Chicken and egg I think. I would first wait until all the current gesticulation comes to a halt: April 15 2010? I guess not. Sometime in 2011 then maybe. I would hope that the NASC has then been revived. The NASC would be able to explore such issues and make recommendation to the WH. If not it probably is a lost battle as I hardly see any one in Congress in the current environment willing to think “outside the box”. The WH possibly but first things first: 2011 budget. Then there may be an opportunity to sway them.

Sure, but that’s what you do *after* Congress and the Administration admit that species preservation is a key goal of human space flight. The dilemma isn’t how you implement it, but how you get them to admit it.

“Please understand, I like human space flight, but I think the only firm long range justification for it is species survival.”

I am not saying your reasoning is not valid. Personally I like exploration for the sake of it shall I say but it’s a different story. The problem we as a community face is that our justification for HSF is way too weak. I never saw any one or any administration of any kind make “insurance” their first priority.

“That Congress and the Administration have to admit that is the dilemma because I, as you, can’t imagine they will. I’d like to come up with words I could see them using, but I sure can’t think of any. Now, NASA can’t be charged with saving the species, but it could well be given that as an ultimate reason for doing human space flight. That might well be part of a “vision” for putting humans in space.”

So the right thing to do, I still believe is to ammend the space act. It can be done I am sure with very little fanfare (unlike what is happening right now) and it would then become part of NASA’s charter. But I suspect that like the commercial charter NASA has it will take time to see it implemented. BUT once it is law then there is no (?) way back. I have no problem against this at all. But we need someone to change the space act. We do not need Congress persons to give us the senseless rethoric we read and hear everyday.

Ah, I see what you’re saying, and it’s a good point. One can hardly believe that NASA could consider insurance for the species important, when it’s spending miniscule amounts on NEO tracking. I was confused when you said it was zeroed out, which it was not.

Re Katrina, that was just poor leadership. Poor leadership, as with major hurricanes, just happens.

Please understand, I like human space flight, but I think the only firm long range justification for it is species survival. That Congress and the Administration have to admit that is the dilemma because I, as you, can’t imagine they will. I’d like to come up with words I could see them using, but I sure can’t think of any. Now, NASA can’t be charged with saving the species, but it could well be given that as an ultimate reason for doing human space flight. That might well be part of a “vision” for putting humans in space.

Is this gobbledygook supposed to mean something?

When the government buys an airplane flight to supply a research station in Antarctica (that has and never will make money), that is a market. When the government buys a launch from Boeing or Lockheed or SpaceX or Orbital to supply a research base in orbit, that too is a market. Remember that it is people that we elected who are creating these markets. By electing these people, you and I have created the demand for the transportation services being provided.

A quick look at the way history has actually played out, rather than the way current ideology would like it to have played, should show that the fastest way to create a deep space transportation industry will be to create a deep space destination (e.g., on Earth’s moon or one of the Martian moons, the potentially reachable destinations today) that needs supply, and than hiring commercial suppliers to provide that market.

— Donald

“I have no idea what point you’re trying to make about Katrina. ”

The point about Katrina is that the Administration and Congress knew then the risks of not upgrading the protection around New Orleans. They thought cost was prohibitive I assume. Then Katrina happened, the rest is history. I mean that even with the knowledge of an impending disaster they did nothing. What do you think they should do without the knowledge of an impending disaster? And who is paying for the cost of the damages? New Orleans? The federal government?

“If human spaceflight in the interest of insurance is considered an “unaffordable” luxury, what do we make of human spaceflight as “inspiration”? ”

Well you know the answer to that question do you not? “Soft power” is the last resort to get any form of justification save for the nonsensical national security argument.

“It does seem to favor science over human space flight. Because like many of us, they really don’t have a clue what “exploration” is, and why humans have to be putting their rear ends on a rocket to do it. At least we know what science is. I like human space flight, but I’m not sure what it has to do with “exploration”, especially these days. ”

All right then. We agree on what is happening to HSF.

“It tells me that NASA has made understanding NEOs a (small) priority. ”

Okay I’ll try again. NASA budget ~ $17B, NASA HSF ~ $10B, NASA NEO ~ $16M. What else do you need to see how much of a priority it is to NASA? To Congress and the WH? Unless you feel comfortable there is enough cash dedicated to help mitigate an asteroid impact if one was to come?

“When and where money is needed money is found: Banks, automobile industry, healthcare”

Umm, that was wholesale rescue, not insurance.

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make about Katrina. It was a bad thing that happened. The City of New Orleans had no insurance. They should have. Leadership failure. Sure, say more if you have something to say.

If human spaceflight in the interest of insurance is considered an “unaffordable” luxury, what do we make of human spaceflight as “inspiration”? What do we make of it as “soft power”? What would we make of it as entertainment?

“And that from a WH that favors science over exploration…”

It does seem to favor science over human space flight. Because like many of us, they really don’t have a clue what “exploration” is, and why humans have to be putting their rear ends on a rocket to do it. At least we know what science is. I like human space flight, but I’m not sure what it has to do with “exploration”, especially these days.

Your point (?) about NASA expenditures on NEOs also doesn’t make any sense. Study money aimed at NEOs was indeed bumped up, so we know more about them. Pan-STARRS and WISE will tell us a lot about them. NEO funding certainly wasn’t “zeroed out”. It tells me that NASA has made understanding NEOs a (small) priority. Good for them.

As you know money “does not matter”. When and where money is needed money is found: Banks, automobile industry, healthcare. If money was not a problem Constellation might go on, regardless of management performance (you can always replace management).

“Legislators could get away with saying that human spaceflight is, in some respect, species insurance. The risks aren’t huge, so the price isn’t that high. But you get insurance because you know that bad things can happen, knowing that they probably won’t. ”

Nope: KATRINA. They knew, it was not expensive yet KATRINA. Need I say more?

“To put a unilateral spin on it, it’s insurance for our American way of life. In the interest of that American way of life, development of human spaceflight is the responsible, and perhaps even the patriotic thing to do.”

This is a luxury we cannot afford today and will be perceived as such by the vast majority of people.

“Now, whether legislators can mouth these words is arguable, though we’ve heard a lot about Armageddon and the end of America from them in the last month or two.”

Absoultely agree about Armageddon but it was on things that were supposed to impact (so to speak) the public immediately! It was really urgent OR Armageddon. You cannot make such a case with an asteroid, may be a movie but that is as far as you will go. And I already showed you that NEO obseravtion budget had been zeroed out at NASA (see below). What does that tell you about NASA priorities? Where does NEO rank? And that from a WH that favors science over exploration…

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

http://planetarydefense.blogspot.com/2010/03/update-on-nasa-fy2011-budget-and-neo.html

“As you may recall when the NASA FY2011 Budget was released there seemed to be an increase in the funding for NEO specific work, from the approximately US$4M to about US$16M.”