Human Missions and Public Support

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-16 08:23:16

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,

None of the Kennedy's today seem all that interested in space travel. I talked to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and he didn't seem to be much of a space enthusiast to me, he's more into environmental litigation.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-16 08:25:32

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

As with all things China, it all depends on the "Emperor" whoever he may be. Do Americans want to be ruled by the "Chinese Star Empire"?

cjchandler · 2007-03-16 13:35:45

Very interesting, I think that the public non-space addict is not enthusiastic, not because they can't go, but because they really don't have a burning desire to go. Why do some people climb mountains even when there is a significat risk to themselves? Because they really want to get there, to go where few have gone before as a matter of speaking. I don't think you are going to be able to change this with advertising or advicacy, so the only way to promote space is to make it less risky.

Martian Republic · 2007-03-16 17:28:32

Very interesting, I think that the public non-space addict is not enthusiastic, not because they can't go, but because they really don't have a burning desire to go. Why do some people climb mountains even when there is a significat risk to themselves? Because they really want to get there, to go where few have gone before as a matter of speaking. I don't think you are going to be able to change this with advertising or advicacy, so the only way to promote space is to make it less risky.

Although your technically correct, there more to it than that. Most Americans are interested in space, the way there interested in a foot ball game. There interested in the up coming game and will talk about it and depending on the out come of the game, they either liked it or didn't like, but there ready for the next game either as a rematch or prove how great they are through there foot ball representative. If you had a foot ball game every ten years or so, the American People will lose interest in it, because it not often enough to keep there interest in it. When President or for our illustration daddy said were going to the moon, the American just kind of look at it. Then we had the big build up to do that and the American people got very interested in it and started following it. After we got to the moon, daddy said were not going to be doing anything more or just as well said that and American People went right back to doing what they were doing before daddy said were going to the moon. The American People will turn on and off depending on what daddy says and are only marginally supportive of the space program and this is probably about 50% to 60% of the American Population. You say most American support the space program, but that support is very marginal at best and there no deep commitment to it.

Larry,

dicktice · 2007-03-16 17:37:33

You can bet that , if we had an expedition on the way to Mars with increasingly long interruptions between questions and answers beamed from Earth to and from the spacecraft ... it'd be watched avidly by the public if reported in condensed form regularly on the news, followed by expert commentary each evening.

SpaceNut · 2007-03-16 18:57:56

I can remember but only dimly now the Apollo program launchings and lunar landings in Black & White TV free air broadcasts. Todays broadcast would mean that indirectly you are paying to watch if the programming is carried and yes I would be glued to the tube still staring in awe at the images as they poured in.

Marsman · 2007-03-17 05:03:08

I don't think you are going to be able to change this with advertising or advicacy, so the only way to promote space is to make it less risky.

"less risky" refers to technology developments and putting our faith in technology alone. This has clearly been shown not to work. The public are fickle, and that is why a robust and creative means of reaching them that goes way beyond just great flight hardware is needed. Advertising and advocacy are needed, especially in the space arena. Sometimes technology works, sometimes it fails (like Challenger/Columbia/Apollo 1 etc). What I am talking about is the space/Mars advocacy community finding ways to change enough people's view on space with pro space entertainment, creative outreach ideas not tried yet and true "outreach" instead of the usual "inreach" we keep practicing. I am coming to the conclusion too that maybe space advocates are not the right people to be advocating their own cause. Possibly due to our demographics being the total opposite of the general public. (80% male, introverts, tech savvy, intellectual, idealistic etc). Maybe we could hire out the PR tasks to professional companies and individuals?

I'm talking about creating a foundation of sympathetic and favorable general public with the same techniques governments and businesses successfully use in their own marketing/PR efforts, no different. If it works for them, it can work for us.

cjchandler · 2007-03-17 06:34:20

The public may be more interesseted in space, like their intresst in pro sports, but I don't see how that will help the space program to any great degree. A sport like intresst will not cause the public to vote differently, nor will it make the public write letters. It happened before, if the public loved space so much in the 60's why didn't it vote for some one who would continue the space program? I think that the only hope is private space flight where people get to go themselves in a safe and economical way, in otherwards, some breakthrough technology, like a space elevator.

As to PR, well I'm not really fond of advertising, but I think a grass roots aproch might work. How about this, you have a private space society which has an idea on how to get to orbit safer and cheaper, perferably something along the lines of a big dumb booster. Then in different cities, the members get together and build one small part, or larger part depending on how many of them there are. they are given the general picture and they pay for, and optimize the part. then all the parts are shipped to a warehouse and assembled by volenteres and a few paid workers in the largest city and people can go there and help. That would get people enthusiastic, to actually build part of a space ship, thought it probably wouldn't be really efficent.

Tholzel · 2007-03-17 14:52:18

<<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.>>

In my opinion, the cosmic issue on generating interest in a manned Mars expedition is to find alien life. Ideally, that alien life would be an extinct form of BEM, complete with crumbling ruins, extensive literature, odd religions, wierd writing, etc., etc.

NASA is fully aware of this interest. That is one reason why its reports from Spirit and Opportunity are chockablock with hints, suggestions, allusions, and prayers that extensive surface water existed on Mars in the past. One in a blue moon do they drop the aside that many of these clues could have come as well from other mechanisms: the layering may have been caused not by water, but by successive wind-born accumulations, etc.

This "bias" towards free water is much like the bias of left-wingers to the war in Iraq: they have their view, and are completely blind to counter-evidence. Indeed, counter-evidence is not that, but simple heresey. You can't bring it up without being looked at like a blasphemer, a turd in the punch bowl, and certainly not a team player.

But, the unvarnished reality is that Mars probably never had abundant liquid surface water, the planet was probably never warmer than it is now (the sun was even cooler millions of years ago), withiout a liquid iron core to generate a magnetic field and thus create a radiation-shielding van Allen belt, the surface of Mars has been effectively sterilized. True, this does not absolutely rule out microbial life underground, but we can pretty much kiss Bug-Eyed Monsters goodbye.

So what's a good PR department to do to keep the budget flowing? Well, what they're doing now is pretty much it. Keep up people's hopes. Lend technical expertese to Hollywood productions like "Red Planet," and so on--all to help keep the hope alive that something really wierd is hidden on Mars, waiting for intrepid American pioneers to uncover. (Remember the evocative poster put out by Boeing? Two astronauts are surmounting a hill. One has slipped and is being gvien a hand by the other. A vast panorama of an empty red plain is spread out behind them. But, just in the right corner is a mound of rubble--or is it. there are ancient seams in the closely-fitted rock wall....)

My take is that NASA needs to jump in with both feet to work the Boeing poster element a bit harder. They need to stop taking the safest, most boring approach (those flat empty plains are REALLY boring). The next landers ought to head for the Valley Marinaris, or the ice cliffs of the North Pole, or the slopes of Olympus Mons. WE the people want to see steep walls, caves, crevasses, all the striking features we see from the air, but never on the ground. By far the most interesting craft I can imagine would be a maneuverable derigible that could skim the surface and bring back hours and hours of low-altitude aerial video, preferabley in 3-D (steroscopic--not perspective 2-D). If the camera lenses were several feet apart, one could get thrilling stereopsis--the sense in the brain of visual plasticity--and perhaps rekindle in the general public the urge to send someone who could stop and check out that shadowed grotto, that hidden gulch, that tantalizingly rectilinear rock formation.

X · 2007-05-03 20:45:58

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.
...
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.

There's a lot of things here to repson to, but the feeling expressed in the above quopte is the backbone of my entire feelings on the matter. Since someone asked I'm speaking about convincing the American public though I think the approach would work well for the people of any society where you need public support.

At the outset of the US space program it was proposed that any healthy, young American man should be allowed to apply to be an astronaut. This was quickly shot down in favor of using test pilots already qualified to do military work so as to expedite the selection of the astronauts of the Mercury program. Sadly the original idea has never been revisisted in any large scale effort. In all the stuff that captured the public imagination in the US space program (Mercury and Apollo) the astronauts were all test pilots save for one geologist who managed to get a seat on the last lander to the moon, and by that time the American people didn't even care about the moon anymore. It didn't have to be that way. After Mercury folks were brought on in such slow manner that the original plan of throwing the astronaut corps open to all could have been pursued, but it wasn't. Even into the days of the shuttle how many regular folks have managed to get a ride? It's a sad thing when the largest contingent of "regular" folks to go up are members of Congress. I will give NASA credit for letting up a bit, and if Challenger had blown up maybe we would be in a better state nowadays.

The point to all this is that the manned portion of the space program has been run in a fashion at odds with the history of the US and the spirit of its people. The West was not reserved solely for a select few. Yes I know there's a difference. Folks can't just up and walk to space as they could to the West. However, the American government has prepared a way, and they refuse to give the average American even the faintest glimpse of hope that they'll ever get to use it.

This is the biggest impediment to public support for space in my mind, and there's absolutely no reason for it. There's no reason NASA should pitch a fit and whine when folks they wouldn't give the time of day to buy a ticket to space from the Russians., but of course there's no reason NASA should do its best to shut space off from everyone other than its select few either. It could end easily. The President could simply order NASA to start letting normal folks apply to be astronauts, or Congress could make future funding contingent on such a policy. It wouldn't take leadership. It wouldn't cost money. It wouldn't even be a risky move since so few do care about space now.

However, it would give the public a stake in space. People support things they have a stake in. People support funding the military because they want to be safe. People support funding schools because they want a cheap education. People support funding welfare programs because they fear they'll need them someday. A lot of people don't support space because they'll never get to go, but if you gave them at least a chance a lot of folks would start supporting space. After all just look at how many folks buy lottery tickets for jackpot where the odds are even more against you.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-04 07:28:04

There's a lot of things here to repson to, but the feeling expressed in the above quopte is the backbone of my entire feelings on the matter. Since someone asked I'm speaking about convincing the American public though I think the approach would work well for the people of any society where you need public support.
At the outset of the US space program it was proposed that any healthy, young American man should be allowed to apply to be an astronaut. This was quickly shot down in favor of using test pilots already qualified to do military work so as to expedite the selection of the astronauts of the Mercury program. Sadly the original idea has never been revisisted in any large scale effort. In all the stuff that captured the public imagination in the US space program (Mercury and Apollo) the astronauts were all test pilots save for one geologist who managed to get a seat on the last lander to the moon, and by that time the American people didn't even care about the moon anymore. It didn't have to be that way. After Mercury folks were brought on in such slow manner that the original plan of throwing the astronaut corps open to all could have been pursued, but it wasn't. Even into the days of the shuttle how many regular folks have managed to get a ride? It's a sad thing when the largest contingent of "regular" folks to go up are members of Congress. I will give NASA credit for letting up a bit, and if Challenger had blown up maybe we would be in a better state nowadays.
The point to all this is that the manned portion of the space program has been run in a fashion at odds with the history of the US and the spirit of its people. The West was not reserved solely for a select few. Yes I know there's a difference. Folks can't just up and walk to space as they could to the West. However, the American government has prepared a way, and they refuse to give the average American even the faintest glimpse of hope that they'll ever get to use it.
This is the biggest impediment to public support for space in my mind, and there's absolutely no reason for it. There's no reason NASA should pitch a fit and whine when folks they wouldn't give the time of day to buy a ticket to space from the Russians., but of course there's no reason NASA should do its best to shut space off from everyone other than its select few either. It could end easily. The President could simply order NASA to start letting normal folks apply to be astronauts, or Congress could make future funding contingent on such a policy. It wouldn't take leadership. It wouldn't cost money. It wouldn't even be a risky move since so few do care about space now.
However, it would give the public a stake in space. People support things they have a stake in. People support funding the military because they want to be safe. People support funding schools because they want a cheap education. People support funding welfare programs because they fear they'll need them someday. A lot of people don't support space because they'll never get to go, but if you gave them at least a chance a lot of folks would start supporting space. After all just look at how many folks buy lottery tickets for jackpot where the odds are even more against you.

Nonsense

NASA must be pragmatic about how it selects astronauts, both in who it picks and how it goes about doing it

It is entirely appropriate, really even inappropriate not to, that NASA should select only the persons best able to carry out the mission. Flying space craft is hard, especially if there is a problem, and the people who fly things best are typically military pilots. Case closed.

Secondly, opening the astronaut corp to every American would require a ridiculous amount of resources to select the tiny handful of people best suited for the job. Can you imagine the deluge of applicants? Especially ones applying again and again? How little difference there would be between them, and how hard it would be to pick out literally only a few of dozen? Or having to deal with the inevitable lawsuits that come from rejected applicants who think they've been slighted?

It just isn't practical and terribly unwise. Furthermore it would turn the space program into one big reality television show whether NASA wants it or not, a "lottery in the sky" almost, the filth of which would adulterate the dignity and national pride in American space flight. A little good public relations boost in the short term isn't worth it, a "lottery atmosphere" is a terrible thing for NASA, this isn't a game show!

Finally, on a less-related note, is about this phrase:

and there's absolutely no reason for

I've found that when anybody invokes this, they are almost always wrong, and are trying to push some kind of radical personal view or agenda on other people through the personal "faith" that there is no possibility that they could be wrong, thusly anyone who questions it is a heretic/stupid/Luddite/evil/etc. Likely followed by some straw-man about "oh, so you hate NASA" etc etc. When you see it, it ought to ring a warning bell in your head...

X · 2007-05-04 10:07:57

"GCNRevenger wrote:

NASA must be pragmatic about how it selects astronauts, both in who it picks and how it goes about doing it
It is entirely appropriate, really even inappropriate not to, that NASA should select only the persons best able to carry out the mission. Flying space craft is hard, especially if there is a problem, and the people who fly things best are typically military pilots. Case closed.

Because everyone on board a spacecraft takes part in the flying. Average folks could be trained to run the experiments on the current shuttle mission, do repairs, and that sort of thing. Similarly looking back average folks could have been included in the moon missions. Yeah you needed someone to land, but the other guy could've been anyone trained to do the work. After all NASA just trained its pilots to do the non-pilot work on the moon, and only saw fit the entire time to include one non-pilot on the final mission.

Secondly, opening the astronaut corp to every American would require a ridiculous amount of resources to select the tiny handful of people best suited for the job. Can you imagine the deluge of applicants?

Yes I can. Otherwise I wouldn't think this was a good idea for gaining public support for space. The fact that so many folks who otherwise wouldn't care about space would be dying to particioate is exactly why I think this would be a good idea.

Especially ones applying again and again? How little difference there would be between them, and how hard it would be to pick out literally only a few of dozen? Or having to deal with the inevitable lawsuits that come from rejected applicants who think they've been slighted?

Odd to see you saying a few sentences ago about how necessary it was to only have trained pilots, but now you admit there's a whole lot of folks who would be worthy and up to task. In any event you just throw away repeat applications from folks who aren't up to standard. Lawsuits are no problem either since the feds have to agree to even allow someone to take them to court.

It just isn't practical and terribly unwise. Furthermore it would turn the space program into one big reality television show whether NASA wants it or not, a "lottery in the sky" almost, the filth of which would adulterate the dignity and national pride in American space flight. A little good public relations boost in the short term isn't worth it, a "lottery atmosphere" is a terrible thing for NASA, this isn't a game show!

God forbid folks were actually excited about space. If the average person is interested and wants to take part in it he'd only drag down the space program from it's current lofty position where astronauts drive crosscountry in diapers to attack their romantic rivals, and that's just recently. Let's not forget the Mercury astronauts who could and did take advantage of the hundreds of women throwing themselves at them not to mention sweetheart business deals. Shoot American Idol is purely a popularity contest, and it's members track record isn't that much worse than that of the astronauts.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-04 12:42:26

You were referring to the Apollo missions, where neither vehicle had reliable automated docking, and so both vehicles had to have crack pilots, especially in the event that one vehicle couldn't maneuver. For the LEM on the surface, the chance that one of the astronauts would be incapacitated was higher than for the CM pilot, so it made sense for the LEM crew to both be pilots, at least proficiently.

I reject the notion that "anybody" on the average can be trained to be a pilot for something as complex as a space craft, which you didn't seem to get from my last post. When I said that the large majority of applicants would all have comparable resumes, I did not imply that they were all equally acceptable and it would be hard to pick one, but rather a great many of them would be uniformly unacceptable, but wading through them would prove to require too much of an HR investment.

It is better for NASA, like an NFL recruiter, to go out to find who it wants instead of having the paper work equivalent of tryouts at a stadium for every single person who applies. If the public is allowed to apply for the astronaut corp, the minimum requirements for application must be by your standards impossible for the average man on the street to prevent the system from being inundated to the point of total catatonic failure. This goes for all astronauts, whether they need to be pilots or just mission specialists.

God forbid folks were actually excited about space

= "You hate NASA!" straw man, as predicted. Better that NASA retain its dignity then for people to "get excited" about it like a game show or a lottery.

I also find it revolting and distasteful that you would so discount the dignity and heroism of 50 years of relatively selfless astronauts over one bad egg snapping! Comparisons with American Idol indeed! Nonsense!

publiusr · 2007-05-04 16:15:47

Well said.

X · 2007-05-06 11:18:00

I reject the notion that "anybody" on the average can be trained to be a pilot for something as complex as a space craft, which you didn't seem to get from my last post.

I got it I just don't agree. NASA's already taking folks with 0% spacecraft flight experience and training them to fly a spacecraft. How's one gorup with no experience more qualified than another group with no experience?

If the public is allowed to apply for the astronaut corp, the minimum requirements for application must be by your standards impossible for the average man on the street to prevent the system from being inundated to the point of total catatonic failure. This goes for all astronauts, whether they need to be pilots or just mission specialists.

That depends on the standards doesn't it? If NASA hadn't originally felt the public was adequate for astronaut training they never would have floated the idea to begin with.

"You hate NASA!" straw man, as predicted.

On the contrary from the basis of your posts here I think you love NASA far more than most, and to the point that you'd rather preserve whatever idealized vision of it you have than see it be better supported by the public.

Better that NASA retain its dignity then for people to "get excited" about it like a game show or a lottery.

Yeah all that dignity sure does help it get so much done doesn't. Much better for NASA to be unpopular but dignified while doing a few things than to be popular and flush with cash to carry out more missions.

I also find it revolting and distasteful that you would so discount the dignity and heroism of 50 years of relatively selfless astronauts over one bad egg snapping!

I discount nothing. They behave like normal people right down to this recent incident because they are just normal people. NASA can annoint who it wants, but it doesn't make them morally superior to everyone else as you seem to want to think.

Comparisons with American Idol indeed! Nonsense!

When it stops being true I'll stop using it. But hey with the current support for NASA American Idol will probably pass it in sheer number of inalists and bad behavior in a few years anyways.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-06 22:56:02

Nonsense, you're basing your whole thesis on a one-off deal, if the Apollo geologist didn't have the ability to fly he'd have been dropped in a heartbeat. Flying a spacecraft requires the ability to operate under pressure, manage a very complex machine, and abilities that most people simply do not have.

For instance, do you think "average people" could fly carrier-based aircraft, which are often complex beasts, with high physical and mental requirements, and who need flawless precision to avoid becoming a fireball and some debris? These abilities are not unlike what a spacecraft pilot will have to be able to cope with, and "average people" can't do that sort of thing well. Only some exceptional people can, whether they have space experience or not, and many of whom happen to be military pilots.

"Average" people are also not qualified because they are not the best at what NASA needs them to do; "average" people are by definition not good enough for astronaut duty. This applies to all the abilities NASA is looking for, scientific, mechanical, and pilots. To maximize the effectiveness and minimize the risk of spaceflight, only the best people should get to go.

they never would have floated the idea to begin with

Ah here we go again, "because some guy at NASA thought about it" No no no no no, has the astronaut corp been opened to the public, yes or no? Because if it has not, that this idea was squelched, this would in fact be proof that I am right, that it would be crazy to invite applications from the general public without massively prohibitive requirements. Even limiting admissions to people with advanced degrees in hard science or engineering is many many thousands of people.

On the contrary from the basis of your posts here I think you love NASA far more than most, and to the point that you'd rather preserve whatever idealized vision of it you have than see it be better supported by the public.

You totally missed it, I threw the "hate NASA" bit as an example of an absurd straw man that usually comprises the response to a challenge of any kind of pseudo-religious belief in something. Your straw man is to accuse me of not wanting the public to be excited about spaceflight; which of course, your plan to "Survivor: NASA" the agencies' only route to salvation and the promised land of public support etc etc.

NASA is unique among non-military agencies in that it does hold a special place of national pride and dignity, NASA's flight program is not for average Americans, its for the best America has to offer. Opening the flood gates by lowering standards will ruin this, and it will cost you more support than you think.

If you exchange this for a "Space Sanjaya" or some other lottery/reality TV-like temporary boost in popularity and visibility, with brutal obviousness that NASA dropped its standards, this will be lost. Thus, later when the temporary shot in the arm wears off, what will happen then? NASA needs continuous support much more than it needs large but unstable support, and if the agencies' dignity is lost it will take a very long time to rebuild it. Longer than NASA would have, in all likelihood.

I discount nothing.

Nonsense! You just did in the following sentence! And if it is not obvious that the astronaut corps is an elite cadre of amazingly able and brave people these last fifty years, then it is clear you have no idea what astronauts are called upon to do, you discount the necessity for having people of their caliber, nor do you have any business judging who is fit and isn't. They have made it look easy because they are superior, not because it is easy. It is insulting that you discount all this so casually over one poorly chosen member.

X · 2007-05-07 21:10:51

Nonsense, you're basing your whole thesis on a one-off deal, if the Apollo geologist didn't have the ability to fly he'd have been dropped in a heartbeat.

And how exactly did they know he could fly to begin with?

Flying a spacecraft requires the ability to operate under pressure, manage a very complex machine, and abilities that most people simply do not have.

Sure, but folks who might at least deserve a chance to apply.

For instance, do you think "average people" could fly carrier-based aircraft, which are often complex beasts, with high physical and mental requirements, and who need flawless precision to avoid becoming a fireball and some debris?

Some yeah. It's not like carrier based pilots come from generations of pilots and have flight ingrained in their genes. They had to be trained once upon a time too.

These abilities are not unlike what a spacecraft pilot will have to be able to cope with, and "average people" can't do that sort of thing well. Only some exceptional people can, whether they have space experience or not, and many of whom happen to be military pilots.

That last part certainly supports your argument, but then again without letting other folks have a shot it can't be tested.

"Average" people are also not qualified because they are not the best at what NASA needs them to do; "average" people are by definition not good enough for astronaut duty. This applies to all the abilities NASA is looking for, scientific, mechanical, and pilots. To maximize the effectiveness and minimize the risk of spaceflight, only the best people should get to go.

But how do we know we're getting the best people in the current system? Maybe NASA can say they've got the best people from test pilots, but that's a group that has self selected itself long before NASA ever decides to pick out its pilots. Folks who don't want to be pilots won't become pilots. It's not a position you just fall into, but at the same time there's a whole lot of folks who'd like to be astronauts but could care less about being a pilot. Now maybe some of them have the skills and some don't, but since they never threw years of their life away working as pilots since they didn't want to be a pilot you'll never know if they do or not.

This is one reason I favor opening the selection process to the public. There's lots of folks who'd like to work in space while not having any interest in being a pilot or scientist. The current selection process is selecting from these two groups long after they've formed, and the person who doesn't want to be a pilot or scientist is basically shut out of the process before they even start. Why spend years getting yourself entrenched in a career you've no real interest in on the off chance you might get to be an astronaut? At the same time though these folks might be willing to become pilots or scientists if doing so was the price for an assured chance at working in space. But under the current system these folks go off to become engineers, cops, doctors, firefighters, lawyers, or what have you.

Ah here we go again, "because some guy at NASA thought about it" No no no no no, has the astronaut corp been opened to the public, yes or no?

Yes. There've been a few Congress members, a teacher, and a journalist or two (if I remember correctly).

Because if it has not, that this idea was squelched, this would in fact be proof that I am right, that it would be crazy to invite applications from the general public without massively prohibitive requirements.

Where did I say requirements should be lowered? If I inadvertantly did so it was not my intention. I'm all for keeping the same standards. I just want to make becoming an astronaut a genuine goal for a person to have instead of just something that happens if you're lucky after being a pilot or a scientist. That doesn't mean everyone who wants to be one will get to. Most folks want, but at least there's a clear and tangible path for a person to go down if that's their goal in life instead of the current system where you have to build a career in some other field and then maybe you get to be an astronaut later.

You totally missed it, I threw the "hate NASA" bit as an example of an absurd straw man that usually comprises the response to a challenge of any kind of pseudo-religious belief in something. Your straw man is to accuse me of not wanting the public to be excited about spaceflight;which of course, your plan to "Survivor: NASA" the agencies' only route to salvation and the promised land of public support etc etc.
NASA is unique among non-military agencies in that it does hold a special place of national pride and dignity, NASA's flight program is not for average Americans, its for the best America has to offer. Opening the flood gates by lowering standards will ruin this, and it will cost you more support than you think.
If you exchange this for a "Space Sanjaya" or some other lottery/reality TV-like temporary boost in popularity and visibility, with brutal obviousness that NASA dropped its standards, this will be lost. Thus, later when the temporary shot in the arm wears off, what will happen then? NASA needs continuous support much more than it needs large but unstable support, and if the agencies' dignity is lost it will take a very long time to rebuild it. Longer than NASA would have, in all likelihood.

Again I don't recall suggesting standards should be lowered. I just think the process of application should be open to everyone.

Nonsense! You just did in the following sentence! And if it is not obvious that the astronaut corps is an elite cadre of amazingly able and brave people these last fifty years, then it is clear you have no idea what astronauts are called upon to do, you discount the necessity for having people of their caliber, nor do you have any business judging who is fit and isn't. They have made it look easy because they are superior, not because it is easy. It is insulting that you discount all this so casually over one poorly chosen member.

It is insulting that you think they're the only folks in the country capable of doing their job. There are plenty of folks who do stressful and dangerous jobs and do them well, but they're basically out of luck if they want even a shot at being an astronaut under the current system since they had no interest in being a pilot or a scientist their entire life on the off chance that they might get to be an astronaut for a few years.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-08 09:07:51

NASA took a chance with the geologist, but it was a small risk, since they could have easily replaced him if he didn't pan out. The need for astronauts was small in Apollo, they had plenty of veterans handy, ready to go after their two-week missions. For VSE though, we'll be sending up 14 people a year, perhaps as many as 20, for up to six months each. There won't be alot of veteran, well-rested fresh astronauts handy if a half dozen "new system recruits" planned for the next year or two's mission fail training.

I don't think you understood what I meant earlier about defacto impossible standards, you keep on saying that average people deserve a "chance" at being as astronaut and you state that standards shouldn't be lowered. These two statements are incongruent, because if the present standards aren't relaxed, then there is defacto no chance for them to be an astronaut. Yes they could send in the paperwork, but the chances of measuring up to NASA astronaut corps standards means that "average" people will have basically zero chance of ever being accepted. You can't have it both ways, you can't criticize NASA for both having high minimum standards and making application very difficult.

What good is it if "everyone" were allowed to apply, with the associated paperwork nightmare for NASA to process and consider the applications, if essentially "everyone" would be rejected? This is what I meant by the application process must be essentially, that is "effectively" impossible. If 100,000 people apply and NASA rejects 99,998 of them, thats not "open" nor is it a "chance" nor is it "tangible."

And actually I do think being a carrier pilot for high-performance aircraft involves genetics or other physical traits that are or are nearly impossible for a person to acquire except by birth. I don't mean to be mean about this, but thats the way it is. I certainly don't have the reflexes to be a race car driver, but if the government had a racing school, I should be given a chance to drive anyway? Even under this analogy, what happens if 10,000 people all apply, should the government take each and every applicant out to the track and pay professional trainers, mechanics, and for fuel to let each and every one of them try?

NASA couldn't be obligated to bring every applicant to JSC
and put them through a "preliminary testing," the whole system would be inundated and collapse. Furthermore, even if essentially no physical testing was performed, the problem of differentiating the gagillion applicants from one another would be impossible, there would be too many, it would come down to basically a space lottery, and turn the whole thing into a game show, whether you intend it that way or not that is what would happen.

As for how NASA knows who to pick, I would think 50 years of nearly flawless missions is proof enough that they know what what they're doing. And you'd like to open the application for people who want to be astronauts but who don't want to be a pilot or scientist? That makes no sense, because astronauts are pilots and scientists: this is important in two ways, first these are the kinds of skills NASA needs, and second this is what an astronauts' job is, it just happens that the job involves space travel. NASA is not a tourist flight service or game show prize, it sends up astronauts for good reasons.

The number of astronauts needed is also so small, NASA has absolutely no business promising space flight to the general public if they go and get various education and preparatory training in the future. They simply can't promise, or even for that matter offer a good chance, for a seat for something they will do in the future some time. They can't do it simply because there are so few seats to go around, applicants would defacto have zero chance. NASA shouldn't do this either, because betting on applicants doing the hard work after they've got their ticket in hand is too big a gamble, NASA has every right to go with the sure bet and hire people who already have the science/training/etc background.

Furthermore, speaking from someone in the sciences, if you don't like science but are going through it to have a once-or-twice in a lifetime rocket ride into space, then you are going to have a seriously depressing life before and after your trip, and maybe even during it too. If you don't like flying or science or whatnot then why should NASA consider candidates for pilots and scientists?

As far as one congressmen and two-odd teachers that went up, those were really one-off deals too: the congressmen actually happened to be a former astronaut, and the teacher were there to inspire the next generation, part of NASA's written mission. Letting anybody who "just wants" to go up and gets to go under a relaxed set of standards is different, it turns NASA's space program into a joy ride service, the very thing is must never become lest it lose support.

And yes, I don't think the average American can be an astronaut of comparable caliber to those the last 50 years, these people have more and better ability, gifts, and talents then the average person, which is what NASA needs and what they have right to demand.

X · 2007-05-09 20:23:27

NASA took a chance with the geologist, but it was a small risk, since they could have easily replaced him if he didn't pan out. The need for astronauts was small in Apollo, they had plenty of veterans handy, ready to go after their two-week missions.

They also had years to build up this group around the Mercury astronauts. They could have opened the application process to the public, selected those that met their qualifications, and trained or washed out and replaced the folks who made it to the training stage.

For VSE though, we'll be sending up 14 people a year, perhaps as many as 20, for up to six months each. There won't be alot of veteran, well-rested fresh astronauts handy if a half dozen "new system recruits" planned for the next year or two's mission fail training.

So start now. Let in one or two of the astronauts from the public to start, and raise that number each year until its your entire class of new recruits. Time this so that by the time you're going all civilian you'll have more astronauts than you'll need in the near future just like with Gemini and Apollo, and you can afford to have an entire class wash out in the unlikely event that it does.

I don't think you understood what I meant earlier about defacto impossible standards, you keep on saying that average people deserve a "chance" at being as astronaut and you state that standards shouldn't be lowered. These two statements are incongruent, because if the present standards aren't relaxed, then there is defacto no chance for them to be an astronaut. Yes they could send in the paperwork, but the chances of measuring up to NASA astronaut corps standards means that "average" people will have basically zero chance of ever being accepted. You can't have it both ways, you can't criticize NASA for both having high minimum standards and making application very difficult.
What good is it if "everyone" were allowed to apply, with the associated paperwork nightmare for NASA to process and consider the applications, if essentially "everyone" would be rejected? This is what I meant by the application process must be essentially, that is "effectively" impossible. If 100,000 people apply and NASA rejects 99,998 of them, thats not "open" nor is it a "chance" nor is it "tangible."

The public has a 0% chance to be an astronaut now. Having a X<<1% chance is a much better chance than they've ever had before, and those few folks who do make it will have families and neighbors who will know for a fact it's possible for a person to become an astronaut because they'll have known or be related to someone who has. That'll increase the public support for space which if I remember correctly was the original point of this whole thread.

Similarly yeah it'd be a lot of paperwork especially at the beginning. So NASA could open a center dedicated to processing the applications in say New York where if I remember correctly they lack any facilities. You'll only employ a few folks, but for a few salaries you pick up to Senate votes as well as at least 1 House vote to increase funding.

And actually I do think being a carrier pilot for high-performance aircraft involves genetics or other physical traits that are or are nearly impossible for a person to acquire except by birth. I don't mean to be mean about this, but thats the way it is. I certainly don't have the reflexes to be a race car driver, but if the government had a racing school, I should be given a chance to drive anyway? Even under this analogy, what happens if 10,000 people all apply, should the government take each and every applicant out to the track and pay professional trainers, mechanics, and for fuel to let each and every one of them try?

You should be given the chance to apply. If you don't even get a callback okay, but at least you got to apply without spending years doing something you didn't care about just so you could one day apply to be a race car driver.

[quoteNASA couldn't be obligated to bring every applicant to JSC
and put them through a "preliminary testing," the whole system would be inundated and collapse. Furthermore, even if essentially no physical testing was performed, the problem of differentiating the gagillion applicants from one another would be impossible, there would be too many, it would come down to basically a space lottery, and turn the whole thing into a game show, whether you intend it that way or not that is what would happen.

Marsman · 2007-05-09 21:48:08

Raising public interest and support was the point of this thread X, yes. Politicians and business leaders alike do take their cue from public opinion and despite what they say they do follow the polls closely. Certainly there are politicians who get bribed or influenced by lobbyists with deep pockets but overall they are very mindful of public opinion, especially around election time. Business leaders in the private sector try to stay in touch with "market demand" and what is popular also. This all means that the public do actually have a say on many issues whether they know it or not.

This is not totally cut and dried, the public do also get influenced by advertising and trends of the day but generally the public are a potent force in determining political and private sector direction. This is why large numbers of the public can influence space policy as well. Your ideas of getting the public involved are essentially sound in concept, but expecting NASA to do it is off base. They exist for science and exploration, and they are professionals who answer to congress and DOD. The public would like to be involved and given the chance would like to travel into space but this will be for the private sector to fulfill, and they at least are starting on that track. Sure, NASA could try to do it now, but as GCN said, it would not help them at all in their mandate. The private sector- altspace as it is known could bring the public in and I think they will, but first they need actual working and safe spaceships/rockets.

The problem right now is that altspace is heavily underfunded and this means their dreams will not happen until those funds do come in. When you break it down, the only ways right now for altspace to get the funds they need is through the odd billionaire backer like Branson, Allen, Musk etc Or through public shares/IPO's. The first option means that all the other altspace outfits are hopelessly underfunded and all we can do is wait on the big names to succeed, which could be some years away. The reason they are not seeking shares/investors or are not succeeding is that public/market sentiment is most definitely against them.

It is a difficult problem for sure but there are ways through it. Public sentiment is against them for two reasons. First, the public have other priorities. This means that while the topic of human space travel remains unpopular altspace will always struggle to gain funds. So their first task should be to spend what meager resources they do have not on half assed research and development but instead on changing public opinion and sentiment which currently they are failing miserably at. For example, if development of a successful and safe rocket will actually cost a billion dollars but someone only has 3 or 4 million, what is wiser? To waste it on r & d which won't amount to anything more than a nice website or a few paper ideas, OR spend it wisely on entertainment and consumer/community based items like PR, games, movies, T.V, community events, non profit space advocate groups (who are full of passionate space advocates who have no money to do any of their ideas for reaching the public) and so on.

Space advocate groups are full of ideas on how to reach the public but lack both the money and the professionals to make their plans a reality. Yet when I see altspace outfits (or even advocate groups) waste their money on "pretend" research or publicity stunts it makes me angry. They should be using their resources to influence the public mindset about space. This might mean employing professional PR people, Hollywood style agents (to work within the entertainment industry and start producing high quality space based entertainment) and creating games, community events and more. If they get the foundations right, everything else will follow. Sure, the public could be inspired by being given the chance to go into space, but again, without professional PR and media attention (with tie in reality T.V, movies etc) even that sort of effort would not be as successful as you think. Jusdt look at the influence of sci fi for example. Books, movies, magazines, T.V shows etc, all have played a big role in shaping our modern world. This influence or creativity and art is not being used very well right now by space advocates or altspace.

Often the two are disconnected. For example, Star Wars and Star trek have done more to popularize space than all of the space advocates, altspace and even NASA could, but those franchises were not connected to any effort to raise public support for space and so were wasted opportunities. If altspace and space advocates took charge of producing their own space related entertainment (and started to become more relevant to average people) and connected it to recruiting interested members of the public, something like that would start to see results. We do need to try new ideas, the current way things are going is clearly failing.

noosfractal · 2007-05-10 01:36:16

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself

Browse | Most Viewed | All Time
http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=mp&t=a

Evolution of Dance
Added: 1 year ago
By: some guy
Views: 48,157,800

!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=marsdrive

No Videos found for 'marsdrive'

?

Marsman · 2007-05-10 03:19:27

We do have a presence in MySpace and Second Life, the YouTube production we are working on obviously needs more resources(as is the norm for most space groups). We are aiming to put something on in there that is worth watching and to be as professional as possible. Like I said in my previous post, if altspace and space advocates spent more of their funds, time and resources on actually reaching the public through things like this I'm sure we could improve things. As far as Marsdrive goes, we can only do what we have the resources for, but rest assured, once those resources are there we will do as much as we can to live up to our message. What alot of space advocates don't get is that we (space advocates in general) are the only ones interested in this topic, and if we don't help each other out who will? Most of our initial funds have gone towards things like website costs, advertising, legal and registration costs for becoming a non profit and so forth. Some organizations have quite a bit of money but waste it on small time or pretend research and development (which goes nowhere). Considering that we have fewer members than most of these other groups and are still quite young I am proud of the progress we have made so far. We will continue to improve our reach as our resources allow, that's all that's stopping us.

Regardless of where Marsdrive is at my message in the prvious post remains true. If we want to raise public support it's time we started spending some decent resources on the problem.

noosfractal · 2007-05-10 05:30:20

Some organizations have quite a bit of money but waste it on small time or pretend research and development (which goes nowhere).

I finally get it that you are talking about FMARS. But this is exactly the sort of thing a PR firm would advise you to do. See that Discovery Channel logo on the side? They have 90 million subscribers. Discovery Channel is sponsoring the thing, and is going to run a documentary over and over again showing young happy people "on Mars." It doesn't get better than that. If it were a marsdrive project you would be proud as punch.

What do you think a PR firm is going to advise you to do? Graffiti on subway walls? (Actually, that'd be kinda cool === Mars Now ===) An Ad Council style TV campaign? This is your brain. This is your brain on Mars. Direct Mail campaign? Dear Friend, please ignore the other beg letters you got today about buying 1/10th of a cow for an impoverished family in Somalia ("Now that my family has a cow to carry water, I can go to school") and the Campaign to End Airtravel ("Because flying costs the Earth!") and send $35 to help improve public perception of Mars ("Mars: it's less crowded there ... but not so sparsely populated that you'd be lonely or anything ... and they have cable ... and FREE BEER!").

No. It has to be all intrepid explorer and "one step closer to Mars." FMARS, X-Prize, Rocket Racing, Yuri's Night - all good stuff. The film/TV/game projects should fund themselves.

Marsman · 2007-05-10 09:42:19

I finally get it that you are talking about FMARS.

Actually I was referring to all the hair brained "research" schemes dreamed up by altspace or space advocate groups in general with dubious scientific merit. Are we trying to get to Mars or not? As a PR tool it is not as good as you say it is anyway. If FMARS were our project? It isn't. It serves a purpose for the Mars Society and that is to raise some public awareness of Mars by having it look like it is on Mars, and as PR efforts go it is useful certainly. It has even helped with learning "human factors" which will have some value when people are on Mars but we do need to remember, Earth is not Mars. PR is about how to relate to the public, how to improve the popularity and image of something in the best way possible. So the question is, is FMARS the best possible way Mars groups could use to reach the public? When I compare FMARS to say the Red, Green, Blue Mars Trilogy by KSR I would have to say that the book comes out in front for influencing the public and popularizing human settlement of Mars. And that is just one book. Then there are other books like Arthur C Clark's "Snows of Olympus" or Greg Benford's "The Martian Race" or films like Red Planet and Mission to Mars or just take sci fi in general. Sci Fi (and real planetary missions like MER)has done far more to inspire the masses than FMARS could ever hope to.

Discovery don't show much when it comes to FMARS anyway. I would not scrap it, but it would not be on the top of my list. I'm more concerned with the job of actually getting humans to Mars first before I think about how they will play around on the surface. Do not take for granted that a human mission to Mars will be successful. What I am talking about is a readjustment of priorities in the way space groups spend their money. I agree that research is needed and I would hope it continues and improves, but if expanding our numbers is foundational to a solid future in space- and it is- then it is time space groups started to focus more of their funds on actually reaching the public instead of preaching to the choir.

Noosfractal, you are speaking like a true space advocate, and that's fine, I'm one too, but try to think for a second like someone who is not interested in space. Those are the people we need to reach, and currently we are failing. When I think of reaching the public, I try to think of what THEY would be interested in, not what I am already interested in. Here is the core problem, let me spell it out for you- The public, including you and me generally like to watch and follow human dramas, comedy, action, romance, etc. We like to watch other people and interact, it's just human nature. If we didn't there would be no Hollywood. I'll try to put it in a way you can understand. Do you remember a series not long ago called- "From The Earth To The Moon" or that film- "Apollo 13"? Tom Hanks was involved with both. Those were both very popular showings and the public ate it up. Why? Because it presented to them human drama at its best, laughs, terror and action aplenty. In short, they were great (and true) stories.

Great stories have immense power to shape public opinion and our world. But what is you suggestion?

No. It has to be all intrepid explorer and "one step closer to Mars." FMARS, X-Prize, Rocket Racing, Yuri's Night - all good stuff.

All good stuff to you and me and anyone already interested in space but what are those things? FMARS is a technical research project that also helps publicize what it might look like to be on Mars- literally. Ask your neighbor or someone on the street if they have heard of FMARS. The X Prize is an event that attracts the usual air show crowds (when it isn't sidelined by setbacks) and attracts the usual tech/space interested crowd, Rocket Racing hasn't yet started but when it does it might actually reach some of the motor racing fans although my guess it will just attract the X prize crowd mostly, and Yuri's Night, despite being a good thing (and something I support) unfortunately reaches mostly "the choir" of established space fans. How effective are those things at expanding our numbers? Answer me that.

What you are suggesting is more of the same and it doesn't achieve any of our objectives as far as I can see. Reaching the public involves wise use of a good story, famous celebrities and smart promotions. The PR world know how to do this, space advocates do not. Let's be real here. Space advocates are a certain demographic overall. Male, tech savvy, introverted, etc. I don't expect introverts or people who spend too much time at the computer to understand or desire to reach out to others but unfortunately we are all there is and this is something that has to be done no matter what smart arguments we try to muster against it. If we don't get off our asses and do something, who will? And if you think a bunch of highly underfunded and unprofessional space advocates or altspacers are going to usher in a bright future for us all in space then think again.

In the real world, if you want to make a mission to Mars happen it takes massive public support, loads of money- billions and loads of highly skilled specialists from all over the world. It also takes political will and private sector support too. At present all of these things are a mess, and at the foundation lies a severe lack of public sentiment and support. While the space community continues to display the arrogant attitude it has towards its "cashcow" of the dumb public it should never expect that same public to support anything it does in any significant way. By what you wrote Noosfractal you are poking fun at the public and at the drive to find new ways of reaching them. No wonder our numbers are so small.

As to films, games, TV etc paying for themselves, again, that's not the real world. Usually these things get funded by various production companies or investors and they try to put their investment in content that they think will actually be popular. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If the space community used some of its brains and resources I am sure it could come up with some very good stories to tell that could be pitched to movie, TV and game makers. We could also make better use of the celebrities within our midst and often on our boards.

Just one side note- we have considered FMARS style projects but we prefer to spend our resources on researching things like actually getting humans to Mars first before we get too elaborate with the second step which is what to do on the surface. That's on the technical side of things. On the outreach side we are building an effort which clearly has not really been tried before from space advocates- to connect popularizing space to recruiting new space advocates- aimed at the non space public, not the choir.

Fledi · 2007-05-10 17:47:31

I think the space community/industry has all the money they can get. Noosfractal is right in that we are competing against other advocates who are only begging for enough food or basic education for the many millions of people living in absolute poverty.
It is a wonder that we get as much resources as we do against these odds and personally I think it would be quite immoral to ask for a lot more.
What we really need is to lower the cost of spaceflight, this would often mean taking less expensive options that mostly are only slightly less capable than the high-end stuff we are using today.
Let's take heat shields for example, why waste money on reusable materials when you could have a simple and cheap ablator that can be refurbished and reattached to a reusable capsule?
Or take upper stage engines, there are variants that have a nozzle throat made of a platinum alloy where platinum is the cheapest ingredient, while it only improves isp by a few sec compared to cheaper alternatives.
At the same time, there are new materials like carbon/aramid fibers (kevlar and that sort of stuff) that could make fuel tank materials much lighter than metal ones at no significant price increase to the whole system.
But I'm digressing into the tech stuff too much....
Anyway my point is to contribute to the overall technical development to lower the costs, it might be a slow process or there could be unexpected leaps any time, but consider what proportion of the world's economy former explorers had at hands and you will see that we are quite well off compared to them.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-03-16 08:23:16

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#27 2007-03-16 08:25:32

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#28 2007-03-16 13:35:45

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#29 2007-03-16 17:28:32

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#30 2007-03-16 17:37:33

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#31 2007-03-16 18:57:56

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#32 2007-03-17 05:03:08

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#33 2007-03-17 06:34:20

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#34 2007-03-17 14:52:18

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#35 2007-05-03 20:45:58

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#36 2007-05-04 07:28:04

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#37 2007-05-04 10:07:57

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#38 2007-05-04 12:42:26

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#39 2007-05-04 16:15:47

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#40 2007-05-06 11:18:00

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#41 2007-05-06 22:56:02

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#42 2007-05-07 21:10:51

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#43 2007-05-08 09:07:51

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#44 2007-05-09 20:23:27

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#45 2007-05-09 21:48:08

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#46 2007-05-10 01:36:16

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#47 2007-05-10 03:19:27

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#48 2007-05-10 05:30:20

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#49 2007-05-10 09:42:19

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#50 2007-05-10 17:47:31

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

Board footer