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

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.”

I do not. So that means people like you!”

Hence my belief you were not necessarily an HSF fan.

Nice talking with you.

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.

When did you fly into space the first time?

“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”.

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.

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.

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.

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?!?!

Robert G. Oler