> If they need it, and know they need it, it’ll get support. Right now, its unneeded, ==

Then obviously they don’t think they need it, you don’t think they need it now, so presumably yuo agree it won’t happen?.

>== As for the rest of your post, Kelly, honestly, I don’t feel
> there is a response. You effectively say we can’t make it better,
> and that its really bad, but we need to keep it. And then you
> claim that the President & the Congress don’t have the authority
> to get a federal agency to change.

Obviously unless the Pres and Congress change a lot of federal laws, there are real limits on what they can get a federal agency to change to. (Things like say changing the ways stafs are hired, fired, promoting based on merit, not rewarding inefficiency for example require changes to civil service law.) Thats a HUGE effort that obviously isn’t in work. If done it would revolutionize the whole federal government – but its not happening.

There are other things (like NASA centers and programs just not delivering results, center administrators not needing to listing to the NASA administrator) that would require federal law changes, and organizational changes or at least major political shifts in congressional support/pressure. Possible but not being attempted.

So really the question is “within the box we find NASA and Space what can you do?”, just like with all other gov agencies. At the least I’ld rather not see the current knowledge and industrial base for space, especially HSF and in space operations, pretty much thrown out – which was the Obama plan.
Best would be a streamlined contract for something that would advance us in space. Say like dumping the $100B Constellation dev program, and putting into place a much cheaper CATS RLV alternative, preferably in a way allowing the RLV’s to be marketed commercially after the feds eat the big R&D charges, so you get a VERY low cost launch systems to foster commercial space development. [Nor holding my breath though.]

It doesn’t mater if they need it. If they don’t support it it gets killed.

If they need it, and know they need it, it’ll get support. Right now, its unneeded, although it does something slightly entertaining, now and again. Space can do better

As for the rest of your post, Kelly, honestly, I don’t feel there is a response. You effectively say we can’t make it better, and that its really bad, but we need to keep it. And then you claim that the President & the Congress don’t have the authority to get a federal agency to change.

Short of a trip to the X files, I am forced to wonder what you think is actually going on.

> == You are asking how do we get the public to care more
> about NASA. What I am talking about is how to change the
> mission of NASA so that it fills a void that is needed by the public.

It doesn’t mater if they need it. If they don’t support it it gets killed.

>> Again. How?

> By not focusing on stunts. By focusing on industry creation

But no ones planning to do it, nor even tried to sell the idea – or a idea of what such a industry would be, and why voters would want it.

>> NASA can be dangerous for them given it screws up and
>> embarrasses them. NASA has a bad reputation for lying
>> through their teeth to them.

> Not really. The only real danger is if people die, ===

No, if they [NASA] do something embarrassing, another Hubble launched with a bad mirror. A foul up (like say launching a two part moon mission, but the second booster can’t get off the pad and they have to dump Launch #1 as a write off, etc.

NASA has screwed up BIG TIME. Worse, they don’t learn. All the investigations by congress keep pointing back to stupid arrogant NASA management choices.

>> Also their does seem to be real interst in sp-ace, and some
>> concept of of it being visionary. So they really would like it doing
>> something productive.

> Who do you see in Congress pushing it? ==
>===
>> That’s what happened for decades at NASA before when
>> tried (even when tried in programs studying the same topics
>> proposed by Obama), nothing much has changed to alter
>> how they will react to it, so at the least you can see why
>> the expectation of Congress and most folks in NASA is that’s where it will go.

> R&D has NEVER been to top dog at NASA. ==

Not top, but they have had lots of R&D programs over the decades (several on the topics Obama listed for further research), and they resulted in nothing, and the congressional investigations recommendations kept coming back with the fact that without a goal to focus them, NASA just plays out the studies indefinably to extend the study budget.

Hey, I’d love NASA to be more like DARPA – but it aint, and congress and Obama haven’t the authority to make it be that.

>==
> Why not leave the facility that is to do orbit maintenance
> & repair in space, and move it around, so you don’t have
> to spend money on fuel, flights, and the like, all the time?

Because the stuff to be maintained and repaired in orbit can’t be reached by the ISS.

True, but no ones managed to do it for some time, and its risky to impact the parts the public now dose support for a new “vision”.
The public has wide, but shallow support for NASA. How to change that overall has been a debate for decades. Shuttles early cheap frequent access to space etc got folks excited – but nothing much happened, so it wained..

1. Public doesn’t much care one way or the other on the “vision”.
2. You are asking how do we get the public to care more about NASA. What I am talking about is how to change the mission of NASA so that it fills a void that is needed by the public.

Again. How?

By not focusing on stunts. By focusing on industry creation

NASA can be dangerous for them given it screws up and embarrasses them. NASA has a bad reputation for lying through their teeth to them.

Not really. The only real danger is if people die, and, although space is risky, what we’ve been doing is fairly well understood. They’d rather just keep the pork lines open.

Also their does seem to be real interst in sp-ace, adn some concept of of it being visionary. So they really would like it doing something productive.

Who do you see in Congress pushing it? I see it from Rohrbacher, but thats it. All the rest are largely interested in protecting their centers.

That is not wat the polls say. Asked what of NASA is important to you – etc.

The polls also tell us how much the public care about NASA as a whole – not what they find important in what NASA does currently, but compared to other governmental activities, what its underlying support is. And the answer – not much support.

Also frankly with politicians pushing NASA programs only on jobs or political commitments, its not surprising jobs is what they say is important to them.

Not all jobs are equal, nor are all political commitments.

But the pole lists that as one of the only 2 things they value…

Its time for them to do something they are not doing. Its not about messaging, and trying to get people excited about NASA – its about finding out what niche NASA can fill, that uses space.

That’s what happened for decades at NASA before when tried (even when tried in programs studying the same topics proposed by Obama), nothing much has changed to alter how they will react to it, so at the least you can see why the expectation of Congress and most folks in NASA is that’s where it will go.

R&D has NEVER been to top dog at NASA. Shuttle has, Station has, and then Constellation was. Thats why the R&D gets eaten. What happens if we make R&D the big piece of the pie.

Why not?

Why not leave the facility that is to do orbit maintenance & repair in space, and move it around, so you don’t have to spend money on fuel, flights, and the like, all the time?

> == the polls don’t tell you how much John Q Public cares,
> and how much it would take to offer an alternative vision
> of NASA that John Q Public could buy into.

True, but no ones managed to do it for some time, and its risky to impact the parts the public now dose support for a new “vision”.

The public has wide, but shallow support for NASA. How to change that overall has been a debate for decades. Shuttles early cheap frequent access to space etc got folks excited – but nothing much happened, so it wained..

>> That’s not the perception that shows up in surveys. If it was,
>> the congress would have pulled the plug on it and sent the
>> money to the districts via other bills, like they did when they cut funds to SSFP.

>== if we make NASA relevant, they’ll have no problem going with that change.

Again. How?

> As for Congress – why would they reorganize a program that
>is already delivering enough pork for its districts?

NASA can be dangerous for them given it screws up and embarrasses them. NASA has a bad reputation for lying through their teeth to them.

Also their does seem to be real interst in sp-ace, adn some concept of of it being visionary. So they really would like it doing something productive.

>> Its what voters see is valuable to them of what NASA dose. Its
>> what NASA see as SOMETHING THEY WISH TO DO THAT WILL GET
>> THEM THE SUPPORT THEY WANT.

> No, the public sees that as what NASA is doing. That doesn’t
> necessarily translates into what the voters see as valuable. ==

That is not wat the polls say. Asked what of NASA is important to you – etc.

Also frankly with politicians pushing NASA programs only on jobs or political commitments, its not surprising jobs is what they say is important to them.

>== If they did, again, NASA stunts should have greater
> priority for them then they do.

??
But the pole lists that as one of the only 2 things they value…

I’m missing something in what you mean here?

> Now, I will grant, some at NASA see it as the mechanism to get the
> support they need to do stuff. Which says a lot about NASA, rather
> than how NASA might generate support.

Griffen certainly championed that as THE goal and derided the Shuttle concept of making space frequent and routine. Which made me want to scream!!!

> As for gutting NASA just for Pork, or gutting it to the commercial providers,
> 1. We don’t know that going to a tech R&D push program (which is what is
> being proposed) must turn into a pork program. I submit that, at worst, we
> don’t know what will happen.

That’s what happened for decades at NASA before when tried (even when tried in programs studying the same topics proposed by Obama), nothing much has changed to alter how they will react to it, so at the least you can see why the expectation of Congress and most folks in NASA is that’s where it will go.

Reminds me of the old joke of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

> 2. As for doing on-orbit construction and assembly, thats
> going to take place at ISS, and other stations.===

No any more. They are going to be hard pressed even to maintain the ISS. he other on orbit maint and repair efforts done from shuttle, wont be attempted again. And the staffs that developed and trained such skills are being laid off.

> Frankly, having to take all of that up and down on the shuttle didn’t make a lot of sense

Why not?

This round of masochism will end shortly

Its not my understanding, its the results of public polls. Hence what congress generally acts on.

No, actually, that is your understanding of the polls. But the polls don’t tell you how much John Q Public cares, and how much it would take to offer an alternative vision of NASA that John Q Public could buy into.

That’s not the perception that shows up in surveys. If it was, the congress would have pulled the plug on it and sent the money to the districts via other bills, like they did when they cut funds to SSFP.

Again, pereceptions aren’t fixed in stone. And given that the average person doesn’t really feel strongly about NASA, if we make NASA relevent, they’ll have no problem going with that change.

As for Congress – why would they reorganize a program that is already delivering enough pork for its districts?

Its what voters see is valuable to them of what NASA dose. Its what NASA see as SOMETHING THEY WISH TO DO THAT WILL GET THEM THE SUPPORT THEY WANT.

No, the public sees that as what NASA is doing. That doesn’t necessarily translates into what the voters see as valuable. If they did, again, NASA stunts should have greater priority for them then they do.

Now, I will grant, some at NASA see it as the mechanism to get the support they need to do stuff. Which says a lot about NASA, rather than how NASA might generate support.

As for gutting NASA just for Pork, or gutting it to the commercial providers,
1. We don’t know that going to a tech R&D push program (which is what is being proposed) must turn into a pork program. I submit that, at worst, we don’t know what will happen.
2. As for doing on-orbit construction and assembly, thats going to take place at ISS, and other stations. Frankly, having to take all of that up and down on the shuttle didn’t make a lot of sense

> Ferris, you’re wasting your time arguing with Kelly Starks. He lives
> in an alternate universe where up is down, and black is white.

I live in a universe where disagreements are responded to by a reasoned response, not catty comebacks. When you grow up you should visit.

..If your not just to scared your wrong.