Human Missions and Public Support

Marsman · 2007-03-12 10:25:09

This subject gets brought up every so often and usually ends in stalemate but I have some questions and comments I would like your thoughts on. There is a view which says that all we really need to do is develop the flight hardware and technologies for future space activities like space tourism, Moon, Mars etc and then the public will once again take an interest in space travel. Proponents of this view point back to how awed the public was back in the 1950's and 1960's by the space race and hold onto the hope that such times may one day return, if only we had all the engineering solutions built etc.

They also talk about how space tourism will reignite interest levels and lead to a new golden age of human space flight. After all, it happened before in the 50's and 60's so it must happen again right? Hardware and r&d are the saviours in this view.

But since the end of the Apollo missions and in spite of the amazing technical advances in human space flight and robotic explorations of the solar system the general public have not been interested in space. Surveys may claim that x percent are interested in space but let me define clearly what I mean by interest- real support through financial or political means (voting). A recent survey did for the first time begin to reveal the true state of affairs, especially for the younger generation, and it is not optimistic.

The view that hardware and associated r&d is the main or only real area we should focus on is however flawed. It does not take into account the social, political and financial culture of 2007. It does not want to see the truth that the public at large are just not that interested in space so it crawls back into the safe haven of "hardware development will save us" land. The problem with this view should be obvious. Besides ignoring the culture of our time it also is a view at odds with its own aims. If you want to develop hardware and the science behind human space flight/settlements in the most efficient way possible then you need adequate funding. All space agencies, private space companies and space advocate groups have tons of ideas and projects which need funding for hardware development and many other space projects and areas of study but which never get even a fraction of what they need for their plans to be realized.

Instead of addressing the underlying causes of WHY there is such a lack of funding for all these projects many in the space community are content with the snails pace of development as it is and seem content with the many half assed projects which often get cancelled and are never usually leading to anything really useful. We are told that this is just "the way things are" and there is "nothing" we can do to change it. So year after year space advocate groups, private space and government agencies across the world struggle to move ahead in any significant way with their plans so low is the level of funding at all levels.

If the space movement could be described as a human being it would be described as very sick, constantly on life support and starving from lack of food(funds).

That makes it all the more amazing when we do accomplish various missions and as each new mission rolls around it like a glass of water to a thirsty man in the desert to the space community. But this does not have to be the way things are. Things can be better.

By attacking the root causes of lack of funding we will accelerate r&d in all space projects so it would seem logical to focus a decent proportion of our skills, time and resources on those issues. But until now I have seen very little real effort or resources poured into dealing with this root problem. The world has changed. We no longer live in the 1960's and people do not and will not be wowed by space travel like they did when it was all new 4 decades ago. Another reason why having the right hardware will not save the space sector.

Government leaders do take note of their constituents priorities and private business leaders do take note of market trends and consumer sentiment. With such a tiny sector of the wider community interested in space the simple fact is we just don't get noticed. We are not really on the radar screens of the people that fund space projects (government or private). I know that some will try to dispute this with spin and hype about how various "surveys" have shown this or that but ultimately space flight decisions are made because of other reasons than public demand. Usually military, scientific or commercial reasons win out. The public is far from the decision making processes of such people but it should not be. The public does have power, in our numbers and in the levels of support we show for various priorities important (or not) to us.

The problem though is complex in this area. Some engineers and scientists believe that by spending their time and scant resources (on their own or through space advocate research for example) on small time r&d they will land a prime contract/job some day for themselves and that is really all they care about. Such people don't care about public support because they are confident that their way is the best (or its all they know and they are too afraid to tackle the public support issue). But history proves otherwise. We have all known of people who spent years doing r&d on a particular subject area only to be overlooked or have their work cancelled later on. It is like a lottery and not a very healthy model for the future of human space missions.

But there is a better way. Gaining true public support, converting non space members of the public into space supporters should be our goal. Preaching to the choir is already being done and frankly it is making many in the space community tired, burnt out cynics. We need new blood, and we need to expand our numbers radically. Only then will governments and the private sector take us seriously. Only then will a firm foundation have been laid upon which all future space plans can be assured of success. Currently we don't have that foundation. What we have is uncertainty, cynicism and division while we stumble from one mission to another always at the risk of getting cut back or made obsolete.

A public that is supportive and sympathetic to space flight priorities is the foundation we need. How do we get that goal though? The limp wristed and introverted approach of traditional space advocate groups clearly has not worked. Treating public outreach as a side issue or as merely an "educational" issue is not what I'm talking about here. That already gets done and it is ineffective overall.

Some say that the public are interested in "other things" and until they can go into space themselves they just can't be reached but that view is flawed. It is the same view which puts its faith in hardware today as the saviour of space missions funding. People are interested in many different things, and instead of trying to convert people through preaching our views to them, how about we meet them where they are? How about we get into the areas of focus that interest them most and use those things as ways to reach them? How about we show them that space is relevant to them? We can do this through many different means, I'm sure we all have some ideas. For example, if the public are interested in reality TV shows how about the space community create a reality show based around the dramas of human space missions or competitions where the winner gets to go into space? If the public are interested in music how about we get some of the popular bands and singers of today to endorse some of our ideas publicly? There are many things that can be done to reach the public without actually sending them into space.

I won't go into all those as we address much of that over at MarsDrive so if you want to get into ideas and solutions you can find me there. But my point is simple. We need to start spending some serious amounts of time, money and resources on true public outreach and start to deal with the root cause of lack of funding. Or we can ignore all this and keep on putting our faith in the current lottery style system. It's up to us. I know that the Mars Society uses and raises much of its funding for research projects and I fully support that. That's why MarsDrive was created. Our focus is on true public outreach and pursuing new ways to gain support from the public, but to become effective we need resources and some level of funding ourselves. Its an issue which won't go away whether marsdrive existed or not. What is your response to this?

cIclops · 2007-03-12 12:19:28

That was a lot of words Marsman

So this is the chicken and egg question, does the hardware come first or does the public interest. Interest is clearly there if you look for it in the right places. One of the best ways to see how much interest is to count the real money spent on it. Every year since about 1960, Congress has authorized around $16 billion a year (in today's dollars) for NASA. Now that adds up. 47 years at 16 billion is $752 billion! And that's all in addition to the even larger amounts spent on US military space, estimated at about $42 billion a year in 2005. Worldwide, the space industry including the US, spends about $180B annually ($110B commercial, $70B government). This is not chicken feed! This is enormous interest!

Martian Republic · 2007-03-12 15:28:38

Some of the Main differences between then and now, is we had people that set goals and were determined to hit those goals. We had a presidents that knew the importance of space and were committed to see a National Space Mission happen. Like John F. Kennedy Moon Mission that he gave in 1961. It was three months before the United States had even put any one into space and we are going to the moon.

Having a man like John F. Kennedy, probably had the biggest impact on the American space program than anything else did.

Whether another man like John F. Kennedy would have the same effect, well that been debated before on this web site. So we don't need to go there right now.

Larry,

Grypd · 2007-03-12 15:46:11

Intrestingly there was an article in todays space review about the publics lack of support for space.

Space and the end of the future

Amid the renewed interest in manned space missions to the Moon and beyond, there has been a great deal of talk about the American public’s interest in space—or more accurately, its lack of interest. In some quarters, the feeling even verges on hostility.

Still, it’s clear that in the days of the Apollo program, support for such initiatives was more widespread than it is today, and many plausible reasons why are now familiar talking points to those who follow the issue. One is disillusionment with a program that had for too long been organized around expensive stunts, especially after the ending of the Cold War that had once seemed to justify those stunts.

Says it as it is.

cIclops · 2007-03-12 16:01:23

Well yes Martian Republic. People are important and important people even more so, however the US space program was more the result of geopolitics, military need and technical readiness than any great vision of Kennedy, likewise neither is the VSE the inspiration of Bush. Presidents have their roles to play and their speeches to make and that's about all. Moving the space program to a higher level will require a similar confluence of events and change, both are very hard to predict.

Nevertheless the space program continues unabated with more or less the same level of funding. What has happened since Apollo is outstanding, enormous progress has been made. Yet people are so much harder to impress nowadays, space doesn't make much news - it's simply accepted as part of everyday life. Private space travel will surely become an important factor too but the timescale is unclear. Meanwhile VSE continues and will establish human presence in and beyond cislunar space.

Marsman · 2007-03-12 18:09:53

The last I read the economy of the world was $43.66 Trillion. This means that if your figure of $180 Billion is correct that around 0.45% of the world's budget is spent on space as compared to say over 2% for military expenditure. And how much of that $180 Billion is spent on actual human space flight or r&d into human space flight? How much of it is merely commercial sat launches? So 99.55% of the world's budget is spent on other things. Even in the U.S only 0.7% of the budget is dedicated to NASA as opposed to around 4 or 5% back the Apollo era.

Chicken before the egg? Space missions started up around 50 years ago for various reasons (cold war/military etc). It drew in public interest just because of the uniqueness and wonder of what they were doing back then and how new it all was. Such is not the case today. Today we have different challenges to face. People are no longer awed by the space missions they see. The novelty factor of any new mission wears off fairly quickly now.

people are so much harder to impress nowadays

I wonder if that is really true? Society is being dumbed down. People are impressed by all the same things that once impressed them, it is merely that the outward appearances have changed. When I compare the amazing technical feats which have to be accomplished for even one space launch to any number of everyday things it rates much higher on my wow meter. The problem is lack of marketing and lack of correct marketing. I think a space rocket/space ship is far more complex to build than almost any other object in engineering. The moving parts which number in the hundreds of thousands, the support network needed of experts and all the factors which must be "just right" even for one launch to succeed is not something to be taken lightly, yet the public do.

Why? A failure of imagination and a lack of relevant marketing from the space community when dealing with the public. Besides the paper I wrote on this subject in The Space Review recently a guy named Bob Mahoney also wrote of this issue in a two part paper there and gave some great suggestions on what NASA could do to reach the public. And that paper does not even take into account what space advocates can do. What we need to do is understand what people really want, what they find relevant and then fashion our message to fit into those areas of interest.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/802/1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/807/1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/777/1

Martin_Tristar · 2007-03-12 19:47:36

We need to standardize on one or two types of spacecraft for earth orbit space flight and get a number of countries to purchase vehicles to voyage into space increasing the use of space for their individual countries and the general public to see the daily or weekly use of space as the next highway for human transport.

The Orion Spaecraft would be one of the designs used and the russian design could be the other design used. The Chinese or Japanese could purchase the vehicles from either vendor reducing the duplication and costs getting into space. Then we could expand space, the Indian's might purchase CEV Orion vehicles because of the recent agreements with the US for trade including space activities.

Australia could purchase and train personnel for Orion Spacecrafts and launch them to the International Space Station without the cost of building any vehicles or launch facilities or even assembly facilities in Australia but could still be a large player in the spaceworld including going to the moon with aussienauts.

The Public wants to see that we are expanding, exploring and getting measured results for the outlay of public funds to build into space. That is why the general public has sometimes a cool response to the setbacks and loss of vehicles , people and equipment thus losing taxpayer funds. ( Down the Drain !!!!!)

Martian Republic · 2007-03-13 00:09:25

Well yes Martian Republic. People are important and important people even more so, however the US space program was more the result of geopolitics, military need and technical readiness than any great vision of Kennedy, likewise neither is the VSE the inspiration of Bush. Presidents have their roles to play and their speeches to make and that's about all. Moving the space program to a higher level will require a similar confluence of events and change, both are very hard to predict.
Nevertheless the space program continues unabated with more or less the same level of funding. What has happened since Apollo is outstanding, enormous progress has been made. Yet people are so much harder to impress nowadays, space doesn't make much news - it's simply accepted as part of everyday life. Private space travel will surely become an important factor too but the timescale is unclear. Meanwhile VSE continues and will establish human presence in and beyond cislunar space.

There are two primary ways that you push technology or learn to innovate and develop new technologies and/or make your work force more productive. But, before I go over those two ways, let look at the American Farmer as an example of the work force becoming more productive through technological advancements. During the American Revolution there were roughly three million Americans. There was roughly one and a half million farmers inside the United State at that time. Through technological advancement we now only need between two to three million farmers even though we have around three hundred million people and have around four times as land now also.

That what developing new technologies does for you. It make your people more productive where they can produce a whole lot more wealth and be able to do things that they couldn't do before with the technologies they had at that time. That where new invention's come in and are very useful. Over the past two hundred years or so, war was the primary engine for accelerating technological advancement so you could win a war.

That where Kennedy moon mission come into play, you can have the same effect on developing new technologies that you would on developing new technologies to fight a war, but not have to fight a war to do it. When Kennedy made the statement that we were going to the moon, we were still three months away from putting our first man into space. So we didn't have the technology to do that at the time he made that commitment to go to the moon. It the fact that we had to develop those new technologies to get to the moon that gave us that fourteen to one dollar return on our investment for going to the moon. Kennedy understood that that would happen, that why he also intended to setup a lunar base and go on to Mars. He also understood that if he was intending to make the United States a Space faring nation, that he need something more than chemical rocket. He was going to have to go nuclear fission and maybe even fusion power. That why we were developing Orion and a few other programs that he intended to have followed the Apollo program.

If Kennedy had not made the national goal to go to the moon, would we have gone to the moon?

I don't know. All I know is, that nobody else has been to the moon over the last twenty five years or so. That may never have happened if he had not made the commitment to go to the moon. Other say it would not have made any difference or that he screwed it up. We are still looking to go back to the moon or somebody else going to the moon for the first time.

Larry,

cIclops · 2007-03-13 05:44:10

Through technological advancement we now only need between two to three million farmers even though we have around three hundred million people and have around four times as land now also.

Yes undoubtedly there has been a revolution in agriculture due to the introduction of mechanical machinery and that has enormously reduced the number of people required to sow and harvest crops as well as tend animals. However in other fields there has been no reduction and actually an increase .. for example medicine and education. Likewise in the space world there has not been a dramatic change primarily because no technology has become available that can replace the engineers and highly skilled technicians needed to design, build, launch and operate hardware.

If Kennedy had not made the national goal to go to the moon, would we have gone to the moon?

Not in the 1960s, but if the Russians has not launched Sputnik and Gagarin would Kennedy have made going to the moon a national goal?

I don't know. All I know is, that nobody else has been to the moon over the last twenty five years or so.

I'm sorry to say it's almost 35 years now

Now we have VSE, with full funding the 7th lunar mission can be done by 2015 - let's go for it!

Martian Republic · 2007-03-13 09:37:46

Through technological advancement we now only need between two to three million farmers even though we have around three hundred million people and have around four times as land now also.
Yes undoubtedly there has been a revolution in agriculture due to the introduction of mechanical machinery and that has enormously reduced the number of people required to sow and harvest crops as well as tend animals. However in other fields there has been no reduction and actually an increase .. for example medicine and education. Likewise in the space world there has not been a dramatic change primarily because no technology has become available that can replace the engineers and highly skilled technicians needed to design, build, launch and operate hardware.

I challenge that statement of yours that technologies isn't making us more efficient in other area's also. This ability to produce more doesn't just apply to farming, but applies to everything that we do across the board. I just used farming, because that was the easiest way to demonstrate that fact of there we were becoming more productivity. You have this same increase in efficiency in the Machine shop or factories and in the mining industries. It more efficient to use a steam engine with pulley's to machines than to hand work metal with anvils hammers, hacksaws, etc. When we went to electric motors instead of steam engines, we got another efficiency bust in the labor force. We kept on making innovations in efficiency all the way down the line in every area and this include the engineering department too. We will alway need engineers, but we can give them better tool so they can be more efficient and do things faster than if they didn't have though tools. An example of a more efficiently engineered air craft was the 777, which was engineered in about six months. Generally an engineering feat like that would take about two years to start and complete from beginning to end, but they knew what they wanted to do and they had a cad program that had the ability to pull everything together for them. Boeing called everybody together and said let do it. This calling everybody together also included most of there prime subcontractors too. Now admittedly it a whole lot more complicated in area's that you wouldn't normally have considered part of designing a new air craft before this time, but, the number of man hours to do the job of designing that air craft went down greatly and the time it took to do it in too.

I suppose that you might still use hospital to defend your claim that it not always true. But, even there, without innovation and new technologies, the people that don't get those things would die. But, even there we have new technology making things more efficient also.

Larry,

Marsman · 2007-03-13 09:40:20

I noticed that you referred back to "technology" being developed or ships being built as examples of "how" it is done and clearly missing was the human factor. Technology may or may not develop according to various timetables but it never happens without human beings doing the developing.

Hardware has taken center stage yet again, as if hardware/technology development somehow happens in a vacuum or without a causative reason. The law of cause and effect works with everything, and technology is no different. You all mention "technological advancement" as if it just happens and you talk about the results of those developments but my focus here is on the cause. WHY does technology develop? WHY did farmers end up with better farm equipment? If you read history you will find that there were always commercial/financial pressures and beneath that population pressures where the demand of certain population levels and demographics drove people to invent solutions. So what are the true drivers of invention?

Necessity is the mother of all invention the saying goes. Demand is what what has always driven humans to invent new things. No demand, no invention. Yes, people do invent things that are not in demand but which are quite brilliant (like the ideas of Da Vinci) ahead of their time, but that is the key- ahead of their time. Without adequate demand from the public, any invention will remain on the shelf, neglected and looking rather stupid UNTIL there is a need (or a percieved need- which is where marketing and sales comes in).

Space travel is in that category at present in the eyes of the public. While it is nice to look at and returns some nice pictures the public really have nothing to do with the space program (beyond paying for it and unknowingly gaining certain benefits from it). Without public demand the space sector will continue to move at the snails pace it is at, it's that simple. Part of creating that demand requires professional marketing/sales by what we call "space advocates".

The other question which comes up here is what is a true space advocate? To advocate something means you "advance, advise, argue for, back, bless, bolster, boost*, brace up*, build up, campaign for, champion, countenance, defend, encourage, favor, further, go for, go with, hold with, justify, plead for, plug*, press for, promote, propose, push, recommend, root for*, say so*, side, speak for, spread around*, stump for*, support, thump for, tout, uphold, urge, vindicate" according to the thesaurus.

As you can see there is wide variety of words there to describe what an advocate does. Yet effective advocacy cannot happen without an audience of "non believers" otherwise you are preaching to the choir and that is the weakest form of advocacy. Advocacy that achieves its aims is advocacy that is aimed at the opposing crowd, and not just their arguements. At the people, not just their words. For example, when the public says "There are more important earth priorities to look after first before space" we usually come up with some standard "space advocate" answers and those answers seem to fall on deaf ears. Why? Becuase often the answers we give our opponents is usually directed at the wrong people (like other space advocates in a forum or conference).

Another problem is we assume that the public even care about this issue one way or the other. I can argue with an opponent easily enough, but someone who is apathetic is much harder to deal with. First they have to be aware or interested in space at some level(for or against) or our words will be ignored totally. Our job as space advocates is to stimulate demand, and we can't do that just with slick intellectual arguments. We will only stimulate demand when we can show the public what we already know (and appreciate) in a way the public can understand- hence my examples of having our own reality style shows, games, entertainments and media exposure etc .Our problem is clear.

Not enough money is being spent on reaching the public. It is the cart before the horse problem again. We struggle to fund the various technical projects we have (like the analogue stations, rover project, Mars suits, etc) and so this whole field moves at a glacial speed with many stops and starts. So we have a choice here. We can accept the way things are, or we can try to speed things up (which is really the essence of good advocacy). Speeding things up means generating new demand/interest from the public using any and every means at our disposal.

For example, when Robert Zubrin started the Mars Society back in the late 1990's it was through certain means. He wrote a book- "The Case for Mars", and inspite of what some might say about it, it has been a very effective tool for public outreach and many people I know withing Mars advocacy can trace their roots back to that book. That book and his ideas were marketed as much as possible, to NASA and to the public. This created new interest in potential alternative means to get humans to Mars and created The Mars Society as a result.

But once this initial explosion of interest happened it quickly cooled off and unfortunately many Mars advocates were conditioned into accepting this "cool off" as a normal part of space advocacy. Instead of continuing the momentum that was created then the engine of enthusiasm was allowed to stall and now we have a sad state of affairs for the humans to Mars groups everywhere. Why did it stall? An organization will reflect its leaders ideas and methods, and leaders must be held responsible for any drop off or fall back in numbers. After the Mars Society started certain bridges were burnt instead of being built and instead integrating into the larger space advocacy community it became isolated to some degree. The fallout from those times is still with us today.

Money continues to be spent mostly on tech projects while public outreach is a dead issue, and it should be the MAIN issue. When we get our focus back on reaching out instead of looking in, then, and only then will things start to improve for us.

cIclops · 2007-03-13 10:18:52

I challenge that statement of yours that technologies isn't making us more efficient in other area's also. This ability to produce more doesn't just apply to farming, but applies to everything that we do across the board.

Yes technological improvements have made most industries more efficient but they have not reduced the number of people required in skilled labor intensive industries such as education, medicine and high technology. If anything new technologies have increased the demand for people as new products and services have become available. Space access is the most expensive travel service available, just as most people can't afford to visit the South Pole, even less people can afford to visit ISS. Technical progress has made space access possible, making it cheaper will happen, but it takes time.

Martian Republic · 2007-03-13 11:13:29

I noticed that you referred back to "technology" being developed or ships being built as examples of "how" it is done and clearly missing was the human factor. Technology may or may not develop according to various timetables but it never happens without human beings doing the developing.
Hardware has taken center stage yet again, as if hardware/technology development somehow happens in a vacuum or without a causative reason. The law of cause and effect works with everything, and technology is no different. You all mention "technological advancement" as if it just happens and you talk about the results of those developments but my focus here is on the cause. WHY does technology develop? WHY did farmers end up with better farm equipment? If you read history you will find that there were always commercial/financial pressures and beneath that population pressures where the demand of certain population levels and demographics drove people to invent solutions. So what are the true drivers of invention?
Necessity is the mother of all invention the saying goes. Demand is what what has always driven humans to invent new things. No demand, no invention. Yes, people do invent things that are not in demand but which are quite brilliant (like the ideas of Da Vinci) ahead of their time, but that is the key- ahead of their time. Without adequate demand from the public, any invention will remain on the shelf, neglected and looking rather stupid UNTIL there is a need (or a percieved need- which is where marketing and sales comes in).

Why was the Apollo Space Ship created and the technologies that were developed and spun off into the US Economy?

Because, of John F. Kennedy declaration that we were going to the Moon and do it in this decade.

Why did the farms become more efficient?

There were two factor that were pushing this increase in efficiency on those farm and they were:
1. The US Government with there road, rail road and canal building along with tax incentive to those farms that created the need for more efficient farms that could produce more food to feed more people.
2. You had people inventing those new machines to increase efficiency on those farms as that need arose.

Without this dance between these two elements, there would never have been a modern family farm system created inside the United States and there would never have been a modern society inside the United States that depend on those farms to exist.

You also had this dual working together to advance both the manufacturing and mining sector of the US Economy and that why the United State became a modern and a technological society with it farming, manufacturing and mining sector. It did not just happen in a vacuum, but it was government sponsored with private inventor stepping up to the plate to fill that new need that was generated by government to advance our economy. That is basically in a nut shell how it happened. Any serious attempt to colonize space will follow this same basic frame work or it won't happen. Any attempt to develop new technologies to colonize space will generally follow this same pattern also, but there may be a few exception here or there, but this will be the general rule of thumb of what will happen and how it will happen.

Why should we go into space?

The two primary reason for going into space are even with people that aren't interested in space is:

1. It creates jobs and solves problems here on Earth. It would be the biggest job program that the US or any other government that might want to join in doing for there own people welfare that they could do. Having a good paying job, solve a lot of problem for someone that unemployed or working at McDonald or some place like that.
2. It a technology driver that improve your productivity like it did for the American Farmer and generally will improve your life. That why I endorse large space national mission like John F. Kennedy put out there for going to the moon. The United States actually made money going to the moon and the moon mission actually returned more to the US Economy than it took out of the US Economy.

Larry,

dicktice · 2007-03-13 11:45:44

Re. "If Kennedy had not made the national goal to go to the moon, would we have gone to the moon?"

You seem to be forgetting the dreamers. Werner von Braun would've found a way, come hell or high water!

C M Edwards · 2007-03-13 12:29:50

During the mid 1990's, I was well on my way to becoming a space travel cynic. What turned me back toward the light was not the advent of various new promising technologies. There were promising ideas before that, but they made no difference in my outlook. Technology alone didn't convince me of anything, and I doubt the current state of space travel technology could convince anyone now.

What pulled me out my funk was Congress.

Legislation was passed in the 1990's that created a realistic process for obtaining launch approvals by US businesses and private US citizens at private facilities. The advent of privately operated launch providers like OSC (with their own working hardware) and others preceded that event by a few years, and doubtless they played a hand in driving the legislation though. Before that, the odds of my even being able to touch part of a working spacecraft were too slim to be relavent to my life on any level, much less actually ride one. On November 1, 1995 there wasn't any perceptible chance that I or anyone I knew would ever have the slightest chance of flying into outer space, and by November 30 there was. Someone stuck some new paragraphs into Title 15 of the US Code of Federal Regulations and suddenly private space travel was legal in the United States. Before that, there was no hope, and afterward there was.

Now, I'm a fan of manned space travel again. Alt Space is proceeding just as slowly as any other aspect of space transportation technology, but it is realistically within my capability to affect its progress. No one in the US could say that as long as NASA and the US military still had the only right to manned space flight.

I love technology. I am motivated by bright shiny objects. But if you really want to change the way I feel, don't give me gadgets. Give me hope.

Martian Republic · 2007-03-13 13:18:57

Re. "If Kennedy had not made the national goal to go to the moon, would we have gone to the moon?"
You seem to be forgetting the dreamers. Werner von Braun would've found a way, come hell or high water!

I didn't forget those dreamers that wanted to go to the moon. We still have plenty of dreamers today for going into space or even going to Mars, but nothing happening. It not because of lack of desire or purpose either of those dreamers.

Why aren't we doing anything then?

What we don't got is a President that will back those dreams up with a National Space Goal Mission and make it happen. Which we had then and that we don't have now is the only difference between then and now that I can see. It not enough to just have the desire to do it, but you have to have a way to do it or your just spinning your wheels and not getting it done.

Larry,

Marsman · 2007-03-13 18:44:16

Elon Musk once said of his own plans to get humans to Mars- " the path by which I hope to get there is to get the public enthusiastic about the possibility, then translate that into legislative pressure so that Congress hands us a Mars mandate."

Some say technology will do it all, or that perhaps a great JFK 2 type President will get it all moving again or that congress passing laws is the key. But all of these things are big "maybe's". Usually when governments decide to do big projects there are strong political reasons for doing so (like the cold war with Russia etc). Waiting and hoping for our leaders to make the decisions we want them to make even in spite of all the other more pressing priorities (wars, the economy, poverty, environment etc) is living in a fantasy world and is the exact opposite of what it means to be a space advocate. Advocates advocate. They don't wait for things to happen, otherwise how is that different to the general public's attitude?

A strong program of building our own numbers would benefit us(with more funding for all of our own projects for a start) and would start to help become more of a serious influence with our political and business leaders on these matters.

Why aren't we doing anything then?

Good question Larry, but the answer you put down is the problem, not the solution. You asked why aren't WE doing anything then you went on to transfer responsibility to a future pro space President, and that is THE real real problem here. Not owning our own dreams for space and expecting others to do it for us one of the main problems here. Waiting and hoping on just the right congress, just the right technology or just the right president to come along is not the way to building a strong foundation for human space travel in the future. These sorts of conditions are very rare and as far as I know only really happened once or twice in the last 50 years. That's nothing to rest our future on. What needs to happen is for enough of the public to demand a strong presence in space that governments and business leaders take notice for once and on a continual basis. Sure, we can hope on the right president to come along or the right technology to enable things, but is that really the way to build a strong future in space? It seems rather shaky to me to just sit around and hope for such things.

We still have plenty of dreamers today for going into space or even going to Mars, but nothing happening.

Very true. How many members of space advocate groups are actually doing something about advancing the cause? From what I can see there are a few dedicated scientists, engineers and administrative people scattered throughout the various space groups and they are the ones writing papers, lobbying the government, working with private space companies and doing public outreach. The rest of space advocacy seem to be mere spectators or cheer squads. What is the point of having 5,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 members in a space group if 90% or more are doing nothing except paying their dues? If you look at the only truly effective advocate groups such as the environmental groups, you will find that they have many programs in place to include their rank and file members and are constantly updating their members on their progress. Their culture is totally the opposite to space advocate groups.

Space advocate groups usually have a strong dominating scientific or engineering based leadership who have their own plans/projects and simply use member fees to pay for them and offer very little inclusion or maybe just a magazine or something like that. They turn their memberships into a crowd of spectators and I'm sorry, but from what I have seen most people who join space groups want to actually accomplish something (at least in the beginning of their membership) but when they realize (quickly) that all the decisions and projects are out of their hands they sit back and become passive. One project that could easily include every rank and file space advocate is public outreach. Whether it's merely talking to friends and relatives about our views or sending letters to government and private sector leaders or growing local chapters, there is always something each of us can do. In an environment of activity and positive results morale is much better and it begins to become self sustaining and growing. More funding comes in, more technical experts join up and our collective voice becomes louder and stronger. These are just some of the benefits of building public support for space.

Martian Republic · 2007-03-13 20:46:02

I didn't say that I liked it. I am telling you how the world actually function whether you like it or not. We have two faction pulling on the United State with different banking policies and concepts of how the government suppose to function. Depending on which faction got control over the United States, the United States will go in different direction like someone that got a split personality. With men like Al Gore and George Bush don't expect a whole from the United States, because we aren't going to be doing a whole lot in space, because they don't want it to happen. But we get someone like John F. Kennedy or FDR or Abraham Lincoln in as President of the United States and you will see us rebuild America and lead the way into space, because that what they want to do and they will provide the leadership to do that too. I saw that kind of leadership in John F. Kennedy and those people that are a little older than me said that they saw that kind of leadership in FDR. I have no doubt that people that were around in Lincoln time would have said the same thing about Lincoln too. Then you have the opposing group and there in both parties and they call themselves both liberal or conservatives. But, there guy's like George Bush and they will run this country into the ground and start illegal war like in Afghanistan and Iraq by invading other countries. They will engage in state sponsored terrorist attacks against the American People like the 9/11 attack was, so they can justify invading other countries. The 9/11 attack was like the Righ Stage fire that put Adolf Hitler into power as a dictator. But, with the 9/11 attack, they didn't quit everything that they wanted.

We find an American President that will bail out of the NAFTA and put the Federal Reserve under a bankruptcy reorganization. This guy will also be financing building subways, super trains, nuclear power plants, etc. Most Americans are looking for this kind of leadership from there President to follow. Which should be OK with us too, because he will also be a pro-space President also and the American People will follow in that project too. The way that we followed Kennedy leadership that sent us to the moon. The real reason that Kennedy did the moon thing was that he was following the Leadership of FDR and that was Kennedy New Deal for America. If you look at what FDR did, he was following Able Lincoln example. It was during those three periods in American history that the US Economy really took off and did great things.

I am not asking you to believe what I just wrote, but check out what I wrote and see if it true. Do web search of Kennedy, FDR, Able Lincoln, and then after a few hours you will know if what I said was true or not. The only thing that I ask of you, is that you put your opinion off to one side and look for the truth or go on a fact finding mission. Then come back and see if what you thought was true line up with what you found. You will be surprised at what you find and it will change the way look at things also.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2007-03-13 20:59:06

I already know that the government has a split view of saving for the future since the Federal side wants you to invest in IRA's or 401 K so as to not rely on the social security system. While if you need help from prolonged job loss that the states will not give you aid until you exhaust these saved funds. This goes for college savings accounts, burrial plots, stocks and so much more.

Marsman · 2007-03-13 23:04:37

I didn't say that I liked it.

I know that, and I agree with you about how those past Presidents did great things for the U.S. But that is not what I am talking about here. You say-

I am telling you how the world actually functions whether you like it or not.

I know the world functions this way. But the whole point of advocacy and activism on behalf of any cause is to CHANGE the world. To change the way things are. So I have a question for you. Do you believe that space advocates and those involved in the space industries CAN change things for the better? Do you believe that we can reach the public and raise levels of interest or not? Or must we wait for a new future super President or great new technologies to come along first?

The only thing stopping us from reaching out to the public is us and our attitudes. We don't need to wait on any development or any leader to do anything. This is something we can do ourselves right now. Maybe for a hardened and cynical forum member or disillusioned space advocate this is all too hard, but what amazes me is how many I hear from seem to take space exploration advancements for granted. Right now we have 2 wonders of technology driving around on another world (MER) and we are gradually stripping away the layers of mystery around Titan and Saturn yet I hear very little on these anymore. The public were interested in those missions and instead of using that interest and recruiting new members to space advocate groups they largely get ignored.

I read Steve Squyres book "Roving Mars" and it was astounding stuff. It gave me a new appreciation and a deep respect for the men and women behind these missions. Now we need to get the public to see what we see, and it's not an impossible task. We can reach the public and advocate groups do have that ability to influence the public when they put their resources and minds to the task. So far this is not happening, but it must or we will continue to have to live with "the way things are". If you don't like the way things are you have a choice- do something about it or do nothing and be a part of the problem. There is a saying which sums this up quite well-

"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

Martian Republic · 2007-03-13 23:28:48

I already know that the government has a split view of saving for the future since the Federal side wants you to invest in IRA's or 401 K so as to not rely on the social security system. While if you need help from prolonged job loss that the states will not give you aid until you exhaust these saved funds. This goes for college savings accounts, burrial plots, stocks and so much more.

It goes even deeper than that.

One of those two groups revolve around the General Welfare concept that is embodied in the US Constitution. Which is intended to promote the best interest of the American People and rest of the world at large as an over flow.

The other group revolve around those bankers that own the Federal Reserve System and control the banking system inside the United States and are part of world banking system. There different elements of this group being the robber barons of the 19th Century and faction that was in the South and pulled it out in the Civil War time and also causing the 1929 Stock Market Crash.

Abraham Lincoln and FDR were the ones that made the policies that were responsible for making the United States a Great and Powerful Nation. Matter of fact, without there impute, the United States as a Nation, probably would not even exist now if they had not been President of the United States. Lincoln kept the United States from breaking up during the Civil War and FDR kept the United States from going fascist during that 1930 Depression.

Larry,

dicktice · 2007-03-14 16:31:57

Not one of you has stated who you mean by "the public." Back in the 1950's that meant "us" as opposed to "them," as far as space research was concerned. But today you have to include more than just "us," because "they" have multiplied and in some cases caught up and passed "us." So what, you say? Well, with India taking over our call centres, medical backlogs, publishing, and now entering space ... China taking our manfactured goods market away from us, and now entering space ... Russia now independently wealthy and continuing to propose one space project after anouther ... Europe and Russia combining forces to pursue joint space programmes ... which "public" do you wish to impress and win their loyalty and support for your proposals? [I've neglected Japan, because I expect they'll supply the interior designs and robotics for all of the spacecraft launched in the future, because that's what they seem to be best at.]

Marsman · 2007-03-14 17:01:50

By "the public" I mean ALL non space interested people everywhere on Earth, starting with the U.S, Canada, Australia, U.K and moving out from there. For example surveys conducted in the U.S have shown consistently that between 50 and 70% of people are interested in the space program to some degree. That is a vast potential market to raise active supporters from just there. Governments can initiate their own space programs whenever they want, with or without public support, I understand that. But they can just as easily cancel space programs and this is where having a large scale and strong advocate lobby (in all nations) would ensure permanent and growing steps into space, not the halting, weak and low budget version we have today. But if the U.S public in particular cannot be brought back to supporting space projects in a serious way it makes it that much harder for all other nations. Plus as far as private space efforts/companies go, the U.S is still far ahead of all these other nations in that area alone and if there was much greater numbers supporting space projects (government or private) in the U.S the private space sector would benefit also.

cIclops · 2007-03-15 09:23:16

Mike Griffin may have said the magic words at the House hearings today. In response to Calvert's question about Chinese space capabilities, Griffin said China could be on the moon by 2017, two years before NASA returns.

dicktice · 2007-03-15 13:26:53

No question of the Chinese public being "gung ho" for their national space program!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-03-12 10:25:09

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#2 2007-03-12 12:19:28

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#3 2007-03-12 15:28:38

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#4 2007-03-12 15:46:11

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#5 2007-03-12 16:01:23

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#6 2007-03-12 18:09:53

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#7 2007-03-12 19:47:36

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#8 2007-03-13 00:09:25

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#9 2007-03-13 05:44:10

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#10 2007-03-13 09:37:46

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#11 2007-03-13 09:40:20

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#12 2007-03-13 10:18:52

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#13 2007-03-13 11:13:29

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#14 2007-03-13 11:45:44

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#15 2007-03-13 12:29:50

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#16 2007-03-13 13:18:57

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#17 2007-03-13 18:44:16

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#18 2007-03-13 20:46:02

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#19 2007-03-13 20:59:06

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#20 2007-03-13 23:04:37

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#21 2007-03-13 23:28:48

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#22 2007-03-14 16:31:57

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#23 2007-03-14 17:01:50

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#24 2007-03-15 09:23:16

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#25 2007-03-15 13:26:53

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

Board footer