“In recent years Congress has been more pro-NASA than Bush, McCain or Obama.

I offer the current NASA Authorization bill as Exhibit #1″

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:

“We should all remember that the Chinese character for Crisis combines two characters – one for Opportunity and one for “someone is gonna get fired”.

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.

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.

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.

Michael Moore would probably celebrate the end of this waste of taxpayer dollars while children are starving in America with no health care.

In recent years Congress has been more pro-NASA than Bush, McCain or Obama.

I offer the current NASA Authorization bill as Exhibit #1

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…

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.

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