For those who have been living under a rock, NASA pulled off an extraordinary series of spacewalks this week that once again have demonstrated why human beings are important to the space effort.
Not just the humans down here. The humans up there. Among other things they encountered stuck bolts, balky cameras, immovable handrails - the “usual” sorts of problems one encounters when doing repairs and upgrades on a satellite telescope more than 300 miles up.
As if any of this could be called “usual”. Astronauts Grunsfeld, Feustel, Massimino and Good showed us the razor-sharp tip of the spear. They were the people who were onsite, in space, hands-on. And they were supported by or benefitting from the work of thousands of people on the ground. Watching and listening to the EVAs this week was a pleasure. The sheer inventiveness and persistence of the effort resulted in a mission that was completely successful in meeting its operational objectives, leaving us with a Hubble Space Telescope that will see farther and better than ever before.
Atlantis released Hubble this morning, dropped to a lower (safer) orbit, and began preparations for the return trip. This is a busy time but it is also a time for contemplation, mental review of mission activities, thoughts about what information and new knowledge about how to do operations in space would be most useful to pass along, discussions with the ground. It is a window in time for putting the mission into perspective, and for letting it go.
Another descent is underway as I type. Today, at 6:15 pm Eastern Time, 4:15 am Nepal time, former astronaut Scott Parazynski fulfilled a personal mission objective by summiting Mt. Everest. This is Scott’s second year to try, and his third attempt overall - the first cut short by a back injury, the second (several days ago) turned around due to weather - and now, today, success.
Scott and I have talked a couple of times about life, goals, direction, and such. Prior to the point in time when the opportunity to return to Everest emerged, he mused about how much he wanted to try again. To this listener, there was a palpable sense of a mission not completed, of work left undone. I thought he needed to challenge himself again, to succeed or fail, to push himself to achieve his own personal best.
This “need” may seem unlikely, because Scott too is an experienced spacewalker. Dubbed “Too Tall” because of his physical size (which kept him from being able to get into a Russian Orlan spacesuit), Scott’s wide reach was an asset for International Space Station assembly missions, and most notably for the repair of an ISS solar array carried out during STS-120, in 2007.
(photo credit: NASA)
But what is an asset in space isn’t necessarily an asset on Everest. Scott’s large frame results in a very high metabolic load as he hauls himself up the icy slopes; a fact he is well aware of as a physician. While the effort involved in performance of an EVA is also significant, no astronaut has suffered a ruptured discs during EVA as did Scott during his first summit attempt.
Scott’s now-repaired disc injury required surgery, physical therapy, and time to heal. I can relate; I spent alot of the day today in physical therapy, rehabbing a knee injury I sustained playing softball (for the first time in 30 years) during the winter. This problem is relatively minor, but speaking from experience, a significant orthopedic injury that impairs mobility and function for even a short period of time can lead to a great deal of frustration. It’s tough to be dependent upon others for simple things when one has an independent spirit (and, in my case, a large stubborn streak as well.) Some people handle it better than others.
Last week, the good folks at NASA/JSC were kind enough to enable me to take my brother to the launch of STS-125. He has been very ill for the past several years, has great difficulty walking and sometimes uses a wheelchair. I’ve known him for 49 years and can testify that he is every bit as headstrong as I am. Yet, he is handling his increasing disability with extraordinary grace - far more, I believe, than I would. Going to the launch was a milestone for him - not just because he had wanted to see a launch for most of his life, but because of the sheer physical effort it took to do so. For Bob, adjusting to his physical problems has provided him with the opportunity and incentive to break out of his previous way of looking at the world, and to become more selective about when to be stubborn and when to yield. My brother’s journey has become a personal Everest, and he is a different person because of his success in negotiating it.
A couple of weeks ago, a typically thoughtful @waynehale tweet asked if Scott’s climb was “exploration” in the same sense that the shuttle represents exploration. From my personal vantage point, there are at least 5 meanings of the word in play today: (1) the exploration of the universe afforded by the Hubble; (2) the exploration of how to live and work in space we saw demonstrated so aptly by the entire crew of STS-125; (3) Scott’s personal exploration of himself and his limits/capabilities during the summit attempts, (4) the exploration of the ever-dynamic Everest environment, and (5) the internal exploration that sometimes only begins when the ability to engage in external exploration is limited.
Are they the same? No. But there are some basic components that are shared across all of these types of exploration - the need to focus, to optimize energy expenditures, to utilize tools in new ways, to persist, to think creatively, and to work with others as a team. Most of all, exploration pushes us to look at the universe around us and at ourselves with new eyes, branding us with the experience. If we are lucky and skilled and adaptable enough to reach the summit, it is no less a feat for the disabled individual re-learning how to function in their environment than it was for the astronauts servicing the Hubble or for the good Dr. Parazynski on Everest today.
Godspeed Atlantis, Scott, and brother Bob. It has been our privilege to climb Olympus through your eyes.
Back on March 15 I took part in a dialogue – the first of its kind for human spaceflight. It emerged from the SpaceflightNow.com coverage of the flight of STS-119. People from all over the world tuned in, turned on and only dropped out when the load on the chat and video streaming servers exceeded capacity. The excitement in the air was palatable – and poignant, to those of us who have long sought a better way to engage the public(s) in the U.S. and across the world in excitement of spaceflight.
On Monday, David Waters, Miles O’Brien, Leroy Chiao, Mark Carreau, Craig Covault,et al., were at it again. The amalgam of TV, web and social media – what I called “fusion” in the earlier blog, is a creature all its own. It does not abide by older models of communication – for example the “push” model, wherein information is forwarded to the viewer, listener, etc. with no opportunity for feedback; or distributed over “channels” that are carefully selected and separated one from the other. Instead, it is a new thing, another example of how the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts – not just a quantitative transformation, but a qualitative one too.
It opens the door. It invites us in – anyone with access to the ‘net. It lowers barriers, tears down the ivory tower, and democratizes information – even insider information. It is an invitation to the dance.
The irony is that a part of why this is happening now is because of the exceedingly poor judgment exercised by major media outlets with regard to some of their best resources – the writers, producers, and reporters who happen to have space and/or science as a byline and who have been “let go” by their budget-conscious organizations. The individuals who have been released are astonishing, and depressing to those of us who explore the intersections among communication, education, and spaceflight.
Miles O’Brien (CNN)
Mark Carreau (Houston Chronicle)
Craig Covault (Aviation & Space Week)
Others from mid-size to smaller markets, too numerous to mention.
After spending 5 years researching and writing about public perception, communication, policy and spaceflight; after listening to former Administrator Mike Griffin over the weekend at a roundtable discussion in Houston speak again about the importance of communication (and bemoan the space community’s poor track record in this regard); after watching the decline of the U.S. education system over the past 20 years and hearing young people tell me that “NASA isn’t relevant” because they really don’t know any better, I suppose I only have to look at the list to know one of the reasons why.
Like it or not (and I don’t!) the majority of Americans know what they know (or think they know) because it has been delivered to them via mass media. The corporations to whom we as a society have ceded the responsibility for communication and education about our world have no more regard for the space program than does the average 18 year old. And while the 18 year old might – and I say might – be forgiven for having other things on their minds, no such absolution exists for them.
Or for us, for that matter.
But the game is changing.
The second event – “Spaceflight Media Fusion 2.0” – or better still – “Spaceflight Conversation 2.0″ – happened with the launch of the Hubble Servicing Mission on shuttle Atlantis, mission STS-125. Again, many new media outlets were online – and all of them experienced an uptick in participants. SpaceVidCast.com, webcasting in HD, had over 7200 viewers who logged in to watch while chatting about it; Facebook’s space shuttle site was extremely busy, @Astro_Mike was updating on Twitter “from space” (well, actually drafted in space and Twittered by ops folks on the ground) – to over 200,000 follows.
And then there is SpaceflightNow.com. It is not a coincidence that O’Brien, Carreau, Covault and Waters have pulled together at SpaceflightNow.com. The fusion of web, TV, social media, etc., is where the action is! Their chat window had over 440,000 people log on at one time or another. Mark Carreau, late of the Houston Chronicle, moderated the rapid fire chat. @Miles O’Brien and my friend Leroy Chiao together with David Waters sat at the “anchor desk” with Miles at the center figuratively and literally. “Special Guests” included Bob Crippen, commander of the very first shuttle flight, STS-1; Charlie Precourt, another friend – a former astronaut and Chief of the Astronaut Office.
Sean O’Keefe – former Administrator of NASA and the man with the exceedingly bad luck to be on watch when the Columbia disaster occurred (STS-107) spoke about the decision not to make any more Hubble servicing flights due to the increased danger as a result of space debris at higher orbit. (That decision later reversed by former Administrator Mike Griffin after study and a decision that the value of the Hubble to the nation and the world merited the added risk.) Jeff Hoffman, an astronaut who had participated along with Story Musgrave on EVA during the first Hubble Servicing Mission and who is now a professor at MIT, chatted about spacewalking to work on Hubble and about human spaceflight and space exploration. Other astronauts – Reeves, Halsell, Cabana, etc. – appeared and chatted with the hosts and with those online.
Oh – and did I mention – there was great video coverage of the launch?
In the chat with former astronauts and NASA Administrators; in the questions and answers from the hosts themselves, from Mark Carreau and from the thousands who logged on (including volunteers who had signed up to answer questions that appeared on the chat window); and in the give and take between the hosts and audience/participants, the “democratization” of knowledge about space is emerging. Those who participate in the conversation are taking back their power to ask questions and insist on answers, to learn about what it takes to fly in space, and to bridge the gap between themselves and other participants in the enterprise that is human space flight.
And it is social media that is providing the bridge, and opening the door.
It’s too early to tell, but the hope is that in time, some of those who are just beginning to participate in the conversation will later shape it. After all that is the promise of the democratic system, the gift of the Republic – and the responsibility of an educated electorate and the “new media” who engage them. Like the Hubble itself, the process of active engagement between curious human beings previously “outside the gate” and the experienced human beings of the space program who are welcoming them inside has the potential to sharpen vision, to open new vistas, to spur the imagination, and to encourage a profound appreciation for exploration of the vastness that is space and the struggle to understand our own place within it.
Today, the Shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to lift off at approximately 2:01:56 pm Eastern Time from pad 39-A at the Kennedy Space Center, for NASA’sfinal servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble, has, of course, been the extraordinary instrument that has literally opened the eyes of millions of people to the infinite diversity, vast distances and previously unimagined beauty of space through the thousands of images it has returned over its lifetime (indeed, the Hubble Deep Field remains one of my favorite images, beckoning me inward and outward every time I see it.) Its discoveries make it one of the most valuable instruments ever devised for space science.
The final servicing mission has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate. Originally cancelled after the loss of the Shuttle Columbia and the subsequent investigation of the accident because of the risk inherent in servicing the telescope with no “safehouse” such as is afforded by the International Space Station, it was reinstituted after extensive review. The risk has been addressed by preparation of a second shuttle to fly in case emergency rescue is required, although catastrophic damage can not be mitigated. To all the naysayers, it should be pointed out that the calculations re: probability of impact with orbital debris show it to be approximately 1 in 221 - acceptable risk within the NASA limit of 1 in 200 but still higher than everyone’s comfort zone. The risk is being addressed in several ways; dropping altitude to a lower orbit immediately after releasing Hubble back into its own orbit, flying in an attitude that affords the greatest protection to spacewalkers engaged in Hubble servicing, and finally the availability of the Shuttle Endeavor, which would fly to Atlantis, grapple it with a robotic arm, and transfer the Atlantis crew to safety aboard should the shuttle be unable to return to Earth in the case of damage to its thermal protection system from debris impact.
Then, of course, there is simply the TRUTH that spaceflight is risky, that science is an exploration unto itself, and that all exploration carries a cost.
Nonetheless, it is a risk deemed worth taking by NASA, by the astronauts who have trained for the mission (and know full well what they are doing), and by the millions of us who have been given the gift of sight that has been bestowed upon us by the Hubble.
The Shuttle’s liftoff itself is a sight to see, in the seconds you can actually look at it. Staring directly into the heart of the shining sun it creates as it lifts slowly to space is not advised - and it is the lucky few (of all the billions on the planet) who have the opportunity to be close enough to learn that one the hard way. But “vision” can be achieved in many ways, not all of them through sight. Humans are hard-wired to be interactive - to exchange information, ideas, and imaginings; to bring new understanding to light through collective experiences as well as within the mind of an individual. It is in keeping that a new way of looking at the Shuttle and this mission in particular is being hosted by the same folks at SpaceflightNow.com who piloted a new way to “explore” a Shuttle mission with the launch of Discovery in March of this year.
SpaceflightNow.com and David Waters have pulled together the best talent in the field of space journalism and broadcasting - no question (more about that in a future blog). Miles O’Brien, Craig Covault, Mark Carreau - all seasoned journalists, the top in their fields, will be hosting the event, which begins at 0830 today, May 11. It has “gone global” with the staff of this event, pulling in participants as far away as the Himalayas, where former astronaut Scott Parazynski is currently waiting out some nasty weather before he attempts to summit Mt. Everest. SpaceflightNow will once again have a chat window but now has a staff of space experts (including your humble blogger) to answer questions posed by people who log in to participate in the event.
It’s the “participate” part that is most exciting. As I noted in my last blog on this subject, the combination of broadcasting and TV methodology with the web, chat, and Twitter (among other things) created the venue for a true conversation - and people all over the world responded.
SpaceflightNow is not alone. SpaceVidCast will be webcasting the mission in HD. There is a Facebook page dedicated to the mission on which people are already interacting this morning. And the Twitterverse has been alive with multiple streams:@Astro_Mike (Mike Massimino) of the Atlantis crew has been Twittering for weeks and plans to continue on orbit as much as possible, and both @NASA and @SpaceflightNow have been constantly updating mission status (as has @KSC_MOCOPS and others; go to TwitterSearch and enter #NASA, #space, or #Hubble to pull up the latest Tweets).
There’s no excuse, now. You say you’re interested in NASA? You say you’re frustrated that you can’t play along? You’ve got questions to ask, or answers to give? Do you know anything about space? Have you flown or supported others as they fly? Are you interested in the new space market? Do you believe in exploration? Do human beings at the edge of what is possible fire your imagination?
Last night I received a draft presentation from a social media user and advocate inside NASA. He was preparing it for an audience of NASA attorneys and was seeking comments from colleagues. I just finished my response a few minutes ago and realized halfway through composing the email that he had provided me the opportunity to pull some thoughts together that have been bouncing around for a while now.
The timing of his query was interesting , as I have had three different discussions about social media use with government officials in one agency or another during the past week. In general, these are thoughtful people who are genuinely troubled about and challenged by the surge in social media use in government facilities. Further, these methods increasingly are being used to do government work. Part of the frustration is that they are being bombarded by social media advocates who are enamored of the promises afforded by SM but who pay little attention to the downside. After several encounters with individuals who do not recognize themselves as zealots, some of these officials have begun to view all SM advocates with suspicion.
Rather than contribute to the brewing backlash by spouting a bunch of happy talk, advocates are better advised to tell a balanced story. While I have no problem with most of the statements that are usually made about social media (”enhances collaboration”, “facilitates conversation”, “speeds up information sharing”, “multi-channel”, “transforms ‘community’” - etc. - ), I do have problems with others (”self-correcting”, “authentic”) - as will anyone else who is charged with a clear-headed evaluation of SM for their respective organizations.
Let’s take “self-correcting”, as an example. The speed at which information is flashed around the world by tools such as Twitter, combined with the (relatively) vast numbers of people who can access that information from almost anywhere, has led to the oft-repeated observation that inaccuracies in that information can be quickly detected and rooted out. On the surface, that’s true; it can happen that way. But we have absolutely no data whatsoever about how often it does happen that way. Such statements are really articles of faith, since very nature of self-organizing networks such as Twitter mean that such data is going to be very hard to come by for the forseeable future.
More to the point, however, identification of inaccurate information is only the first step in correcting it. Cognitively speaking, the first thing people see is the one that sticks with them; any subsequent retraction or de-bunking is often lost in the noise. Known as the “Primacy Effect”, this problem has been struggled with by mass media practitioners since drumming was invented. It is one of the reasons that journalistic standards evolved to reduce the publication of innacurate information from the get-go (”get at least 2 sources, then check your sources, then check them again.”) Non-regulated networks (such as Twitter and to some extent Facebook) simply don’t propagate all information equally. All you have to do is look at the web to see how long some “myths” survive. (I just received yet another version of the “Mars Will Be Closer to Earth Next Month than It Will for the Next Two Hundred Years” spoof that has been circulating on the internet for the past 5 years.)
Like it or not there’s a certain amount of regulatory involvement in government institutions. It is neither feasible nor wise to take an “open forum” approach to disclosure and dissemination of government information. While I, personally, have been uncomfortable with the increasing degree of information censorship and stonewalling in U.S. Government agencies over the past several decades, there are nonetheless some very good reasons to keep some information under wraps. Unfortunately, discussions of social media in this context too often fall under the tyranny of the “either-or” proposition.
The most obvious & extreme example often cited by SM critics (who nonetheless miss the point) is export control. (NOTE: This is not a discussion of the merits of ITAR - the International Traffic in Arms Regulations - which has generated huge implementation and policy concerns. We’re talking here about any information that should stay within a sovereign country for reasons of security or proprietary/national interest, of which ITAR-controlled information is a subset.) The problem with social media in this context is not that some idiot(s) might post export-sensitive stuff on Facebook (which has happened and will continue to happen). The problem is that our social/cultural framework has not caught up with the technology.
This argument usually gets framed poorly – between the “oh, no, we can’t just open up the information flow, the sky will fall!” position vs. the “we can open up the information flow and collaborate, be spontaneous and authentic (I’ll come back to that word in a minute) and things will be great” position. The underlying problem is that the rules guiding appropriate and inappropriate dissemination of information are being overtaken by the ubiquitous nature of access. In other words, the less that you and I and others have to think about communication (can just Twitter it out with no thought, in an ongoing flow, from anywhere, while doing almost anything), the less likely it is that we’ll stop to consider the question, “Should this particular bit of info go out?”
I’ve spent a good amount of time with the U.S. Department of Defense on this issue of late. In my work with them, I emphasize that training and socialization around the use of media in general and social media in particular is way behind the power curve. The most recent iteration of broadly-applicable rules guiding electronic release of information was developed for the Web, well over 15 years ago. Facebook and in particular Twitter have so greatly accelerated information flow and shortened the time required for information release and propagation that we need a new and different cognitive and cultural framework (aka, new guidelines and training) to use it effectively and appropriately. We just aren’t there yet.
This latter discussion, in particular, is important for lawyers, such as the ones my colleague was preparing to speak with, and to other guardians of the gate. Advocates want to overcome a natural tendency toward conservatism in government agencies, which may or may not be reflexive naysaying, and so tend to stress the positive value of SM for the organization. Having been a senior manager in a Large Aerospace Corporation, however, I cannot describe in strong enough terms how well-honed the bullshit-detection instinct becomes after years of being subjected to one-sided “spin” typically associated with new technology. Advocates are far more likely to gain credibility and to get down to working on the real issues in implementation if they acknowledge problems and start pointing to solutions along with the potential positive impacts to the organization. At that point, they, and possibly the tools they advocate, become “value-added” to any decision-maker.
Finally, the use of the word “authentic”. It’s a buzzword I have a lot of problems with. Yes, communication via social media can be authentic. So can writing in novels, newspapers, non-fiction bios, editorials, etc. It’s not the medium, it’s the communication itself, and particularly the intent of the originator. There’s nothing special about SM in that regard. Speed and ubiquity of access simply do not equal “authenticity”.
The anonymity that is enabled by online activity vastly increases the probability of inauthentic disclosure and spoofing. This topic has been recognized and beaten on for more than 35 years, beginning with ARPANET (if you don’t recognize that term, go read your Internet history.) I’ve been watching Twitter - lurking, rather than contributing - for the past three weeks. The number of sales, spoofs, and outright illegal chicanery is increasing by leaps and bounds. Most of these are obvious to savvy users but younger, less experienced, or non-native speaking users are not always savvy. Social engineering is getting better, and in the hands of sophisticated malfeasants social media just facilitates a bigger, faster net to snare unsuspecting fish.
None of these things, in my opinion, is reason to cease the social media experiment. As I said recently to a NASA official, I am old enough to recall exactly this same set of conversations when LISTSERV first came online (via BITNET, and yes, I was a user), again when USENET became widely available (via implementation of UUCP, and yes, you guessed it) - and yet again when client-server email became widespread (FTP was only for geeks in those days). In each case, it took some time, but eventually the guidelines for use inside institutions such as NASA and other government agencies adapted and we figured out how to leverage these capabilities. NASA itself - particularly Public Affairs - is embracing social media with enthusiam tempered by what seems to me to be an appropriate degree of caution for this stage of the game. The Departments of Energy,Education, Defense, and Agriculture (to name a few) are also working with various SM tools; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had 6,000 new followers for Twitter/CDC Flu updates in the first two days of the 2009 H1N1 flu media blitz.
That has happened largely because of early adopters inside these agencies. Having been one myself for most of my professional life, I can well appreciate the frustrations in communicating the value of new, and therefore unfamiliar tools to decision-makers with other things on their minds. In my earlier career I was guilty on several occasions of what might kindly be referred to as “over-selling” - but what would more accurately be labeled “willful suppression of technical or policy implementation problems in a blatant attempt to manipulate outcomes”. I learned quickly enough that this sort of approach does no good for anything or anyone - not for the technology I was embracing, nor for my personal credibility, nor for the organization I was trying to help.
Technologies change, and the ones with long-staying transformative power may also change large organizations, including government….something the Obama Administration is currently testing. But the considerations involved in technology adoption decisions are remarkably stable - and SM advocates are well-advised to learn how best to adopt them, as well.
WARNING: CONTAINS MAJOR BATTLESTAR GALACTICA FINALE SPOILERS
I write alot of poetry, and wrote this piece (below) between 8/14/1997 and 8/20/1997. It was inspired by two things: (1) the discovery of the footprints of a woman living approximately 117,000 years ago, who came from the right place to be related to the “mitochondrial Eve” - the maternal ancestor of all humans, and (2) the flight of STS-85, NASA’s shuttle Discovery, from August 7 - 19 of 1997.
The fossilized footprints were discovered at the edge of what used to be a lake bed, and are the best preserved footprints of an anatomically modern human from that era that have ever been found. The announcement was made on August 14. I heard the story that night and it fired my imagination. I took up my pen and began to write.
The next day, I was listening to the shuttle transmissions as I worked on the poem. Amid the chatter I heard the clear voice of Dr. Jan Davis, an experienced female shuttle astronaut. The previous shuttle mission, Atlantis, in May of that year, had two women aboard: Colonel Eileen Collins, later to be the first female shuttle Commander, and Elena Kondakova, of Russia.
Some 12 years later it is hard to remember, but the flight of three women within two back-to-back shuttle missions was not commonplace then. As I listened to air-to-ground loops and heard Dr. Davis’s voice, I thought of “Eve” - who became in my mind the same woman who walked along that ancient lake, exploring her world - and suddenly the 117,000 years between that journey by the water and the journey into Earth’s orbit fell away.
I knew neither of them, but their shared lineage was in me, encoded into my DNA. I was a daughter of the the woman by the lakebed, and a sister of the woman on the shuttle - and at that moment, looking at the footprints and hearing the voice from above, I was the link between them. The room shifted and I felt as though the curtain of time had been pulled back - if only for an instant.
The poem came pouring out then, mostly on 8/15, with some edits for the rest of the 5 day writing period. I have not read it for several years, but tonight was reminded of it. Ronald D. Moore’s extraordinary “Battlestar Galactica” ended tonight with a journey to the Earth of 150,000 years ago - and a half-human, half-machine young woman, Hera, became the mother of modern humanity - our mitochondrial “Eve”.
The relationship between humanity’s epic journey through space and the equally epic journey of maternal lineage that Moore had linked brought the poem to mind. As I looked for the piece I wondered - briefly - if we had tapped into something similar, writing more than a decade apart.
But then again - what is a decade, to 117,000 years - or 150,000?
———————————–
All the Signs Were There
Walking on the beach,
sinking her feet into rain-soaked sand,
she moved toward the sea.
Aware of all surrounding her,
The smell of the storm receding,
leading her to follow.
Others remained behind,
Nurturing the tribe,
Releasing her to Lorelei.
Her lineage established,
beyond her ken.
Children she would never know.
In the bones of her face,
Tomorrow lingered - as fingers played;
Extravagant, extraordinary dexterity.
Inquisitive eyes.
What did she see?
What could she imagine?
One hundred thousand years ago,
She trailed the storm,
the sky clearing behind her.
Humanity before her,
traversing time, she stood
at the shore of her descendants.
Emerging intelligence which would, in time,
Yield wit and wisdom, and power enough
to lift her daughters to flight.
All the signs were there
Of star-flung choreography,
Dancing down the ancient dune.
As - mother of humanity -
Uplifted by her journey,
She curled her toes into the sand.
Tonight I might have seen the future of human spaceflight.
It wasn’t in the roar of the mains as Discovery lifted slowly off the launch pad on a picture perfect evening.
It wasn’t in the knowledge that the shuttle will dock on Tuesday, leaving one piece of precious human cargo onboard the International Space Station even as it ferries another home some 14 days later.
It wasn’t in my admiration for the engineers, safety mavens, ops experts, planners, console sitters (MCC and back rooms), trainers, developers, scientists and astronauts who give and give and give to the “old girl”* and still hold their breaths and cross their fingers every time she lifts off - along with the rest of us who risk our heads and hearts, knowing too well that humans sometimes make mistakes and machinery sometimes fails.
Nope, none of the above.
For me, it began about 2 hours before the launch and continued for an hour afterward. It was rapid-fire and simultaneous and noisy and initially distracting and maybe because of all that it took me a little while to realize what I was seeing.
After 40 + years of human spaceflight - barely more than two generations - the tide was coming in.
I was watching a global, human interaction, rising in intensity and expanding rapidly as the countdown progressed, past the 3 hour hold, past the 30 minute mark to the 20 minute hold, down to the 9 minute hold, and steadily down to 2 minutes…to T-6.6 seconds when the mains lit up…and then to launch.
Nigeria. Latvia. UK. Australia. Russia. Ukraine. Belgium. Argentina. Belize. Paris (spoken like a true Parisian) Chad. Japan. New Zealand. Korea. All there. And all talking. Twitter. Spaceflightnow.com. Facebook. Ustream w/chat. Spacevidcast, which is live as this blog posts (mirrors Nasa TV stream with a 2 sec delay; adds chat once you sign up for Ustream)
@milesobrien – who looks as though he could be the breakthrough social media/broadcasting/freelance/ubiquitori since his departure from CNN (which may be the best thing that ever happened to him) – tweeted away while leading a webcast on spaceflightnow.com – a webcast streamed over Ustream that simultaneously afforded its viewers the opportunity to chat – while Miles responded, or inserted his own thoughts into the stream, and into the Twitterverse. It was an interactive, globally accessible webcast of a shuttle launch – the first of its kind – with the audience responding as Miles answered their questions in chat, on Twitter, and while looking into a camera.
It was, finally, aconversation.
Now the tools exist to bring in everyone on the grid or with a battery and a means for jacking into the Internet. They can join the club. They will be welcomed aboard. I saw it, tonight. They asked questions of those who are doing it, those of us who lurked in the chat stream and stepped up to answer questions when we could. There were names I knew, there was expertise I recognized, ebbing and flowing in that stream, swirling around Latvia and Nigeria and Belize.
They came with praise, and with high spirits, and congratulations. Some of them were full of questions. “How many people can the shuttle carry?” “Does it always launch from there?” “Was that plasma that was visible around the shuttle as it detached from the ET?” “What’s the ionosphere?” “Was the launchpad fixed after all that concrete was blown out a while ago?” “Why beans and cornbread?” I answered that one, and another about NASA’s contributions to our daily lives. (Plasma Guy beat me to that question. Go figure.)
It was a mere trickle, when compared to the billions beyond, but a trickle that nonetheless overwhelmed the technology that served it on the very first night. Now they’ve got more than a month to talk about it, email about it, chat about it, IM about it, Facebook about it, phone about it, before the next one. And these are just the lucky ones - the ones we can “see” - the ones who can jack in.
To Miles, and Leroy, and Dave, and to your tech crew (all 2 of them) - well done. I wonder if we’re going to look back to this night, seeing it as the night that people “outside the fence” reached in - because they could. The night that the words “spaceflight community” began to take on a new meaning - the meaning that many of us have always hoped for, down deep.
This is Part 2 of the complete Twitter stream that I generated during the 47th Annual American Astronautical Society Goddard Memorial Symposium, held at the Greenbelt Marriott in Greenbelt, Maryland, during this past week (March 11-12). More information on the AAS Goddard Memorial Symposium may be found here, at the AAS website. This transcript should not be interpreted as a comprehensive “follow” of the Symposium, as it (and I) was subject to distractions, interjected conversations, and interruptions. Where possible I’ve annotated the transcript with links to related materials.
The transcript should be read from bottom to top. All errors are mine and probably reflect high-speed, highly truncated note-taking via BlackBerry. All times are Eastern Time and reflect the moment when the tweet was posted. Any questions can be directed to me via Twitter at @dittmarml or by direct message (for help with Twitter, go here) Alternatively you can contact me via Dittmar Associates, Inc.
Is space economy sustainable? We still lack harmonization of int’l commercial law on Earth - let alone space. Thu 5:06pm
Nature of space economy - space can be used by anyone by treaty - but has very high investment costs up front. #AAS Thu 5:03pm
National ownership of assets in space is required; owners are responsible. Space tech makes money for someone. #AAS Thu 5:01pm
On Earth sovereignty & territorial boundaries define interactions. In space, no sovereignty, by treaty Thu 4:59pm
Other nations (China, India, etc) increasing their funding. Re: political issues we see regionalization, not globalization Thu 4:53pm
Hertzfeld - speaking about space economy - current economic situation not reflected in space programs. $18.7 to NASA, 10B euros over 3 yrs to ESA Thu 4:51pm
Final talk of the Symposium is Dr. Henry Hertzfeld, Research Professor, Space Policy Institute, George Washington Univ Thu 4:48pm
James Webb Space Telescope will image stars/galaxies shortly after their formation (JWST is a great “time machine” Thu 4:31pm
(via @kittell)Wayne Hale: “I keep my fingers crossed and hold my breath every time we launch the [Shuttle], as much as I like the old girl.” Thur 1:04 pm
Q: what about talk of human-rating EELVs - can do that w/o cost? A: No. @waynehale talked about costs of changing course. #AAS Thu 1:03pm
Wayne Hale. It will be good enough. It is hard, it won’t all be to spec, it will represent best we can do. #AAS Thu 12:58pm
Wayne talking about “Mars Wars” and theme in the book about how “we’re going to do it right this time”. Well, we won’t. Thu 12:56pm
How do we communicate to people w/ideas why we say “no” sometimes? A: communication. All about human relationships. Thu 12:54pm
Wayne discussing “Barriers” video. How do we maintain cost/schedule discipline and bring in innovation? (UPDATE 3/14/2009:”Barriers” Video here) #AAS Thu 12:53pm
Wayne Hale How to contain costs, operate reliably in harsh environments for long periods of time. Answer: Innovate. Thu 12:49pm
@waynehale Need to learn to build equipment that works reliably in space. #AAS Thu 12:45pm
Wayne Hale - important to get those experiences, learn from them about equipment, how to fix things in space; how to live there. Thu 12:43pm
Wayne cited recent experience w/ urine-to-water equipment - failed, tested, procedures devised, equip sent up, fixed Thu 12:42pm
Wayne Hale particularly interested in using ISS to learn to live in space for extended periods of time. #AAS Thu 12:40pm
@waynehale ISS coming up on 8 yrs. Takes 2 1/2 folks to run it; 1/2 person doing science. With 6 people we’ll do more. Thu 12:38pm
Robert Lightfoot (MSFC) giving great talk on NexGen - need to balance social networking tools w/art of conversation Thu 12:01pm
Comment (Ochoa) re: “real issue” of mrktg/advrtsng NOTE: MLD opinion: All a reaction to OMB’s budget cut to HQ PAO last yr. Will blog later Thu 11:56pm
Ochoa talking about JSC Innovation & Inclusion groups and mentioned influence of NexGen on these. http://opennasa.com Thu 11:46pm
Ochoa continued by talking about collaboration - recent cross-ctrs engineer mtg., Life Sciences teaming with industry Thu 11:42pm
Ellen Ochoa (JSC) talking about updates to new hire orientation and mentoring at Ctr, also about work/life fit issues. Thu 11:39pm
Panel now has all Deputy Ctr Directors from Johnson, Marshall, Kennedy, Glenn & Stennis. Ochoa (JSC) speaking now #AAS Thu 11:32pm
MLD: Questioner is new hire at GSFC - talked with her re: internal NASA worries/confusion about “advertising” but also real political/fiscal constraints; supported her & gave my card Thu 11:29pm
A question was asked about outreach and got the same old, same old - have to be careful that we don’t “advertise” (MLD: - I’m finding the questioner) Thu 11:08pm
@waynehale just walked in & took a seat w/Mark Craig & me…”This looks like a dangerous place to sit” - good choice, welcome, Wayne! #AAS Thu 11:00pm
American Astronautical Society is unique re: personal opportunities for networking in a very high quality professional organization #AAS Thu 10:28am
Reps from 4 NASA Cntrs - Langley, Dryden, Jet Propulsion Lab & Goddard - are talking about sustainability #AAS Thu 10:22am
AAS Exec Committee/Board working w/group of students from U Illinois during symposium; have interviews for all w/Lockheed Martin, JPL, etc Thu 10:19a
This is Part 1 of the complete Twitter stream that I generated during the 47th Annual American Astronautical Society Goddard Memorial Symposium, held at the Greenbelt Marriott in Greenbelt, Maryland, during this past week (March 11-12). More information on the AAS Goddard Memorial Symposium may be found here, at the AAS website. This transcript should not be interpreted as a comprehensive “follow” of the Symposium, as it (and I) was subject to distractions, interjected conversations, and interruptions. It also (necessarily) reflects those things that were salient to me, and misses things that may be important to others.
The transcript should be read from bottom to top. Where possible I’ve annotated the transcript with links to related materials. All errors are mine and probably reflect high-speed, highly truncated note-taking via BlackBerry. All timestamps are in Eastern Time and reflect the moment when the tweet was posted. Any questions can be directed to me via Twitter at @dittmarml or by direct message (for help with Twitter, go here) Alternatively you can contact me via Dittmar Associates, Inc.
I’m shutting down tweets now, to prepare for AAS Board Mtg & my talk about outreach - will do some tomorrow. Thx for following! Wed 4:58pm
Question from professional early in career as to why there isn’t an intn’l org to work on space? A: there are some. Wed 4:51pm
Schumacher - One answer is sound prgrm mgmt; moves prgrms forward, makes progress, then continue to receive funding, stablizes. Wed 4:46pm
How do you manage talent to enable innovation? How do you convince talent to come/stay? Wed 4:44pm
Superspecialists are critical to breakthroughs but no planning to make sure they stay in workforce? Why? #AAS. Wed 4:42pm
Now talking about challenge of knowledge transfer - not just WRT retirement but retention/transition, and innovation. #AAS Wed 4:41pm
John Schumacher, VP Washing Office, Aerojet (former NASA Chief of Staff) says that pulling all of space together is quite a challenge. #AAS Wed 4:39pm
Talking about need for engineers NOT mirrored by science Ph.D. students who want into space industry can’t get in. Wed 4:31pm
Thoemmes saying that of programs & funding is needed to attract talent; also need to raise awareness. Wed 4:26pm
Eric Thoemmes, VP Space Systems & Operations Lockheed Martin leadership is needed to articulate “why space?” to US. Wed 4:23pm
Whoops - Jim Vedda is not in favor of “protection” of tech at all; seems to suggest we need a totally different system. #AAS Wed 4:17pm
JP Stevens (AIA) Asked Jim if ITAR is an issue re: globalization & called for advocacy to Obama Administration to deal with the problems it creates. Wed 4:11pm
Space slow to address globalization? Or (again) is there an absence of awareness about the role space plays in our lives, so not on the globalization radar screen Wed 4:09pm
James Vedda, Sr. Space Policy Analyst @ The Aerospace Corporation, speaking about globalization and space. #AAS Wed 4:02pm
Q from audience - has SpaceX sought retired people & have they offered signing bonuses to attract talent? A: Yes & No; sought out but not offered bonuses. Wed 3:59pm
Williams saying ITAR impacts decisions about hiring. Also many non US folks can’t get clearances - that’s another problem. #AAS Wed 3:54pm
Larry Williams, VP SpaceX, on wrkfrce issues SpaceX wrkfrce doubling every year. 60% of engineering degrees going to non-US - is a challenge. Wed 3:52pm
JP talking about need for coherent space policy; AIA supporting the notion that Obama Admin will bring back Space Council. Wed 3:49pm
Industry Panel my friend JP Stevens from Aerospace Industries Association is moderating. Wed 3:46pm
Education/HR Pipeline panel Q about reaching out to middle school; panel praised GSFC’s involvement in finding opportunities to do this. Wed 3:35pm
Question from audience: How to get into NASA if GPA isn’t really good? A: Persistence, go out of way to get relevant experience, network. Wed 3:24pm
General agreement that diversity is improving @ NASA/GSFC but need more. Wed 3:21pm
WRT importance of diversity in workforce people from different backgrounds think differently, helps solve problems. Wed 3:18pm
Ramsey Smith talked about use of newer tech to tell about what they do his group has done 2 YouTube videos. Wed 3:13pm
Amri Hernandez Pellerano and Alissa Mitchell talked about importance of mentors. Wed 3:11pm
Brian Roberts he had great mentor and wishes he had taken advice to “look around” inside NASA when new to it. Wed 3:09pm
Education/Human Resources Pipeline in Action panel done differently, w/early career professionals talking about how they came to NASA. Wed 3:07pm
Earth Observation panel talking re: raising public awareness of NOAA/NASA work WRT climate (They are the wrong folks to ask; aren’t PR experts MLD). Wed 2:19pm
Garvin is calling for a Venus Science Program. We have a lab on the greenhouse right next door - but thus far there are no plans for Venus Science Program Wed 2:08pm
Garvin talking about Venus as a “runaway greenhouse effect” but we know very little, have learned very little (not a priority). Wed 2:04pm
Jim Garvin/GFSC - Climate system is not alone; we have data on other planets that can tell us alot about Earth - Venus & Mars particularly. Wed 2:02pm
Nancy Colleton - citing occasional divisions between Exploration & Earth Sciences; thinks climate change work needs both. Wed 1:55pm
New understanding of melt mechanisms now being applied across the globe. Wed 1:44pm
But as Arctic ice decreases, Antarctic ice increasing. Studies of Greenland ice sheet identified new melt mechanisms. Wed 1:43pm
Claire Parkinson Showing Artic ice loss accelerating; 2007 worst year on record. As ice disappears less solar radiation reflected back into space. Wed 1:40pm
Showing chart documenting that ozone depletion has dropped and leveled subsequent to int’l agreements (Montreal Protocol). #AAS Wed 1:34pm
Claire Parkinson/GFSC scientist, AQUA program, talking about climate change. Cool animation showing all climate sats currently in orbit. Wed 1:32pm
Kicza - greatest challenge facing U.S. climate observation is budget. NOAA/NASA working w/int’ls to leverage resources. Wed 1:29pm
Mary Kicza, Assoc. Adm. NOAA, describing NOAA Climate Program Office - talking NOAA and NOAA/NASA projects on climate observ; > 1 dz of them. Wed 1:26pm
Panel: “What NASA is Doing and Can Do to Sustain the Earth” James Garvin/GSFC moderating. 20 yrs ago NASA began “Mission to Planet Earth” - large number of missions. Wed 1:20pm
The same issues [with us now] were with us 40 years ago; so tell colleagues “theyshould focus on their jobs…and GET ON WITH IT” w or w/o NASA Administrator. Wed 2:53pm
40 yrs ago NASA was wrking w/64 nations on space. Wed 12:49pm
Alan Ladwig @ AAS, referencing Apollo 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, gave examples of things @ NASA 40 yrs ago, workforce concerns; MSFC signed agreement for J2 engines; enough said. Wed 12:46pm
Re: STEM & Obama budget: “NASA should coordinate with other programs, leveraging their resources” (direct quote from budget document)
Now talking about NASA, describing 18.7M budget proposal which got through @8:00 last night _with no ammendments_. Listing items. Wed 12:37pm
NASA not “rudderless”; Chris Scolese doing great “everyone’s working together so well probably because there ISN’T an Administrator!” Wed 12:35pm
Alan Ladwig, Sr. Advisor @ NASA HQ & member Obama Trans Team. We’re only 7 wks. into Obama Administration - so WRT new Administrator “just relax.” Wed 12:32pm
Scott re: commercial space - private enterprise needs to do something that pays; need to find ways to figure out what (beyond current attempts) & enable them. Wed 10:55am
Talking about need to CREATE SUSTAINABLE JOBS, provide opportunities to develop skills, and space program is a good place - if nation is serious about STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) Wed 10:44am
Discussing “space commons”: climate change, debris mgmt, protection of electromagnetic spectrum, etc. - all grounds for int’l work, cooperation and collaboration #AAS Wed 10:38am
Pace issuing call for more int’l cooperation; call to renew NASA’s intellectual capital thru greater interaction with tech commercial sector. Wed 10:33am
Challenges to sustainability: “The Gap” & loss of workforce. CxP’s architecture is fastest way to shorten but doesn’t address longer term concerns Wed 10:27am
Scott Pace now speaking - Sustainability of human space flight program depends on rebuilding tech infrastructure & also on political will. Wed 10:20am
Scott Pace next up @ the NASA/American Astronautical Society Goddard Symposium Wed 10:15am
Gen. Lyles discussing Dittmar Associates research (unattributed) on American public; lack of relevance and engagement in NASA; we need to address this Wed 9:52am
He’s also calling for investment in R&D in space science, Earth science, etc. that is not driven by Programs. Wed 9:49am
Gen. Lyles now @ Goddard Symposium - called for “integrated space policy” probably placed under NSC Director and guided by Space Council. Wed 9:45am
February 1st, 2003. The phone rang at 8:20 am. I picked it up out of a dead sleep. I heard my husband on the other end, his voice laced with anxiety and foreboding.
“They’ve lost the shuttle. They can’t find it.”
“What?”
“They can’t find the shuttle…it was over Texas, on re-entry. They’ve lost tracking.”
I was out of bed in an instant.
“Hang on,” I breathed as I headed for the television to flip on NASA Select.
“Wait a minute…” Silence.
Then the most awful sound I ever heard from another human being; a deep groan, the words ripped from his throat.
“Oh, God. Fox has it. It’s breaking up. The shuttle…it’s breaking up.”
“Damn it. DAMN. Why them? Why THEM??”
Agony. Absolute agony in his voice. His heart breaking. My heart breaking for him. A sob, then hanging up for a while.
He was in Norfolk, getting ready to ship out the next day for Iraqi Freedom. He was up to watch the shuttle re-entry; his best friend was aboard. We, along with Tom’s son Derrick and other close friends, had been present in Florida for the launch of Columbia two weeks before. Although preparing to leave, Tom had delighted in images of his friend beamed down from on orbit. Both Naval aviators, he and Dave Brown were shipmates in the sense of the deep brotherhood of the service….and more.
They had been roomates in Fallon, Nevada, near the Naval Air Station when both were there - and later in Houston, Texas when Doc was finally accepted into the astronaut program. Tom eventually followed, beckoned by his friend to come to Texas to see what he could do to help with the training program.
There was a bond between the two of them. Tom said that Doc was his “lighthouse”; his beacon in the darkness.
In 2002, 11 months before his death, Doc was best man at our wedding. (He also filmed it; I watched the film just the other day.) Doc’s toast was moving - saying that “when he was up there, circling the earth, he would look down on the people who mattered the most to him - and he would look down upon the two of us,”…by which, of course, he really meant Tom. I knew Doc - had worked with him before I met my future husband, not knowing of their friendship, or guessing at this day which was then in all of our futures. The three of us had become friends.
But the toast - and the blessing - was for Tom.
I am not certain even now if Tom truly understood Doc’s love for him. He loved and valued Doc, and cherished their friendship - but I am not sure he understood how deep it ran in return. It was evident to me from the first time I saw them together. Just in the short time I knew them, Dave chose many ways to show it beginning before we were married, when he volunteered for and then conspired with Tom to give me a Silver Snoopy - a recognition awarded personally by an astronaut - solely because he knew that Tom cared for me, and would appreciate his effort. He took us both up in his Bonanza after the award, again to honor Tom. Earlier, he took Tom’s father on a flight - one the latter still speaks of with great warmth.
Dave made certain to call Tom after a he was in car accident when Doc was out of town; the tone of his voice warm and concerned as he asked after his friend. When in town, he was “on call”, as we tried to be for him. Perhaps most significantly, he “co-parented” Tom’s oldest son Derrick; helping him with projects during high school, spending hours with him working on computers. When Derrick wasn’t at our house or at work, he was at Doc’s, working with digital images or film, and playing with Doc’s huge Labrador Retriever, Duggans.
Dave did these things and many others for Tom because he loved him as friends do. Words weren’t necessary. Doc’s smile - the twinkle in his eye - said it all. He made these choices to honor his friend, and their friendship.
Tom could barely grieve for Doc when Columbia perished along with her crew. There was precious little time. What there was, was shock, and then the never-ending replays on national television. Blessedly, the Navy sent Tom back to Houston from Norfolk, granting him some time to respond and to honor his friend. From there we went to Washington, D.C., to the National Cathedral and the memorial service there. I was nervous, babbling as I too often do, focused on the mundane out of the sheer helplessness I felt - the desperate wish to ease Tom’s pain. I struggled with the knowledge that there was nothing I could do but stand beside him, and take his hand. I was sick with worry and grief - compounded by the emotional pain of letting go that had passed between us just a few days earlier, when Tom went off to war - or so we had thought. The specter of that separation had been overshadowed by the tragedy now facing us.
A few days later, Tom left again for war, and I focused on coping, pushing away my own grief and loneliness. While he was gone, I tried my best to be “keeper of the flame”, not only for our household - the children, and the rhythm of all the little necessities - but for the friendship between Tom and Doc. I monitored events, followed the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, and chose on a daily basis what information to pass along to Tom and what to censor, trying to make judgments (at Tom’s request) as to what he would want to know and what he would not have the emotional energy to deal with. He was fighting a war; he had to focus on his job there. I had to try to honor him and Dave, and their friendship, from thousands of miles away. It was all I could do; I only hoped it was helpful.
A year later, after he returned from the war, we were back in Washington, this time at Arlington Cemetery for the dedication of the Columbia Memorial. We sat silently through the service and dedication, and then walked quietly to the memorial itself. A friend of Doc’s and Tom’s noticed that Tom had stopped still, staring at the memorial. “Go on, go on up to it,” he urged. Tom couldn’t move; he was frozen, tears in his eyes. I wanted to tell his friend to back off, and might have done so - to give Tom room, and time. He stared and stared, and then his face changed. It seemed to me that then, and only then, did Doc’s death become REAL to Tom. It was only then that he could finally let it in. Without a word, he stepped forward and went to one knee at the grave, his head bowed, his shoulders shaking. I watched my husband, feeling the pride I always felt in him, and the deep respect I had for his service - he was there in his dress blues - and my love and heartbreak for him. I also felt the stirrings of hope. Although it was one of the saddest moments of my life, knowing that there was nothing I could do at that moment to stop the pain…I knew also that I would not have chosen to, even if I could. It was finally time for him to grieve. I prayed for his healing.
Years later, he is grieving still. Although time has dulled the shock and loss, he has been unable to release the pain or to move past it. I have wondered if some of Tom’s grief actually started before Dave’s death. It seemed to me that he had let go of Doc before he died, believing that Doc had let go of him, had moved on…only to feel the bond between them again, so powerfully, once it was no longer contained in this mortal sphere.
I do not believe that Doc had let go. The love of brothers, of friendship, of shipmates was evident in Doc’s response whenever Tom would call him, and in Tom’s response in Doc’s presence, or when telling “Doc stories” - and at his death. This type of love is hard to find and happens only over time. The true test of love is not during the early explorations of a budding friendship, or in the passionate “in-love” feelings of romance, but only after it becomes HARD to love another - once we are tested by separation, by diverging interests, or by conflict. Real love between friends, between lovers, and between parent and child is not only about feelings; even more, it is about commitment, and choice, and all the ways one person demonstrates devotion to another.
The greater the effort to love, the more clearly it shines forth - for those who can see it. There is no more meaningful affirmation we can make of another person than when we love them in spite of pain, in spite of loss, and when they have not made it easy. We do so even when the risk is very high to us, such as is the case within friendships with those who walk where angels fear to tread - astronauts and soldiers, to name just two. I believe that this is what Doc felt for Tom, and I know it is what Tom feels for Doc. Theirs was a fortunate friendship - a great and enduring gift.
Two days ago, I stood again in Arlington at the Columbia Memorial. It had snowed in Washington the day before and it was cold and icy at the grave as it had been at the dedication 5 years earlier. As I always do while there, I talked to Dave. I stayed for over an hour until I couldn’t feel my feet. There was alot to talk about - our marriage, in which Tom has lost faith, and the threat to Doc’s mission and that of all of his crewmates that is poised by global economic conditions. Both were scenarios that he and I had talked about while he was still alive.
This year in particular, I wished I knew what he would say in response.
It is 6 years ago this day, February 1st as I type this, that Columbia was lost. My heart is still with my husband in those terrible moments years ago. I still hear Doc’s voice as I think about our wedding day, and I wonder what he would think upon looking down on us now.
I know from my own life that although we may lose sight of them from time to time, lighthouses such as Doc was to Tom are never extinguished. They reflect God’s presence, manifest in the human spirit. It was an honor to witness that friendship between two extraordinary people, and to touch that light, however briefly.
God bless you, Dave, and Tom.
Hail, Columbia.
(Crew portrait: STS-107, Columbia. Doc on bottom right.)
