Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Nikon Shotz!!
Fixed my camera up and took it out for the first time in a long time. Forgotten how challenging it is using film, but I managed to get a couple decent shots. Most of them are from a bike ride the other night which was amazing. Some of the others are just random places that I find myself throughout the day. I've begun taking the camera with me wherever I go so more pictures should be in their way as soon as I can develop them. My favorites are my sis driving her new car, Remas posing for the camera and the intersection at night time. Its an older Nikon F70 film camera so hopefully with time I can figure out how to work some of the features,let alone find money to buy film.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A paper I wrote for class
NASA Funding For the Future
“I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.”
(HAL - 2001: A Space Odyssey)
“2001; A Space Odyssey” is to this date one of the greatest science fiction movies known to man, not only for the revolutionary visuals and epic art of storytelling, but for its raw depiction of mans evolution into the stars. U.S. lunar Landings, which took place shortly after the film’s release, are greatly influenced by Kubrick’s psychedelic masterpiece. Even now, thirty two years later, the concepts for future technologies, artificial intelligence, and human evolution are embraced by the cultural impact of the film. Kubrick is taking us on a conceptual ride of consciousness and evolution and inspires us to think about our origins as a species and where we are heading in the (hopefully) not too distant future. The phrase “Space Odyssey” forces us to think outside of the box, outside of traditional storytelling. The shuttle docking with the orbiting space station, the journey in the shuttle from the space station to the moon - even the Lunar base that the astronauts land on - these are all evidence of the concepts incorporated into the film, and unconsciously we became inspired by Kubrick’s ideals. In 1969, when the United States first landed on the moon, we were untouchable. Other nations leered at us jealously, envious that our flag had been planted where theirs had not. We were the ones staring into the empty void of space and ever optimistically quadrupling our efforts to achieve the greatest accomplishment known to mankind. We were fearless. We were diligent, and we were the future.
2001 came and went, and there are no moon bases or operating orbiting shuttles to
take us there. There is no artificial intelligence available to us that could monitor, command, and take control of a sophisticated launch vehicle or orbital space station. Not only has our country faded out of the conquest for outer space travel, but we are far behind our time. We saw act one, so where is act two? For these reasons the United States government should increase its federal funding for NASA. Raising the funding for NASA will increase scientific development, ensure vast technological advancements, and create jobs that could help revitalize the economy. If federal funding for NASA is increased the administration would have the liquid capital they need to send a manned mission back to the moon to establish a lunar base, which in turn will declare our intentions to Russia and China who also have plans to go to the moon. NASA will develop a strong foundation for private corporations and enterprises to follow their footsteps. These private enterprises are ideal because the moon has an abundant amount of helium-3 underneath its surface, which can be used as a revolutionary energy source through fusion reaction. This is the same reason other countries are interested in going to the moon.
President Obama has announced that the federal funding for NASA’s Constellation Program, the agencies program responsible for getting Americans back to the moon by 2020, be put to an end. According to an article written in The Washington post: “Obama’s proposed budget adds $6 billion over the next five years to NASA’s budget to help extend the life of the international space station to 2020. But most of the funds would bankroll the private construction of spaceships that can ferry astronauts into space” (O’Keefe). NASA’s budget is now expected to slightly increase over the current $18.7 billion, and shamefully throw the research and hard labor put toward developing the ORION and ARES1 booster rocket in the garbage. Former NASA administrator Micheal Griffin, views the Obama budget as disastrous for human spaceflight. According to NASA administrator Micheal Griffin, "It means that essentially the U.S. has decided that they're not going to be a significant player in human space flight for the foreseeable future. The path that they're on with this budget is a path that can't work” (AchenBach). Obama calls for private enterprises to provide transportation to and from the International Space Station. When it comes down to it, private companies are not ready for this endeavor. Take a look at the Challenger incident, Griffin states, “NASA’s space shuttles have a 1/2000 failure rate” (Malik); this means that the private sector would need much time
and money put aside if they want to begin transporting humans into space.
Theoretical Physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, announced, “ This is not just cutting into the muscle and reaching the bone it’s cutting off an arm, cutting off a leg. Due to the recent plans for NASA, we will have to rely on Russia for a decade, and once we do arrive at the moon, we would then become territorial and that would cause conflict. When you compare ourselves to other countries, you can see that all countries are hurting right now, but Russia has a flourishing booster rocket business. We’re not going to have a booster Rocket until the next generation” (Michio Kaku Rips NASA Plan).
NASA’s budget jumps back and forth from 0.7% to 1.0% of the federal expenditures. When we compare NASA’s allowance to the technologies and knowledge given to us by them, it hardly seems fair. NASA's highest share of total federal expenditures was 5.5%, which occurred in 1966 (The World Almanac & Book of facts 2000). One can see that NASA should be funded the way it was nearly 50 years ago. Had the U.S. only given NASA the funding it deserved plainly because the at the time our nation was so eager and competitive to be the first ones to reach the moon? And if so, then what happened to that ambition that the nation used to possess? President Obama has set a budget for NASA that consists of $18.686 billion compared to 2009’s $17.782 billion (Jones). This budget will help to extend the development of the International Space Station to the year 2020. The ISS is a remarkable development, but we do not gain much from it for the money that is put into the project. Professor Kaku states that, “The same research and experiments that are conducted within the ISS can be done in booster rockets for a fraction of the cost” (Michio Kaku Rips NASA Plan). With the constellation program now cancelled, we can expect there to be no booster rockets, missions back to the moon, and no missions to Mars any time soon.
If NASA received the funding it needed, then astronauts could be sent back to the moon. This time instead of placing a flag and marking mankind’s furthest venture, we could establish a moon base. Establishing a lunar space station would achieve two main agenda items listed on President Obama's change.gov. Transition web page: 1) Revitalizing the Economy and 5) Renewing American Global Leadership (The Obama-Biden plan). National Geographic journalist John Roach says, “The moon base will allow for sustained human presence on the moon's surface and help the agency prepare for future
mission to Mars” (Roach).
Going back to the moon would not only get the United States back into outer space, but it would grant the opportunity to excavate the revolutionary energy source of Helium-3. He-3 is an extremely potent, nonpolluting perfect fuel source with virtually no radioactive by-product. Unfortunately, hardly any exists on Earth, but there are copious amounts that exist on the moon. There is enough He-3 on the moon to power the world for thousands of years; twenty five tons could supply the entire energy needs for a year. According to Gerald Kulcinski, Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) in Wisconsin,“Helium-3 fusion energy may be the key to future space exploration and settlement” (Wakefield).
When solar winds, rapid streams of charged particles emitted by the sun, hit the moon’s surface He-3 is deposited within the soil. The reason it is rare to find He-3 on Earth is because of its atmosphere, whereas the moon has none. Kulcinski states, “Meteorite bombardment disperses the particles throughout the top several meters of the lunar soil” (Wakefield).This process takes billions of years.
Helium-3 can be used for fusion reaction which is the process in which multiple like-charged atomic nuclei come together to form a denser nucleus; in this process massive amounts of energy are given off. Let’s pretend that He-3 plants have already been built and all that is needed is the tanks of He-3 to carry out the reactions. Normal helium has two protons and two neutrons; helium three only has two protons and one neutron. Artemis project lead Gregory Bennett conveys, “The sun produces helium by fusing atoms of hydrogen together and about one in every thousand atom of helium comes out missing a neutron, thus we have He-3. Deuterium is used in He-3 fusion reaction. Deuterium has one proton and one neutron; the deuterium and helium 3 join and release a proton of helium-4. The products weigh less than the initial components; the missing mass is converted into energy” (Bennett).
Helium 3 fusion reaction has undergone frequent tests and has come to prove several things.
Firstly, there are no green house or acid gasses emitted during the fusion reaction. This means that it keeps the ozone free of the pollutants that are harming it today. There are very high efficiencies and possibilities, greater than 70% (Kulcinski). Kulcinki states that “There is no residual radioactivity after thirty years of operation (No radioactive waste or nuclear safety hazard)” (Kulcinski). “There is ten times more energy in
the helium 3 that exists on the moon than in all the economically recoverable coal, and natural gas on Earth” (Kulcinski). This is an extremely viable source of energy that if NASA had the funding it
needed than perhaps we could solve the energy crisis and that just the beginning. He-3 can be used for many other applications such as “Medical isotope production, Cancer therepy, and even space propulsion” (Kulcinski).
Private corporations will follow NASA’s lead to the moon and further into space given NASA is granted the funding it deserves. Private corporations would be ideal because of the He-3 found on the moon. Once NASA establishes a moon base and starts mining, the private sector will follow as they have in the past. Companies like SpaceX, Virgin galactic and Scaled Composites will all want to get their foot on the moon and start making money off of the He-3 trade. This is without a doubt the reason other countries such as Russia, China, and India are pushing the bar at getting to the moon as soon as possible. Professor Kaku states “We know for a fact that space generates revenue, commerce, and communications that have given us an edge over other countries” (Michio Kaku Rips NASA Plan). An article in The New York Times states “ SpaceX successfully launched a small falcon 1 rocket into orbit in 2008 and successfully deployed a satellite last year. It has a $1.6 billion contract with NASA to bring supplies to the International Space Station in its larger Falcon 9 rocket” (Chang). The fact that SpaceX already has ties with NASA and the International Space Station goes to show you that wherever NASA goes they will follow.
Now with the constellation program gone and ARES and Orion exploration vehicle cancelled, NASA is giving these private corporations the “Playing field” to approach space exploration in a feasible and cost efficient manner. NASA is no longer the leader in space exploration and this is bad thing because the private sector has never been in charge before. NASA has always lead other agencies into the future of discovery.
Let’s assume the plan works and commercial interests ultimately develop rockets and manned space craft. Where will the pool of astronauts originate that fly these missions? If NASA gets out of the astronaut business altogether and grants the private sector with the privilege of training their own astronauts to fly the missions, are these enterprises prepared to hire and train elite teams capable of fulfilling NASA’s
legacy of space trained cadets? Also, when the private sector ferrys crew member to the ISS do they drop them off and go home or do they dock and stay aboard for six months. If they go home, how do they meet the emergency return requirements? That would require the development of a second vehicle that would have to remain docked and dedicated to that purpose. Private corporations need NASA in front of them to pave the road for their future. Without a strong sense of leadership, each company will go in their own direction and do as they please.
Discussing the issue of going back to the moon and setting up a lunar base for future hopes of a colony would inevitably bring up the topic of lunar ownership. So who owns the moon? The first article discussing the idea was proposed by John Cobb Cooper in 1951 and was entitled “High altitude flight and national sovereignty.” Many theoretical discussions followed, with scholars ageing that the moon had to be treated differently than earthbound properties and others claiming that the property laws in space shouldn’t differ from those on earth. Both the United States and Soviet Union wanted to reach the moon first but the real fear was what would happen if they had arrived second (Glenn).
Others believe they are entitled to the moon. Dennis hope owner of Lunar Embassy states that he has sold 500 million acres of novelty moon property. Hope addressed the U.N. stating that he was going to start selling lunar property. When the U.N. didn’t respond, he asserted that this allowed him to proceed (Glenn). This is definitely and issue that would require international discussion. In the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, the United States recognized deep sea mining rights outside its own territory without claiming sovereignty over the seabed. There is nothing to stop congress from passing a similar law relating to the moon (Glenn). As Paul Dempsey , director of the institute of Air and Space Law, put it, “At some point the world community needs to come together and draft some new convention or treaty” (Farrar).
One other opposing view discusses private corporations being a better choice for space exploration because the private economy is superior and creates jobs more efficiently through the production of goods people actually need. The idea of course it that every government job is just money that comes out of taxpayers’ pockets, money those taxpayers would have spent elsewhere in the private market and these demands create jobs. That said, NASA is not about jobs. Support for NASA should be for the science; in
particular, support for the notion that science is of value to the human species and is not always of value to the market. Knowledge is not always profitable. The problem with going to the moon is a scientific one; where is the science? Does that science justify the cost? Of course it does.
Funding the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would advance the development of science and technology and revitalize economic growth. It would renew the United States as a global leader and be an outstanding step forward into the 21st century. America must not give up on space exploration, we are at the verge of losing a global rat race for the stars. Giving NASA the funding it deserves would prove to the country that within the struggle for economic stability we can still continue to fight as a nation. America needs to be as strong and proud as it was in the 1960’s. We need to be fearless like Joe Kittinger , the first man to experience the very concept of space, as ascending into the heavens in The Excelsior III helium weather balloon. Even though his gear and life support began to malfunction causing a leak in his suit putting his own life at risk he didn’t give up. 102,800 feet above our atmosphere he looked out at the entire world as he jumped thus giving birth to the united states space program. It all started with a leap of faith that shall be remembered throughout history. We owe it to him not to end it with an act of cowardly fear.
“I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.”
(HAL - 2001: A Space Odyssey)
“2001; A Space Odyssey” is to this date one of the greatest science fiction movies known to man, not only for the revolutionary visuals and epic art of storytelling, but for its raw depiction of mans evolution into the stars. U.S. lunar Landings, which took place shortly after the film’s release, are greatly influenced by Kubrick’s psychedelic masterpiece. Even now, thirty two years later, the concepts for future technologies, artificial intelligence, and human evolution are embraced by the cultural impact of the film. Kubrick is taking us on a conceptual ride of consciousness and evolution and inspires us to think about our origins as a species and where we are heading in the (hopefully) not too distant future. The phrase “Space Odyssey” forces us to think outside of the box, outside of traditional storytelling. The shuttle docking with the orbiting space station, the journey in the shuttle from the space station to the moon - even the Lunar base that the astronauts land on - these are all evidence of the concepts incorporated into the film, and unconsciously we became inspired by Kubrick’s ideals. In 1969, when the United States first landed on the moon, we were untouchable. Other nations leered at us jealously, envious that our flag had been planted where theirs had not. We were the ones staring into the empty void of space and ever optimistically quadrupling our efforts to achieve the greatest accomplishment known to mankind. We were fearless. We were diligent, and we were the future.
2001 came and went, and there are no moon bases or operating orbiting shuttles to
take us there. There is no artificial intelligence available to us that could monitor, command, and take control of a sophisticated launch vehicle or orbital space station. Not only has our country faded out of the conquest for outer space travel, but we are far behind our time. We saw act one, so where is act two? For these reasons the United States government should increase its federal funding for NASA. Raising the funding for NASA will increase scientific development, ensure vast technological advancements, and create jobs that could help revitalize the economy. If federal funding for NASA is increased the administration would have the liquid capital they need to send a manned mission back to the moon to establish a lunar base, which in turn will declare our intentions to Russia and China who also have plans to go to the moon. NASA will develop a strong foundation for private corporations and enterprises to follow their footsteps. These private enterprises are ideal because the moon has an abundant amount of helium-3 underneath its surface, which can be used as a revolutionary energy source through fusion reaction. This is the same reason other countries are interested in going to the moon.
President Obama has announced that the federal funding for NASA’s Constellation Program, the agencies program responsible for getting Americans back to the moon by 2020, be put to an end. According to an article written in The Washington post: “Obama’s proposed budget adds $6 billion over the next five years to NASA’s budget to help extend the life of the international space station to 2020. But most of the funds would bankroll the private construction of spaceships that can ferry astronauts into space” (O’Keefe). NASA’s budget is now expected to slightly increase over the current $18.7 billion, and shamefully throw the research and hard labor put toward developing the ORION and ARES1 booster rocket in the garbage. Former NASA administrator Micheal Griffin, views the Obama budget as disastrous for human spaceflight. According to NASA administrator Micheal Griffin, "It means that essentially the U.S. has decided that they're not going to be a significant player in human space flight for the foreseeable future. The path that they're on with this budget is a path that can't work” (AchenBach). Obama calls for private enterprises to provide transportation to and from the International Space Station. When it comes down to it, private companies are not ready for this endeavor. Take a look at the Challenger incident, Griffin states, “NASA’s space shuttles have a 1/2000 failure rate” (Malik); this means that the private sector would need much time
and money put aside if they want to begin transporting humans into space.
Theoretical Physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, announced, “ This is not just cutting into the muscle and reaching the bone it’s cutting off an arm, cutting off a leg. Due to the recent plans for NASA, we will have to rely on Russia for a decade, and once we do arrive at the moon, we would then become territorial and that would cause conflict. When you compare ourselves to other countries, you can see that all countries are hurting right now, but Russia has a flourishing booster rocket business. We’re not going to have a booster Rocket until the next generation” (Michio Kaku Rips NASA Plan).
NASA’s budget jumps back and forth from 0.7% to 1.0% of the federal expenditures. When we compare NASA’s allowance to the technologies and knowledge given to us by them, it hardly seems fair. NASA's highest share of total federal expenditures was 5.5%, which occurred in 1966 (The World Almanac & Book of facts 2000). One can see that NASA should be funded the way it was nearly 50 years ago. Had the U.S. only given NASA the funding it deserved plainly because the at the time our nation was so eager and competitive to be the first ones to reach the moon? And if so, then what happened to that ambition that the nation used to possess? President Obama has set a budget for NASA that consists of $18.686 billion compared to 2009’s $17.782 billion (Jones). This budget will help to extend the development of the International Space Station to the year 2020. The ISS is a remarkable development, but we do not gain much from it for the money that is put into the project. Professor Kaku states that, “The same research and experiments that are conducted within the ISS can be done in booster rockets for a fraction of the cost” (Michio Kaku Rips NASA Plan). With the constellation program now cancelled, we can expect there to be no booster rockets, missions back to the moon, and no missions to Mars any time soon.
If NASA received the funding it needed, then astronauts could be sent back to the moon. This time instead of placing a flag and marking mankind’s furthest venture, we could establish a moon base. Establishing a lunar space station would achieve two main agenda items listed on President Obama's change.gov. Transition web page: 1) Revitalizing the Economy and 5) Renewing American Global Leadership (The Obama-Biden plan). National Geographic journalist John Roach says, “The moon base will allow for sustained human presence on the moon's surface and help the agency prepare for future
mission to Mars” (Roach).
Going back to the moon would not only get the United States back into outer space, but it would grant the opportunity to excavate the revolutionary energy source of Helium-3. He-3 is an extremely potent, nonpolluting perfect fuel source with virtually no radioactive by-product. Unfortunately, hardly any exists on Earth, but there are copious amounts that exist on the moon. There is enough He-3 on the moon to power the world for thousands of years; twenty five tons could supply the entire energy needs for a year. According to Gerald Kulcinski, Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) in Wisconsin,“Helium-3 fusion energy may be the key to future space exploration and settlement” (Wakefield).
When solar winds, rapid streams of charged particles emitted by the sun, hit the moon’s surface He-3 is deposited within the soil. The reason it is rare to find He-3 on Earth is because of its atmosphere, whereas the moon has none. Kulcinski states, “Meteorite bombardment disperses the particles throughout the top several meters of the lunar soil” (Wakefield).This process takes billions of years.
Helium-3 can be used for fusion reaction which is the process in which multiple like-charged atomic nuclei come together to form a denser nucleus; in this process massive amounts of energy are given off. Let’s pretend that He-3 plants have already been built and all that is needed is the tanks of He-3 to carry out the reactions. Normal helium has two protons and two neutrons; helium three only has two protons and one neutron. Artemis project lead Gregory Bennett conveys, “The sun produces helium by fusing atoms of hydrogen together and about one in every thousand atom of helium comes out missing a neutron, thus we have He-3. Deuterium is used in He-3 fusion reaction. Deuterium has one proton and one neutron; the deuterium and helium 3 join and release a proton of helium-4. The products weigh less than the initial components; the missing mass is converted into energy” (Bennett).
Helium 3 fusion reaction has undergone frequent tests and has come to prove several things.
Firstly, there are no green house or acid gasses emitted during the fusion reaction. This means that it keeps the ozone free of the pollutants that are harming it today. There are very high efficiencies and possibilities, greater than 70% (Kulcinski). Kulcinki states that “There is no residual radioactivity after thirty years of operation (No radioactive waste or nuclear safety hazard)” (Kulcinski). “There is ten times more energy in
the helium 3 that exists on the moon than in all the economically recoverable coal, and natural gas on Earth” (Kulcinski). This is an extremely viable source of energy that if NASA had the funding it
needed than perhaps we could solve the energy crisis and that just the beginning. He-3 can be used for many other applications such as “Medical isotope production, Cancer therepy, and even space propulsion” (Kulcinski).
Private corporations will follow NASA’s lead to the moon and further into space given NASA is granted the funding it deserves. Private corporations would be ideal because of the He-3 found on the moon. Once NASA establishes a moon base and starts mining, the private sector will follow as they have in the past. Companies like SpaceX, Virgin galactic and Scaled Composites will all want to get their foot on the moon and start making money off of the He-3 trade. This is without a doubt the reason other countries such as Russia, China, and India are pushing the bar at getting to the moon as soon as possible. Professor Kaku states “We know for a fact that space generates revenue, commerce, and communications that have given us an edge over other countries” (Michio Kaku Rips NASA Plan). An article in The New York Times states “ SpaceX successfully launched a small falcon 1 rocket into orbit in 2008 and successfully deployed a satellite last year. It has a $1.6 billion contract with NASA to bring supplies to the International Space Station in its larger Falcon 9 rocket” (Chang). The fact that SpaceX already has ties with NASA and the International Space Station goes to show you that wherever NASA goes they will follow.
Now with the constellation program gone and ARES and Orion exploration vehicle cancelled, NASA is giving these private corporations the “Playing field” to approach space exploration in a feasible and cost efficient manner. NASA is no longer the leader in space exploration and this is bad thing because the private sector has never been in charge before. NASA has always lead other agencies into the future of discovery.
Let’s assume the plan works and commercial interests ultimately develop rockets and manned space craft. Where will the pool of astronauts originate that fly these missions? If NASA gets out of the astronaut business altogether and grants the private sector with the privilege of training their own astronauts to fly the missions, are these enterprises prepared to hire and train elite teams capable of fulfilling NASA’s
legacy of space trained cadets? Also, when the private sector ferrys crew member to the ISS do they drop them off and go home or do they dock and stay aboard for six months. If they go home, how do they meet the emergency return requirements? That would require the development of a second vehicle that would have to remain docked and dedicated to that purpose. Private corporations need NASA in front of them to pave the road for their future. Without a strong sense of leadership, each company will go in their own direction and do as they please.
Discussing the issue of going back to the moon and setting up a lunar base for future hopes of a colony would inevitably bring up the topic of lunar ownership. So who owns the moon? The first article discussing the idea was proposed by John Cobb Cooper in 1951 and was entitled “High altitude flight and national sovereignty.” Many theoretical discussions followed, with scholars ageing that the moon had to be treated differently than earthbound properties and others claiming that the property laws in space shouldn’t differ from those on earth. Both the United States and Soviet Union wanted to reach the moon first but the real fear was what would happen if they had arrived second (Glenn).
Others believe they are entitled to the moon. Dennis hope owner of Lunar Embassy states that he has sold 500 million acres of novelty moon property. Hope addressed the U.N. stating that he was going to start selling lunar property. When the U.N. didn’t respond, he asserted that this allowed him to proceed (Glenn). This is definitely and issue that would require international discussion. In the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, the United States recognized deep sea mining rights outside its own territory without claiming sovereignty over the seabed. There is nothing to stop congress from passing a similar law relating to the moon (Glenn). As Paul Dempsey , director of the institute of Air and Space Law, put it, “At some point the world community needs to come together and draft some new convention or treaty” (Farrar).
One other opposing view discusses private corporations being a better choice for space exploration because the private economy is superior and creates jobs more efficiently through the production of goods people actually need. The idea of course it that every government job is just money that comes out of taxpayers’ pockets, money those taxpayers would have spent elsewhere in the private market and these demands create jobs. That said, NASA is not about jobs. Support for NASA should be for the science; in
particular, support for the notion that science is of value to the human species and is not always of value to the market. Knowledge is not always profitable. The problem with going to the moon is a scientific one; where is the science? Does that science justify the cost? Of course it does.
Funding the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would advance the development of science and technology and revitalize economic growth. It would renew the United States as a global leader and be an outstanding step forward into the 21st century. America must not give up on space exploration, we are at the verge of losing a global rat race for the stars. Giving NASA the funding it deserves would prove to the country that within the struggle for economic stability we can still continue to fight as a nation. America needs to be as strong and proud as it was in the 1960’s. We need to be fearless like Joe Kittinger , the first man to experience the very concept of space, as ascending into the heavens in The Excelsior III helium weather balloon. Even though his gear and life support began to malfunction causing a leak in his suit putting his own life at risk he didn’t give up. 102,800 feet above our atmosphere he looked out at the entire world as he jumped thus giving birth to the united states space program. It all started with a leap of faith that shall be remembered throughout history. We owe it to him not to end it with an act of cowardly fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
