NASA Is Becoming Boring

1. Just my opinion, but our country has a deficit of a trillion dollars and a debt several times that. NASA should be performing useful research and development that provides practical benefits for Americans and American industry. If you want excitement, go to a movie.

   1. Once upon a time NASA managed to do both things simultaneously.

      1. Keith, you mention that “NASA still can’t figure out the name of the asteroid they (or might not) might visit in 10 or 15 years” and that “the agency complains when people don’t pay attention to what they do”.

         The fact that it appears that NASA can’t figure this asteroid thing out is because they can’t figure it out.  Aside from any other discussion regarding availability of LVs, Support Systems, etc, the fundamental information necessary about the blank to fill in that blank doesn’t exist, that is, the fundamental information about the potential manned targets. It is interesting that you mention the numbers 10 to 15 since this is about the number of independent targets that should more than likely be “interviewed” via in-situ un-manned missions prior to any continued thought as to naming a manned target.  

         There is more than enough excitement out there, just in doing the basics, ie, gathering this fundamental info, should we choose to follow the “interview” process.   As it stands now, we have “one” new mission in the books, OsirisREX. One versus 10 to 15.  Doesn’t quite add-up, and, this is assuming the OR is providing data that is good match for the manned mission needs, and throw in the fact that we don’t get the samples back for “quite some time”.  OR is interesting on its own, but it is not “the process”.

         So, Let’s Summarize:
         Manned mission in 10-15 years.
         Many “in the know” say we need somewhere independent information from 10 to 15 targets to do the manned thing right.
         One mission in the books, not necessarily dedicated to MM.

         Conclusion; It is quite reasonable that NASA has not figured this out “yet”.

   2. I completely disagree. Our deficit is a result of terrible, egocentric decisions which have wasted the last decade of our lives. Most of the people in this country seem to have a problem with the remembering and learning of history, which goes twice for our political leaders, and therefore seem to want to continuously repeat old mistakes. Maybe that is just human nature, but I for one, hold out hope that humans are a little smarter than that. Guess I should not hold my breath. The space program constantly has to fight for every cent of its meager pittance of the US budget when the military out spends it by several orders of magnitude? What has the military done in the past 50 years to inspire and motivate children to study math, science and engineering? Nothing! What other program or individual in our government has actually done anything to inspire and motivate children to study math, science and engineering? A quick examination of college field enrollments over the last 100 years shows only one clear event to ever motivate students and youth (and foster worldwide prestige) – can you guess what it was? If the space program had half the military budget, this world would be a very different world, and most likely for the better. The simple fact is that our education system is faltering, our youth are being out classed and out motivated by more and more countries around the world, and if we don’t pay attention to this, we will pay the price in the next century. Think ahead folks, and remember your history.

      1. Hey, I was there, and NASA spaceflight had nothing to do with it. Because of Sputnik the US government realized we were falling behind and decided to put tax dollars directly into STEM education, making it possible for many young people to get college education in engineering and science. Today tuition is skyrocketing and fewer Americans can afford to send their kids to college; that’s the main problem, not lack of interest. The most effective NASA educational programs are the college-level engineering internships and research collaborations; NASA people working directly with students interested in specific areas of science and engineering. American kids don’t need inspiration, they need opportunity.

         Apollo served an entirely different purpose; it enticed the Soviets to pour their resources into the moon race rather than the arms race, and allowed us to prove our system was superior without the inconvenience of a nuclear war.

   3. Would a practical benefit for Americans and American industry be like “saving the planet” the pains of an impacting “something”??

      1. Follow-up; Speaking of excitement, I was just reading an article over at that other http://www.space…com site.

         The ad over the article is about the very exciting new Nat’l Geo Channel show called “WICKED TUNA”.

         If we can’t make the space biz at least as interesting as this stuff, “we have a problem”! 

         1. Who doesn’t enjoy watching people fish? But this is not, so far as I know, a government program. Although National Geographic gets some federal grants it appears “Wicked Tuna” was not tax supported.

      2. I certainly agree that saving the world is a practical goal, but “Armageddon” notwithstanding, it isn’t clear that human spaceflight is relevant to asteroid impact protection because a diversion mission would certainly be robotic; the greatest need remains better tracking data on the full population of NEOs and more accurate methods for predicting orbital paths. For global warming human spaceflight may well be useful if the ISS can finally be equipped with an adequate earth-monitoring sensor suite. The biggest problem is that many of our national leaders (including some presidential candidates) do not believe it exists.

2. Assuming NASA was satisfying an industry request for assistance and did not spend a significant amount on the technical advice it provided, why not help out with Avatar? I don’t think NASA should be entertaining people with missions that don’t have practical benefits, but supporting the film industry which creates US jobs and exports is a legitimate NASA mission.

   1. Several years ago over 100 Congressmen were asked “What do you think NASA exists for and what should NASA be doing for the American people?”  The consistent response was “What we in Congress and what U.S. citizens think NASA should be doing varies widely.” 

      When pressed further, their responses ranged from pragmatic activities to outreach to education to pure research to simple excitement and entertainment.  Collectively there was no unified agreement of purpose; consequently singular purpose was lost in some galactic expanse of interest diversity.

      For 300 million Americans obvious tangible pragmatic outcomes from NASA are rarely experienced directly.  And unfortunately when an individual does not experience a benefit they tend to not appreciate it, they take it for granted, discount it or just ignore it.  

      For many humans the excitement and entertainment of a Shuttle launch, EVA, Moon landing or risky re-entry are the hollywood-like draws that make NASA interesting and relevant for them, not a better wrench, a strip of Velcro or a glass of Tang.  

      It is as though Hollywood handles most of the Earth-based entertainment and NASA gets to handle the space-based entertainment.

      If 90% of Americans look to NASA for entertainment and only 10% for pragmatic benefits, what parameters should Congress use to determine funding?  Should the annual $18 billion be viewed as an entertainment expense for the masses?  Or should Congress direct the $18 billion to practical benefits that only a few understand or care about? 

      Clearly, the double win here is to pursue a space program that provides both the practical and entertainment outcomes, but what is that program?  Going to Mars?  Putting a telescope on the back side of the Moon?  Hanging around L2?  Standing on an asteroid?  Let’s hope our politicians choose wisely. 

      1. It is up to responsible Americans to identify and promote policies which will be of long term benefit. I would attempt to persuade other Americans that entertainment can be provided quite effectively by the film industry and that NASA should help them only with technical information and capabilities. In the long run technical and commercial support for US manufacturing, transportation, environmental protection, energy and health care will be a better investment. Of course space tourism provides entertainment, but rather than providing vicarious thrills NASA should be helping the space tourism industry create real trips into space that it can sell to paying customers.

3. NASA had astronauts walking on the moon and people called the networks to complain they were missing “General Hospital”. If walking on the moon (again) is considered boring by the American populace, why would going to the bottom of the Mariannas Trench (again) or skydiving from extreme altitude (again) be the answer to NASA’s problems? 

   1. Because its not the “General Hospital” demographic that really matters, its the kids that matter – and generally, they cant get enough of space and adventure.

      1.  Then why did Space Camp go out of business?

         1. I dont think it did:
            http://www.spacecamp.com/ca…

4. But “Transformers” is appropriate?

   1. How about Capricorn One?

   2. Transformers/humans were/are the good guys. In avatar the humans were the bad guys.

5. Why not? 

   Besides that it thematically exalts compassionate scientific inquiry, there’s better real science on display than most of the sci-fi genre.  It aimed to transport audiences across the gulf of space to a habitable moon around Alpha Centauri B, in an interstellar vehicle designed with thought and genuine care for engineering legitimacy.  He made regular people want to go to another world —-  and even illustrated the lamentable priority of military budgets over science and exploration.  

   If NASA should have been associated with any motion picture released this century, I can’t think of a better choice. 

6. I wonder if there’s an element of anticipatory cringe?

   Even if NASA helps for purely pragmatic reasons, because it can provide low-cost cross-training and professional networking for it’s staff, or because it’s good for staff morale at minimum cost, it still expects to see the sort of knee-jerk criticism shown in this thread. So they hesitate to even try. If you kick a dog every time you call it, why would it wag its tail when it hears its name?

   ” ‘Why is NASA spending tax-payer dollars on frivolous things?’ demanded Senator Halfbrain in a speech prepared by his $2m/yr taxpayer funded office, at a $6m/yr hearing convened so select Senators could shout at people and get on TV, before flying his staff across the country (and back) at tax-payers expense to attend a tax deductible $1500/plate fund-raising lunch.”

7. It’s OK for NASA to be associated with saving the world (i.e. Transformers, the onslaught of meteor and comet movies).

   It’s not OK for NASA to be associated with watching the world go to hell in a handbasket and facilitating genocide on another world. C’mon, Darth Vader kinda set the bar for that sort of thing.

   The U.S. Military has the same general rules for its participation in Hollywood projects.: If it makes us look good, and help recruiting, OK. If not, Thankyouverymuchhaveaniceday.

   1. I had no idea NASA refused to participate in Avatar, at least as an adviser. I think the spaceships were believable, the blue people were cool, and NASA shouldn’t be so stuffy.

8. This is not a news item, it’s a diatribe…. is this site a news source, or a personal blog for Keith Cowing to complain on?

   1. Gosh, after 16 years someone finally complains about my bias.

      1. Actually, Keith, I think your track record is one of professional restraint considering some of the nonsense that gets posted and the number of personal attacks that a handful of posters choose to hit you with.  You must spend a lot of time biting your tongue.  It’s a good thing you’re on line; with your lack of prejudice and limited level of bias you’d never last in the newspaper business.  Keep up the good (and tolerant) work.

         Steve

   2. Ukridge,

      Actually, I don’t think it’s either one.  It’s a personal blog (Keith’s) that’s grown into a well-managed discussion group.  If you don’t like it, you’re perfectly free to start your own site.

      In the NASA Watch header it says, “Get Involved.”  This site gives lots of people a way to Get Informed so that they can then more easily Get Involved.

      Steve

      1. This site gives lots of people a way to Get Informed so that they can then more easily Get Involved. I sure agree with that. I have learned tons here.

         I deleted part of this comment

         Question how flyable is a dragon after going for a Short Salt water swim?

9. Cameron should team up with Space-X to build a lander for a July 2019 film shoot on the moon. I think they should go to the Apollo 16 landing site, John Young could have a cameo.

10. Interesting that this comes up not long after the von Braun discussion. Von Braun was notably successful in selling spaceflight to the public. His name was well-known beginning in the 1950s, and if you take  look at the ‘popularity’ of NASA-associated figures today, you’ll  find he is still one of the most searched for in the internet 
    <http: top-topics.thefullwiki.org=”” nasa_personnel=””>
    which can be viewed as a sort of who’s who of NASA-who in NASA is a hot topic, von Braun is still number one; he is seen by the general public as
    the rocket scientist.

    Why? Well, not only did von Braun invest a lifetime in designing and building rockets, starting as a teenager right up through Shuttle, but he also spent his entire life talking about rocketry and spaceflight. He wrote widely on the subject, worked with producers like Disney, was featured in publications….someone on one of these blogs said in connection with the ‘lessons learned’ IG report that in most industries, lessons learned are passed on by peer reviewed writings. In large measure this is correct-not only peer reviewed but publicized writings in general. Von Braun was writing for Colliers, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, a half dozen books, regularly being interviewed, routinely giving talks at a wide variety of venues. Von Braun was well versed in the science, the technology, the history, and he had lived much of it.

    Some others have risen to nearly von Braun like dimensions; Carl Sagan in the 1970s-80s was well known, not so much about spaceflight but more about astronomy and certain aspects of space exploration. Neil DeGrasse Tyson today has similar properties. Cameron is similar; he is seen as ‘an explorer’. How much real exploration he’s done is
    questionable, but he has a lot of money, a lot of notoriety, and he has
    led his industry of motion pictures.

    The fact is that people are what people relate to. People do not relate as well to hardware or even to missions. Yes, space fanatics can tell you all about the design and functioning of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle, ISS (actually a relatively small subject area in total given the length of time. Fewer can tell you the history of the programs and the people and reasons behind them.

    Look at a similar subject like airplanes. There are some fanatics who can give you the specs for all the WWI or WWII or Jet fighters or bombers, but how much does the general public care? Mainly the public likes a good airshow with airplanes. However until recently, since history no longer seems to be studies by anyone since the rise of the internet, who has not heard of the Wright Brothers, or Lindbergh, Earhart, Neil Armstrong, Yuri Gagarin, Eddie Rickenbacker, Juan Trippe, Jimmy Doolittle, Billy Mitchell…..all are to some extent heroic and tragic figures that people can relate to. Keep in mind that over a hundred years of the history of aviation, the number of well known aviators and industry leaders are just a handful.  

    NASA needs some ‘sword carriers’ who have done the real work, and who can speak, and write and communicate, and who are noted for their work and who have been a part of history. At one time astronauts were somewhat interesting but not when they become one of the 360 who flew Shuttle or the 530 who have flown in space. How many had truly distinguishable careers? Maybe the few still living who flew solo into orbit or 7 who walked on the moon. To what extent were they responsible for the success of their missions versus the hundreds of thousands of people who backed them up? Likewise for a lot of other positions. The space ops folks think that if you make it to the top, as a flight director, you must be seen as one of these leading figures. Flight directors have generally followed a career development template, usually not much different than the hundreds who have preceded them or than the two or three dozen who occupy the position today.   

    NASA seems to try and make everyone in its ranks just a part of that great team. No special abilities. No special accomplishments. (Maybe not really so great any more since they cannot seem to design or build a spacecraft any more.) I doubt you could find even a couple of the top leaders -people with somewhat unique accomplishments in manned space flight today, that also have a track record of design, development, engineering, communicating, writing, speaking, or even being able to reasonably intelligently answer questions.

    Same goes for dozens of other NASA people in notable positions today. You not only have people in charge of spacecraft design and development who have never designed or developed anything. You have people in charge of public affairs or media who have never written anything. People in charge of education who have never taught anything…

    Not a lot of people with notable accomplishments for the people of the public to relate to in my estimation.

    1. How many famous celebrities are there in DOE? NIST? DOT? NSF? NIH? DHS? DOL? There are a few in DOD, but that’s about it. What America needs is a Department of Science and Technology, not limited to space. Why should we compete with the Department of Education?

11. The point is NASA needs to be doing exciting, big things and have its name attached to exciting big things. Going to Challenger Deep is such a thing. Avatar, a breakthrough movie, was such a thing. Going to Asteroids and such, is such a thing. 

    I’ve long felt that NASA was criminally terrible at promoting itself, and when it does it’s very contrived or very amateurish. Maybe laws need to change and money needs to be moved around and maybe unimaginative people need to be fired. I mean here we are in 2012… with a space station nobody knows about, whose science nobody cares about, built by astronauts whose names and faces are unrecognizable and unknown to the public at large. 

    I mean what’s the biggest P.R. thing NASA did for the ISS lately? Bulding a Lego ISS inside the ISS. How witty. Was that dreamed up by a 4th grader or something? 

    Here’s two ideas. First, make the next generation Astronaut corps for the late 2010s and 2020s smaller, younger and fly them a lot more. Make these people huge. Make them celebrities. Make them so that they’ll sell action figures of them for cripes sake. The astronaut corps needs to be both the hands and the face of US Space exploration and the people in it should be focus grouped, constructed public heroes. Control what people see and make it crowd pleasing. Cynical? Oh you bet. But it works damn well. That’s how mildly talented teenagers singing on Youtube go on to be Platinum-selling musicians or how the CEO of a company like Twitter gets to go on CNN far more often than any NASA official. If you want Space Exploration to be popular, it needs to be two parts “show” for every one part “science”. 

    I’m going to be blunt Talking about Mars rocks and what you find in them is boring (and I’m the kind of person very interested in that sort of thing). There’s like a couple thousand people in the world who actually seriously care. There are only a few hundred people in the world qualified enough to interpret the data appropriately.  NASA should never have a major press conference about this, because frankly, nobody cares. 

    When James Cameron goes to the bottom of Challenger Deep with all his cameras, just like he wrote in his Washington Post Editorial when Avatar came out, it is about taking people there. Has anyone discussed a permanently streaming (time delayed by transmission) camera on the mast of the next Mars rover? Or even the MSL?  No, because NASA doesn’t think like that. It’s purely science, and no amount of “blueberries” on rocks will ever come close to generating the amount of support square-jawed superhero Astronauts and live Mars streams will.

    And one more thing. To those commenters talking about NASA as an inspiration to kids… with respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m 28 years old. I’m a Computer Scientist. And I went to a very good school for that and have loved science my entire life (taking after my scientist father). On my wall growing up, I had pictures of the SR-71, the B-2 Spirit, the Space shuttle and images of Mars from MGS and Hubble. But NASA never inspired me or any of my scientist peers in the way you’re describing. It just provided nice wall decor, as brutal as that is to say. I went into science because of video games. Because I played gory, violent video games, Doom 2 and Quake 1 actually, that NASA would never have anything to do with, and I decided I wanted to make my own. That got me into programming, which got me into computational theory. And that all dovetailed with the rise of the internet. And that is where I am today, 15 years later. 

    So if you’re gonna say say NASA and all its funding should be targeted towards inspiring kids… no. Just no. It’s a joke. It didn’t work with the space shuttle, and it won’t work with the SLS. They never remember it in their overstimulated young lives. No amount of space imagery will ever compete with a child and his iPad. And if programming languages go into a visual “block building” route, as they are expected to over the next 10 years, and programming becomes something even an 8 year old can do, NASA will lose again when they are out competed by a child, his iPad and the apps he or she makes. 

    In my view, if NASA wants to target people, it needs to be teenagers in high school and people in their early 20s. It needs to make the case when they start formulating their scientific future that this type of science and engineering is where they should go, and when they are out of college, that a NASA career is a worthwhile one and Space Exploration as a serious career path as working for Google or Lockheed Martin or something.

    It’s a great irony that NASA tries to appeal to the very young, but its Astronaut corps, its leaders are old, rely on old ideas, old technology, old ways of selling themselves. It’s like they’re trying to be as “unsexy” as possible. In about 2 weeks James Cameron unveiled a vehicle nobody new about and made it a big deal, and when he releases the images and videos with the HD cameras he brought along, just watch… it’s going to get more coverage than any Space related event since the MERs landed. And it’s all because he knows how to sell an adventure. The NASA of pure but boring scientific inquiry and anonymous Astronauts as old as my parents and non-existent self promotion simply does not.

    1. You are not alone.  In a survey last year, 61% of science and engineering majors said they were inspired to those fields by video games.

       1. Not sure why two drafts showed up, but 61% is the actual number.

    2. You are not alone.  A recent survey found that nearly 61% of science and engineering majors credit video games as their inspiration to getting into their fields.

       1. We need humanoid robots on the moon mars space that teens can telepresence in. Any earthlings using that ISS bot yet on there Iphones or with 3d glasses. Plug me in and let me drive that bot to the viewing window!

          One thing I loved about the mars rovers is I got to feel like I was on mars almost. Make that more real. Stop being greedy NASA let us all go. If not for real let us touch it, see it, feel it, as much as possible. That’s why we all loved the Avatar movie!
          Same reason Elon gets interest is he is up against the odds David and golieth just like the first trips to poles I remember in my youth. lol

          1.  Agree, but why bother with anthropomorphic robots? Humans are a very inefficient shape for robots.  The Mars Rovers were efficiently designed and adorable.

       2. Modern video games utilize hardware and software that is among the most advanced in the world, much more powerful than any used in actual spaceflight, although NASA does have some supercomputers for simulation tasks.

    3. “Has anyone discussed a permanently streaming (time delayed by transmission) camera on the mast of the next Mars rover? Or even the MSL?  No, because NASA doesn’t think like that. It’s purely science…”

       There are legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at NASA, but this ain’t one of them.  I’m going to call foul on this.  Streaming video isn’t limited by the camera equipment.  If you have a digital camera, you can theoretically make video by tying a bunch of successive images together…oh wait, it ain’t theoretical, the MER team has already done it with Pancam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

       Nope, the problem has nothing to do with NASA “not thinking like that”, and everything to do with the fact that the infrastructure to do such a thing just doesn’t exist right now.  In short, the rovers are more power limited that the orbiters, so direct-to-Earth rates are terrible and rovers are dependent on orbiter relay.  Relay helps, but it’s still limited by orbiter memory limitations and short view periods resulting from orbital mechanics.  NASA’s piping back what they can with the resources they have availiable, and nothing short of a dedicated Mars-synchronous comsat would solve that…otherwise, the available throughput just isn’t high enough to support it.  Considering the deep cuts to the Mars program, how would you suggest NASA fund that?

       Besides, I’m not even convinced that your argument that “It’s purely science” holds water.  Take GRAIL’s MoonKAM, or the Goldstone Apple Valley Radio Telescope, for instance…those programs are pure PR and outreach.  Believe me, if NASA could get streaming video from Mars, the science and PR team would be all over it.

       Let’s keep it clean here, folks…

12. NASAWATCH is becoming boring  … but who’s complaining

13. The issue was that an exciting, daring act of manned exploration (connected to NASA), occurred yesterday yet there’s no one there to champion the effort.

    The bonus is that what he finds at the bottom in subsequent expeditions will eventually end up on 3D IMAX screens –  so we’ll get the movie, too.

    The man has proven he can manage massive budgets & breakneck schedules, develop revolutionary technology, move/inspire generations of people around the globe, take bold yet calculated risks, promote his goals, court the press, and succeed wildly.

    What are the qualifications for NASA Administrator again?

14. You are right that the human beings in charge are portrayed this way, but you forget that most of the main human characters are scientists working to peacefully study a new world and communicate with it’s inhabitants.   

    Unfortunately, they are only able to do this research and outreach when an economic and military situation deems it valuable.  Familiar?

    It is not NASA or representatives of any spacefaring nation who are pillaging Pandora.  It is a corporation with a mercenary army, acting for profit in the absence of public oversight.

    By that absence, Avatar clearly implies how important it is to have an accountable government space agency to represent the best of our species, and not the worst. 

    Cameron puts the audience on the side of the under-funded, derided scientists (along with the indigenous), against the greed/aggression and lack of vision that characterize the bureaucrats and hawks.

15. I’m not sure just how many people still consider the NASA charter, and the legislation surrounding it, to be relevant (much of Congress doesn’t seem to, which kind of sets a precedent), but I don’t see anything in the relevant text that requires NASA to entertain the people. Neither is there a clear requirement to inspire anybody, young or old, for the purpose of winning them over to NASA (the inspiration connection relates to STEM and students). As for connecting with the general population and selling them on the relevance of NASA’s activities, NASA is actually pretty much, by law, prohibited from doing this, the way I read it.

    All of the activities like those I’ve listed above NASA pursues (or attempts to) for the same reason that so many advocates insist that they should be pursued — the mistaken belief that this will somehow get NASA more money from Congress. I’ve seen no evidence that the attempt has met with any success at all; in fact, NASA spends money on some of these activities where no money was allocated for them, so it’s a net loss.

    On the other side of the coin, however, is the matter of social responsibility. NASA has data and understanding that allows them to assess many issues that need to be brought to the attention of average citizens. There are important issues (example: Earth’s degrading environment and resources) for which “educating the people” is the only way we’re going to stop ruining life for our descendants. The government leaders are not contributing a whole lot to this sort of education. The fact that NASA is doing so is a big feather in their cap as far as I’m concerned. If NASA uses (or supports) related entertainment to that end, that’s fine by me. But the entertainment aspect should not be an end in itself.

    NASA is not, and should not be, in the entertainment business. They have more important responsibilities and goals. Besides, if you compare NASA’s budget to what the entertainment industries spend in a year, the ratio is so small that it’s a meaningless number.

    To many of us, the stuff that NASA does is already entertaining, or at least interesting. As for the rest (majority) of the population, there is, unfortunately, no way to convert them, on masse, to NASA and/or space fans. It’s just not going to happen, period, so I wish people would stop pretending otherwise and concentrate their thoughts and efforts on what can be done. I’m not being pessimistic, just realistic. At best, we might catch people’s interest for a few minutes with an eleven o’clock news story about a unique event; at best. 24 hours later nobody but us fans will remember the details (if they even remember the story).

    If entertaining can selectively be an effective means to a required end, then fine, go for it. But NASA should not be thinking of entertainment itself as a goal. I think it‘s long past time that NASA completely (and intelligently) reexamined its entire public outreach plan and strategies. Likewise, Congress needs to review the marketing-type do’s and don’ts regulating government agencies and bring them up to date to match the needs of the times.

    If people want entertainment, they don’t go to http://www.nasa.gov; they do like dogstar3 said and go to a movie. Actually, even that is too much of an effort for most people; they just turn on the TV and put their feet up. In Canada, where I live, the Armed Forces run commercials on TV. They are basically for recruitment purposes, but they are serious and well done, and people seem to take them seriously. I have to wonder how much good occasional, well-done TV commercials could do for NASA. Nothing too heavy or off the wall, but cool, interesting 30- or 60-second eye openers. It would be a way to inform and educate the masses in the manner that they seem to prefer — spoon feeding.

    Steve

    1. Very well put.

       NASA does have some interesting, low-key public information videos, many of them on aeronautics, but they do not appear on TV often. Who would pay for the airtime?

       I’m all for informing the public. I just do not think we can justify flying people in space just so we can tell people about it to “inspire” them. That’s like saying the DOD should build a new fighter just so they can fly it at airshows. The military demonstration squadrons are funded for recruitment purposes and are fully operational units ready to go into combat if they are needed.

       If we want more kids in STEM, let’s reduce tuition at state schools to the level (in constant dollars) that it was during the 60’s.

    2. i thought the Spacex 60 minutes piece was a nice ad for NASA! Shows they are trying to get us going in the right direction.

16. Many say NASA should go back to their NACA roots and do research, but much of that is boring and that is a tough sell to congress and general public who pretty much conditioned to respond only to flash and dazzle. Most if not all NASA people and those with NASA contractors are considered boring people (including most astronauts) as compared to expressive types portrayed on American Idol. No way you people can compete with a glamour star for attention. But then no way those glamour stars can design a control system or fabricate designs with lightweight materials.

    It is interesting work by James Cameron but then he has more money for such endeavours than any government agency (guvmint has the money, not the priority). There was a time those that flew the fastest airplanes were private individuals, i.e. Howard Hughes.

    Generally it is probably a cultural thing, US does not appreciate math and science unlike China. From my experience when people ask me what is NASA doing, why can’t we have a money colony, why can’t we travel to the stars. I find myself in a predicament of having less than 30 seconds to explain NASA is more than just flying astronauts to space station, limits of physics, etc. Neil deGrasse Tyson can do a better job, but then I don’t have his talents.

    1. oops, I mean MOON colony. but then having a “money colony” would be cool though.

       1. Complete with money trees?

Comments are closed.