People Listen To Tony Stark – Not To Space Advocates
Government and Space: Lead, Follow, and Get Out of the Way, Rick Tumlinson, Huffington Post
“2012 will see those committed to settling space (O’Neillians) begin orbital delivery operations, private microgravity experiments on the space station, and sub-orbital, commercial, human space-flight tests. Recently, the revolution jumped another level, as a commercial space-station company announced it is partnering with a commercial spaceflight firm, thus completely eliminating the government from the equation. And yet, even as some of today’s savviest and wealthiest business leaders begin to dive into this new ocean of possibility, many of yesterday’s space heroes, our government and political class, don’t get it. The irony should not be lost that this same year, a presidential candidate got laughed off the campaign stage for suggesting a human colony on the Moon — just days before a group of American entrepreneurs worth tens of billions of dollars announced plans to mine asteroids.”
Keith’s note: Not to single you out, Rick, but people are out of work. They do not want moon bases or asteroid mines, they want jobs. And people do not really get to worried about whether or not the government is involved in things or not. They do not really waste a whole lot of time on the “D” or “R”. They just want whatever is broken to be fixed i.e. they want results. They are going to vote for the politicians who they think will accomplish that task. The fact that the current Democratic Administration is pro-space business and Congressional Republicans are often adamantly opposed to the support of space commerce by NASA just confuses this discussion further.
Space cadets unite! Otherwise we’re irrelevant, Jim Banke, Orbital Inclinations
“While I often bristle at Cowing’s blunt style, I completely agree with the substance of his response to The Moon Society’s president. And believe me, I wish it weren’t the case because actually moving the needle on space policy is really the key challenge we face in the space advocacy community. We have yet to find a way to turn all that outstanding public outreach into viable political currency such that every Senator, every member of the House of Representatives, and each occupant of the White House – no matter what party they represent – will support a robust national space policy.”
So long as space activists continue to only talk to/at one another – recycling the same semi-obscure jargon (“O’Neillians”?) and tired memes (Moon bases) – and not present their viewpoints in a fashion that is actually relevant to the work-a-day lives of the public as a whole – none of this will ever happen. After 30-40 years, you’d think that space activists would have figured this out by now. I attended back-to-back AIAA and NSS meetings last week in Washington, DC and saw no evidence that anyone in the space world has gotten the message.
Curiously, while space folks were engaging in choir practice, the media – and regular folks working 9 to 5 jobs – seemed to think that Dragon’s flight was cool and newsworthy. Why were all of the space activists and industry types so totally unable to capitalize on such a overt media opportunity and reach out to the remaining 99.99% of the population?
Face it: no one outside of these space conclaves is listening to space advocates. And when people do listen to laid-back Elon in his t-shirt talking about his excellent spaceship, they do not make the connection to space advocates or the stiff NASA suits – except to note that they aren’t the one with the cool rocketship – the one that does what NASA can’t do. No one connects with Wernher von Braun any more – but they do connect to Tony Stark, it would seem.
“Marvel’s The Avengers” To Screen for Crew of International Space Station
“Marvel Studios announced today that they arranged with NASA to transfer their record-breaking blockbuster film “Marvel’s The Avengers” to NASA’s Mission Control in Houston, which will uplink the film to the International Space Station (ISS), currently orbiting 220 miles above Earth. The film will then be screened for the space station crew’s exclusive enjoyment.”
Keith’s note: What a waste of bandwidth. They could have sent a DVD up in Dragon 😉
Here’s something you now can immediately do – 10x the research product out of the ISS.
Do so by using Dragon/Cygnus to upscale frequent experiment runs/changeouts through much more frequent flights, so that the research model matches other ground based industry/institutional labs.
Something you couldn’t do with Shuttle due to insupportable flight rate.
add:
Perhaps you might miss my point here – we need to change the game to one where the general public sees more “action” and “results” that they understand, rather than pretty animations and sterile PAO gestures they get palmed off with.
Research labs on earth generate research products that the public understand.
The ISS is a research lab. Run it the same, expect the same. Public makes the connection. Space then has a value.
As opposed to how things have been at the ISS – research that could fit within the profile of Shuttle/ISS operations might happen.
Folks:
…Or DragonLab/Berthed. Outfit a Dragon with ‘in rack’ experiments that might require human intervention, maintenance or repair. No reason to unload (taking up crew time unnecessarily), longer on-orbit time then Shuttle, quick turn-around for business and science. ‘On the fly’ utilization. Berth this Dragon on the zenith port of Harmony so it doesn’t interfere with the regular cargo runs.
What was this thread about? Oh, yeah. As O’Neillians, we’re a much more vocal, diverse and informed group than we used to be. Heck, back in the day, I used to will the mail to come with my ‘autographed’ color pictures of Apollo crews and ‘data sheets’. I had to ‘correct’ my teacher about the proper flight plan of the Apollo mission when I was in grade four! I didn’t even blink when she held out the chalk. So, half an hour later… “…and then they make a final mid-coarse correction burn…”. Needless to say, she was impressed. 🙂
Point being, we do have a voice in the space world of today… if we choose to use it. This gives us the accessibility to folks both above and below our skill level and enthusiasm. We can more easily nurture and improve our ideas as well as being more informed when we try to ‘convert’ folks ;).
It’s a wondrous world and I’m enjoying my place in it. I would have never dreamed of this day and age when my whole contact with the space program used to be Walter Cronkite and infrequent brown manilla envelopes.
tinker
People need to stop talking and start doing.
Ain’t it the truth. Unfortunately, for various reasons, it seems those who have the power to get something done are in a state of pathological indecisiveness.
… or they’ve grown tired of being the subject of “target practice” by those taking out impotent frustration.
Here’s the problem with achieving that.
As Dennis Wingo said in a prior thread comment, “actions speak louder than words”.
Yet, note the reception of the “action” he was speaking of. COTS success. Question – did this improve the clarity of “how” to “stop talking and start doing”.
Or did opponents simply rant about what “alternate reality” they want to belong in?
In an much earlier thread mmeijeri and Dennis got into a minor argument over the minimum “spanning set” of what an exploration program to deliver on the public believable “doing” with exploration leading to economic activity. Neither are ignorant but well though out, synergistic points of view.
What they and others debate is where the threshold is where a pattern of success begins. Dennis’s position required a greater threshold than Martijn’s … because he believes you need more to get more … to reach your “breakout threshold”.
Martijn’s position is that risks too much, takes too long. and he believes in the getting there … is the reward/destination.
Both are worried about “doing” … and not being appreciated. Having then be blamed with the “Shelby waste” nonsense that COTS 2+ mission was. “Moving goal posts” or “defining success as failure”.
This is my long winded way of saying that this is what we need to “stop talking and start doing”:
+ Don’t let success be diminished by anyone/thing.
+ Unify on a “breakout threshold” meaning
+ Get behind one of 2-3 concurrent efforts that can
This isn’t space advocacy. This is space rationalization. Nuts and bolts.
My above suggestion was a non-conclusitory approach to taking off the shelf what we have (ISS/COTS), to achieve a “breakout” (space research), with many potential concurrent efforts (industry, institutional, other). It is incomplete as an specific objective. But its complete as to a plan with a believable, achievable goal with resources /equipment developed.
Too much of NASA’s past involved doing things incompletely to believe its “good enough”, as a fantasy to believe as a reality, yet is too little to finish the endeavor. So lets finish the endeavor of a “national laboratory” (since its mostly done), such that it can function as a research lab on earth (can’t right now because its missing access rate, experiment exchange, and capacity for riskier experiments – Shuttle legacies), run it for 5-10 years (research labs usually take 5-10 years to “rationalize”/”tune”, and about 20 years to get reliable results). And then assess it and decide what to do next.
That’s just good business sense. Doesn’t depend on emotionalism or desire for BEO, just simply finishing one thing before we start another.
Shuttle was an accomplishment, but an abject failure for what it was intended for – making a reliable usable space station. Nixon/Reagan chose that direction, and we’ll do it and finish of that first.
Then we’ll move on.
Likely to a smaller, more cost effective specialized space station geared for industry.
While we then have a model for success going forward for economic use of space the public can believe in.
add:
DTARS – short answer – examine existing national labs research w/industry & institutionals, works same. Even agriculture. Rare but already present.
Resources – likely ramping to bimonthly COTS launches. Funding – same kind of COTS structure but applied to entering research activity, only done with an approved business plan with a follow-on to self-financed operation. E.g. only ernest funds to enable.
Follow on stations/extensions to support this model, not necessarily at the ISS or all of the same … er … location. Cost profiles may need to eventually be lowered for classes/categories of research. As facilities “evovled” at the labs as well.
Can start now.
mmeijeri – everytime “cloak” lowered, one less grant. Not a cost effective in intolerant times.
Writing books is for others. Easier to suggest/inspire. Better return for time spent. Or per word.
And one gets the same regard for a book as a 200 word post. If not more. Strange but true.
A thoughtful reply, that sadly packs too many thoughts into too few words. I often have trouble understanding what you mean. I get the feeling it’s something deep, but I can’t make out what it is. I wish you would write a couple of essays, though that might be difficult without decloaking…
Mr. C
National laboratory
Space research
ISS
Ok Joe Q public trying to understand.
I need an example.
How many more flights would you do to make this possible. One a month?? More??
Would this just be dragon Labs??
What about adding Bigelow rubber room???
Could the national lab include Agriculture???
I’m just guessing here paint me a picture so I can see more clearly what you are suggesting.
In a Bigelow article I saw there was no money for the Bigelow rubber rooms so I would guess it would be hard to get money for what you are suggesting.
How do we get that money to do this????
If this means more dragon flights to ISS I can hear them whining now. Unfair Spacex advantage.
Just simply finishing something before starting another. 🙂
Wouldn’t the program need a docking node added so you could have maybe 5 parked dragons doing different projects. Or would you let some be free floaters that dock to get checked on.
With the bigger 1.1 falcon Wouldn’t it be easy to design the docking node to double as a dragon trunk. So the node could be brought up with a normal cargo flight.
Sounds good if I understand what you are talking about.
How soon can we start!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JoeQ public/taxpayer looking for value and growth from ISS
Keith:
If I’m going to just talk here, it may as well be (mostly) inspirational. That’s what my ‘ideas’ are all about. I don’t expect anything else to come out of them ;).
Over the years, though, I have seen a couple of my ideas actually fly. No hardware, just… ideas.
So, we can all play a part, even a small one, sometimes even unbeknownst, just by being and remaining ‘active’ in the space community.
Keith, I’m here ‘just to talk’. What scraps fall off the table (ideas), well, so be it.
I do feel a bit more hopeful then a couple of weeks ago.
Cheers;
tinker
It’s really nice to take action. Even better to not get a bullet for doing so.
I like the idea of a berthed DragonLab. Not only could this result in an increased flight rate (and we know how flight rate effects costs), but with more short, sharp experiments and frequent research results/reports, the probability of something that catches the public eye improves too.
According to SpaceX’ manifest, the first DragonLab launch is set for 2014. If possible, it might be wise to move that up a bit.
Anyone know if NASA has commented on the concept of a berthed DragonLab? It would certainly enhance the ISS’ capabilities.
I AGREE !!!!! How can we make it happen. I like the idea we finish somthing!! Has Mr. C said. In my mind kinda like finishing the footings on the foundation of a space economy. Better to build outward, good use of SLS money.
I have an acquaintance at CASIS. I’ll pass the idea long and we’ll see what happens. Don’t expect instant results, though. Any berthed DragonLab would require a complex multi-party agreement. Until someone develops an organizational model that we can just use like a rubber-stamp, such missions will need some time to spool up.
Yes Sir!!!! Joe taxpayer awaits your reply lol Sir 🙂
If Spacex did a docking node/dragon trunk node it would be ready for a Bigelow hab too right!!! Start putting those used capsules too work lololol.
Joe Q Public
Do to the success of Spacex first cots cargo flight. NASA has ramped up their ISS National Research program. This will dramatically increase the number of dragon flights to ISS.
NASA has contracted with Spacex to build the first piece of hardware to be built under Spacex’s dragon trunk program. This first project will be called dragon node.
Dragon node is an ISS compatible docking chamber with 6 docking ports on it. It will be delivered to ISS on a falcon 1.1 while doubling as a dragon trunk under a dragon capsule. Dragon trunk will be docked to ISS so that up to 5 dragon labs can be added to ISS to conduct many more different experiments.
Dragon Node can also be used to dock up to 6 dragon capsules together in space. And will have future uses for docking multiple dragons/dragon labs with other structures/habitats or fuel depots.
Spacex’s dragon trunk program was formed by Spacex to provide an inexpensive platform for it’s customers to utilize any extra lift capacity from dragon cargo, dragon rider, dragon lab, or dragon tug missions.
Dragon tug is a dragon which has large draco fuel tanks added, giving it the capability to maneuver other space structures around including dragon node and then be recovered for repair or refueling. Dragon tug is used many times with refueled dragon second stages.
Tinker berth FIVE dragons on the zenith side of Harmony port. And start the dragon trunk program with NASA dollars.
Nothing more fun than playing with tinker toys with Spacex labels. 🙂
NASA doesn’t have an engineering problem.
NASA has a management problem.
The best thing that could happen to our space program is to let people who know how to manage, manage. Allow the managers to clear all the obstacles out of the way so the engineers can do what they do best – solve problems.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
Removed by author on grounds of gibberish lol.
Better idea lol
Mr. Gasser
You seem to be the type that likes to see your government save a buck. Below or above lol, some where in this thread. The reason I suggest we launch our ISS docking node, for the ISS National Research Program as a dragon trunk is because it’s a new day a new way. We could just build a node and launch it in a faring. But we need to show the people that we are trying to get every ounce of capability out of their launch dollars.
Of course one of the reasons for the program is to increase launch rate which drops launch cost by spreading fixed cost over more flights.
But it would be great PR to show the American tax payer that while we are spending millions. To provide clean clothes to space we are also building infrastructure, that can create more useful projects.
Whoever helps Spacex build dragon trunk node could build more than one, reducing cost, to be shelved till when needed maybe. Hummm who does Bigelow have doing that work for them?????
Hummm boeings little capsule would look good up there too. Does Mr. Bigelow have a 100 Lab program too???
How many nodes could we add to ISS ??? Maybe have a spacer node in between each one creating a hallway to the Bigelow tourist center hab or that Bigelow semi clear agriculture food farm project or future commercial science center that takes some of the nodes with it when it goes off on it’s own when bought by some other country or company.
Wow look at all the possibilities all from cheaper underwear flights to ISS!
Joe tax payer
Who does understand what it means to get a little more for my tax dollar 🙂
Respectfully
George Worthington
You just cannot hook up nodes to ISS. That involves a lot of engineering to calculate loads, moment, arm, ect. How much should all of this cost and how much does it cost the taxpayer?
Unknown.
Like much of the NASA budget, its all buried in line items with incredible sums of money at the end. While you do provide solutions, we need to find answers inside the budget of who is getting paid to do what. And I can tell you people do not want you, or I, to know.
The Bigelow hab for ISS is a perfect example. I assure you Mr. Bigelow is ready to go with this experiment. NASA bureaucracy is killing it. Let me re-iterate something right here:
I do not believe for one moment that lower and mid-level managers of ISS, or the engineers who support them, are responsible for these unacceptable delays. This is all about senior people protecting their “turf”.
There is a lot more going on here than we know, or can openly speak to, but COTS 2+ sure opened a lot of eyes inside and outside the beltway… and its a good thing.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
Being old construction guy, I suspected structural difficulty adding nodes to ISS. But not important for idea. Reality limits creativity sometimes lol. Anyway thanks for your thoughtful answer.
Lol seems scurrying rats are not to fond of fire breathing dragons lol
I guess Elon is already flying DOD type missiles, right at the heart of porky pig lol
Thanks for the damage report lol
Interesting!!!!
George Worthington
As Mr. C said it is important to possibly use ISS to boot strap private research in space, so cleaning the house up or out is critical. I would think???!!!
I suggest everyone read this interview with Gabe Newell at Valve Software. Valve is a very innovative and successful game company with an interesting management strategy. There isn’t much management at all.
http://www.develop-online.n…
Wow. Are you suggesting that space advocates develop a “strategy”. That would be a novel concept!
For what it’s worth, while Valve is extremely effective at making entertaining and resonant products, their engineering reputation ain’t so good. A lot of their products are really flimsy.
Keith, the Avengers movie isn’t available on DVD or Blu-Ray yet. Unless it’s a pirated copy.
Um, if the producers are uplinking a copy of the movie from Earth to the ISS, I think they can manage to find a way to burn a DVD with the same file they are sending up …
“So long as space activists continue to only talk to/at one another…”
Here’s a question for you, Keith. How many MENSA meetings and conferences, Rotary luncheons, sci fi cons, museums, elementary schools, and other public outreach events do I have to do to not be considered a “space activist only talking to other space activists”? What is the threshold of the general public attending my Moon Day events to be thought of of someone who is actually engaging the public? 1,000? 2,000? 5,000? More?
How much money does NSS of North Texas have to give away in Science Fair scholarships? How many toys do we have to donate to our Santa Space Toy Drive? How many space books do we have to donate to the play area at the local flight museum?
Sure I organized the “semi-obscure jargon” laden Cislunar Econosphere track in my capacity as president of The Moon Society, but we had speakers from industry and academia as well as science. I do know that there were local D.C. residents at the conference because they were interested in space (I talked to them), and IIRC a couple were at my track, although admittedly the bulk of the attendees were the usual conference-goers and industry insiders.
You’re painting space advocates with a pretty broad brush, Keith. I’m just trying to find where the lines are that you’re coloring inside.
Ken Murphy
The Moon Society
I have yet to see any discernible alteration in space policy as a result. Sorry.
Got it. A “discernible alteration in space policy” is the line that space advocates must cross to be recognized as more than a “space activist only talking to other space activists”. Since I am completely indifferent to political matters I guess I’ll remain a nobody in the eyes of NASAWatch. I’ll keep that in mind.
Ken, you need to develop some slightly thicker skin and stop taking things so personally. Putting words in my mouth (the “nobody” comment) is simply whining. And if you are “completely indifferent to political matters” then you haven’t a clue as to how to affect real change. If the current approach does not yield the desired results then a new approach is required.
And along the lines of what you are saying, Keith, NASA (the dinosaur) is most certainly not the solution. The management problem has not changed, nor been solved, since the Challenger accident. Billions of dollars wasted on Shuttle follow ons that never materialized (please don’t put it all on Bush/CEV, there was plenty of $ wasted on DOA solutions before 2001). We have a NASA Administrator who is essentially not present, who follows a NASA Administrator who was one of the big money wasters and the head of the management problems, for a time. Moreover NASA, being a GOV agency, is held hostage to the whims of BOTH D and R cartels (which is exactly what our two dominant parties are). My suggestion is that, until NASA is severely emaciated or wholly revamped, it will continue to simply waste our $ mostly on useless bureaucracy, with pittances going to supplement commercial companies. My prediction is that once SpaceX or another commercial company has their first accident that results in loss of life, NASA will step in and claim they need to be more involved ($) and exert more management over the commercial vendors….which is funny given how absolutely broken NASA management was (and is) that lead to Challenger and Columbia. I can only hope that SpaceX and the others (Bigelow, SNC, etc.) can have enough success to wean themselves off of GOV subsidies. Airline “Policy” is no longer under the control of US GOV (but their ops are subject to regs). Until we see the same thing with respect to commercial space travel, it will be as it is now. GOV is the problem, not the solution.
Folks:
Aha! refurbish used Dragon capsules into water craft!
TwittPic of Dragon after splashdown.
A new sport… Dragon Kiting!
tinker
Use it as a diving bell to transfer people to the NEEMO underwater habitat 😉
Keith:
Good one! New hatches with a new one in the floor (That’s how they get in and out when underwater, right?). Landing legs, concrete replica heat shield…
I can just see it now, Dragon’s first landing on an alien world… a few dozen meters to the ocean floor. They’d have to use one of the ‘flown’ Dragons for sure. Good for moral.
tinker
Farnsworth: “Dear Lord! That’s over one hundred and fifty atmospheres of pressure.”
Fry: “How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?”
Farnsworth: “Well, it’s a space ship. So I’d say anywhere between zero and one.”
Lololol wanted to scuba dive at 5 after sea hunter coloring book. Finally did at age 11 lol
Keith,
A question for you — and this is an honest question to someone with experience, not a challenge of any kind — do you have suggestions or sources of information that could aid us/teach us how to effectively “reach out to the remaining 99.99% of the population?” I realize it’s not a simple question. Many of us would do more (within our limited means and geography) if we knew what would help make a difference.
Steve
Its a little different in Canada than here. Up there you have a smaller space program, smaller budget, fewer citizens – but that can be an advantage since (and I have seen this with my own eyes) its easier to develop a one-on-one relationship with decision makers in such a situation. Make your case to them but, in so doing, make certain that you stop and think whether your ideas and requests make any sense to someone (like you and I) who are not big space fans. Also – stop and think about what really motivates decision makers to do/not do things and then find clear (not imaginary) links between those things and space exploration/ utilization. If you understand what their issues are and how they go about handling them you may seen an opening wherein you can engage them. If space can become part of their toolkit/service to their constituents, then maybe they will show interest. If they are not interested keep at it – but realize that everyone is not a potential space fan. Move on to the next decision maker and keep at it until you hit pay dirt. Then enlist that convert to help you convert others – from the inside.
As for your fellow citizens, find the leaders, influencers, bloggers, etc. and start on them.
Be strategic. Space advocates need to turn off their transmitters long enough to activate their receivers. People will tell you what they are interested in if you give them a chance to do so.
Thanks for taking the time out to write that up, Keith. As a first step I’m going to give some serious thought to practical ways of perhaps writing less and listening more. As you say, people will tell you what they think and want, given the chance, and that’s the logical place to start. Thanks again,
Steve
My pleasure. My Canadian business partner keeps me honest.
I hate to plug a blog posting of my own, but it is relevant to the current discussion. I wrote a A Tale of Two Space
Days to compare LockMart’s Space Day at Udvar-Hazy with the one I organized in New Jersey back in the 1980s. That blog item of mine also points to another blog posting of mine I titled Background of an L5
Society Activist. Both pieces are long for blog postings.
I am what is called a polymath. I am reasonably good at the science and tech stuff, but I am also an artist and tolerably decent written and verbal communicator. I actually listen to people of all types and try to learn from them.
What’s my current status in the space (or aerospace) community? Outsider. The insiders don’t want to change. Bringing me inside means change.
Well, since the vast majority of people whose minds need to be changed with regard to space are “outsiders” ….
Keith,
We need to change in some ways the minds of the insiders as well. First, the Columbia accident investigation showed an agency in need of significant reform — not “The Crown Jewel of the Federal Government” that I have heard from insiders this year. Yes. I am not kidding.
Second, your comment at the top of NASA Watch — It’s your agency. Take it back. Make it work for you.” also implies the need for change.
There is also evidence that the STEM problem isn’t being caused by poor education of outsiders but the behavior of insiders turning off prospective young people — not to mention the larger community.
I pointed people to those blog postings to show that I have done successful outreach and how I did it. I think I have something to offer.
More than enough for now.
I’m not sure if this is the right thread to debate this, but you brought up the D and R in the note and it reminded me of why the republicans are so opposed to most things NASA.
In short, it all stems around one man and one subject. Hanson and climate change. Like it or not, agree or not, he’s carrying the NASA banner and in the eyes of the world has aligned NASA with the democrats on climate change. Unless NASA does more to distance itself from him, to go out of it’s way to show it’s neutral politically and just following the data, they can expect the republicans to keep NASA and most things it does in the “D” column. I’m afraid NASA’s early advice to Hanson many years ago to wait until he had more conclusive evidence before presenting his conclusions will haunt NASA for the foreseeable future. Now, pass the pork, please….
John,
I hear what you‘re saying, but I honestly think it’s a trivial matter over all. Rather than reducing what NASA is about, I firmly believe we need to do the exact opposite. I strongly suspect that most people if asked, “what does NASA do?” would list one, maybe two things, and then shrug their shoulders. And I don’t think that Hanson and climate will be high on the list of responses. This may be a very local or current issue where you are, but I think it’s safe to say that the word space (or similar) will be in the common answer across the country, not climate or Hanson.
People need to be made more aware (without overloading them) that NASA, in fact, does many, many diverse things on behalf of the country, in many different industries and sciences. Don’t reduce NASA’s worth in people’s minds just because Hanson shows up in the news every once in a while. Tell people that Hanson carries only his own banner, not NASA’s. NASA is involved in climate research, in a very beneficial way, and NASA reps have made public statements in the past saying that Hanson does not represent official NASA policy or position — in climate or anything else. What Hanson does on his own time, as long as it’s legal, is his own business and his own opinion, and he has a constitutional right to speak his mind, which NASA reps have also said in the media.
As another consideration, please note that in neither your comments nor mine did we actually discuss whether Hanson’s climate views are accurate or not. That’s a whole separate question. One thing I will say, personally I think Hanson tends to lack tact once he gets would up and then becomes his own worst enemy.
Steve
I am in agreement with everything you said. We need to distinguish who we are talking about, politicians or the general public. Politicians view NASA as another political pawn or pork reservoir, whatever they need at the moment. The public is ignorant of most things NASA does, as you said. But the way NASA presents itself, with press releases of things the public cares nothing about, or can’t understand, or (too frequently) absolutely trivial accomplishments that have been done before. Maybe not to as many decimal places, but nothing really new. They can toss an Orion out of the back of as many planes as they want, but nobody will notice unless the chute doesn’t open.
My point is that on the political side, don’t underestimate the fact that most of Washington thinks of NASA with a D. Hanson is never mentioned without his title, and will always be associated with Al Gore.
Corporate interests will steal a march on government R&D so long as ideology holds the public purse strings.
“Keith’s note: Not to single you out, Rick, but people are out of work. They do not want moon bases or asteroid mines, they want jobs. …”
Some questions do not have a sensible answer and are best ignored. However related questions can have answers that are sensible, useful and important.
1. How does building and running a Moon base create employment:
a. via NASA and its contractors?
b. in towns where the new employees live?
c. in the rest of the USA?
2. Will the money spent produce a positive return on investment within say 20 years?