Posted by Strictly Skewed at 199.199.216.61 on January 23, 2004 at 16:03:59:
In Reply to: Okay again... posted by Championship_Vinyl on January 23, 2004 at 15:40:56:
: I know, but they're astronauts nonetheless, ones who have undergone the same fundamental training as the ones who have the most menial task on the shuttle.
Yes, but you see, you're making my point. We need astronauts to do more to take on more risk. We have to be willing to take the losses for the sake of advancement.
: : So what? How dangerous is it to sail across the ocean? Now, not very. A few hundred years ago? MUCH more dangerous than what astronauts face now. That's my point, we go TOO far in trying to make these things safe. The point is still, the danger they face is completely disproportionate to the hero worship they enjoy.
: Point taken. I see exactly what you mean now, and I agree. But media and ploitical sensationalism tends to heap the 'hero' moniker on everyone and everything that crosses our paths. I simply think that at least *some* of that word is warranted in this case, because I think their job is infinitely more dangerous and bold than anything I'd ever want to do.
Oh, yes. Even our current astronauts are heroic to a certain degree.
: : So, what are you saying, that 98% of the people that apply really just want to chicken out?
: No, not at all. I'm saying that 98% of the applicants simply don't have to ability to do it, no matter how much they may feel they can. It's like those American Idol auditions - some people just aren't as good as they think. By now, NASA has astronaut selection down to a science (and granted, I'm sure there are an amazing amount of politics involved, i.e. not *what* you know, but *who* you know), and they look for very specific traits that I don't think a lot of human beings possess. Like, some fighter pilots may think they have the "right stuff" because they fly carrier missions, but NASA rejects them in a heartbeat because they're not quite as wonderful as they may think.
Depends on what you mean by ability. What they look for now is very different than what they looked for forty years ago. Again though, this argues towards their uniqueness for the task, not their heroism.
: : I never said that the missions don't accomplish anything, my point was that the astronauts are doing it out of selfish reasons.
: I'm sure the 'glory' and 'hero' aspect of it appeal to many of them, but at the same time, I don't think it makes what they do any less noble, personally. Over the years, our heroes have simply become more willing to accept the title. That fault would lie in the individual, and not necessarily within the profession.
I have to disagree. The whole definition of hero has to do with doing something as a service for someone else. And by the way, by 'self-interest' I'm not just talking glory. For example, the reason I would like to go into space has nothing to do with glory, but just for the experience, which is what I think most astronauts (the current crop, anyway) are in it for.
: At the same time, I'm a geek who thinks it's neat, so that tends to make me argue for it.
I think it's neat too, and as a member of society, I'm willing for those dollars to be spent, but my point was that the research they conduct on the Shuttle is not a justification for continuing the program.
: : Yes, they get paid. Just like astronauts (of course, not as much). But they go into the profession knowing they will be exposing themselves to danger, and accepting that, not for money, but because they want to perform a service.
: But, like astronauts, many of them also have no problem humbly accepting the 'hero' moniker for that service.
Except, how many of them are labeled 'heroes' before dying in the line of duty, the way astronauts are. Going into these professions hoping to be labeled hero is stupid, since it happens to so few. Not that I'm disagreeing that some do this exact thing.