I concur with this but also note that it is very difficult to avoid the government “picking winners” if the money flows through the government.

Finding non-taxpayer sourced revenue (somewhere, anywhere) strikes me as essential.

Also, space exploration need not provide any earth shaking benefit to generate marketing revenue. Actually, marketing dollars are usually spent between competitors that lack any significant differentiation in their products.

Budweiser vs Miller beer or Coke vs Pepsi or Colgate vs Crest toothpaste or Verizon vs Cellular One vs Sprint.

Quisp vs Quake took this to its logical extreme although Aquafina vs Dasani is close.

Let us suppose public support for space exploration is a “mile wide and an inch deep” as is often said. An inch of depth is all someone might need to increase the sales of Brand A over Brand X IF the products are more or less identical to begin with.

The first thing you need to recognize is that in an open market there is no “we”. Until “we” stop lobbying government to pick winners, there will not be an open market and there will be no private investment of any significant magnitude.

Sort of correct. The American public is knowledgeable enough to recognize that our lifestyle improvements come from scientific research, and are prepared to spend a small portion of their income supporting it. However, they’re also smart enough to read between the lines and realize that on the moon, like on ISS, NASA isn’t doing any.

Hence the shrinking budget.

In my opinion, the mission critical task is to get money flowing into space exploration that is NOT taxpayer-sourced. Once funding passes through Uncle Sugar’s digestive tract it becomes subject to a great many ancillary considerations (jobs in Florida, comments about global warming) that have nothing whatsoever to do with space exploration.

Almost ANY source of private investment in space exploration should be encouraged and welcomed. Remember, the American consumer is the greatest economic engine in the entire history of the human race and all around the world, a new middle class with similar spending habits is just beginning to emerge. Tap into that and there will be plenty of bucks for Buck Rogers

But how, unless we adopt a Nike or marketing mindset?

Space enthusiasts need to go where the money is rather than demand (fruitlessly) that Congress bring more money to them.

a strengthening of the industrial base “by drawing in the more
entrepreneurial firms, instead of only the two or three biggest”.

To accomplish this, we need to support players other than Boeing, Lockheed and ATK in providing Earth to LEO lift. Thus, while a transition to an EELV Crew Launch Vehicle may be preferable to the Stick, it is irrelevant to this critical point.

ESAS (and much much better yet, Direct) uses the Big Three (Stooges?) to provide NASA with heavy lift, leaving market space for SpaceX, KIstler, XCOR etc. . . to provide light and light medium lift. And if Lockheed chooses to man-rate a small Atlas V crew taxi on its own dime to service Bigelow, well then, they can join the mammals.

Tina: Linda, I’m pregnant. How is that going to look on the debriefing?

Linda: Is it Bob’s?

Tina: No, it’s Sven’s. He left for Russia three days ago and I haven’t told him yet.

Linda: I knew there was a reason we voted him off last week. Tina, if you want to stay on the ISS, we need to keep this between you and I until next week so we can vote Tom off.

Tina: Ok. I remember the plan.

Bob: “I’m really upset right now. It wasn’t right for her to take that prject from me. It has been mine from the start!”

Linda: “The sooner he gets over the fact that he’s attracted to me, the sooner we can get back to work!”

The Ansari X Prize is the most popular example from a few years ago. NASA is also offering several more grants and prizes to encourage new business ventures, even at the “small” level of glove design (for example).

NASA is on the right track, in my opinion. The issue is the political aspect of budgeting.

The American public has been trained to look at things as a “what do I get now out of it” situation. NASA can’t answer that effectively. When our politicians and public are looking for entertainment and lifestyle improvements, NASA suddenly finds itselft competing against more exciting and entertaining fields of study (as far as the public is concerned). It is like PBS competing against the Superbowl. PBS could be airing something proving that God exists and showing the one true religion, signed off by all athiests, and it will lose to the Superbowl. If PBS sent $1,000 to everyone who tuned in for their program, then they’d do better, but I think the Superbowl will still win.

Politicians in the US spend money based on popularity. Popularity these days tends to be based on entertainment value. If that doesn’t change, then NASA will have difficulty in getting even approved funding for some time to come. I fear that, because of these things, we’ll see a sharp decrease in funding once the Shuttle program is retired, because suddenly a large chunk of money will be freed up, and budget cuts and tax breaks are the best way to get votes.

While Secretary Lehman overplays the foreign competition, and I agree with Anonymous about the tangibility of human space exploration inspiring youth… I would prefer to embrace what I agree with:

a strengthening of the industrial base “by drawing in the more
entrepreneurial firms, instead of only the two or three biggest”.

I have no problem with making the nationalistic argument that America should be dominant in space exploration/development/settlement. We aren’t going to be dominant in low-cost-manufacturing, or outsourced services (except high-end financial). So if we’re going to lead, we need to really lead in high tech areas.

The fact that Lehman at least acknowledges that, perhaps, the only way for America to lead is to get mammals involved as well as dinosaurs is something of a breakthrough. I would like to embrace that.