Belatedly, a couple of articles from Monday’s issue of The Space Review about NASA and its future direction:
Taylor Dinerman examines some of the issues that the next NASA administrator is going to face, but goes beyond some of the tactical issues like supporting the shuttle workforce and making a decision on the future of Ares 1. The next administrator “must be ready to spend far more time spreading the message that space exploration and scientific discovery are essential to our way of life.” Also: “One trap that some previous administrators have fallen into is to concentrate on cultivating the Congress. This is of course very important, but ultimately politicians respond to the voters. Whoever becomes the head of the agency should spend a little less time with the pro-space industry choir and get out to places where NASA’s message rarely is heard.”
Separately, I look at the issue of how space advocates should be communicating with the public about space. There’s a certain frustration among NASA supporters that the public doesn’t care about space, and what’s needed is more outreach by supporters, something former CNN space correspondent Miles O’Brien opined about in a Space News op-ed a few weeks ago. The question I ask is whether the issue is the frequency of communications, or instead the message itself: arguments that worked in the 1960s aren’t necessarily effective nearly a half-century later.
Sometimes Government just has to do the adult thing. Despite what the public believes. Whenever NASA has had success in space, the public is full of ooohs and aaahs. Don’t wait for the public to support new things. They never will. But they will always come if you will build it.
One thing, that I think space supporters need to do, is look beyond NASA. And this applies to the individuals, as well as organizations like NSS, or Planetary Society.
What we need is a broader coalition within the executive branch – We should be pushing not for MASSIVE increases in budgets to NASA, but an increase in multiple space agencies, like the National Aeronautics and Space Council, or the Office of Space Commercialization.
NASA doesn’t need more budget. It just needs to spend what it has smarter. Unfortunately, that’s actually a tougher problem politically than simply giving it more money…
Rand,
I agree with you, by and large. The problem is, at least, IMHO, a lot of space activists (and general public) view space = NASA. I’ve actually seen someone, who I know is in a Master’s program in Aerospace engineering, actually suggest that NASA should be regulating space tourism.
I do think that if there were a broader coalition within the executive branch, that actively pushed space (again, via funding Office for Space Commericalization, or promoting the AST to answering directly to the DOT).
I’ve actually seen someone, who I know is in a Master’s program in Aerospace engineering, actually suggest that NASA should be regulating space tourism.
There’s no reason to imagine that someone studying aerospace engineering, even at a graduate level, would understand either regulatory issues or politics. As Al Fansome says, it isn’t rocket science, which is why the rocket scientists don’t understand it.
Bonjour,
Je me permets de venir vers vous,particulièrement pour l’avion tombé dans le fleuve , à cause de volatiles (oiseaux) obstruant les réacteurs. Je considère qu’avec les technologies actuelles des avions, il est inconcevable de voir des chutes d’avions à causes de “volatiles”, provoquant la mort de centaines de vies humaines, plus du matèriel hautement technologique. J’ai pensé et conçu un procédé pour éviter ce phénomène “volatiles” au niveau des réacteurs. Si mon projet est susceptible de vous interresser, vous pouvez prendre contact avec moi. Merci à vous. J.P.B. Salutations