The key lesson is: for people to spend money on space the way they do on pizza, they must get a quick and personal return on a finite investment. Until then, comparing private pizza purchases with enforced financing of spaceflight (through general taxes) is inappropriate, to say the least.

Donald, you get it partly — perhaps mostly.

The pizza business has developed over time in the United States. They went from something like nothing to a multibillion dollar industry today by learning how to win customers for a dish most Americans didn’t even know about decades ago. They experimented with different recipes. They listened to customers and potential customers. There are major differences between NASA and the pizza business.

We’re starting to see some change in the present day aerospace business. Satellite broadcasting is one example. Space tourism is another. NASA Administrator Griffin has spoken more than once about the need of people in the aerospace field to listen, if only to prevent more disasters like Columbia.

It is fair to compare NASA to the pizza business. NASA — and space advocates — can learn quite a bit from such comparisons.

Unfortunately, that’s easy. When I buy a pizza, I get my stomach filled for an amount of money that can be in my pocket — instant gratification for finite resources. Space cannot yet offer that, although a few things like satellite TV and satellite radio are coming close. It is worth noting that Americans spend a lot of money on the latter two items. They may also do so on space tourism in the foreseeable future.

The key lesson is: for people to spend money on space the way they do on pizza, they must get a quick and personal return on a finite investment. Until then, comparing private pizza purchases with enforced financing of spaceflight (through general taxes) is inappropriate, to say the least.

— Donald

It can also be a useful tactic with space enthusiasts. Why, for example, do Americans spend more money on pizza than on space? What is the pizza industry doing that space industry is not? What can we learn from that other industry? I find it interesting that a man who got his start selling records in the UK — Richard Branson — might, some centuries down the road, be viewed as contributing more to the human expansion into space than Wernher von Braun.

Some might suggest that Rand is a straight shooter who is asking to be shot (by working for aerospace companies). Since Rand understands the risk of being shot (by his employer), and accepts that risk, what is the deal here other than Keith disagrees with Rand’s position on NASA funding?

Actually, Keith might have more of a point if he said Rand had a “lack of political savvy”.

Another Blog (NASA Watch) recently posted: “When an employee understands and adheres to (employer’s) Unwritten Rules we call them politically savvy. Nothing can derail a career more quickly than a lack of political savvy.”

– Nemo

Rand is right about NSS funding too. Lets get a sense of perspective here:

NSS had to sell its soul and today is a strong Shuttle supporter. OTOH Jerry Pournelle has been for alt.space and dead against the Shuttle+standing army.

Pournelle has 10 times as many subscribers to his blog as NSS has members, and Pournelle’s subscription rate is higher than the NSS membership fee. True, Pournelle covers non-space topics and is not based in DC, but still.

Hypocrisy would be publically praising a program (or, to some extent, remaining silent on it) that you privately think is nonsense. Rand is doing the opposite.

Perhaps a government-operated or owned facility on the Moon could serve as the “grappling hook” for future commercial activity. But where is the plan? That’s what I’m talking about. If the president mentioned this as a strategic plan (ie, that a government establishment on the Moon would absolutely need private services in order to work), then we’ve got something to hang our hats on.

Believe me, I see a role for the public, private, and communal sectors in space. None can do it alone. I advocate a stronger partnership, and I advocate for a national strategic plan that fleshes this out at the top level.

No way to judge that, unless others chime in, Keith–you certainly haven’t put forth any arguments that I found compelling–you (as seems to be your wont) simply repeat the same flawed one. Other than Donald’s comment, since retracted, I haven’t seen a chorus of support for your position. Or, of course, mine either (though Greg agreed, wonder of wonders, though maybe it was with my general comment about NASA budget levels, not on whether or not I’m a hypocrite). They probably all wish we’d just get a room.

But if imagining that you “won the argument” gets you to go away and start posting more interesting things on NASA Watch, go for it. I may post on this at my blog later, because it’s an interesting subject, and we won’t have to bore folks here with it, as it’s slightly (but less so than many such discussions) off topic.