Compare and contrast: first, an op-ed in Wednesday’s Orlando Sentinel by Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Barbara Mikulski, who put forward a standard set of arguments (we can’t trust the Russians, the Chinese are coming, etc.) to press for more money for NASA:
However, once the international space station is complete, the U.S. will have to endure a five-year period in which we will not have the capability of delivering our scientists to it. Such a delay makes no sense. Considering the tens of billions of dollars we’ve already invested in the station, it is essential that Congress take the necessary steps to shrink that gap as much as possible.
According to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, an extra $2 billion investment would make Orion operational two years ahead of its current schedule. This seems like a worthy investment for Congress to make.
Also on Wednesday, Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein is economical with his words as he takes a knife to NASA to help reduce the budget deficit:
We all love manned space flight, but at this point, we’re not learning much from it. There’s another $5 billion.
(Actually, $5 billion is the approximate total for just shuttle and ISS; if you add in Constellation, that’s another $3 billion. Don’t tell him.) Pearlstein was asked about that cut in an online chat later Wednesday and responded:
Don’t see much more upside there, at least as a national priority. Sorry. Exploration of outer space, which is cheaper and is more at the frontiers of knowledge — that’s probably worth doing, people who know more about these things tell me.
These two differing proposals do have one thing in common. The odds that Congress would approve such a drastic cut of NASA’s budget is approximately zero. The odds that Hutchison and Mikulski can win an extra $2 billion for NASA to accelerate Constellation, given their track record to date, may not be that much higher.
> “delivering our scientists to it”
What scientists?
Space Enthusiasts –
Quienes asked “What scientists?” and I would like to point out that we have plenty of scientists that now go to the Space Station. Peggy Whitson is a good example – she is a medical researcher, not a pilot.
Stan Love is going to visit the Station on the current Shuttle mission, and he is an astronomer.
That is two quick examples. We could discuss quality or quantity of science, but Quienes did not ask that question.
Charles
Quienes has no clue about reality.
Head back to dream land lil troll buddy !
> we have plenty of scientists that now go to the Space Station.
Ah. I had misunderstood the point of the Senators’ remark. So the idea is to send people with scientific degrees of one sort or another to ISS, not necessarily that they will be doing science there.
Out of curiosity, how many astronauts are lawyers or CPAs?
So the idea is to send people with scientific degrees of one sort or another to ISS, not necessarily that they will be doing science there.
Sorta like Huckabee’s mars program proposal. Not to do research or discovery, simply an expensive way to get rid of Hillary.
It seems the only way our country will ever commit to a vigorous (government-funded) space program is after a small asteroid incinerates a city. People always get motivated after the horse has escaped the barn. Pretty dismal.
Typical geocentric, static, zero sum game thinking from a conventional political creature, not someone who knows one whit of fact as opposed to fiction about space, and what is really involved in getting there, what is possible to do there, and who should pay for what program, how such programs are chosen or not, and how they are paid for.
To a Political Economist who specializes in space development/settlement, Steven Pearlstein comments are inaccurate, unrealistic, and typical of the lies, myths, and urban legends anything space typically suffers from in this supposed “advanced culture” the US used to be, and sadly, now is not.
We have our work cut out for us space community members, to make sure such lies, myths, and urban legends are not passed for facts as they are at present, but exposed for the idiocy and fiction they are in fact.
Gotta agree with the guy. $8B out of the govt human spaceflight program would be a good cut.
Typical geocentric, static, zero sum game thinking from a conventional political creature
As opposed to negative sum proposals from the space fans.
I’m sorry, Paul. Could you clarify your comment a little? Most proposals I’ve heard from “space fans” are wildly positive and optimistic. I take it that you aren’t a “fan”.
.
If Microsoft will succeed to buy Yahoo, its founders should earn $4 billion cash, so, could they use that money to start (also) a New.Space company?
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/024yahoospace.html
.
Have you guys looked at what’s happening in Russia these days? Putin has pretty much suffocated what is left of the country’s democracy. It’s becoming a one-party state internally and increasingly aggressive internationally. There may come a time in the near future where countries like Ukraine have to choose between NATO and the EU and falling back into the Russian orbit. That could result in anything from a freeze in relations to open conflict.
It would be nice to accelerate the time table. But there’s that matter of the deep financial hole that George Bush has left us in. And the ongoing military commitments. That’s all going to be a major problem for many years.
Most proposals I’ve heard from “space fans†are wildly positive and optimistic.
I agree, with great emphasis on ‘wildly’. Other useful adjectives would be ‘incredibly’, ‘fantastically’, and ‘unbelievably’.
My take is that the reality is that these proposals would, if implemented, consume more wealth than produced, industrial strength wishful thinking notwithstanding.
Well, Paul, could you provide a list of government agencies that return more wealth than they consume? Why should NASA be the exception? Considering all that NASA, with all it’s warts, has contributed to America and the world, I frankly don’t see why the agency shouldn’t get a blank check. Certainly a budget of $25 billion a year would be in order.
If you are a political conservative and you just don’t think the gov’t should fund ANY space projects, fine. But I’ve got a notebook full of gov’t agencies and programs that would get the ax before NASA, and you would never notice them missing. A century from now people will still remember the moon landing, only a dedicated historian would care to recall Amtrak.
If NASA closed shop tomorrow, and it took private industry one hundred years to profitably mine the moon/asteroids, build orbital power stations, etc, you can bet that ol’ non-wealth producing government will be right there with its hand out, wanting a share of the goods. Insisting on it, as a matter of fact.
Z-Bob wrote: “A century from now people will still remember the moon landing, only a dedicated historian would care to recall Amtrak.”
You hit the nail on the head Z. IMHO this is the most important argument, and yet it can be the most difficult for people to grasp.
Space exploration is as much about our future, as it is about the present.
Regarding Apollo vs Amtrak: We stopped landing folks on the Moon more than 3 decades ago but Amtrak is still operating.
Perhaps we might find a lesson or two wrapped up in that fact.
Bob, providing an example of how difficult it is to convince people. It’s more than money spent, the space program represents something important about who we are, and where we are going.
I would rather not rely on others for ISS access. Kudos to Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Barbara Mikulski for they’re efforts.
watchnasatv:
I agree with your sentiments about what space exploration represents; what I was trying to suggest, albeit poorly, is that we may find something about how to maintain a long-term govt program in the details of how Amtrak has remained around all this time. The govt took over passenger railroad traffic from commercial entities (a reverse COTS, if you will) and somehow someone somewhere justified it so well (and on a continuing basis, for decades) that it survives today. Studying the “somehow” might offer Washington in-the-trenches ideas for ensuring space program sustainability over the long haul, since the success of selling the grander vision ebbs and flows over the years. Maybe not, but it’s certainly worth taking a look…
Bob
Ok, well we are on the same page now. NASA’s budget is tiny, 25 bill would be much better as “z” stated. The article and review suggest we won’t even get 2bill.
Amtrak? Last I checked they get 2bill/year subsidy. IMO a train system that works(most of the time) for that price is acceptable. I think the fact that it primarily serves the east coast(NE in particular) helps it’s “sustainability over the long haul”. Maybe the answer lies in a certain TV station that 30+ million people receive but don’t watch.
I’m not sure how much longer Amtrak will be around, but let me use it anyway to highlight the ugly shadow that always accompanies NASA’s budget problems.
The ugly shadow is the idea, left over from the sixties, that NASA must “excite” a large portion of the American population, in order for politicians to shower NASA with bucks. Amtrak doesn’t have to excite anybody, and yet, as Bob M points out, somebody is able to milk a budget out of Congress year after year. Just like there is no government agency that is even expected to return more than it consumes, there is no government agency that has to “excite” the populace in order to get its goodies EXCEPT NASA.
We maintain a constant presence in Antarctica without having to excite the average Joe. All kinds of deep sea expeditions are undertaken without having to wind everybody in America up. These efforts have their supporters and groupies, of course, but I suspect hardcore space enthusiasts outnumber them.
The average person will always be periodically excited by dramatic discoveries in any field, but as soon as Amy Fisher makes another sex tape its time to move on. Completely self-contained seaworms living in volcanic vents?-yawn.
The Cold War and the Space Race are long gone. A way has to be found to secure steady growth in government support for space exploration without bringing the circus to town every year.
Z-Bob:
I’d rather turn your suggested “ugly shadow” around: I don’t think we should consider exciting the public as a requirement so much as an opportunity. As I tried to get across in my TSR article “Space for Improvement” last year (everyone seemed to focus on how lousy NASA TV is) and have elaborated on in another thread a few items down (I think), you don’t need a circus every week to keep people engaged, you just need effective storytelling.
Plenty of successful movies (and even 30-second commercials) keep folks engaged without lunar-landing-caliber content. Space exploration, even the so-called boring stuff like orbital operations, contains plenty of material that can serve as content for engaging stories; the important aspect, the common denominator for all of it, is that people are involved. The heart of effective storytelling is getting the audience attached to the characters…and it doesn’t just have to be astronauts.
The major problem with space exploration “PR” is that the people in charge of telling the stories today are lousy storytellers.
BTW, a dirty little secret hiding behind comparions between Antarctica ops & space ops (comparisons I consider valid in certain ways) is relative cost. The annual NSF allocation for all polar science (don’t know if this includes logistics; might be a military line item) is less than the cost of a single shuttle mission. (http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2008/pdf/26_fy2008.pdf)
Obviously we all want to bring down the cost of spaceflight, but perhaps this monstrous imbalance helps to fuel the regrettable notion that spaceflight must excite the public (and create daily technical miracles) to justify itself.
[Yet consider paleontology: the cost of digging up those crumbling fragments is a pittance, but not many scientific subjects (i.e., dinosaurs) have kept the public fully engaged for 150 years… How much has the Jurassic Park empire raked in? Something to consider as we formulate a better sales pitch for space.]
You’re right that space PR people aren’t good at PR. Why? They are usually dry gov’t scientists and bureaucrats. I remember watching coverage of the impact of Shoemaker-Levy into Jupiter while at the beach. I was with a group of people snickering at how “excited” the science team was over the event. I heard the usual “nerd” and “they need a life” comments. I certainly understand the scientists excitement (and my own), but it almost never carries over to people who don’t have scientific interests of their own.
You mentioned movies, commercials, etc. They are good at arousing interest in space (who could not be at least a little moved by Apollo 13?), but another dirty little secret is that such successful media appeal to peoples mystical needs. Space, for obvious reasons, arouses mystical yearnings even in dry scientists-but it almost never arouses mystical yearnings on the budget committee.
Private industry will capitalize on the entertainment and the mystical/spiritual value of space. But if we want our govt to lead the way, we need to rely on something more substantial than the fickle interest of the public.
One special interest group I am curious about-mountain climbers. All of
Earth’s mountains have been climbed, haven’t they? Do any of them desire to climb a 15 mile high volcano on Mars? The moon is loaded with almost limitless unclimbed peaks as well. I’ve never read of the slightest fanciful discussion among climbers about supporting manned missions to fulfill
any such quests.
Z-Bob:
I may be splitting hairs here, but I believe it’s important in the matter of engaging the public.
I think that in the particular case of Apollo 13 I would disagree with your assessment that it arouses mystical yearning. If I understand what you’re getting at, mystical yearning is tightly coupled to the intellect. Apollo 13 was about human beings in peril and and a heroic effort to bring them home. That’s pure, unadulterated emotional connection between the audience and the characters. The same effect takes place in ANY story involving folks in danger and the trials of saving them. Even the representation of Lovell’s yearning to go to the Moon wasn’t about what your suggesting; as represented, it was all about the disappointment of not achieving one’s dream and the joy to be found in less-impressive accomplishment. Spaceflight was merely a neat background (that it was reality-based added some punch).
And that’s what I’m after: use real and realistic spaceflight as content in stories that emotionally (and intellectually) engage the public, both in fiction and documentary. This will slowly bring them around to value it as part of their lives, just as music and comedy and other entertainments do so. But THIS engaging “entertainment” brings with it so many other benefits.
I am not suggesting that stories about spaceflight cannot address or won’t arouse mystical yearnings; I’m just saying that it depends on the storyline. And there are plenty of stories in “regular” spaceflight that can engage ordinary people (I’ve had some success with my novel with folks from all sorts of different backgrounds) if they are only told with competence, ensuring that the emotional link to the characters (that includes real participants) is achieved.
As for mountain-climbers, I fear that the mountain-climbing field doesn’t sport enough enthusiasts to merit government investment in a trip to Olympus Mons. But I’m pretty sure I’m missing your bigger point…
I had no big point about mountain climbers-just seems like they could be another voice in the chorus about going to the moon/Mars.
By all means, try to engage the public about space. It has to be introduced to those who have-dare I say-an “inborn” interest in space and the sciences. I was lucky to have been a child during the moon landings, so exposure was not a problem. You have a bigger task today, with greater distractions for both kids and adults. When you try to engage the public intellectually, only those citizens who actually have intellects will respond. For the rest, mysticism and emotion rule the day.
I’m afraid I’m a short term cynic, long term optimist regarding space expansion. These seem to be the times that try (space) men’s souls.
If you’re allowed to say here, what is the title of your novel?
No need to say here; it’s in the bio paragraph at the end of the article. (Both articles, actually; I’m assuming you saw my 2-part essay in TSR last February on engaging the public? I elaborate A LOT in that one on these points).
I think emotion is sufficient to engage most of the public; it’s been working for 3000+ years of storytelling, even before we started writing ‘em down. Intellectual & mystical hooks are bonuses. You may be correct regarding the need to find fertile ground (i.e., an in-born interest in space and/or science), but maybe that’s actually a fundamental part of being human in the first place but then it gets shellaced over after birth. I can’t offer any evidence supporting one position or the other.
I probably would label myself a short-time cynic & long-term optimist as well, but, hey, ya gotta have a dream or two.
[…] security” (at least Senator Hutchison, though she never explains exactly how) that NASA must get an extra couple billion dollars to close it.What gap is that? The only gap will be that of NASA’s inability to put up astronauts on their […]