Selling NASA To The Skeptics

My old and good friend JT is right on the mark. Increasingly, space supporters must start thinking akin to "consumer mode"-what immediate and practical benefits do people receive from the civil space program? Why should it be a national priority? Emphasize the science, the technologies, the global leadership-and yes my friends the jobs. Forget about "we have a manifest destiny to explore" as Mike Griffin used to say. I tried that line out in a presentation in New Mexico in 2005 and was told by a senior citizen "that may be true sonny but use your own money to find whatever you're looking for!".

Frank,

I absolutely agree with you, with one proviso about the jobs point - it has to be the right kind of jobs. And what I mean by that is it has to be jobs that move towards a self-sustaining marketplace - that is, it has to be towards private industry consumer jobs, not purely government contractor jobs. Otherwise, you are then really open to challenges of "its merely welfare for white-collar engineers"

One question - do you think it hurts, or helps to tie it all together, both the hard, measurable, discernible near-term benefits, but also add in the "our destiny" angle? IE "it has benefits X, Y, and Z right now, plus there is this larger, super long term goal..."?

[H]e observes that one unspoken reason that China has gone whole-hog on its massive, $650 billion fiscal stimulus program — creating more factory capacity in a country that is already reeling from overcapacity — is that the effort gives it cover to stockpile copper, oil, iron ore and other hard assets that it considers to be better stores of value than dollars. - MSN Money

This is a way that they can bury us. They can monopolize both the raw material resources and industrial capacity to use them, leaving us with no choice of where to buy our goods. The Moon is only 3 days away from Earth. It is our nearest treasure trove of increasingly scarce resources. We have to do something to break out of this cycle of dependency or we will certainly lose not only our freedom, but our very nation.

I wonder about the descripton of JT as a NASA Veteran, etc. Has he ever worked for an aerospace contractor or worked for the Gov't except as a PAO person? The news piece says he worked at NASA HQ - but as what? The piece almost makes him sound like a grizzled old engineer and I think that is a misconception. He might have good ideas but should he be described as an experienced political chief of staff, etc?

Even with that, if he was so experienced, why is he working for a powerless freshman member of Congress? Rep Olson is a member of a party that currently could have all of their House representatives meet in a large phone booth. It appears that they will rebound big time in 2010 but for now...

Anyway, this sounds like a generic "give us more money" statement and does not say where we could cut to free up the money, etc. Obviously, Constellation is in trouble. The good news is that the review commission said they are doing ok, the bad news is that the Administration saw enough concern that they formed a review commission! But JT does not say what we should do instead of the flawed program we have.

Editor's note: does this anonymous and ill-informed character assassination make you feel better, "Charles" or is it "Phillip"? I always wonder what people would say if they were required to use their real name - like I do and J.T. does.

So the question is will the space supporters promote a common plan (the current plan being a prime candidate), or will they fight each other for their specific favorite?

@Frank:

This relates to a post I put in the thread about selling space using spinoffs, but unfortunately isn't your senior citizen friend in NM correct? If we use our own money (privatize) then we won't have to do any more convincing or funding campaigns. We have such a hard problem selling NASA human spaceflight simply because it is a public endeavor and a guy that uses terms like "sonny" has just as much say and right to what the space program is doing as you and I do. Whereas in a private sector your say is bound only by how much money you have.

@ Dfens: Extracting gold from seawater would be more viable than using the moon for mineral resources. Helium-3 has a shot at being useful some time in the future, though.

First off, if China is spending $650 billion on a stimulus program, they are doing it with American money that we paid to them for interest on our National Debt. If we (Americans) want to maintain our "freedom" from being held hostage to foriegn nations, we need to stop spending more than we earn.

We need to cut spending, not throw more money to goverment supported companies or goverment agencies that are giving us one FAILED program after another.

There are interesting articles at:

http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/bolden-says-commercial-crew-tough-sell.html

http://www.spacenews.com/policy/nasa-officials-warn-tight-budgets-ahead.html

In the second article, Garver and Radzanowski aren't expecting any new money for NASA. In the first article, Bolden is talking up commercial space, even going so far as to say that, "It is my hope, it is my sincere hope, that a space tourism industry really takes off in the years ahead."

Another interesting quote: "'Old habits die hard. Many of us who have grown up in the traditional space program, you know, we really believe we have all the answers. It has to be our way or no way at all,' he said. 'I don’t believe that. I am becoming more and more convinced every day in this job that there are different ways that we can and must do this.'"

I've also read in several places about moves NASA is making to internationalize things. That's consistent with my prediction based on the Augustine summary that NASA would hit up international partners for more money.

I could be reading too much into this, but I think the writing is on the wall. To the extent NASA continues to do anything, it won't happen without international support. Other than that, it looks like NASA's focus will turn to commercializing LEO activities. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because a healthy commercial sector would presumably not be vulnerable to politics or dependent on asking taxpayers for money to the same extent that NASA is. The way we've gotten to this point is pretty tragic, though.

I've personally been somewhat slow to warm up to space commercialization, but the financial and political realities have convinced me that relying on government space programs for progess is a dead end. Most of Congress doesn't seem to see NASA as anything more than a jobs program and a place they can park some earmarks. As for the executive branch, I can't remember a time when I haven't cringed when Presidents talk to astronauts, because of the painful lack of knowledge on display. That's an environment that the space industry needs to get away from.

I just wanted to note that most of the reasons that are always given for why human space flight should be supported haven't much affected political or public support over the years. I suspect most of those reasons won't have much effect now, either.

In the 60's what made the difference was political leadership by President Kennedy, who felt it was essential to American leadership. What made a difference in the late 50's was the fear by the public (and government) that we were being left behind following the string of Russian space "firsts".

If the preceding premises are correct, there are probably only two things that will significantly increase support (both political and public) for manned space flight:

1) Political leadership by the president

2) Growing awareness that we are being left behind as other countries fill the vacuum (so to speak) left by our abandonment of an aggressive HSF program

What is the point of inspiring the next generation of engineers and scientists to work in aerospace when there has not been enough for the ones that exist already to do. How many engineers where inspired 40 years ago and are still waiting for their turn at bat?

The reason NASA hasn't moved beyond LEO since the early 1970s is because NASA has been trying to sell itself to the Congress as socially relevant to our needs here on Earth. All this has done is to reduce public enthusiasm for the program which has allowed the US legislature to continue to reduce NASA's budget relative to the Apollo era. Trying to be politically correct with our manned space program was a huge mistake by NASA.

NASA needs to be bold enough to admit that what it really wants to do with its manned space program is to colonize the Moon and Mars and to build the space infrastructure that will enable us to exploit the natural resources of the rest of our solar system!

Stephen Hawking has called for exactly that: a massive investment in establishing colonies on the Moon and Mars.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2009/09/stephen-hawking-calls-for-masssive.html

If NASA promoted America's manned space program as a colonization program designed as a long term investment to increase our economic wealth and to enhance human survival then I believe that most Americans would support the funding of NASA at at least twice the current budget level.

"Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid."

People, including the 'save NASA' support groups, don't seem to get it, just as Dr. Griffin and the NASA, Exploration, Constellation Program management did not get it.

40+ years ago it was decided that NASA is a worthwhile place to put no more than about .75% of the Federal budget. The money has been relatively constant over that time. In the case of the Vision, the last President asked NASA to go off and figure out how to 'explore' on that same budget, mainly because the Gehman Columbia Commission said NASA needed a long term goal or else it would continue wandering ai+mlessly.

Its not that people do or don't think NASA is a good thing - people have been pretty nearly split on that for 50 years. Its not that NASA has or has not delivered on its goals and charter. Its had its share of successes and its share of failures. But NASA is long term US civilian IR&D, and that is only worth about .75%.

If NASA could show real relevance for a definite new mission, then they might cajole the Congress to provide a bit more.

The last Administrator went off half cocked trying to reproduce Apollo. People did question why, right from the start, but it was the Griffin plan, and so NASA management followed their pseudo-military style and all saluted. Just as Apollo was not going to get 5% of the budget, neither was ESAS. In fact as Congress and the President saw there was not a real plan, money began to dwindle a bit in the face of other challenges. But even with a good sales plan, a real strategy, the best NASA might hope for is to get from .6% back to maybe .75%.

The real shame in all of this is that the NASA human space flight management over the last 15-20 years really has not done their job of management. They do not use their money or their people effectively. They are not held accountable for their performance.

While ISS has continued to drone on ad infinitem, using up lots of money, one of the real questions that should have been asked of ISS is why the old NASA bureaucratic organizational structure and modus operandi have not changed in 15 years. And while people should have been asking why it continues to cost so much to operate and maintain an ISS that hasn't been designing or building anything in nearly two decades, no one did because it was taken for granted that someone must be managing the resources.

In the case of Constellation, the nonexistent management processes have been easier and pretty clear to see, and it has little to do with the details of technical issues with an Orion or an Ares; it is really very simple: how can you spend as much money as they have for as long as they have, and basically have nothing to show for it.

As OMB and GAO have pointed out just recently, NASA not only is not moving ahead with their development and flight schedules in a reasonable and timely manner, they have not even come up with a good explanation of why they are doing what they are doing, so whatever that goal is, is still pretty elusive.

You can talk about missions to the Moon or to Mars, but given adequate resources, we cannot even get a vehicle to go into LEO in the next 5 years.

Rightly so, there is not a lot of confidence that even the .75% is being spent in a cost effective manner. So while NASA is asking for more, no one with reasonable expectations is listening. We've been getting less and less for the money we are already spending.

Something has to change.

For those who don't know him, JT was White House liasion and deputy chief of staff under Administrator Sean O'Keefe. Ferris, to answer your Q exploration for the value it brings to the nation, sure. Exploration for exploration's sake probably not. And exploration does yield many benefits to the nation's global competitiveness, engineering, scientific discovery, and the very long term goal of making humanity a multi-planet species. That must be translated for average non-spacers into the here and now. But the survival of the next generation of Americans ain't nothing to sneeze at. ("don't you want your children to live in a country that is a global leader, who's economy is strong, and hold high paying jobs to pay off their student loans?")

James, even commercial firms that spend their own money are accountable to someone-boards of directors, the regulatory authorities, shareholders and stockholders, etc. Private enterprise cannot do everything that government can do-especially as concerns long term research. Government shouldn't be doing that which commercial firms can do better and cheaper-such as space transportation, cargo delivery service and space operations. The two are halves of the same coin, IMHO.

Think the short elevator speech should appeal to both the left & right brain thinkers as well as Dems & Reps. Maybe something that includes themes like:

-There's a greenie earth angle in there somewhere. The last great frontier IS Space and IS nature. Natural occurrences out there in space may affect our environment here on earth, so research and study of what's happening around us is necessary to develop our understanding of Earth's place in the cosmos and the cosmos affect on us.

-The govt runs National Parks on earth - why? Answer may be the same reason for govt run NASA outposts in space.

-US Space leadership, that all Americans can be proud of, was gained in the 60's and maintained for decades since but is at serious risk of suffering due to neglect from previous admins. Because it's in the National Interest to maintain that World Leadership...

-We have submarines filled with people not bots, navy seals instead of bots - why? Answer may be the same reason for HSF instead of bots only.

-to keep it simple, Protectionism of our space leadership, furthering our space leadership, and quasi-controlling activity in space (e.g. the new "Spaceballs Society" coexistance with HSF & Rocket launches & space junk requires somebody to take the lead for Space Traffic Control or something. Same for urine dumps pollution of space, environmental impacts of moon mineral mining, etc. etc.

In response to BrianM's comments:

NASA currently receives approximately 0.5% of the annual Federal budget, where each 0.1% equals more than $3B. Thus, if NASA's budget ticked up less than 0.1%, from 0.5% to 0.6%, that would be more than the $3B/year which Augustine calls for increase.

NASA's budget is rounding error in the overall scheme of the Federal budget. See OMB historical tables:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Further, Griffin always said that NASA's Exploration plans were go-as-you-can-afford-to-pay in terms of USG funding and was reliant on commercial and international actors.

I have to point out, as I do in most of these threads, that the $3 million is MONEY THAT WAS IN PREVIOUS YEAR BUDGETS. Obama's OMB cut it out in the Spring. At the time, of course, Obama-defenders like Mr. Sietzen were saying not to mind that action, that it was just a "placekeeper" until the Commission issued its report.

As it turns out, the OMB cuts have become the single biggest issue facing the Agency.

@Aion:

What is the point of inspiring the next generation of engineers and scientists to work in aerospace when there has not been enough for the ones that exist already to do.

Huh? What planet are you on? Are you not aware of the serious engineering brain drain that is happening right now in the USA? For the last 15 years, students have not wanted to study or become aerospace engineers. We are now starting to see the result of that with the bow wave of retirees who have all the knowledge. Lucky for me, I guess, because even in this economy a person with flight controls experience such as myself has a great many options for jobs... and I have more than enough work on my plate in my current position.

The point of inspiring the next generation is so that generation can develop its own aerospace technology, rather than either "outsourcing" to other countries that are graduating more technical students, or "insourcing" those students from other countries here to do the work that no one here is qualified to do.

I am overjoyed that the aerospace engineering program that I teach in has an impacted (actually over-subscribed) freshman class. It means we are doing our part to replace the people who are retiring. But not all aero programs are in this position.

Give it up, people! Very few politicians take NASA seriously. It is obviously a political football. It's budget, in today's multi tens of billion dollars bailouts, is small.

@ Blue - Amen brother!

In hindsight, that was a rather smooth move, huh? If we are so lucky as to get the $3B "extra", we're right back where we started in March from a budget perspective, which is already $12B less than ESAS estimates to execute the program and the original budget estimates.

It really is a pretty cool hat trick to cut budgets every year, and then blame it on NASA mismanagement. As Dr. Griffin noted in his sworn testimony last month, NASA's budget has decrease 20% in real year dollars over the last 15 years.

You get what you pay for. Nothing to see here. Move along.

This is the same thing as when we were 6 years old and asked our parents why we had to go to school. BECAUSE, THAT'S WHY!

But it doesn't matter, the hare is already caught napping and the tortoises of the aerospace world are pulling into the lead.

I am neither a defender nor a critic of President Obama's space policy, since I have no idea what that policy will be. I would be inclined, though, to give the guy a break and keep an open mind while the policy is being concocted.

Ray,

it is great to hear that your universities Aerospace Engineering prgram is so well received by the incoming class. This is a good sign that maybe just maybe America won't have to sub-contract out our needs for the very engineering talent required to go forth with ambitious programs like manned space flight, designing the next generation of fighters & commercial aircraft etc...

All to often I hear teachers complain about how lazy the students are, I always end up asking at some point "what are you doing to engage the students to get them interested in math & science"? Uusally they say, "Well the books have the material already in there, there's nothing more I cna do". To which I say, not entirely, you could use the manned space program as a means to engage them and spark their interest. A few seemed to have gotten the message, sadly most did not. They simply grumbled about lousy pay etc...

It is time for real leadership, not just from DC but also in Americas classrooms!

I agree that in a recession, jobs are the best pitch. Followed by national security concerns and the obvious subsidies that manned space provides to our industrial complex.

Senior citizens may not care for knowledge but they don't often complain about defense spending or the need for jobs.

Hi All

I hear the term marketing tossed around a lot by space advocates but most seem to have little understanding of the basics of marketing strategy. Good marketing strategy is always based on a foundation of good marketing research. The space community needs to take the time to ask the public what they want from space, a proper study properly funded, based on an understanding of the problem and focused on the non-space interested public. In short advocates need to stop advocating and start listening. So until space advocates or the space industry invests in that research it will just be wasting money and effort repeating the same strategies that failed in the past.

Good marketing is not selling, its identifying needs that you are able to satisfy. Until the public needs for space are identified the space community will be just be shouting into the wilderness.

So the question should be reversed. How do you Sell space advocates on adopting a marketing approach to develop a vision for space the public will support? And then sell space advocates on the goal(s) the public will support? One thing is clear, the arguments currently being used – the search for life, expanding human knowledge, colonization of Mars, Mars direct, building a lunarbase, CATS... simply fail to excite either the general public or Congress. If they did then the space community wouldn’t need to be pushing for more funding. And space advocates groups would be much, much larger then they are in terms of membership.

As an example I know from survey research I did some years ago that two goals that seem to excite the general public are developing space energy and planetary defense. But present these goals to space advocate groups and you seem to get the same ho hum that the public has towards space. Mention space energy, as with SBSP and you will get space advocates making arguments about what a waste of funds it is, how its impractical, so on. Look at the response of the various blogs to Japan’s announcement of $21 billion being spent on SSPS. Instead of a great cheer you see mostly a response of “what are they thinking?” and “what an impractical goal…, it’s a waste of money.”

Same with planetary defense. Bring it up as the central goal for space among space advocates and they will argue that its too low a risk to worry about. They also argue the public won’t be interested in planetary defense even though they have no survey research to support their opinion of the public’s lack of interest. Yes planetary defense could well be the best argument for human missions to asteriods. Dennis Wingo’s great book, Moonrush, is another example of how a goal the public might actually support just doesn’t get much support in the space community.

So I don’t expect much from these efforts to build public support on space. As with most past efforts it will be a case of the space community advocating their goals to the public and not listening to hear the goals the public wants to see for space. Until there is a paradigm shift in the space advocate community its unlikely you will see and great surge in public or Congressional support for space.

I agree that in a recession, jobs are the best pitch. Followed by national security concerns and the obvious subsidies that manned space provides to our industrial complex.

Senior citizens may not care for knowledge but they don't often complain about defense spending or the need for jobs.

As far as the budget cuts:

I believe congress cut something like 650 million this year, not 3 billion. And the hope is for an additional 3 billion per year, not spread over 10 years. So they are certainly hoping for much more money than was cut this year.

Agree with Thomas Matula about the need for genuine market research & for the space lobbyists to shutup & listen!

For that JT guy in DC, just don't think marketing NASA is all that hard. If he's a republican advisor, be wary. The Gore & Kerry vote counts were close enough for the Space Program at KSC to matter to most Florida voters & if Republicans have an excuse to blame the KSC job losses on Obama and/or the Dem congress - they'll probably appear to support NASA for the Fl voters, but somehow work a backdoor undermine, even if it means sacrificing one or two House GOP Fl reps - for the good of the party. Plus, apparently Fl GOP reps were too busy cushing up to the new wondergal in Alaska, and with her hubby's fav Alaska space biz team sponsor to show any real job creation results for the KSC Shuttle workforce community. So, just trying to cya it with Florida voters by crying "it's too hard to sell NASA" just won't wash this time around.

Marketing NASA really can't be as difficult as some apparently unsuccessful DC folks are attempting to make it seem. Case in point:

Space radiation hits record high - space - 29 September 2009 - New Scientist

Like a wounded Starship Enterprise, our solar system's natural shields are faltering, letting in a flood of cosmic rays. The sun's recent listlessness is resulting in record-high radiation levels that pose a hazard to both human and robotic space missions.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17882-space-radiation-hits-record-high.html

Well, SMD can relax now - it's not the software - it's the radiation!) Just tell folks that their Monday night football might be cutoff in the near future because of Cable Sat probs due to elevated solar radiation interference. Now really, how frickin hard could that possibly be for gradiated marketing pros!

@Moonlady: We have submarines filled with people not bots, navy seals instead of bots - why? Answer may be the same reason for HSF instead of bots only.

Actually more and more military and oceanographic operations are turning to robotics. The Air Force has already incorporated UAVs into their aerial strike contingents, and see a day when most fighters will be telerobotically controlled. Ocean science and commercial operations are doing the same thing. In fact on the the face of it, NASA's current exploration approach is going retrograde to the trends in other fields involving sophisticated operational systems.

Again, science, economics and national security are all excellent reasons to explore and exploit space. Just because the end result is always intended to benefit people, that is not necessarily a reason to send people to do the exploration in situ.

All space missions, whether for scientific, commercial or national security gain, should seek the optimum complement of crewed and robotic systems to get the job done.

great points Thomas, I heard the same opinions from friends about NASA. Most of them ask why we're spending extra billions to go back to the moon or Mars when we have a huge national deficit and a country in deep recession. In their minds, they would rather support NASA if it was developing alternative ways in energy to help bring down everyday energy costs (one person brought up solar power beaming down to earth) or seeking better ways to identify doomsday comets/asteroids that may one day impact earth. One other reason they would support NASA if it was for military reasons meaning protection of the country from other nations through space defenses or through military satellites. I brought up that the DOD already has a division that deals solely with space military.

now they do support space flight exploration but with robots since manned flight generates so much more cost due to increased design for safety, weight, etc...In their minds, manned space flight is a luxury we cannot currently afford unless NASA provides stronger reasons other than humans can dig lower under the dirt than robots or if we do find intelligent life out there :) Until then, NASA has a long road ahead of them to convince the public to support and buy into an endeavor(CxP) that they probably will not see until the end of 2020 or even 2030. face it, private enterprise is the only hope for the manned exploration of space in the coming future.

Why do we want to go to space?


Why does a athlete compete?


To be the best, to win!


How about the US drop the political correct non-sense of partnership and make our reason for exploring "To be the best!" It is a competition, and we want America to be the Best. We can be friendly with the other athletes, and hang out with them, even let them ride on OUR bus, but we should do everything we can do to be the best without any other country holding us up, making us compromise, taking us off our track.


What do we win? We'll let's look at what our military and civilian space program won:


satellites that beam us television, predict the weather, warn us of typhoons, give us radio to listen to, tell us our location to within a few feet anywhere on the world, provide us a way to have turn by turn navigation to any destination (the benefits of GPS alone are staggering!), the ability to communicate almost instantaneously from anywhere to anywhere on the planet, map resources, improve crop yields, etc., etc.,


These technologies are vital to our modern lifestyle, so we want to totally dominate in this field. We want the best satellites, the best launchers, the most frequent access, the best people to make it an so that we will find the next GPS, the next satellite TV, the next Google Earth, the next thing that we never even dreamed of 50 years ago, but the scientists that we funded then did think of some of those ideas, which led to more ideas, which led to more, which got us to today, and we want get us to an even better tomorrow. How about we decide don't want to be bested in any of these areas, even though we will let the whole world benefit from our efforts.


Space is vital to our modern lifestyle so we need to dominate in it, even if we have to subsidize it! We want it to be ours, not to exclude anyone, but so that we will not be excluded.


Don't like subsidies and want to commercialize space? Take what we already have find a way to make it pay for itself and generate revenue. As a start, how about we announce in 10 years (arbitrary number) that we'll scramble the GPS signal and to receive it, GPS receiver manufacturers will have to pay a small royalty, say $0.50-$1 per device, to the US Govt. I know there are people that would scream bloody murder, but we have created a huge benefit for the world at our expense, and $0.50 to $1.00 is a pittance, but could pay the cost of maintaining and improving this valuable resource. If someone wants to compete, great, let them. We throw down hard and beat them.


Now manned spaceflight is missing from everything I've said. What benefit does it have? Well, we're still the best at it, and we beat the world to the moon by 40 years and counting. That is way more exciting to me than wining the 1980 olympic gold in hockey (as great as that still is!) Americans love sports, make spaceflight a sport. More importantly though, we're doing it because we want to be the best at it and discover the things we don't even know are there so that we can be the best at what we discover, because we believe it can lead to more than just national pride, but to things that impact our lives as much as GPS, satellite TV, satellite weather forecasting, etc.


Uncomfortable with the idea of being the best? Well look at what being the best at microprocessors, operating systems, farming, and many other technologies have done for us! Are we glad that Detroit no longer makes the best cars, or angry that they don't compete and make better hybrids before the Japanese did? Do we want to fall behind in any area other area where we are the best? Do we want to turn out students with poor skills or the best skills? We don't get upset for Americans being the best, we get upset for them being the worst! We don't want to be the worst in space, and we need to drill home that we spend much more on many other things that don't make us the best in world...and for just a little more than we currently spend, we can continue to be the best in space exploration!


We went to the moon in peace for all mankind, and I'm glad we did, but now it's time to go to space to be the best, to benefit America, and by that, creating technology and jobs that will also benefit the world while benefiting us, while at the same time making sure that we are not excluded from any benefits that come having a mastery of spaceflight.

Screw the skeptics.

They're never going to believe any of this is worth the money anyway, and they never have. They have been trying to "kill" NASA since "day #2", especially since it dug into the "beloved" social programs (cough), as far back as the '60's. These people are more interested in keeping the "graft" flowing, so that they can stay in "power". If you think I am kidding--just remember the image of the guy holding the sign wanting a "free" flat-screen TV after Obama and his ilk were elected. They don't want a space program--they really do want to give that guy a flat-screen TV--because he'll vote for them to stay in "power".

Not that the "other side" has done any better--demanding measurable "return on investment" from exploration is just ridiculous. The fact that there has been "ROI"--which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been really measured, is really astounding. One shouldn't expect ROI from this type of investment--this is exploration and science/RD; you do it because it is the "right" thing to do, not because you'll profit from it. That we do "profit" from it, should not be "expected", but appreciated as an "unintended" side-effect.

It just makes me sick to think that most people want to do space "on the cheap" like this and making NASA account for every last penny in an under-funded, stretched program, thinking that NASA's wasting the "pittance" they've been given. It's a shame that all of our tax money isn't scrutinized in such fashion.

My message to the skeptics--stop "raping" NASA's budget (they should be getting at least 1% to 2% of the budget EVERY year). This isn't "discretionary" or "wasteful" spending of our tax dollars. It's money wisely spent--and is an investment in the future. I'd rather have it spent here--then to go to that guy's (government-funded) flat-screen TV.

Bearing in mind I write "fairy tales of science" for a living (see current Asimov's for latest example of such), here's how I might "sell" the space program to the American people:

First, I'd announce "Save the Earth - Develop Space" as a national goal. A program to explore the part of the solar system we can realistically expect to access over the next 50 years (basically, Earth, Moon, NEOs, Mars and its moons, main-belt asteroids, Jovian Trojans, and the outer moons of Jupiter, with Titan as the 50th-year goal). The "green" goal is to develop off-earth reseources for off-earth industries, with the endpoint goal of making Earth a "garden home" for humanity, all the "dirty stuff" our civilization needs to take place elsewhere. The goal makes it worth the cost (and yes I know this is fantasy: see first sentence of post).

Then I'd announce a weekly "space jobs lottery." Sell tickets for $5 apiece, and once a week pick a winning ticket (Or tickets, if the lottery turned out to generate enough sales), holder gets a job in the space program, as a mission specialist if they can pass the physical, as a pad worker or some such if they can't. In other words, an "exciting" job, either in space, or directly involved in rocket launches, with a good salary, and all necessary training to be provided along with the job.

If a good job and a chance to be in on the excitement doesn't sell the space program to the voters, we need to shut it down and do something else with the people's money.

It seems to me the LEO+ detractors have painted themselves into a corner:

*They want to promote commercial human space and reduce cost (which is ok to me)

*They want to include internationals in the 'critical path' in order to spread the cost around (which, with some caveats, is a good idea).

So far so good, but if we combine the two the problem is that the cost per ton delivered to ISS of currently available, and very reliable, Soyuz/Progress is at least 1/4th that of a future estimate for Dragon/Falcon ... the entire argument falls apart. The internationals are certainly not going to pay for Dragon/Falcon since they already have a much cheaper alternative. So much for spreading the cost.

If we want to caveat that we want to lower cost while preserving capabilities even if that will cost a certain 'surcharge' (which, once again, it's not necessarily a bad idea) then it's not just Ares but also Delta-IV that takes a hit in favor of Falcon (Atlas-V, which to me is the better of the two EELVs, uses better Russian engines and falls out of the picture).

Bottom line, unfettered bashing of NASA is going to have unintented consequences going far beyond MSFC having to give up Ares-1 work in favor of ULA, and possibly even Space-X and Orbital Science Corp if we really want to open up to international participation.

I believe it's time to regroup and stop shooting ourselves in the foot. While supporting low-cost human space development (which is still a loooong way from being operational, but we need to get started) we still need an EELV (just one production line though) *and* continue development for Ares-1. A compromise solution could be a Delta-IV single core first stage with 2 RS-68 engines, two shorter SRB's, and the Ares-1 second stage ... and call it Ares-2.

This ensures U.S. access to space while enabling to continue work on the 1st stage of Ares-5. Initially the Ares-2 second stage could also used on the Ares-5 first stage (also referred to as Ares-Lite, and not unlike the never built intermediate Saturn vehicles), and later on we can develop a two (or three) engine version of the second stage.

@Will:

it is great to hear that your universities Aerospace Engineering prgram is so well received by the incoming class. This is a good sign that maybe just maybe America won't have to sub-contract out our needs for the very engineering talent required to go forth with ambitious programs

In the interest of full disclosure, I feel I must also point out just how high the attrition rate is. While we may start out with impacted freshman ranks of 200 students or more, 4-5 years later when that incoming class is graduating, we may only have 50 graduates. Virtually all who come into the program have the ability to complete their degree. But it takes more than ability. It takes motivation and drive. You cannot give that to a student. It has to come from the spark from within. Which leads right into:

All to often I hear teachers complain about how lazy the students are, I always end up asking at some point "what are you doing to engage the students to get them interested in math & science"?

The truth is laziness is rampant on both side of the equation, teachers and students. But your focus is correct, as FIRST you must have motivated teachers who are willing to do whatever it takes to help their students. Because even if students are not lazy and highly motivated, a lazy teacher will not get them through. You have to be fueled by passion and you have to let it shine. I am a part-time prof. I don't do it for money (God knows, esp. with the Governator cutting our pay!). I do it because I love aero engineering and I care about maintaining this country's capabilities therein.

It is time for real leadership, not just from DC but also in Americas classrooms!

So true. If you are not passionate about teaching, then you need to find soemthing else to do. Preparation for a technical career can no longer be left solely to the universities. Just like in my days as an undergrad, I was expected to have certain levels of math and science under my belt in high school before I could enter an undergrad engineering program. We have let those standards slip, and what we should be doing is the opposite!

maxx peck opined: "My message to the skeptics--stop "raping" NASA's budget (they should be getting at least 1% to 2% of the budget EVERY year). "

Look, I apply same critisims to most of our government boondoggles not just NASA space (on appropriate forums), but

"*should* be getting"?

Sure, if it all comes out of YOUR PERSONAL paycheck. Or do you suggest Uncle Sugar go on a yet another tax expropriation spree?

Otherwise, you and yours will have to convince people and their representatives you want money from like civilized people do in respectful debate, or you are going to have a riot on your hands.