Space Policy: New Message, Old Voices

The President's plan is very similar to what Buzz has been advocating since at least 2003.

http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/advocacy/unified-space-vision/

And a lot of ideas there come from stuff he was talking about with his Aldrin Cyclers back in the 80s.

Yeah, Buzz may be 80, but his ideas are still good... and I would argue his ideas are more "youthful" and innovative than the Constellation plan... which was really just a rehash of Apollo.

I agree 100% completely Keith. I didn't bust my ass for 3 decades worth of school and 2 PhD's just so I could take advice on progress from people in retirement or politicians, who by the way are a product of the "good ole boy" network.

If Franklin Chang-Diaz's VASIMR had the same funding the Saturn V got, we'd be to mars already because everything else would have fell in line.

It seems everyone wants to go ahead and continue to ancient ways of doing things. Why don't we bring back slavery for some true nostalgia, a la Werner Von Braun V-2 manufacturing factories.

Keith,

Go easy on us over 50s, 60s and 70s. You'll be there someday...LOL.

Editor's note: I already am - I am 54.

It could be that the 20s, 30s, and 40s realize that we aren't going back to the Moon or on to Mars anytime soon and that they are dealing with it quietly.

Keith,

Go easy on us over 50s, 60s and 70s. You'll be there someday...LOL. It could be that the 20s, 30s, and 40s realize that we aren't going back to the Moon or on to Mars anytime soon and that they are dealing with it quietly.

Keith and Scientist, you both sound like children.
I guess we should just throw out our knowledge base ever generation or so!
These elders that you disparage were letting the younger generations work through the problems but when you screw it up their going to say something.

Nathan; Buzz Aldrin is poster boy for adult ADD. Listen long enough and he'll give you every position under the sun.

Keith, you have no idea of the ages of people who post on your blog. I for one am 44 and support Cx.

Editor's note: go read what I wrote a little more carefully.

Aldrin's approach is basically FlexPath, but with the ultimate goal of landing humans on Mars. But the message is that there are plenty of oldsters that can still think innovatively and provide thought leadership.

Unfortunately, it's always easier for retirees to say what they really think without seeking anonymity.

I would love to hear what recent shuttle commanders think, particularly, Eileen Collins. Wikipedia says she speaks to CNN sometimes, but I haven't seen her lately.

I'd love to see more younger voices at NASA. Unfortunately, the NASA I work for has gone from hiring freezes to downsizing to a "new, leaner NASA" for the last two decades. NASA's main thrust seems to be to REDUCE headcount-- we're just not HIRING young people in any real number. And to the extent that there is any new bloo getting hired, the Reagan-era concept of "privatizing" means that they get hired on as contractors, and then get jettissoned like bricks when a project ends.
And I very much sympathize with Keith here- yes, I'm getting to be one of those "old guys" too. That's a problem-- you know, I'm just no longer willing to beat my head against a solid brick wall until something gives way any more.
This is the real problem with NASA, we need those people who are willing to do that.

I think I agree with you. At 30, and still working hard in Constellation, I'm kind of crossing my fingers and hoping that those of us who'll be working in this industry can make the best of whatever we have in a decade. When I started, Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were long gone, Shuttle was operational, and all the major design decisions had already been made for ISS (even if what was on orbit was pretty small at the time.)

I think a lot of us in the younger generation are trying to decide whether we believe anything a politician tells us will still be true in 4 or 8 years. That's an even bigger core question for a lot of the young people in the space industry than arguing about what the policy announcement this year is going to be. This administration seems to like to push for STEM to inspire young people to be engineers ... but you've got a lot of young engineers who aren't so sure the job they signed up for is still going to be there.

I don't know . . . maybe it is because no one has asked. And why should they when they are all just expected to give up their jobs (which they got with big bright eyes and visions of working on projects that actually meant something). I have been at NASA (JSC) for 3 years and no one has cared about my opinion, despite having won awards for my work on Shuttle. I am also 55, going on 56, and went back to school late in life to study engineering. Now I get to look at losing another job within 1 year (lay offs because of Shuttle winding down and now, likely, Orion, being cut back.) So, really, Keith, what do you REALLY think my opinion is of what is going on?!

It's like moving everyone out of the O&C building for Obama's visit ... I can imagine pretty clearly what the people working these projects want to say, and I don't think they care to hear it.

Well here's something from someone in his 20s.

I'm a senior in Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University (I graduate in a month).

What's Obama's message? It's the same message the Federal Government has been giving to all scientists since the Superconducting Supercollider was canceled in 1993: unless you're involved in medical research, take your business elsewhere.

I'm the kind of person who grew up with pictures of the SR-71, Mars and Hubble Space Telescope posters on my wall. I took summer internships at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics rather than painted houses or mowed lawns. Applying CS to Aerospace is very much what I wanted to do.

But now, what do we see? A "compromise" that's more of an insult. Sure we can spend $2 billion on cash for clunkers, but man-rate an EELV? Nope, too pricey. Sure, we can give $15 billion to bail out America's autoindustry from 20 years of making lousy vehicles, but fully fund any sort of serious space program? Not a chance.

The blame for this disgrace has many places to go. It belongs to the previous Administration, who funded Constellation like they did everything else, with make-believe numbers. It belongs to the DIRECT fanatics, who never missed a chance to undermine a program that surely needed serious modification, but not nearly the wholesale replacement they advocated. It belongs to the American people, who once again, never really cared. It belongs to NASA's public outreach office, which has been horrible at their jobs for countless years (look what aiming primarily at inspiring school children has gotten you - not much). The list goes on.

So whats the message to people like me who want to put Man on mars and see human beings truly explore space? It's the same message Congress handed America's physics community: get lost. Europe opened their doors, and now the Large Hadron Collider is rendering the Tevatron obsolete.

If I were the Chinese Government, I'd send recruiters to South Florida and offer plush relocation and hiring packages for former NASA workers to work on their space program. That's the kind of thing that governments that believe in things like promoting national pride rather than plodding mediocrity do. That's what this country used to do. It doesn't because, as we've seen from managing our budget, to investment in basic science to the state of our roads and infrastructure, the American people as a whole, just don't give a crap about the important things anymore. Oh they'll love their iPad, but the fact that there is a football-field sized space station over their heads that, even though it is a pale reflection of its once intended self, is still one of the most remarkable engineering achievements in the history of man, barely registers.

So here's what a 20-something at the very start of his career thinks. Two years ago, NASA was at the top of my list for places I wanted to work. Constellation wasn't perfect, but it was a solid plan with vehicles that made since (especially the Ares V). Today, I'm going to be starting in the private sector working for one of the most prominent software companies in the country. I don't mean to outsize my personal importance, but the only thing that caused me to not even bother applying for a NASA position is things like the DIRECT people refusing to admit they lost the argument, everything surrounding the Augustine Commission, the plan changes, the lack of funding, the inability to stay focused on one plan and so forth. It isn't worth the uncertainty for the lower pay and risk of further cancellations.

Well, this is one young American scientist, who won't be bothered to work for the Space Program after this fiasco, saying enjoy low earth orbit, America. I'll apply my skill set in a place where I think a difference will actually be made, rather than the road to nowhere spaceflight in this country has become. Maybe if China offered a package and a plan though, I'd consider it.

I'm 43. A couple of years ago I started my own very small company in the field of aerodynamics. Ross (of DIRECT) states in his bio at SpaceFlight that he is 35. Not sure if that is true or when that was last updated. And, of course, there are companies like Scaled Composites, and SpaceX.

Sometimes I'm under under the impression that the older generation does not listen to the younger. Yes, I would like to inherit a space program. But if that can't be done, I guess it will have to be rebuilt.

Take DIRECT for example and I am assuming Ross is under 40, or around there. OK, he is/was a model maker and that seems to be held as a negative against him. But, the Wright brothers started off as printers and then made bicycles. I'm not stating the DIRECT team is knowledgeable about rocket engineering. I can't say. I don't know them. But, please help us, the younger generation, out. Recently Keith stated that DIRECT's costs were off. Please give specifics. What costs were inaccurate and by how much? And can someone please provide/reference past historical contracts which support this so we, the younger generation, can understand. Otherwise, how do we learn? It's not good enough to just tell us we are wrong. If you do, we will just find something else to do and enjoy that.

Editor's note: Call NASA. They can tell you. You will not believe anything I post.

I'm 30 and work on Constellation (Orion). I'm honestly a little disappointed when I hear that "Orion Lite" might live on; I had hoped it would be canceled outright.

Here at NASA, for all of the hype about social networking and connecting with the younger generations and such, I wouldn't say that I have a voice. But it's not because I'm under 50 - it's because as a general rule, none of us have a voice in high-level decisions. I can make very low-level decisions that may affect a component here or there; a decision that affects a sub-assembly or anything larger is going to be dictated in the end by one of the two large contractors (not naming names, since they're generally bad decisions).

But when it comes to the design of a spacecraft (capsule vs something else) or launch vehicle (solid, liquid, etc) - the sad fact is that these decisions, even though they're the most important, get decided by congresspeople and political appointees. Even if it can be argued that these individuals are competent to make that sort of decision (biting tongue) - these are big decisions being made by too few people.

Is that better than the alternative? Should someone ask the NASA community what NASA's next spacecraft and launch vehicle should look like? I'm not sure that would be better. As a fun experiment, what would be the outcome if NASA Watch viewers could "crowdsource" the architecture of NASA's next vehicle, a la http://conversations.nokia.com/design-by-community/
I don't know what the vehicle would look like, but I think your server would probably self-destruct in the face of the violent flame wars that would ensue.

So if crowdsourcing doesn't work - how about appointing a committee? Not likely - every committee is a political committee now, and no matter who gets chosen to be on it, there will be thousands of angry people who disagree with their selection and their decisions.

How about choosing a group of "smart," "qualified," and "competent" people who work at NASA to make the decision? I can tell you right off that I see a lot of people working here who aren't really all that smart.

In the end, one of the advantages of having several private companies come up with their own designs is that we will end up with an ecosystem of different launch vehicles, spacecraft, and so on - each will have its own strengths and weaknesses, and each will be appropriate for some missions and not others. If NASA puts together Orion Lite, we can be sure that it will have strengths and weaknesses and will be another vehicle to choose from when a mission is being designed.

I work with a lot of people in their 30s and 40s, and a lot of people in their 50s and 60s. There are definitely different worldviews between generations, and I think it's fair to say that one group tends to lean toward more "traditional" ideas and is opposed to "unproven" technology, and the other group leans towards "new" ideas and "cutting edge" technology. Is one view better than the other? Not necessarily. In a perfect world, the two groups would complement each other and the result would be something that takes the best from both sides. In the real world, the two groups fight tooth and nail over petty differences and the result is something that takes the worst from both sides.

I wanted to end this with some sort of "if they asked me, I would say X" statement, but really I don't know the solution to this. People here are too rigid and self-righteous to compromise or try new things. So probably we're just doomed.

And that is a key issue in NASA - a seriously aging workforce. I am in my 40s and am one of the "young" crowd in my center. NASA is just not very glamorous anymore - most engineers and scientists I know think of it as a poor career path (laypeople still think it's cool).

I for one am glad to see the program of record go. I have no interest in watching us repeat something my grandfather did (literally, as he worked on the Gemini and Apollo communications systems), and I think almost everyone under 45 (too young to have seen Apollo) agrees. I don't want to watch the manned program spin its wheels anymore - we need to move past the old "only governments can fly into space" paradigm. I am 100% certain the Chinese will go to the moon - it's a matter of national pride for them, of which they have a lot. But wouldn't it knock the wind out of their sails if we could say "yeah, we did that 50 years ago, we've since moved on and commercial companies now handle basic spaceflight"?

Keith,

as you may have noticed from above, vocal 20-30-40something newbies (that wouldn't know if CxP was technically hosed or not), were steered to CxP, ya know - the Griffin plan to be the great educator.

as for the Shuttle workforce 20-30-40somethings, there are quite a few & your pal Miles knows USA folks that could probably steer the national media types to them

BUT, because most of those in that age group have families with kids and most job networking sites like linkedin.com and such recommend being very careful about posting online because of potential negative perceptions of future employers - being recorded on TV with a definitive pro or con CxP vs Merchant 7 might be perceived as highly career limiting.

the older folks have more seniority and less to lose, so some are more comfortable speaking up - but most of them, young and old, just try to stay out of the fray and hope they'll still have a job when the dust settles -

but KSC Shuttle workforce consensus is to keep Shuttles flying until "whatever nextgen" proves itself as HSF worthy (double faults & all).

Keith,

You asked about where are the voices of "younger people". My name is Mike Snyder and on February 24 of this year I had the oppurtunity to speak before the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space (well, in the end it was just Senator Nelson). Nevertheless, here is my statement which is part of the congressional record:

http://legislative.nasa.gov/hearings/2-24-10%20Snyder.pdf

I still feel very strongly about this and believe our near-term goals are being jeopardized. Without those near-term goals and objectives it is very difficult, in my opinion, to have stable long-term objectives. In the end, we still need the clearly defined details of this proposal, which many of us still believe to be lacking, even several months after the budget announcement. There are only several more months to go before a large percentage of the human space flight workforce loses significant knowledge and experience. I guess we'll see what happens tomorrow.

Regards,

Mike Snyder

I'm 33 yrs old. The researchers/engineers who kick my ass and who I most like to work with tend to be 50-80 yrs old and are difficult to find in NASA.

I often need to refer to early NACA/NASA papers and it's clear when you read those early studies that engineers of that breadth and caliber are not common as they once were, and do not have access to the resources they once did.

I dream of having the budget and spending authority to afford to use our existing machine shops, our existing test facilities and engineers, and to buy the sort of lab equipment they had in the old days. Only the gigaboondoggle projects can afford them now. Small-scale R&D, where the true cutting-edge is hidden, is priced out.

Nevertheless, I can replicate much capability by collecting and cannibalizing discarded equipment, using basic materials, labor-intensive approaches, better research and clever design.

It's not an optimal way to innovate and it's s-l-o-w. Such is early 21st century America.

Convincing small minds of new things has always been futile (any blog is case in point). Writing essays and blog posts has convinced no one and divides and devours quality research time. History suggests the only tried and true method of change is action (breakthroughs), not words.

I now focus on results and daresay those who are technically good enough do too.

As Aldrin, Armstrong, and others are the elder statesmen in this field, I do like hearing their opinions and I can understand why the media keeps reporting them.

But, as a 23-year-old former KSC (ground support design - both Shuttle and Constellation) worker and current aerospace engineering grad student, I agree with Keith. Sure, my lack of experience may not give much weight to my opinion, but ultimately, I am going to be working on whatever is decided.

So what is my opinion? I am not excited. Sure, I wasn't exactly excited about Constellation either; the Ares/Orion system doesn't represent the next generation in space travel. But I am less excited about the new plan, mainly for programmatic, not technical, concerns.

Mostly, when we hear from the leadership about the new plan, they focus on the fact that we will be doing "technology development." This is the wrong thing to focus on. A proper leader for NASA would get up and say, "we are going to build a true spaceship to take us to the Moon and asteroids." The technology development would naturally follow. By saying, "we are going to develop technology," that leaves all sorts of questions open. Does the technology have to work? Are we going to spend lots of taxpayer money to get new technology, and then do nothing with it, like NERVA and the X-33?

So when I read the bullet points provided by the OSTP about tomorrow's speech, I don't become inspired to work harder and learn more. In fact, those bullet points tend to make me question if it is worthwhile completing my aerospace engineering master's. Because after all, when the goals are so vague that you'll never know if you have completed them or not, it will be hard to have a rewarding career.

Keith Wrote:

"Editor's note: Call NASA. They can tell you. You will not believe anything I post."

Why would I not believe you? Please take a look at topic Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 4 « Reply #1204 on: 04/08/2010 07:22 PM (I'm Martin Hegedus and I am replying to kraisee (Ross))

This may link to it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20475.msg571026#msg571026

There, Ross is talking about their cost estimate for the sidemount canister. And I disagree with him based on information from a contract for the ET which is in the public domain. So I gather their information is second hand and they may not have access to past/current contracts.

But I don't know what cost you are referring too. And who do I call at NASA and ask the question? When I looked a while ago I couldn't even find the phone number for the Ares program office.

And, if you read on at SpaceFlight you'll see where Chuck Longton and I get in a brawl.

Oh yeah...the USA gets back to Luna and Mars only to find Chinese take out places and the Russian mafia already there waiting for us.

NASA hasn't sent Astronauts out of LEO since Apollo 17 returned from the Moon in 1972 and the various programs presented to follow-up the glories of Apollo haven't panned out. I am a Historian, so rather than argue the finer points of the future of NASA from the engineer or scientist perspective I will look at it as a concerned citizen and as a historian of the space program. I think it is important to understand how we wound up stuck in LEO.

Almost all of us who love the manned exploration of space still get chills when we listen to President John F. Kennedy's famous speech, “Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort.” JFK had called for a manned mission to the Moon in an address to Congress the previous year but it was his speech at Rice University that crystallized for Americans the sense of destiny for the United States to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. The assassination of JFK added a deeply emotional emphasis for those working on Project Apollo to get the mission completed on time. This was the genesis of the “clarity of a specific goal and time-frame” that has haunted the post-Apollo landscape. What we didn't realize is just how unique the circumstances were in the 1960's that opened the floodgates of federal spending that made the Apollo Program a reality.

Rather than building the infrastructure incrementally over time for the manned exploration of space, the ideological rivalry with the Soviet Union drove our “by the end of the decade space race” policy. The Kennedy Administration saw how the Soviets had been making great strides in positive propaganda with their many successes in space while the U.S. seemed to struggle to keep up. JFK wanted bold action and the American people responded to this initiative. Project Apollo proved that if we focus enough resources on a clearly defined goal that has the support of Congress and the American people, we can literally achieve just about anything. Therein lies the problem we found with such an approach. The American people, Congress and the Presidency all abandoned Project Apollo and the proposed follow-up programs that were meant to build on the Apollo infrastructure as soon as Neil Armstrong made his “one giant leap for mankind” at Tranquility Base. The space race was over and the American people felt that we had won the race against the Soviets and with the Vietnam War raging and demonstrations in the streets, divisive civil rights issues, environmental concerns, budgetary constraints, etc., NASA found itself in a struggle just to hold on to the Shuttle Program.

The political deals and engineering compromises that NASA made to get enough support for the Shuttle Program illustrates the danger of such compromise which directly led to the Challenger incident and indirectly the loss of Columbia. The inability of NASA to garner support for the next generation of space vehicles and boosters to succeed the STS Program is well documented. The Augustine Committee recognized the fact that the Constellation Program was over-promised, underfunded and unlikely to get back to LEO until 2017 at the earliest while ditching the ISS mid-decade.

Those of us old enough to remember the exciting energy of the Apollo Program believed that we would have had a permanent base on the Moon by now as well as a manned expedition to Mars. We also had Gene Roddenberry's Positive Humanist vision (Star Trek) of the future where humanity had united and taken to the stars greatly influenced our dreams of building the foundation of that future in our lifetime. I know I desire a Kennedyesque bold initiative for our return to the Moon to establish a permanent base as well a serious date-specific expedition to Mars. What I do realize is that we do not have the unique set of circumstances that gave JFK the opportunity to realize Project Apollo. I have to be realistic about the funding available to NASA as well as the lack political support that exists in Congress. Tragically the greatest impediment for a new bold initiative to get us out of LEO rests with the American public. Unless this political calculus changes, we should be glad that NASA still gets funded at all.

So where does this leave us as advocates for an aggressive manned space effort? I believe we must continue to press our case to educate the public on why we need a vigorous manned space program. If we are to succeed in reinvigorating the space program we must have the support and advocacy of a good segment of the American public. We are competing for attention and funding in the midst of a financial crisis, two foreign wars, high unemployment, a weak housing market, all magnified by intense political partisanship that divides our government as well as the body politic.

President Obama made the controversial decision to shake up this hoary status quo and I hope it provokes some serious soul searching amongst the American people about how much we value having Americans participate in the exploration of space. I think Congress will change some of the Obama Administration's recommendations including keeping parts of Project Orion as well as funding an extension of the Shuttle Program to fly more missions to the ISS until SpaceX can get their capsule and booster man rated and flying. The main thing to realize is that the status quo wasn't working and a shock to the system was desperately needed and now we have it. Let's see where our government and the American people want us to go as a space faring nation. Change is painful but I believe in this case it is necessary for the long-term survival of our manned space efforts. I look at this situation not as a dream denied but as a dream deferred.

Whoa buddy, I echo a lot of your opinions and am just about a half a decade older than you at ~26. I took the NASA job after both a engineering and physics doctorates and the hoped it would lead to placement in a meaningful program. Even with this reduction is program, the fact is that you're not going to find any private institution that offers what NASA has to offer, even at a reduced state.

I am engineer, but have slowly evoled to working in medical areas just as you noted in NASA, that is true for many. It is simply where the program is, and quite frankly we might as well so something in LEO and that is the first topic that comes up.

If you truly want to be in a field that is applicable to the future NASA, it isn't medicine or computer science or general engineering. It will be physics. Secondly, I wouldn't call yourself "scientist" just yet, I don't even refer to myself that or "Dr."..it is simply not the culture other than a internet handle :)

I am 35. I left a "cushy" gov civilian GS-13 space job (NOT at NASA) with reasonable career visibility in order to simply become a contractor and work "real" engineering problems. In my experience, the government does not actually do very much truly technical aerospace design work---that work is left for the contractors (opinion only, but based on my observations).

As a gov civ, I ran a program for the (not-to-be named) gov org which helped prepare undergrad/grad students for a career in space. The program worked very well and we had a quick and easy pipeline of brand new talent whenever we needed it. Some of this talent wound up at NASA, some we kept in house.

Personally, I have been dealing with what a precarious move it was for me to ACTUALLY WANT to do/learn real engineering, i.e be a contractor (in the face of cuts such as Constellation and many other aerospace programs). I used to be on a first name basis with industry leaders, now I am a "pee-on", but at least now I get my hands dirty and do real engineering work and have learned quite a bit. Nothing takes the place of doing the work yourself!! I guess I lead quietly by example--which some gov leaders need to learn!!

Such is the problem: the young NASA (albeit mostly contractor) workforce's ingenuity is still there---but gets laid off/redistributed every time policies change. Some leave, with bitterness, and never come back: I'm not quite there yet, but much closer than I used to be. The older gov civilian workforce remains, indefinitely, with no fear of losing their job---but with no significant Darwin-like motivation to improve their skillset. Therefore, arguably due to this, NASA has had a real challenge lately (past 40 years or so) in producing ground-breaking design-efficient products. (Notwithstanding unexpected setbacks, and a few special cases such as JPL.)

Utmost apologies and thanks to those of you at NASA who have maintained cutting-edge skillsets over the years. You should lead the change. I want to pick your brains, too!!

Keith:

Perhaps you're not aware, but Federal laws exist to protect against race, sexual , religious AND age discrimination in the United States of America?
To make a condescending comment that encompasses 4 decades of American citizens who have contributed vast efforts to making this the greatest country in the world, is not only disrespectful and ignorant but also exactly why those Federal laws were enacted in the first place.

Thank you..
TharsisA330

Editor's note: "Condescending = Discrimination"? Oh that is hilarious. Newsflash, Einstein: I am member of the very same group I am mentioning. So I guess I am discriminating against myself, eh?

I hear you Keith about the old folks chiming in. There is a facebook group out there made up of mostly college and other X gen who are ticked off at the President too. Go check it out if you haven't already. http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=434969540283&ref=ts

"Newsflash, Einstein: I am member of the very same group I am mentioning. So I guess I am discriminating against myself, eh?"

Well, Keith, based on that pretzel logic it follows you should close down NASA Watch since at your age you have "had your shot"?

Editor's note: Congratulations: you are today's Troll here at NASA Watch.

> Well here's something from someone in his 20s. I'm a senior in Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University (I graduate in a month).

Coincidentally, I also completed my undergrad degree in Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University a few years ago, and am currently in my mid-20s.

That said, I actually completely disagree with your assessment. Constellation was a completely broken program, and as the Augustine Committee found, continuing with that program would have resulted in an absolutely mediocre space program. Even boosting the budget significantly would have done little to improve that program's prospects.

The new proposal is a course NASA should have taken long ago, working with the commercial sector instead of attempting to compete with them and reviving long-dormant R&D at NASA. Under the new plan NASA is much better equipped to achieve the goals set forth in the Vision for Space Exploration: sustainable and affordable human & robotic space exploration of the solar system, preparation for human exploration of Mars, developing innovative technologies, and furthering US interests by promoting international and commercial cooperation:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp-space-conf-factsheet.pdf

For what it's worth, Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS) has been offered an invitation, albeit on very short notice. A couple of our national executive council members will be attending. So, there will at least be a few people in the room under the age of 30. How much of a voice we'll have I don't know, but a bulleted agenda (mostly focusing on using NASA internships as a bridge to hiring) has been created.

I don't like "me too" posts, but this one goes deep. Like a previous poster, I was bitten by the space bug when I was very young-space art posters on the walls, Doctor Who on the VCR, a telescope that got trundled out on clear evenings-you name it. When I had a chance to work at NASA HQ as a contractor, I took it. No other job, I thought, would be equal, even though I'd worked at other places with good reputations.

There seems to be a deep gulf between the gen. public & people who work at NASA & other agencies, like the Dept. of Energy or NSF, about what we do & why it's good for our country. Lots of people tend to see R&D as a sideshow, instead of the opening act for invention & a healthy economy. Small wonder we've never stuck with any plans for replacement manned spacecraft after 1986 & almost lost the ISS! I'm not sure how we can make the case in a nation where evolution's still in the dock.

I am a believer in "giving forward". I volunteer at our local science center & with our local amateur astronomy club to fuel the flames of the kids who are like the kid I was. My wife is the science fair coordinator & science resource teacher at the school where she works, & to the extent that I can direct things to her, they are, & she's also a fan of the ERC at Goddard, to such an extent that a couple of people at the countywide level are starting to take notice of how well she's trying to get the pupils fired up about a subject that isn't on this year's high stakes tests (science will be on the high stakes tests next year-let's hear it for change!).

CML (late 30's)

Space is dead.....twitter...Facebook...texting is the
leading edge of Society.....not kerosene fueled cylinders.......

"One thing that is really starting to annoy me: all of the complaining about - or campaigning for - this new policy does is being done by people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s - most of whom had their shot in the sun a generation or more ago. Where are the voices of the people who will inherit this space program and actually go to these new places? I do not see them being interviewed. And who will be at the Space Conference/Summit/Flyby event at KSC? The usual hand-picked suspects, I suppose - all fighting over table scraps of an old way of doing things."

I'm not sure who you're trying to blame here Keith, or how you propose to solve it. It annoys us young'uns too! I'm a late-20's engineer working on Orion, and I'm very angry at the current direction. However, I also have to come to terms with the realization that I am not Neil Armstrong.

The reason you're hearing so much from the Apollo era folks is that's because they're the folks who the public have heard of, and therefore they perceive their words carry more weight. They're the ones that make and sell headlines. If folks like Gene Kranz, Chris Kraft, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin write letters to the President, it's headline news because they're recognizable heroes of spaceflight. In contrast, my wife (a mid-twenties engineer) wrote a letter to Obama a couple of months before the original budget recommendation came out, but we still have yet to hear any mention of that momentous event in any of the national media.

The simple reality is that there are no publicly-recognizable space heroes under the age of 30 right now. There are plenty of space heroes under 50 still active in the astronaut corps, but, if I understand correctly, they don't get to have much of a voice: as they work for the government, I believe they are limited in what they can say due to lobbying restrictions, so I don't think they are allowed to speak out on either side of the debate. Who's left? The retired pre-Shuttle and early Shuttle folks. That's why you're hearing so much from them.

Of course, this doesn't mean we're not trying to get our voices heard. Since we don't enjoy the individual name recognition of, say, Jim Lovell, we have to find other ways to get our message out there. One way is to form groups, as lots of people pushing in unison is much more noticeable that an individual standing alone; for example, I know several of the folks in the Go Boldly group, a group consisting entirely of young professionals. Also, we have to take advantage of and master new avenues of communication, like Facebook and Twitter, and hope our messages go viral...I imagine it'd be even tougher for the young folks to be heard if the internet wasn't around, and all we had were the traditional forms of media. That being said, we've even been able to make inroads into traditional media, but it's been limited: for instance, a couple of the Go Boldly folks have been interviewed by the local media, but the result is usually a few talking-head sound bites embedded in a larger news story. As I mentioned before, if you're not someone with name recognition like the Apollo astronauts, John Q. Public views you as just another face in the crowd.

Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to sit Obama down for a couple of hours and talk some space sense into the man. However, since I haven't personally walked on the Moon, I know my chances of that opportunity arising are slim to none. I reiterate: the reality is that if you're not a space hero recognizable to the public, then you don't have as many opportunities to get your voice heard widely, and all the space heroes that are free to comment are over 50. If you have any ideas on how to get around this other than what I've already mentioned, I'm all ears.

It amazes me that Neil Armstrong is considered a relic. He's an American icon and discoverer. His opinion matters no matter what age he becomes. As long as he can speak, I will personally respect what he has to say.

Neil Armstrong chose long ago to retreat from the public eye. BUzz on the other hand has been preaching the gospel of commercial space and Mars exploration for the better part of a quarter century. People have laughed at him, insulted him, even humiliated him. But he persevered with his message. Today, April 15, 2010 his message was heard and codified into proposed national policy. unblike some who come out of the woodwork only once in a "blue Moon" (ok, my joke) Buzz has pushed the idea of access to space for the next generation for many years. that's why Americans under the age of 30 love this man. As well they should.

Making or conducting space research has been a legacy of NASA. Now with the new results and further studies, man can have further understanding about the Earth and how it is connected with the rest of the universe. I have been fascinate or interested with space exploration that I have been watching discovery channels as I grow up.

Photography Graphics