If you recall last week’s post about a bipartisan “Dear Colleagues” letter to drum up support for increasing NASA’s budget, there’s a minor update. According to an updated blog post on NSS.org, the deadline for obtaining additional signatures, which had been November 5th, has been pushed back to November 17th. There’s no reason for the change, although one wonders if members of Congress were a little too distracted last week with the health care bill debate to focus their attention on the space agency. The number of cosigners listed has gone up to 40, with roughly an even split between Republicans and Democrats.
None of this will matter…
I will be very surprised if Obama and his administration do anything this year..
Robert G. OLer
In the letter, it all comes down to this.
We must ensure the President works with Congress to take this unique and fleeting opportunity to show a true commitment to NASA in order to sustain our global leadership in science and technology, address national challenges, and inspire our youth to pursue math and science.
But that’s just limp. This is neither a unique or fleeting opportunity to do any of those three things (especially “addressing national challenges” which one would gather, at best, is just the other two). If Obama wanted to do any of those things, would this be the best way to do it?
Of course, this letter is much better than the letters suggested by Save Space in their half million letter goal. Those suggested letters, little more than tweets, are just a bunch of “gimme this and that”.
The inarticulateness of the human space flight community about what human space flight is for is really sad.
The inarticulateness of the human space flight community about what human space flight is for is really sad.
Well then, will you please succinctly articulate for us what human spaceflight is for?
Doug Lassiter
well said.
the sad things to me, is that if one watches the political trends in The Republic of both parties, “centrist” and the national mood…there is in my view an oppurtunity to use this moment to pivot the national space effort into something that can change America…and something that would pick up traction politically…but the “inarticulateness” and I would add boneheadeness of space advocates (and politicans) just seems to not be capable of it.
It is still to early to call President Obama’s administration a failure (if you want to see some really scary in my view people go read the comments on Sarah Palin’s facebook page…)…but the irony is that if his Presidency “fails” (ie the country is worse off then when he started ala the last Bush)…it will be in my view because he had a mandate and could not use that mandate to really affect the “change” that was needed for the nations survival in this century and (so far) like his predecessor he has blown it…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#33854315
we need “new tools” and a revamped national space effort creating private sector jobs that are real jobs not government welfare…would be one method of integrating hsf into our society.
This still could happen with the changes coming…and Obama’s Presidency could recover from its current “funk” (Reagan’s did) but one can start to pick up the first whiffs of failure.
Robert G. Oler
“Well then, will you please succinctly articulate for us what human spaceflight is for?”
I wish I could.
But I don’t really consider myself part of the human space flight community. I like HSF, but I don’t see myself as a fire-eating advocate as many others see themselves. Those are the people, as well as the Congressional signers of this letter, who really owe it to us to do it.
Nothing new.
David Davenport wrote @ November 12th, 2009 at 11:31 am
The inarticulateness of the human space flight community about what human space flight is for is really sad.
Well then, will you please succinctly articulate for us what human spaceflight is for?.
doug can take his own throw. but it is an easy question with an easy answer
What is human spaceflight for? To extend the opportunities into space that are part of American free enterprise, ingenuity, and innovation creating new jobs and opportunities for Americans.
Robert G. Oler
“What is human spaceflight for? To extend the opportunities into space that are part of American free enterprise, ingenuity, and innovation creating new jobs and opportunities for Americans.”
Not bad. Good stuff. OK, I’ll add to that.
It’s about challenging our nation in extraordinary ways, as such extraordinary challenges make us better. Meeting these challenges contributes to pride in and respect for our great nation. The excitement, suspense, and even the drama of human space flight is a compelling product of science, technology and engineering that touches all ages.
With regard to pride, for President Obama in particular, one might add something else it’s about … yes, we can.
It seems that one can advocate human space flight without reflexively using the words “exploration”, “inspiration”, “species survival” or, ahem, Helium-3. The impact of those words has been somewhat exhausted and they frankly need a rest, policy-wise.
“The excitement, suspense, and even the drama of human space flight is a compelling product of science, technology and engineering that touches all ages.”
All ages: If it were true I don’t think we’d be in the troubles we’re in… As to the excitement, suspense and drama??? You’re using “space advocacy” type wording here, kinda going against your original statement and unfortunately this usuall falls on deaf ears in the public.
Oh well.
It’s also about experiencing and understanding our local Solar System and the wider Universe.
And, let us not forget the impact that exploration will have on us, both culturally and practically, which are important for the arts, sciences, and simple survival. The American Constitution could never have been written in Europe. Future major social experiments are unlikely on a largely known, unsurprising, fully occupied, and over-crowded Earth. I would argue that this is by far the most important (if largely unacknowledged) need that spaceflight, and especially human spaceflight, could fulfill.
— Donald
BTW, I think both Robert’s and Doug’s answers are excellent. Yes we can . . . .justify our dream when challenged to do so.
— Donald
“All ages: If it were true I don’t think we’d be in the troubles we’re in…”
Well, I was trying to capture what would otherwise be called inspiring our youth to pursue math and science. I do think that human space flight is quite special in the way it engages kids. The importance of touching them is that it’s ALL ABOUT science, technology, and engineering. I just don’t like the word “inspire” very much. I’m not really sure what that word means.
As to excitement, suspense, and drama, sure, that’s a big part of human space flight to the nation. But that’s not a bad thing, and it isn’t without value. It’s about how to touch people with science, technology and engineering. Building bridges and skyscrapers doesn’t do that as much.
Again, I want to stay away from survival. It isn’t the responsibility of this country to save humankind. There are other ways to address an overcrowded Earth. Enabling major social experiments? I’m not sure I like the sound of that.
I’m just trying to challenge us to articulate the importance of human space flight to the country without falling back on the same, old, tired, knee-jerk phrases. Put those in the elevator pitch, and people will be hiding out in the stairwell. Those are what you use when you want to write a letter without having to think about it — letters that are all too common.
@Doug Lassiter:
All I am trying to say is that this excitement, drama, suspense relate to us, the space cadets (as Major Tom likes to call us). Not everyone is captured by such drama. Any way, I understand what you tried, I am just saying, again, that it only appeals to us, the cadets.
You want to articulate something that will bring the country to back you then you have to understand the country’s needs. Then you try to articulate in a way that the regular citizen understands. Fuel depots, Lagrange points, re-entry are way, way, way too technical. COTS is bureaucratic jargon, as is cost-plus. Inspiration, drama, suspense is, at best for kids, not the tax paying public. So what is left? Well, what is the public worries? Jobs, mortgage, healthcare/insurance, retirement, education, energy and others I may forget.
Bottom line: Links those concerns above to actual HSF and see how they connect then come up with a laanguage that the layman understands and then sell it. How do you sell it??? Go ask a marketing company? How does Apple sell their Macs, iPods? Okay it may be a niche market but it’s growing pretty fast. It’s not because you use Twitter that you are “cool” it is how you use it. Etc…
The community keeps sticking to a language that no one gives a damn: Ares, SD-HLV, Shuttle, blahblablah.
FWIW.
“… yes, we can.”
The Obama campaign team stole that line from the clay-mation series “Bob the Builder”. Very apropos that a politician with no real leadership experience should adopt the slogan of a television program aimed at pre-schoolers.
“Any way, I understand what you tried, I am just saying, again, that it only appeals to us, the cadets.”
Yep. You might be right. But that way of expressing it has to be more compelling to the taxpayer than the idea that strapping people to rockets inspires kids to study math and engineering. I’ve never understood that.
I’d be careful, though. The media would agree that one thing that human space flight provides in abundance is excitement, suspense, and drama. Reporting on it sells. The media (which is a real expert at marketing) is saying that excitement, suspense, and drama has positive value to the nation.
As to slogans for pre-schoolers, heh. Those are the people who will be on the spaceships we’re dreaming about. That’s insightful, and would indeed show some leadership. Actually, I think the way “Yes we can!” was used in Bob the Builder was in response to the plea “Can we fix it?” Gosh, just perfect for human space flight in the U.S., which is broken in many respects. Can we fix it? Yes we can! Awesome.
“Reporting on it sells.”
I totally disagree. When was it the media reported any thing suspensful about HSF? Columbia? Challenger? Apollo XIII? Is this what is needed? Come on…
“Those are the people who will be on the spaceships we’re dreaming about.”
They are not those paying taxes to support HSF therefore the impact is moot or jusst above it in the sense they might influence their parents. But if either parent is loosing a job, a house, HSF will just be a joke.
kayawanee wrote @ November 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
“… yes, we can.â€
The Obama campaign team stole that line from the clay-mation series “Bob the Builderâ€. Very apropos that a politician with no real leadership experience should adopt the slogan of a television program aimed at pre-schoolers…………….
sorry this is the space policy forum and I VOTED for McCain, raised money for McCain (I was a blue member of the “blue/gold” team), worked for his campaign in 00 and was in tears when I saw what the right wing did to him in SC.
But having said that.
“no real leadership experience” is so right wing, I mean it is right up there with “no birth certificate”…a fantasy of folks who just make it up as they go.
Obama did what only 43 (well less actually need to sort out the VP’s who became POTUS but didnt get “elected” like Ford a VP didnt get elected on his own after taking the office until TR) other people have done. He went from himself and probably a number of close supporters that you could count on both hands…and won The Presidency of The United States. He not only won it, he won it convincingly scoring well not only in blue but purple and even red states.
He did it with a reasonable sense of honor and fairness in how he ran the campaign particularly so given the despicable things which were claimed with no basis in fact by some who were against him. Unlike say SC in 00 or both Bush campaigns of 00 and 04 or even LBJ of 64….there was very little mud slinging or hyperbole by his side, it was pretty much “on the facts” .
You may not like that he won, I wished McCain would have won as well (even though the last three weeks of the campaign, particularly Sarah Palin’s “domestic terrorist” crud started to chap me a lot)…you might not like the direction he is taking the country (I am a tad concerned about it myself) but elections matter.
Obama won the officefair and square and that alone is a test of leadership that few in this country can say that they have done. And he gets to govern.
I take shots at Bush the last all the time, but they are fair ones on the record (or lack of it) of his performance as President. 4000 Americans plus dead in useless wars (not to mention the ones killed on 9/11), two countries in ruin and trillions of US dollars down the drain while Ossama son of Ladin still excersizes his lungs is a F minus alone.
You want to take shots at Obama take them on the trillions in deficit spending that seem to be doing little, a stimulus plan that is inept and seems to be worsening the economy, or even how he is going to pay for the health care overall.
Dont say he cannot lead. He lead right to 1600 Penn AVenue.
An exclusive address
Long Live The Republic
Robert G. Oler
“What is human spaceflight for?
Whatever it is eventually for, it needs to be for something the whole world can get behind, not just American’s.
Future HSF endeavors that have been discussed on this and other posts, that have no stakeholders outside the US (ISS partnerships not in this discussion). There are no international customers for HSF like there is in the science communities.
“When was it the media reported any thing suspensful about HSF? Columbia? Challenger? Apollo XIII? Is this what is needed?”
You’ve lost me. There was certainly drama and suspense in those things. What was going through your mind when we lost contact with Columbia? For Apollo XIII there was absolutely suspense, drama (yes, duct tape even makes for drama!) and excitement. I probably wasn’t clear, but I was bringing up excitement, suspense and drama NOT as national needs in themselves (the entertainment industry gives us a lot of that), but as factors of human space flight that get the public, and students in particular, connected with science, technology, and engineering. I probably should have added pain. Human space flight brings risk and sometimes pain that touches people deeply.
“But if either parent is loosing a job, a house, HSF will just be a joke.”
You really think so? I can easily find kids whose parents have lost jobs and been evicted from their house, who still think human space flight is fascinating. Perhaps you’re saying that those same parents are going to look at their kid and say, “Gosh, that is just so awful that while I’m spending my savings and we’re on a friend’s couch my daughter is passionate about humans in space. I’d better have a talk with her!” I think you have it wrong. No one is minimizing the pain these people feel, but don’t deny them things that make life a little brighter. Oh, so that HSF budget could have been used to find people jobs and houses to make their lives brighter? Fine. Just give every adult in this country a Ulysses S. Grant greenback instead. That’ll fix it! No, I don’t think the public is that naive.
But we agree that HSF has to justify itself in terms of real national needs, and it has been pathetic in doing so. It has to speak to people’s hopes. Jobs in Florida? C’mon. Many would say that what should be done there is to make a state economy that is less dependent on space engineering. One that would be more resilient in the face of fiscal challenges. Jobs are a national need. Science, technology, and engineering jobs are too. Jobs working on SSME’s are not.
“no real leadership experience†is so right wing,
I’m probably closer to libertarian, but that’s irrelevant. If you want to throw tags around that’s fine. But it doesn’t change the truth is that, with the exception of an educational foundation committee in Chicago, Obama has not held any executive positions in government or the military, or in business.
And I’m sorry, leading a campaign doesn’t count. If it did, then Axelrod should be president.
BTW, I didn’t think McCain was particularly suited to be POTUS, but I think he was more experienced in general than Obama. I’m not fond of having ex-Congressman as POTUS. For what it’s worth.
@Doug Lassiter:
Except Apollo XI, of course, I meant that the last time the media gave a hoot about HSF was when there was enough drama to result in crew loss (Challenger, Columbia) or close (Apollo XIII). Nothing since Columbia has excited the media, let alone the public. Prove me wrong, I’d be delighted, since I do associate myself with HSF, quite a lot actually.
“Human space flight brings risk and sometimes pain that touches people deeply.”
It’d be true if people cared! No one is actually interested in the close calls Shuttle has faced since its inception. No one knows about it. NASA does not advertize it. Remember HSF is “easy”, “routine”. That is what was/is sold to the public.
“I can easily find kids whose parents have lost jobs and been evicted from their house, who still think human space flight is fascinating.”
So what? Kids won’t pay the taxes to support HSF.
“No one is minimizing the pain these people feel, but don’t deny them things that make life a little brighter. ”
You’re kidding right? I am sure if you were to lose your job you’d look to HSF to reduce your pain. Come on. Be real.
“Oh, so that HSF budget could have been used to find people jobs and houses to make their lives brighter? Fine. Just give every adult in this country a Ulysses S. Grant greenback instead. That’ll fix it! No, I don’t think the public is that naive.”
Did I say that? When? All I said is that if you are losing your job HSF and NASA will be the LAST of your worries. Go ask those who lose jobs every day. Don’t take my word for it.
kayawanee wrote @ November 12th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
And I’m sorry, leading a campaign doesn’t count…
and I am sorry it does.
The only thing that comes close to preparing one for The Presidency is to run for President. The only other job in The History of The Republic that came close to preparing anyone for being POTUS was being Commander in Chief of The Continental Army. That position is no longer available and is unique to one individual.
Running for President, being the candidate is in many ways “like” being POTUS. You have to chose carefully the people who are going to run the campaign, chose which ones (all have competing notions) to follow in terms of general strategery (A bushism) and also specific strategey. Which ones have a winning idea, which ones have ideas of honor and which one have ideas which fit with “your” general notion of how things should be done.
Picking the “David Axelrods” of the campaign is harder then picking the Secretary’s in ones administration. When you are the “elect” everyone wants to join. When you are a nobody the faces are few and far between. You have a chose between the Lee Atwaters (before he found religion) the Karl Roves, the Joe Trippis or Axelrods.
Very few folks make the transition from the upper tier of a campaign to the administration (the skills are different) but picking the best people to advise you is what executive skills are all about.
McCain ran a poor campaign. McCain had poor executive leadership.
He could never resolve differences in his staff, keep his VP nominee on message, devise a strategery to win, deal with the nuts in his party, or even deal with issues that poped up (like the stimulus) …the later in particular worried me because it seemed to indicate how he might deal with “pop ups” in his administration.
It really shows how little “you” know about executive leadership to claim that running a Presidential campaign is not such leadership.
Robert G. Oler
The only thing that comes close to preparing one for The Presidency is to run for President.
Actually, there is very little about running a presidential campaign that prepares one to actually be president. And the skill set required to win an election is alwo quite different from the one required to be a good president. That’s why we’ve had so many terrible presidents. Fred Thompson would probably make a great president, but because he wasn’t willing to jump through all of the silly hoops that are necessary to win an election, he never will be. I think we’d almost be better off throwing darts at a phonebook than the current process, which selects for narcissists and power mongers.
I wrote “To extend the opportunities into space that are part of American free enterprise, ingenuity, and innovation creating new jobs and opportunities for Americans.”
the problem for HSF today is that it does none of these. Absolutely none.
There is almost no way that any group outside the “space elite” (to mean NASA and its chosen industry partners) can participate in human spaceflight…and when they can, it is completely at the mercy of the whims and theories of how human spaceflight goes according to people at NASA who “beamed” out of the real world of American technology a long time ago. There is no if and or buts.
It is as someone said in another thread “their own little sand box” and NASA does not care one bit to open that sand box to any one outside of their choosing.
So what it is left with as justification for the money, and when tragedy (through incompetence) strikes lives…. are the ephemeral BS that it routinely puts out. None of which can be really well measured hence they can be as potent as NASA wishes. It is a long line “inspire our youth”, “create high tech jobs” (doing things that do not affect anyone elses life), “National pride”, “beating the Chinese (right wingers in the corner cheering), “something a great power does”…
None of which is worth a plug nickle when it comes time to actually trying to assess how the federal dollars spent on it have been spent.
The best that can be argued by NASA is that federal spending pumps X amount of dollars into a local economy…BUT NOTHING IT BUILDS DOES ANYTHING FOR THE ECONOMY AFTER THAT.
Federal spending has had inefficiencies dating back to the start of The Republic. When the Constitution series of Frigates was built, instead of building them in the shipyards the Navy routinly used (ie northern ones), they had to be spread out among several (to get the buy in)..USS Chesapeake was badly built at Gosport…the wood was poor and instead of being “old Ironsides” she killed a lot of her crew with splintering. Even the Brits were amazed how she splintered. She was also the most expensive of the ships.
The Big Dig in Boston is certainly inefficient.
But at the end the six frigates of the Constitution class in total and the Big Dig though at horrific cost…all changed in measurable ways the life of The Republic.
One could stop human spaceflight tomorrow. After 100’s of billions of dollars. And MOST Americans lives…would not change.
Obama might be changing this with “flexible path”. Commercial access, some technology development etc might make a lot of difference in America getting some value for its cost. But right now..
The 10 billion dollars spent on hsf would be better spent…rebuilding the ATC system
Robert G. Oler
RAnd Simberg
“Actually, there is very little about running a presidential campaign that prepares one to actually be president.
well you are entitled to your viewpoints butjust as I dont agree with random chance in selecting Presidents, I want someone to win, who has the experience of running a campaign. It is the only really valuable campaign…and claiming it is not important is always handy for the losers.
I refer to the campaigns as “natural selection for politics”
Robert G. Oler
“Nothing since Columbia has excited the media, let alone the public. Prove me wrong, I’d be delighted, since I do associate myself with HSF, quite a lot actually.”
I agree entirely about excitement. But there sure is a lot of press coverage of every launch. I think the media would like to be more excited than it is. Why is there so much press coverage of what HSF has become? That’s somewhat of a mystery.
“Remember HSF is “easyâ€, “routineâ€. That is what was/is sold to the public.”
As I said, HSF is broken. It needs to be fixed. I’m not going to get into a position defending Shuttle. In fact, I’d rather not get into a position defending HSF!
“Kids won’t pay the taxes to support HSF.”
At this rate, by the time we’re doing anything interesting, they probably will be. I think the point is that kids are the ones that are most engaged by human space flight and represent the future of the country in science, technology, and engineering. Kids don’t pay the taxes to support playgrounds and schools either.
“I am sure if you were to lose your job you’d look to HSF to reduce your pain. Come on. Be real.”
Not kidding. Being real. We’re not talking 100W brighter, but just a glimmer of sunlight through the cloud. I would certainly not look to HSF to make my jobless pain go away (did I say that?) nor would I look at a carnival merry-go-round or a kid smiling to make it go away. But it does help dull it. A little. That’s what I’m told.
“All I said is that if you are losing your job HSF and NASA will be the LAST of your worries. Go ask those who lose jobs every day. Don’t take my word for it.”
We’re not talking about fixing your worries. I do talk to people who have lost their jobs. I have some people close to me who have lost their jobs. HSF sure isn’t one of their worries, but it is something that brightens their outlook on what this nation could be. A little bit. But a little bit helps.
You know, the reason I bring all this up is because this forum hosts some particularly insightful thinkers around on matters of space policy. If the nation can’t come up with a reason for HSF, outside of “exploration” (which hardly needs humans), “inspiration” (which hardly needs HSF), jobs in Florida (which hardly needs rockets), species survival (which is not even close to a current issue, and is not a responsibility of our country alone) and Helium-3 (which no one really needs right now at all), then we’d better just shut it down. I’m asking people to screw in their brain and step up to the plate, instead of allowing limp letters to get written to the President, with arguments that hide behind vague, handwaving words of uplift like exploration and inspiration and not so vague words of greed like shuttle jobs.
“I’d be delighted, since I do associate myself with HSF, quite a lot actually.”
I do not. So that means people like you!
well you are entitled to your viewpoints
Gee, thanks. I’m so grateful that you support the First Amendment.
butjust as I dont agree with random chance in selecting Presidents, I want someone to win, who has the experience of running a campaign.
OK, you’ve already stated the nutty and grammatically challenged position that you think that running a campaign is good preparation for being president. I’ve stated why I think that’s a nutty position. I don’t understand why we’re running in circles here, unless (gasp) you’re not capable of actually making a logical argument.
Not to mention that this entirely off topic from the subject of this web site. Which (dragging topics off subject) is what you excel at. Perhaps the only thing…
@Doug Lassiter:
I wish I had the wherewithal or time or patience to actually do what you suggest but I don’t. I wish also that people in power some of whom seem to actually read these posts will take some hints as to what we, you included, suggest. You see for a space cadet who is actually inspired by HSF and has dedicated a lot of time and effort to it it is really difficult to justify. For example here are a few reactions coming to mind when asked: Because what? Can’t you see how important this HSF stuff is? Can’t y’all people see? Well some of us did not have to worry of the “why” of things because it was there. Suddenly some one turned the house upside down and now we have to justify our raison d’etre. Well, heck, I don’t know. What do you mean? So people come up with why [they] chose HSF over something else. The problem is that it does not cut it. So. Well. It’s a 2 way street. You, Doug Lassiter, do not identify with HSF. What would you like it to do for [you] then? What is it that would make it more appealing to you? I mean save for watching a launch once in a while that may or not brighten your day…
Obama, shmabama.
I think our whole political landsacape needs terraforming.
Forget Mars. Or inspiring children with goofy rockets (Ares)
The stimulus crap the Obama guy tried to pull when elected president was idiocy in the first degree (check out the new derivative formulas coming up) That Geitner guy, just like Paulson, or Brezhisnsky, …. are useless idiologist arse lickers that’d ran whatever they’d undertaken before into the ground just to prove a point.
This admin now is just inflating another (a much larger) bubble. Bush was an idiot but that was genetic in the family, I think. The Obama guy at least came out cum luaude out of some east coast institution.
Our whole 2 party system SUCKs. There is NO EFFECTIVE political discussion.
Rand Simberg wrote @ November 13th, 2009 at 12:44 am
well you are entitled to your viewpoints
Gee, thanks. I’m so grateful that you support the First Amendment…
ah how silly. sit down Rand I’ll teach you some Constitutional doctrine.
The First Amendment has nothing to do with the entire concept of person to person conversations. YOu have a web site for instance that has a blog…you are free to allow anyone you want to post on that web site or not allow them to. To not allow them to is not a violation of the First amendment.
For instance Whittington has a web site where he post his missives…and allows comments …or at least some comments. He stopped allowing mine sometime ago. I didnt call him names or anything, just when he would post some great line about Dick Cheney or whatever I would remind him of some of Cheney’s failings (like exaggerating Atta and Iraqi intelligence connections). Mark like all good right wingers goes into hyperdrive when their basic ideology is threatened (see CArrie PreJean doing her big scene walking off of Larry King Live) and so he just stopped letting me post.
I could swing the IP (standard stuff from my employeer) but why bother.
Now I would argue that a web site which allows comments but filters the negative ones is in violation of at least the “concept” of the first amendment…but there is no first amendment protection.
The first amendment only applies to laws made by Congress. The 14th amendment brings that protection down to the state and local level…ie States can make no laws abridging free speech. Now the right wing doesnt like that part of the 14th (it also allowed Roe) but they fell in love with it on Bush V Gore.
This is off topic, but I find people like you who misquote the application of the First (or any of the BOR) annoying. It is basic civics and every American should be aware of it.
People died for those amendments and to keep them. At the very least you can understand them
Robert G. Oler
common sense wrote @ November 13th, 2009 at 1:42 am
here is where human spaceflight is going to deflate…unless we move very quickly to try and change it.
Over the last week or so two very fascinating revelations have come from the Administration (SecTres) and the head of the Senate Banking committee…given current trends neither of them see a balanced budget for about 20 years…meaning of course never.
At somepoint that nonesense will stop. It will either end because we chose to have the judgment as a people to end it, or it will end because no one will buy our paper anymore and finance our debt.
When that moment comes, as it is right now human spaceflight is going to be one of the first things to go…and I mean “go” like simply turn off.
Unless human spaceflight finds an essential reason to exist…and some part of that essence is outside government financing…there is coming a time in the near future when it will end…
As will a lot of other things we now take for granted. I dont have a problem taxing all the “super rich” (Limbaugh for instance, Ed Schultz to skew both the right and left…or taxing to near poverty the fools who ran places like Citi corp or whatever) but even doing that wont be enough so addicted to spending The Republic is
Robert G. Oler
“Suddenly some one turned the house upside down and now we have to justify our raison d’etre.”
As if we go through life without having to justify our raison d’etre. Yes, you hit the nail on the head. This country has, for a long, long time, specifically skirted the issue of what HSF is for. We know we like it, and we love to say that by doing it we “explore”. We’ve “explored” LEO really really well for the last decade or two, no? We have a list of reflexive excuses for doing it that let us advocate it without thinking about it. Run the ol’ exploration and inspiration words up the flagpole, y’all! Everyone likes those words! So after all these decades, we’re left with a generation of passionate HSF advocates who have pretty much forgotten how to advocate.
What set me off on this (trying hard to stay on topic!) is a disappointingly policy-limp letter to the President coming out of Congress, and the absolutely awful letters being suggested by the SaveSpace folks of which they’d like to make a 500,000 sheet deep pile on Obama’s desk. An administration could look at these and just laugh. Obama prides himself as a thinker, and these letters look like they came out of people who just weren’t thinking.
What would make HSF more appealing to me? If I knew why it was good for us, and why it offered value to the nation. If it had a consistent storyline that credibly connects with national needs. I’m not saying that storyline doesn’t exist, but just that no one has yet come up with it. From a marketing perspective, the HSF message is confused.
Doug…the “save our space” people are doing the best that they can (grin) with what they have to work with…meaning they have nothing to work with.
One of the folks who I am pretty impressed with in the public world is “morning Joe” of MSNBC. Joe has a pretty good book out “the last best hope” where he argues that one thing that has happened in the last 40 years…and accelerated in the last 10 is that we no longer have “the stick” of failure as a country.
It is a reasonable paraphrase to say that he is arguing that there are no consequences for failure. So for instance (and he does not use this example) NASA spends 9 billion so far on Ares and half a billion on the test launch…and almost no one at NASA in a position of authority …even cringes and says “wow how did we get this far off track”.
That is no unique to NASA, it is common for instance in DoD projects and probably in the “social safety” net system as well.
My guess is that just by the weight of the spending we are about to see the stick come back. It might come sooner then expected.
If Obama gets his health care plan (and I think he will) my guess is that he will shift back to the center, by picking a fight with the Senate/House on spending. I would not be surprised if one of those fights is human spaceflight
Robert G. Oler
@Doug Lassiter:
“What would make HSF more appealing to me? If I knew why it was good for us, and why it offered value to the nation. If it had a consistent storyline that credibly connects with national needs. I’m not saying that storyline doesn’t exist, but just that no one has yet come up with it. From a marketing perspective, the HSF message is confused.”
No, no, no. You are just evading the question here. You post here because it seems to me that HSF does something for you already. Dare I say “inspire you”. Anyway. I am not disputing your reasoning. I am jusst asking what if you were in charge would you like HSF to do for you, as a citizen, as a professional, as a father (?), etc. You get the picture. I know what it does, or not, for me. I work this stuff. So. I think we, space cadets, have to relate a lot more to the public and their needs. Again I already cited those needs, e.g. energy, jobs, etc. I am not talking Shuttle jobs. I am talking US jobs. But we need to be more specific. For example: Take a mission to Mars for the sake of it. What if we were to develop an energy system that would have some application here on Earth. Something that would be safe, efficient thaat could last several years without refueling… Some will say nulear! Great! But no one wnats to send a nuclear reactor to space (treaties and all that annoying stuff). So then what?
So what do you want out of HSF? I would love to fly to space, again, what about you?
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/nov/HQ_09-265_LCROSS_Confirms_Water.html
Robert G. Oler
@Robert Oler:
Well. The problem is NOT the space community, well not only. The problem is that some at the head of NASA for the past many years took it (NASA and HSF) for granted. On the other hand I heard that Lori Garver wants to make NASA and HSF more relevant to the public. Finally! But we’ll see.
Most of the really vociferous people in the space advocacy are day dreaming. No question. On the other hand we need day dreaming. The role of NASA leadership is to make the connections. Between the day dreamer and NASA, the general public and NASA, the space community and NASA and all those nice people together. Ah, but “it’s hard work”, to take a line from a friend of yours. Well yeah it is hard work! That is why there is a leadership. A leadership MUST lead. Not just sit on their hands or actually manage the day to day working of NASA. There is a lot more to leadership as I am sure you know!
This WH had a good plan (I already posted the link but here again http://www.fladems.com/page/-/Obama_Space.pdf). They need to make good on it. If they go for Ares as you suggest thi plan will go down the drain since there’ll be no money left for anything but Ares. Even without the specter of HSF termination.
So?!?!? What now?!?!
“Fred Thompson would probably make a great president, but because he wasn’t willing to jump through all of the silly hoops that are necessary to win an election, he never will be.”
If you’re too lazy to run a half way decent campaign, you’re too lazy to be POTUS, and Thompson was lazy. A well run campaign may not be sufficient experience for the Presidency, but it is a necessary one. And with that drive-by comment, I’m out.
“You post here because it seems to me that HSF does something for you already.”
Er, no. There is a lot more to space and space politics than human space flight. I don’t think Jeff is running a Human Space Flight Politics forum. HSF is less than half of what our space agency does, and correspondingly less than half of the exploration it does. Unfortunately, many people are blind to that fact. I post here because people here are interested in space policy. HSF policy is a piece of that. I suspect that much of the discussion here is about HSF because it is that responsibility of NASA that is most troubled, policy-wise. That makes it interesting.
“So what do you want out of HSF? I would love to fly to space, again, what about you?”
Well, I want this country to do great things. If there are great things to be done by humans in space, let’s do them, especially if they address clear national needs. I think the spirit of adventure can certainly be associated with HSF, and I do like adventure. It would be great to fly in space! I’m not sure that it’s up to the taxpayer to pay for that adventure, though.
I think we agree entirely in our frustration about this. I’m not evading the question. I just don’t have an answer to it, and I can tell that others don’t either. Certainly not SaveSpace or the legislative group making a plea to the President. (Unfortunately, they don’t seem to realize they don’t have an answer either!)
“Most of the really vociferous people in the space advocacy are day dreaming. No question. On the other hand we need day dreaming.”
I like that a lot.
You know, this country had a dream to cure cancer. We threw lots of money at that dream (e.g. National Cancer Act, War on Cancer, etc.) several decades ago and, while we made great progress, cancer is still very much with us, and is about to become the major killer in this country. What we learned is that basic research in life sciences is what is needed. That’s the infrastructure that allows one to dream about curing cancer. Curing cancer is like putting feet on Mars. They’re both ennervating ideas. But it’s going to take more than saying that we’re going to do it and throwing money at it, more than funding research that happens to have the words “cancer” or “Mars” in the title of the proposal.
Yes, many of the most vociferous people in space advocacy are day dreaming. Their ideas are far reaching, exciting, and also fundamentally unrealistic in view of available budgets and commitment. The flexible path strategy acknowledges this in a pragmatic way, and sets us on a course in which we make incremental advances that get us to the point that things that were once day dreams can be realistic. In many respects, ISS was one flexible path endeavor. With it, we learned how to live and work in zero-g, and build incredible structures. We also learned how to do this with strong international cooperation. The support for ISS has been strong and longstanding, even though we were never trying to put footprints on a rock. We got a lot out of looking but not touching, I guess.
Unfortunately most members of the public, even in a county with a NASA center, absolutely refuse to pay higher taxes, in fact they want tax cuts.Even the political leaders pushing the letter-writing campaign and the people afraid of loosing their jobs want tax cuts. This isn’t the sixties, when the marginal tax rates were much higher. Inertia will keep NASA’s budget fairly stable, but the chances of a $3B increase without a much better reason than inspiring kids to stay in school is nil. In fact, lowering the tuition at state schools would be a much better inducement.
We need to get away from the NASA-as-entertainment model and support industry so that it can produce practical benefits for America, not the exaggerated stories about inventing pacemakers, velcro and tang that we have now.
@Doug Lassiter:
“Er, no. There is a lot more to space and space politics than human space flight. I don’t think Jeff is running a Human Space Flight Politics forum.”
Er. Yes! This thread, it seems to me, is about HSF. Is it not? Anyway, you are arguing about whether HSF is relevant or not, are you not? And whether advocates do a good job or not, are you not?
“HSF is less than half of what our space agency does, and correspondingly less than half of the exploration it does. ”
Funny I was under the impression that ~$10B out of ~$17B were for HSF but this is irrelevant to the discussion I am trying to have with you here.
“Well, I want this country to do great things. If there are great things to be done by humans in space, let’s do them, especially if they address clear national needs. I think the spirit of adventure can certainly be associated with HSF, and I do like adventure. It would be great to fly in space! I’m not sure that it’s up to the taxpayer to pay for that adventure, though.
I think we agree entirely in our frustration about this. I’m not evading the question. I just don’t have an answer to it, and I can tell that others don’t either. Certainly not SaveSpace or the legislative group making a plea to the President. (Unfortunately, they don’t seem to realize they don’t have an answer either!)”
See, it’s not that easy to come up with an answer. I agree about the national needs.
In summary, to me, you are not necessarily an HSF fan but since it does affect you one way or another you want to be part of this discussion and that is perfectly fine. It seems to me that your frustration comes from the fact that you cannot see well what the benefits of HSF really are and I do not blame you. Hence my question. What is it that would excite you “again” about HSF? What is it that would make you think “it’s great and my benefit is…”? What is it that would make you want to be part of it? To work for it? To fight for it? If you, as an outsider, can provide some of these answers then we might find a way. If everyone outside of HSF could somehow tell us it would help too. I don’t know if anyone is asking at NASA and I don’t think so, maybe they are afraid of the answer: Remember Charles Bolden statement about children in school who want to be astronauts…
Flexible Path is the only smart thing to do today. We need to live within our means and to reconcile all the things that NASA does; as you said there is more than HSF… Sure I’d love to go land on the Moon and/or Mars myself but I’d love to drive a Ferrari too: May not be now but maybe in the “future”.
I would love to fly to space, again, what about you?
When did you fly into space the first time?
“Funny I was under the impression that ~$10B out of ~$17B were for HSF but this is irrelevant to the discussion I am trying to have with you here.”
You are right, of course. I was using just the Constellation numbers. (You’re easily amused!)
“Er. Yes! This thread, it seems to me, is about HSF.”
HSF impacts all of what NASA does. It’s difficult to consider anything that NASA does without having a finger on the pulse of HSF. That’s related to what I call the NASA schizophrenia.
“In summary, to me, you are not necessarily an HSF fan but since it does affect you one way or another you want to be part of this discussion and that is perfectly fine.”
Thank you. The inability of passionate HSF advocates to come up with compelling reasons for HSF suggests that they ought to start listening to others. That’s always constructive. I’m not sure why it wasn’t clear, but I’d call myself a HSF fan, though I’m just uncomfortable that I have a hard time connecting that enthusiasm with real national needs. Maybe I just admit that discomfort.
Now, analyzing why someone is posting a comment here sounds like something out of that site that watches NASA. Which is one reason why I post here, rather than there. It’s just about the words.
“What is it that would make you want to be part of it? To work for it? To fight for it?”
Those are some good questions. (But hey, watch out. I am part of it. I pay for it.) See my answer above. That’s all I’ve got. Fight for it? No. If the country doesn’t want to do it, I sure don’t want to fight for it. Who would we be fighting? Must be someone who wants money. Health? Education? Defense?
The first step is admission. Maybe we need a “Space Advocates Anonymous” group. The SAA. “Hi, my name is Doug Lassiter, and I think the world of human space flight, but I can’t really explain why.” Yeah, that Kool-Aid is baaad stuff.
Oh well. I know every one of us pay for it and some out there think it’s an entitlement… What can I say? Some day the reality will abruptly comes home to those. Anyway.
All I was trying to do is to understand your motivation for HSF, or against. No particular approval or disapproval of what you think. Rather trying to see if what I do for a living might relate to you one way or another.
One of the problem with HSF, to me, as I already stated elsewhere is ego. A lot of people in this business have a good measure of higher education. As a result some, not all, but a significant number of those, think they know best. The result is a total inability to communicate between each other, let alone with the sigma citizen who does not even know what the heck HSF really is. On the other hand this attitude allows (some of) us to stay below the radar: You now, those “rocket scientist”, they know what they do and we just don’t understand…
Yes the first step is admission. But read carefully here and there and you’ll see that some people even presented with evidence will deny them.
—
BTW, I may have misinterpreted these statements of yours “But I don’t really consider myself part of the human space flight community.” and ““I’d be delighted, since I do associate myself with HSF, quite a lot actually.â€
I do not. So that means people like you!”
Hence my belief you were not necessarily an HSF fan.
Nice talking with you.
vulture4 wrote @ November 13th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Unfortunately most members of the public, even in a county with a NASA center, absolutely refuse to pay higher taxes, in fact they want tax cuts..
this has happened because people have become convinced that one can spend, have people credit the nation and still have low taxes…
This is why people like Pete Olsen (TX 22) who are generally opposed to government spending are all excited about it when it is for things in their district.
at some point the train is going to end…
Robert G. Oler