NASA Thaws Out 'Teacher in Space' Program

Guppy06 writes "The Houston Chronicle reports that, seventeen years after the Challenger disaster, NASA is pushing forward its Teacher in Space program again. Christa McAuliffe's original back-up, Barbara Morgan from Idaho, is scheduled to go up this November. NASA intends to recruit more teachers in the future. Between this and rumored Mars missions, it seems new NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe is keeping himself busy."

Comments

What's the benefit again?

[GuyMannDude]

I for one would LOVE to have my kid taught about space by someone who's actually BEEN there, you know what I mean?

No, I'm afraid I don't. What perceived benefit do you think this would have for your child? In what way will this teacher be more qualified to teach basic astronomy because of their experience floating around in a cramped shapeship for a few days?

I admit that I didn't read the article but I don't really see what the rationale for restarting this program is except, of course, for the obvious publicity. People could argue that this, alone, makes it worthwhile (remember the media coverage John Glenn's 2nd space trip got?) for NASA to pursue but I always get a bit nervous when people start trivialising inheriently dangerous things. I am by no means blaming the Challenger disaster on the Teacher in Space program but I think there is an interesting parallel between the shoddy preparations done for that trip and the idea that space travel was so safe that civilians should be allowed. Space exploration is not a joyride. If some multimillionare wants to pony up the bucks and realizes they are taking their life in their hands, then so be it. But there's a big difference between that kind of thing and a NASA-sanctioned program encouraging teachers to risk space travel. I'd prefer if NASA was to spend their money and effort on more serious ambitions than this Teacher in Space program. This smacks of something designed purely for publicity and to keep up appearances of "applications for Everymen and Everywomen everywhere!"

GMD

Re:What's the benefit again?

[jimmyCarter]

I think you're missing the point. Sure the teacher that goes up into space for a couple of days and stays cramped up in a shuttle or whatever won't be any more qualified to teach astronomy or physics or anything else relating to space.

BUT, could you imagine the stories this teacher would have from that experience? These stories would subsequently be relayed on to the students with passion that maybe might spark a student's interest in the field -- a student that probably wouldn't have been interested otherwise.

/. is a great place, but sometimes the cynicism is a little too much.

Re:What's the benefit again?

[DarkKnightRadick]

In high school, the only English teacher I could relate too was Ms. Melba Clarke. Why could I relate to her? She taught literature, could speak a bit of Gaelic and Old English, and when we were learning about William Shakespeare and the language he used in his plays, she could relate stories to us from when she was in England.

Same with my college Trigonometery(sp) professor, Mr. Hammesfar(sp (been several years since I've had to remember how to spell his name)). He was a former Navy seaman aboard a ship involved in some of the Bikini Atoll experiments. Because he could relate his experience using trig in real life (as it related to Electronics Engineering, my former (and uncompleted) major), for the first time ever I passed a math class with a 3.4 GPA (and he was NOT an easy teacher by any means).

While the experience itself might not make one more qualified in the traditional sense, it gives the educator a real life frame of refrence to help students become more interested in learning.

Re:Hooray!

[MacAndrew]

I support space exploration, but not manned space exploration. The cost effectiveness of unmanned spacecraft has been well demonstrated, and these programs were badly hurt by the Shuttle, I can tell you from hearing from the people who worked on them. (I grew up near JPL.)

The teacher-in-space program may inadvertently illustrate what an extravagance manned space exploration is and backfire. Remember all the criticism when they sent John Glenn up? At least he was a former astronaut, and they performed lots of medical experiments on the "first gerry in space." I'm not sure what a schoolteacher brings to the program except an opportunity for propaganda, and I suspect at least some people will see through that and say we aleady have enough things that need money on terra firma -- ironically, spending on education is among the msot prominent. Also, it's not that the money is that much relative to what ground-based problems need, but if it is a waste it is a waste, and if it diverts attention from more important (if boring) issues, it is a tragedy. Perhaps it can be defended as simple entertainment, but I don't feel the gov't is in the business of entertaining us, and not at such risk and cost.

If I were NASA, I would stress the economic and scientific payoff of the program. In some cases cases having a human in orbit is valuable, but we could scale back to meet those needs. The Shuttle has failed to meet its promise as a cost-effective way to move things to and from orbit, and it was the vain effort to prove otherwise that was a major factor in the fateful "go" decision in the Challenger launch. (The military quietly abandoned the Shuttle after that.) For pursuing our dreams -- well, it may be a lot cheaper, produce better science, and save lives to rethink those dreams.

This is not a "troll," just a plea for getting the most bang for the buck. I would like to see swarms of probes throught the solar system, something humans will not do for many, many years. The "gee whiz" factor of men and women in space is of little lasting value, and Mars can wait.