It could be just an American we-don't-give-a-flying-fig attitude. That is to say, the American public, having ceased to become emotionally attached to astronauts and the space program, are saying, "Yeah, whatever."

OK, sure, the thing blew up. Big tragedy, waste of money, NEXT. Tough and indifferent can look a lot alike.

This also may mean that, as the economy worsens, if the space program doesn't have powerful and low-key advocates in government, the program will be slashed, because it will be an easy target with a small practical (employees and contractors) constituency and an indifferent larger (idealist/nationalist) consistuency.

American get-tough attitude about the war might have been a lot different had there been a bloody struggle for the cities of Iraq. The war was very compatible with our national attention span and our fascination with "reality TV".

If this is the new attitude that space advocates are twigging to, they had better start recruiting astronauts based on six-pack or cleavage, and get to work on the Judy Jetson design in shuttle fatigues.

The shuttle fleet is old. Even my kids recognize that. The 16-year-old, out of the blue in the car, said, "Of course the Columbia wrecked, it's older than me. Don't we trade cars in when they have that kind of mileage?" From her mouth to O'Keefe's ear.

Now, as a child, I read about conditions in space, so I already know that space travel is dangerous and that astronauts are brave to do it. I also know enough engineers to understand that they are craftsmen and not gods, so technology does indeed fail occasionally no matter how much care is exercised. The question I have is, is another shuttle going to go up inside of a year just to prove nobody's a scaredycat? That sounds dumb to me.

Regards--
Mary Anne