Who Owns the Moon? It's Complicated. cnn.com The Outer Space Treaty provides a legal framework for the international use of space for peaceful purposes, including the moon and other celestial bodies. Widely considered the "Magna Carta of space law," this treaty lays down the fundamental principle of non-appropriation and that the exploration and use of space shall be the province of all mankind.
Hubble Delays Test Flight of Ares Rocket floridatoday.com A five-week slip in NASA's final Hubble Space Telescope servicing call will trigger a mirror-image delay in the first test flight of a new Ares 1 moon rocket, officials said Thursday.
John Glenn Wants Shuttles' Lives Extended USA Today Glenn called for continued work on the International Space Station beyond 2015, when the nation plans to pull the plug on its commitment. "The investment we have up there and the potential for learning new things are tremendous at a time when we're coming under additional global competition," Glenn said of the $100 billion space station, which he described as "the greatest, most complex laboratory ever put together."
May 28, 2008
After Apollo 11 lifted off en route to the world's first moon landing, The New York Times published a small retraction to a previous editorial they had published 49 years before: "We have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error."
It went unnoticed by the general public, and didn’t mention Robert Goddard by name. But it was small consolation anyway, since Goddard had been dead since 1945, probably due, in part, to the lingering effects of the original editorial.
So who is Robert Goddard and why was the Times throwing him a bone on the eve of what was arguably America’s greatest scientific achievement?
In an age before powered flight, he had his head way beyond the clouds, dreaming of some device that could ascend, even, to Mars. As a student and professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, he delved into the arithmetic of propulsion and calculated impressive things like energy-to-weight ratios.
He launched the world's first-ever liquid-fueled rocket in 1915, sending it all of 41 feet, from his Aunt Effie’s cabbage patch in Auburn, Mass. The next year, he was front-page news around the country when he said he was planning to hit the moon with a rocket, although he had no rocket capable of going 200 feet, much less the 238,000 miles required.
When the Smithsonian Institute published his “Reaching High Altitudes” paper, a press release that went with it advertised Goddard's moon plans: “According to Goddard’s theory we can produce a rocket engine that could generate thrust in a vacuum." Which set off the public's frenzy over “Moon rockets" and the “Moon Rocket Professor.”
It also got The New York Times foaming at the mouth. The now-infamous editorial was unsigned, stating that Goddard “does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react – to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”
Ouch.
Goddard was stunned by the personal attack and stayed out of the limelight, launching variations of his original design. America’s failure to compete with German rocket scientists was blamed, in a debate, on government failure to listen our own "mad" scientist.
Fifteen years after his death in 1945, the U.S. government, in a milestone decision, awarded his widow $1 million for infringing on Goddard's patents.
Today, we realize Goddard’s work is a direct forerunner of space travel, satellite technology, and deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Werner Von Braun and the Wright Brothers — the only aviation pioneers, incidentally, who ranked ahead of him in a recent poll by the National Air and Space Museum.
Which brings me to my own brief, but signed, editorial: Our liberties depend on the freedom of the press that can't be limited without being lost. But that doesn't mean the press shouldn't perhaps think before attempting to damage anyone’s life, on subjects they know nothing about—which covers slightly more ground than Goddard’s first rocket attempt.
When Is a Retraction Not Enough? cnn.com The most famous recantation in history was that made by the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei, when threatened by the Inquisition in 1633 with dire punishment for advocating the theory of Copernicus that the earth was not the center of the universe but that it moved around the sun: ''I abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies,'' swore the intimidated scientist, legendarily adding under his breath, ''eppur si muove'' -- ''but it moves.'' (That retraction of his recantation is apocryphal, probably the starry-eyed wish of subsequent astronomers.)
Rockets in Ancient Times nasa.gov Ever since humans first saw birds soar through the sky, they have wanted to fly. The ancient Greeks and Romans pictured many of their gods with winged feet, and imagined mythological winged animals.
Goddard. The Man Had Patents nasa.gov During Dr. Goddard's lifetime, 48 patents were issued to him. Thirty-five others, for which he had applied, were completed and issued after his death. Mrs. Goddard, as executor, applied for and obtained 131 additional patents, based on notes, sketches, and photographs left by Dr. Goddard. The total number of Goddard patents is thus 214.
What's the duty of a free press?
19% 0% 76% 5%
Personally, I would put Goddard ahead of Werner Von Braun. But I admit the Wright Brothers earn their place at the top of the poll. Their position as trailblazers makes all the difference.
The need to reach for the stars, whether literally or figuratively, has always been an integral part of mankind's nature. Without it, we're just another member of the animal kingdom.
I was recently studying some journalistic reactions to the Brooklyn Bridge (in honor of its 125th anniversary that just passsed) and found an interesting comment that also touches on the kind of work that Goddard and Von Braun did: Great art does not satisfy a need so much as it creates a new need. No one knew that we needed Beethoven's Fifth Symphony until he wrote it. But now that it's there, how can we live without it?
This same concept applies to scientific experimentation, adventure, discovery, and achievement. And it all speaks to the glorious insatiability of mankind's curiosity. Long before we landed on the moon, the idea of doing so fascinated. But, when the first moonwalk finally occurred, no one said "That's it, we're done!" It was only the beginning, a new beginning. Far from satisfying us, it created a whole new category of curiosities that demand an unattainable satisfaction.
As for the press, the ability to be a journalistic stumblebum is a classic example of what freedom must allow. It's the risk vs. certainty principle. With the free press, we risk the occasional idiotic editorial. But, as soon as the government takes control of the press, you GUARANTEE such a travesty.
I believe firmly in a free press. I believe there should be no censorship of any kind. Educated good taste should dictate what you read.
Having said that, I also believe that modern journalism is not always objective. There are too many articles that are nothing more than opinion and speculation dressed up as objectivity. There are too many journalists who become a part of the story instead of just reporting the facts.
I'm an advid reader of the business news and a watcher of business news programs. (Boring? Yes, but not to me). However, more and more I see the "reporters" and news anchors giving their opinions dressed up as news. Financial advise shows are infected by even more opinions and recommendations that are clearly self-serving.
Maybe that's the way it's always been, but today it's more obvious because all the reporters are personalities or stars in their own right and they think their opinion is the news.
When so-called "serious news" is covering Brittney Spears as if she were the leader of the free world we're all in trouble. Her story belongs in a gossip magazine.
I always read different viewpoints even if I don't agree with them. I try to stay informed, to learn. It's not always easy today.
Now I'm going to breakfast with La Donna (Agent666: see what you started.) Breakfast with a friend is the best way to start the day....I highly recommend it. What passes for the news can wait....reality is much better.
To DreadPirateRoberts,
You bring up an interesting point about exploration and discovery. I think the problem with so many people today is that they expect the media to tell them what they're supposed to think. They find it difficult to think out a position for themselves.
It's easier to have some "talking head" tell you how you're supposed to believe than to think for yourself. You end up believing someone's else's opinion than attempting to reason out a belief of your own.
It's like an administration or a politician who makes policy based on opinion polls. I voted them in to think not see which way the wind was blowing.
As usual, ExPat has hit the nail squarely on the head. Editorial spin masquerading as news is rampant. When a popular editorialist like Michael Moore is constantly called a "documentarian" or when Bill O'Reilly -- who asks flagrantly leading questions -- leads the far more even-handed Larry King in popularity, how are we to hope for journalistic objectivity?
Nevertheless, as we have each stated, this is still preferable to censorship or a government-controlled press. In the immortal words of "Hustler" publisher, Larry Flynt: "If you don't like my magazine, don't read it!"
As for the increased reliance on talking heads, I am reminded of a scene in "The Fountainhead". During a big celebration of Howard Roark's new building, Peter Keating tells Dominique Francon, "I've been trying to take an opinion poll of the guests to see what they think of the architecture." Dominique replies, "Why? So you can figure out what you think of it yourself?"
I have engaged in many debates with colleagues, friends, and family, in which I have noticed how few people know how to form a coherent argument. They know how to simply insist that they are right, but not how to back up a position and render it tenable. These are the same people who, when they vote, only pay attention to whether their candidate has a little (D) or a little (R) in the parenthesis after their name on C-Span. They pay very little mind to what their candidate actually says or what his voting and legislation record has been.
And, of course, your outrage with politicians who pay too much attention to opinion polls is entirely justified. The British parlimentarian, Edmund Burke, famously stated: "A representative owes his people not only his industry, but his judgment. And he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion."
To DreadPirateRoberts,
"The Fountain Head" is one of my favorites! I recall the scene very well.
There's talk about another Rand novel, Atlas Shrugged' becoming a movie. Angelie Joilie (a fan of Rand) wants the female lead. There's talk Brad Pitt might accept the role of John Gault.
I think the time is right for some Randian "objectivity".
The press must remain free. A government controlled press would be horrible. And some days, I wonder who really is in control of the media given the type of information the government feeds and leaks to the press on a regular basis.
To make matters worse, the majority of the general public doesn't fully think for themselves. As DreadPirateRoberts points out, people simply regurgitate what they've been told to think by the news media or toe the party line. People can be sheeple when it comes to critical thinking. It's as if questioning the majority position is a bad thing, which is such a far cry from what a little British colony did when it said it should govern itself a couple of centuries ago.
And to ExPat and LaDonna, I expect to be invited to at least be a member of the wedding party. I had no idea you guys lived in the same city. Small world.
A free society and freedom of the press have always been and shall always remain absolutely codependent upon one another. One cannot exist without the other. This places an enormous amount of responsibility on the press to achieve and maintain an almost absolute level of integrity and trust with the public. As we all know, trust is so very powerful, yet so very delicate and fragile.
To establish and maintain its trustworthiness, the press must take all of the steps necessary to ensure that what it reports is validated, accurate and unbiased as possible. The importance of this has grown exponentially since the birth of the internet which along with all of the obvious benefits has enabled mistakes, errors of judgment and lies to be made and communicated to the world at the speed of light. Once that arrow has been let loose, there is no stopping its flight.
As long as mere mortals, who are driven by the need for speed to be the first to report, are involved in the process of delivering the news, there will always be errors made, shortcuts taken and neglect. Innocent people may be hurt, the guilty may be overlooked, and poorly informed decisions will be made. To print retractions or make corrections decades later or buried somewhere on page eighteen will only serve to widen the breach of trust even further.
To admit they were wrong and to make amends immediately and boldly would go a long ways towards mending that breach and maintaining trust.
ExPat & DPR,
The "Fountain Head" and "Atlas Shrugged" are also among my favorites. It is time for a healthy dose of objectivity.
To: Agent666,
Oh...My...Gosh.....Thought I would just stop by, working on packing a home and closing on Friday, and I see I'm getting married!!!????!!!
No, ExPat is in CA, and I'm in TX. We are just friends who stop my and say hi in Twitterville! And, I'm thinking....after reading some of the comments yesterday, we are going to have to invite more of you to the little town of twitterville! I'm keeping my eye on you, so be good!
rings90 said...
"The Press must remain Free" Ideally everyone in America believes this until there is book or a editorial or a journalist who makes a statement that offends someone in America & then that author, writer, anchor must be tarred & feathered & spoken of in hushed voices forevermore.
America has a somewhat free Press what we do not have is an objective press in anyway. Maybe changing the word Free to Objective would make a difference in today's society. But I am a skepitic about it.
Can the press be worng wasn't Fultons Steamboat paraded by the press as Fulton's Folly? Yet his steam invention paved the way for faster & commercial water transports & eventually the railroads used his ideas as a means of transportation.
The press will never be objective ~ I don't think it ever has been in a free society or not. It is it's jobs to report the facts but in today's world people don't want just the facts Sorry Dective Joe Friday but the facts are just not what's wanted anymore.
People want to be (to tie in yesterdays column) lazy they do not want to think for themselves & are ready to take whatever opinion is thrown at them at the time. Why think for yourself when there's others that will read it, write it, & do it all for you because they are on TV & that is your gospel.
The only thing you can do to protect yourself from this large part of society is to think for yourself & listen to all sides of the story.
I tend to lean a certian direction politically but I can back up my ideas with facts & yeas I happen to check in the voting records of my reps in the State & the Federal Legislation. I don't depend on the TV news to feed me my information because they only can do minute details of all of it. Most news stories are 30 to 45 seconds long. Really how do you get a full objective story across in that short of time span? That's the amount of time it takes to heat my water for tea.
John Gault = Brad Pitt ~ Somehow whenever I ask or am asked "who is John Gault?" I have NEVER pictured Brad Pitt. Casting of John Gault & the casting of Dagney Taggert with today's crop of actors actually kind of scares me.... A healthy dose of Objectivity in this matter is most certainly needed....
Musical satirist Tom Lehrer wrote a wonderful piece on Werner Von Braun many years ago. For a good chuckle, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVPjuiABp_E. Ironic that the father of the American space program was a Nazi.
To: Agent666,
La Donna and I are having cyber-breakfast together everyday. Me? Married again? Once was enough.
Next, we'll part of the J. Peterman Owners' Manual......
"a mysterious, distinguished California businessman/adventurer known only as Expat was seen having breakfast in Texas with the stunnigly beautiful La Donna, a famous artist. They were wearing the latest J. Peterman clothing. Agent666 said they were deep in conversation. Everybody thought they were married, but they were only 'twittering'. I think everyone should try twittering at least once.
"The Expat safari jacket and the La Donna wrap around denim skirt can be yours. Perhaps Agent666 will see you twittering in Texas, but if you're like ExPat and La Donna you'll smile knowingly and continue twittering. What could be more romantic?"
For Expat,
The copy needs a little work, but, possible hidden talent may exist.
To: Mr. Peterman,
Thanks for the kind review. I was suddenly inspired, I did it spontaneously. I'm not sure anyone could top the writing in the Owner's Manual.
You have my permission to use the "mysterious.... ExPat'" in a future Owner's Manual if you like.
I promise to keep my creative writing to a I'm inspired again Ha!Ha!)minimum (unless
ExPat
I meant to say: "creative writing to a minimum.....unless I'm inspired again (Ha!Ha!).
Hey, that's why they have copy editors.
ExPat,
Thank you for the very nice words, now I want to buy the wrap around denim skirt! See you in twitterville!
To: La Donna,
You're welcome. See you soon.......
Spinner said...
Okay.. Okay.. Back to the topic at hand. We all know how objective the news channels are... But maybe a hugh engine driving their political bent is advertising. The broadcasting of a cable news channel is mostly dependent upon ad income. This is quite different from the days when Franklin was publishing his papers and flyers. And if one really looks at some of those early revolutionary papers, they were pretty biased as well. Today. regional papers are also very much dependent upon ad money to survive as well. We may think the local paper is way too far left or right and fuss that they are not objective, but they may in fact be trying to be as fair as possible, but seeing the world through the left or right lens. But if the advertisers don't like what is said, it doesn't matter because the paper will be out of business.
Gotta go now because my husband just received his Gerald Murphy pants from J Peterman and I have to hem them. Really cool, comfy pants, by the way.
While we all crave objectivity, it is certainly no secret that it is in short supply even in a free press. But Spinner makes an excellent point regarding the papers making the best attempt they can. I come from the highly right-wing Joplin, MO. I now live in the highly left-wing New York City. All of my Missouri Republican friends complain that the news leans too heavily to the left. All of my New York Democrat friends complain that the news leans too heavily to the right. I figure, if BOTH sides are kvetching, chances are the news is doing okay.
But a free press does not guarantee freedom from error (and this includes the errors a journalist may be tempted into by his own opinions). To once again quote my favorite philosopher, my late father: "There is no such thing as a perfect society, only a perfectly FREE society. Even in a perfectly free society, people will continue to fight with their spouses and over-estimate their capacity for strong drink."
Any attempt on behalf of the government to impose objectivity on the press would be as disastrous as their attempts to impose fairness on the market. If anyone doubts the effects of government-imposed fairness, let me recommend you re-read Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron".
JillyBean said...
What a shame that Goddard let a little bad press get him down! If he truly believed in his work, he should've fought back against the criticism. Actors get rejected 9 out of 10 auditions, but they keep going, and they're living fiction! Goddard, with scientific fact on his side, should've stayed in the limelight and proved the ignorant and egomaniacal media wrong. I guess now a retraction will have to do...and a million bucks.
Spinner said...
Another thought about today's press. Maybe we shouldn't worry about the big stories first. Maybe we should just take this one small step at a time. Like getting their grammar correct! Ever try to diagram some of the printed sentences in the paper? And they want us to give our papers to schools when we are out of town. Is that to use by English teachers to demonstrate how NOT to write? Just today, in the Louisville Courier Journal, they had a very nice story about a new siamang at the zoo that joins two others we have. Twice they refered to them as monkeys.. THEY ARE APES for goodness sakes. If they were going to do a story on them, send someone that knows something about primates!
Now don't get me started on another one of my rants . . . but suffice it to say that our local "Daily Chronicle" has truly earned it's reputation as the "The Daily Comical"(which would probably be the "Daily Komical"if they printed it). I don't believe that their ability to spell the same persons name three different ways between the headline and the second paragraph is an example of their creativity.
Complete sentences,.... just a dream. But then I often shudder when I go back and revisit some of my posts.
I think it's really surprising how little it takes to be a journalist. And the objectivism of it! I probably know a lot less about what I'm talking about than I'm pretending to, but I think that when a certain person has only until the next day's paper to write an article, and in and of themselves being only humans, the capacity for error is Promethean. There's a huge margin for mistakes: contacts being biased, 'common knowledge' being false, as above; or perhaps some length needs to be added and voila, we have some extra information based on a shallow pool of scientific knowledge gleaned from the journalist's tenth grade physics class. Most newspaper articles should probably be taken with a grain of salt, if only a grain.
And! To Spinner:
I live in Florida, where we're just entering the swelteringly-hot, painfully-humid part of the year, and I find that spending all day in my Gerald Murphy pants, lounging, is one of the most relaxing things one can do. And I have to say, it's probably the pants that make it such.