Astronaut Kathy Sullivan Reaches The Challenger Deep
|
|
Keith’s note: In light of recent turmoil in America from racial issues, a gloomy economic downturn, and pandemic disease, NASA has been trying to put forth a meme that the exploration of space is inspiring and that it can get people looking upward and forward to better times ahead.
Astronaut Kathy Sullivan just returned from a dive to the bottom of the Challenger Deep. She was the first American woman to walk in space and is now the first astronaut to both fly in space and visit the deepest place on our planet. In 2010 a piece of the summit of Mt. Everest plus 4 small Apollo 11 Moon rocks that went to the top of Everest were sent to the ISS and now reside within the cupola. Those rocks were brought back by Scott Parazynski, the first astronaut to both fly in space and stand atop the highest point on our planet. Astronaut Bob Behnken was on the STS-130 shuttle mission that delivered the rock to the ISS back in 2010. He just returned to the ISS on the first American commercial flight into orbit. What an amazing confluence of inspirational accomplishments – all with a nexus on board the ISS.
If I were running the NASA public Affairs Office (suspend belief for a moment, if you will) and I was trying to promote these inspirational exploration themes I’d have someone on NASA TV aboard the ISS look out of the cupola as they flew over the Pacific ocean. I’d have them say something profound and congratulatory, show the Everest rocks and the Apollo 11 moon rocks together a few feet away from the view from the cupola, and combine it all together into a push for exploration on Earth – and beyond. I’d then have them add how such feats of exploration can help us see beyond today’s troubles – and that such daring things can be done equally well by men – and women – you know the whole Artemis thing. If I were running PAO, that is.
And oh yes The Challenger Deep was discovered by the H.M.S. Challenger, the namesake of Space Shuttle Challenger – the same space shuttle from which Kathy Sullivan conducted her spacewalk in 1984.
Apparently Kathy Sullivan did have a phone call with the ISS crew. But NASA has made no mention of it. A few years ago an astronaut was posting pictures he took from the ISS cupola as he flew over Mt. Everest and yet he made no mention of the piece of Everest located inches away from his right knee. No one remembers anything at NASA it would seem. No one bothers to use Wikipedia either. What use is an inspirational outpost in space – one that is poised on the cusp of an exciting tomorrow, if NASA ignores the chance to use it – whenever possible – to promote that exciting future?
All the only news from – or about – space that we have seen this past week is a half-assed rah rah political commercial using NASA footage and royalty free music.
Kathy’s a good friend. We met when I was her safety diver during Neutral Buoyancy Simulator training for the Hubble Space Telescope deployment. We trained for that just in case somebody had to go out to unlatch the HST from the cargo bay. She’s always been an adventurer and I’m glad she’s still out there having fun and doing interesting things. As to the point of Keith’s comments, NASA has not been very good in the publicity department since Apollo.
First American woman EVA. Second woman EVA.Corrected.
PAO needs storytellers. Still seemingly doesn’t have ’em.
Svetlana Savitskaya was the first to EVA. When Russia learned that a female EVA was imminent on an upcoming Shuttle mission, they got onto that quickly. But at least Savitskaya got to fly more than one mission – not many female Cosmonauts do!
Yes, the Soviets were big on making “firsts” in space and checking off boxes. Tereshkova and Savitskaya were selected because the Soviets needed a woman for their “first woman to do X in space” propaganda. I’m not sure about Savitshaya, but 57 years later, Tereshkova still gets to hear people say “that was just because you were a woman” nonsense.
That’s why I dislike the whole Artemis program’s goal of landing the first woman on the Moon. If it’s a order from the government, that female astronaut will have to hear the same sort of bullshit for her whole life. If we just say we select people based on their abilities, and let the cards fall as they will, the first first female astronaut on the Moon might be the next astronaut on the Moon. Or the second, or the fourth. The astronaut corps is diverse enough that’s there’s little chance she would be the fifth. And she would have clearly and obviously earned her place by her merits not by some presidential decree. That’s what happened with Ride, Sullivan, Collins and others. And no one worth mentioning gave them any “just because you’re a woman” grief.
Jessica Meir and Christina Koch have more than earned the right to participate in a mission like Artemis III – and it would not be ‘because they’re women’. Stephanie Wilson would be an excellent choice as well – she’s already a three-flight veteran.
I’m sure everyone here would agree that Jessica Meir and Christina Koch are more than qualified for an Artemis mission to the moon. Unfortunately, not everyone is as well informed as those of us who regularly visit space news websites.
Heck, Twitter is regularly flooded with people insisting that “manned” is the correct term for a spacecraft with people aboard. This is despite the fact that they’re talking about a NASA mission and that NASA changed its terminology many years ago to “crewed”. It happened again during the Crew Dragon Demo-2 mission.
So, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the “manned” crowd were the ones saying “Jessica or Christina only walked on the moon because she was a woman and the Administration wanted another “first” for the history books”.
My concern is about people will say about an astronaut, not what the astronaut’s qualifications really are. If the first thing on the list of qualifications is being female, many people will drag out that “just because” nonsense. A White House mandate that the next American on the Moon must be a woman almost guarantees that. I don’t think that will help diversity and I don’t think it’s fair to whoever that woman happens to be.
The three women you mention are well-qualified, and they don’t _need_ that official mandate to get to the Moon. Given the number of qualified women in the astronaut corps, I don’t think a mandate is needed. I think women will land on the Moon as part of the Artemis program, regardless. Maybe not as the _next_ American to set foot on the Moon, but certainly as some of the first four. Their qualifications speak for themselves.
That’s more or less what we did with the Shuttle program, and I think it worked well. How many people know Dr. Ride was America’s first female astronaut? Quite a few, especially given the rather limited interest public interest in the space program. How many people know or care if she was on the fifth, seventh or tenth Shuttle flight? Basically no one, unless the look it up.
I think your concern is overstated and is framed in a decades-old mentality.
Given the program is intentionally labeled as both the sister of Apollo & the goddess of the Moon and an all-male first mission is unlikely for plenty of practical reasons, such criticisms will be few and will fade quickly if they crop up.
Shuttle and station astronauts paved the competence road years ago; that astronauts are men & women has been a given for decades. I recall no such snark when I trained Collins for her first flight as the first female shuttle pilot in the mid-90s. Let us not also forget that she commanded the return-to-flight mission post-Columbia and nobody blinked.
It will seem perfectly natural to have male & female crew on the first landing mission; the alternative would seem anachronistic.
I guess I see it differently. To me, making an astronaut’s gender a crew selection requirement is a “decades-old mentality”. There were no such requirements when Eileen Collins was selected for her missions. No one could question that she was selected based on qualifications and merits. Now, it seems to me, the Artemis program is regressing to the use of gender for crew selection. _That’s_ archaic (and actually something NASA has never done.) Sure it would be odd if the Artemis missions didn’t have mixed crews. But I think that will happen anyway, so adding gender as a requirement doesn’t make sense to me.
I remember back in 1970s with all the talk about woman astronaut, black astronaut, etc. with the “thirty five new guys” (first Shuttle astronauts). I also remembered someone said we will know when we have equality is when someone is simply called an astronaut.
“Tereshkova still gets to hear people say “that was just because you were a woman” nonsense.”
I’m curious, how do you know this?
One could also say that the early American astronauts were selected just because they were men, and be just as accurate. You can’t control what people say/think. I think I get what you are trying to say… perhaps they should have waited till after they made the selection to promote the whole first woman on the moon thing, or not at all. However, I imagine folks who would make the comments you refer to would make those comments anyway. Also, doing it this way probably helps to engage young women. If it does, that’s not a bad thing.
Great reminder and great story Keith.
It’s a pity the mainstream media are so wrapped up in focusing on the negative. But then guess that’s what sells.
Cheers Neil
This is also a good example of the privately financed exploration model that is re-emerging. The last time the governement sent humans to the bottom of the Challenger Deep was in 1960. Once the USN planted the flag they had no reason to repeat it. Kudos to Victor Vescovo for inviting her on the expedition.
Pretty cool.