Letters to Congress from Space Advocates of all kinds

[spacester]

If a Petition to Congress was drafted demanding significant additional funding for NASA in the FY07 budget, and this petition was so craftily written that nearly everyone - say 90% of the posters here - was willing to sign it, what would such a petition look like?<br /><br />I am going to post this intellectual exercise in multiple forums, starting with here at space.com and also at nasaspaceflight.com. I'm not going to even try to write a draft until there is significant feedback, and I'd like y'all to hold off on that step as well, but of course answer as you see fit. Note that an actual petition would have to be exclusive to U.S. Citizens, yet ideally (IMO) it would receive the same level of support from the world space advocate community (perhaps a second petition with slight variations would be appropriate).<br /><br />Note that this is an election year, and the final FY07 budget will not be decided until the end of the year.<br /><br />What are your conditions for finding yourself willing to sign such a petition? What kinds of things must it include? What kinds of things do you refuse to sign on to?<br /><br />Thank you for your participation.<br /><br />(edit: Changed the title: 'Letters' was 'Petition')<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

I've always believed that Nasa should have signed into law for it a guaranteed 1% percent of the budget, not the half or 0.7 of one percent they've suffered for years. <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>

 

[no_way]

im not sure that most of the space advocates would want NASA budget increased in the first place.<br />simply throwing more money at the problem rarely solves it, and often does more harm than good.<br /><br />this does not absolutely mean that government shouldnt spend some money on space, its just that NASA might not be the best place for spending if you want results. remember that space does not equal NASA, not even for us government.

 

[ehs40]

would 1% of the budget make up for the gap of 5 billion for cev and sts projects in the next few years? i am also willing to back this petition

 

[frodo1008]

A good framework to start with might be the excellent letter in support of space science from the Planetary Society. Just expeand thi sreasoning to include the funding of all of NASA's areas.<br /><br />Bring it out an dlike signing the letter from the Planetary Society I WILL be more than happy to sign it!!!

 

[frodo1008]

Even if you were to exclude the deficit the federal budget runs at $2.5 trillion. One percent of that is $25 billion, or $9 billion more than NASA is getting right now per year. So over 5 years this would be an increase of $45 billion to NASA's budget. Would this make up for $5 billion. You do the math!!<br /><br />I really think that this type of increase would enable NASA to actually be flying the single stick CEV by the time the shuttle was retired, and be flying both the single stick and the SHLV by 2012, and going back to the moon by 2015, and on to Mars by 2020. Which is the current estimate for just getting back to the moon!<br /><br />Please note that even with this kind of funding increase that NASA would only be getting some 5% of the DEFICIT! <br /><br />There is a special chart called a Paredo chart used in Quality Assurance and other project planning. It measures the parts of a whole such as the various parts of the funding of the federal budget. It places the largest part items first, and (having a separate chart feature, such as a bar or line, for each separate part) then goes down to the smallest item at the right end of the chart (traditionally going from left to right). In Quality Assurance the charts are used so that if you have a number of quality issues you spend your greatest efforts on those issues that are most important first.<br /><br />For the federal budget the individual items would be things like: social security, military spending, Medicare, Medicade, interest on the national debt, veterans spending, etc. If you were to make such a chart in excel, NASA's budget would be shown at the far right under what in Quality circles is called "The insignificant few". As a matter of fact it would quite probably be impossible to even show NASA’s budget in any kind of reasonable chart scale! You would need a very large sheet of paper before it would even show up!!<br /><br />Yet the perception (and what some posters on these boards take as gospel)

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">im not sure that most of the space advocates would want NASA budget increased in the first place.</font><br /><br />I'm not sure either. That's why I'm asking. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />So do you support increased funding or not? What are your conditions? Do you understand the current budget situation? Do you understand that NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?<br /><br />***<br />The completely underwhelming response here tends to indicate to me that no one here actually gives a damn, that for most folks here this whole forum is all cheap entertainment and nothing more . . . am I right, or is the deafening silence simply due to not having an actual draft petition to talk about? Or is it the messenger and not the message that you don't like? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

There has been FAR too much negativity here on even this forum (and if you go over to free space, make sure you have a very strong stomach!). <br /><br />I was (and I would like to think still am to a great extent) an unabashedly idealistic space program supporter! One of the 400,000 people that helped put men on the moon. It WAS a time so very, very unlike that of the negativity of these times!! We actually thought that we could make a difference in the very future of humanity! <br /><br />The 1960's has been fittingly called "The decade of Great Dreams!" I would so personally LOVE to see those times come about again!<br /><br />I like Mike Griffin and Burt Rutan even though one is NASA and the other is pure private industry. They both exhibit at least some of the positive energy of JFK and Wherner von Braun, and the early astronauts, which extended all the way down to such small frogs in the large puddle as myself!! I have absolutely NO problem with being for increased spending for BOTH NASA and the pure private efforts! <br /><br />We were able to accomplish such incredibly great things in the 1960's for many reasons:<br /><br />One was the positive idealistic energy that pervaded the entire country! Oh, I know the cynical views of today, that the ONLY reason we were able to accomplish such was the space race with the USSR and to some extent this is quite true! But to a young 19 year old who had read science fiction most of his life, and now held a job cutting off metal burrs on machined parts that were going into rocket engines that were going to put men into space, and even take them to the moon, the race with the USSR was ONLY very secondary!!<br /><br />Is it possible for even some of the more jaded negativists on these boards to even begin to understand THAT kind of feeling? I would hope that even these people would at least like to feel that way at least once in their lives!! Even though I made reasonable middle class wages and benefits IT WASN'T ABOUT M

 

[spacester]

I do not doubt that you are correct, newsartist. Note that I’m looking to have this discussion on petition language as an intellectual exercise. It would seem that a petition would require very large numbers to be effective, so individual letters are likely the correct media for the message.<br /><br />But we know from long experience that the resulting aggregate message will be all over the map, and it is my belief that until Congress hears something along the lines of a consensus, advocacy will not work effectively.<br /><br />It seems to me that we are at a point in history where such a consensus is possible.<br /><br />1. ISS/STS fans want to see their birds fly safely and with good purpose and finish their job with honor.<br /><br />2. VSE/ESAS/CEV fans want to see their birds fly soonest and they don’t necessarily like seeing other programs take any hits. Yet the development of this architecture is Job #1, and under this administrator, that means something it hasn’t for a long time.<br /><br />3. Science fans want their full funding back. I can rip into their emotional screeds and I can call them whiners, but I can also ‘take their side’. I want their full funding back too. What they don’t yet fully realize is that we’re all in this together.<br /><br />4. NASA bashers have become a group with which I am no longer familiar. 90% of my gripes with NASA have been acknowledged and around 50% are well on their way to being solved. I have seen true leadership only a couple of times in my life, and I suspect that most of us never see it. Yet what we have at NASA’s helm these days is a true leader. IMO Americans have gone so long without true leadership in the most important positions they do not recognize it when it’s right in front of their face. (I made up a quote a few years back, I’m gonna trot it out again. At least I think I made this up: “The most cynical will always be the last one to recognize progress”)<br /><br />The first three groups should support a one-time ‘bailout <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

The only possible minor disagreement I have with your excellent post is that a one time bail-out of $3.5 billion is going to be a more difficult sell to congress than just a more modest incremental increase.<br /><br /> As there are now some 4 years left until the shuttle is retired (after hopefully finishing the ISS, and repairing the Hubble) an increase of some 7% above inflation (the same as given to the military) for at least that period (and whhich comes to about $1.1 billion per year, as calculated against NASA's current budget) would be sufficient. <br /><br />Also, as the money to complete ISS and retire the shuttle, and develope the CEV is otherwise going to have to come from the space science budget this funding could even be ear-marked for the space science budget alone, and still accomplish the job at hand. I would even hope that such an increase could be continued after 2010 so as to boost the CEV for going back to the moon and on to Mars!<br />

 

[spacester]

Hi frodo, sorry for seeming to ignoring you until now, I wasn't really . . .<br /><br />I would of course totally support a permanent budget boost, that would be terrific! As to the earmarking for Science only, my understanding is that your 7% would about match up with the Science cuts, so that's what would happen. But the one-time infusion of $3.5B would do that AND speed up CEV. That's my understanding from the testimony anyway, reading between the lines perhaps. I trust our pal Mike to use it wisely, so I would ask Congress to attach as few strings as possible.<br /><br />It's just that the one-time appropriation seems an easier sell to me. But I'm no DC insider and no budget wonk, so what do I know? <br /><br />There are folks here who could shed some light . . . and I plan to write my Congressman and ask him which he thinks is an easier sell.<br /><br />In fact, I'm hoping other people will do the same thing . . .<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

>>Even if you were to exclude the deficit the federal budget runs at $2.5 trillion. One percent of that is $25 billion, or $9 billion more than NASA is getting right now per year. So over 5 years this etc.<<<<<br /><br />Frodo, your post was brilliant. I'll be saving it for a reference source. Well done!! <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>

 

[frodo1008]

Thank you very much! It IS nice to be appreciated. Especially as I don't think the more negative elements are always too happy with this left over idealistic 1960's technological hippy!<br /><br />There are a few people on this forum that do a consistently good job of being what I think people here should be. You are absolutely one of them along with spacester, calli, and shuttle_guy and propforce. There will hopefully be other newer members that fall into the same group, and it is for these few that I stay and tilt at the windmills!<br /><br />Have A Great Day!

 

[frodo1008]

When you do find out from your congressman the best method of solving this problem please come back and we will continue to put something together. <br /><br />It is true that form type letters probably don't have the impact that more individual hand written letters would. However, what I have been told happens in many cases is that a congressional helper takes the totals of the number of people in the congresspersons district that support or oppose a particular issue and tally up the results. It is this that most congress members act upon! After all, it represents votes from their individual districts!! And THAT is what counts to congress.<br /><br />So if we can get even a from letter together, and get a general consensus of space advocacy individuals and even possible groups we CAN make a possible difference here!! <br />

 

[mattblack]

Thanks, Frodo! "'Tis a heavy Ring that ye bear..."<br /><br />The negative types are only too happy to tell you what they don't want, and find enormous difficulty telling you what they DO want, because often, they have no real alternatives... <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>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So do you support increased funding or not?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Not to NASA in its current form, because like 1% of the funds goging to NASA currently end up in useful projects. <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What are your conditions?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> That a separate body ( or two ) is established within the government with very clear mandates. One of them should be core technology development, similar to what NACA used to be. Another should be something like Office of Space Commercialization, with the difference of actually being funded and supported within the government.

 

[frodo1008]

I guess under those circumstances you don't like either the manned nor the science programs!!<br /><br />This is because while the space science programs don't get the lions share of NASA funding, they get a whole lot more than 1%!! In that case you would be arguing with askold as much as myself!!<br /><br />I see that you are very big on the so called commercialization of space. I have no problem with that per se, but just what do you define the commercial sector as? <br /><br />There are commercial communications satellites that are far and away the largest spenders of cash in the launch business (well, perhaps the military spends more, but if so they are by far and away the second largest spenders on launch services). In this category there are even some new entries using spy types of satellites for taking graphic images of the earth from space. None of these particular commercial projects have any need for NASA at this time (although they all owe their very existence to both NASA and the military).<br /><br />Then there are the semi private efforts of Elon Musk who IS hopefully going to launch Falcon I and other rockets for a contract to the military.<br /><br />Then there is Burt Rutan who states that he doesn't WANT any help from the government in developing space tourism. His funding comes from outfits like Virgin Galactic. However, even some of his company is involved in seeking military governmental contracts. <br /><br />Then there are start up companies, after start up companies, after start up companies, and on , and on.<br /><br />It would take truly MAJOR revisions to NASA's charter to do what you say that you think they should do. Something that quite frankly, congress is not going to be willing to tackle under any circumstances!<br /><br />Having already shown the ability to at least place human beings into sub orbital space Burt Rutan is far and away the leader in the pure private efforts to launch human beings into space! At this time anyway nobody else

 

[no_way]

dont have time for full reply right now, but whats up with all the exclamation marks ? <br /><br />your posts read all like "the sky is falling" due to abuse of certain punctuation character

 

[spacester]

no_way, let me just ask one question. <br /><br />I accept that you think NASA does something useful with only 1% of its funding. I strongly disagree with that assessment but you're a taxpayer too and you have a right to your opinion.<br /><br />I appreciate that you were able to outline your conditions for increased support and I thank you for that. I also appreciate the logic behind your proposal - a new entity for "someday technology development" and another new entity for "today technology deployment", is that a fair summary? (That's not the question <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) That would be sound policy if it could actually be done and done well. Which brings me to my question.<br /><br />Do you think your proposal stands a snowball's chance of being implemented in such a way as to have the intended effect? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

I'm wondering just what it would actually take to make progress on this. I had suggested in another thread a civilian branch of NASA that would allow us to make donations. Good feedback on that, and some very valid concerns. So, here's another idea:<br /><br />Instead of yet more petitions, or new private space advocate groups that are trying to raise the funds to get to space, what about a grassroots organization who's sole purpose is simply to promote space? Do our fundraisers and so on to promote the public's awareness of space? If this means bake sales and garages sales so we can rent billboard advertising to "Support Space," or hand out posters/bookcovers/bumper stickers at the schools, or whatever, so that everywhere people look, they see space. <br /><br />Back in the days when the space program started, there was something on every street to support it. We need to make "Space" an expectation, not a pipe dream. Ideally we could even sponsor TV commercials, perhaps with those celebrities that people associate with space. (IE: William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, Tom Hanks) doing 30-60 second spots showing the general public what space exploration will do for them. Any ideas on this?<br /><br />Rae

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>another new entity for "today technology deployment", is that a fair summary?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> more like "today business deployment" as technology is just a tool to conduct business but thats a nit. <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you think your proposal stands a snowball's chance of being implemented in such a way as to have the intended effect?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> i do. note that im not proposing to abolish or dismantle NASA. im also not proposing to increase or decrease NASA's funding so as not to touch the established pork flows. im just proposing that if one manages to squeeze lets say a 10% of extra money out of congress for _space_, its more useful to direct it to such bodies than NASA. even $500 mil a year for such offices could accelerate development of space to unprecedented levels. Think about it. $500 mil a year for pure new space tech developments. like areospike engine prototypes, new materials testing, deep-space propulsion tests like solar sails etc. all of those are right now done on shoestring budgets in small research institutions if at all. Lets say you run like five major projects all the time and allocate $50 mil a year for each. this leaves you half of the budget for various overhead, management and small projects. now take the case for business development or commercialization office. split the money roughly the same way ( around five major projects running at the same time ). with the money you have offer subsidies, prizes, investments for companies and businesses that would serve the goal of growing the space industry. Inevitably, half of your projects will fail, but the rest of it would still be worthy progress for the money. now contrast this to shuttle yearly budgets since columbia for which you have this far gotten one launch and tell me whether it would be wise to try something different finally.

 

[spacester]

Well answered, sir. There is a lot to like in your proposal.<br /><br />I don't have time for a proper reply and it doesn't look good for finding it for a few days. <br /><br />The short version: 1. Mike Griffin makes all the difference in my strategy. 2. We could earmark 1/7th of my proposed $3.5 one-time appropriation for the first year of your proposal, and keep it funded in following years with incremental budget increases.<br /><br />I'd love to see discussion from others about your proposal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">I'm wondering just what it would actually take to make progress on this. </font><br /><br />Me too. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <br /><br />As long as some of us keep chipping away at the problem, there remains a chance we can make a difference.<br /><br />So I'm gonna keep chipping away at it.<br /><br />I like your proposal. If you wanted to head such a thing up, I'm on board.<br /><br />There are a lot of existing orgs out there that say they exist to promote space flight, but none of them seem to be very effective at it. For various reasons they just don't seem to get any traction. My next step is to figure out why that is.<br /><br />Any thoughts, folks? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

I'm up for it. Not really sure where to start. I'll start a new thread with that topic. Anyone who would be interested in participating in this sort of thing, please respond on that thread. We have plenty of people here to get something started, if we're willing to put in the effort. Spacester, with your experience setting up ACCESS, would you be willing to help with this?<br /><br />Rae