So now what do we do? Immediate issues with the public include but not limited to: Economy, jobs, mortgage, education (of their kids of course not the others’ kids), security. At the very least. Where do you think you can have national coverage of a debate on survival of the species? Of course barring an upcoming immediate catastrophe. You and I, and others, can keep quibbling for ever as to how we justify HSF and why your, or my, point is the real reason why we need to do it but until the public buys into it it won’t happen, not the way you and/or I would like.

And more to my point: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/08/nasa-asteroid-tracking-program-stalled-due-to-lack-of-funds.ars

Good luck.

In my view, the single reasonable justification for human space flight is that humanity has to have the capability to leave the Earth in order to ensure survival. The justification is not “exploration”, or even “inspiration” which, in this era, can be done in other ways. It’s not mining helium-3 or palladium, or unobtainium. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t bring the solar system into our economic sphere, but just that it isn’t entirely clear that we’re going to need human flesh bearing shovels there to do it. The ideas of “national pride” and “soft power” pertain as well, but not very cleanly. Certainly not as cleanly as they did during the cold war.

Now, that being said, it’s not clear that achieving this capability is a unilateral responsibility of our country, or that there is any need to make that capability available in the near term (thank goodness). Those arguments are ones that our leadership has to grapple with.

See, this goes way beyond “destinations”. Destinations are a policy trap for people who can’t think bigger. The Augustine committee was smart enough to see that. Indeed, as per the title of this thread (trying to get back on topic here!), it is indeed a new paradigm in human space flight policy. Maybe it takes a step beyond Scott Pace’s question “Is there a future for humans in space?”, in that we have to reach for why a future for humans in space is even important, and perhaps more specifically, why having Americans in space is most important. We do not have a national consensus on that, and we haven’t even had a national discussion about it.

Who isn’t? I mean pro-life…

Want to try a reason why we need HSF? I mean you, what is your reason why we should have HSF?

Yup. You’ve got it. That’s why a NASC won’t serve the purpose at hand. We don’t need people to “implement” policy, but to help the taxpayer come to grips with what the policy should be. Right now, we don’t have a space policy for human space flight. The public doesn’t know why we do it. I don’t think NASA knows why we do it.

“It was meant as “I” am the public. ” (and whatever your “correction” means)

Which you are. A very small piece of it. That was my point.

“Are you suggesting we act as a democracy???”

No, I never used the d-word. I’m suggesting we act like a nation that derives policy from consensus goals. Goals that we talk about, and we gnash our teeth a little over. Goals that benefit Kansas as well as Florida. No such teeth gnashing has taken place in the public mouth about human space flight.

But this is a democracy, and the folks who appropriate funds for human space flight listen real hard to what their constituents are saying and what their concerns are. Because if they don’t, democracy will take their job away from them.

“Now abortion involves a lot of passionate emotional response, that HSF would probably not except for some fearless advocates of 1 way trip to Mars.”

No, we aren’t talking about a trip to Mars. We’re talking about the importance to this country of expanding civilization into the solar system. That’s a BIG goal, and one that we as a country have not bought into. As stated before, NASA has no charter to do that. The only reason for the former is to set the stage for the latter. Goals, not destinations, right? Same with commercial space flight. CSF is just a way of getting there ideally cheaper and faster, not a reason for going.

I want some national discourse on why we should be sending humans into space. You can hide behind the fact that human spaceflight is now a drop in the federal budget, but if what we’re really talking about is expansion of civilization into the solar system, that drop becomes very big. One has to wonder why a goal that big doesn’t engender passionate emotional response. The idea, it would seem, is if we don’t do it, we’re committing the human species to death. So, are you pro-life in that?

My recollection of the Space Council isn’t that good, so I welcome any specific historical accounts that might contradict this impression.”

Again I am not necessarily speaking of how and what NASC used to do but what it could do for NASA, in particular HSF. History should help us define a better product not be a cut and paste of what was done. In my view a NASC would relief the heads of agencies and departments somehow but would also “force” them to be present to help the policy which is defined by the WH. NASC is not there to define policy but help implement it. They can be viewed as well as counselors. It must be a 2-way street. The WH probably has more on its plate than dealing with NASA. NASC would help explain the situation to the WH and how HSF say relate to any specific situation (economical, societal, geopolitical, etc). Then the WH may, or not, revise its overall space policy based on facts brought forth by NASC which in turn would orchestrate the efficient implementation of the policy, and so on and so forth. See what I mean?

“Well, when you put in boldface that “Because we, the public, the customers, want it. Period”, you’re shouting out what “we” want, and it’s not clear where you come up with that. The problem is that we don’t know what “we” want, which is precisely what this discussion is about.”

It was meant as “I” am the public. It was meant as follows: If the public as a means to demand that we pursue HSF one way or another then there is no reason to have a why debate. And I mean as a nation. Because I believe that if the private sector finds profit doing HSF then HSF it will be in the future but not necessarily as a government sponsored program. I was trying to address “why” NASA “must” do HSF. We don’t have to find any reason if the public demands so.

“Hey, how about a “sixty day study” on abortion! A group of leaders who are good communicators could start a dialog by asking hard questions, and letting some arguments run themselves out. That’s not a comfortable way to achieve consensus, but that’s sometimes how hard questions get resolved. I think what Scott Pace is asking for is a real national dialog (OK, call it an argument) about what human space flight is for. But nope, it’s not simple.”

Are you suggesting we act as a democracy??? Ah yeah I forgot… That would be a good start right? Imagine a place not overtaken by pundits of any sides where the public would provide and be provided information on any subject. Now abortion involves a lot of passionate emotional response, that HSF would probably not except for some fearless advocates of 1 way trip to Mars. But hey I am ll for it. Difficult? Sure. Difficult because it would require leadership and the ability to give hard answer to hard questions which is out of the status quo world. Enough to see what happened to the stimulus money for commercial crew. Where was the public input? Outcry? No one cares because no one knows. Maybe had the public been aware of the redirection of the cash from one senator to the exclusive use of a DOA program, just maybe it would not have happened. But who is to gain/loose from it? Anyway… I’d love to see that happened outside of my dreams.

“I want a human spaceflight program that has a real purpose. I want (as the Augustine committee fervently believed) a human spaceflight program that has goals, rather than destinations. I want a human spaceflight program that looks like something that benefits the nation, and not just Florida or Texas, and comes across as more than just a jobs program. I want a human spaceflight program that doesn’t hide behind words like “exploration” or “inspiration”. Do I find reasons that such a human space flight program won’t happen? Not hard to find reasons why a truly ambitious program isn’t happening right now, if that’s what you mean.”

We may not agree on everything but I am with you on this one. What I think is sad is that someone at NASA or at the WH does have the tools to come up with a real good program and reason to do it. I fear it does not happen out of laziness dare I say incompetence? Harsh words? Well look at the state of our NASA HSF. Reality is harsh like the void of space. No one wants to face it: It’s hard work. Until then I’ll keep dreaming of my Space Academy and all that it could do for HSF, a lot more than nay mission to the Moon, Mars or Pluto for that matter for the public. You don’t have to believe me but I am sure that if you’d let yourself go to the idea you may see that tomorrow your children or mine could very well be part of it. The most difficult part of it all: A real mission.

To be continued.

Yes, the Space Council had that charge, but it didn’t really address it. It didn’t leave us with any cogent reason for human space flight that came across as a stakeholder consensus. At least none that survives to this day. The various incarnations of the NASC were successful in pushing legislation to accommodate someone else’s vision, and they did that very well, but I’m not aware they actually came up with policy. In many respects, they were rubber stamps for administration policy, rather than driving that policy. (Unless they drove it off a cliff, as they did with SEI.) Now, if you want to make it look like you have input on economic, social, scientific, education, security, and political issues regarding human space flight policy, you could just get relevant agency heads to sign off on it which is, I think, largely what NASC did. NASC was populated by high level managers, not communicators, and their passions were for their own agencies.

My recollection of the Space Council isn’t that good, so I welcome any specific historical accounts that might contradict this impression.

“????”

Well, when you put in boldface that “Because we, the public, the customers, want it. Period”, you’re shouting out what “we” want, and it’s not clear where you come up with that. The problem is that we don’t know what “we” want, which is precisely what this discussion is about.

“So what would you suggest to involve the public? Any idea?”

The justification for human space flight is a big enough question that one probably has to cultivate interest in and dialog about the question, rather than manage it with a committee that tries to answer it. The media has to take an interest in the question, which they will only do if they sense public interest in it. This country isn’t going to decide what do do about, say, gay marriage or illegal drug use, by having one committee reaching out for consensus, and yes, the answer of what to do about human space flight, and the need for humans to expand into space, is similarly elusive in many respects. Hey, how about a “sixty day study” on abortion! A group of leaders who are good communicators could start a dialog by asking hard questions, and letting some arguments run themselves out. That’s not a comfortable way to achieve consensus, but that’s sometimes how hard questions get resolved. I think what Scott Pace is asking for is a real national dialog (OK, call it an argument) about what human space flight is for. But nope, it’s not simple.

“Do you want HSF? Maybe you don’t?”

Heh. That’s an easy one. I want a human spaceflight program that has a real purpose. I want (as the Augustine committee fervently believed) a human spaceflight program that has goals, rather than destinations. I want a human spaceflight program that looks like something that benefits the nation, and not just Florida or Texas, and comes across as more than just a jobs program. I want a human spaceflight program that doesn’t hide behind words like “exploration” or “inspiration”. Do I find reasons that such a human space flight program won’t happen? Not hard to find reasons why a truly ambitious program isn’t happening right now, if that’s what you mean.

I said NASC would not NIAC. NIAC helps with technologies, NASC with consensus. In summary.

“I’ll put a comma after your period, and perhaps a smileyface.”

Not sure why

“You are not the public. You don’t get to tell us that what you want is what the public wants. You do not get to define the consensus that we need. ”

?????

“I suspect most of the public couldn’t care less about being part of a space adventure, and would get a laugh out of a “space academy” that was trying to convince them about it.”

Maybe so, maybe not. The public for sure does not care because they CANNOT be part of it. We’ll see after Virgin Galactic and Bigelow are able to do what they want and to some extent SpaceX.

Sometime when I read your comments I have the feeling that you want HSF, somehow, but you can find all the reasons why it won’t happen. I am sure we can find all the reasons why not but I would like and am trying to find out why it WILL happen. Yet I am not hell bent on a Moon base, not even a Mars base…

So what would you suggest to involve the public? Any idea? Do you want HSF? Maybe you don’t?

Because if it didn’t, it probably wouldn’t be NIAC. NIAC has a lot of potential, but basic decisions about what the nation should do in space are not the subject for intellectual discourse among just people who are scientists and technologists. Why are such people the ones who can best engage the relevant stakeholders? I don’t think they are, though such people should certainly be included.

I would be delighted if NIAC could figure out a way to send civilization out into the stars, but until the nation had decided that was important, it’s pretty irrelevant. Yes, the fault isn’t with NIAC, but with a nation that has never really decided why we’re doing human space flight. NIAC is about the how, not about the why.

The NIAC I know of, with the mission they set out for themselves, is not, NOT going to develop a consensus among the relevant stakeholders on the rationale for human space flight.

“Note further that if the public is finally inside the process then there may not need be another “why debate”: Why? Because we, the public, the customers, want it. Period.”

I’ll put a comma after your period, and perhaps a smileyface.

You are not the public. You don’t get to tell us that what you want is what the public wants. You do not get to define the consensus that we need.

Also, I don’t consider the public input to the Augustine panel to be relevant in this regard. (And I don’t think you do either.) That was public input about options for doing human spaceflight, mostly from what I would affectionately call space nuts. I want public input about the economic, social, scientific, education, security, and political aspects of human space flight. I want it in the context of what is good for the nation, and I want that input to leaders of our country, and not to a committee of technical and scientific experts. This is a discussion that I don’t think this country has ever had. This doesn’t happen by inviting white papers from the public, as the Augustine committee did. That’s not to criticize the Augustine panel. They did a remarkable piece of work. But this is about a lot more than how to let the public know they can be part of an adventure. I suspect most of the public couldn’t care less about being part of a space adventure, and would get a laugh out of a “space academy” that was trying to convince them about it.

Absolutely and the purpose was and still is to develop and understand nuclear weapons. But it’s another story.