NASA, Other

What Bolden’s words say about NASA and the media

“Welcome to the 24-hour gaffe reel,” reads the lede to a Wall Street Journal article yesterday about the verbal missteps people in the media limelight often make. “It seems as if every day some celebrity, politician, four-star general or random blogger is committing a verbal blooper—and then profusely apologizing for his or her ‘poor word choice.’ We’re constantly reminded of the consequences of saying something stupid or unintentionally insensitive.”

Add to that list of people the NASA administrator. Charles Bolden presumably had no idea what he was triggering when he said in an interview with al-Jazeera that President Obama charged him with “foremost” with the mission “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.” And trigger something he did.

Although the video, posted July 1, showed up on NASA Watch almost immediately thereafter, it wasn’t until the holiday weekend, when it was noticed by primarily right-wing blogs, cable news shows, and talk radio programs, did it get much more attention. Maybe the space community shrugged its shoulders, knowing that NASA’s mission is clearly more than education, international relations, and making Muslim nations “feel good”. Maybe they realized that Bolden at times can be less than completely clear when responding to questions. Or maybe it was just the holiday weekend.

But Bolden’s statements did catch fire primarily among conservative commentators, who expressed varying degrees of outrage about Bolden’s comments, but have done little else, like digging into the issue to see if NASA’s actions, beyond the administrator’s comments, matched their rhetoric. That’s one of the lessons of this event: there are plenty of people with hair triggers ready to pounce on their keyboards, microphones, and cameras at the least little offense to their worldview. This is true on both the liberal and conservative ends of the political spectrum: recall the controversy Bolden’s predecessor, Mike Griffin, generated when he said back in 2007 that while he agreed that global warming existed, he wasn’t sure it was an urgent problem by questioning whether the current climate “is the optimal climate”, a statement he later admitted was impolitic.

NASA, though, isn’t an innocent victim of bloodthirsty bloggers and commentators. The agency waited until late Tuesday, long after the issue had gained traction, before the agency responded to criticism of Bolden’s statements, a response that has done little to slow the negative reaction. Yes, there was a three-day weekend in the middle of that, but that doesn’t stop the flow of news nor the response to it: the blogosphere operates continuously and 24-hour news channels have, well, 24 hours of programming a day to fill.

“We’re far too thin-skinned, starting federal investigations every time someone says something stupid,” syndicated radio host Michael Smerconish told the Journal, something he blames in part on “political partisanship and a 24/7 media looking for ‘gotcha’ moments.” Since neither partisanship nor the continuous media cycle appears likely to go away anytime soon, the agency is going to need to react better to it: faster, more effective responses and, preferably, a better choice of words to begin with. That’s going to be an interesting challenge for David Weaver, the agency’s new associate administrator for communications. Hopefully recent events haven’t given him second doubts about starting the job later this month.

158 comments to What Bolden’s words say about NASA and the media

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Over on NASAWatch, Keith Cowling has frequently editorialised on the matter of the slow- to non-existant reactions of NASA’s PAOs to various matters, including some interesting tech demonstrations that have occured with absolutely no publicity or even post-event acknowledgement.

    If anything, Administrator Bolden’s banana-skin shoes seem to be symptomatic of a wider complete inability of NASA to communicate. This is in no way limited to the current NASA; Similar total failures to communicate extend way back and can be considered partially responsible for the ‘ho-hum’ view most people have of the agency’s activities. Even when NASA PAO tries to drum up interest, it comes across as patronising, witless or amateur hour.

    The only half-way good PAO production that I’ve seen recently was the LCROSS impact program. Even that gave a completely inaccurate impression of what was going to happen and then flailed about helplessly when it didn’t. The last really well-handled PAO ‘win’ that I remember seems to have been Voyager 2’s encounter with Neptune (later examples from other posters on this board are welcome).

    Should it matter? NASA does good work after all, even if most of it occurs in a complete publicity vacuum. Well, don’t forget that NASA is a publically-funded federal agency. It would be nice if more effort was made to tell the story so people know on what their tax dollars were being spent. It can’t be that difficult to hire some Hollywood types to write PAO scripts and some Madison Ave types to create a ‘buzz’ for missions! Britain has a long history of scientist/philosopher-communicators on the TV and radio. America has had some too (Carl Sagan springs to mind). Can it be that difficult to find new ones to help tell NASA’s story?

  • He said much more interesting things in that interview.. that’s why I made this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq5O6LtTHGg

    Now you can enjoy Bolden explaining why Constellation was a trainwreck without having your OMG-he-must-love-Muslims buttons pressed.

  • Justin Kugler

    Couldn’t have said it better, Jeff. Bravo.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The problem, with due respect, is not with the public relations, but with the policy. The meme of NASA going on a “Mission to the Muslims” instead of the Moon is one of the administration’s own making. Bolden has just been talked with the job of trying to defend that. If anything, the Al Jazeera interview has managed to focus attention on what an absolute travesty Obamaspace really is and for that Bolden should be thanked.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    That should have read, of course, “tasked with.”

  • Justin Kugler

    While I’m sure you’re enjoying this, Mark, the glee with which your conservative fellows have latched onto Bolden’s gaffe doesn’t help or elevate the debate. It just shows that you’re really much more interested in scoring political points against the current administration than having a serious debate about the actual policy, which was described in the National Space Policy and the FY2011 budget proposal.

  • Bennett

    Justin, that’s just it of course. After so many years of wasted time and resources, it’s disheartening to watch the potential for real advancement get torpedoed by folks who claim to be standing on your side of the field.

    I wish the Mark Whittingtons of the world would just admit that the shuttle is done, Constellation is canceled, and that we have to unite, to some degree, around the projects laid out for NASA in our President’s proposal.

    Anything less is counterproductive to our shared visions.

  • Mark, I forget, are you for Moon First, Mars First or Flexible Path?

  • amightywind

    Although I have enjoyed Bolden’s disastrous performance immensely it does highlight the sobering fact that NASA is run by incompetents. NASA will be funded by a continuing resolution next year, so for 3 years the agency will have operated in chaos mode and made no progress in HSF. The timing couldn’t be worse due to the end of the shuttle program. NASA could have used the lost time to ‘throttle up’ on Constellation. Sadly, a lost opportunity for America.

  • Dennis Berube

    Boldens statements should have never even been made. NASA is in the space business, not the find a muslim a seat aboard one of our last shuttle missions. I heard Bolden also wants a seat aboard the last shuttle if there is an extension. If he gets it, now that will be Obama politics for sure. What is with those people up there? They want to feed the Russian space program at a cost of 335 million for taxi service to the ISS, but do not want to invest in Orion????? What is their problem? This money needs to go into first shuttle extension flights, up until Orion can come on line. There is no ifs and or buts about it. Private enterprize will only end up being joy rides for the rich. Nimoy, who played Spock on TV, said Obama was for the space program, because he gave him the Vulcan hand signal? Was he sure it wasnt a different signal instead???? Perhaps in Nimoys advancing years, he misidentified the hand gesture.

  • Dennis, tell us, how much does 335 million buy in the US space program. Please, educate us.

  • byeman

    New math by amightywind . Where does 3 years come from? The new policy was only announced early this year. A continuing resolution would start this October, not even 9 months into the new policy. Continuing resolutions don’t last for a year (a few months at most), so the so called “chaos” wouldn’t even be 2 years. And guess what? The new policy, even with a slow start, will still close the gap quicker than the money pit called Constellation.

    Constellation (ESAS) was nonviable the minute it was conceived. The issue is some people just don’t believe facts. Constellation pumpers are no different than Moon hoax believers.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Trent,

    More-or-less one EELV cargo launch, IIRC. I’ve heard $300M as the cost of a single Atlas-V launch.

    Of course, there are various levels to the pricing that make an apples-to-apples comparison difficult. I don’t know how much that $50M headline price for Soyuz seats goes towards maintaining the R7 and Soyuz production lines as well as the launch sites. With shuttle, NASA would also be paying for all those things too, distorting the cost-per-seat based on its headline price.

    It will be interesting when (if?) Dragon and/or CST-100 are operational how much their cost-per-seat will be compared to Soyuz as they will be priced in a similar way, with many fixed costs covered by the launch and vehicle providers rather than NASA.

  • amightywind

    byeman

    Counting too high for ya? NASA operated last year under Obama in limbo while yet another Augustine Committee prepared their sabotage. NASA operated this year under Obama’s first budget. They will operate next year under this year’s continuing resolution.

    “The new policy, even with a slow start, will still close the gap quicker than the money pit called Constellation.”

    Even though the ‘new policy’ doesn’t lay out a schedule? Fortunately Obamaspace advocates lose credibility by the minute. There is strong bipartisan opposition to Obamaspace in congress. Stick a fork in it. It’s done.

  • Doug Lassiter

    While agreeing that Gen Bolden’s remarks were not politically that smart, I think it’s important to keep a couple of things in mind.

    First of all, Bolden’s description of Obama’s priorities are recognizably shorthand. It would be just as ridiculous to presume that one of Obama’s top three priorities for NASA is inspiration of kids as it is for making friends with Muslim countries. Inspiration of kids is NOT what the agency is chartered to do. It happens to be a very good thing to do, but it’s not what the agency is about. I’m surprised that those who are pulling their hair out over Bolden’s comments aren’t similarly repulsed by that comment. The top-three things that Bolden mentioned are clearly how Obama intended, by Bolden’s appointment, to put his own personal imprint on what NASA is chartered to do. A President is free to do that, on the basis of who he appoints to administer the agency. That imprint is the varnish on the structure. It isn’t the structure. Had Obama told Bolden “Hey Charlie, your main goal is to explore space. Don’t forget that!”, I would have been shocked, as would have al-Jazeera listeners. As in, what would he be thinking that NASA was actually chartered to do? Confusing that personal imprint with the charter of the agency is what’s going on here.

    Secondly, this was an interview with al-Jazeera. Not CNN, not AP, UPI, Politico, or the WSJ. It was an interview with a news agency that is largely ignored by the American public. If Obama wanted to reveal his intended rechartering of NASA, this was sure a peculiar place to do it. If course, our administration contrarians would be quick to jump on that as evidence of Obama’s incompetence!

  • Doug, as much as I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion, I think you’re completely underplaying the inspiring-kids goal – I expect it is his no1 priority, and he has said on numerous occasions that he received instructions directly from the President to make inspiring kids his no1 priority.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Doug Lassiter,

    If Obama wanted to reveal his intended rechartering of NASA, this was sure a peculiar place to do it.

    Not really, depending on how certain you are of the administration’s maelevolance.

    Over here in the UK, politicians are always looking for “the best day to bury bad news”. If something is lost in the background noise, then embarrassing facts are not debated and easily covered up. So, for the Machiavellian politician, the best time to announce a policy that will be greatly unpopular is in a time and place that no one will notice. You then tag it onto the end of an unrelated but vital bill at the last moment and hope that it passes without comment.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “I think you’re completely underplaying the inspiring-kids goal – I expect it is his no1 priority, and he has said on numerous occasions that he received instructions directly from the President to make inspiring kids his no1 priority.”

    Please read what I wrote. I said that it’s certainly something that he’s excited about. Inspiration is, in fact, an important role for NASA. BUT IT ISN’T PART OF THE FORMAL AGENCY CHARTER. That’s not to say that the agency shouldn’t do it, but just that when Obama says he’s excited about it, he’s properly adding a personal layer to the agency goals. It’s his perspective on the agency goals. He can’t make that a top priority goal for the agency, but he’s welcome to consider it an important goal for him.

    >>If Obama wanted to reveal his intended rechartering of NASA, this was >>sure a peculiar place to do it.”

    “Not really, depending on how certain you are of the administration’s maelevolance.”

    “Malevolance” is a word that doesn’t belong here. Take your paranoia elsewhere. The idea that a politician wants to make a major announcement impacting policy by putting it somewhere where no one will notice it makes no sense at all. If that’s the way it’s done in your U.K., then I’m sorry to hear that. So you assume that you have no idea what the top-level policies of your government are because you haven’t located them yet. Wow.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Doug,

    I was wondering who would be the first to assume that I was advocating that interpretation rather than just mentioning it.

  • Justin Kugler

    amightywind,
    Even during the Bush Administration, Constellation Program managers were telling Congress that the window to accelerate the schedule was closing. It’s not going to magically re-open now.

  • Incapable of justifying the continued expense of the government socialist jobs program masquerading as a Moon mission, Obama critics now try to divert attention just because the NASA administrator tried to say something nice about Muslims to an Arabic TV network.

    Yawn.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “I was wondering who would be the first to assume that I was advocating that interpretation rather than just mentioning it.”

    As was I, wondering which of our administration contrarians would be quick to jump on the idea of revealing overriding policy in a news outlet that American’s don’t read as evidence of Obama’s incompetence. But that’s a new spin on it — evidence of Obama’s malevolance!

    I’m not forgiving Bolden for the comment. It was not well explained by him and, in my view, pretty ambiguous. The late followup by the administration, as reported in Fla Today, was thin and weak. Though the administration was put between a rock and hard place. They understood that a strong retort would just elevate the issue and give it more credibility than it deserves.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 7:29 am
    > The problem, with due respect, is not with the public relations,
    > but with the policy. The meme of NASA going on a “Mission to the
    > Muslims” instead of the Moon is one of the administration’s own
    > making. Bolden has just been tasked with the job of trying to defend
    > that. If anything, the Al Jazeera interview has managed to focus
    > attention on what an absolute travesty Obamaspace really is and
    > for that Bolden should be thanked.

    That’s a very good point. The last couple of days you’ve seen more news coverage of NASA, and the Obamaspace “end of NASA” issues then I can remember in the last 18 months. Even Dem’s in congress are reportedly stunned and angry that not only is Bolden and Obama going around them to cancel Constellation – but they are openly poo pooing the whole concept of what they thought Constellation and NASA was for. At the very least this should raise the visibility of the debate on do we really want a NASA? .. and if so, whats it supposed to be doing?

    The Obama space, space advocate rallying cry that Obama’s just pulling NASA away frmo Earth to orbit focus, and focusing it on new deap space manned projects was shattered by Bolden’s off handed comment that NASA and the US will never do a beyond LEO project again – its international or nothnig.

    Right now NASA and manned space exploration is being phased out. The commercial space proposal and associated Obama space proposals of the last few month largely increase costs, for less manned flight ability then we have now, and got no traction in congress. So the mutterings in NASA halls seem to be eiather Congress does a big reverse and shuttles revived for several more years, or some peaces of Constellation are grouped into a manned HLV compromise like Nelsons, or NASA as far as the voters are concerned – ends.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Doug Lassiter,
    > If Obama wanted to reveal his intended rechartering of
    > NASA, this was sure a peculiar place to do it.”

    Given Al-Jezeera was the first network newly elected Pres Obama gave a interview with; maybe its not that strange a place to announce NASA will from now on, be focused on outreach, and joint missions.

    Otherwise, the White House would how denyed all he said by now.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Given Al-Jezeera was the first network newly elected Pres Obama gave a interview with; maybe its not that strange a place to announce NASA will from now on, be focused on outreach, and joint missions.”

    Why?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 7:29 am ..

    how absurd.

    the only groups that are babbling about this are space policy people but mostly people like you who like the big government program of record, dont like the change…and have some “lets fear Muslims because they have replaced the USSR as the enemy that justifies everything” fetish.

    For someone like you who supported every lie and exaggeration that the last administration told about Iraq, who continues to beat the “WMD and links to terrorist” drum to go on about this interview is pathetic.

    Other then right wing nuts, this interview is gaining no traction anywhere.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Justin Kugler

    Kelly,
    You and Mark are reading what you want to into this. The National Space Policy and the FY2011 budget proposal are clear about the direction NASA is supposed to go. The fuss over Bolden’s remarks is just more FUD.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    The question, Robert, is how much traction those right-wing nuts have in the broader field of American politics?

    The current and previous Presidents have, IMHO at least, been agents of greater and greater polarision in American politics between extreme left and right. The centre still exists but it is getting harder and harder to pull those further out back into the centre to create a consensus for progress. This is an issue that transcends space politics, as the debates over healthcare and controlling the economic crisis have proven.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Boldens statements should have never even been made…

    actually having watched the entire interview a few times…I stand by my original comment at NASAwatch…

    This was a good interview (on both sides) and I thought had a very well thought out message that needed to be said, particularly in that part of the world.

    US policy, under Bush the last, did nothing but inflame the region, giving right wing radicals (both in the US and the region) traction where really we need serious people to talk out how to deal with difficult issues of culture, politics and evolution.

    Everytime someone from the “right” goes “Never let a good crisis go to waste” in terms of beating up on Obama…I laugh. No one milked a crisis more then Bush and 9/11 and the right of the GOP

    Robert G. Oler

  • US policy, under Bush the last, did nothing but inflame the region

    Yes, because before George Bush, the ME was such a peaceful place.

    [rolling eyes]

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The National Space Policy and the FY2011 budget proposal are clear about the direction NASA is supposed to go.”

    Not quite true. These documents cover where the Administration wants NASA to go. Congress may decide otherwise, at least for one FY. It’s the Space Act that defines the direction NASA is supposed to go. Whatever the Administration and Congress decides has to be consistent with the Space Act. NSP and the budget legislation define an implementation plan for the Space Act, and how the government interprets the terms of the Act.

    The Space Act says nothing about kids or Muslims. So even if the administration were foolish enough to believe that diplomacy with Muslim nations was among the highest priority goals for the agency, that
    would be simply illegal.

    It’s not commonly appreciated, but agency administrators are not civil servants. Charlie Boldin doesn’t work for NASA! He leads NASA. It’s done that way so that agency heads can be easily removed at the pleasure of the President. Chris Scolese, as AA, is NASA’s highest ranking civil service person. So it’s fine for Obama to tell Charlie what he wants Charlie’s emphasis to be in leading NASA. That doesn’t translate to agency goals, and what Charlie does personally really isn’t bound by the Space Act.

    So the assumption that what Obama tells Boldin about what to do in his job defines agency goals is just nonsense.

  • John

    Pathetic. I see a bunch of “he said, oh yeah, she said!” blather here about dumb Bush or dumb Obama, and precious little on what the heck the role of NASA is or should be in implementing the nation’s vision, our policy regarding space.

    If you don’t know what your goals are, what your vision is, how can you have a rational policy??

    This Administration has not set out a serious vision for the nation regarding space, and neither did Bush before him, nor did Clinton before him, nor Bush 41 before him. For at least two decades NASA has been coasting on inertia and self-generated vision without a serious *national* goal provided by the Executive. Bush 41 didn’t care about space much, he inherited Reagan’s desire for a space station and spun it into an international relations program. Clinton pretty much just continued that, using NASA as an instrument of foreign policy. Bush 43, he talked about the Moon and Mars (heck, all the last presidents have) but never funded anything seriously. Obama is even more disengaged from the core original vision of NASA, and sees it as a PR group and good favor tool more than anything else.

    So unless and until there’s a serious vision for what America will use space for, what the benefits and goals are, there will not be a rational policy in place — so NASA will continue to flounder, flop, sputter and jerk.

  • Justin Kugler

    I think the National Space Policy and the FY2011 proposal are consistent with the Space Act, so that’s a bit of a semantic quibble.

    I agree with you, though, that people are confusing Obama’s philosophical direction to Bolden with actual policy.

  • Kelly Starks

    >== The National Space Policy and the FY2011 budget proposal are
    > clear about the direction NASA is supposed to go.

    They are largely symbolic, and aparently have no support in congress.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “I think the National Space Policy and the FY2011 proposal are consistent with the Space Act, so that’s a bit of a semantic quibble.”

    I think it’s not a semantic quibble. NSP has a lifetime of one administration. The legislated budget has a lifetime of one year. It’s the Space Act that defines what the agency is all about in the long haul, and everything we’re talking about is all about the long haul. That NSP and the FY11 budget are consistent with the Space Act is hardly a surprise. For NASA, they have to be!

    The Space Act is the one constant in the equation of space policy. It defines NASA. People should pay more attention to it.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 11:25 am

    >== US policy, under Bush the last, did nothing but inflame the region,
    > giving right wing radicals (both in the US and the region) traction
    > where really we need serious people to talk out how to deal with
    > difficult issues of culture, politics and evolution. ===\

    And now our alies in the region openly don’t trust us and talk about taking military action to secure themselves, and our enemies talk abuot how much safer they feel to act under Obama. I don’t see a up side here.

  • Justin Kugler

    I think we’re in violent agreement, then, Doug. :)

  • Anne Spudis

    LA Times: If you watch Al Jazeera, you know Obama’s new mission for NASA:

    [Quote] You know how Wile E. Coyote straps himself to the rocket and lights the fuse? And it burns. And burns. Silence. Nothing. He’s poised, hopefully, awaiting launch. We wait, painfully, for the bad thing certain to happen.

    …….Actually, even with the vigilant York’s report and his amazing follow-up, the story has largely gone unnoted offline, drawing virtually no coverage from major newspapers and broadcast news operations. They were more focused over the holiday weekend on the latest gaffe by GOP party chairman Michael Steele, who’s been filling the political clown role while VP Joe Biden was in Iraq celebrating Obama’s war success.

    Bolden was in the Middle East as part of a conga line of Obama folks celebrating the first anniversary of the president’s Cairo speech to the Muslim world. In Bolden’s own remarks in Egypt, recounted by York, the NASA chief noted it has been four decades since the first moon landing. Bolden candidly admitted that under Obama:

    –“NASA is not only a space exploration agency, but also an Earth improvement agency.”

    –“We’re not going to go anywhere beyond low Earth orbit as a single entity. The United States can’t do it.”

    The fuse is lit. Here’s the video. [End quote]

  • Bob Mahoney

    I think folks are missing the big picture here because they’re not reading between the lines…ALL the lines.

    Space is not a top-tier priority of this (or any) administration. That’s pretty much a given, if only because it’s such a small part of the budget and of marginal interest to most voters. The best we can hope for is a President who demonstates 1) a minimum accurate comprehension of the issues involved and b) has his team craft a viable, sustainable strategy for exploration, commercial development, and resource exploitation that best applies (or develops) the nation’s capabilities. [I’m speaking specifically of space exploration; the other aspects of NASA’s charter (Earth science, etc) need their due as well.]

    If you take all of Obama’s comments (and those of members of his administration) on space collectively, you can’t help but get a sense of how he views the role of space exploration as set against the larger backdrop of national affairs:

    O During his campaign, he spoke of being inspired by the Apollo crew recoveries (up on his grandfather’s shoulders, etc) and has mentioned such inspirational power numerous times. Administrator Bolden has spoken often of inspiring kids.

    O Regardless of how much merit the individual components of his space policy may or may not possess, the President demonstrated how little he actually comprehends of actual space exploration issues and possibilities when he dismissed future lunar exploration and potential resource exploitation (a possible—albeit not guaranteed—vital avenue to further solar system exploration and the development of a near-space economy) with an offhanded “we’ve already been there” quip. Seemingly for the President, space exploration is merely about going here or there, and once to any particular destination is sufficient.

    O Now we see Administrator Bolden’s distillation (alebeit for a specific audience) of the President’s top priorities for NASA: inspiration of kids into STEM, international inclusiveness, and a targeted outreach to a particular group of nations. Even if you accept that General Bolden was knowingly shaping his words for a particular audience and may have gotten a tad loose with his characterizations of the President’s intent, that characterization didn’t come out of thin air. The President’s heart-to-heart discussions with the NASA Administrator obviously made certain impressions on Gen. Bolden which he has articulated in various venues, with a certain amount of consistency regarding inspiration of kids and international collaboration.

    You can call them all gaffes or mis-speaks or mis-characterizations if you’d like, but when the net sum of so many statements from so many key persons points consistently in a certain direction, one can’t help but conclude that the underlying attitudes and beliefs of the original source must lie somewhere along the lines of that overwhelmingly consistent direction. And, sadly, the impression one gets (inspire kids by going places (flags & footprints only) with international partners) is that of a very shallow appreciation of both NASA’s greater purpose and its full potential.

    The previous administration offered a genuinely visionary paradigm shift with the original VSE but through neglect allowed one man’s personal agenda to tie an albatross around the space agency’s neck. We may all find some positive aspects in the current administration’s space policy proposals, but I can’t help but worry when the underlying attitude of said current administration seems to view space exploration so shallowly.

    I’m not sure which (neglect or shallow viewpoint/understanding) will end up doing more damage to the greater, grander objective of solar system exploration and exploitation. That either (or both together) can do such damage, I have no doubt.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Now we see Administrator Bolden’s distillation (alebeit for a specific audience) of the President’s top priorities for NASA: inspiration of kids into STEM, international inclusiveness, and a targeted outreach to a particular group of nations.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but Obama never told Bolden he wanted NASA to have these as top priorities. This wasn’t a distillation of priorities for the agency, What you say here is wrong. In his al-Jazeera interview, Bolden says that the President wanted *me* to do these things. As I said above, Bolden isn’t NASA. If Obama wanted Bolden to do these things in the course of his leadership of NASA, I see no problem with that. But let’s not confuse priorities for the Administrator with priorities for the agency.

    The things that administration contrarians are saying here are starting to smell like mythology. The story gets more fanciful every time it gets told.

  • Derrick

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 10:19 am…

    Seconded. Again it has come down to pure politics. Evidence:

    Keith’s note: I have shut off comments on this post. I am tired of reading hate language that people have been trying to post. These utterly off-topic rants have come from both sides of the political spectrum. This hate speech will not be tolerated on NASA Watch. Take it somewhere else. FWIW YouTube has also disabled comments on this video.

    I dunno how Dr. Foust stands some of the comments posted on this blog. Someone needs to just start up a message board so the same four people who post the exact same arguments in every thread can take their idological punditry elsewhere.

  • juggler

    quoth Lassiter above: “The Space Act is the one constant in the equation of space policy. It defines NASA. People should pay more attention to it….If Obama wanted Bolden to do these things in the course of his leadership of NASA, I see no problem with that. But let’s not confuse priorities for the Administrator with priorities for the agency. ”

    ya know, Lassiter: it strikes me that whether you call it a goal or a priority, or a priority for the Administrator or the Agency, the bottom-line is that the Administrator is going to push the implementation of HIS (or his boss’s) agenda while he has the conn; you can quibble all you want about what you call it, but it’s what’s gonna happen – and it is the consequences that folks seem to be worried about (or at least trying to discuss here)

  • mark valah

    @Bob Mahoney:
    Excellent analysis.

  • John

    Bob Mahoney, you are right on target!!

  • common sense

    @ Bob Mahoney wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    You know I understand the anxiety of every one in this business, I am in it. It is very unfortunate what happened, not what is happening. A lot of people are trying to blame this WH about what happened in the previous WH and those before it. What I find really sad is that when people realized what was going on, no one of power actually tried to correct course. I don’t know if this is because republicans are “good” soldiers and follow their leaders to oblivion or something else but it is now too late, way too late. Whatever NASA HSF did in the past 5 years is wrong, very wrong. You cannot run a program like this and keep going. Either incompetence or fraud or both took place but it is no excuse. This WH nevertheless has chosen to increase the budget at NASA! Where would you see that in the industry? That a failed organization gets more cash? So basically NASA HSF is given yet another chance to succeed at something, anything! That is pretty much what they are told. Hence the lack of timeline and destination. Their lives are made much easier. When a timeline and destinations were given they failed. No matter the reason, I don’t care. Finger pointing is not going to help. The whole show collapsed. But the responsibility ultimately lies with the boss. So what do we do now? We complain, find any trivial argument to derail the policy? Okay let’s assume it works, that the WH has enough of it and they reinstate with Congress the old Constellation. Just for the sake of it. What do we do then? Where is the plan? We keep on with Ares I and hope we fly a capsule after the ISS is ditched? Then how do we go to the Moon? Let alone Mars of course… We build Ares V? When? With what cash? Do you seriously think that Congress is going to let NASA’s budget increase several folds? And if so that the WH would not veto it? All I see is the total lack of compromise the total lack of trying to make something happen. And from people who actually failed. Sorry Constellation fans. The total lack of support is what will doom NASA. Not this WH, not the previous one. Other Congress people will see an opportunity to raid the budget at NASA and that will be that. A slow, very slow, end to oblivion.

    You don’t have to believe me. I do not have a crystal ball. But when I started on Constellation I knew it was THE opportunity otherwise… Well we are otherwise now.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bob Mahoney wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    interesting thoughts…but where I think that they come apart is that they assume that there is, outside of the “space fan club” (which I put myself in) that there is some interest in the US in general for exploration by humans. There isnt.

    I’ve said this here a few times…but in the end I suspect that Cx would have continued even with a ridiculous timeline had it remotely been on budget. What killed it is that it was not. (the timeline being nutty didnt help much).

    BUT I think it only would have continued based on inertia. And I suspect that as events unfold (like the economy gets worse) it would have been enormously vunerable to the deficit knife.

    The reality is that I dont think that most Americans want a space effort that is focused on sending humans to bodies in the solar systems. So the notion that there is or should be some latent exploration bug in a President is I think misplaced.

    Space fan groups want it…but Most Americans not so much.

    Robert G. Oler

  • With NASA employees and vendors losing their jobs and no consensus between the White House and Congress on the future of NASA, people are wondering why Bolden is traveling overseas talking about Muslim outreach– at a time like this!

    Bolden’s priorities right now should not be reducing tensions between Muslims and America, his priorities should be to reduce tension between the White House and Congress so that we can have a viable government space program in this country. Of course, Bolden is probably receiving a loss hostility from the Muslim world than he is from Congress!

    President Obama needs to stop playing games with the Congress and the American people and just come out and say what a significant wing of Democratic Party has always believed. He just needs to say:

    “I don’t believe that NASA should have a manned space program, I’d rather spend that money on other social programs! Just let private industry venture into space on their own dime, if they want to!”

  • Robert G. Oler

    Kelly Starks wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 11:53 am

    there is no upside.

    The entire basis of war is the moral reason that one engages in it. The instant that the practical “reasons” behind it become “because we can” then everything that comes next is flawed and rather catastrophic.

    I am sure that in Cheney world there was the paranoia, after having been caught flat footed on 9/11 that There was some chance that some how someone was going to get Saddam’s WMD and do something with them. But for the most part what I think they were counting on is that their “other” goals in Iraq were going to be legitimized by finding “some” WMD’s (mostly gas) and then heralding how right Bush had been…particularly if the entire operation had gone “Wolfie style” (six months and out).

    Problem is that when the WMD came up goose egg nothing, then we are left with a giant superpower acting out of fear and with really no reason other then that.

    So now it is open season in the Mideast. It would be hard to argue to EITHER the Iranians who might someday have the gadget and a delivery system or to the IDF who does have the gadget and a delivery system…that bellicose statements by the other party do not meet the very minimal test that Mr. Bush laid down to engage in “regime change”. neither party has to have any solid evidence of an actual threat, or of an intent to use, or anything…all they have to have is a leader who sees “storm clouds gathering near our shores” and decides to act. Then we have mushrooms popping off all over the place as they implement their form of “The Bush Doctrine”.

    What Bolden was trying to say in his speech that this kind of thinking is not something that groups should participate in.

    He was trying to argue that people can work together and advance into modernity, rather then resort to armed conflict everytime that they are scared.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “the bottom-line is that the Administrator is going to push the implementation of HIS (or his boss’s) agenda while he has the conn”

    If his boss’s agenda is to encourage international participation in space exploration, and make an appeal to encourage Muslim countries to be participants in that, I have no problem with that. In fact, I endorse it. For me, that’s the bottom line. I see no down-side “consequences” of this, nor have you suggested any.

    But when you misinterpret an “agenda” as top level agency goals, you’re way off base. The President can tell the NASA A to do a somersault, but that doesn’t make somersaults a high priority for his agency. Ya get me?

  • Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 10:19 am
    Nailed it! Concur.

  • common sense

    @ Marcel F. Williams wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    “I don’t believe that NASA should have a manned space program, I’d rather spend that money on other social programs! Just let private industry venture into space on their own dime, if they want to!”

    Beware what you wish for…

    Oh well…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 11:22 am

    The question, Robert, is how much traction those right-wing nuts have in the broader field of American politics?….

    that is going to be one of the questions answered in the 2010 election.

    so far the answers are unclear. Crist should be losing badly in FL…the tea party person Mark R (dont want to blow up anyone by misspelling his name!) seems to have peaked. It is early and the oil spill is making Crist look good…so trends today are perilous…but for instance Bill White is doing well against Perry. Again it is early.

    The “right” has a built in advantage in American politics. They like to say “America is right of center” and that is only true if one considers “the center” as fixed. America is (and has been since 1789) sliding “left” on the scale of “individual liberty” (ie the notions in the DOI applying more and more to individuals regardless of race etc) AND the notions of a federal government vrs state governments. What is was the “center” of American politics in the 60’s (segregation, very limited federal government etc) is now “the right”. And 50 years from now what is today “far left” (gay rights etc) will be the center.

    This is all generational. The reason most of the support for Apollo like programs comes from “the older folks” is evidence of that…ask 20-40 somethings about issues like “gays” and there is no debate…go up to the 50-older (the fox news group) and there is no debate either…but they are on the “dying side” of politics…ie their viewpoints will be dead as they die off.

    An additional advantage for the right is that they have had over the last 30 years some masters of “division politics” running national campaigns. From Atwater to Rove what these folks are good at is stirring up the base and turning it out while suppressing turnout of the opposition.

    But all things in politics go in cycles and their cycle seems to be ending, in part because Bush did so badly. What is unknown is how (what I view) as the bad performance so far by Obama will give them a little boost.

    The Bolden “flap” illustrates this. The only groups it is gaining traction with are the “right of center” people…and mostly the older people. I’ve looked at all the websites for the major news groups and outside of Fox…the cable networks have done nothing with it.

    To me the entire issue is just another Sarah Palin death panel issue something to charge up the red meat group

    Robert G. Oler

  • “Beware what you wish for…”

    Some Democrats have already come out and said that they are skeptical about the need for a government manned space program. If Obama believes that too then he needs to come out and say it!

  • John

    @ Robert G. Oler — why don’t you start another thread to refight the Iraq War?? I frankly don’t see what any of your comments have to do with what the nation’s space policy should be. Furthermore, there’s not much NASA can do to inspire kids or muslim countries for long if all it can do is trot out aging astronauts who once went into space, while its own spaceflight capabilities flat line. NASA is/was inspirational because of what it DID, not what it said. For most kids, the Apollo program is dim and distant history. We went there FORTY YEARS AGO!! Space Shuttles?? Been flying for THIRTY YEARS!! It’s disgraceful that NASA has not been capable, or directed to and resourced sufficiently, to replace Shuttle with a more capable, more efficient RLV space transportation system.

    So if you’re done chucking rocks at Bush and “Right Wingers” and such, what’s YOUR solution??

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Some Democrats have already come out and said that they are skeptical about the need for a government manned space program.”

    If you look at what a government manned space program has accomplished in the last thirty years, skepticism is understandable!
    Now, ISS has been an engineering triumph, but having built it, we’re struggling to figure out what to do with it.

    Federally funded human space flight is largely run in red states. The enthusiasm of the GOP for a human space program is colored accordingly. Who would be surprised about human space flight being more a GOP priority? If these Republican legislators have a vision for space exploration that is founded on paychecks, they need to come out and say it!

  • John

    “Space fan groups want it…but Most Americans not so much.”

    And whose fault is that?? If we know nothing about national politics, without leadership and effort driving an agenda, driving a vision, nothing happens. So its easy to say just us fanboys want a vigorous, successful space program — but if the President isn’t selling it, or if NASA at a minimum doesn’t have the vocal support of the President, then nobody’s going to buy into it.

  • common sense

    @John wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    “So if you’re done chucking rocks at Bush and “Right Wingers” and such, what’s YOUR solution??”

    NASA FY2011 budget is.

  • why don’t you start another thread to refight the Iraq War?? I frankly don’t see what any of your comments have to do with what the nation’s space policy should be.

    He should find another web site entirely. I can actually feel my IQ drop after reading his posts on politics.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
    >
    >== The reality is that I dont think that most Americans want
    > a space effort that is focused on sending humans to bodies
    > in the solar systems. So the notion that there is or should
    > be some latent exploration bug in a President is I think misplaced.
    >
    > Space fan groups want it…but Most Americans not so much.

    Polls consistently show Americans want there to be a NASA for its prestige as the best manned space agency, and for jobs in districts – and then you get a few folks who think about the value of space and aerospace. So Constellation – as the go back to the moon program, had some clout, but no excitement since it was a repeat. Few really realize shuttle is ending.

    Obama’s problem is he inherited and continued the kill shuttle program. He inherited and killed the go back to the moon program. And now Bolden just dis’d the whole idea of NASA as ever being worth national prestige, or doing what Congress has ordered repeatedly – and did so in a way that got huge air and print play for days.

    That’s a lot of bad politics raining down on the White House

  • juggler

    come on, commonsense: of course the budget is going up next year (FY11) and subsequent 4 years to effect a $6 billion increase (TOTAL; 1.2 billion a year average) over that period; however that is relative the Obama FY2010 budget and future-year plans. Note that in spring 2009, the O admin REDUCED outyear budget guidelines for HSF (primarily) by more than that. (cf the last Griffin budget plan (FY09 and outyears) available online at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210019main_NASA_FY09_Budget_Estimates.pdf which were the numbers BEFORE the early 2009 Obama out-year cut;
    you find that the FY11 projections are not much of a substantial boost at all (roughly only 0.5 B per year). [budget numbers follow all this text]

    Further, that initially lowered Obama fiscal planning profile done in early 2009 was the charter given Augustine for their review. Now look, I am NOT saying that Augustine would have come back and said that Constellation was doable (or desirable) even at the pre-cut (final Bush) future funding guidelines, rather am saying just look at the politics of this. Common sense requires that one has to be at least a little skeptical of this whole situation. It is important all of how we have gotten to this place, and not just the latest set of talking points. Here are the numbers (NASA budgets from Wikipedia – I know, but they seem pretty accurate), and last few years give Obama FY11 outyear projects with last Griffin projections for same years (from ref above). enjoy…

    year budget (billions current year)
    1987 7.591
    1988 9.092
    1989 11.036
    1990 12.429
    1991 13.878
    1992 13.961
    1993 14.305
    1994 13.695
    1995 13.378
    1996 13.881
    1997 14.360
    1998 14.194
    1999 13.636
    2000 13.428
    2001 14.095
    2002 14.405
    2003 14.610
    2004 15.152
    2005 15.602
    2006 15.125
    2007 15.861
    2008 17.318
    2009 17.782 (17.614) (paren is prediction in Griffin FY2009)
    2010 18.724 (18.026)
    projected follow:
    2011 19,000 (18.460)
    2012 19,450 (18.905)
    2013 19,960 (19.358)
    2014 20,600
    2015 20,99

  • mark valah

    @ Robert G. Oler said “interesting thoughts…but where I think that they come apart is that they assume that there is, outside of the “space fan club” (which I put myself in) that there is some interest in the US in general for exploration by humans. There isnt.”

    True leadership is not about making people happy or give them what they want. Perhaps right now there isn’t much public interest for human space exploration, but once an astronaut walks again on the Moon’s surface the public perception will change. But such enterprise requires strong leadership, and a deep understanding of space programs and their importance, and here is where Bob Mahoney’s analysis captured correctly the ObamaSpace issue: everything is being thought and acted by this administration from a political standpoint without much concern regarding the true accomplishment – reflected in the intentional vagueness and demagogy of the space policy and budgets promoted.

  • Kelly Starks

    > John wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    >== . NASA is/was inspirational because of what it DID, not what
    > it said. For most kids, the Apollo program is dim and distant
    > history. We went there FORTY YEARS AGO!! Space Shuttles??
    > Been flying for THIRTY YEARS!! It’s disgraceful that NASA has
    > not been capable, or directed to and resourced sufficiently,
    > to replace Shuttle with a more capable, more efficient RLV
    > space transportation system.==

    And now sadly what most kids – or adults – are hearing is NASA won’t do anything again. Its over. Wont fly people to LEO to do things, won’t (and doesn’t thnik it ever should) fly folks beyond LEO. No RLV, not even a bloated Apollo on steroids.

    Real inspiring.

  • common sense

    @ mark valah wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    “True leadership is not about making people happy or give them what they want.”

    It is currently applied to you, I mean true leadership. Are you happy? Do you get what you want?

    Sweet irony…

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    how we got into the Iraq war is a carbon copy of how we got “VSE”…so both thought process are useful to look at to avoid “tragedies” in the future.

    “If we know nothing about national politics, without leadership and effort driving an agenda, driving a vision, nothing happens.”

    thats the boilerplate of space fan groups. “We have to have a vision” and that “vision” is some mythic need to watch a few astronauts doing something that mostly has nothing to do with the rest of America.

    “A vision” alone is useless unless it is one that has some connection to the folks who 1) are suppose to make the vision happen and 2) must support it politically (and perhaps with tax dollars).

    Otherwise “the vision” is like Obama’s health care plan…one that has no real support

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    mark valah wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Perhaps right now there isn’t much public interest for human space exploration, but once an astronaut walks again on the Moon’s surface the public perception will change…..

    what makes you think that. When Americans walked on the Moon by the time the second “group” was there…Americans didnt care.

    why in your view would they change?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Kelly Starks wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Polls consistently show Americans want there to be a NASA for its prestige as the best manned space agency, and for jobs in districts – and then you get a few folks who think about the value of space and aerospace. So Constellation – as the go back to the moon program, had some clout, but no excitement since it was a repeat. Few really realize shuttle is ending…………..

    that is not accurate. none of that paragraph is.

    Polls consistently show that Americans have no appetite for spending money on human spaceflight…and while there are no polls about the shuttle ending, the reality is that it is being reported fairly aggressivly as “the end is coming”.

    Watch, when the last one flies only the people who are losing jobs will care.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Justin Kugler

    Kelly,
    They’re hearing that from people who have a vested interest in the status quo, even though it isn’t true.

  • how we got into the Iraq war is a carbon copy of how we got “VSE”

    Wow. That’s doubling down on stupid.

  • Vladislaw

    John wrote:

    ” “Space fan groups want it…but Most Americans not so much.”

    And whose fault is that?? If we know nothing about national politics, without leadership and effort driving an agenda, driving a vision, nothing happens. So its easy to say just us fanboys want a vigorous, successful space program”

    Space is a place not a program. The fault is that the government created a transportation monopoly. Name another form of transportation that isn’t driven by the commercial sector. Hell even submarines can be purchased in the private sector. If aircraft were controled by and only used to fly government employees who would be interested in it? If you will never be a part of it, no matter your education or the size of your checkbook, why would you even bother. Once commercial access becomes a reality and you reality shows relating to it, space, a place, will become a whole lot more interesting to the general public.

    The solution is to get the government out of the way. If that means NASA doesn’t get to launch their own system, and they have to ride commercial the first two hundred miles, so be it.

  • DCSCA

    Excellent post, Jeff Foust.

    This writer has worked within the realm where the ‘monster media’ roams for nearly three decades. It likes shiny objects that easily bait and distract. That 24-hour news cycle is a hungry animal, that demands feeding around the clock– and it’s diapers changed regularly. For the primary objective is to draw a crowd and sell things — not enlighten and inform. It is quite obvious what happened with Bolden. It could happen to anyone targeting a message to favor a specific audience. He knew who his audience was in this instance and earnestly emphasized NASA’s ‘out-reach’ to that audience, but mangled the message. The Rabid Right, particularly knee-jerk blogs and just jerk-talk radio, not the target audience for Bolden’s comments and ever hungry for tidbits to feed the ‘animal,’ pounced, chewed it up into yet another scrap and tossed into their daily anti-Obama spin cycle for down market and to the Right listeners and readers to consume. Today it will be something else.

    It’s clear Bolden is not smooth or comfortable at public affairs. Few come naturally to it and most need schooled in the basics. At times, NASA has been blessed with some good ones. You know who they are. The administrator’s comments, for better or worse, essentially follow the trajectory of ‘inclusion’ as spelled out by the WH and articulated by the president at KSC on 4/15. It is what it is.

    The issue isn’t Bolden, but whether American space efforts will continue to be bold.

    This WH has played their space cards and moved on. It’s up to Congress now. Change is in the air. The question for our time is if it truly is change you can believe in.

    But the private enterprise-laced ‘Obamaspace’ plan, as proposed by this administration, should be an ‘easy sell’ to the out of power, no regulation, pro-business minority party, with a laisse-faire minority subset that has historically not supported the government funded, civilian space agency. Instead, they snacked on the administrator because it takes another bite out of an administration they abhor. The future of our space program has little to do with it.

  • Bennett

    Kelly Starks wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Echoing Justin’s point, they are also hearing it from anyone who is a “hater” of the current administration, Rand Simberg aside. The comments on various boards or following news articles show how little the commenter knows about NASA or the proposed directions laid out in FY’11.

    Children and students will be inspired, as Vladislaw notes @ 4:16, when things open up for more people, as it has with NASA’s Mars Exploration program for classrooms, or when we start landing Robonauts on the moon and classrooms can follow their progress.

    In the mean time, we can build the infrastructure we need to do BEO missions.

  • John

    @ Robert G. Oler “how we got into the Iraq war is a carbon copy of how we got “VSE”…so both thought process are useful to look at to avoid “tragedies” in the future.”

    Really? So a decade of No Fly and Sanctions violations, attempts to assassinate a US president and supporting global terror attacks on the US an allies leading up to a year-long debate and Congressional approval of a US mission, leading a coalition of some 20 nations, to finally topple Hussein = “VSE”. I don’t see it.

    @ Robert G. Oler, ““A vision” alone is useless unless it is one that has some connection to the folks who 1) are suppose to make the vision happen and 2) must support it politically (and perhaps with tax dollars).”

    Yep, I agree with that. Trouble is, nobody HAS that vision and nobody is articulating that vision, and nobody has prioritized that mission against other national needs and goals!! So a bunch of us fanboys want this or that space program, and we have a “space policy” — the benefits of which are not being communicated to the public and the nation.

    @ Vladislaw, “The solution is to get the government out of the way.”

    Not really, the solution is to have government act as a facilitator through R&D aimed at the tech needed for really cost effective RLVs and new space access systems, support the infrastructure for a broader commercial industry, etc. If you look at the history of government investment in enabling infrastructure and technology we’ve always benefited immensely — the canal boat network of the early 19th C, the investment in the Transcontinental railroad and infrastructure, the investments in aeronautics & aviation and the interstate highway system in the 20th C. All resulted in huge pay-offs. So the best role for the Government is to facilitate and enable, not just get out of the way.

  • DCSCA

    @KellyStarks- “And now sadly what most kids – or adults – are hearing is NASA won’t do anything again. Its over. Wont fly people to LEO to do things, won’t (and doesn’t thnik it ever should) fly folks beyond LEO. No RLV, not even a bloated Apollo on steroids. Real inspiring.”

    Yep. Experienced it first hand. Have a nephew who’s a science whiz now at a major university; excels at math and research in the sciences. Tried for years through his grade school and high school days to get him interested in rocketry and the space sciences. No go. He now majors in biotech sciences, because, as he said, he sees no lucrative career opportunities in the space sciences ahead while biotech opportunities and researching funding for that area is expanding. “Kids! What is the matter with kids, today!” – Bye Bye Birdie.

  • mark valah

    @ Robert G. Oler

    I believe that polls do not capture the entire set of issues. If the pollster asks if one agrees to spend billions on space programs, the answer will be no, whereas if the question is formulated differently, for example would you like the US to maintain its lead in space programs compared to other nations, the answer would likely be yes.

    I also believe that a large – albeit quiet part of the public did care all througout the Apollo program.

    Where you have a strong point is the apathy of the American public. The average individual does not care about anything that’s not directly related to his/her wellfare or perhaps celebrity/sex/etc news. However, assuming a successfull landing, with the multimedia technology of today, enough enthusiasm can be created: HD TV, IMAX, Internet, etc. It’s a PR job to make it entertaining – and it can be done. But these should not be the reasons to go to the Moon. For the true leader, the reason should be the development of national capabilities for a sustained space presence. The visionary understands that there will be a space based economy – true profit in the future (genuine money making enterprises, not government paid expeditions), except we wouldn’t know if what shape or form until we get there. That’s why we must get there.

  • I also believe that a large – albeit quiet part of the public did care all througout the Apollo program.

    Not after Apollo 11.

  • mark valah

    About NASA in the opinion polls back in the 1960’s through 1980’s.

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940005238_1994005238.pdf

  • Vladislaw

    John wrote:

    “@ Vladislaw, “The solution is to get the government out of the way.”

    Not really, the solution is to have government act as a facilitator through R&D aimed at the tech needed for really cost effective RLVs and new space access systems, support the infrastructure for a broader commercial industry, etc. “

    I agree with you in that regard but would predicate it on NASA going through the transition stage first. When I read the Space Act:

    “(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;”

    I always read that as NASA tweaking commercial vehicles and finding better ways to accomplish certain processes or building better parts.

    If Obama is a one termer and a new Adminstrator is chosen, like Griffin, who believes NASA should be the one and only for space access, then I would stand by my original statement and just get government out of the way. They are either a part of the problem or a part of the solution, my fear is they will return to being part of the problem.

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler @ ‘Bob Mahoney wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    “interesting thoughts…but where I think that they come apart is that they assume that there is, outside of the “space fan club” (which I put myself in) that there is some interest in the US in general for exploration by humans. There isnt.”

    There isn’t??? Hmmmm. Lucas and Spielberg would chuckle at that– all the way to the bank. The popularity, longevity and overwhelming financial success in various mediums of space exploration tales, both fictional and factual, is undeniable. If there wasn’t a market with mass appeal for these stories- many elements of which became reality, they would not keep producing them. From the writings of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells through the comics and serials of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers; from films like ‘Frau Im Mund’ through Destination Moon, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, etc.,; through television age of Space Patrol, Star Trek, Lost In Space, etc., as well as the fact-based From The Earth To The Moon, etc.

    ‘There is’ an undeniable interest and appeal in the U.S. public for space exploration. You either don’t– or won’t recognize the obvious.

  • DCSCA

    @markvalah- “I also believe that a large – albeit quiet part of the public did care all througout the Apollo program.”

    You could dig through ratings records and publications but accredited media attending various launches is a good gauge as it is cost to media to send them there. Simberg is inacurate when he states ‘not after Apollo 11.’

    “For the Apollo 11 launch on July 16, 1969, 1,788 persons were accredited, and a plaque placed in 1975 by Sigma Delta Chi, the Society of Professional Journalists, designates the location as an Historic Site in Journalism for “the largest corps of newsmen in history…to report fully and freely to the largest audience in history”. After Apollo 11, however, media attendance diminished. Apollo 17, the last in the lunar landing program and its only night launch, prompted a resurgence in attendance, as did the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975.”

    “The STS-1 launch on April 12, 1981 broke Apollo 11’s record for attendance by news media and public relations professionals, with 2,707 accredited representatives present. The second-largest number, 2,468, was for the STS-26 launch on September 29, 1988. Most, however, covered the launch from a more distant causeway viewing site because the LC-39 Press Site was restricted to a limited number of journalists as part of safety precautions implemented after the 1986 Challenger explosion. The restriction was dropped for subsequent launches. Media attendance spiked again in October 1998 for John Glenn’s launch aboard STS-95.” – source, wiki/NASA

    “Where you have a strong point is the apathy of the American public.”

    This is inaccurate as well. A review of the popularity –and financial success– of space-based films, books and television productions negates the assertion.

  • Vladislaw

    DCSCA wrote:

    ” ‘There is’ an undeniable interest and appeal in the U.S. public for space exploration. You either don’t– or won’t recognize the obvious.”

    You should read that excellent link on polling Mark just posted, had a couple surprises in it:

    “We can also learn that the majority of those who support the space
    program can distinguish between the bread and circuses of space travel. They’re cofitent to experience extraordinary adventures in the movie theatres; for their tax dollars they want real retum in expanded scientific knowledge and understanding.”

    People interested in space are not interested or as willing to fund human exploration as they are willing to fund increasing scientific knowledge in general.

    The conlusion drawn by the author of that article believed the way to increase interest in space was by:

    “And so, there is more to learn from opinion polls than that a good proportion of adult Americans support the space program. We can learn that social and economic security are not competing goals with space, but interdependent goals. If we want to increase public support for space, we must increase the number of Americans who have the economic freedom to take an interest in something besides getting by, day after day.”

    The lower the rung, of the economic ladder you sit on, the less interested you are in space.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The issue isn’t Bolden, but whether American space efforts will continue to be bold.”

    That’s cute. But it still isn’t very meaningful, no matter ow many times you say it. In many respects what this administration is doing is very bold. What the previous administration was going was taking an old architecture, pumping it up on steroids, and hoping for the best. This administration is trying something quite different that will be a game changer (whether for better or worse) in how we approach space exploration.

    You know, it’s destinations/timelines/rocks and Apollo that basically define “bold” for many of us. If it weren’t for those, they wouldn’t know “boldness” if it hit them across the face. That’s what “bold” looks like to them. What does our country do now that we can point to, and tell our kids “That’s what boldness is!” Since in space we haven’t had a credible plan for rocky destinations with timelines for decades, our kids aren’t going to be looking at space to see it, I guess.

    That assumes that “bold” is good, which I guess I can get behind.

  • After Apollo 11, however, media attendance diminished.

    It’s amusing that you cite something that supports me, not you. No one cared about Apollo 13 until the tank blew.

    The STS-1 launch on April 12, 1981 broke Apollo 11′s record for attendance by news media and public relations professionals, with 2,707 accredited representatives present.

    Completely irrelevant, not being Apollo.

    Have you ever taken a course in logic?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    It looks like the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is about to cancel Obamaspace and insist on proceeding with the program of record, according to the NY Times. So much for the Mission to the Muslims and all the rest.

  • Justin Kugler

    Mark,
    I read that NY Times article and it does not say the Committee will insist on proceeding with the POR. It says the Committee will extend Shuttle by one flight, direct immediate development of a heavy-lift rocket, and restore Orion to deep-space capabilities for “destinations like the moon or an asteroid.” That is most decidedly not the POR, especially as the article says nothing about saving Ares I.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html?ref=space

    The article also says that the Administration is likely to push back on the elements it thinks are important and that the Senate’s counterparts in the House haven’t even started work yet. You’re counting your chickens before they’ve hatched.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Justin – That is essentially the POR, even if the architecture is a little different. I expect the House to follow the Senate with similar legislation. Obama can push back all he wants, but he is not going to save Obamaspace. The worse it will do is throw everything into chaos, which maybe the White House would not mind,

  • Justin Kugler

    Sorry, Mark, I’m just not buying it. The architecture is different. There is no mention of the Moon being set as the absolute destination. In fact, there is no mention of what the exploration strategy they propose actually is. There is certainly no mention of funding for landers.

    There is not enough information in the article to make the conclusions you do and what information is available suggests Congress is going to offer something different than both the POR and the Obama Administration’s proposal.

  • That is essentially the POR, even if the architecture is a little different.

    No, it’s not. The biggest distinguishing feature of the POR was Ares. Like Francisco Franco, it remains dead.

    I expect the House to follow the Senate with similar legislation.

    That’s wishful thinking. And if the bill isn’t to the White House’ satisfaction, it will be vetoed. It’s not like an authorization bill is essential to NASA’s operations.

  • DCSCA

    @Vlad- “The lower the rung, of the economic ladder you sit on, the less interested you are in space.” Well, it is a discretionary expense; a ‘luxury’ if you will – not a necessity, outside of the base needs for maintaining communications services, weather and military functions. Of course Soviet Russia was dirt poor and led the way in space for years. One of this writer’s most vivid memories of a visit to the USSR was spending time in their space pavillion and hours later seeing an old woman pulling a wooden cart through the mud on an unpaved road outside Moscow. It was easy to see then the eventual collapse was inevitable. Circumstances since the early 80s in the West, and particularly in the period since 2000, have pushed it further down the ladder to be sure. But it is a strawman to believe there’s no ‘interest’ in it.

  • DCSCA

    “Have you ever taken a course in logic?”

    “After Apollo 11, however, media attendance diminished. Apollo 17, the last in the lunar landing program and its only night launch, prompted a resurgence in attendance, as did the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975.”- =sigh= Clearly you haven’t. Inaccuracy is a poor habit for a good engineer to display. But amusing when they play at politics.

  • Of course Soviet Russia was dirt poor and led the way in space for years.

    It’s easy to do when you have a totalitarian dictatorship.

  • DCSCA

    “NASA, though, isn’t an innocent victim of bloodthirsty bloggers and commentators. The agency waited until late Tuesday, long after the issue had gained traction, that the agency responded to criticism of Bolden’s statements, a response that has done little to slow the negative reaction. Yes, there was a three-day weekend in the middle of that, but that doesn’t stop the flow of news nor the response to it: the blogosphere operates continuously and 24-hour news channels have, well, 24 hours of programming a day to fill.”

    Yes, but the space agency has never been very adept– or nimble– at navagating the choppy waters of this increasingly shortening media cycle. Aside from being a government agency, which are notoriously slow off the mark anyway– they really don’t have the focus or resources to deal with the intermittent media moment that demands such intense attention. Usually they’re prepared with well-scripted presentations so when these unplanned events occur, it throws them out of a familiar orbit. Recall how ‘stunned’ the agency was in the hours after Columbia disintegrated. The media cycle is operating almost on an hourly basis now and a day today is three-days in the news cycle or just a few years ago. Unfortunately, the competition to be ‘first’ usually generates more heat than light.

  • DCSCA

    ^ or = of. Sorry, typo.

  • DCSCA

    @Lassiter -“The issue isn’t Bolden, but whether American space efforts will continue to be bold.” “That’s cute.”

    And accurate.

  • Derrick wrote:

    I dunno how Dr. Foust stands some of the comments posted on this blog. Someone needs to just start up a message board so the same four people who post the exact same arguments in every thread can take their idological punditry elsewhere.

    I ran various forums and board for many decades. Everyone has a different philosophy of how to run their site. Some believe in “anything goes” regardless of spamming or profanity, some have a light hand as Jeff does, some have a low tolerance for foolishness, and lock out everyone except those of a similar bent.

    My personal philosophy was that I’d tolerate anything except trolling and profanity. The freedom of speech protected in the Bill of Rights does not apply to a private forum. Someone who posts just to honk off people is looking for attention, not for intelligent discourse.

    But it’s Jeff’s forum, and he can do what he wants.

    My blog (blatant plug, http://www.spaceksc.com) permits open comments, and so far I haven’t had to delete any messages. But if someone trolls, I’d have no problem blocking them from posting again.

    Years ago, someone accused me of “censorship.” I said, “Yes, absolutely.” Go foul someone else’s nest.

  • Vladislaw

    Elon Musk setting the record straight:

    correcting the record

  • Robert G. Oler

    mark valah wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    @ Robert G. Oler

    I believe that polls do not capture the entire set of issues. If the pollster asks if one agrees to spend billions on space programs, the answer will be no, whereas if the question is formulated differently, for example would you like the US to maintain its lead in space programs compared to other nations, the answer would likely be yes….

    I agree…but the problem for those who think that the US people “support” large is that “do you want the US to be “number 1″ is a feel good question and “do you want billions spent” is a specfic one.

    It is hard to argue that we are not “leading” in our space programs. We spend far more then all the other agencies of the world combined

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    It looks like the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is about to cancel Obamaspace and insist on proceeding with the program of record…

    LOL really comedic Mark. And Saddam really did have WMD.

    I read the article…you either cannot read, cannot comprehend or are simply misstating events.

    Goofy

    Robert G. oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Really? So a decade of No Fly and Sanctions violations, attempts to assassinate a US president and supporting global terror attacks on the US an allies leading up to a year-long debate and Congressional approval of a US mission, leading a coalition of some 20 nations, to finally topple Hussein = “VSE”. I don’t see it…

    well there are none so blind as those that will not see.

    The comparisons are clear. None of the reasons you list are enough to go to war, so what they then did was make up more…and then put incompetents in charge of doing it.

    VSE was a joke. The reasons they listed for doing VSE were mostly exaggerations and then they put an incompetent in charge of doing it.

    As Bush the old use to say “Watch listen and learn”

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    There isn’t??? Hmmmm. Lucas and Spielberg would chuckle at that– all the way to the bank. The popularity, longevity and overwhelming financial success in various mediums of space exploration tales, both fictional and factual, is undeniable…

    no there isnt and trying to equate entertainment shows with support for a big government program where the taxpayers have to pay for it…and not be even entertained is one of the logical fallacies that kills the space “movement” before it even starts.

    I mean this is just goofy…it is like “Wow people like CSI Miami (or CSI NY or CSI the original) so wow they all want to be cops”

    seesh

    next thing you will be telling me is Saddam really had those balsa wood planes (sigh)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    DCSCA wrote:

    “But it is a strawman to believe there’s no ‘interest’ in it.”

    My apologies, I didn’t express my thoughts clearly. I was personally surprised, about that poll, about certain group’s views. Not that there wasn’t interest, which I agree there is.

    I would have thought, space junkies, who were the Star Trek fans, et cetera, would be the most in favor of exploration, as Star Trek’s theme was it’s five year mission to explore. That group instead prefered science as a return more than exploration. The group of people who were more science junkies and were not space movie fans, had space as one component of science and favored exploration more than the space junkies. Kind of reversed results I was thinking.

    Another thing was the line between those thinking NASA should be serving national defense and military needs versus commercialization as the priority was equally split at 50% each. It is reflected in some of the debates on here. Where a person will suggest NASA doing something like large solid rockets for the military and people who respond with if the military wants it they should fund it themselves. (which is my view).

    So, I wasn’t actually disagreeing, was just trying to show people who were the space movie fans, had lower numbers than science fans for exploration, which for me was a surprise.

  • Talons Equalizer

    What is amazing to me is the fact that this hasn’t come to light sooner. When the annointed one first stated his vision for NASA, his plan for a Muslim outreach was voiced. Did it really take the evil right wing bloggers to shape the story? This info is five months old and just now it is making the circuit. Pathetic.

  • z-Bob

    So Obama wants Bolden to inspire kids to go into science and math. Why? So some future Obama can defund their dreams as well? If he has his way, we won’t be going anywhere. Funding for research in non-space fields are slated to be cut as well.
    Fifteen years from now, when Obama predicted the first asteroid mission would occur, people will probably still be debating on this blog and others about the most economical way to access space, and there will still be no heavy lift capability on the pad.
    As for private sector research, in fifteen years the place to go to do cutting edge research of any kind will be Asia and India.
    In the next couple of years look for excuses to emerge to justify abandoning ISS.
    This is the most can’t-do administration in history. Can’t seal the border, can’t send millions of illegals home, can’t go to the moon, can’t stop the oil spill, can’t recover all lost jobs, can’t, can’t, can’t. How uninspiring, how boring.
    But we can spend hundreds of billions with nothing to show for it. Just think what NASA could do with just a hundred billion and the benefits it would bring to the economy, etc. That would be a real stimulus package and a lot cheaper in the long run. But it ain’t ever gonna happen, unless a city is pulverized by an asteroid. Then the checkbook would open. Maybe.

  • I would have thought, space junkies, who were the Star Trek fans, et cetera, would be the most in favor of exploration, as Star Trek’s theme was it’s five year mission to explore.

    Then you don’t understand Trekkies at all. For the most part, they don’t give a damn about space, or reality in general.

  • vulture4

    I’m really really tired of the vicious attacks on Obama.

    Bush wasted $10 billion on Constellation and would have wasted $100 billion without producing anything useful. Have you actually seen the Ares processing flow? The huge, expensive VAB, MLP, crawlers and pad? The crawlerways that have to be dug up and replaced every few years, when rails would have a fraction of the cost? Falcon has about 5% of the facility overhead and carries more cargo and more people. Constellation, Mike Griffin’s creation, and was an incredibly bad design for a mission that has no practical value. Why conservatives who want tax cuts support it is beyond me. The program developed no useful technology and would have done nothing for America except increase the debt. Even Bush didn’t fund it. But he did kill the Shuttle, the one human launch system we have that works.

    Oh, and Contellation would carry only 4 (vs 7 for Shuttle) and a few hundred pounds of cargo (vs 22,000 lb for Shuttle) yet it would cost more to launch than Shuttle. But Bush killed Shuttle and, equally inexplicable, the heads of NASA opposed extending Shuttle when they had the chance.

    At least Obama is suggesting that NASA do something useful. It’s high time it did. As for asteroid impact, Bush didn’t even fund tracking of NEOs. Obama has. And if one is detected, it will be an unmanned mission that will deflect it, not the unbelievably expensive, obsolete, and useless Constellation.

    The partisanship of Republicans is unbelievable. Even though Obama is actually promoting private industry, even though Bush eliminated their jobs, they viciously attack Obama whenever they speak. They promote socialism when Bush sells it and attack capitalism when Obama supports it. They value party above reason.

  • Bennett

    “…you don’t understand Trekkies at all. For the most part, they don’t give a damn about space, or reality in general.”

    Ha! That’s funny. Classically depicted in one of the greatest “Space Movies” of all time, Galaxy Quest.

    “Wait a minute son, Brandon, wait, it’s all real.”

    “I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!”

    I’ll watch the occasional “Nest Generation”, but I don’t set my clock by it, nor any TV program. The people interested in NASA and HSF are SciFi junkies, (predominantly born between 1950-1970), employees of NASA and their families, kids who have great science teachers, or geeks in general.

    We’re the few, the proud, the enlightened.

    …and however we can wheedle or spin or even promise the moon to get funding, it’s justified, because WE know that it’s the right thing to do. No excuses, McCitizen isn’t qualified to vote on it.

    If we want progress in our lifetimes, we need to stop the bickering, and as much as we can, become one voice in support of space exploration in general no matter the party in power. We need to get as many people on board as possible, and that includes the God Fearing Christians and the Allah Fearing Muslims of the world.

    This thing we love is bigger than religion or political parties.

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler- “no there isnt.”

    Yes, there is.

    Here is your own erronous assertion:

    “@RobertGOler @ ‘Bob Mahoney wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    “interesting thoughts…but where I think that they come apart is that they assume that there is, outside of the “space fan club” (which I put myself in) that there is some interest in the US in general for exploration by humans. There isnt.”

    There is. The citations by this writer of successful publications and productions noted over a century-plus, in popular consumer media via various mediums indicates that interest exists and it can be quite lucrative. But you go on believing there isn’t. George and Steven will keep proving you wrong, laughing all the way to the bank. “Sheesh” indeed.

  • DCSCA

    @Talons Equalizer wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    Jon Stewart popped that balloon Wednesday night with his Reagan lampoon. Besides, ‘muslim’ outreach literally hit a high point in 1985, when Saudi Prince Sultan bin Salman, a Muslim, flew aboard the space shuttle Discovery.

    @RobertGOler -“LOL really comedic Mark. And Saddam really did have WMD.” “…next thing you will be telling me is Saddam really had those balsa wood planes (sigh)”

    This is drifting some off topic. Outside of the obvious- in that it draws treasure and blood away from the nation and the treasury, it really has no direct bearing on the fate of the civilian space agency or ‘what Bolden’s words say about the media’.

  • someguy

    Bennett wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 1:05 am

    We’re the few, the proud, the enlightened.

    And now we’ve gone way down the rabbit hole.

    There are many many other professions that also are moving humanity forward, biosciences and so on, so we space people have no right to say we’re the enlightened ones and everybody else, give us money.

    …and however we can wheedle or spin or even promise the moon to get funding, it’s justified, because WE know that it’s the right thing to do. No excuses, McCitizen isn’t qualified to vote on it.

    If you’re going to ask McCitizen to pay for it, they absolutely do have a vote on it. Otherwise, pay for it yourself if it is so important.

    This thing we love is bigger than religion

    Let’s see it from the religious person’s perspective (including me): God created the entire universe vs a human space agency on one pale blue dot. I don’t think there’s even a contest here.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 1:47 am

    lol

    this is where space policy links up with Saddam and the balsa wood airplanes.

    You need to believe that Trek and some of the other scifi shows illustrate some interest by the American people in space travel. There is no more data to support that then well CSI shows an interest in being a crime lab person (or a cop)…or that the plethora of cop shows on TV show an interest by the American people in being a cop.

    You need to believe something so you and others have no problem distorting the reality to believe it. That sort of thinking was prevalent in the leadup to Iraq…people who were gun ho about the war (and who mostly were not going to fight in it)…needed to believe things that there were no facts for.

    sorry…that kind of thinking is something that should be challenged at every occasion…as the years in iraq illustrate.

    Robert G. Oler

  • ….And the human race STILL has yet to do a serious base encampment on another world. Staying in Low Earth Orbit for further decades is wholesale STAGNATION. Just what the freak are we learning/doing/gaining out of all those six-month giant aluminum can stays, a mere 200 miles up??? NASA should be heading outward, for cislunar space; further investigating our great natural satellite! Prospecting for resources, for the benefit of humankind. The big future historic moment will be when the first manned spacecraft since December of 1972, ignites the earth departure stage, and goes for TLI…!

  • someguy

    Let me clarify my last paragraph Bennet.

    First you said: We need to get as many people on board as possible, and that includes the God Fearing Christians and the Allah Fearing Muslims of the world.

    And then you said: This thing we love is bigger than religion

    This is where it falls apart. You cannot bring a religious person on board (or it will at least be very hard) if you say your human-created endeavor is bigger than the God who created the entire thing in the first place that we want to go out and explore.

    This is especially so if you are wanting the religious person to hand over money to fund it.

  • DCSCA

    @Vladislaw/@Rand Simberg wrote @ July 8th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
    ‘I would have thought, space junkies, who were the Star Trek fans, et cetera, would be the most in favor of exploration, as Star Trek’s theme was it’s five year mission to explore.” Some do. OV-101 wasn’t named ‘Enterprise’ by accident. (see below.) Some work at NASA. Some at contractors. Some work at McDonald’s. It was a source for ideas- look at a cellphone and see a ‘communicator.’ Point is, there’s a base interest at the core.

    “Then you don’t understand Trekkies at all. For the most part, they don’t give a damn about space, or reality in general.” <- Inaccurate, as usual.

    "Enterprise, the first Space Shuttle Orbiter, was originally to be named Constitution (in honor of the U.S. Constitution's Bicentennial). However, viewers of the popular TV Science Fiction show Star Trek started a write-in campaign urging the White House to select the name Enterprise.

    Designated, OV-101, the vehicle was rolled out of Rockwell's Air Force Plant 42, Site 1 Palmdale California assembly facility on Sept. 17, 1976. On Jan. 31, 1977, it was transported 36 miles overland from Rockwell's assembly facility to NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards Air Force Base for the approach and landing test program." -source, NASA

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler- “There is no more data to support that” ROFLMAOPIP <- Of course there is. But then tallying up the profits can be tiresome. The citations by this writer of successful- and highly profitable– publications and productions noted over a century-plus, in popular consumer media via various mediums indicates that interest exists and it can be quite lucrative. But you go on believing there isn’t and that George, Steven et al., conceive/pen/produce these 'products' for consuption by a disinterested, non-existent market at massive financial loss. Good grief.

  • someguy

    DCSCA, the difference is that movies don’t really require large investments of public funds. It is discretionary, and funding it is limited to only those people who want to fund it by those investing in movie production and those buying movie tickets and DVDs.

    So, while there may be “support” in an ethereal sense, there may not be support in the form of taxable votes.

  • DCSCA

    @Kelly/Oler – “What Bolden was trying to say in his speech that this kind of thinking is not something that groups should participate in. He was trying to argue that people can work together and advance into modernity, rather then resort to armed conflict everytime that they are scared.” Hmmm. Apparently Bolden missed that ol’ SNL caveman skit w/Steve Martin spouting lofting intellectual goals to lesser, bewildered neanderthals gathered around a campfire– the skit closing w/Bill Murray smashing Martin’s skull w/a rock as he went to sleep. ‘Live, from NY…!”

  • DCSCA

    someguy wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 3:36 am This point in question isn’t ‘public funds’ although public-held corporations usually raise capital for such productions. The point was ‘interest’– and given the high cost of producing, for instance, film productions (they can approach $400-$600 million, as no doubt you know) and collateral product marketing, investors expect a good return on that investment- and the marketplace has shown that it is a reasonable risk to expect a good return on that investment.

  • brobof

    Bennett wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 1:05 am
    “If we want progress in our lifetimes, we need to stop the bickering, and as much as we can, become one voice in support of space exploration in general no matter the party in power. We need to get as many people on board as possible, and that includes the God Fearing Christians and the Allah Fearing Muslims of the world.

    This thing we love is bigger than religion or political parties.”
    Or borders.

  • DCSCA

    @Chris Castro wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 2:29 am

    It will happen someday. They may not be Americans, but it will happen. Perhaps you can appreciate the frustrations of Kepler, Newton et al… or Wells and Verne and their ilk– although in a way, they’ve been their already through their imaginative writings. We’re privileged to live in a time when we’ve seen some of this become a reality and can make these choices. A century ago the arguments were mostly that it was technically impossible. In this era, it’s more a matter of being financially impractical. Keep in mind that today, in the whole history of everything, there are still nine alive among us who’ve walked upon the moon. A hundred years from now, they might very well say of us, ‘So much misallocation of resources wasted on the same old things and such — what were they thinking?’ Or they’ll be grabbing a rock, just like Billy Murray did.

  • DCSCA

    @Bennett- “We’re the few, the proud, the enlightened.” You got OV-101 re-named, too. ;-)

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Robert G. Oler,

    You need to believe that Trek and some of the other scifi shows illustrate some interest by the American people in space travel. There is no more data to support that then well CSI shows an interest in being a crime lab person (or a cop)…or that the plethora of cop shows on TV show an interest by the American people in being a cop.

    Actually, the success of the CSI franchise here in the UK has led to several colleges offering Forensic Sciences courses, which were fully-subscribed for the 2009 classes. Naturally, these classes don’t teach anywhere near all the skills and knowledge needed to be a Gil Grissom or Mac Taylor. However, it does illustrate how popular culture can direct and influence the ambitions of young people.

    FWIW, I have always thought that it was Werner von Braun’s magazine articles and later Disney-produced TV shows and short movies played a significant role in establishing space travel as an aspect of American popular culture. I wonder if a TV show now, maybe a reboot of Gerry Anderson’s Space: 1999, with technology and destinations based on what is real and likely might have a similar effect.

  • Bennett

    someguy wrote: And now we’ve gone way down the rabbit hole.

    ..actually, after a week of intolerable heat wave temps I visited a number of gin and tonics last night (for the first time in years).

    I’m sorry if I insulted your religious perspective, that part was written in jest. But to be fair, I never wrote that the importance of HSF was bigger than God. I simply wanted to imply that it was bigger that the (sometimes) chauvinistic prejudices of organized deity worship.

    brobof wrote: Or borders

    Very true.

  • amightywind

    Byron York has more commentary on the political fallout on Bolden’s interview with Al-Jazeera.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/NASA_s-Muslim-outreach_-Al-Jazeera-told-first-98058674.html

    In other news the Ares I first stage development proceeds apace. It is 4x more powerful than the Falcon9.

    http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Preparing_For_DM2_Test_Now_That_Powerful_Information_999.html

  • “Enterprise, the first Space Shuttle Orbiter, was originally to be named Constitution (in honor of the U.S. Constitution’s Bicentennial). However, viewers of the popular TV Science Fiction show Star Trek started a write-in campaign urging the White House to select the name Enterprise.

    In other words, they expended a lot of energy in getting a vehicle named after their imaginary one that was never going to go into space.

    Go to a Star Trek convention some time. You’ll find very few people interested in real spaceflight. When L-5 used to send out mailers to get people to join, they got a much better response from the general population than from trekkies.

  • There are few subjects on which I could consider myself an expert, but you found one – Star Trek. I could speak in detail to this, but let me just make an anecdotal note. I used to (in the 1970s) run one of the first Star Trek conventions, and the first one in the DC area. In the 1990s and 2000s while working for a NASA contractor, about once a year I’d be in a meeting concerning some space effort, crewed or uncrewed, in locations as diverse as Houston, the Cape and Fairmont, WV, and as we went around the table introducing ourselves someone would pipe up “I know you from August Party (the convention).”

    Whether this indicates Star Trek motivated people into space careers, or the kind of people who would naturally be drawn to space careers also watched Star Trek (seriously enough to go to conventions) is unknown, but it is an interesting set of data points.

  • If you draw a Venn diagram, you’ll find that while many, even most people interested in space are into Star Trek, the converse is not true. Most Star Trek fans are interested in fantasy, not reality, and the harder-core the fan, the more that’s true.

  • I worked for Star Trek licensees through Paramount for many years, and went to far more conventions than I want to admit.

    You can’t stereotype Trekkies or Trekkers or whatever you want to call them. They are as varied as the rest of the population. I know plenty of Trek fans who are avid supporters of space exploration, as were many who worked on the various shows. Nichelle Nichols worked for NASA in the 1970s-1980s recruiting minorities to join the astronaut corps. Graphic artist Mike Okuda now does mission patch designs for NASA. And anecdotally speaking, many astronauts and others I’ve met have commented that Trek was an inspiration for them; in fact, one recent crew had a publicity shot taken posing similar to the poster for the last Trek movie.

    I should also note there was a big crossover between NASA and Babylon 5, where I also did free-lance work for a while. Bruce Boxleitner and Jerry Doyle are huge space groupies. I helped get Bruce on the National Space Society’s Board of Governors. Jerry Doyle was considered the “good luck charm” in that every mission he attended launched on schedule, so B5 would rearrange Jerry’s shooting schedule to allow him to fly out to KSC.

  • And some long forgotten memories are coming back …

    After the Challenger accident, I wrote the people at Creation Entertainment who run the best-known Trek conventions and asked their help in urging convention attendees to write Paramount requesting that the next Star Trek film be dedicated to the memory of the Challenger crew. They agreed, and I was very humbled to be at a convention a couple months later where my letter was read aloud.

    If you’ve seen Star Trek IV, you know it’s dedicated to Challenger.

    Nichelle Nichols later told me she’d come up with the same idea and internally urged Paramount to do so.

    Anyway, I think it was at that same con that there was a lecture on NASA by a NASA publicist. About 500 people were in the room. When she showed a slide of the Challenger crew, everyone stood and gave a standing ovation that went on. And on. And on. And on. Probably for about 15 minutes. Everyone was crying.

    Although I’ve met a few fans who said they were into Trek for reasons other than space exploration (e.g. “I like the warm fuzzy relationships!”), my anecdotal experience is that they’re very supportive of humanity going to the stars.

    That’s not necessarily the same as supporting NASA or Constellation or (fill in the blank).

  • someguy

    Bennett wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Fair enough. I apologize for the misinterpretation.

    I wasn’t insulted. I don’t get insulted about things like that.

    As to the main point, I just think it is really important that we don’t somehow think we are better than everybody else and that we get to demand money from them to fund our vision. We have to convince them of it. Or else we have to make absolutely sure we pick the best use of resources that the general public is willing to give us. Whether it’s this or that small fractional part of the federal budget is irrelevant. That’s what we get. Be thankful you got as much as you did.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 4:05 am

    someguy wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 3:36 am This point in question isn’t ‘public funds’ although public-held corporations usually raise capital for such productions. The point was ‘interest’– a..

    no that was not the point.

    the point that you are sliding away from is that interest in sci fi movies translates to support for human spaceflight…and it does not.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    someguy wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Thanks for understanding.

    In all seriousness, it can be argued that there are aspects to human expansion off-planet that are as important as the military defense of our nation. We the taxpayers may not want to spend so much money on guns and bombs, but in their wisdom our government decides what we “need” for security.

    Allocating resources to develop the technology and infrastructure to deal with an impending NEO impact is, in my opinion, as valid a “need” and like the military expenditures, not subject to a country wide vote by Australian Ballot.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 4:40 am

    FWIW, I have always thought that it was Werner von Braun’s magazine articles and later Disney-produced TV shows and short movies played a significant role in establishing space travel as an aspect of American popular culture..

    that was a different America…a very different America and the image Werner the German had of spaceflight is no where near today’s reality.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 10:25 am

    I should also note there was a big crossover between NASA and Babylon 5, where I also did free-lance work for a while. Bruce Boxleitner and Jerry Doyle are huge space groupies…

    who cares about Bruce and Jerry.(grin)….we want to know if you knew Susan I? Wow that lady rocked…on my “we love us wall” is a picture autographed by her that Kolker got me…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 8:45 am

    In other news the Ares I first stage development proceeds apace. It is 4x more powerful than the Falcon9….

    consuming many times the cash that Falcon 9 development cost…Not a private dime in it…the right wings love with big government continues.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ almightywind,

    The five-segment SRM (it would be wrong to call it the Ares-I lower stage just yet – lots of stuff needs to be done before it’s that) may be powerful, but it lasts barely half as long as the Falcon-9’s core or that of just about any other liquid-fuelled core. Consequently, Ares-I needs a massively outsized upper stage to make up for its core’s performance shortfall. We won’t go into its other engineering problems for the sake of berevity.

    The ATK five-segment booster might one day be part of a shuttle-derived cargo lifter, side-mounted like the SRMs on the shuttle. However, I can guarantee that it will never be the core on a single-stick crew launcher.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 8:45 am

    In other news the Ares I first stage development proceeds apace. It is 4x more powerful than the Falcon9.”

    It’s not the effort, it’s the results that matter.

    Let’s compare:

    Ares I (56,000 lbs to LEO) can put slightly more payload into LEO than the Shuttle (53,600 lbs). It can also carry a little more than Delta IV Heavy (49,470 lbs).

    Atlas V Heavy, however, can put 64,820 lbs to LEO, but it has not flown yet (lack of heavy payloads?). And Falcon 9 Heavy, SpaceX says that it will be able to put 70,548 lbs to LEO, making it the most capable of this group.

    Ares I actually competes with Delta IV Heavy more than Falcon 9, since Ares I was meant to lift Orion. It’s interesting to note that Delta IV Heavy has only launched 3 times, and there is not a big demand for this class of lifter (2 more scheduled). However, the great part of these -Heavy designs is that each are made up of three of their single-core versions, which means they validate their design each time they launch their medium class versions.

    Ares I will only launch crew, so it will not be able to build up the reliability heritage that the commercial launchers will.

    ULA has offered to upgrade Delta IV Heavy to be man-rated, and they stated that would cost $1.3B for the vehicle and facilities, and then cost $300M/flight after that. Compare that to the $Billions that Ares I still needs to just finish the design, and the estimated cost of $1B/flight after that. Delta IV Heavy would be a national bargain, AND have already demonstrated it’s reliability more than 5 times BEFORE it ever carries a person.

    Other than the mythical “inherent safety of SRB’s”, there is no reason to use Ares I for crew or cargo. And saving $700M/flight should make everyone pleased in these budget-concious days. Kill Ares I now!

  • amightywind

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “Ares I will only launch crew, so it will not be able to build up the reliability heritage that the commercial launchers will.”

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/ATK04098.xml&show=us

    The 2008 date of the story in 2008. It was back when an Obama was a remote and bad prospect and anti-Constellation zealots had lost the technical debate. How times have changed. Ares is on the ropes, no doubt, but it will live through next year, and Obamaspace weakens by the day. I look forward to the day when Ares I/Orion becomes America’s ‘Soyuz on Steroids’.

    “Heavy designs is that each are made up of three of their single-core versions, which means they validate their design each time they launch their medium class versions”

    An Ares I is a hell of a lot simpler vehicle than a Delta IV. The inboard and outboard CCB’s fly different thrust profiles. They must separate in thrusting hypersonic flight (scary). Without propellant cross feed from outboard to inboard the configuration is horribly inefficient. All in all, a nutty way to launch a human.

    “and the estimated cost of $1B/flight after that.”

    I have heard $500M or less. Interesting that the Air Force is pursuing a cheaper replacement for the expensive Atlas V and Delta IV.

    http://news.discovery.com/space/air-force-reusable-rockets.html

    One wonders why they don’t use Ares.

  • One wonders why they don’t use Ares.

    Only if one is an abject innumerate moron.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    An Ares I is a hell of a lot simpler vehicle than a Delta IV. The inboard and outboard CCB’s fly different thrust profiles. They must separate in thrusting hypersonic flight (scary). Without propellant cross feed from outboard to inboard the configuration is horribly inefficient.

    All in all, a nutty way to launch a human.

    LOL – you’re describing 30 years of Shuttle!

    NASA was OK with that, and Delta IV Heavy has already proved to be reliable. The same cannot be said for Ares I.

    I have heard $500M or less.

    And yet Delta IV Heavy would still save the U.S. Taxpayer $200M/flight and $Billions in Ares I development costs. There is no economic benefit to keeping Ares I going – it duplicates existing commercial alternatives.

    Interesting that the Air Force is pursuing a cheaper replacement for the expensive Atlas V and Delta IV.

    This will take them a good ten years, but they understand that lowering costs to do stuff in space is important, which allows them to do more with the same budget. If only NASA had thought that way back in 2006, we’d be getting ready for the inaugural flight of Orion on Delta IV Heavy, instead of getting ready to kill the money-pit known as Ares I.

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    who cares about Bruce and Jerry.(grin)….we want to know if you knew Susan I? Wow that lady rocked…on my “we love us wall” is a picture autographed by her that Kolker got me…

    Claudia Christian is not Susan Ivanova, and I’ll leave it at that. :-)

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 11:35 am <- incorrect. It does. But you go ahead and believe it doesn't. All those boxoffice dollars spent by moviegoers in theaters was to get good deals on popcorn… the content and storylines of the films had nothing to do with drawing people to see them eh.. or same with purchasers of DVDs for space films, books and assorted publications. =ROFLMAO= And FWIW, the Von Braun/Disney/Collier's pieces from the mid 50s were influential and part of the overall interest you say doesn't exist.

  • DCSCA

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 10:25 am <- Yep. Interest is definitely there. And realtime NASA employees did get some inspiration from that genre. Worked in Tinseltown myself for a time; attended the industry screening of the HBO series 'From The Earth To The Moon' on business and the interest valid– as were the Emmys it won. They don't produce product that doesn't have a market.

  • DCSCA

    no that was not the point. <- yes, it was. Go read your own post. Then relax and spend your evening watching Destination Moon.

  • Star Trek fans don’t give a damn about REAL space exploration, nor do they care in the least about the intermediate goals which need to be reached to get humanity on with a spacefaring future. They’re just into pure fantasy! If they cared about building a true space future, they’d be supporting Constellation in droves, which they clearly do not do. They are totally content with the human race being trapped in LEO for the next twenty or thirty years! Hey, just give us our next movie or series! I cringe, when I read passages of the Star Trek universe’s “History of the Future”. How do they suppose that starships are EVER going to get built, if every proposal for leaving LEO, gets rejected, decade after decade?!

  • If they cared about building a true space future, they’d be supporting Constellation in droves, which they clearly do not do.

    Only if they’re stupid. There is no plausible economic or technical path from Constellation to the Starship Enterprise.

  • Bob Mahoney

    And this discussion thread was about…?

  • Oh yes there is! You’re never going to build a starship, until you master intermediate-capability spacecraft. Like planetary landers. You hear a lot about how heavy of an expense is a Lunar Lander, but then you need to analyze just how many MANY times more expensive & difficult it is to design and construct a viable manned Mars Lander. If NASA doesn’t deal with the intermediate requirements of getting a crew down from parking orbit to a planetary surface, [i.e.—dealing with Lunar operations] then the agency will surely falter & fail upon having to cope with even larger space projects! Ask yourself: Did NASA go from Project Mercury straight to Apollo; no: there was a Gemini, in between!

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 9:32 am <- No, 'in other words' you were inaccurate– again.

  • DCSCA

    rich kolker wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 9:39 am <- Although 'Trek' may be a particular– and popular- subset, the general reference was to space related storycraft over a century or so in various mediums– books, comics, radio, TV, film, etc., from the likes Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers to Luke Skywalker (yes, Kirk & Spock) and the imaginative works of Verne, Wells, Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Burroughs, Herbert, Bradbury, von Braun etc., in conjunction with other film/television projects. This writer left 'Trek' behind in '69 when NBC cancelled it. But the interest in space based stories is real. If there wasn't interest and a lucrative market which has clearly delivered a profit (no doubt more than actual private enterprised space ventures have for investors) it would not be produced.

  • Swerving hard to port and back on topic, I’ve posted this blog over on SpaceKSC.com:

    http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/07/much-ado-about-nothing.html

    I paid a few dollars to go through newspaper archives from the period now online. It seems that the U.S. got quite a bit of positive publicity in the Arab world from flying the Saudi prince on Discovery in 1985.

    Too bad nobody followed up on it until now.

    Funny how when the Reagan administration wanted to commercialize space access and fly Muslims, it was okay, but now that Obama is in office it’s not. Hypocrisy, as usual, reigns supreme in certain quarters.

  • Funny how when the Reagan administration wanted to commercialize space access and fly Muslims, it was okay, but now that Obama is in office it’s not.

    The issue with the Muslim outreach isn’t that per se, but rather the incongruously high priority that it seems to have been given over actual accomplishments in space.

  • DCSCA

    @Stephen C. Smith. ” paid a few dollars to go through newspaper archives from the period now online. It seems that the U.S. got quite a bit of positive publicity in the Arab world from flying the Saudi prince on Discovery in 1985.” This writer told you this for free on an earlier thread.

  • DCSCA

    @Simberg “The issue with the Muslim outreach isn’t that per se, but rather the incongruously high priority that it seems to have been given over actual accomplishments in space.”

    It only sounds ‘incongruous’ to those listening through a filter designed with a biased agenda opposed to the Obama administration in general (which you have already indicated.) It’s no more of a ‘high priority’ than it would be if Bolden had been speaking to a group of Eagle Scouts and favored his comments for that audience as well.

  • Rand Simberg wrote:

    The issue with the Muslim outreach isn’t that per se, but rather the incongruously high priority that it seems to have been given over actual accomplishments in space.

    Seems to me that world peace and defusing the tensions between the U.S. and the Muslim world should be a very high priority.

    “Actual accomplishments in space” will happen regardless, sooner or later. If we have to keep spending hundreds of billions of dollars on problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the ongoing Israel saga, that’s money siphoned away from other projects including NASA.

    We’ve flown a Saudi in space, and we’ve flown an Israeli in space. If we could get both an Arab and an Israeli on the ISS at the same time, it would be a major symbolic step forward in world peace. Nixon agreed to Apollo-Soyuz as a symbol of detente. It might not have been much science but it sure told the world we intended to put the Cold War behind us.

  • DCSCA

    “Funny how when the Reagan administration wanted to commercialize space access… ” Point is, for that era it was a disasterous idea, both figuratively and literally. Today, at the cost of essentially losing the government funded and managed manned space program, it still is.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
    > Seems to me that world peace and defusing the tensions between
    > the U.S. and the Muslim world should be a very high priority.
    >==
    > We’ve flown a Saudi in space, and we’ve flown an Israeli
    > in space. If we could get both an Arab and an Israeli on
    > the ISS at the same time, it would be a major symbolic step
    > forward in world peace. ==

    If you want symbolism, buy a painting. You want world peace, you either need to find common ground (infeasable in this case) or make war unacceptably expensive. Symbolism never stopped a war. It just distracts folks while real actions are happening somewhere else.

  • Seems to me that world peace and defusing the tensions between the U.S. and the Muslim world should be a very high priority.

    It should be a very high priority for the State Department. NASA should have higher priorities.

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>