NASA: 25 years after the Challenger, It’s gone green.

It was 25 years ago that I, and so many others, watched the space shuttle Challenger lifting off… and then explode.

Later that day, President Reagan delivered a simple, and powerful message about the national tragedy.

Concerning NASA and its mission, Reagan said,

The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them.

I’ve always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don’t hide our space program. We don’t keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That’s the way freedom is, and we wouldn’t change it for a minute. We’ll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue. I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works for NASA or who worked on this mission and tell them: “Your dedication and professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades. And we know of your anguish. We share it.”

Ah yes: the days of yore when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was all about, y’know, exploring space, and “winning the future,” to borrow a phrase, by establishing American supremacy even of outer space! We were putting teachers in space and proudly telling our kids about it!

NASA Logo

Remember when this reliably meant space travel?

Nowadays? Well, nowadays NASA is telling kids that dinosaur are in their gas tank, that humans are definitely causing global warming, and that using a re-useable bag makes one better than those who don’t. No, really.

They call it “Climate Kids.” It’s part of the “new” mission Obama designated for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: convince all us dupes (or at least our kids) that bogus science isn’t bogus. Because if you repeat a lie loudly enough, to a crowd that impressionable enough, through media that are convincing enough, things like *facts* no longer matter. (Hey, it just might work: after all, it got him elected!)

558 views

Categories:Uncategorized

5 thoughts on “NASA: 25 years after the Challenger, It’s gone green.

  1. Phil says:

    Is it Catholic doctrine to believe that the earth isn’t getting warmer, that global warming is not human-caused, or that fossil fuels don’t contain prehistoric carbon?

    I could understand why a post like this might appear on a generic Republican blog, but what exactly is the Catholic angle here?

    Can a Catholic scientist state, “I believe that global warming is human-caused” and still be a good Catholic?

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Phil, “belief” is not the province of science; it is the province of faith and religion. Science is about observation and testing to establish knowables. If a scientist uses “I believe” w.r.t. something, it can only be a hypothesis or a flimsy theory, pending testing and the processes of science. Thus far, the “science” that undergirds the notion that global warming is a serious threat or that it is caused by human activity is dubious, at best. A scientist (Catholic or not) who uses the phrase “I believe that global warming is human-caused” must acknowledge (if he is honest, which a good Catholic is expected to be) that his “belief” is just that: a belief. It is not observed, isolated, tested, and established. As such, it crosses the line into religious belief if one holds that belief and then orders one’s life according to it.

      1. Phil says:

        Scientific knowledge consists, essentially, of beliefs expressed with varying degrees of certainty. A scientist who states “I believe that global warming is human-caused” is expressing a belief in the same way that a doctor might state “I believe you may have Alzheimer’s” or “I believe that HIV leads to AIDS.” The fact that it is possible to believe the opposite of a claim does not mean that both sides automatically have equal weight.

        And, of course, this has very little to do with the Catholic faith. A scientist who believes that global warming is human-caused has an obligation to be honest, just as a scientist who believes otherwise. Nothing about their process of analyzing facts and interpreting them makes them good or bad Catholics unless they intentionally lie or deceive.

        Thus far, the “science” that undergirds the notion that global warming is a serious threat or that it is caused by human activity is dubious, at best.

        This is a matter of opinion, and whether that statement is true or not has nothing to do with Catholicism. A Catholic blogger could just as easily find the evidence for human-caused global warming and write with disdain about writers or politicians who take the same line as the massive corporations whose best interests are served by sowing doubt about global warming.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          The problem, Phil, is when scientists and politicians with an agenda, use “beliefs” based on far-from-proven theories rather than “knowns” to establish policy and coerce behavior. When that happens, which is the point of my post, they are lying/deceiving/otherwise being unfair and abusive of government power to the point of immorality. And don’t forget the massive industry that has become the “green movement” when you’re counting the massive corporations with a hat in the ring. The difference is, the majority of the massive corporations who stand to gain the most by scaring people into believing the earth is warming to an unsafe degree and it’s our fault also rely disproportionately on government largesse through government contracts and legislation that would require us poor saps to buy their products (CFL bulbs, anyone?).

  2. RMT says:

    What I hate is when the enviro-cr@p causes people to lose their lives. The heat resistant tiles lost on the Shuttle Columbia a few years back were “new green technology”forced on NASA by the EPA–and the entire crew lost their lives. There was a tile system that was proven, and has protected our astronauts for many years now, but the EPA found that the tiles polluted the atmosphere on re-entry, so they used an unproven tile for the re-entry for Columbia.

    I’m all for new technology that will allow for better stewardship of creation, but to put peoples’ lives at risk because there *could* be a risk to the environment is going over the line.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.