This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Policy

Why Worry About Public Support For NASA If It Really Doesn't Matter?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
July 16, 2015
Filed under
Why Worry About Public Support For NASA If It Really Doesn't Matter?

Americans’ complicated relationship with space travel, Washington Post
“All this means that NASA — which is consistently among Americans’ most popular public agencies (our feelings about space are complex) — has never relied on public support to boost its program. Sure, it spends money to improve its image and inspire future explorers. But winning over you, dear reader, has never really helped NASA pay its bills. … Americans’ interest in space only briefly cracked more than 50 percent when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took one giant leap for mankind on the moon, said Casey Dreier, the director of advocacy for the Planetary Society. “The mistake we make, thinking about NASA in the past, is that it was ever driven by the public,” Dreier said.”
Keith’s note: This is an interesting admission for the Planetary Society to make since it – and virtually all other space advocacy organizations – and often NASA itself – seem to be obsessed with raising the public’s awareness of what NASA does so as to garner greater support for NASA’s budget. Now it would seem that this is a waste of time according to the Planetary Society. Odd that Planetary Society says that the public has no impact on space policy and then turns around and tells the public that they need to have an impact on space policy. After half a century why is this going to change?
Americans Want A Space Program They Won’t Pay For, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

44 responses to “Why Worry About Public Support For NASA If It Really Doesn't Matter?”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Gee, and that only took what, thirty years or so, for them to realize.

    But the good thing is now that the old public support paradigm is finally out the window perhaps advocate groups will start looking for a new paradigm that might actually work.

  2. jon_downfromthetrees says:
    0
    0

    Public enthusiasm for a NASA that actually went somewhere on a regular basis probably wouldn’t translate to Congressional willingness to provide the cash.

    • Brian_M2525 says:
      0
      0

      You should read the Washington Post article. As it points out, when NASA was sending astronauts to the moon, at the peak of ‘moon fever’, there still was not that much public enthusiasm. Just a bit over 50% of the public supported continuing the program. By 1969 the NASA budget had been slashed 3 years in a row.

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        That’s the saddest part of it for me. This was the Manned Space Program at its most triumphant, and yet it didn’t translate into popular support at all beyond a tepid majority in the year of its greatest triumph. It’s a testament to Kennedy, Johnson, and James Webb that they were able to keep the program alive at all, and makes me wonder how Webb and Von Braun ever seriously thought NASA would get a Mars mission in the 1980s.

        But hey! At least the program survived the 1970s. The manned spaceflight program could have died in the 1970s completely, considering it was one of the options that Nixon and his advisers considered when deciding whether to go forward with the Shuttle Program. That was the time period, too, when the military stopped supporting manned spaceflight as well.

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      It might be easier to get congressional support than public enthusiasm, and the former would certainly do more to ensure the survival of the program. As the article and earlier essays have pointed out, public support has never really made or broken the space program. It was weak during the Apollo Era, and stronger now with a much-diminished NASA.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Or you could simply get NASA out of the space business and return it to more of a NACA model of basic technology research.

        It is well to remember that NASA was created for one reason during the Cold War, to provide for foreign propaganda purposes a civilian response to the Soviet’s military run space program. That mission basically ended with the victory of Project Apollo, but NASA still needed to be available to respond in case the Soviets decided to race in space again, the prime political function of the Space Shuttle was to keep NASA’s capabilities intact if a new race to the Moon, or beyond developed. And why when the Soviets started to have success with space stations it became NASA’s focus in the 1984 State of the Union.

        When the Soviet Union ended even that weak justification for NASA ended. That is the real reason NASA is drifting and has since Project Apollo. Today its funding is a legacy from the past more then anything else and the public’s views on it are also basically a legacy of the past successes. Perhaps it is time to return it to a NACA level of operations to support space commerce while out sourcing space science to the NSF.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Yeah!!!!!!!!!!

          To the point

          Perfect!!!

          How can we get it done!!

          Does nasa do much work on improving rocket engines these days?

          shouldn’t nasa be helping companies like escape dynamics more or doing that kind of work?

          http://www.parabolicarc.com

          You know NASA main job should be making space flight more affordable

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Indeed. There are countless policy issues with deep and wide public support that never see action by Congress.

  3. Neal Aldin says:
    0
    0

    I think NASA would be far more effective if they established a decent, coordinated integrated educational program beginning in pre-K and continuing through high school, that covered the gamut of earth, atmosphere, environments, planets, space vehicles, systems and engineering. Most of these subjects are not taught at all.

    NASA would have a large ‘captive’ audience, hundreds of millions, learning about these subjects for days instead of thousands learning for minutes. In addition to educating about the natural world, science and technology, NASA could tell about the significance of the space program in learning about all of this, and then as they grow older, citizens would be motivated by long held interests to support the space program.

    Instead, NASA cut way back on its education spending over the last couple years and instead seems to put an inordinate amount of emphasis on social media that doesn’t communicate much.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      You mean to say its education budget was cut by Congress. NASA doesn’t control its budget allocations.

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        NASA still has one of the largest education budgets-maybe the largest, of any Executive Branch agency. Far more significant than the recent cuts has been the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of how they have used that budget.

  4. Henry Vanderbilt says:
    0
    0

    My first thought on all this is “what do you mean, “we”? I’ve been pushing this point for years: Space is a minority taste, and as such minority pressure group tactics are what will work, while energy spent on attempts to become a majority is almost certainly wasted.

    That said, a huge part of the Federal budget in any given year goes toward things only a minority of the country want. Congress’s explicit purpose is to strike a balance among a nation full of various interests. IE, this is all much ado about nothing.

    Mind, if some of the old-line advocates are finally catching on, that’s news.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      I agree, however if NASA can produce more practical benefits for American industry, environment, and economy it might help. Obviously that requires an emphasis on things more mundane than human flight to Mars.

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      If you’re going for the aggressive minority pressure model, then you need a decent size number of diehards who will show up and vote, lobby, etc for space exploration. It’s easier to find those folks with lots of public outreach.

  5. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    That is skill old thinking. Still the old paradigm, Suppose you do get a majority to want a budget increase for NASA. How do you operational that?

    Letter and emails are mostly ignore by Congress Critters unless they get hip deep and threaten their re-election. But they are use to such PR campaigns and ignore them beyond making the required noises to make them seem interested.

    Mass demonstrations might get their attention, but could you imagine a million demonstrators protesting for a higher NASA budget? And where would the budget go? NASA is famous for spending billions on programs that are never finished. Do I need to recite the list?

    Advertising campaigns are fine for commercial goods, you are able to operational the campaign by folks buying the product. But that really won’t work for boosting NASA’s budget as there is nothing to buy.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Demonstrations? Really? As a retired hippie I attended countless demonstrations agains the war, for civil rights, for the ERA. The war ended when the politicians figured they couldn’t win. Civil rights is still a struggle. And hell who even knows what ERA stands for?

      Forgive a bit of hyperbole but consider that dramatic changes in public policy are as likely to come from the courts as congress.

      For good or bad.

      • Jafafa Hots says:
        0
        0

        The most massive demonstrations in the history of the planet occurred pre-Iraq war, and the media didn’t even cover them.
        When they do cover demonstrations, it’s to laugh at them.

        The demonstration or march as a way of affecting policy is a dead tactic. Won’t work anymore. The best is can be is a form of preaching to the choir, rallying the troops who have already signed on.

      • PsiSquared says:
        0
        0

        There is a big difference between a generation protesting against war and getting the public do demonstrate such an interest in science and space exploration in order to increase funding for such programs. We have a public that in large part does not value science and exploration. How do you expect to generate enough interest to move them to action?

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Well, Psi, the point isn’t war/science. It’s public trying to effect change.

          The war in Viet Nam was hugely unpopular and not just amongst those of us actively carrying signs. It was broadly unpopular and increasingly so as time went on.

          And as McNamara later said he should have listened. But instead, as he admitted, he was listening to his sensibility that administration policy was ‘right’.

          And that is the point. No matter how much the plebs want something we can fail. Gay Marriage won because in the end nobody’s ox was gored, pure and simple, not because it is the right thing to do. Which it is. Was.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Also it went to the courts, not Congress. If it was a Congressional decision there would still be huge debates over it.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            I never said the point was war vs. science. Instead I was comparing the magnitude of the public’s will to end a war to the magnitude of the public’s will to fund science and exploration. As it stands the public’s will to fund such things seems vanishingly small.

            I wish the public had the will to fund NASA, other programs that support NASA (like Commercial Crew and CRS) and organizations like the NSF and the NIH as they should be funded. I wish the public demonstrated the will to ensure that the way our government runs things, funds things, and relates to the electorate would change, but sadly such will seems to evaporate on election days.

            Sadly I think any changes are a long way off. My faith in the electorate is on par with my faith in our government, which is to say that faith is not very strong.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        True, but those were important issues with large amounts of political power, social justice and raw emotion wrapped in them.

        Space is not in the same category and Congress may well give NASA a few billion more if it seems to appease the angry mob marching on Washington, especially as it is their tax dollars.

        But the same fact that space is not that important means you won’t get such a mob protesting government spending on it. Which again underlines the point of why its a waste of effort.

  6. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    There is a product being sold in the elections, the candidate, and the campaign has a direct action individuals could do which is vote. Which is why big money will flow in from corporations and always has.

    There is no direct action for a PR campaign for NASA so it doesn’t matter how clever the campaign is or how large it is there is noting for the individual to do that will have an impact unless you get to them to the mass demonstration stage. And again, I just don’t see millions of people marching on Washington demanding that billions are spent on sending astronauts to Mars.

    And if you want proof just look at the campaign spending of firms like Lockheed and Boeing. Both firms are not shy about spending if they see an ROI in it. Such a campaign would be chicken feed to them. If they thought such a campaign would result in a larger NASA budget, and billions in new NASA contracts they would hire the best advertising experts instantly to run it. But they don’t because they know it would be a waste of money.

    As for candidates supporting space, again let’s be realistic. How many space advocates even base their vote on a candidate supporting space? Are you even going to base your vote on a candidate based on their position on Mars?

    Congress Critters in NASA Districts may get mileage on it as it creates local jobs and wealth by bringing federal tax dollars in, but that is about as far as it goes. And quite honestly it doesn’t really matter to most of the folks in NASA districts what those tax dollars are spent on as long as the keep the $$ flowing, which is one factor of the mess NASA is in.

  7. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    Those aren’t contradictory. Dreier probably does think building more public support for NASA and space exploration is good, while recognizing that the public isn’t exactly clamoring for more spending on space exploration. More support can’t hurt, especially in times of budget cuts – and even a slightly larger vocal minority can make a difference in keeping programs alive.

    Sometimes I wonder what space exploration would be like without the Cold War competition and Apollo Era rush to the moon. Probably worse. Manned flights might never have happened at all*, and they’d be gone by the 1970s when the military realizes they don’t need them for their space-related objectives. Robotic exploration might be better off, although I doubt it would be getting funding beyond $1-2 billion/year, if that.

    * I do think they’d happen in the 1960s with Cold War competition, although it would have tapered off under Johnson and Nixon if Kennedy hadn’t fixated on the Moon Landing.

  8. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been out there advocating for a doubling of NASA’s funding – the “NASA penny”.

    I think it would be an easier sell if you made it part of a much larger platform to push greater scientific funding, both for cultural enrichment and for greater prosperity (both of which are true). Doubling the funding to the major science agencies – including NASA – would be part of that.

    It does happen, sometimes. It’s basically what happened in the Cold War Scare period of the 1950s and 1960s.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      oh please.

      This in a country that saddles students with huge debt before they get a job? Seriously?

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        Yes, in a country where the debt burden is so light that we have rock-bottom interest rates on our bonds.

  9. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Completely misses the point.

    People I talk to might know little about NASA or space policy or the other crap that gets people heated here. Try to describe the SLS issues, or how important SpaceX has been, and eyes just glaze over.

    But they are proud of NASA, proud of what we- collectively, we Americans- are doing. Pride in the wonders of space and confident that someone is taking care of business. Admittedly little acknowledgement of the prodigious accomplishments of our European/Indian friends, among others, but still.

    And there is very widespread acknowledgement that NASA’s so-called ‘spinoffs’ are important, that the miniaturization and personal computers we use now are largely attributable to the needs of NASAs earlier efforts.

    And there’s Tang!, of course.

    For all its widespread membership and support the PS lives entirely inside the beltway.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Except that those advances had nothing to do with NASA. The military was already pushing miniaturization for weapon systems, a process that started with the Proximity Fuse and Radar of WW II. That was the thread that led to the Altair 880 and the personal computer revolution. Tang was created in 1957 and was failing against Kool-Aide until it was able to link itself to the glamor of the space program in the 1960’s. And the patent for Teflon, before you bring it up, dates to the 1940’s.

      The entire spin-off campaign is mostly a PR campaign by NASA as one way to justify its existence, but most advances claimed are questionable. And there have been no studies done to show it has had any impact on NASA’s budget.

  10. PsiSquared says:
    0
    0

    Exactly how long would the public pay attention? I’ll tell you: not long enough to generate any commitment to be willing to foot the cost of better funding science and exploration programs.

  11. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    But it was won in the courts, not Congress. And there was no money involved. Two key differences.

  12. Citizen Ken says:
    0
    0

    I don’t worry about public support for NASA. What I do worry about is public support for space exploration and development.

    Call me biased, since I just had a hugely successful Moon Day here in Dallas, but while that public support may be only an inch, inch-and-a-half deep, man that inch is pretty solid.

    We had standing room only in the auditorium for our ISS Uplink. Anousheh Ansari had a full house. We ran out of Moon Day STEM patches because so many Scouts were working the space activities. The Lunar Sample Bags (6-7 pounds of space informational materials, so somewhere close to ¾s of a ton of stuff distributed) were gone in 30 minutes, even though we’d prepared 240, way more than usual. That usually takes 1-1½ hours. The main exhibit floor was packed all day long. I even had a dozen folks in my Lunar University – Cislunar Space lecture at 4pm and they stayed awake the whole time.

    Perhaps most interestingly, no one really seemed to notice the effectively complete absence of NASA at our huge space event. There were NASA materials for the Lunar Sample Bags, but no NASA exhibits (other than the museum’s historical artifacts, which are technically the Smithsonian’s) or speakers at the largest annual space exposition in Texas. My budget for the event is effectively, scratch that – actually $0, which means I can’t afford to be renting NASAnauts. Anousheh was our first space traveller (apparently only NASA is supposed to use the term astronaut) in seven years of doing this event (and was so happy she wants to come back next year – awesome!). I tried contacting the ISS Program office, but to no effect. Our Uplink was actually approved by Moscow Mission Control, and we spoke with station commander Gennady. You can see part of it at this CW33 report on the event:

    http://cw33.com/2015/07/18/

    I ran into one of the young girls who talked to the station afterwards, clutching her copy of Space Station Sim that we gave them as special prizes, and she was just giddy from the experience.

    The reason I worry about public support for space exploration and especially development is because there are huge levels of general ignorance about what we’ve learned from our space activities and why they’re relevant. Ignorance is okay, it can be fixed with learning; stupidity is the problem, ’cause that just can’t be fixed, at best just contained.

    When people learn about what’s really going on in cislunar space, it blows their minds. They know a lot of the pieces but have just never really put them together in any coherent fashion. They’ve never seen what I tell them about our Moon. The ignorance out there is profound, and space cadets need to start telling everyone else about why their space activities are important, instead of just each other. This is future American industry we’re talking about in a hyper-competitive global economy. We can make this happen better than anyone else. It’s a glimmer of hope in the morass of economic suckitude we’re in, and the space folks need to starting spreading the word. I can tell you, the kids are ready to lap it up.

    I know for a fact that there are kids tonight who are going to fall asleep in the pile of all the goodies I rounded up for the Lunar Sample Bags. I know there are kids on the internet right now checking out a web address from one of the handouts, maybe NSBRI, or FAA Commercial Space. Girl Scouts (or rather, their parents) are busily sewing the Moon Day STEM patch onto their vests and sashes.

    Space doesn’t need NASA for it to be a good idea. Once you understand that, you can move on to what needs to be done, which is education. That’s not that hard, and there are lots of folks who want to help out. There are also lots of folks who want to learn more. The problem is that few are willing to step up to the plate and make it happen. Space advocates could be the vanguard in that regard. Could be.

  13. PsiSquared says:
    0
    0

    That sounds great, but such things will inevitably die in the face of entrenched partisanship and self-interest.

  14. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    There have been some attempts by Hollywood notables, like Tom Hanks and Ron Howard to ‘assist’ NASA in its outreach efforts. One of them was so ticked off after his last attempt, shortly after FTETTM, that he swore off NASA. If there were going to be an effort it needs to be grass roots and not dependent upon NASA in any fashion. Some of the space advocacy groups and space contractors could certainly mobilize, if they so chose. While there are some NASA programs from which there is clear achievement at small expense, like New Horizons, there are other programs that the achievements have been questioned often by NASA’s own leaders, like Shuttle or Station, and for which the expense has been pretty outrageous. In some cases NASA is its own worst enemy. It makes justifying increasing the funding far more difficult.

  15. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    You start with institutions. For example the International Lunar Development Corporation that Buzz Aldrin, Stan Rosen and I proposed in 2010.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/mee

    Unlike NASA, iIt is dedicated to a single goal, building lunar infrastructure, and focuses on facilitating public/private and international partnerships, combine with public and private funding to do so. It is based on the very successful Intelsat model that built the communication industry, but adapted for the needs of the Moon.

    If Mars advocates want, perhaps they should push for a similar idea for Mars.

  16. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Like other federal R&D agencies, NASA should be producing practical benefits for America. not expensive and pointless entertainment. Human spaceflight should be inexpensive, safe, routine, and economically productive.

    If you want excitement, go to a movie.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      We are a LONG way from spaceflight sans excitement.

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        I wonder what you or others would find exciting?

        Apollo 11 was exciting. By Apollo 12 most of the public thought we’d done it and there was nothing new. Apollo 15 they had the LRV but no one saw anything while they were driving so there was little to see. By Apollo 17 almost no one was even bothering to watch any longer. I remember my college astro prof debating, in class, whether or not to bring in a TV to watch the A17 moon landing. He thought it might be the last opportunity any of us would ever have to see a moon landing so we watched it in class.

        How about a 9 month trip to Mars? Why does anyone think that would be exciting? After the first few days the earth is not much bigger than a bright star. Mars probably not even visible until you approach it in the last few weeks.