Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

Austin Stanley · 2004-09-15 11:30:04

As the current political situation stands, the American space program is in a deadlock. President Bush's new space inative is a good start, but it seems to be a long term inative and not destined to bring in new results anytime soon.

I don't think we can really expect John Kerry to shake things up either. He will probably just leave us with KSC opperating as is and the US space-program quietly fadding into the dust.

So things for the next 4 years look pretty bleak. No matter who wins the next election, not much is likely to change for the better. But maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel. What politicans should we be looking out for in 2008 to realy breath some life back into NASA. Howard Dean has been noted as a strong space supporter, but are there any guys on the Republican side of the isle?

DannyITR · 2004-09-15 11:51:10

I think if people really spoke up then whoever the next president is might be swayed into something.

In 2008 you'll probbaly see McCain or Guilianni running for pres on the Republican side. Don't really know what their views are.

The space loby doesn't seem to be very powerful in my opinion ( at least compared to the NRS and ACLU etc). It's a shame because society benefitted so much from the space race and we seem to have forgotten it.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-15 12:59:56

I'm not too familiar with who on the Republican side. But, I do have some familiarity with who on the Democratic side though. There is a group of people around Lyndon Larouche that is pro-science, pro-technology and definitely pro-space advocates. Larouche himself has stated several times that the United States should build a city on Mars as a National mission or Goal and do it in a forty year time frame from start to finish. He even had a documentary as to what that should look and how it should be accomplished. There still working inside the Democratic party and even trying to shape the Kerry campaign and what his Presidency is going to look like. Larouche is basically FDR type build infrastructure and develop technologies like levitated trains, fusion power plants, plasma steel furnace, new two piece space shuttle, etc. Even if Kerry doesn't pick up everything of Larouche's or even target space as such, there will still be a move in the direction with the new technology and infrastructures that will be available to us to do things independently of the government or with the government help. For example: we would be able to take a plasma steel furnace right off the shelf and if we had a power supply for it when we got it into space. We would be able to use it to process metal with very little modification from being on Earth. We would have to make minor modification for lack of gravity, but other than that it should work just fine. We can't do that with present technology and so that would bump us forward in space whether or not Kerry made any commitment at all to space.

But, I admit it doesn’t look good this year without wildcard like Larouche coming through for us.

Larry,

dicktice · 2004-09-15 13:07:33

Why--really--must we be so dependent on our politicians for initiating spacetravel? It doesn't make logical sense to throw money at space projects committed years ago, without popularizing new ideas simultaineously, now that amateur computer simulations cost nothing intrinsically. Retired professionals must be drooling for oportunities to work creatively with each other on the Internet. What is needed are more idealists--like Sagon, et al--to inspire collective action. Why do the ones, capable of stimulating us dabblers, have to die-off so young, whilst the political dead-heads and human-abusing monsters seem to live on and on. . . ? (I expect it's the result of their ill-gotten goods, but that may be too obvious a conclusion.) How about some realistic, not-too-far-future movies about spacetravel pioneering by private enterprisers, and consequences: Lots of good recent story plots to choose from, that don't rely on phoney science, anti-gravity or fantasy. Show the excitement of "just getting on with it come hell or high water," in a single generation. Entertainment, in other words, could turn out to be the key to stimulating serious private space enterprise ambitions that (I suggest) we long for, and need at this time--if we are to make it happen at all.

Austin Stanley · 2004-09-15 14:10:02

I hate to get sidetracked on a thread I started, but I disagree dicktice. Space travel is so expensive that realisticly it is only the national goverments have the funding necessary to truely achive anything. I am a huge space advocate, and am more than willing to give of my time and money to the community, but less face it. I don't have 10 billion dollars to give, much less 10 billion a year. And 10 billion a year is what a space program realy needs to get the ball rolling.

You and I don't that have that kind of money. Most coporations don't either, and those that do, cannot spend that kind of cash without plans for an reliable plan for an even greater return on investment. Those kinds of guarentees do not existe for a space program, and neither does the potential for a 10 billion dollar a year return.

But community organisation is good. Goverments are motivated by the people, so if we get motivated, something should get done. And your suggestion is a good idea about how to do that. A amature space movie progect is certianly do able, and might very well get people excited about space again.

But some politicans are already excited about space now, and some never will be. What we need to do is identify who is which, and support the right ones. I'm a pretty die-hard Democrat, but I would vote for a Republican in heartbeat if I knew he was going to restore our space program.

DannyITR · 2004-09-15 14:17:41

I'm a pretty die-hard Democrat, but I would vote for a Republican in heartbeat if I knew he was going to restore our space program.

My thoughts exactly. I'm the last person on earth that would like to see Bush re-elected but if I thought there was a workable plan to get to the moon or Mars or anything I would support him in a heartbeat.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-15 14:24:20

Here is a thought, every one has heard of the peace corp, job corp and a few others why not create a space volunteer corp. Where all of us budding space enthusiast can get in volved. I know Mars society is sort of that and you all may know of others.

I was sort of supprised by the recent published work force numbers for Florida that all had to stay home in the recent hurricane. I think it was 14,000, why have all the developement in just that one state? Lets spread it around for all to get a crack at it.

comstar03 · 2004-09-15 22:33:59

The only way to ensure that space exploration and colonization becomes a national priority you need to create it in the mind of the public. Then if that doesn't work, provide a paper of the effects of other countries develop their own space colonies before the america , not co-operating with america. ( If you can reason - then scare them, to see the possibilities the other countries may obtain over America )

C M Edwards · 2004-09-16 08:41:06

You're right, comstar. It would be a mistake to restrict this discussion to US politicians.

Does anybody know who the most gung-ho pro-space legislators are in India's Parliament? How about the Japanese Diet?

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-16 12:37:32

...Lyndon Larouche is also a raving lunatic...

The reason why space travel on the orbital scale or beyond must involve government money, and thus politics, ultimately comes down to one thing: Technology.

Right now, with our current level of aerospace technology, it is not possible to build an orbital spacecraft easily, because they must be built very large because of the limited energy density of chemical fuels, light weight construction to maximize payload mass, and to survive the challenging dynamics & environment that spacecraft must operate in.

It is simply not yet possible for this to be done on a useful scale given what fuels, materials, and skills we have available today without a very large monetary investment. It doesn't take a professional economist to figure out that spaceflight has a limited ability to pay returns on such large investments beyond a few satellites, only governments have both the money and freedom from the need for profit to make it fly.

But governments must see some sort of return even if it is not monetary, some kind of social or national level bennefit to justify the expense, and this is hard to do when it is so tempting to take those billions of dollars and spend them on one of the many "instant gratification" of social services.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-16 14:28:32

The only way to ensure that space exploration and colonization becomes a national priority you need to create it in the mind of the public. Then if that doesn't work, provide a paper of the effects of other countries develop their own space colonies before the america , not co-operating with america. ( If you can reason - then scare them, to see the possibilities the other countries may obtain over America )

Actually if we had another John F. Kennedy as President that would do it for us. The first few month to maybe a year or so, people after the Presidents commitment that we are going to the moon were kind of crossed eye at his declaration like they didn't know what to think of it. Even I kind of frowned at it, like what fool doing. It took me a few month to figure out we were actually going to the moon and I got excited about. When they the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon in 1969, said this is fun, let do some more of this. That how you rope people into your cause, but we need a leader that see the need to go into space like John F. Kennedy to push it forward.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-16 14:44:23

Ehhh Apollo had a couple of things going for it though...

-A dead president Kennedy, so the Lunar mission was somthing of a tribute to him. The absurd idea of actually going to the Moon became somthing "we HAD to do."

-Communism, threatening to fundimentally destroy the American way of life through domination, political military or economic. Beating the Commies to the Moon was a huge political and psychological victory.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-16 14:48:11

...Lyndon Larouche is also a raving lunatic...
The reason why space travel on the orbital scale or beyond must involve government money, and thus politics, ultimately comes down to one thing: Technology.
Right now, with our current level of aerospace technology, it is not possible to build an orbital spacecraft easily, because they must be built very large because of the limited energy density of chemical fuels, light weight construction to maximize payload mass, and to survive the challenging dynamics & environment that spacecraft must operate in.
It is simply not yet possible for this to be done on a useful scale given what fuels, materials, and skills we have available today without a very large monetary investment. It doesn't take a professional economist to figure out that spaceflight has a limited ability to pay returns on such large investments beyond a few satellites, only governments have both the money and freedom from the need for profit to make it fly.
But governments must see some sort of return even if it is not monetary, some kind of social or national level bennefit to justify the expense, and this is hard to do when it is so tempting to take those billions of dollars and spend them on one of the many "instant gratification" of social services.

I know you don't like Lyndon Larouche, but that, OK. I also understand that you don't like what you think he stand's for, but that, OK. There has been a lot of bad press about Lyndon Larouche and it look's like you gotten hold of some of that bad press. The same people that shut NASA down when it was going to town with developing new technologies and building the infrastructure in late 60's and early 70's are the same people that are saying those things that you read and believe to be true. And you probably don't believe that either, but that, OK.

But, if something is to come from the government on a genuine revitalize of NASA and all out space effort with major goal and objectives, it will most certainly have come from Larouche and from nowhere else. I have not doubt, that you won't believe that either, but that, OK. You can believe what ever you want to believe and I'm not going to argue with you.

Larry,

C M Edwards · 2004-09-16 14:55:52

Never trust any group of people who hang around with Lyndon Larouche. Gotcha. :;): Get thee behind me, Larry!

GCNRevenger, I concede that the scenario you described has been the case in the past. However, I think the iron curtain between governmental and private sector space travel is coming down. As implied in your earlier post, the key factor in this change is technology.

Technologies and skills developed by government programs are becoming widely - and more cheaply - available in the public sector. Formerly exotic techniques are becoming industry standards. All that's necessary is the commitment to synthesize all of that new know-how into an enterprise.

Unfortunately, "commitment" is often a euphemism for money and profit motive. Those are currently lacking. (It's a bit like leaping a wall and landing in a hole on the other side. ) However, one of the main reasons that there is no profit motive is that profit making ventures in space are almost as unexplored as the technology was thirty years ago.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-16 15:17:44

Ehhh Apollo had a couple of things going for it though...
-A dead president Kennedy, so the Lunar mission was somthing of a tribute to him. The absurd idea of actually going to the Moon became somthing "we HAD to do."
-Communism, threatening to fundimentally destroy the American way of life through domination, political military or economic. Beating the Commies to the Moon was a huge political and psychological victory.

Believe it or not, beating the Russian to the Moon was not Kennedy's only reason for going to the moon and was not even his primary reason for going to the moon. Kennedy was a World War II vet and he was around during the Great Depression was going on before the war. He watched FDR take a depressed nation and rebuild America with government credit financing building infrastructural project like dam's and power plant's and such. So when Kennedy made his speech that we were going to the moon, he knew exactly what that would do to the U.S. Economy. It would touch off an economic expansion that would create new jobs and decrease the unemployed, along with develop new technologies and do it in a relatively short period of time and this was his primary reason for doing the moon mission. It did exactly that too. Not only that, he intended to keep these benefits coming from space by adding other space goal mission. He intended for NASA to put a base on the moon, go to mars, develop fission drive and then go to fusion drive. He said about fusion, it will do for space travel what fission does for ocean travel. He even offered to go with the Russian to the moon together and they refused his offer.

Larry,

Grypd · 2004-09-16 15:37:39

Ehhh Apollo had a couple of things going for it though...
-A dead president Kennedy, so the Lunar mission was somthing of a tribute to him. The absurd idea of actually going to the Moon became somthing "we HAD to do."
-Communism, threatening to fundimentally destroy the American way of life through domination, political military or economic. Beating the Commies to the Moon was a huge political and psychological victory.
Believe it or not, beating the Russian to the Moon was not Kennedy's only reason for going to the moon and was not even his primary reason for going to the moon. Kennedy was a World War II vet and he was around during the Great Depression was going on before the war. He watched FDR take a depressed nation and rebuild America with government credit financing building infrastructural project like dam's and power plant's and such. So when Kennedy made his speech that we were going to the moon, he knew exactly what that would do to the U.S. Economy. It would touch off an economic expansion that would create new jobs and decrease the unemployed, along with develop new technologies and do it in a relatively short period of time and this was his primary reason for doing the moon mission. It did exactly that too. Not only that, he intended to keep these benefits coming from space by adding other space goal mission. He intended for NASA to put a base on the moon, go to mars, develop fission drive and then go to fusion drive. He said about fusion, it will do for space travel what fission does for ocean travel. He even offered to go with the Russian to the moon together and they refused his offer.
Larry,

That may be true but he was able to get the funding and attention he needed for one good reason. The USA was scared and surprised by the USSR having had launched sputnik. It was in this enviroment of a secret and deadly war for who would rule the world that Kennedy had to reassure the American people that the USA could do it and that is how the apollo program came about. It has been called the ultimate public propaganda statement. It is unfortunate that there is nothing now that is able to push the program again

Martian Republic · 2004-09-16 16:28:01

Never trust any group of people who hang around with Lyndon Larouche. Gotcha. :;): Get thee behind me, Larry!
GCNRevenger, I concede that the scenario you described has been the case in the past. However, I think the iron curtain between governmental and private sector space travel is coming down. As implied in your earlier post, the key factor in this change is technology.
Technologies and skills developed by government programs are becoming widely - and more cheaply - available in the public sector. Formerly exotic techniques are becoming industry standards. All that's necessary is the commitment to synthesize all of that new know-how into an enterprise.
Unfortunately, "commitment" is often a euphemism for money and profit motive. Those are currently lacking. (It's a bit like leaping a wall and landing in a hole on the other side. ) However, one of the main reasons that there is no profit motive is that profit making ventures in space are almost as unexplored as the technology was thirty years ago.

But, there more to it than that C M Edwards. Now I'm going to have to go off the topic to explain what I mean and the topic is who are the pro-space candidates. But, no matter, here goes. It not just about technology or infrastructure although they play an important part of what we want to do. There are conceptual differences as to what money and/or credit is and how it should be use or disposed of. There are conceptual differences as to what wealth is or constitutes wealth and how it should or should not be used or even how to generate the potential for wealth. There are also conceptual differences between what both governments and private business of various types should or should not be or how they should be used.

So just having the high technology or even having some key infrastructure in place, still doesn't grantee any thing. It can still be overwhelmed by those other factors and generally is overwhelmed by those other factors. Ultimately there is no substitute for a sovereign nation state that controls it own banking system with an unlimited credit line that prepared for an all out colonization of space funding the effort. Whether you like it or not, there is no substitute for a sugar daddy like that when it comes to developing space. And private industry is not a substitute either, with or without high technology and even with key hard shuttle or what ever else you could thing to give your private business or groups of business.

Business are designed to meet needs and to make profit doing that.

Private individual and hopefully organized around there common wealth that is some times referred to as a government. But, the people either individually or collectively through there government create a need for that business or for the products they produce and it does not work the other way around. The government does not have to make a profit and can even rite off loans made to business if they choose to. The government can pull these kinds of stunts all day long and go bankrupt, but business can’t do that.

For example:

With or without the technology, private enterprise will not be building a city on the moon. They would go bankrupt if they did that.

But, a government try that same stunt and I’m assuming that there no Federal Reserve System, but only a Treasury Department as the Central Bank. That government would decide what they want and need to build that city on the moon. Then they go and arrange for the financial end of this deal and state righting up the contract’s for what they need to buy and call in the private businessmen to bid on those contract’s and they start the process of building that city. Twenty to thirty years later there putting the finishing touches on the new lunar city.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-09-16 16:39:14

Ehhh Apollo had a couple of things going for it though...
-A dead president Kennedy, so the Lunar mission was somthing of a tribute to him. The absurd idea of actually going to the Moon became somthing "we HAD to do."
-Communism, threatening to fundimentally destroy the American way of life through domination, political military or economic. Beating the Commies to the Moon was a huge political and psychological victory.
Believe it or not, beating the Russian to the Moon was not Kennedy's only reason for going to the moon and was not even his primary reason for going to the moon. Kennedy was a World War II vet and he was around during the Great Depression was going on before the war. He watched FDR take a depressed nation and rebuild America with government credit financing building infrastructural project like dam's and power plant's and such. So when Kennedy made his speech that we were going to the moon, he knew exactly what that would do to the U.S. Economy. It would touch off an economic expansion that would create new jobs and decrease the unemployed, along with develop new technologies and do it in a relatively short period of time and this was his primary reason for doing the moon mission. It did exactly that too. Not only that, he intended to keep these benefits coming from space by adding other space goal mission. He intended for NASA to put a base on the moon, go to mars, develop fission drive and then go to fusion drive. He said about fusion, it will do for space travel what fission does for ocean travel. He even offered to go with the Russian to the moon together and they refused his offer.
Larry,
That may be true but he was able to get the funding and attention he needed for one good reason. The USA was scared and surprised by the USSR having had launched sputnik. It was in this enviroment of a secret and deadly war for who would rule the world that Kennedy had to reassure the American people that the USA could do it and that is how the apollo program came about. It has been called the ultimate public propaganda statement. It is unfortunate that there is nothing now that is able to push the program again

I'm not saying that he did not take advantage of the situation to move America where he thought that we should be, Most any leader will do that. But he kind of killed two birds with one stone. He got one heck of a press release and he moved America where he thought we should be all in the same move.

Larry,

Grypd · 2004-09-16 17:23:08

Larry I could be cynical and say what he thought he was getting was a manned missile base on the Moon where any first strike would still have resulted in the death of the enemy. Better as well for a military base is its position to do down the well shots where your base on the moon can shoot down and the enemy struggle to launch up.

But it is the simple fact that he wanted to show that the USSR was not the preeminent superpower and communism was not the wave of the future and that your ideals where better than theres. This is conflict but not shooting at each other but with ideals and one up manship. Think of it as chess but he who can play the game the longest wins.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-16 20:11:08

Grypd, I can see we are going to disagree with each other on this matter, which I suppose is, OK.

I never denied that there were other reason for going to the Moon or at least other stated reason other than what I said his real reason for going to the moon was.

But, the best way that I can though, is like I were President of the United States.

To begin with you know that I'm interested in space and I believe it a worth while endeavor that generates jobs, new technologies, open up new territories and a whole host of other good things. I believe building a city on the Moon and that it a worth while to commit the United State into doing as a National Goal. As a new President would be going in with that attitude, before I even ran into any problems or any justification to do that. Now if some threat real or imagined or I need some Hype out there and I can justify it, that build a city on the Moon going up there and off to the races.

Now if nobody hear what I had to say about the matter or almost nobody knows what my thinking on the is. All you hear are those talking heads on TV giving there opinion about how I finest those foreign enemies and that was the real reason that we built that city on the moon and not because I thought we really needed to build that city on the moon. Now that cold war atmosphere help to launched the Moon mission, but they would be an excuse to do what I had already planed to do any way. It just gave me the excuse to do it.

If you really look at who JFK was, you will find out that he tried to pick up where FDR left off at. JFK was the technology President and NASA was his primary pile driver for developing new technologies. That why JFK supported NASA so heavily and was interested in what they were doing and could in the future and give any support for NASA he could.

Larry,

Austin Stanley · 2004-09-16 22:09:57

A lot of good things have been said in this thread, and I think I would like to expand upon some of them.

#1. Other international politicians.
Comstar is exactly right, the politics of other nations is also important. As a American, I natruly am more knowledgeable about the politics of my nation, so I focus upon those. Here is how I see the status of the other nations and what (little) I know about there political situation.

Russia - the only other nation with signifigant space experience. While Putin I belive has nothing against space travel, Russia is current facing other problems which he sees as more important, such as a stuggling/developing economy and terrorisim. The current political spat we are having over the middle east doesn't help things either. I do not belive Russia could currently sponsor a resurgent space-program, but they do still have the potential to contribute to other ones.

Japan - while Japan does not have extensive space-flight experience, the nation could easily aquire the technical experince necessary to create one. Their aeronautics industry is not as well developed as some of the other players, but they are easily on equal footing in terms of electronics, chemistry, and nuclear engineering. I know little about the Japanese leadership, however nor am I qualified to make a guess as to whether or not the population would support a more ambitious space program. It would be a major break from there past trend. The country itself, while suffering from an economic dowturn, could easily support an ambitious space-program, if they decided to do it.

EU - The EU has lately made great strides in space-development. While still lacking the experience of the Americans or Russians, the EU has just as much techincal experience in all necessary fields. The political situation in Europe is much more complicated than that of the US, as they lack common leadership. A sucessful program would have to convince leaders in most of the nations that it is necessary. Economicaly the combined EU can easily support such a space-program, though it would be a strugle for any single nation.

China/India - while both China and India are making great strides in technical and economic development, both nations lag far behind the ones we listed previously. While a serious space program could be a good idea for both nations, given there lack of experience, it would be more a repeat of the 1960-70 then a step forward.

Prospects for International copoeration - the ISS a sticking issue currently hindering copperation. Politicaly the US/Russia/ESA have put quite a lot into the station, and backing away from it is painfull. The situation in the middle east is obviously not helpfull as well. Bad experiences with the ISS and current political tention make it hard to convince others countries to invest in a new operation. Change in US leadership might help with the political tension, but the ISS situation is more difficult. But perhaps in 2008 with new leadership in the US, and the ISS either done with or reaching completion, it maybe time to start a new wave of political coperation.

#2. Technology and the cost of space.
Advances in space technology have brought the cost of a serious space program down enormously. I threw out the figure of 10 billion a year which, properly spent, should be enough to get things rolling. This amount is down enormously from what our space program cost us in the 1960/70s. The sum is still large, but any of the G-7 nations could afford it without trouble, to the worlds most prosporus nations it is but a drop in the bucket.

However, these costs are still far beyond what industry or private organisations can be excected to pay. The cost needs to drop by at least two orders of magnitude for it to be even remotly possible. This is hard considering that the costs have dropped by at BEST only a single order of magnitude since it's beginning. For the immediat future (say the next 20 years or so), we can pretty much count out serious coprate investment in space. The costs will only drop to there level after the national goverments have spent the big bucks to bring the cost down more, buy developing infastructure, technology, and techniques.

#3. JFK.
JFK had a number of things working for him. The cold war, democratic control of congress, and others. I'm not going to say that his style leadership is what the space-program needs to get going, however. Firstly, the costs have dropped dramaticly from what he needed, so the same level of persausion in not necessary. What would be more ideal is a President like Bush or Clintion, who could at least convince the American people not to veto the idea at the start, and had a lock on congress and so could get it funded.
Another approach is a leader who could convince the rest of the world that this is something worth doing, but realisticly I don't think such a man exists. It's hard to convince one nation, let alone others. The most succesful approach is probably for one nation to develope a succesfull program, one that can succed on it's own, and offer other nations ways to held and expand upon it. If we depend on other nations for success, the possible of faliure looms large, as it does with the ISS. If we are determined to succed on our own, but willing to accept help, not only is succes guarteed, but even more can be achived. Of course, this costs more, but that is the price you have to pay.

comstar03 · 2004-09-16 22:59:44

Austin,

What the public need from their political leadership is a well structured strategy to show that the expense of going to the moon and mars is well thought out. Then you implement the unmanned process, and also commence a education strategy to keep the public and political leadership informed of the progress through a NASA TV Channel , weekly broadcasts, and interviews. This could be funded by advertisements from sponsors. Design it around the Discovery Channel model.

Once we bring the people into the reasons behind the exploration of space and the technological advancements that will help the public in everyday lives, that will help the understanding and importance of space and thus move the space program from being third class in the budget to second or first budget appropriation listing.

Austin Stanley · 2004-09-16 23:15:04

I agree with you Comstar, but only to a point. Attempting to educating the populace is a wonderful idea, but hard to implement. The NASA TV channel is not even brodcast in my location. And it's hard to force people to watch something they don't want to watch. Simply put, it proves to be very difficult to persaude people through education. People don't have the attention span for it, and quite frankly logical arguments can be simply lost on people who simply refuse to accept them.

A more succesful approach is one either based upon emotion (such as the one JFK used), or upon hype. But there are problems with each. An emotional approach is difficult as it depends upon both the emotional state of the nation (which is currently focused upon domestic concurns), and empasioned leadership to support them (which is currently absent). Hype has the problem of not living up to it's expectations, and being only a short-term phenomina.

I think the best rout to use is sort of a stealth approach. A renewed mars/moon space program is going to have a length period of build-up before anything can be achived, this is when it is most vulnerable. Fortunatly, due to the reduced cost, all that is necessary (in the US at least), is a president with the will to fund it and a congress to back him up. George Bush could achive this easily if he wanted to, but apparently he does not (maybe after his possible re-election but I doubt it). However, when the progrem is ready to show some results, OR is running into trouble (in danger of being cancled) is when some hype about it should be generated, in order to prolong and preserve the program. This was the downfall of the Apollo program, all the build up was on the process of getting to the moon, after we got there, their was nothing left to support it's continuation. A rewned program should seek to avoid this.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-17 07:06:01

Even creating Nasa style jobs in every town or city still would not necessarily garner any more interest in actual space. Those that have an interest are still the only ones that would still care.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-17 08:45:38

I agree with you Comstar, but only to a point. Attempting to educating the populace is a wonderful idea, but hard to implement. The NASA TV channel is not even brodcast in my location. And it's hard to force people to watch something they don't want to watch. Simply put, it proves to be very difficult to persaude people through education. People don't have the attention span for it, and quite frankly logical arguments can be simply lost on people who simply refuse to accept them.
A more succesful approach is one either based upon emotion (such as the one JFK used), or upon hype. But there are problems with each. An emotional approach is difficult as it depends upon both the emotional state of the nation (which is currently focused upon domestic concurns), and empasioned leadership to support them (which is currently absent). Hype has the problem of not living up to it's expectations, and being only a short-term phenomina.
I think the best rout to use is sort of a stealth approach. A renewed mars/moon space program is going to have a length period of build-up before anything can be achived, this is when it is most vulnerable. Fortunatly, due to the reduced cost, all that is necessary (in the US at least), is a president with the will to fund it and a congress to back him up. George Bush could achive this easily if he wanted to, but apparently he does not (maybe after his possible re-election but I doubt it). However, when the progrem is ready to show some results, OR is running into trouble (in danger of being cancled) is when some hype about it should be generated, in order to prolong and preserve the program. This was the downfall of the Apollo program, all the build up was on the process of getting to the moon, after we got there, their was nothing left to support it's continuation. A rewned program should seek to avoid this.

I agree with comstar03 on this one. It was the main line media that helped to sabotage the NASA programs after the Moon landing, because they started down playing the importance of space and even saying it was a waist of money to put three monkey’s in space.

They use to ask question like do you think that the money should be wasted in space or spent down here to take care of the poor?

They were crafting questing like this so they could get the answers they wanted and this was in front of an American population that was all smile about NASA and wanted NASA to do a whole lot more stuff. These people had no problem looking at a NASA news brief as to what they were doing in space and how they were progressing and that was an educational tool.

We also stop taking advantage of the public school the way we use to to push our space endeavors and children really get into some thing like this and go to town and even will even direct what kind of careers that they will choose. Most of our current scientist and engineers choose those careers because of the Apollo programs and they wanted to be there to build those bases on the moon or go to Mars or be an astronaut, etc.

So if we can direct the public school involvement and education processes. The children will get on board, because it will be exciting and they will again start picking careers based on what NASA doing and they will want to be a part of it. Then we need a National NASA Television Station so people can follow NASA progress and that would assume that we have National Mission or Goal for NASA to accomplish so it will be interesting to watch or follow even to just casually following NASA progress will have an impact. Then you would want to expand it to an interactive Internet system of job listing, individual manufactures, educational material, seminars in your of NASA speakers, and that kind of stuff. Through these outlets you show the many benefits of the space program and how NASA is helping to bring these benefits to the American people. You hit all the angles like I worked at Menasco and what did we make for NASA and the space shuttle orbitor?

“WE MADE THE LANDING GEAR FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITOR”!!!

“ISN’T THAT GREAT”!

At least that how I tell it to other people.

There a foremen at Menasco that says he doesn’t watch any other part of the shuttle flight except for when it lands. He like to see that landing gear pop open and see it do it thing.

That basically how you win the hearts and minds of the American people and give them an uncontrollable grin when every they think about NASA or our Space Program. Now it will take a few month to maybe a year for people to get a hold of it, but when they do it will have a life of it own. Beside having seminars for business or government explain what there doing and what there planning on doing, you would won’t your roving NASA people going schools, factories that build things for NASA or even factories use new technologies or machines developed by NASA. They don’t really have to be a high level NASA official either, people see the three foot NASA logo and someone says something from NASA for a few minutes and then you go on about your business. The message they deliver could about the good job did in manufactured for them so they could do there job. People will talk about that and say well NASA showed up today a the factory and thanked us for the job we did and conversation goes from there. Basically what your doing is giving NASA high visibility profile to public. It also called marketing, like advertising is.

Larry,

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-15 11:30:04

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#2 2004-09-15 11:51:10

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#3 2004-09-15 12:59:56

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#4 2004-09-15 13:07:33

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#5 2004-09-15 14:10:02

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#6 2004-09-15 14:17:41

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#7 2004-09-15 14:24:20

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#8 2004-09-15 22:33:59

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#9 2004-09-16 08:41:06

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#10 2004-09-16 12:37:32

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#11 2004-09-16 14:28:32

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#12 2004-09-16 14:44:23

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#13 2004-09-16 14:48:11

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#14 2004-09-16 14:55:52

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#15 2004-09-16 15:17:44

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#16 2004-09-16 15:37:39

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#17 2004-09-16 16:28:01

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#18 2004-09-16 16:39:14

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#19 2004-09-16 17:23:08

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#20 2004-09-16 20:11:08

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#21 2004-09-16 22:09:57

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#22 2004-09-16 22:59:44

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#23 2004-09-16 23:15:04

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#24 2004-09-17 07:06:01

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

#25 2004-09-17 08:45:38

Re: Politics for a new manned missions. - What politicans will do it?

Board footer