Get NASA into the political debate!!

[solarspot]

About Mars;<br /><br />Mars is not the be-all and end-all destination and purpose of space exploration. Mars is one destination which is worthy of our attention, money, and time to explore at some time during our exploration (and hopefully settlement) of the inner solar system. I do personally hope we (humanity in general, NASA or otherwise) do not wait too long to establish a permanent and eventually self-sustaining colony on Mars, but I would be disappointed if that is all we ever sink our resources into. What we really need to do, in many people's opinions including my own, is make our species's presence in space truly permanent, such that we finally become a space fairing civilization. My personal goal in life, even, is to help in what ever capacity I can, make humanity into a space fairing civilization. Whether we go first to the Moon, an Asteroid, Mars or elsewhere, we need to start and not delay reaching some more hopeful future for our species. I am not obsessed with Mars, I am obsessed with space and our future off this planet. And I believe many other space advocates agree with me on that stance.<br /><br />My apologies for this slightly off-topic rant, but I feel it was necessary and could still prove relevant to the thread in general.

 

[dryson]

The money is not the real issue in going to Mars, what the real issue is is pressing through the susperstition Mars has been surrounded with. Mars in the ancient world was the God of War. The superstitious cant get past the fact that their story is just that a story and that when we go to Mars there will not be a bloodbath because we irritated the God of War. <br /><br />If six months of money that was spent on the war in Iraq was used in this venture to goto Mars then what complaints would those on the opposite side of this discussion show to not favor going to Mars.<br /><br />The cost of lives? - Nope. How many lives have been lost to the religious rights war(s)? Space exploration has cost far less loss in life then any war.<br /><br />The cost of cost? - Nope.How much money has been spent to make war on others based on what the religious right dictates? Alot more then what the monetary cost of going to the moon and mars has cost.<br /><br />So what is the real problem then? Can anyone figure this out. Dont be scared to break with the religious zealotry in this matter.<br /><br />"he/she who is bold and sets out in a new direction will always bring about change and progress instead of he/she who sit at home."<br /><br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

That's a bunch of hooey.<br /><br />Superstitions about Mars make absolutely no difference to any mission. Anyone whose mind is so weak to be affected by that is living in a prehistoric mind-set and wouldn't belive in spacecraft anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

I dunno, MW. I try to process all opinions on this particular subject - the barriers to progress in space - as non-hooey just as much as I can.<br /><br />In this case, I would expand dryson's argument to superstitious people in general. Lots of them out there, yes?<br /><br />Can any of us state with certainty exactly why public opinion isn't with us?<br /><br />I'm thinking this supposed hooey is representative of a certain segment of our political opposites. Hopefully a small segment I would also suppose that those who oppose space flight for reasons such as this aren't even aware they're doing it.<br /><br />I agree that the money is not the real issue in going to Mars. The world is awash in money these days.<br /><br />Maybe the answer to getting that money behind space flight is more attitudinal than financial. Maybe a strategy for doing that would incorporate tactics for every slice of the opposition, and 'the superstitious crowd' would certainly need to be taken account of within that.<br /><br />"Can anyone figure this out?"<br /><br />Maybe. We're working on it.<br /><br />How about a Mars mission with the express purpose of going there to poke that old fart Ares right in the eye. Play up the whole Greek Gods silliness, and put the superstitious crowd on the defensive.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

<br />I have to agree with MW - there may be many reasons people are not interested/motivated about going to Mars. But not once, ever have I heard that as a reason.

 

[spacester]

Well it's not an opinion that would ever be voiced, so your observation is consistent with that part of my supposition: that it's on a subconscious level.<br /><br />There are a LOT of superstitious people out there, right?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

dryson:<br />The money is not the real issue in going to Mars,<br /><br />Me:<br />Money is thee issue when it comes to mars the way I see it. NASAs budget was cut by around 50% in the early 1970s. One of the first things to be cut was the Von braun exploration plan presented in 1969 which included a space shuttle, heavier lift Saturn rockets, nuclear shuttles, manned lunar bases, missions to mars starting in 1981. All but the shuttle was cut.<br /><br />Apollo was accomplished on a heafty $26B dollar budget.<br /><br />The Constellation program is supposed to be conducted on no more than whatever budget scraps NASA can find. NASAs annual budget $17B dollars is approximately half the record $5.5 B dollar budget which was 1966 after adjusting for inflation.<br /><br />As for the rest of your post, couldn't agree more. The Iraq annual budget tops $100B dollars vs the NASA $17B dollars. Going back to the 1969 proposal, after that was axed in 1971 IIRC, there have been several new mars mission proposals, all of which died from collisions with the cost barrier.<br /><br />Its about cost. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

spacester:<br />Can any of us state with certainty exactly why public opinion isn't with us?<br /><br />Me:<br />Remember the statement...the money we spend on landing men on the moon could be better spent curing cancer, feeding the hungry etc.<br /><br />A statement still heard by todays anti human spaceflight crowd in many variations. I'm at least 90 percent certain this attitude among the vast majority of the public is what has reduced NASA to where it once was. The statement is a great sound bite, it appeals to peoples decency, after all, who'd want to fund putting a man on mars if that same money can cure cancer?<br /><br />Fact is, NASA spending was cut by around 50% and maintained at that level since and yet...cancer is still with us as are hungry folks and other social issues. Not to mention that people who think the government would actually apply NASA cuts to the problems cited are naieve. Gov had the chance after the 50% cuts of the early 1970s but instead, we got the $500 B dollar S&L mess. $500B dollars is more than has been spent on NASA in its entire existence.<br /><br />I have seen no evidence that superstition plays this significant a role in our not going to mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">I have seen no evidence that superstition plays this significant a role in our not going to mars.</font><br /><br />'This' significant? How significant is that? Did I specify a certain level of significance? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">90 percent certain this attitude among the vast majority </font><br />Are you saying that within your 10% interval of uncertainty, of those other than the vast majority, that none are influenced by superstition?<br /><br />IOW, I'm not making a terribly grandiose claim here, you wanna throw me a bone, master? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

I see you made headlines:<br />SDC article<br /><br />good job! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Can any of us state with certainty exactly why public opinion isn't with us? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />With certainty? What's certain besides death and taxes?<br /><br />IMO it has to do with the young. If somehow the young adults can get behind or interested in space then that would be a big chunck of public opinion.<br /><br />Look how old we are! A good percentage of us have died due to car crashes, and most of us could be or are grandparents.<br /><br />The young seemed to be involved with other stuff that the media have been trying to cram down their throat. Music, video and texting is what they are into. There seems to be a following in X sports, so maybe that would be a venue if someone could make an X sport out of space.<br /><br />Do you realize that 2007 has had the most births since early 70's? In 12 years those kids will be dreaming, In 18 years they will be voting. So there is still time to turn the tide. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

spacester:<br />This' significant? How significant is that? Did I specify a certain level of significance?<br /><br />Me:<br />You didn't specify a level of significance but you did ask if anyone could say for certain why public opinion is not with us. To which I replied that I do think its money.<br /><br />spacester:<br />Are you saying that within your 10% interval of uncertainty, of those other than the vast majority, that none are influenced by superstition?<br /><br />Me:<br />No, I actually would use the 10 percent to account for anything that I might not have thought of, including superstitious people. While I would think superstition has little to do with not going to mars, you and others might disagree which is fine. But if were ever going to see human space exploration reach new goals, we have to look at why it hasn't and IMO, its money, no bucks, no Buck Rogers.<br /><br />spacester:<br />IOW, I'm not making a terribly grandiose claim here, you wanna throw me a bone, master?<br /><br />Me:<br />Okay, okay or no, I don't need to throw you a bone. You are one heck of a good debater without my help...I'm no master...I'm a jack of all trades, master of none, lol. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

qso1, you seem to still be missing my point.<br /><br />I'm not saying the superstitious folks are any kind of major factor.<br /><br />What I'm trying to illustrate is that there are a wide variety of reasons for a lack of support, and that it will be politically fruitful for us to consider it a collection of sub-groups, each of which can be dealt with on its own terms.<br /><br />You want to lump all of the opposition into a unified bloc. How are we space geeks, notorious for our diversity of opinions, going to win that battle? You may be right (I think your 90% is way too high), but so what, if your analysis gives us nothing to inform our tactics?<br /><br />I am suggesting that we can use presidential politics, with its sound-bite communication style, to present a seemingly unified front, and turn the tables on your 90% by the old divide and conquer strategy. Marginalize each narrow viewpoint, show the illogic, convert those set adrift to our cause.<br /><br />I've been talking along these lines since my first post on this thread. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to find away around the dilemma. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

I'd like to point out that the Politico poll has closed. One interesting point about the space-slashdotting of those polls: we generated enough space traffic that other people were referencing it in their posts. <br /><br />Opposition to space exploration boils down to one thing: public money. "It's a waste of money" means "It's a waste of my money." NASA, NOAA and mil.space are all public money, and while there is no real opposition to weather sats and GPS, some people don't like and are vocal about their opposition to space exploration and "space weapons". This is not the case with private efforts. If you don't like DirecTV or a Soyuz flight, don't buy one. <br /><br />The way to "win" the space debate is to hold NASA as a part of a much larger effort. The things people really accept from space are free pictures and products like "nav" systems and satellite TV. People grasp space solar power and suborbital tourism/transit. Scientific exploration is not enough and will always get budgeted out, it can't exist in a vacuum. <br /><br />I'm not sure if I will be able to watch the debate. Can someone liveblog it, at least any space questions?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

It seems we got enough attention to get at least one question in the debates, however I'll be very angry if it is 'should we drop everything and go to mars?', again.<br /><br />The #1 thing NASA needs is continuity of purpose. Any ambitious program NASA undertakes will require the cooperation of consecutive administrations.

 

[j05h]

<i>> I'll be very angry if it is 'should we drop everything and go to mars?', again. </i><br /><br />If a more technically literate candidate been asked, it might have been a worthy answer. It's to bad that a serious question can become political football. Speaking of...<br /><br /><i>> The #1 thing NASA needs is continuity of purpose. Any ambitious program NASA undertakes will require the cooperation of consecutive administrations.</i><br /><br />NASA has always been at the executive's discretion. Mandates and changes in direction happen every 5.5 years, the sinode between election cycles and budget cycles. That ISS was built is a testament to the effect of international cooperation. Remember, X33 (SSTO to Montana!) was going to be the One True Rocket once upon a time.<br /><br /> We have to work hard on reducing the "Giggle factor" about space. Any space question beyond "can't we spend that money here?" is welcome, IMHO. Mars, following the VSE, ESAS, whatever. <br /><br />As I've pointed out, all these destinations are within reach if done properly.<br /><br />I voted in the poll but couldn't think of a question not already asked. Got it now: "Would you support the six planks of the Vision for Space Exploration?"<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Going to the moon will reduce the 'giggle factor' of fuel depots. Establishing a base on the moon will reduce the 'giggle factor' of suggesting Mars missions... Each step lends credibility to the next.

 

[j05h]

So... did they ask any space questions?<br /><br />Prop depots don't have a high giggle factor, iMHO, because most people understand the idea of from gas stations. There is a surprising amount of public resistance to the Moon base trending on the "waste of money" through "Been there, done that" lines of thought. I'd argue that L1 is the next step, not lunar sorties or a lunar base. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[moonmadness]

"Can any of us state with certainty exactly why public opinion isn't with us? "<br /><br />Certainly???? exactly???? No?<br /><br />IMHO<br />There is just no motivation for any space program beyond (egghead) scientific research or the (WOW factor).<br /><br />The wow factor covering the " wow my country can do this we are so awesome" past to the buy a ticket "wow I went to LEO and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" future.<br /><br />Many have tried to liken space exploration and technology to things like the New World exploration or the early aeronautics age.<br /><br />But they had motivation. <br /><br />From the first ones searching for new hunting grounds to the European quest for land, riches or freedom to those who just wanted to get from New York to L.A. faster and safer.<br /><br />!!!!!UNFORTUNATELY!!!!!<br /><br />There is no place to live in this system besides Earth.<br /><br />The opportunity to live in a tin can or a glass bowl is not something people strive for.<br /><br />So unless they find gold in them there asteroid hills, Space will always be low priority hobby.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

Space has to Pay. Exploration is not enough. The VSE as proposed is far more than just NASA's ESAS.<br /><br />The people who see it as a waste of money may not understand exploration as part of a larger system but still see it as their money. For them, "Apollo on Steroids" is probably a double-insult because of the drug reference and the fact that Apollo resulted in... pretty pictures and lawn ornaments. <br /><br />NASA should aim a step further and two steps cheaper. Do the NEO mission using commercial hardware, for under $1 Billion. Put some robots in Shackleton and more on Mars, push outward. Spur on standards for robot-human operations between Earth-Luna and Phobos-Mars. Rehashing the Moon is not enough and creates active resistance among some people because they see it as more of the same. <br /><br />The planetary-defense argument for going to a NEO is at least within the government's mandate to protect us. The same argument is hard to make for a Moon base. <br /><br />While I largely agree with Halman about the Moon's being a "place", the same can be said for ISS and Mir. Pressurized space is important, they are the true destinations. <br /><br />It doesn't seem like they asked any space questions on the debate last night. The truth: both big media and the public only care about disaster headlines regarding space.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[venator_3000]

I agree with your points. I think the incremental approach is best and they (NASA) needs to focus on getting hardware together to get us there. I believe they are at their best when exploring (either manned or robotic) vs establishing an infrastructure (ISS and CEV/Orion).<br /><br />I too was disappointed with the fact there was no space-related question at the debates. Perhaps the questions posted or suggested were too broad or even too polite. Maybe the question that would have gotten their attention was: "There's a Manhattan-sized asteroid heading to Earth with the words Death to Humanity written on its surface. What are you going to do about it?"<br /><br />Of course, by the time such a question is posed it might already be too late.<br /><br />v3k <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

spacester:<br />I'm not saying the superstitious folks are any kind of major factor.<br /><br />Me:<br />Fair enough, and your right about using Presidential politics and sound bites. Human spaceflight advocacy, expecially missions to mars will need really good sound bites in an age where the attention span of some voters is nearly that of an 11 year old. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[halman]

johnbenac,<br /><br />Welcome to the madhouse called SDC! Here, everyone's opinions are disparaged with equal impunity.<br /><br />I regret that I looked at this thread too late to vote in the cited polls, but I find the discussion regarding the purposed question(s) to be a wonderful read.<br /><br />For what it is worth, in case such an opportunity comes up again, I suggest phrasing the question something like this: "Would you support increasing the amount spent on expanding the sphere of human activities beyond the planet Earth to one percent of the federal budget?"<br /><br />Such a question does not imply a specific goal, nor does it mention any dollar amounts, yet it gives a perspective on the amount that we are currently spending on space.<br /><br />Comments?<br /><br />On a related note, I know that NASA astronauts have filmed sequences for IMAX films. I have no idea how such arrangements were made, but the result was some very high quality images of the Earth. If NASA were to film a group of 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, and 60 second clips, what are the chances of getting those clips shown on television as Public Service Announcements? How about finding corporate sponsors to fund showing some of them during prime time, or major sporting events? These clips could show astronauts working outside the International Space Station, the ISS from the shuttle, the shuttle from the ISS, the Earth in various phases, sunrise/set from orbit, etcetera, and have captions like "Do you want to be part of the future?", "Boeing. Working with NASA to create the future," or "The only home we have."<br /><br />To my mind, pictures taken off planet are extremely powerful in terms of capturing people's attention, but NASA is not allowed to advertise. The agency generates huge amounts of high quality imagery, which could be used for free, if I am not mistaken. The above messages could be coupled with appeals to stay in school, to read, to study math and engineering, or simply to invest in companie <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[phaze]

If their attention span is... perhaps their wonderment would be also?<br /><br />I'd think a manned mission to Mars would be pretty captivating to an 11 yr old. How many 55-65 yr old engineers would cite the Moon landings as a huge inspiration in their life? Quite a few.<br /><br />Maybe we could send 50 or 100 or even 1000 probes to study solar flares, etc.. and generate a lot more scientific value for the $, BUT those types of missions (combined) will never create the attention and interest of a single mission to Mars.<br /><br />Disregarding the science and the technologies created/perfected for the mission, the inspiration itself might return dividends for decades.<br /><br />I think it's time.

 

[space_student]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, is anyone as pissed as I am that there was not a hint of anything space-related at the debates last night, despite 20 out of the top 25 questions in the politico.com poll having something to with space policy?<br /><br />During the debates, the viewers could vote on politico.com for which questions should be asked. To be fair, there were two space-related questions (out of about 50), but one of them was factually incorrect! It began with something like "the government used the Ansari X-prize to encourage the development of a new kind of spaceship...", suggesting that the X-prize was a government program. Did anyone catch that? Anyway, only a few of the questions voted on actually got asked during the debate. I got the sense that the moderators were picking and choosing the questions based on their own comfort level and where they felt the debate should go, with little regard to how many votes they got.