As you may have already discovered after perusing the archives here, we had a post summarizing the debate up just a few hours after it took place:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/15/initial-thoughts-from-the-mars-society-debate/

Thanks for visiting and reading!

The Debate was at the August Mars Society Convention in Boulder.

YouTube has an edit of the opening remarks at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf2yMRKixXk“>

And the Mars Society has the 100% full debate at:
http://www.marssociety.org/media/video/flash/debate.html

I dunno, you tell me… at least this one got good & nasty at times

This is very overblown and highly inaccurate rhetoric that bears no resemblance whatsoever to what the Obama representative actually said at the ISDC panel:

“Steve Robinson, an Obama staffer who works primarily on education issues, said that space policy was part of the campaign’s broader science policy.”

“He also said Obama would create a ’supportive environment for scientific research and space exploration’ in the public and private sectors, ‘including the new generation of entrepreneurs who are interested in space exploration.’”

“‘My boss, Senator Obama, has come out and said that, overall, science funding, nationally, needs to double, and that includes an increase in NASA funding,’ he said.”

“Robinson added that a National Research Council study concluded that NASA was being tasked with more work that it could afford to do with its current budget. ‘The rallying cry, I think, for NASA now is that we will go as we can afford to pay. That’s not exactly an inspirational message, and that’s something I think my boss would like to look at and decide how to do this.’”

See (add http://www):

thespacereview.com/article/1142/1

Nothing that the Obama representative said indicates that he is trying to “burn the ships” or put “to death the manned space program”. Please, let’s read and absorb what the campaigns are actually saying before throwing invective around based on what we think or want the campaigns to be saying.

FWIW…

And I would argue that those of us out in blogger land are just as much engaging the non-space public, as we are the space policy makers, if not more so. And to the non-space public, arguing VSE vs ESAS is rather pointless, as is EELV vs Direct vs Ares

I concur with Rand regarding space & elections and who dictates the policy in our current (as in, dating from the early 1960s through today) “system.” McCurdy’s “The Space Station Decision” does a good job of highlighting how convoluted this process can be.

But Ferris’s observation about needing to engage the public has certain merit. If (and, yes, it’s a big, wishful IF) we could make space a larger element of the public’s consciousness (something which NASA PAO has done such a dismal job at, almost seeming to be trying to do the opposite), perhaps a more widespread interest in space will grow sufficiently strong that the public can once again play a substantial role in shaping (or at least pushing) the policy in a positive way.

Might take a decade or more, but with today’s communications technology, maybe not. Please see (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/807/1) for some seed ideas on how. I don’t see a downside to trying this in parallel with working near-term with the current congress/executive/policy-wonks “system” that’s currently in place.

Then it’s not going to happen.

But I disagree with your premise. Space policy has never been, and (unless it somehow becomes much more prominent) never will be driven by “the average person.” It’s always decided within the space policy community, pretty much divorced from the voters. The only time that it’s ever been even potentially a voting issue was just after Sputnik.