Moving and brilliant, Dan. I wish you could have gotten it to President Bush before he spoke.

Bravo! Now...let's not wait for Bush to make it happen, let's start to lobby ourselves for it. Let's get MS and Dell and IBM and Lockheed Martin and all these other big business companies to donate cash and people and supplies to build the next round of shuttles and rockets. This needs to be a priority.

Kudos, I couldn't agree more. I kept waiting hopefully for him to say something about Mars, but to no avail. Here's hoping someone can get him to reconsider.

This morning I felt a blow similiar to that one I felt seventeen years ago. But I am older now, more full of knowledge, and less full of fear. I turned to my wife, tears welling up but not spilling over, and said to her (though perhaps it was also a prayer), "When the President speaks to us today, please let him send us to Mars."

You've written a speech I would like to hear, and hope that I will hear before I'm too old to see the outcome. You left out just one thing:
"And it will be done before the end of this decade."

Thanks.

After I wrote that, I was watching coverage of the accident with my daughter, who at 5 years old is already a big space fan. I was thinking about how to talk to her about it, when we had this exchange:

"Dad, did those astronauts all die?"
"Yes, honey. They did. But they were doing something very important."

I was preparing myself for her to get upset, when she said,

"Don't worry, Dad. They're going to build another shuttle. And it will be much safer. They'll put locks on the doors so the people won't fall out. It will be better than ever!"

Having just written the article I did (which she never saw), I was shocked to hear that same sentiment coming from a little five-year-old girl.

I agree with your sentiment, but I liked the Presidents words just fine:

"The cause in which they died will continue. Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on."

He presented the same sentiment very eloquently.

I agree with you Joe.

Well I disagree.

Other children have dreams too. What makes THEIR
dreams more important than mine or my childrens?

They can have their dreams. But I see no reason
that THEIR dreams should be funded at the expense
of my childrens dreams. If you want to spend YOUR
money on a space program I don't mind at all.
But what you want to do is spend MY money on it.

A disaster in a government jobs program is no
excuse to spend more money on that jobs program.

Don't misunderstand me - I didn't think the president's speech was a bad one, and I agreed with his sentiments.

I just wish he had used the opportunity to reaffirm the commitment to space. But after the shock has worn off a bit, I think perhaps he did about the right thing. There will be more presidential speeches on this subject, and plenty of time to say something that will prevent a complete halt to the space program like last time.

I just heard Dana Rohrbacher speaking, and he said almost the same thing I did. This is a time for NASA to move forward, to build better spacecraft, to get more funding, and to honor the memory of these astronauts by expanding our presence in space.

Thanks, that's beautiful.

I made a very similar comment myself earlier today. We need to go to Mars. Today I felt that more strongly than I ever have before. The loss of the astronauts and the Columbia is terrible, but the way to honour them is to aim for higher and greater goals.

I don't expect my nation's leaders to find the perfect words after a tragedy. I make a living finding words, and I can't find them right now.

I would much have preferred to hear the President say "NASA has accomplished much, dared much, and sacrificed much. We will never forget the brave men and women who have given their lives attempting to explore the unknown.

But the fact remains that NASA is a relic of the Cold War, a top heavy government jobs program that spends many times what is necessary for the small gain returned, and is therefore obsolete.

Let today's dead be the last victims of government bureacracy. Let us honor their memory by choosing a new path, a path of private exploration. Let us honor their courage by having the courage to face the fact that government spends several times what is necessary to achieve what it has.

Therefore, in memory of todays dead, I am abolishing NASA, and removing all unnecessary constraints on the civilian exploration and exploitation of space. I am removing the U.S.A. from that ridiculous, socialist treaty that attempts to give space to all men, and ends by giving it only to governments. I am asking all of the privately owned aerospace companies in the world to immediately begin exploration and exploitation efforts to the best of the abilities.

Let these be the last."

Well, that's what I would have said.

Let the party of JFK take the low road to the high frontier: Cancel the Bush billionaire taxcut. Add the $300b to fund the new shuttle fleet and the mission to Mars.

The sentiment express in your alternative speech is well shared. However, in this time of sorrow, reaffirming the goal to go to Mars might be viewed by many as grandstanding.

We all know many politicians capitalized on tragedies of our fellow citizens. Many people of this country became cynical of the political process and the sincerity of many of our leaders.

I think the President’s speech expressed truly who he is – a man deeply religious and transformed by his struggle to quit drinking. His words are not as eloquent as Reagan’s Challenger speech. Although presidential speeches are written by speech writers, one can tell by the Isaiah reference that it is a sentiment expressed from the bottom of his heart.

There are plenty of times to reaffirm our nation’s commitment to space exploration. In truth, it is Congress that actually has the real say in the matter of budgeting.

For now, a sincere and heart felt speech is good enough for me.

The direct reason for this tragedy is Bush's tax cut. Same thing in 1986. Reagan's tax cut left the government broke and is directly responsible for this tragedy. If anything comes out of this, we must immediately stop the space program, feed the homeless and clothe the naked. We need jobs with justice not more moonrocks.

"I would have preferred to hear something like this ..."

Who. The. Fuck. Are. You?

Some sniveling wimp with an agenda to push, who not only displays the avarice and moral nothingness inherent in being willing to use a tragedy as an opportunity to peddle for increased NASA funding, but also willing to criticize our President, whose remarks, unlike yours, were totally appropriate.

Crawl, lizard-boy. Crawl back under that rock from which you slithered, away from the light and out of our eyesight, which you plague with your pathetic presense.

You were going pretty good there for a while, but you lost it at 'lizard-boy'.

Don't you hate it when a perfectly good rant goes completely off the rails after a poorly chosen epithet?

I find Sane Voice's comment to be hysterically funny.

The reason we do not feed the homeless and cloth the naked is that Certain Persons of the Liberal (we don't need no stinkin' tax cuts) Persuasion went before the courts and argued (and won) that homelessness was a lifestyle choice and people had the right to choose it as much as they had to choose the buying and maintaining of a home.

And so, a large number of mentally disabled persons, who still make up the bulk of today's homeless, were released from the hospitals to which they had been so wrongly confined in, yet kept fed, bathed, and clothed, and allowed to wonder on the streets Free At last, Free At last, Thank God Almighty to be Free at Last to be hungry, filthy, and delusional.

So Pilot to the Brave New World, you have your fellow travelers to thank for that one......

Dan, you did a great job. An awesome job.

There's some weenies talking about dropping the space program on this thread, so... let me quote from my own blog post for those who call this an "obselete government jobs program".

"In fact, it's precisely because it's dangerous that people feel the need to do it. Like the first ancients who dared to put dugout canoes in the water and cross to nearby islands, we're doing what we have to do to live up to the absolute peak of achievement that we can attain. Today, mankind rules the waves, and some day, we'll rule space as well. So, we must continue, whether with these craft or a new breed. Anything less, and in fact, the call for anything less, is horrific cowardice."

I stand by that. Those who claim this is unneccessary are the same sort of heartless nannies who would have us never climb Mount Everest, never fish the North Sea, never cross the interstate on foot. They'd have us stay in our caves from time immemorial, because anything else is an unknown, and someone might get hurt. They can't see the ultimate gain to be made, the ultimate victory of humanity in overcoming the risks. They're not people who should make decisions for us.

For Aaron, from a "weenie"

I don't see how *I'm* the heartless one.
I doubt if you have gone into space or climbed
Mount Everest.

The only difference between us is that I think
you should be free to spend your money on
going to space or climbing a mountain and *You*
think I'm a coward for objecting when you
try to *force* me to spend my money in the
same manner that you do.

The money doesn't belong to you. It belongs to
me and the millions of other people who EARNED
it. I'm not stopping you from climbing a
mountain. Go ahead, take some pictures while
you're there.

Dan is absolutely right, and I profusely apologize. What I said was an unconscionable insult to ... lizards.

I hereby change that from lizard-boy to slither boy. Again, my apologies to lizards everywhere.

Once again, slither-boy. This is NOT about YOU. This is about a crew of true American, Indian-American and Israeli heros and the loss to their families and to their countries.

You, whose greatest accomplishment has been to make characters appear on a web window, do not belong in a common thread on the same subject as these great heros.

The Presidents remarks were appropriate ... and all that needed to be said to the world at this time ... unlike other blowhards of the past who may have used the moment to further their agenda.

That's so not true. Dan's greatest accomplishment was writing a really good online poker game. Compared to that, putting characters in a web window is mere child's play. Unless they were really good characters, like Hamlet or Professor Frink.

Roversaurus, seriously.

It looks like you have a problem with all tax programs, yes? You don't want to be forced to spend your money on other people's dreams?

1) Welcome to a democracy. All of our dreams are woven together into a national identity and mission. Since you don't like that, go find somewhere else. Maybe a nice island or a extra-national commune.

2) If you really believe what you said, please stop using the fruits of tax labors. All of them. From the modern medicine you require to the roads you drive on to the internet you troll on.

If you aren't willing to put your feet where your tongue is, your words aren't worth the (tax-created) paper they're printed on.

I forgot one part. Also take the money you want to be so free to spend and return it to the democratic society that created it using taxes.

Thanks, we'll find something useful to do with it.

Rover: this a joint project for all Americans, and we have all benefited from the scientific knowledge gained. It is a project that private interests are not yet able to undertake, and the gains of a combined national effort have been significant.

Are they proportional to the cost? Maybe not. Are they proportional when you include the long term value of getting these first faltering steps into space out of the way, of winning the hearts of the world in the race to the moon against the Soviets? Unquestionably.

It's one of the few massive government efforts I support.

Until someone wins the X-Prize and proves manned space flight is now within the realm of private enterprise, the government must carry that torch.

Anyway, Bush has announced plans for increased funding for NASA:

the story

As for Rover and Paul, if I could just make tick marks on my tax form for how my money should be spent, I'd happily pick up your share of the burden for the space program. However, that isn't going to happen, so instead I'll happily wish the government spends more of OUR money on my demands (and you, get this, are free to encourage the government to spend MY money on YOUR demands).

OK, since HTML is not enabled, here's the link to the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/bush.budget.nasa.reut/

Hey Paul, I'm going to answer you in the same way you answered me. Suck. My. Fat. All. American. Cock.

Anonymous6, what is the color of the sky in your world? Here in mine, it's blue.

1) We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. There's a huge difference. Learn it.

2) If you're wacky enough to believe that taxes create wealth, I suppose you're wacky enough to believe anything. Grow a brain, grow a personality, and please grow up.

I don't support a big ass government program that spends about five hundred times more than is necessary to put seven people and some mostly functional hardware into space.

I do admire the hell out of anyone brave enough to ride one of their piss poor excuses for a "shuttle".

You hit that one on the nose, Dan.

Dear Eichra:

0) I missed your aphorism. Can you rephrase?

1) We live in a democratic republic. Quite intentional, really. And, still, whatever you call it, America is still a tapestry of dreams.

2) Taxes create a wealth that isn't measured in money. Usually. Although the game that's been played with our taxes has done a good job of optimizing the global hegemony for US interests.

2.a) Nice trio on the "grow", but you didn't inspire me to want to dialogue with you. Good-bye.

(sic)

A wealth that isn't measured in money... OOKK... I think reality has just reared it's ugly head again.

What do you call a government where all monetary wealth is seized by the government to create non-monetary wealth for all citizens?

Communist.

Ah, libertarianism. I sympathise. I once was a fire-breathing libertarian. Then I drove my car down the interstate, and realized that the government is requisite--sometimes, private enterprise simply won't do things.

And sending people to space is one of them.

Now, I'm all for increasing privatization of satellite launches. I think it's important we move some of NASA's portfolio into the private sector. But tell me, what company is going to take us to Mars?

Some things are bigger than private enterprise. As long as we live in a representative, republican democracy, the government will take money from people and allocate it according to the vote of duly elected representatives.

Indeed, libertarians who agitate against space are ultimately self-defeating. Libertarianism works best in places where society is being created--colonies, in other words.

Some things private enterprise won't do? How, pray tell, can you arrive at that conclusion? How many years has government had a monopoly on space exploration? Oh, that's right. Since the beginning. Why has it had a monopoly on space exploration? Because that's where the money has gone. In short, if you own a company that manufactures spacecraft components, and a private company is willing to pay X for a component, and NASA is willing to pay X times Y, then your components go to NASA.

If you own a company that wants to put satellites up privately, maybe do a little space tourism, perhaps explore the possibilities of mineral exploitation on the moon or from the asteroid belt, it's damn hard to get started when the components you need are priced so astronomically high due to NASA's price support policies.

I'm not agitating against space, and such a conclusion is amazing, not to mention daft.

I'm agitating against government run space exploration and exploitation.

I want it to be done privately.