Get NASA into the political debate!!

[johnbenac]

I have submitted a question for the Republican and Democratic debates that are happening in Los Angeles on January 30th. The way this this debate works is that people submit and vote for the questions that they like online, and the candidates are asked the ones with the most votes. Please tell everyone you think would act on this. I asked:<br /><br />"NASA can and should send humans to Mars in the short term. Will you support a manned mission to Mars, or will you keep NASA's hands tied by not giving them this mission that is worthy of the $16 billion they spend each year?"<br /><br />People can find it by searching for "NASA" in the "Social Issues" section of both the Republic and Democratic voting sections at http://dyn.politico.com/debate/#%23<br /><br />Only by getting this into the national discussion can we promote spaceflight in an effective way. Thank you!

 

[venator_3000]

Should the question be Mars oriented?<br /><br />I would rather see NASA split its budget as follows: <br /><br />1. work with the DOE and private industry to develop solar power satellites.<br /><br />2. send a manned expedition to explore asteroids, they seem a potential threat yet also offer great promise in terms of a resource base for space industrialization. <br /><br />3. Continue to develop robotic sytems for planetary exploration.<br /><br />v3k <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

Agreed Shuttle_Guy, Mars is being covered pretty well with robots for now. The whole manned mission to Mars has been a stickling point with congress for a while now. If I remember correctly TransHab was shut down because congress thought NASA was trying to push manned Mars tech on them.<br /><br />Right now the best we can hope for is the new President will NOT gut VSE. So, I'm sorry to say, your Mars question if picked, could actually do more harm than good. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

IMO that questions is counterproductive because it is a minority position, even among folk that appreciate the space program - plus it was already asked at a previous debate, where it met with laughter and, for the most part, a string of not just 'no's but 'hell no's. <br /><br />By far the best question to ask them is whether the manned space program should stay on it's current course and pace towards lunar exploration, be reduced in scope, or have it's funding increased for faster rollout and greater scientific gains once we get there. <br /><br />That question will get a broader variety of answers from the candidates by which we can evaluate them.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That question will get a broader variety of answers from the candidates by which we can evaluate them.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You are likely going to get "i support science and education and space and all these things" generic statements instead, that dont mean jack.<br />However, fringe questions are not gonna do much good either.

 

[hewes]

Moon, Mars, and Beyond is only a minority position? Someone better tell NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Moon, Mars, and Beyond is only a minority position? Someone better tell NASA.</i><br /><br />Most people don't care. The majority position is somewhere between "It's a waste of money" and "been there, done that".<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[hewes]

We know most people don't care, that isn't the point. The point is the next U.S. president will have to deal with a major change in the U.S. space program, and we should know how the candidates stand on the issue. I care, and a lot of people who visit SPACE.com care as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Most people don't care because they are too busy with life.<br /><br />When you get them to slow down and think about it, they are quite interested in what's been happening. "Are those Mars rovers still going? That's cool!" "Um, what's the status of the space station these days?" "I heard they're shutting down the Shuttle. What's the replacement?"<br /><br />Yes there is a 'waste of money' crowd and a 'ho-hum' crowd and a 'better things to do with the money' crowd, but all of those are examples of folks who actually DO care. They're just our opposites, that's all. They care but they oppose space development.<br /><br />All the polls I've seen for years show a strong (~75%) support for NASA (depending on how the question is phrased). Those who DO care but are against it are therefore less than 25%, and what's more, each of those crowds I mentioned and the others of their ilk all must be sharing that 25%.<br /><br />The first thing to conclude is that any given narrow negative viewpoint is a very small segment, and so should be easy to politically defeat. [Is there a website called antispace.com? (yes, but it's just a holding page <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> )]<br /><br />There is a broad base of support for NASA. The only trouble is no one knows it. <br /><br />Except vote-seekers. They know all these numbers by heart and there is not a congressional office in the land, I'll wager, that does anything other than offer the safe-speech status-quo 'strong but guarded' support for NASA party-line pap many of us are familiar with.<br /><br />The end of this eight year administration will surely include contemplation and realignment of our national priorities.<br /><br />I don't know if this <i>The Space Review</i> article got much traction here, but I thought it was one of the best space politics articles I've ever seen. <br /><br />Here's the summarizing paragraph:<br /><br /><font color="orange">Meanwhile, the structural walls</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[hewes]

Funny and RIGHT ON THE POINT. Bravo! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>All the polls I've seen for years show a strong (~75%) support for NASA (depending on how the question is phrased).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Your information is outdated.<br />http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/01/15/public-space-exploration-support-pathetic-percentage/<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />And here’s a kick-in-the-head for space fans: “Scientific research ranks about on a par with mass transit (38%) and well ahead of space exploration (14%) and assistance to foreign countries (10%) in the proportion of the U.S. population favoring increased spending.â€<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /> <br />I guess the pollsters finally learned to ask the questions properly.

 

[JonClarke]

75% of the population supporting NASA is not incosnsistent with only14% wanting to see their budget increased (which is what this poll asked). Most or even all of those who support NASA might well feel that it is getting enough money when considered against other priorities.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>75% of the population supporting NASA is not incosnsistent...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, i'd like to hear what this "supporting" means precisely. I have a strong suspicion it doesnt mean jack, apart from these people having either seen a shuttle launch or remember moon landings on tee vee and think its kinda cool.

 

[hewes]

So was I. Except I'm also thinking of this new reality called the Constellation program. That's the real question. Will they support NASA's Constellation program? Will you? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Most people interested in space program don't support going to Mars???<br /><br />Where's that data? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Dude, 'support' and 'increased spending' have no relation at all. <br /><br />If you have kids, I'm sure you support them but you may not want to shell out more money on them than you have to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

ditto for spacester. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Dude, 'support' and 'increased spending' have no relation at all. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Given the fact that general public doesnt have the slightest clue about the public expenditures on space, when they say "i support it" they also have no clue about how much money they are talking about, in the first place. If the question was asked differently, i.e. do you WANT these X dollars of your taxes to go to NASA ? the "support" numbers would by all indications shrink as fast.<br /><br />Asking for whether you "support space" is kinda like asking do you support sunny days. WTH kind of answer do you expect to get, other than "yes?"<br /><br />

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>do you WANT these X dollars of your taxes to go to NASA ? the "support" numbers would by all indications shrink as fast. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think anytime you state a money amount to the public on any program then they start to say 'HUH?' and most will say 'NO' because the question does not provide the whole picture. It does not say that that amount is less or par or over the current expense. So you have to state the question in general terms so you get your general answer, get the money from Congress, run your program and deal with the consequences afterwards (Congressional hearings and lawsuits may apply). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

I love the topic challenge here. Started by a quark? Impressive! I hope he returns, but Hewes seems to be filling in nicely.<br /><br />no_way, IMO you are NOT wrong. Your point is well taken. Of course I agree with holmec as well, and others. Nice points by SG, come to think of it. Anyway, let's see if we can make sense out of this. I'm no political scientist, but I try to be the Sam Gamgee of space politics: stare at it long enough and eventually I'll figure it out. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />(I do tend to jump around on the subject of Space Politics. Please bear with me, I try to pull it all together at the end.)<br /><br />The 75% question is along the lines of "Do you support the broad goals of the US Space Program with regards to (insert name of current space program)."<br /><br />75% answer: Yes, I love Sunny Days. Next question! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> But what does that really mean? It means (IMO) that they are proud, as Americans, to be associated with the space program. They get a vicarious pleasure when things go well for NASA. They are a little tiny bit embarrassed when NASA screws up.<br /><br />This American pride, as associated with a gummint agency, is a rare thing. Most American Pride is invested in various private, commercial and religious activities. I'm thinking Little League, Main Street USA, church-goin' folk.<br /><br />Have you noticed that NASA and other space images are everywhere? The fact that they are usually free is a key, but the Dept of the Interior hands out free maps, too, and they don't penetrate the public consciousness anywhere near as much as NASA. These images are used to sell products across the board.<br /><br />What is it about these images that makes them so useful to the advertising and promotion copywriter?<br /><br />I can only guess at the answer (and fish for reactions from others, hint hint), but IMO it's the American Pride thing, and one other critical element.<br /><br />NASA represents the future.<b></b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

I strongly think the phrasing of the question should be more about leaving Earth Orbit than anything else (Asteroids and Moon). Surveys show a lot of people believe that space funding is a lot higher than it actually is -- they are innocently ignorant of the facts: less than 0.6% percent of the Federal Budget!! If taxpayer funding of space exploration was raised to an even 1% percent of the Federal Budget over an eight-to-ten year period (couldn't do it overnight) America could easily afford it. This evolutionary raise would give America a practically permanent, robust manned spaceflight capability with all the benefits many of you already know!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[hewes]

This is indeed a great topic, and though we’re all sort of preaching to the choir here, I think there have been a lot of excellent points made. I’ve just got one small comment…<br /><br />This well-meaning insistence on avoiding the word “Mars†like it was a dirty word is troubling me, coming from this community. Venturing out of LEO again after 36 or so years, having the capability to really explore again, will beg the question of where to go. Mars is our ultimate target. Just because some bozo at a debate blew the question to get laughs doesn’t mean the subject can’t be taken seriously. We need to face our positive challenges, not just our negative challenges. If talking about the former is a campaign risk, we’ve got a problem.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

Hewes has a good point about pointing to Mars and the positive challenges. <br /><br />Most important for the community, please keep voting in the various poles. If we can keep the question of space front-and-center, it will get asked seriously in the coming debates.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mattblack]

I agree with you, a lot. But too many are scared off by Mars -- in the recent past, leftist (AND some Right Wing) commentators keep claiming in the media that sending humans to Mars will cost a Trillion dollars, or some other absurd, untrue B.S. figure.<br /><br />If we can get Astronauts out of Low Earth Orbit first, to ANYWHERE, Mars will be more than half-way "in the bag". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[hewes]

OK, it'll be our little secret, then. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>