsburgs tried to rein in France in the 16th-18th centuries in a similar fashion, much as we tried to hem in Germany after World Wars I and II and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and Iran today. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...at least for the moment. Or so the thinking goes. This is how we ended up giving arms to Saddam Hussein, then turning on him when he started messing with our interests in Saudi Arabia. Lin quoted Lord Palmerston aptly on this: "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."

I have more, but that will do for now. I simply must get caught up on my sleep at some point.

Random Images from the Florida Trip

The images that follow are random to the extent that Blogger.com has a bass-ackwards photo-uploading application that only allows you to load five pics at a time and then you're never sure what order they'll load. Oh yes, and the app also shoves any uploaded images to the very top of the blog, which means you have to drag all your images to wherever you want them. I like the site generally, but some of the specifics make me crazy. In any case, the images below are actually in reverse chronological order because undoing the work isn't worth the effort. However, at some point Blogger.com and I are going to have words...

Okay, so on my last day at KSC, I borrowed a Flip camera from the Public Affairs Office (PAO) and needed to return it so they could use it for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter launch. The Media Center at Launch Complex 39 opens at 0800, and I was there at 0730. So I sat in the shade, looked up, and saw all these buzzards lurking around on the rooftops. I mean, really. I could make a comment about the media or something, but really--these were flat-out vultures hanging out there.

American flag, space shuttle on the launch pad...HOO-wah! A little moment of patriotism to brighten the day!

The media site for LC 39 is about two miles away from the launch pad, across the street from the Vehicle Assembly Building. The Shuttle now uses LC 39A only. LC 39B has been turned over to the Constellation Program for the Ares I-X flight.

Below is LC 39B. The three tall antenna-looking structures are actually really friggin' big lightning rods--over 500 feet tall.

Since I was in the media center, I decided to take some pictures inside as well. This is where reporters go to be "live" for Shuttle launches.

This is one of the covered barges NASA uses to transport the Shuttle's External Tanks.

Took a brief tour of the Kennedy Space Center. I got a free day pass for STS-127, but it didn't cover the IMAX theater or tours. The picture below is a front-end view of the Saturn IB--Apollo's equivalent to the Ares I crew launch vehicle.

A view of the KSC "Rocket Garden."

I got in a little time at University of Central Florida. This terrapin shell in the lobby set off my creative juices, and I considered posting the following ad underneath it:

"Foreclosure sale: shell, 2.5 square feet, lived in once, no points, financing negotiable, open to all buyers, reptiles welcome."

The library entry way/lobby has gotten rather upscale since I graduated in '02. The coffee shop here is new.

20 years ago, my dorm snack shop at NIU got two six-packs of Jolt Cola a week. I bought one of them, and I was considered a little wound up. Now they sell vending machines codifying the caffeineated lifestyle. Progress?

The building below is where I spent most of my time at UCF: Colbourn Hall, where the English Department resides. My tour was quiet because classes were out (thus the lack of people in the photos). It was also difficult for me to judge whether some of the buildings were new since I graduated or just new to me. I was very task-focused at UCF, and didn't see a lot of the rest of the campus.

This is what a Shuttle "scrub" looks like at 0300 when you haven't even left your hotel yet. The second scrub happened at around 0130. I was NOT amused, as I'd given up quite a bit of sleep. The scrubs bumped the LRO launch, so on a trip that theoretically allowed me to see Shuttle and LRO launch, I saw neither. True, I was there for work, but jeeeeez. LRO launched an hour after I got home. I know, b!#$@, b!#$@, b!#$@. On the plus side, I did get to hang out with Dede, Fred, KT, Father Dan, and Marilyn during my down time. And the weather was the way I like it in central Florida: hot und schticky, ja!

That's about it on my pics for this trip. I got some others from the Vehicle Assembly Building, and I'm still awaiting approvals on my pictures of the Ares I-X Launch Control Center. But I'd have to say this was a rather uneven week in terms of fun. So it goes.

Potpourri XXXV

You know there used to be this old-fashioned concept called "class." Class is a state of mind, more than anything else. It's the sort of attitude that says you're a person of standards, of some standing. It's the unspoken thing that tells you not to tell particular jokes in mixed company or not make a professional or political fight personal. Why? Because it's just the sort of thing that a gentleman or lady would not do. Never mind, we're a classless society now--in more ways than one--which is how a reporter can make a crack about hoping Rush Limbaugh's kidneys fail, and President Obama laughs! Really now, Mr. Obama. We expected better of you.

The Times of London has an interview with King Abdullah of Jordan. Among other bits of good news: he expects Israel to negotiate with all 57 states of the Arab League, and if there aren't negotiations, then there is going to be another Arab-Israeli next year. On the plus side, the Pope's visit is going well. Thank Heaven for small favors.

Also from the UK: The Daily Mail is reporting on the upcoming Shuttle mission as its "most dangerous" to Hubble.

Star Trek is looking at a $75 million weekend. Not a record-breaker, but it's been a long time since a Trek film made that kind of money on opening weekend. Another thought on why I liked the new movie: the lack of condescension. Some of the Next Generation movies suffered from that. Want an example? Here's Jean-Luc Picard talking to a 21st-century primitive about his (liberal) future superiority:

"No money? You mean you don't get paid?"
"Acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force in our lives. We wish to better ourselves & the rest of humanity."

Barf. Anyhow, I hold with Malcolm Reynolds in Serenity:

"Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that."

The reason I like the cast and acting of the new Star Trek is that they're recognizably human. The "We're better in the future" attitude is gone. They're still people, and I can relate to them. Just sayin'.

Jerry Pournelle always has interesting things to say about politics, and his take on the departure of Arlen Specter from the Republican Party deserves consideration if conservatives hope for their party to gain a governing majority again.

Also from Pournelle...recommend reading: The Lays of Rome, including Horatius at the Gate. Once considered part of our normal education, 60-odd years ago.

Just off the wall, but funny: The Onion has a story on Touchstone Pictures threatening to make a sequel to Coyote Ugly if box office receipts don't improve. Memorable (bowlderized) quote: "We are dead serious, you a$$#oles," Zaiff said. "You're going to like what we tell you to like, end-of-f@#$ing-story. Now fill up those seats, or so help me God, it's Coyote Ugly II: Get Uglier."

Joanne Manaster is conducting an online poll on which celebrity she looks like. She is then going to up the ante by having a computer analyze her facial features and compare them with said celebrities and see if "the wisdom of crowds" actually matches reality. My vote still goes to Lynda Carter. We'll see what the computer says.

Jeff Foust has some good stuff "from the archives" on Norm Augustine, who is chairing President Obama's panel/review of the Constellation Program and has had numerous dealings with NASA before this.

A fellow space blogger, Douglas Mallette, has some good thoughts on extending Shuttle. One must, indeed, wonder what the future of America's human space flight program is to be. I'd like to think that Augustine and his panel would keep things moving on plan, but while I do have a dog in that fight (writing for Ares), it's not my place to tell the judge that a friend's dog is better than someone else's...or do I? Here's one of those situations where Dar's hopes for a collaborative Office of Technology Assessment might come in handy.

The War is Boring blog on the U.S. Navy's concerns about China's new "carrier-killer" missiles.

I suppose I should quit there. Monday is bound to be a busy news day, and I'll be under the radar, watching it all. Peace.

Various Things Going on in the World

Some good, some bad, some that will make you wonder about the state of our world.

Hugo Chavez won a referendum to eliminate term limits, allowing him to become "President for Life." Such a thing, of course, could never happen here...

North Korea claims that it is planning another rocket/missile launch.

The launch of Space Shuttle Discovery has been delayed again, this time to no earlier than February 27.

The signing of the oh-so-urgent stimulus bill will have to wait until Obama gets back from a three-day weekend. This is actually a really dumb idea. The longer the bill remains unsigned, the more the public will have a chance to read it (but then, why should they bother? The Senate voted for it, and most of them didn't read it, either). And one must ask: if retail sales are making a comeback without the stimulus bill, is the bill really necessary??? I ask that question at work a lot, and I usually get in trouble for it. So it goes.

Speaking of Obama, it looks like he might be dumping the "car czar" idea, allowing senior members of his staff to make decisions on how to run private-sector companies instead. And I must ask: once a private-sector company accepts partial government ownership, is it truly a "private sector" company anymore? Businesses should find other ways to ride out the recovery, because as soon as they accept government money, the public, the media, and (most importantly) the government will have an expectation that Washington will dictate what the company will do. A gentle reminder on the definition of socialism:

[A] social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members. [Emphasis mine.]

And I am still thinking long and hard about the social, political, economic, and cultural impacts of Ray Kurzweil's "Singularity." Again, I'm not doubting that such a thing is possible (though it interests me that my friends who have more scientific and technical training do doubt it). Rather, I question the desirability of the Singularity. Nevertheless, I look forward to the answers Dr. Kurzweil provides to the questions that I, Darlene the Science Cheerleader, and our readers pose to him this week. I will post his responses (or a link to them) when Darlene and I receive them.

Sayonara for this evening. Let's be careful out there.

The War in Georgia and the Space Program

While the news media is transfixed by the invasion of the oil-producing former Soviet republic of Georgia by its former masters, not too many of them have given much thought to the effect of Russia's actions on the space program.

This has been a big issue for me since Space Adventures started sending tourists to the International Space Station. I questioned my fellow space advocates' embrace of this activity, especially since Russia was not all that reliable. But at the time I was grousing, it was 2000-2001, and my Cold Warrior opinions were not welcome. Well, here's a "See, I Told You So" 7 years later. Now we have Russia invading one of its former client states/satellites.

This invasion makes sense if one has read a bit of European/Russian history as well as The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington. In short, we're now facing a world situation where large regional powers are trying to reassert and maintain their power over smaller states in their neighborhood. Russia had a "cordon sanitaire" or set of buffer states between itself and the West between 1919 and 1991. Making former satellites like Ukraine, Poland, or Georgia members of NATO was a direct threat to Russina security, as they saw it. That might not be logical, but it is prudent. Russia wants its buffer back.

So why does this affect the space program? Because Russia has been a major partner in building and staffing the International Space Station and, once the Space Shuttle retires in two years, they will be our only transportation provider to ISS. Will Russia refuse the U.S. access to ISS once Shuttle retires? Will they jack up the price of Soyuz flights to ISS the way they held Europe hostage for higher oil prices? Will ISS become the site of the first "space war?" Those are the types of questions and possibilities Bush and the next president must consider if Russia is going to continue to be an aggressor.

On the U.S. side, we have some other questions to consider. For instance:

• Do we keep the Space Shuttle flying longer?
• Do we increase funding to the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program?
• Do we increase funding for the Constellation Program to speed up development of Ares and Orion?
• Do we do all of the above?
• Do we scrap everything and build a different rocket?

Funding all of the above would probably cost $2-3 billion per year at best. More likely, we'd be looking at $4-5 billion in new funding on top of the current $17 billion NASA budget, assuming the current budget gets past the threat of a continuing resolution in Congress. This, of course, overlooks the operational consequences of extending the Shuttle, which Mike Griffin has addressed again and again:

• As long as we continue to fly Shuttle, the vehicle processing and launch infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center must remain as is. The longer we keep Shuttle in place, the longer it will take for our launch systems (the Vehicle Assembly Building, the launch pads, etc.) to be ready to launch Ares I and Ares V. That might not delay the development time for Ares I, but it will delay our ability to fly it.
• We can increase funding for COTS--and I'm for that anyway--but there will be some resistance, given that the only serious competitor in the field (SpaceX) has failed three times to get something into orbit.
• We can increase funding for Ares and Orion. However, Griffin, Jeff Hanley, and others have pointed out that even if you threw a couple billion dollars at Constellation, money isn't the issue. Roger Bilstein's Stages to Saturn provides an excellent narrative that explains why building new rocket systems is a long, arduous, linear process. That means, even if you threw ten or a hundred billion dollars at a new engine system (say, J-2X), it would still take seven years to build it. You have to build things, test them, have them blow up, try something new, and then retest.
• We could stay on plan: retire the Shuttle, build Ares, accept the five-year gap, suck it up, and pay the Russians whatever they want to charge to get access to the ISS.
• We could shift gears, change direction, try some other rocket design--start from scratch with DIRECT or make EELV human-rated and put an Orion capsule on top of it--and hope that either of these choices shrinks the anticipated five-year gap in America's ability to launch human beings into space. Keep in mind that the last time America had a gap in human spaceflight capabilities were the years 1975 to 1981. Those weren't particularly great years (think: Carter), but civilization did not collapse.
• We could quit. Let the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and Indians inherit the spaceways.

The best question someone could ask the two major candidates would be: "America's space program is a waste of time and resources. Why should be bother spending money on space at all? Why don't we just close it down?" Okay, it's not the best question someone could ask, but it would bring the space issue into focus. Do we really want it shut down completely? Does greatness (okay, pride and power--the things McCain talked about in his space statement--but also future technologies and resources) no longer matter to America? Are we going to give up being the single richest, most powerful nation in history just because it's too much work or too expensive? Ye flippin' gods.

Regardless of what happens in Georgia, the media needs to give more thought to the space aspects of a new Cold War with Russia, because it is nearly here, and our space program looked a lot different the last time we had a Cold War. The last time we had one, we went to the Moon.

Should Disney Get a Retired Space Shuttle?

Recently, NASAWatch posted a question on what should be done with the three remaining space shuttles still flying (Discovery, Atlantis, Endeavour) after they retire. Since I spent a lot of my pre-space career at Disney, I thought I'd ask my Disney friends what they thought of the notion that Walt Disney World "get" one of the shuttles. Their responses were interesting:

• "a) I thought Disney was already doing this with Mission: Space.
  b) It's difficult to get people interested in Space by displaying and teaching about obsolete space craft.
  c) Perhaps a display combining the limitations of the shuttle with the possibilities availed to us through a new program?"
• "Makes sense to me! Disney certainly WOULD do a fantastic job displaying etc., certainly would fit in well at EPCOT, and with already having millions of people going to Disney every year anyway ... sounds like a project that's PERFECT for you :)"
• "I think it is a good idea. With so many children visiting the park, perhaps it will be an excellent tool to develop interest. As long as they don't paint anything on the Orbiter, it sounds like a good exhibit."
• "We could build a whole new theme park around it. We could obviously get more people interested in space, I think."
• "Absolutely. That has EPCOT written all over it. You could put it next to Mission Space."

No argument from most of these folks, anyway. This bears some consideration. They all sense an underlying truth: Disney generates fun and excitement; the space program, as it is currently configured, does not. Why?

*

When I came into the space business, it was after 12 years at Disney and 3 years in the defense business development (proposal writing) worlds. I'd also had some experience as a space advocate. My approach to space, then, has been as a marketer. Disney, for all of its internal quirks--notice I don't work there anymore--is a marketing organization second to none. And when I attended my first International Space Development Conference, I noted the serious need for marketing professionalism within the space advocacy community.

Now there are some government regulations that prohibit NASA from marketing, unless it's hiring/recruiting. And, being a government agency, some of its denizens are rather disdainful of the need for marketing at all. "We do education and outreach," I've been told. The "m" word, it seems, is verboten. But really now: what is NASA TV if it isn't marketing? Well, actually, it probably is education, because as a marketing tool, it's not doing well. I think more people watch The Bedouin Channel.

What is marketing, then? Here's a description of marketing that I used in my thesis to contrast it with technical communications:

In general, marketing communications is aimed at decision-makers and influencers, while technical communications addresses people who use the product. In other words, marketers try to get a customer to purchase a product, while technical communicators explain how a product works once it has already been purchased.

A later presentation I did, based on this thesis, also proposed the notion that technical advocacy (e.g. space advocacy) is really a combination of technical communications, marketing, and politics. You need the audience to understand the material, get enthused about it, and get them motivated to advocate and vote in certain ways that are advantageous to your position. Marketing a trip to Disney World is a lot different from marketing a government program (assuming you were allowed to do so), but the concept and need is the same. And, I must add, there is more to advocate for than just NASA. I want the private sector "out there" too, and that requires a different strategy from selling a government program.

Still, both the space cause and a theme park must still get and hold the attention of their respective audience(s). Despite the uniqueness of the space enterprise, exploration and settlement do not "sell themselves," any more than the American West did. Horace Greeley's "Go West, young man, and grow with the country!" might have been one of the best marketing lines ever used to sell the frontier.

I got off my original track here; I apologize. I meant to answer "Why does Disney generate excitement while NASA doesn't?" and got off on a tangent about what technical marketing is. My apologies. The answer to the original question is simple: Disney does exciting things and portrays them in such a way that other people look forward to experiencing them. NASA does some exciting, nay, intriguing things, and some of those are accompanied by smoke, fire, and earth-rattling, which is always cool. But turn on NASA TV, subject yourself to a few hours of watching astronauts do zero-gravity tai-chi around the International Space Station, and you need No-Doze and a caffeineated beverage to restart your system.

Both Disney and NASA are very protective of their public image, and yet Disney manages to have a fun public image. Again: why? Part of it, I think, is that NASA has lost its sense of humor. They are so used to doing Important, Impressive Things, that they forget about the gosh-wow factor. They frown upon frivolous activities, like space tourism or putting a hotel into orbit.

They've also grown a little too cautious about advertising the dangerous aspects of space. In Apollo, three astronauts died before one Saturn rocket had put a man into space--and NASA kept going. Since Challenger and Columbia, there has been an abundance of caution and -- perhaps reasonably -- an emphasis on safety first. But damn it, that danger gets people's attention! It's suspenseful for me every time the Shuttle goes up now, maybe because of long-ignored physical danger and maybe because we're only now awakening to the fact that there won't be too many more of them.

The world frickin' stood still when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon. A billion people listened or watched at a time when we had only about two billion people alive on the planet. That's a shared moment of wonder few have ever managed to repeat. I mean, because...damn, that was impressive. The first time a human being had set foot on another world. I can still get a shiver up my spine when I hear, "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." I was two weeks from being born, and it still impresses me.

That's the trick, then: NASA needs to start doing great things again: firsts that are new and difficult in their own right. And the good news is, they are aiming to do great things again: building rockets to go to the Moon, building a permanent outpost there, and hoping to go beyond. That's half the Disney equation: do something exciting. All of that will require more money and sustained commitment, but that's our job as involved taxpayers, not just the government's. And then there's the other half: get other people interested in participating. There's still some work to be done there.

Looks like I have my work cut out for me.