posted 01-11-2004 03:33 PM               

Further, I think there has been a misunderstanding of what has been reported as the President's plan.

The shuttle fleet is said to be retired when ISS assembly is complete, which is projected to coincide with the first unmanned flights of the CEV to lunar orbit. But its a reasonable assumption to believe that while unmanned CEVs head for the Moon, manned test flights could start within a year or two of that to Earth orbit (a.k.a. ISS).

Yes, there is a risk the CEV could be delayed, leaving a larger number of years before US manned space flight resumes service, but great challenges require great risks. We could have missed the end-of-the-decade goal that Kennedy proposed for the Moon, but we used that deadline as a means of motivating the workforce. Today's workforce will have the risk of being grounded to push their development of the CEV forward. No one in the aerospace industry wants to be grounded; its bad for business.

posted 01-12-2004 09:02 AM               

I am reminded of a great statement that Gene Cernan once made. It goes something like this: "People use to complain back in the Apollo days about how much money we were spending out in space instead of down here on earth. Well, if you ask any one of the 400,000 or so people who were employed during the Apollo program, they will tell you that the money they earned was spent here on earth; on their houses, at the grocery store and on their kids education."

It would seem to me, that if the president is sincere about selling his upcoming proposal(s) to the public, that there would be enough political savy in the room as the speech is being written to make sure the announcement is prefaced with economic benefits like the above. This new effort could also bring much needed relief to many US workers at this time of record unemployment. Another fact worth considering is that when the government invests in any long term construction project, the result is jobs, jobs, jobs where the money is poured back into the economy.

Again though, having said that, the press has always enjoyed playing its "NASA bashing" card, and they will most certainly prey on any lofty new goals whose headlines can not be easily grasped.

Controversy sells, and this most certainly will be controversial; politically, publically and privately. But it is one controversary that, to paraphrase JFK, we should be willing to take, one that we should be unwilling to pospone and one that we intend to win.

posted 01-12-2004 10:10 PM               

Mission Worth It?
Space haters vs. lovers on heading to Mars.
by Stanley Kurtz

quote:

---

There are two main camps in the space debate. Space is a waste of money, say those who believe government can solve our earthly woes. But the space haters aren't just hankering for NASA's money. Many believe space exploration serves no useful purpose. So we find a fossilized microbe on Mars, they ask. So what?

Space lovers, in contrast, are a hopeful lot. They seek to conquer space for sheer glory's sake. And space-o-philes don't just crave evidence of life; they intend the colonization of space to remake human society. Space lovers even expect to save the world — by giving humans a new home in case a stray asteroid, or ecological disaster, threaten Earth. Dreams like this keep the space lovers going.

In the middle sits the public, fascinated by space travel, yet easily bored, discouraged by failure, and concerned about costs. I'm in that middle. Yes, space conquest is inspiring and worthwhile. I support the president's intentions. Yet I'm skeptical of the space lovers' bolder plans and claims. Unfortunately, this middle ground is poorly represented in public debate. Instead we generally find heated polemics between know-nothing space haters and know-it-all space lovers.

---

Continued here:

posted 01-13-2004 09:02 AM               

Until NASA, or any other person who speaks about continuing our presence in space can begin their very first sentence with things like "For every dollar spent during the Apollo program, we had a return of nine dollars added to our economy", there will be lots more in the "them" group than the "us" group.

I once spoke to an elementary school class about the benefits of space exploration, begining my presentation with "NASA saved my grandmother's life!" I went on to talk about various microsurgury techniques, especially those used for heart patients.

The majority of people are more likely to understand relatable facts like these than discussions about the possibilities of a rover finding past evidence of water on Mars via hemitite rocks. As much as I love to "geek out" with my other space buddies, it is that majority of people we need on our side to help support space endeavours.

To help further the exploration of space, we should all practice putting our mouths where the money is.

posted 01-13-2004 09:57 AM               

In his comparison of California and Mt. Everest as exploration frontiers, I agreed with what I believed Kurtz to be saying -- that space flight is and will forever be closer to the tallest mountain than the next gold rush.

Space advocates are quick to tout spinoffs as an argument for why space exploration is important, however the same reasoning can be applied to the military. Certainly, the DoD has turned out new technologies that have bettered mankind, but you rarely see their supporters using that as the key reason to bolster military efforts.

Just as the DoD's primary purpose is to provide security for a nation, NASA's primary selling point should be to provide a nation with inspiration. Safety and imagination are both intangible benefits, but they go to the core of our existence.

Carl Sagan wrote of the spinoff justification as follows: "It is alleged that 'spinoff' will transpire - huge technological benefits that would otherwise fail to come about -- thereby improving our international competitiveness and the domestic economy. But this is an old argument: Spend $80 billion (in contemporary money) to send Apollo astronauts to the Moon, and we'll throw in a free stickless frying pan. Plainly, if we're after frying pans, we can invest the money directly and save almost all of that $80 billion."

When I speak to school groups and the public about space exploration, I try to relate elements of their life to activities in space, rather than show how space has already influenced their day-to-day lives. For example, kids today would rather be sports stars than astronauts but when I show them video of shuttle crews playing football and basketball in space, they can imagine how their passion for sports could be applied to space.

posted 01-13-2004 11:46 AM               

You're absolutely right about the Stanley Kurtz piece and I certainly do see the fair and balanced nature of the piece. His words make for interesting reflection about the "whys" of our space exploration goals.

posted 01-13-2004 12:00 PM               

I would add that, while DoD initiatives also create spinoffs, this moves the discussion into more of a philosphical area ("Make Rovers, Not War!"), etc.

You're also right on track that the public takes the spinoffs for granted. I proposed to Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas many years ago that a slimmed down version (brochure) of the annual NASA Spinoffs publication be included in every US citizens tax forms mailing. He was actually going to propose this in the Senate, but he retired before doing so.

I do like the idea of showing kids shuttle crews playing football and basketball in space! Where can I get a copy of this video?

posted 01-13-2004 03:50 PM               

All those who have been griping about the cost, please read!

posted 01-14-2004 09:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by WAWalsh:
a) It comes close to mirroring the first President Bush's proposal;

---

SEI called for a permanently manned lunar base and manned Mars missions for $400 billion. This plan calls for a robotic mission to the Moon to be followed by humans to a man-tended base (not permanently crewed) to prepare for future Mars missions for $1 billion.

quote:

---

b) Beyond the enthusiasm here and in other select small groups, there is little national support for the idea, no significant constituency to support and motivating force to drive it (unlike the power of an assassinated President's goal as a symbolic element of the COld War);

---

Polls show that the country is split in their support. As mentioned elsewhere, even after Kennedy was shot, the majority of Americans still did not support the Moon landing.

quote:

---

c) It is coming at the same time that President Bush is apparently planning to propose spending $1.5 billion in support of marriage.

---

Yes, but he is asking for that $1 billion for NASA to be delivered over five years.

posted 01-14-2004 10:00 AM               

Is a manned mission to Mars worth the risk and cost?

posted 01-14-2004 11:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LunarRover:
$1B over five years. That's one SMALL step for man....

---

Not so small if you ask me:

posted 01-14-2004 06:11 PM            

Just finished doing some local TV news interviews here regarding both the Presidential announcement and the latest Mars images. I'd like to thank you all for the great debate going on here, as it provided great background info. for me, allowing me to be ready to talk the moment the announcement was confirmed. Thanks guys!