The Coalition for Space Exploration released a new Gallup Poll on space policy issues on Tuesday, playing up what they deem to be strong support for space exploration among the general public. “These latest results -as well as poll data from the last several years – reveal that even in the midst of varying world and national circumstances, Americans still strongly support space exploration, and are willing to support its funding at current levels or even slightly increased levels,” Mary Engola, chairwoman of the Coalition for Space Exploration’s Public Affairs Team, said in a coalition press release.
At first glance, that assessment appears to be correct. The poll finds that 71 percent of the public thinks NASA is doing a good or very good job in “maintaining its leadership in space exploration”. Also, 52 percent support or strongly support increasing NASA’s budget to increasing NASA’s budget to one percent of the overall federal budget.
However, there are also some concerns. While 71 percent believe that the US is doing a good or very good job in space exploration, there has been a shift from “very good” to simply “good” in the latest poll, compared to the previous one performed by Gallup in August 2006: the number of people in the “very good” category dropped from 17 to 11 percent, while the “good” category rose from 52 to 60 percent. Does that indicate that public support for space is getting a little weaker? Also, while 52 percent supported a budget increase for NASA, 45 percent opposed or strongly opposed such an increase: not a lot of neutral ground. (In addition, the text of that question claimed that since 2004, “the budget for NASA has been held at one-sixth of one percent of the total federal budget, lower than the 1% NASA originally requested in 2006.” I can’t recall NASA requesting one percent of the federal budget, which would amount to a substantial increase, in 2006 or any other recent year.)
The poll also shows that two of the key issues that space advocates have tried to use to win increased funding for NASA—the rise of China’s space program and the impending Shuttle-Constellation gap—are having a mixed effect, at best. The poll found that only 32 percent where very or somewhat concerned that “China would become the new leader in space exploration or take the lead over the U.S.”, compared to 28 percent in August 2006 and 33 percent in March 2006.
The poll also found that 47 percent were very or somewhat concerned about the gap, compared to 52 percent who are not very or not at all concerned. Not surprisingly, then, 43 percent would be willing to some degree to raise taxes to try and close the gap, compared to 57 percent who were not. There’s also interesting age differences here: 58 percent of those aged 65 or older where concerned about the gap, compared to just 35 percent of those aged 18-34; yet only 41 percent of the 65+ crowd was willing to support a tax increase to help close the gap, compared to 44 percent of those 18-34.
Regardless of current public opinion polls, once “the Gap” happens the political party not then in power will flog that issue without mercy. Even if many of those flogging have zero inherent interest in space exploration.
If Obama becomes POTUS it will be the GOP (and FOX News) starting in on “Day 103 and counting” of America’s inability to send humans into space.
If McCain becomes POTUS it will be the House Democrats (Gordon & Lampson for example) and Senator Nelson saying “Day 103 and counting” of America’s inability to send humans into space.
No way, no how will Ares 1 with a 2015 or 2016 first flight date survive that. Even if ESAS survives its other issues.
Also, I see no political road that leads to America’s human spaceflight program being terminated together with NASA’s current budget re-routed into a basic R&D Project (NACA-like) no matter how theoretically appropriate that might be.
Bill, I mostly agree. However, I found the last part of Jeff’s post most interesting. It implies that younger people are less interested in spaceflight — which fits my personal observations and also the rise in interest in “virtual” worlds on the Internet versus the real world around us. It is interesting to see that younger people seem prepared by a slight margin to increase taxes, even for something they care relatively little about. I’m not sure what all that means, except that it may be good political news for Mr. Obama.
Jeff: Gallup in August 2006: the number of people in the “very good†category dropped from 17 to 11 percent, while the “good†category rose from 52 to 60 percent. Does that indicate that public support for space is getting a little weaker?
The date here is interesting. Almost two years ago, maybe people saw more hope for the Constellation project to achieve it’s goals. Two years later, Constellation has achieved nothing that is visible to the public, and remarkably little that is visible even to those of us who pay close attention, so this cannot help but look like money down a rat-hole. As most of us here seem to agree, that is at least partially an accurate opinion!
— Donald
Looking further at the trends, there are a few other not-so-positive indicators. For one, the percentage of respondents against budget increases for NASA actually increased from 32% to 45% from 8/06 to 5/08, respectively. Secondly, the xenophobic rallying cry of China’s growing space prowess is falling short. 67% of respondents did NOT view this as a major issue.
I think it’s also interesting that most respondents were NOT concerned with the 5-year gap in U.S. ETO capability (52%). Plus, the percentage not willing to have a tax increase to close the gap was 57%.
Really what is there to get excited about simply redoing Apollo without the race? The real political fallout will come when central Florida is turned into a “ghost town” following the Shuttle shutdown. I know, its only a small percent of the workforce and most losing jobs will just retire locally, but it is seen as the local industry and you will see photo essays on the good old days when Americans ventured skyward to explore space from Florida (paging Michael Moore…)
And if Obama is seen as raiding NASA at the same time for his education programs. Well, it will be a great issue for Republicans in the 2010 mid-year elections and the 2012 Presidential one. Another reason I am for McCain, better the Republicans reap the results of their space folly, and the coming recession, then see the Democrat party demonized for it.
You know more and more I am seeing McCain really as Goldwater, a Republican sacrifice to ensure the party’s return to power big time in 2012. Another reason for Democrats to vote for McCain.
I disagree with Bill White’s take on it, I don’t think space issues or the gap will erupt into partisan poo-flinging simply because of a lack of ammunition. Far more likely Republican, Democrat, and Independent senators and representatives alike will find common ground against NASA if they decide to do anything at all.
Someone, maybe some space company should hire Michael Moore to do just that documentary.
GRS: I think a certain level of long-term concern about China’s rise as a spacefaring power is warranted, especially as a potential commercial competitor. However, because of the slow pace of their human program, so far they seem to be slipping under the radar in spite of the best efforts of some to make them an immediate threat. I think it is wrong to belittle them, but it will be a long time before they challenge the United States on the military-space front. The danger is, that will blind us to their potential commercial threat until long after Chinese commercial space industry becomes a real threat.
— Donald
Our public servants and voters have a very short attention span, and scarcely look as far as the Next Quarter. Sigh.
Many people are happily proceeding along in their routines and hardly acknowledging the upcoming Gap. As if it will just Go Away somehow.
As Bill White says
Regardless of current public opinion polls, once “the Gap†happens the political party not then in power will flog that issue without mercy. Even if many of those flogging have zero inherent interest in space exploration.
I think that both political parties will jump on the bandwagon and loudly declare that they warned us. And will dash around announcing their solutions.
We should hope that not too many more significant problems with Ares will be found, since the ones we already have are serious. And let us hope that our Russian “partners” don’t see this as a huge opportunity to take the Station, exact revenge for perceived slights, make lots of money, etc.
We should all remember that the Chinese character for Crisis combines two characters – one for Opportunity and one for “someone is gonna get fired”.
The scenario that worries me is that we will be three years into the Gap, with a projected three years to go, with problems mounting and lots of competition for the money and no Americans on the Station and our controllers in Houston still keeping it running.
I think the chance of a large part of NASA’s budget going away, as we study which way to go from here, is excellent. Perhaps we will come out of the Gap with a plan to use existing resources to build a manned spacecraft? And then we’ll see how much of it comes back as we slog through the inevitable development cycle.
On a happier note, I would bet that Nick Lampson would be one of the first to work with either Administration to find a path out of the Gap.
Just taking a step or two back, how much influence do sponsoring organizations have over the composition of a Gallup poll? How much independence does the Gallup organization maintain from sponsoring organizations? (I’m honestly asking here — I don’t know.) If the Coalition for Space Exploration paid Gallup to perform this poll, does that give the Coalition the ability to influence what questions are asked, what options are presented to pollees, and how they’re phrased? Can the Coalition (or any other sponsor) skew a Gallup poll in their favor?
If they can, it brings into question the results of the entire poll. To the extent there is conflicting evidence from other civil space polls, I would tend to take those sponsored by uninvolved organizations (e.g., news organizations) over one sponsored by an involved organization (like the Coalition).
Of course, the other side of the coin is that if the Coalition was able to influence the composition of their Gallup poll, why didn’t they do a better job? The results indicate lukewarm support for the civil space program, at best.
FWIW…
I disagree with Bill White’s take on it, I don’t think space issues or the gap will erupt into partisan poo-flinging simply because of a lack of ammunition. Far more likely Republican, Democrat, and Independent senators and representatives alike will find common ground against NASA if they decide to do anything at all.
In recent years Congress has been more pro-NASA than Bush, McCain or Obama.
I offer the current NASA Authorization bill as Exhibit #1
Someone, maybe some space company should hire Michael Moore to do just that documentary.
Michael Moore would probably celebrate the end of this waste of taxpayer dollars while children are starving in America with no health care.
“Regardless of current public opinion polls, once “the Gap†happens the political party not then in power will flog that issue without mercy. Even if many of those flogging have zero inherent interest in space exploration.”
I believe you are correct but in order for a more “perfect storm” to occur, in my opinion, is if the Russians launch AND the Chinese launch plus if the Europeans advance on their idea of converting the cargo ship to a manned option.
Politicians will beat that dead horse mercilessly if the chinese and russians are doing manned flights and europe ready to jump on the bandwagon.
Just taking a step or two back, how much influence do sponsoring organizations have over the composition of a Gallup poll?
I have no knowledge of this particular situation, but when a company or organization sponsors a survey, it’s not uncommon to have them work with the polling company to craft the survey instrument (the questionnaire that is given to respondents.) In this particular case, I would be surprised if Gallup (or any other polling company) had the subject matter experts on staff to craft these questions without the assistance of the sponsoring organization; they may have instead massaged the language of the questions into a form that would permit a better, more scientific response.
Bill White wrote:
Whatever it has been it looks pretty much bipartisan (whether good or bad) all the way since the start half a century ago –a few lone voices here and there but that does not make for good ammunition. Are you saying that for example Democrats are going to be able to lambast the VSE considering the Aldridge Commission report (ACR)? Sure they’re free to try but they’ll quickly look like impotent imbeciles, likewise for any Republicans who tries to shove the responsibility onto Democrats: they’re all in this together and my bet is that they all understand it. Reproach will be in general terms across the board, the focus of any wrath will be on NASA itself.
Anyway “pro-NASA” means what exactly? More money? Less control? More control? Earmarks? Platitudes? Exactly how has Congress been more pro-NASA? If one looks at what has actually happened one has the VSE (from the White House), the ACR (from Congress and supporting the VSE), and funding levels (final decision by Congress except for White House vetoes) pretty much in lockstep with what was aimed at from the White House from the beginning (have people forgot all about “go as you pay” already?).
It’s all teflon except for ESAS which is a big gob of super-glue screaming “stick it to me!” ^_^
Charles in Houston wrote:
I heard a swooshing sound so perhaps it was a joke but anyway we should all instead remember that it is pure nonsense which more likely than not originated somewhere in the vicinity of San Francisco.
[…] How strong is public support for space exploration? […]