Observations from Missy’s Window

Archive for the ‘Opinion and Musings’ Category

Is the United States Jumping the Gun on Ending the Shuttle Program?

by: Missy Frye

So, we (the United States of America) are going to depend on Russia to help keep American astronauts connected and our interests secure with the International Space Station. Does this sound wrong to anyone but me? 

Budgeting is tough for most folks; I can’t imagine the headache NASA endures. Pressure from the government doesn’t help matters. A great deal of money is needed for each shuttle launch but weigh that against our interests in the International Space Station and it’s miniscule. 

The final Space Shuttle mission has been tentatively scheduled for May 31, 2010. The Orion spacecraft currently in development is slated to make its first sortie to the Space Station in 2014. Four Years? Four years we’ll be dependent on Russia to protect our interests. 

Besides the fact we’ll be Earth-bound, except for missions with Russia, the U.S. economy will suffer just as it did after the Apollo program was terminated. According to NASA, between 5,700 and 6,400 jobs are expected to be lost. Of course, no definite estimates can be made for at least another year. On the bright side, the employment issue will turn around as the manned space program increases in momentum. That is, if the next president supports such an endeavor. 

While we aren’t flying back and forth to the space station (or Hubble) and performing our own research and experiments with manned space flight, Russia will likely boost their economy. More demand on their manned space flight program will increase employment opportunities. 

The Boston Globe reported Russian president Dmitry Medvedev as saying, “Russia has become stronger and is capable of assuming greater responsibility for solving problems on both a regional and global scale.” What usually happens when Russia gains a bit of confidence? Consider this… a few days after the Czech Republic signed a formal agreement for deployment of a radar system with the United States, their (Czech Republic’s) oil supplies from Russia suddenly dipped.  

How long will they cooperate with us? When will they exploit the control they will possess? Do we really want to be subject to the whims of other countries?

I see where the government is coming from on the budget issue, but decommissioning the shuttles before another mode of space travel is completed doesn’t seem a wise decision. Reduction of scheduled missions seems reasonable and would keep the United States from being completely dependent on other nations.

Let’s not even discuss the subject of decreasing our commitment to the International Space Station in 2015. How dumb can politicians be? Don’t answer that. We’ll just hope they see reason before it’s too late. 

Sources for this commentary include articles from Universe Today and The Boston Globe. 

Photo © Ajay Kumar Singh

Interest in a subject or person leads me to seek out others with a like mind. Many people do. As a tennis fan, I visit sites with message boards dedicated to professional players. The same for movie sites with forums for actors and movies.

What I don’t understand is why people that do not like a particular person, sport or subject would want to visit a site dedicated to it/them. What pleasure do they get from entering a message board/forum and inciting the fans by maligning the very thing the majority of visitors are there to celebrate?

Seems like a waste of time to me. I rarely visit message boards anymore — I find no joy in the hateful attitudes spewed by those who thrive on wrecking havoc.

Apollo 11 Bootprint © NASA

The majority of Americans have no clue what is going on in space exploration. Plans to revisit moon have been in the works for years and as I’ve mentioned before it is an exciting time. Some do not see the moon as a sensible next step in exploring space; they want to scrub the planned lunar missions in favor of landing on asteroids.

“Top U.S. planetary scientists, several astronauts and former NASA division directors” are forming a workshop at Stanford University. Their goal is “to offer the next U.S. president an alternative to President Bush’s ‘vision for space exploration’–one that would delete a lunar base and move instead toward manned missions to asteroids along with a renewed emphasis on Earth environmental spacecraft.” Asteroids?

Schmitt with Flag and Earth Above © NASA

I’ve visited several websites and blogs that are currently discussing this issue and have found some great pros and cons for such a change in plans. In truth, my opinion could be purely emotional and therefore biased. We should return to the moon first and here is my reasoning:

• It takes less time to reach the moon; we’re talking days as opposed to years.
• I think we should venture farther into space by increments; we aren’t sure humans can reach an asteroid/Mars and safely return to Earth.
• The lunar surface could serve as a weigh station for future exploration of asteroids, mars and other regions of our solar system (and maybe someday our entire galaxy).
• Scientific exploration is awesome, but if we are making scientific discoveries just for the heck of it rather than determining if man can survive for prolonged periods in space, then what’s the point of acquiring the knowledge.
• Scrubbing the lunar missions would mean we’ve wasted a great deal of money.

If I took more time, I could probably come up with many more reasons for sticking with the current plans. Of course, if the next president decides space exploration needs to be eliminated the point is moot. China and Japan are currently orbiting the moon and India plans to launch a mission later this year. Maybe we should just sit back and let them do all the work, and receive the glory.

Sources: Universe Today, On Orbit Mercury, SpaceRef.com, Political Action for Space

There is something to be said for desiring peace. It is noble. We should all desire a peaceful world. However, it is unrealistic to think it will ever be achieved. Before you have a fit, listen to my reasoning. To truly achieve world peace, the world needs men of good will. Let me rephrase that, the world needs ALL men to be of good will. Orgasmic energy isn’t strong enough to create such a circumstance.

Photo: Auschwitz Train Tracks © pumpkin

Yes, I said orgasmic energy. For the second year Global Orgasm is asking everyone to have an orgasm in the name of world peace this Friday at 6:08 GMT. Synchronous orgasms. “The Big O, is designed to be an “instantaneous surge of human biological, mental and spirtual energy” that organizers hope will reduce levels of violence, hatred and fear around the world during this, the longest night of the year.”

Good grief! This is what to expect from the “anti-war organization Baring Witness, a group of activists who strip to make public peace displays with their naked bodies.” I’m not a war-monger, but I have a bit more common sense than to think that showing my naked body in public or synchronizing an orgasm to the rest of the world’s will end violence let alone a war.

Get a grip folks. As long as man desires power there will be war. As long as there is social hierarchy there will be war. By all means, focus positive energy on your fellow man and pray for world peace. Someday your prayers will be answered and we will rejoice in the coming of the Lord.

source

There are some things that cause outrage for everyone and recently I’ve experienced such a feeling. This article: Feds ban grandma’s angel ornament on Christmas tree at World Net Daily was the fuel. (the ban as been lifted since this article was written) I know that December 25th was practically commandeered to be celebrated as Christ’s birthday and so I set about researching.

The goal was to write a post for my other blog American Flag Waver about how government is basically taking away our freedoms just as the Romans did to the pagans centuries ago. Something happened while composing my post. I thought of the Grinch. The animated version.

Truly. I had a vision of little Cindy Lou Who and all the inhabitants of Whoville gathered around the bare tree, holding hands and singing. They knew they were celebrating something more special. The decorations mattered not. The feast was unimportant.

Banning decorations (of any religion) is deplorable and should never happen. We should stand up and fight for our rights, but in the end remember – if you are truly a Christian then you don’t need an angel on top of a tree, or a nativity display to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Keep love in your heart and thank God for giving us his son. No symbol can take the place of what Christ means to us.

Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas!
(50th Birthday Deluxe Remastered Edition)

Swearing is so common in this day and age I’m not sure what to find offensive or not. In truth, swearing doesn’t offend me. It’s just words. Did you know that there is a federal regulation prohibiting swearing at flight crews? I’ve done a search but can’t find the actual rule.

Anyway, Sophie Reynolds, passenger on a Delta connection flight of SkyWest Airlines (and an Aussie), was met at the Pittsburgh, PA gate by three uniformed officers. Why? Because she used the phrase “fair dinkum” when told that they didn’t have pretzels. Huh? Apparently, the flight attendant thought Ms. Reynolds was swearing at her.

For clarification, “fair dinkum,” is an Australian phrase which as an adjective means “real” and as an expression means “Seriously?” or “For real?” “It means real, authentic — the real McCoy,” offered University of Pennsylvania linguistics professor Anthony Kroch. “If you say it with a question intonation, it means ‘For real?’”

Advertisement

Guinness Long-Sleeve Gaelic T-Shirt

Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t it seem extreme to call for backup in this situation? The crew asked for the woman’s passport and informed her that it was against the law to swear at attendants. Unless there was some physical altercation, I don’t see the need for the uniformed officers waiting for her to deplane.

Did the flight attendant ask for clarification of what the passenger said? What made her think “fair dinkum” was swearing? And if you don’t really know what was said, can you be offended?

I guess I believed my elders when they told me that sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. I don’t see the need to let words be offensive. Think about it. If someone calls me a bitch what do they really mean? Are they calling me a malicious woman? If so, what prompted the “slur?” If I know in my heart that I’ve done nothing malicious then the word is truly empty. If I’ve done something malicious, well, then being called a bitch shouldn’t surprise me.

Who decided that a bitch was a malicious person? For that matter, what makes the word “poop” acceptable but “shit” unacceptable? They are both the same -substance-, are they not? Is it connotation? Maybe I’m desensitized, but I doubt that I’d call in the calvary if someone swore at me. Now, if they physically accost me, that’s a different story.

Source: FoxNews.com

Of all the hair-brained things a person could do, Angelina Jolie’s latest escapade tops most of them. Her current film, A Mighty Heart, is an account of the death of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. The premiere was last night and also doubled as a benefit for freedom of the press. It was geared toward giving the Reporters Without Borders organization publicity.

So how does Jolie support freedom of the press? By trying to control it, of course.

She reportedly “required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her” and even tried to ban Fox News from attending the red carpet event. Huh?

I truly understand that she may not want to discuss her personal life and wants to focus on the movie itself but she put herself in the public eye by being a Academy Award winning actress. How tough is it to say, “no comment.” Just because a question is asked does not mean it has to be answered.

What did her shenanigans achieve? Supposedly, major outlets including “USA Today and the Associated Press” cancelled interviews. Doesn’t that take publicity away from the film as well as Jolie? Hmmm… maybe she should rethink her stance.

I’m still perplexed by her desire to ban Fox News. They gave the movie a great review and their investigation into her charity work gave her a five star rating; she’s apparently doing a good job. So, why alienate an ally?

Sources:
Fox News
SFGate.com
Wikipedia: Reporters Without Borders