Let’s say you’re in a town hall meeting with a presidential candidate, itching to ask a question about space policy. If you get your chance, some advice: don’t blow it by rambling on and on, as one person did at a John McCain town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, according to the BBC:
At first he [McCain] listened patiently as one man dragged out a long, arcane question about funding for space exploration, then just as the audience was getting restive, he broke in with an interruption.
He had read the mood of the crowd, his timing was right – and he won an enthusiastic round of applause.
Unfortunately, the BBC article doesn’t mention what McCain said in his interruption, or if he said anything substantive at all on the topic (or, for that matter, what specific “arcane” issue the questioner was asking about.)
I noticed the other day that one of my Senators, Barbara Boxer, now has a selection for “space” in the pull-down list of subjects in the E-mail utility on her Web site. I believe this is a first; in the past, she’s only had generalized items similar to “military” or “medicine.” This implies to me that the third most powerful elected official in the nation is getting sufficient E-mail on our subject to warrant a special pick in the list.
I would suggest that all of us send her a (concise) message!
— Donald
Unfortunately, on most occasions when I have seen space advocates raise questions at political events, the questions are too arcane and long-winded, designed more to show how smart the person asking the question is rather than getting any useful information from the person being questioned. Ironically, this merely reveals to me how foolish, rather than smart, the person asking the question is.
Don,
When did Senator Boxer become the “third most powerful elected official in the nation”?
Did you mean that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has space on her website?
– Al
It might be interesting for those regulars here to hash out what the “ideal” space policy question would look like, just in case one of us readers ever does get a chance to ask it.
Hmmm… neither Boxer nor Pelosi seems to have “space” as an issue on their websites. If it was there, it looks like it was taken down.
Oops, thanks Al, you are absolutely correct. Too quick post at the end of a very long day. . . .
Joseph, that’s interesting. You appear to be correct. I do not recall the links I followed, but they came from a regular E-mailling that I receive. I just tried following the links from a similar E-mail today, and there was no pick list at all. I have no answer to this.
— Donald
The key questions are simple:
Do you support the current NASA manned exploration policy of Moon, Mars, and Beyond.
Would you increase NASA funding to ensure astronauts returning to the Moon by 2020.
Do you think private space firms should replace NASA spacecraft in transporting NASA astronauts to the internatonal space station.
What would you do to encourage the emerging space tourist industry and private projects like SpaceShipOne
Those four should be easy enough for any candidate for Congress or the White House. And say a lot about their views on space.
This topic could be fresh meat for the lions…
Possible questions (trying to be spare with words):
Should manned space efforts be: commercial? government?
Should manned space efforts be: international? national?
Should commercial space efforts be: regulated (to death?)? encouraged?
My “agenda” is that manned space efforts DO NOT imply government (NASA) efforts! We are at the very beginnings of commercial entities putting people in space (and eventually orbit). Certainly, the most efficient (and preferred?) efforts are commercial.
Increasing NASA funding is not necessarily the only way (probably the fastest way) to get back to the Moon. But can we afford it (alone)?
International efforts cede some control, but spread costs out among more people.
Almost certainly, government funding will be flat (at best!) and even if we only try to go to the Moon, can we afford it (and get there in less than 20 years)???
Charles
These are all good questions. However, I would ask about “human” space flight, and not “manned”. We don’t have enough female support as it is and we further alienate half the population with this language.
Someone, excellent suggestions, but I would reverse your order. Much as I support a return to deep space exploration, if one has to choose, I’d support the potential commercial industries of COTS and tourism first. If successful, they would help pay for the exploration.
Charles, I would not present the questions as choices. A candidate could answer “yes” to govermnent exploration and “yes” to private commerce, support both, and space exploration would benefit from both going forward. If you present it as a choice, it forces the candidate to _make_ a choice, and if they don’t like the option they think is popular, they could end up being against both, and the question itself could reinforce their opinion. Another way of putting this, per the advertising industry, is, when you want something from someone, always parce your message in a positive light.
Factchecker, I agree.
— Donald
[…] that to the discussion in the previous post about the “ideal” questions for the candidates, which are a little more sophisticated […]
I’d ask this one “If life is discovered off the Earth during your administration, how would this change your policies and funding for Nasa and scientific research funded by the Federal government?”
I’m surprised that this wasn’t asked by the 14 given we have a chem lab on Mars looking for the ingredients we think are necessary for Martian life. We also have another rover readying for launch in 2009 to actually look for life.
Q.:
“Nobody likes waste, corruption, or incompetence. Would you demand an independent review without NASA influence to settle the question of whether NASA’s current launch architecture or the alternative solution called Direct or the use of the EELV launchers is the best and highest value for taxpayer dollars way to implement America’s current space vision? And would you strongly support the current rise of American private commercial spaceflight?”
A. (hopefully):
“Yes”.
That should be short enough, focused enough, positive enough, and hand-holding enough ^_^ Two subjects of utmost importance for the immediate future: setting the VSE implementation straight and supporting private spaceflight.
Notice that I’m not asking about the candidates personal opinion on launcher details, it’s not an engineering question but a political oversight question. It also leaves an opening for the candidates to easily elaborate their answer in whatever manner they wish as a specific context is established.
On the gender equality PC nonsense the word “man” actually means human/mankind. Originally there were woman (female mankind), wer(e)man (male mankind), man (both).
There’s nothing to be alienated about and those who are don’t honestly care about the actual subject (spaceflight).
astounding proficiency virtually habitat