A few small updates about the Space Exploration Alliance:
- As noted in the comments of the previous posting on this, some organizations, including the NSS and The Mars Society, have posted press releases about the new alliance, although there’s not much in the way of additional details.
- NASA Watch notes that both the Space Foundation and the Space Transportation Association were asked to join the alliance but declined. I can imagine why the foundation said no (they have their own group, the Coalition for Space Exploration); the STA also has ties to the coalition as well.
- Apparently one of the people in attendance at the SEA announcement was Robert Park, who wrote a short blurb about it in Friday’s edition of What’s New. He commented about the lack of press present at the event (understandable, since such events have narrow appeal, and I’m not sure this particular event was widely publicized: I never got a notice about it, and I know several of the people involved in the formation of the alliance!) Park can’t resist adding a tasteless zinger at the end of his blurb: “One thing was clear, if travelers to Mars are the same size as the industry reps at the press conference, they’re gonna need a big launch vehicle.” Thanks for the insightful commentary, Dr. Park…
I have spoken with some of the organizers of the National Press Club event. It seems that contacting the media about this event did not occur to them. Not a good indication that these folks are going to be good about getting press attention – especially when you make the effort of renting the National PRESS Club.
We need more professionals and less volunteers.
“I can imagine why the foundation said no (they have their own group, the Coalition for Space Exploration)”
If the Expolaration Initiative can be a ‘system of systems’, its supporters can be a ‘coalition of coalitions’, can’t they?
“We need more professionals and less volunteers.”
That much is certain.
New press release on the NSS site:
http://www.nss.org/news/releases/pr20040517.html
“Moon-Mars blitz” in July…
On the professionals vs. volunteers – I believe some of those involved are paid, but if you want more professional people the money’s got to come from somewhere. Are you a member of the involved organizations?
On Bob Park – his office is in the National Press Club building. No doubt he was there for the free lunch too
He’s a nice enough fellow (I’ve had dinner with him a few times) but has a real beef about ISS and NASA generally – not something we can’t all sympathize with a little.
I am a member of several space advocacy organizations, but will not renew my membership to several of them because I am not impressed with their current efforts. Little effort has been made to engage the non-space enthusiast, otherwise known as the average citizen. Consider that membership numbers have hardly budged in several years. Also, lobbying efforts on the Hill have yielded poor results, though that may be more a function of Congressional disfunction.
Mostly, the space orgs pounced on the president’s plan simply because there was finally a plan. The merits of the plan were not widely debated among space enthusiasts, simply accepted at face value.
In my opinion, the president’s plan is weak in terms of vision and scope, and vulnerable to the political tides. While commercial activity is implied in the plan, it was not explicitly identified, and represents an unacceptable omission. There is no vision, and therefore no solid strategy. With no solid strategy, derived policies and plans are weak. And weak policies serve as nothing more than speedbumps on the road to the stars.
Phil Smith wrote:
“While commercial activity is implied in the plan, it was not explicitly identified, and represents an unacceptable omission.”
Read the current issue of Space News. There is an article in there indicating that the Europeans are suspicious of the new space vision. I think that the plan’s approach toward international cooperation has also been flawed and may require some serious revamping. Several months ago, Ian Pryke suggested that the international partners be included in early NASA meetings on the space vision in order to convince them that they can play a role in it. It is unlikely that this has occurred, because no organization, NASA included, likes to allow outsiders into its deliberations.