Why Isn't The Rest Of America Upset About This?

Because the American people believe-wrongly-that space affairs have no relation to their lives. It's all something they see on TV or at museums. Unless and until people are made more aware of just how space improves their lives, nothing will change.

They simply do not know about it. Diversion of attention, main stream media support for Obama. Just go out and ask the ordinary person what they know about it and they will tell you "I didn't know that".

I would posit that the ESAS implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration eliminated the things that would make it relevant to the American people. The only writings that I see out there like the times online from the UK, talks about how we are killing the Moon program.

When JSC killed ISRU because it "was not mature" it tore the heart out of the lunar outpost. We are doing ISRU experiments at the Ames research park for hundreds of dollars that will prove just how wrong that particular finding was.

The answer would seem rather obvious: human spaceflight is not very important in the 21st century and it has become generally boring, besides being outrageously expensive and dangerous (7 people dead every 35 flight or so).

Except for the holdouts from the past century, the newer generations — impacted and advantaged by the budding IT revolution — by and large, do not see human spaceflight as valuable, as they consider the return on investment for the last third of a century or so.

[e.g., slide rules were an excellent product and a wonderful craft for their era; however, today there are just better ways of obtaining the results one wants. Similarly human spaceflight has become a thing of the past].

Are you kidding me?

A. We are in the worst economic downturn since the great
depression, with a decade long rebuilding process ahead
of us at best.

B. The nation has a colossal debt that will require austerity budgets for as far as the eye can see.

C. We are in two wars with American service people dying
on a daily basis and the nation is hemorrhaging money to pay for it.

D. There is an oil leak in the gulf that is to deep to fix. That threatens the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico, The South Eastern Atlantic coast, and the tourist and fishing industries in that area.

Do I need to say more? If these were quieter times there
might be a few stories in the paper (literally millions
of Americans think that we are already flying to the stars
anyway). But under the circumstances just be glad anyone
remembers we have a space program.

Dennis, I enjoy most of your insights made in your posts but I do believe that your postulate concerning the relation of ESAS implementation to irrelevancy to the American people is a bit of a stretch. I do agree that removing ISRU from the lunar plan gutted same.

I don't understand why you (KC) can't put your finger on any of a dozen good reasons that explain the lack of outrage

1) cancellation may be a good idea
2) outrage fatigue
3) costs too much
4) private ventures show promise
5) government plan too long a timescale
6) mission not clearly defined
7) human presence not clearly needed
8) other gov priorities more pressing
9) not enough people to make a constituency
10) required technology not ready
11) leadership vacuum
12) benefits not defined

... just off the top of my head.

Editor's note: Oh, I can think of many reasons. But who cares what I think. That is why I asked NASA Watch readers to chime in - like you did.

... Let's see. The country is mired in two conflicts that it cannot win yet cannot quit. This done by the generation that was supposed to know better. The economy has been driven into the ground by the generation that said it knew better. The G and the press say we are in recovery, but everybody knows it's not true, and there is no end in sight. The president who was given a mandate to change is not changing much. We drill oil wells we have no idea how to cap then watch as a good portion of the Gulf of Mexico is soiled. This done by the generation the spawned the environment movement. Like our conflicts, there is no end in sight. Our housing values plunge and over half of us owe more on our houses than they are worth, and there is no end in sight of this either. Gee whiz I think I might venture a guess that this may have a lot to do with the general apathy in the public with respect to space.

But then again, I have pretty clear memories going back to 1976 as to what was going on in the public discourse. I have no memories of space ever rising to the fore except the following events. Challenger, Columbia, Shoemaker Levy-9, Comet Hale Bopp, Mars Pathfinder, and the MER rovers. Maybe the Voyager missions but I was always a space geek and it's sketchy sometimes about what excited me vs the public. Other than that, it's Star Trek or Star Wars.

Dennis, I enjoy most of your insights made in your posts but I do believe that your postulate concerning the relation of ESAS implementation to irrelevancy to the American people is a bit of a stretch.

Re read Marburgers March 2006 Goddard Symposium presentation and then tell me how the ESAS architecture had any relevance to what he talked about.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999

Most Americans don't care. They are no longer interested in real accomplishment but in "fame" and notriety. They aren't willing to save up money to buy a house they can afford so why should we expect them to care about anything that takes years to show results. Unless it affects their ability to get 300 channels of TV or the Internet or is espoused as a great moral necessity by Miley Cyrus or Beyonce then no one is going to care.

Space exploration is below the radar for most Americans and has been for decades. They weren't paying very close attention when Bush launched the VSE (only insomuch as it was a response to the Columbia tragedy...the import of the ISRU strategy shift was lost on them), and they weren't paying ANY attention when ESAS perverted the VSE into Apollo on Steroids...except to erroneously "realize" (with NASA's assistance) that the VSE had solely been about going back to the Moon with some new/old rockets.

Consequently, that ESAS is being dumped for a hope and a prayer is completely lost in the noise amid all the other bigger things going on as cited above. Some remain unaware that the shuttle program is coming to an end.

This just proves how some people here are completely disconnected with reality and would say anything to support their bias point (aka Pete).

The answers is simple, Americans are disconnected with NASA. They do not know about Constellation, much less about its goals or planned cancellation to support an even less known plan. NASA has been disconnected with the American public for a long time, so I do not know why anyone would be surprised. This is not a Constellation problem, it is a NASA problem. However, I think reality would start sinking in once shuttle retires.

Oh, I wish said indifference was due to some profound insight... but seriously, Joe Average does not give a sh*t about the Space Program. If it's not on the shelves at Walmart, it does not exist.

Joe Average does not know if the ISS is on the surface of the moon or not. Really.

Of those that do know, only a scant few know the difference between a Delta an Atlas and a Falcon, what's an orbit, what's ISRU... The headlines about this and that happening in space pass them by like a blur... Water on the moon, Water on Mars, Water on an Asteroid, Water in Europa, Water jets on Enceladus - they lack the context to make anything out of it, and that's the top 1% I'm talking about.

The other 99% believe the junk mail about Mars coming closer to Earth than the moon.

To quote George Carlin - "Think how stupid the average person is, and then think: Half of all people are stupider than that!"

So there - insight of the day. People don't care cause people are dumb.

Perhaps your bias is showing more and more these days keith. But there are many a great post / blog comment on here that you could have responded to, but the only one you seem to have responded to was the one that supported your jaded viewpoint.

Editor's note: please enlighten me

How about this. If spaceX or the private space industry was to be cancelled, do you believe the outrage from the public would be greater? or much like has been put on here, wouldn't the current situation of the world be impacting that? It's funny how some things are taken for granted, like the shuttle launch, and like the Apollo Missions. Unless it has to do with giving the public free money, or some new popular topic of the year the public does not maintain an interest. But again, glad you feel the need to be petty, you used to be better than that.

Editor's note: the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch got more national coverage than the shutdown of Constellation, my anonymous friend. Why is that?

The politicians idea of an exciting 38 year mission to LEO has put Americans into a deep coma when it comes to NASA.

They'd rather watch Star Wars, Star Trek, or Avatar:-)

Marcel F. Williams

As many have already speculated, the American public has only a limited sense of awareness of NASA's activities. They appreciate it as one of the backdrops to American life, but rarely look at the specifics to the degree that readers of NASAWatch do.

For the more enlightened American, there is a sense that NASA is in trouble. They've noticed Challenger, Columbia, and the failed attempts to craft a successor to the Shuttle. Many consider NASA like a faulty computer, and as one does with such a computer feel that it's time to hit the reset button. They see the Administration's actions leading up to that reset, and consider them necessary.

That's why no sense of outrage; those in the know and who do not have a vested interest in current programs support what the Administration is doing, and look forward to a rebooted NASA.

Keith,

Perhaps becuase it was the first ever launch of a private rocket.

Editor's note - uh, no it was not. Check your facts.

So you're saying that if we don't publicly televise every satellite launch, or dod rocket launch then they are not important either?
Perhaps like I wrote in my email response to you, that the same time Cx was cancelled was the same time the Health Care debacle went down, is the same time that other disasters are occuring, and involves a program that few people even knew about because they were more worried about getting free money as they were unemployed? How many people watched the first man walk on the moon and how many watched just a few apollo launches later? People nowadays are only interested in events that impact them, or anything that is new. How much publicity will the SpaceX rocket get after it's 2nd, 3rd or 4th launch? Please spare me your bias and try to at least stop using ridiculous arguments to support your viewpoint.

Editor's note: I ask my readers what they think and you decide to dump on me for asking what they think. If I am so annoying then why do you bother to visit this website? Spare yourself any further agony and find a Keith-free blog to read. Have a nice day

Keith,

Thanks. It was indeed the first private launch "after" the announcement of Cx's death. Seeing as it wasn't the very first, I do apologize for not clarifying, however seeing as you opened that can of worms, how many people actually viewed the other ones, when everyone still thought NASA was in charge of human spaceflight?

But don't bother answering me, as I stated in email, I'll take your advice and find a Keith free blog. You also have a nice day.

People are not dumb (well, there are exceptions...)they naturally gravitate to programs that include them, This is why the Spacex launch resonated so much-this could eventually be a way for they or their kids to get into space. The same motivation is why they still love the Shuttle-they believed that it could carry people just like them. As commercial space grows and flourishes, NASA will recede and return to research and technology development. Of interest to geeks but not mom and pop. Quite frankly as it should be.

Visions may come and go, but lack of commitment is forever.

Why should anyone be upset about canceling a step backwards? Re enacting the glories of the 60's is not worth the debt. It is a retro spam can that needed to be killed.

1) It is a return to an obsolete method of travel
2) While the Shuttle failed to meet its cost goals, this one will be even more expensive.
3) The national debt will not support it
4) It is nothing more than a re eneactment of past glories.

Americans only have so much bandwidth to handle all the things to be upset about from this administration. NASA is in there believe me.

Mama's Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Aerospace Engineers (Caution some language)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x1kohVHLrY

> Editor's note: the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch got more national coverage than the shutdown of Constellation, my anonymous friend. Why is that?

I did a search on news.google and was pretty surprised at how large the disparity was:

falcon 9 launch: 1,453 news articles
constellation shutdown: 72 news articles

http://news.google.com/news/search?&q=falcon+9+launch
http://news.google.com/news/search?q=constellation+shutdown

"where's the national outrage?"

Well, 47 percent of Americans paid no federal income tax in 2009 and that percentage is growing. Simply put, half of Americans have no skin in the game, thus simply do not care about space or anything else as long as their welfare keeps coming and the cable doesn't go out on their big screen TV. We have now generations of the populace that have no national pride, nor interest in it. Gee, thank-you Great Society.

"Why Isn't The Rest Of America Upset About This?"

I've got to agree with ex_navy, in that the average American cares more about Hollywood, TV shows, or sports than they do about most real news or facts. For many, the news is just that thing that comes on just before Leno or Letterman. Of course, there are exceptions for the really big stuff, like the oil spill or economic crisis...although I'd bet that they still wouldn't know exactly why the economy tanked, just that it had something to do with adjustable-rate home mortgages.

It's all about fame and immediate consumption. Many Americans can tell you exactly who's in the running to win -insert name of music/talent reality show here-. Try asking someone to name one of the astronauts aboard the STS-125 Hubble repair mission though. Hubble's famous, and the STS-125 crew are movie stars now thanks to IMAX, but you'll still probably not get an answer. A lot of people just don't care enough about the subject to learn anything about it.

Sadly, the space program isn't news on the same level as the oil spill, so we get tuned out. It's pretty much taken for granted that we fly people in space, and most folks probably don't even realize that there's a big debate going on about it right now. Heck, I've met a lot of folks didn't even know we were building a shuttle replacement, or that there were plans to go to the Moon (I've even met plenty here in Clear Lake). I've even gotten questions before asking why we don't just send the shuttle to the Moon.

At the extreme end, we even have people in this country that don't believe that the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon. They're more numerous than you'd think (I've even met one at MIT). That's what we're up against.

Now, SpaceX and Elon Musk do get a bit more news, because they fall into the "rich and famous" category, in the same vein as Richard Branson. If you don't believe that SpaceX and Elon are rockstars, go watch Iron Man 2: Musk makes a cameo, and the SpaceX factory was used as a set for the villian's weapons factory. Also, the spin that's being put on it is that SpaceX will make it so average folks can fly in space, so that gets a bit of attention (by the way, I'd love to know who in their right mind thinks the average American has millions of dollars of disposable income to drop on a single one-week vacation, but I digress...). Even with that though, I bet if you ask around outside of the spaceflight community, you'd find that many folks still probably didn't realize (or care) that Falcon 9 launched, or what its significance was.

So the short answer to the question "Why Isn't The Rest Of America Upset About This?" is that we're not Hollywood or a major disaster.

Purely my opinion, but I don't think NASA's done a good job in recent years telling its story and making people understand why space exploration is important. They do a lot, but don't seem to connect. Unlike the moon landing hoax people, who seem to understand their audience very well.

I tell people I watched the Falcon-9 flight a couple of weeks ago and they think I am talking about the balloon boy.

It's true most people don't feel that connected to the space biz.

As far as media, it's normal for them to get just some details right and go with it, and it spreads. The word for it is meme. I've had other jobs and when I read what they report, same things.

This time the meme was "Moon program or not?" Some news people pick up on that and it spread all over. Most people saw that and went "Eh, take it or leave it, sounds expensive and we did that already."

If you live it day to day, your concern is different. You think about the investment made in tools and capabilities over the past few years while working CxP, and see it about to partially be scattered. The NASA people that have been around a while also say "sounds expensive and we did that already," but it has a different meaning!

Most Americans didn't know we were going to the moon six months ago, so how can they be outraged now that we're not?

Few of that group can say to be concerned by the apparent Constellation price increases (aside from the "we're spending too much in space" crowd, who would quote you the wrong figures anyway if asked because they think the NASA budget is a trillion dollars bigger than it is).

A good part of it will boil down to jobs in certain districts because those are the ugly faces politicians will be seeing when they go home to beg for votes next election. Its the largest visible voting block on this issue that also has the money to do some damage.

Lack of media coverage (or outright misinformation) is what's gotten us in this situation. What is happening is diametrically opposed to what people think is happening.
My personal wager is that when the shuttles arrive at their museum stands and a bunch of engineers and scientists have been liberated from their jobs, the realization of what has taken place will hit home and result in national outrage.

HA! Just messing with you...
The press only turns up for explosions and the last thing the average persons heard about NASA involved a jealous astronaut driving halfway across country in a diaper.
The next season of American Idol will probably have more impact on the elections than space and whatever becomes of manned spaceflight will happen entirely in the dark.

In the mid-Michigan area, our local newspapers have diminished to a three-day-a-week publication focusing on local stories. The local TV stations here only mention spaceflight when an astronaut with local ties is on board or when Tony Ceccacci (a graduate of a local university) is working as flight director. Of the people I talk to, either they are surprised to hear of "the gap" or are appalled.

It seems to me that with the gulf of Mexico becoming a vast mire of oil, gas,seawater, and heavens only know what else, that the media "Mind" is somewhat diverted, at the moment, and is likely to be so at least until the end of summer.

Furthermore, there has not been a lot which is "newsworthy" on this topic except for the people bickering about it. Bickering over a government budget is not news in this day and age. Sorry, Gentleman and ladies, but the hard truth is that, to use some old newspaper terms, a subject which has been on page 17a (below the fold) for the last thirty years, is, at present, lucky enough to be in the front section of the newspapers at all, and not somewhere between the obits,a pot roast recipe, and "Dear Abby."

NASA is not viewed by the American people as an Agency designed solve national issues, problems or crisis's. That is left for the other agencies.

NASA HSF even less so.

So, when HSF gets a make over, there is no issue, problem, etc that is left unaddressed - except for jobs in the local districts you mention. Hence, no storming of the gates with pitch forks because my entitlement program is being threatened.

And this is why ObamaSpace will prevail, with a few deals on the edges of it to placate the few unhappy camper congressmen who will be impacted. Look for their honey pots to get $'s in some other form to appease their sensibilities.

Most people have nothing to do with space. So obviously they don't care.

Spacewill:

"If spaceX or the private space industry was to be cancelled, do you believe the outrage from the public would be greater?.

Spacex is a private company not subject to the whims of the politicians. If their hardware fails on them too many times they may have to "cancel" themselves but so far they haven't taken a step backwards yet. Also, their hardware is far less likely to fail because they don't have any outside influence interfering telling them how to build things. Just good solid engineering standards and the heritage of Americas fifty years of space flight. Not pork barreling, influence peddling politicians with no clue what end of a rocket engine to light. If the politicians push Spacex too hard they will pack their toys and move to someplace with a more favorable climate.

Oh, they're safe from the politicians for now but it means that if they do fail it'll be their own damn fault... as it should be.

tinker

People are not noticing because of other events in the news like the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico endlessly dominating news cycles and also because -- for now -- the Shuttle is still flying.

I would expect that it will gain some more notice when the final STS flight is completed.

Finally, the bickering about Cx termination is not something that has drawn the eye of the political yabber-jabbers like Limbaugh and Bil Maher.

Then again, Maher is among those that wonder why we spend anything going into space when "we have problems right here" -- as if we could solve poverty by handing over money to the poor. I have no use for that man.

Dennis, your original posit was.....the ESAS implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration eliminated the things that would make it relevant to the American people.

While ESAS implementation the way it occurred may have made the Vision irrelevant to the scientific community, Marbuger and you, my point is that the general public doesn't care one way or the other.

I submit that if they don't know about 55 functioning experiments "out there" they don't know about nor care the manner in which ESAS was implemented.

It never seemed like there was much interest in "Apollo on steroids", not even from the Bush Administration which proposed it. Americans may have been turned off by the apparent direction for 21st century that was not towards an advanced SciFi-like image of a space craft, but to a 1960's era splash-down capsule.

If NASA wants the public to care, give them a reason to care.

A lot of posts so far are blaming the public for their shallowness, short-sightedness and their failure to grasp just how important NASA HSF is.

Maybe the problem is not the public but NASA. At this point in history, almost 50 years after Gagarin's flight, fewer than 500 humans have flown in space. That means there are many more NFL football players on today's roster than the total number of humans who have been to space. What do we expect? That Americans are going to become upset because a handful of US astronauts won't get to go back to the moon?

At this point in history, NASA HSF should be focused on two things: full utilization of ISS for basic and applied research, and seeding the space economy a la Kelly airmail act. Whatever NASA HSF does that broadens the space economy is good, and whatever fails to do so is at best marching in place and at worst impeding progress.

As for public support, I believe it's about the numbers. NASA will be able to justify sending a few astronauts anywhere they want if the space economy is big enough and touches enough people. Figure out how to go from 500 humans in space to 5000 and it will only get easier.

Why, because people don't have the time to get involved in everything. Bottom line! People who live in an area normally care about THAT area and what's going on locally. There are probably a lot of newsworthy things going on all over the country right now but I don't have the time to read about all of them or write my Senator or the President about all of them. I care about and devote time to what I can or how it affects me or my family. I just think that is human nature and has nothing to do with the space program.

It never seemed like there was much interest in "Apollo on steroids", not even from the Bush Administration which proposed it. Americans may have been turned off by the apparent direction for 21st century that was not towards an advanced SciFi-like image of a space craft, but to a 1960's era splash-down capsule.

Maybe the reason we don't hear strong public outrage (or support) is of course for the higher-national-priority reasons mentioned above (recession, national budget, international involvements, etc.); but also a matter of public outreach. I have yet to hear someone mention how excellent a job NASA performs with public outreach, how NASA as a whole interacts with the general public to keep our fellow taxpayers informed and involved.

We should express our regards to the volunteers, both NASA civil servants and contractors who individually perform outreach activities, including FIRST robotics, shadowing programs, and classroom visits; to inform and inspire others about the challenges and opportunities offered by space exploration. Even if NASA as a whole could use improvement with outreach, it is good to know its workforce cares enough to volunteer time and effort for outreach activities.

We may witness a time when it becomes the innovation of the private sector which best addresses the need to inspire and inform the public about space exploration. As a matter of fact, the all-too-mentioned (private) media does and has been inspiring and informing the American public for a long, long time. Just ask Buzz, when he's finished practicing another waltz for ABC's "Dancing With The Stars". Or ask the NASA Watch team: don't see a NASA-sponsored blog with all of you posting your 2-cents, now do we?

"This is why the Spacex launch resonated so much-this could eventually be a way for they or their kids to get into space"....Go out and ask 100 people if they liked "Spacex" and you will likely get a reply that they didn't see the movie.

"Or do most Americans just not care about space?"

Uh, yeah ... they just don't care. I've written letters to Obama and Sen. Nelson regarding my views on space policy. Friends that I have shared this with look at me like I have three heads. Trying to explain the job loss aspect garners sympathy, but that's about it. J.Q. Public has way to many worries ahead of space policy. Try to discuss NASA budget figures and all I get are glazed-over eyes and a pat on the head. "How cute that you care about the big rocket ships" and the like. National pride ain't what it used to be, I guess.

Keith,
Your imbedded question in the comments regarding why the Falcon 9 launch made more of a media splash than Constellation cancellation (a very relative thing, of course...it wasn't THAT big of a splash, just like most space news) is a separate question, and the answer is a bit more complicated (and some of the reasons have been cited above):

a) it's a NEW something-being-accomplished versus an OLD something-being-cancelled;

b) it involves, perception-wise, realizable promises of something completely new (private orbital spaceflight) versus the mere going away of been there-done that;

c) the viability of the President's new space policy depends (again, in terms of perception and how the media is playing up the drama) on its success.

There are other more subtle reasons (Did the general media ever really grasp how ESAS perverted VSE in the first place? Did they even grasp the new ISRU-based strategy of VSE before that?), but it almost all boils down to NEW accomplishment versus OLD non-accomplishment.

The general media's view of the world has never reflected genuine reality, but merely an editorial staff's perception of what they deem important (for or against their own agendas/viewpoints), interesting (conflict between their usual heroes and villains), or easy to comprehend at an emotional level (and so keep their audience watching/reading).

Perhaps a related question might be, why did the first shuttle flight make such a huge splash, whereas (I suspect) the last shuttle flight will get little extra coverage beyond the slight amount the just-flown mission got?

New vs old, accomplishment vs un-accomplishment...

Fascinating how many theories exist. The answer seems simple and obvious "relevance". Human spaceflight strategists refuse to try to be relevant. Landing one crew of humans on the Moon and returning them safely was relevant to the world of the 1960's. High speed/high altitude aircraft research was relevant to the world of the 1950's. Clearly defining a national human spaceflight program that is relevant to the situation/issues of today is what is needed to garner the public and congressional support to sustain the drive to actually accomplish something.

I think many people here hit the nails on the head as to why more people are not upset about what is happening with America's space program. Let me recap a few things that were written, with some input of my own.

1. Almost no knowledge about what is happening in our space program.

2. Don't know what Ares, Orion, or constellation is and most have never heard of SpaceX.

3. Is bored with 35 plus years of LEO. Has little interest, if we make it back to the moon. As many of them would say, been there, done that.

4. May have heard that NASA is having some difficulty, but thinks it's probably time for a reboot.

5. Don't care about the space program and don't think it has any relevance to them.

6. Feel they have far greater concerns with not losing their house, feeding their family, keeping or finding a new job, not going out of business, if they have a small business.

Most of the country knows little or anything about what is going on at NASA.

Reread Jim Gagnon's comment, I agree with him, when he says "Those in the know and who do not have a vested interest in current programs support what the administration is doing, and look forward to a reboot of NASA.?

While ESAS implementation the way it occurred may have made the Vision irrelevant to the scientific community, Marbuger and you, my point is that the general public doesn't care one way or the other.
I submit that if they don't know about 55 functioning experiments "out there" they don't know about nor care the manner in which ESAS was implemented.

I think that you are absolutely wrong, and this bashing of your fellow citizens does absolutely nothing to gain their support. I do a pretty good bit of public speaking around the world and people are interested in space beyond the sparsely attended AIAA conferences that we in the industry go to.

Last June I spoke to a full room of well over 2000 people at the Apple Worldwide developer conference and while these are geeks, they are not necessarily space geeks. I spoke about the history of our lunar orbiter tapes and their relevance today. At the end of the presentation I showed a graphic rendering of a lunar base that comes from some of my work on the subject. Guess what, I got a standing ovation at the end of my talk and this lead to several more speaking engagements.

When Keith Cowing and I gave a talk at Maker's Faire a few weeks ago we filled the house there as well. The American people support space. The American people WANT Star Trek. They are uninterested in paying tens of billions of dollars to watch a few GS-15's walk around picking up rocks, whether it is on the Moon or Mars or an asteroid.

The American people also understand that we are not going to get warp drive tomorrow and that it will take time. However, NOTHING in the Griffin ESAS plan did ANYTHING toward opening the solar system for economic development and human (vs a few GS-15's) exploration of the solar system.

Frank:
While I'll agree that people individually are not dumb, as a group they are pretty dumb.
They can't see how their actions today will effect them 10, 15 or 20 years down the line. They have no idea of cause and effect. Give me this, give me that but DON'T RAISE MY TAXES. Better yet, give me a tax break. That's why over 40% of the budget is borrowed money and why entitlements and debt service are the vast majority of federal outlays.
Our infrastructure is crumbling around us but "no new taxes" to fix it. Social Security has been heading down the tubes for years but there's no political will to fix it because any attempt to raise taxes or restructure benefits is political poison.
The Gulf oil spill is just made for 24/7 news coverage with images of oily pelicans and marshes. While it's a crisis it's by far not the only crisis we face.
News has been trivialized. We know way too much about the Natalie Holloway case and not half as much as we need to about the economic situation in the rest of the world.
On top of all this is it any wonder that most of this nation has no idea about what NASA is working on? I was at a party with friends and someone, other than me, brought up the fact that "Obama was killing the moon program". His argument was that now we won't be able to go to the moon any more. He and everyone else in the crowd, had a shocked look on their faces when I pointed out that we can't go to the moon now! They thought that since we went there in 1969 that we could go back any time we want.
I wish I knew how to get people to pay more attention to their world around them.

I think Frank has pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as the "why". But unfortunately, I disagree with him on one point -- I think the public has correctly perceived that manned spaceflight has no relation at all to their lives.

I love manned spaceflight as much as, if not more than, pretty much everyone who reads this blog. But I -- as a non-engineering outsider who was born at the tail end of Apollo -- might have a bit of a different perspective. I see manned spaceflight as basically just another defense procurement program; something that serves its specific purpose and provides jobs, but which does little else.

If you look at it, the Shuttle was developed under more or less the same process used to procure, say, the Joint Strike Fighter. A defined goal was (eventually) fixed upon, and a system was developed around that defined goal. Once the system was decided upon, it was fixed in place -- all activity after that point focused on the system and its needs; not necessarily the original goal, or any technological advances that could be made. For example, the Shuttle design incorporated ceramic tiles for heat dispersal, because it was believed/projected that such tiles would be cheap and easy to maintain. It turned out, of course, that the exact opposite was true -- they were fragile, expensive, and required enormous amounts of man-hours to maintain between flights. But thought was never given to replacing the thermal protection system with something different. Why? Because the shuttle was designed for tiles in every aspect -- aerodynamically, programmatically (i.e. what ground test and ground maintenance items were designed for it), etc etc etc. Tiles were part of the system, and once the system was decided on, that's pretty much it. It's not that there's a lack of desire to innovate, it's that there's no flexibility to innovate. There's no 2010 model year of the shuttle that you can upgrade and make changes upon to reflect better technology. There's just the system whose design you're stuck with, for better or worse, for as long as you operate it.

And that's the problem I see with the "manned spaceflight provided ancillary benefits to taxpayers" argument -- the initial development of the system probably provides some benefits, due to the R&D done to create the system. But once it's operational, it's so fixed and concrete that virtually no innovation is possible, and therefore the program itself creates no "spinoffs" from its operation. It serves whatever purpose it was originally designed to do, and very little else.

I don't doubt that Apollo created and spun off a good deal of technology into the public sector. But how much of that tech was unique to Apollo? And how much would have been developed with or without Apollo, due to its great utility?

I think that most people would recognize the utility of a government program if it could be demonstrated that the program (a) granted an immediate and direct benefit to a large number of people, (b) was something that individuals or groups of individuals would do on their own, but which is more efficiently done on a state or national level (i.e. defense), (c) is something that would have arisen in the economy because of its utility but for the enormous initial capital expenditure required (the interstate highways, the railroads, or (d) is something that produces an end-product that can be copied or utilized by the public sector for the betterment of society (DARPANET, the GPS constellation). I really don't think that manned spaceflight, as currently organized by the US, can meet any of those tests right now. And so, in the minds of the non-space-crazy public, it's little more than glorified ditch-digging paid for with taxpayer money.

Disagree? Absolutely, no harm no foul. My bashing of fellow citizens? Debatable but not important to the question posed by Keith in this thread.

I do not disagree with Marburger's assertions only in how the general public perceived it's importance. Standing ovations alone (while I'm sure great for your ego) do not prove your original assertion.

Standing ovations alone (while I'm sure great for your ego) do not prove your original assertion.

Oh good lord, you seriously have to stoop to a comment like this. How many talks have you given around the nation on the subject of space in the last ten years? How many interviews have you given and how many programs have you been featured on?

It has nothing to do with ego, it has to do with the response given to a speaker when presenting a subject. People who give speeches about picking up a few rocks on Mars rarely get this kind of reception nor are they invited to speak outside of their own little insular world. Prove my assertion? That is a silly standard when presenting feedback about public responses to various space related subjects. I can guarantee you this, I get far more response when talking about the economic development of space than when I am talking about space science missions. Proof? How about reinforcement of what I have observed over the last 20+ years of speaking on the subject.

One thing that we do have absolute proof of, Constellation is a dead end that congress is unwilling to fund and the White House is unwilling to support. The independent group set up to review it found that it was not sustainable without a LOT more money per year and congress, despite the whining right now, has shown no interest in supporting it.

Marburger put space in a comparative context with other federal funding initiatives of direct and concrete value to the nation and found space wanting. Why did he find it wanting? Because as it was put together by Griffin, it did not contribute to the economic development of the nation, nor did it follow the vision of Bush or what he laid out in his opening statements.

Ignoring reality today is not an option, but that seems to be the primary approach by those who support the current plan.

Why Isn't The Rest Of America Upset About This ?
The Public knows that NASA and its manned space flight programs are safe in the government's care, and they produce good solid results : the ISS, Shuttle flights, Hubble repair...
As long as no shocking international event will contradict this, no upset and no unrest should be expected.
No other nation will perform any manned space exploration mission that America is not on top of, no surprises there. It won't happen.

HSF is a "dont care" (or worse) outside of the jobs centers where the technowelfare exist for a simple reason. Outside of employing people right now HSF does nothing that affects the other 99.99 or 99.9999999 percent of the American people; the ones who pay the bills.

It is an easy test. Shut down the FAA's ARTCC system and the country changes immediatly. Shut down human spaceflight; end it walk away from it and other then the places where the money is spent, no supporter of HSF can point out a tangible thing that the nation loses.

As long as that is the case the arguments about HSF remain "a closed shop" with one exception. The people who are paying the bills but not receiving a lot from it are getting tired of paying the bills.

Those who argue that the American people have short time spans etc miss the basic point. 15 years ago when the nation was running a budget surplus then the money was "OK". Now the American people are scared to death that our economy is on the brink of collapse (and it might be) so every penny is being viewed with some alarm.

One half billion dollars and all I got was this lousy test flight is the specific...HSF is becoming 50 years and two or three (or more) hundred billion dollars and all we got were some moon landings and not much else.

There is no support for massive spending or efforts in HSF. even Pete Olson is finding that out as he goes across his district.

Robert G. Oler

Frank Sietzen - the American people believe-wrongly-that
space affairs have no relation to their lives.
Dennis Wingo - the ESAS implementation of the Vision for
Space Exploration eliminated the things that would make it relevant to the American people
CommonSense The answer would seem rather obvious: human
spaceflight is not very important in the 21st century
ex_navy - Most Americans don't care
zack - Americans are disconnected with NASA.

How did NASA and spaceflight/human spaceflight get started in the first place? Take a read at Howard McCurdy's Space and the American Imagination and how space was advertised to the US populace in the 1950s and 1960s. Through Colliers and Time-Life Magazines and Disney's TV programs a substantial portion of the US population was aware of the potential of a space program and with Sputnik, Laika, and Gagarin all being spoken of by the political elements.

Senior NASA managers, like von Braun or like Gilruth were regularly and frequently writing stories for Popular Mechanics and Popular Science and National Geographic.

A substantial portion of Americans were aware and had an opinion.

Take a look at what no one in NASA is doing today. Take a look at NASA's focus on innocuous, uninteresting news releases. Take a look at the lack of good PR release material - (take a look, by comparison at the great job that has been done with Hubble and with recent planetary missions.) Take a look at the HSF management's focus on stupid communications processes like twittering or internal BLOGs or conference telecasting - these things might reach a couple hundred people at most, and mainly they are preaching to the choir.

The engineer mentality would have you believe that if you do a good job designing and building hardware (NASA HSF has done a very poor job in this area for the last number of years) or flying a mission, then the public will be approving and supportive.

Actually 99% of the public is totally unaware.

International Space Station is an excellent example. The last few years of the Program has gone amazingly well, built an incredible piece of machinery, and has really represented the closest HSF has every come to routine success in operations. A couple years ago ISS had its 10th anniversary in orbit and over the last year the vehicle/facility has achieved assembly complete. Has NASA produced anything that would tell the public about the program and the vehicle ?

I remember about 6 months ago that ISS produced a calendar that had erroneous dates for major events in space. That was the last story I remember.

What little publicity the NASA PR group has put out has centered on Shuttle missions to ISS. Those run out soon.

Who is in charge of this function for ISS? Why has the job been so ineffectively and so poorly done. Why do these people still have their jobs?

NASA people have often spoken about their need for a marketing group and about how this cannot be pursued because of government regulations. This just obfuscates the issue. NASA and its people have the ability to create the content and the messages. Put some people in charge who can do this and who have proven their abilities in these areas. Don't put a bunch of rocket engineers and scientists in charge; most have never done the appropriate kinds of public communications and most do not care about this at all. They are exactly the wrong people to have entrusted with this job.

It is probably too late now. As Constellation has shown, the lack of communicating the program is as much the reason for the downfall as was the poor engineering progress.

Very few give a rat's rear, but our reps still put more money on NASA than any other country's space agency.

If we'd all just _accept_ these two facts, than we're free from the spec of having to build a big giant ridonculous program to "inspire the youth" or excite "the public".

We don't need to abandon ISRU and other research conducive to our dream in favor of Apollo to Mars for the sake of one-upping the 60s.

Now, VSE and "ObamaSpace" share a lot in common. They're pretty clearly about trying to economically develop this space thing.

Its really, really clear. What we're supposed to be doing. We are NOT tied to building something ridiculous huge just to do it to show off. We are NOT trying to one-up the Soviets or prove anything. NASA's been given clear guidance, twice, by two administrations, to forget about the public's whims and focus on R&D and development.

The truth is most americans either don't care about NASA or even never heard of NASA now. To them the moon and space is of no interest to them. As someone lives outside the USA many of you might not realise but NASA receives better coverage internationally for its various space missions than it does in the States.

What i have noticed is that americans get bored with something real easily, in the 60s they were excited about going to the moon. A couple of years later they couldn't care about the moon anymore.
Most news reporters also only have limited understanding of science or technology and when they do report something they will get the story completely wrong.

The good Lord not withstanding, you need to lighten up on your hatred of all things Griffin. Besides I for one have stated that its the politicians that are at fault for the last 40 sorry years. When politicians become interested in other things besides looking for money that can be easily plucked to be spent elsewhere then we'll all be able to move forward.

One thing is certain, human exploration of space by the U.S. is not in the cards and has not been since about 1969 and Nixon's OMB.

Applause and standing ovations may be a strong agreement response but I seriously doubt you have a statistically significant number of voters there. Afterall, those are the ones that need to be stirred up.

Good luck with your speaking engagements.

The truth is most americans either don't care about NASA or even never heard of NASA now.

Don't buy this for a minute. At the Maker's Faire, where over 100,000 people showed up, the most popular tote bag for goodies had the NASA logo on it. NASA has probably one of the world's highest brand recognitions and people outside of the NASA/Contractor world usually have a much higher opinion of NASA than is warranted.

Here, here JoeCooper.

If most Obama plan bashers would go back and RE-READ the Bush VSE from 2004, they'd realize how similar the two are......and that Constellation is outlier. Somehow the VSE and ESAS have been confused by alot of folks. VSE (similar to "Obamaspace") was widely vetted. ESAS was a quick study ordered by a totally different administrator than the one under which the VSE was even produced. There was little input requested during ESAS outside a small circle (i mean how much input could even be obtained in 90 days), due to the fact that the answer/CxP architecture for ESAS was predetermined by that new administrator.

Why isn't the rest of America upset? Well, it could be they've got their minds on other things - like the Gulf oil spill, the foundering economy and resultant job insecurity, multiple wars, staggering budget deficits, a non-functional government, not to mention the day-to-day things that come up in trying to raise a family.

The word relevance, as has already been mentioned here, definitely comes to mind when considering “Why Isn't The Rest Of America Upset About This?”. Yet another word must accompany the conversation - Vision. NASA has failed to generate a compelling vision for space exploration in the sense that programs have failed to embrace space as a journey for us all. Going to space, or being connected somehow to, or by what goes on in space, as something for more and more people over time has failed to be a notion fully embraced by NASA.

Consider the financial crisis we are in. While many explanations about bubbles, herd mentality, deregulation, mortgage backed securities, risk management, CDO’s, insurance and derivatives will be given when trying to explain the cause of such a financial debacle, there is one explanation that goes to the heart of the matter. Trillions of dollars of capital wanted a place to go and produce returns and the best the world could do was say together - “houses”. This speaks to a failure of the global imagination to think of better things to do with all that capital. If space had a compelling vision in the public eye, as a place where we might all take part in one day, how might that capital have behaved differently? And why all the free flowing capital? In large part, due to the productivity gains occurring and spreading globally now since the end of the Cold War. NASA likely played a significant technological role in all the productivity gains to the degree that communications, the internet or satellites, have made every transaction on the planet that much faster and cleaner over time; an irony in a sense.

Over time relevance will wear thin and must be complemented by vision. Relevance will make someone think what’s in it for them now, how do they feel about something – in the here and now. But vision will keep people coming back for more even when the feedback loop goes momentarily negative. There is almost a religious aspect here that needs to be remembered about motivations and people. Every religion that has been more inclusive has grown more again than those that stagnate and remained exclusive. Once upon a time we had a space program, 5000 years ago. We built these launch pads, arranged to reflect a star pattern. We outfitted them, filled them with food and supplies, and put an astronaut aboard. The pharaoh that is, the pyramids that is, after death that is. Those were our first launch pads to the stars. A rather exclusive affair, only for the most high, after death, a single journey for the god-king. With the passage of time such societies and their projects lost vision. The people wanted to go to the heavens themselves. Along came these more inclusive religions and they prospered. After a time going to the heavens expanded further, expanding beyond a chosen people to being for all who wanted the journey. Relevance may have helped peoples see that thinking a certain way was useful day to day, but an inclusive vision is what makes the faithful stick around and grow.

NASA relevance and vision must go hand in hand. Relevance is doing the things that connect to some vision, so it’s apparent that there is hope for progress. Eventually many people want to live and work in space. And as much as people connect to space nowadays (through services like weather, GPS, direct-TV, or by the host of capability we have to look down upon our Earth) – people will want more as what was once imaginative becomes mundane.

A forward looking NASA vision has to be about a series of steps that are always reminding everyone what the end game is – routine, affordable, reliable, safer access to space for people, their ideas, and anyone’s limitless possibilities. So long as the vision that’s presented is of increasing danger, for a highly select few astronauts (our new pharaohs), and for only the ideas of the largest and most well capitalized corporations and nations, then people, individuals, will walk away. This vision they will say does not include me. This vision is for the lottery winners, not me or my children.

We run this risk again when getting too caught up in the choice of some architecture (how) or some competition scheme (also how) to encourage innovation. We forget “why”. Relevance and vision have to form a new map for our journey on this planet, and as we leave it. We can be economically relevant in many ways, but only in an expansive, inclusive vision about the future of spaceflight will NASA find a place to distinguish itself again from many another investments. The iPads and the mobile-this, and the empowerment that, can make many an investment “relevant” but it’s the vision of connectedness that will draw a difference among the many relevant things to apply resources to.

We have to create a positive vision with steps that are relevant to those holding resources. Or the failure of imagination will find other things to do once again with all that capital our productivity increasingly provides, and relevance will only get us so far.

All these "if only the people really knew what we were doing, they'd support us" comments remind me of what the liberals are saying about ObamaCare. It's self-serving claptrap.

No, if the people knew what Cx was doing, and how much it was going to cost and how long it was going to take compared to what companies like SpaceX are doing, they'd love NASA a whole lot less.

The rest of America is not upset about this since they simply have lost their hope of going to space themselves. They are simply not the ones that want to go to space. In the past, pretty pictures from space held the promise of potential trips to space by regular citizens willing to pay for access to space. If you can see a picture from space, you can imagine being there yourself and this feeds the hope of going there someday for yourself. The realities settling into mainstream America is that most people rocketing into space to take pretty pictures and reflect on how small and fragile the world is have run their course. That is why those who do not belong to the rest of America are upset. They just don't get it and refuse to move on since that is all they dream about. These people including myself will continue to whine and will eventually cry themselves to sleep.

Denial, anger, depression, and grief are necessary phases of the human emotional response to a personal loss of one’s dreams. Once these phases have run their course, people with unrepressed positive attitudes will pick themselves up and start over with new dreams and job pursuits that are based on interacting and helping people on the ground.

The good Lord not withstanding, you need to lighten up on your hatred of all things Griffin.

I don't hate Mike, I do think that he has done more to destroy our future in space than any administrator in NASA history. That is an engineering value judgement based upon what he did with turning the VSE into the ESAS architecture.

As I have said before, if the United States had a true dedication to the economic development of the solar system, the ESAS architecture was not a bad start. However, the truth of the matter is that Mike knew he did not have the money to execute the ESAS architecture from the first day he started the plan. He thought that if he killed STS and ISS fast enough that he would be able to get the money that he needed. It was a self defeating plan as he was trying to get the congress to throw away a $100 billion dollar investment in order to invest in Mike's new plan. It was never going to happen, so it was his management judgement as far back as 2005-2006 that killed Constellation, not what the Obama administration is doing today.

One thing is certain, human exploration of space by the U.S. is not in the cards and has not been since about 1969 and Nixon's OMB.

Applause and standing ovations may be a strong agreement response but I seriously doubt you have a statistically significant number of voters there. Afterall, those are the ones that need to be stirred up.

Good luck with your speaking engagements.

You just cannot resist throwing snarks out can you. Your certainty has no relation to what has happened in that the human exploration of space (defined as the economic development of the solar system), has not been seriously put on the table by NASA since the mid 1980's. SEI was the outgrowth of some really good studies on the value of ISRU on the Moon and elsewhere and yet when it came to implementation, NASA punted, and a new AA that came along in the 1990's named Griffin, killed it entirely for his First Lunar Outpost (FLO) architecture. The same thing happened with the ESAS architecture.

As Paul Spudis has accurately observed, there is a certain tolerance that the taxpayer has for NASA expenditures no matter what they do with the money. He and I both agree (as well as many others) that this budget is entirely sufficient to enable the return to the Moon. It will not enable Mars directly, no matter how many times that they try. Both SEI and ESAS shipwrecked by trying to do Mars on a Moon budget.

We shouldn't care that the average American doesn't care.

The times the public has cared (early 60s, Apollo 11/13, Space Shuttle, Challenger, Columbia) haven't appreciably improved space policy or our accomplishments.

Now in 2010, we have vibrant (if small) space policy communities online that have done far more to shape, criticize, and support various NASA policies than any silent majority.

Keith, what constitutes "national outrage"? Do you mean, rioting in the streets; demonstrations in every community; letters to you from a majority of the population? What exactly would you like to see? Do you honestly believe that this question validates your point of view even tho there is no definitive answer?

Editor's note" huh? Chill out dude.

Reading "Ad Astra Per Aspera" and Dennis Wingo's statements rises a good point. To Joe Q Public in the 50's high speed flight was germane to them as it was obvious to the most casual observer that they would be traveling in vehicles with similar capability very soon themselves. The kid who read about the Bell X-1 in '47. probably flew to visit his grandmother 10 years later on a 707. In the 1960's the envisioned 300 passenger Mach 3 SST were not far off at all and all the hype of the space program promised even more. Even the much promised desktop personal computer came to be. Even in the late 70's when a good portion of the US population started to see people they know get computers the concept that they might get to go still did not seem too far out of reality. But it was starting to sound pretty far out. We, the people, thought we were stake holders.

And Dennis' experience with his public speaking makes perfect sense. In fact I caught the fever as well after talking with him face to face at Space Access in '09. After explaining his major subsystems I was infected with a feeling of ... Hey! I could make those electronics too! And watching his presentation to the Maker community as he described the degradation of the data from one format to another also communicated the nature of the buried treasure that those tapes are. To computer geeks and electrical engineers his presentations draw them in and let them figure out the nature of the problem and the nature of the solution. As many of them can count in HEX they get drawn into story and the fun of the technicals of the problem and solution.

I think a third example of this can be seen at the web site airliners dot net. The plane spotting community documents every aspect of the airline industry almost live and have made a website that is really an intelligence source. We in the space community have nothing like it. Check it out. The beauty of the resource is the content is created by participants at every level, pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, management, photographers, passengers, and manufactures. It's a whole community and functions at a level we can only dream of.

Dennis,

I find your descriptions of positive feedback encouraging (even if such audiences may be pre-disposed to a certain degree), but I wonder if they are merely reflecting enthusiasm for space exploration/exploitation as a general concept versus their actual understanding of historical and current developments, which is more specific to Keith's original question. My own sense is that a large percentage of the general public seems to have a fuzzy sense of things (colored with this or that news headline) but remains unaware of both the details and the specific issues involved. As I stated above, some (a teacher here, a lawyer there, etc) remain unaware even that the shuttle program is ending.

Have you gleaned otherwise from a large percentage of your audiences?

Amazing that after 63 comments the word "Augustine" hasn't been mentioned. It's not that complicated. The public has accepted the conclusions of the Augustine Commission, a bunch of smart people who studied the problem thoroughly, and is now moving on. Except for folks in Texas, Alabama, Florida, Utah, and Colorado, there is no outrage because the public is not outraged.

Damned right !!!

"NASA and its people have the ability to create the content and the messages. Put some people in charge who can do this and who have proven their abilities in these areas. Don't put a bunch of rocket engineers and scientists in charge; most have never done the appropriate kinds of public communications and most do not care about this at all. They are exactly the wrong people to have entrusted with this job.

It is probably too late now. As Constellation has shown, the lack of communicating the program is as much the reason for the downfall as was the poor engineering progress."

Lets put some more astronauts in charge. They'll really help us out. I remember when Tito was getting ready to fly, and more than one astronaut said "just tell him no, we won't let him on-board".

Hopefully these morons are learning their lesson with the collapse of Constellation. They need to put some people into positions who know how to do the job. If they do not start trying to make some changes then there really will be no need for NASA at all.

Maybe because every single high profile thing NASA announces is about figuring out something that happened billions of years ago. Maybe if NASA missions were promoted as colonization instead of exploration people might have a vested interest in it. Otherwise its all just billion dollar pretty pictures and ancient history.

The American public has had nearly forty years to realize that (a) manned space programs haven't accomplished anything worthwhile, (b) manned space programs never will accomplish anything worthwhile, (c) there's always somebody complaining that manned space programs need more money, (d) there's no way for the public to affect what the bureaucrats do with manned space programs. So why care?

Might this ignorance/neglect have unfortunate consequences eventually? Sure, but look at your newspaper -- bad stuff is ALWAYS happening to the USA. That's why the Good Lord gave us a world with so many other nations, so someone else could take over after we screw up beyond redemption.

Nothing Obama has said or done -- or anything said or done by other politicians -- indicates that any of this will ever change.

"If the rhetoric that Obama space policy opponents fling about is correct in its prediction of dire consequences for America, then where's the national outrage?"

Well Keith one issue is that you are looking at it with your viewpoint already decided. That the Obama space policy is right and that anyone opposed to it is is flinging rhetoric about. There are some parts of the Obama space policy I agree with but others that smell fishy (delaying the design of the heavy lift rocket until 2015).

As for why there was not much "national outrage" outside of the states you listed I think it is a combination of liberal media bias, the general lack of knowledge of the space program by the average American, and the current recession. Also in terms of comparison how many local newspapers printed stories opposed to the cancellation of the VentureStar program? The sad truth is that most people know little about the space program and it is likely that few Americans even know what VentureStar was. Constellation may have been a bigger program but the same lack of knowledge applies. Even when Americans do know about the space program most would consider it a low funding priority. As such given the current recession few Americans are going to fight against cancelling Constellation unless they have a direct financial reason to do so.

Note that most Americans think highly of NASA and have great national pride in the space program. That unfortunately doesn't matter though since few Americans are willing to change their votes on electon day for it which is what is important to politicians.

remains unaware of both the details and the specific issues involved

The above I would agree with. The problem comes in that occasionally an article rises above the general level of noise in the system. I have a blog that is on a site (MSNBC) that cares little about space, and yet I get a fair response when the subject is human spaceflight. Nothing anywhere near what happens when Helen Thomas says something stupid but this simply illustrates the point. People are generally positive about NASA and space and expect that things are moving forward, one way or another. People have far more faith in us and in NASA than is really warranted.

People don't have to care about specific issues, just if progress is made. When they see that progress is not being made, they shrug their shoulders as it is outside of their normal life. It is we that do all the handwringing.

In all of the discussions that I have ever had though people actually think (the ones that don't know the details) that we are moving toward economic development. There are those that are vehemetly against it, but they still thing that this is what we are doing.

When I tell people that NASA wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars so that a few scientists could go to Mars and pick up a few rocks to bring back, this is when they say that we should not spend the money on something so useless.

I belive right now the public has too many other things to concern them, Oil splill, cost of bail outs, war, unemployment, health care etc. But next year after last Shuttle flight and it hits home that the US has no capability and no future program to launch anyone, any place. When they find out to new HSF plan is to just think about it for next 5 years, without any actual plans to either build or launch anything. I think they will be more upset. It will just be one more issue that will be dealt with during next couple of elections.

Why?

Complete ignorance... The public knows nothing substantive about the space program and can not distinguish factual space accomplishment from the last Bruce Willis movie.

Ten years from now when I tell someone I worked for NASA, I expect them to say something like:
1. What planet did you fly to?
2. When is the next Shuttle launch?
3. So, are there really alien bodies stored somewhere?

When I politely explain that America's last manned space launch was way back in 2011. I will probably get a wide-eyed look of disbelief and a, "Gee, what happened?"

Then I will ask them, "Does it really make a difference to you now when you didn't give a damn back in 2010?"

The bottom line is... As long as Americans are more fascinated with the latest space movies and video games, they will not care to achieve anything tangible and real in space. It's too hard and there's math and stuff....

Maybe it's good for the public not to be so aware of the space program. Just look at the harsh words and feelings being developed over an oil spill. To forget how we treat others because something out of our control happens to us.

Maybe this website is also an example of the ferociousness we can develop by not watching carefully how we express ourselves when others have differing opinions.

I appreciate Keith putting the articles out that help us view so many things going on above us, but at the same time we just so hung on what we call injustices to ourselves that we pick on the other guy.

Should everyone be aware of how it affects them and benefits their day to day? Yes, that would be good. Does everyone need to participate in NASA watch and other online commentary. I hope not.

We keep doing the same-old same-old for 30+ years, of course people are going to get rather bored with space flight.

All we seem to figure out with space flight is that people are designed to stay in a 1-G environment. At least we know more about that then they knew at the beginning of the space program. Until we got to the point where we could launch humans we didn't know if 0-G would prove instantly fatal to the unfortunate astronaut who got to dispel those worries.

I made a post several months back concerning the public's lack of interest noting words like "re-entry" and "orbit" and even the speed 17,500 mph doesn't really make people say wow anymore. Some of this is just plane indifference from the public ( there are problems down here on earth we need to deal with first). Some of it, I'm gonna say it ! is NASA's fault its like during the late 80's and into the early 90's their pr team went into the proverbial long sleep. Also NASA's fault, lack of vision beyond STS. When I was a kid it was within the realm of possibility I could go to the moon one day. Now, my son hears or current president say " we have been there done that" and as much as it upset me it didn't really distract him from his x-box 360 . That is the mindset HSF is up against in there era of the digital kid.

Damn the Gravity!

Two points: 1) The "passions" behind the Constellation debate are mostly about "jobs" in select zip codes and much less about exploration or human expansion into space, and 2) the American public has interest in things that touch their lives and the lives of their children.

From a informed, objective standpoint, Obama's space policy provides essential redirection for US human spaceflight to stay alive and hopefully thriving in the future. Constellation was a death march; it was just a matter of when the program collapsed, just like earlier ill-conceived, funding blind programs like NASP, X-33 or SLI/OSP.

If you want the US public to care about what you do, then provide real and tangible value for their lives and the lives of their children (watching astronauts float around in space has little to no tangible value). This is a very straight forward thing to achieve, but has been way, way down NASA's priority list.

For example, a robust participatory exploration which engages the youth of our nation in exploring space is easily achieved in this age of internet communications. But even in Obama's proposed NASA budget, this area gets only $5 million out of almost $20 billion total NASA budget; that's 0.025%!! Also, how about openning the door for anyone who has the health, means and drive to do so to go to space -- right now they have to go to Russia. That's an insult to all US tax payers!!

"Also, how about openning the door for anyone who has the health, means and drive to do so to go to space -- right now they have to go to Russia."

So we should use taxpayer money to provide sightseeing trips for the wealthy? Explain to me how in a country that is supposed to be about treating everyone the same how that is even acceptable. The fact is that door is open now. Just go see Mr. Musk and if you have enough money I am sure he will fly you into space. Just don't use my taxpayer money for somebodies private activity.

"The public has accepted the conclusions of the Augustine Commission, a bunch of smart people who studied the problem thoroughly, and is now moving on."

The public hasn't accepted anything. They are just clueless about what is going on. Most people have never heard of Augustine and couldn't tell you what it means nor do they have the math and science background (from their high school education) to be able to even competently evaluate the contents of the Augustine report. Most people couldn't tell you whether the report is excellent work or a hack job.

Bottom line is that as long as NASA exists it won't be able to do any of the things that people here say NASA needs to do to get people to care because NASA is beholden to the corrupt and whimsical flights of fancy that is our Federal Government. The only way you will get politicians to stop trying to buy our votes with Federal Dollars is to get rid of the Federal Dollars.

NASA should be providing practical benefits, not entertainment. In space it should be providing the technology to reduce the cost of human spaceflight. Human spaceflight with expendable rockets is much too expensive to be practical. On Earth NASA should be providing advances in transportation, environmental protection, energy, and medicine for everyone on Earth. Instead money is only available for the mission to Mars that will help only the few who go.

NASA has gone from a "Can do" to a "Can't be done" Organization.

Mercury - Put a man in space when people said it couldnt be done and that man could not survive.

Gemini - Proved man could not only go into space but could actually do useful work out there.

Apollo - Man took his first steps on another body.

Skylab - Men actually began to live in space

Shuttle - First re usable spacecraft, Carried more people into space than all other spacecraft combined. First to perform real work in space on a routine basis. Runway landing eleiminating the need for Ocean splashdown.

Constelation - Shuttle is a failure! Shuttle is too expensive! Re usable spacecraft and runway landings cant be done! Lets re live he glory days of Apollo and land on the Moon with a bigger version of same! Too expensive? Too Bad!Taxpayer, keep your mouth shut and Checkbook open! Space will NEVER be routine! Space will NEVER be affordable! The Shuttle is a Horrible failure! Capsules and throw away rockets are the only way we will EVER go into space! The Shuttle is a horrible failure! The Shuttle is a deathtrap! Only Apollo type capsules are safe!
The Shuttle is a horrible failure! The Shuttle is unsafe! Only capsules will work. Shut up and pay up!

Sorry folks! Go to the moon? Been there! Done that! The bank account is empty. We are in overdraft.

Some folks should just return their microwave oven to the store.

Perhaps if BP finds a way to plug the hole spewing filth into the gulf we can use the technology to get Michael Griffin to shut up.

There's no outrage because NASA is boring. This goes all the way back to Apollo after the first moon landing. Remember when they couldn't broadcast a live interview with the crew of Apollo 13? People wanted to watch Dick Cavett instead.

NASA is boring, their website is atrocious, the shuttle astronauts are cookie cutter boring space geeks, they don't even look good in those blue flight suits. They're horrible in interviews and they don't really even look physically fit. Trust me, people hate boring high IQ no personality geeks.

Nasa is boring. Their conferences are mind numbing, the leaders look detached and uninterested. Typical for a Government program. Want the poster child for NASA Administrator uber geek? Check out ousted Mike Griffin's official NASA picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Douglas_Griffin,_official_photo_portrait_as_NASA_administrator.jpg if this isn't the most "Wipe that smug off your geeky unpleasant face" then I don't know what is!

NASA is boring, boring, boring. They're just another abysmal highly politicized govt. program. They should NOT be in the Human Spaceflight business, they're much better suited for space probes/landers.

So, if NASA is boring what would make an exciting space program? How about connecting with the public? You need a fantastic PR campaign. Outsource this to a company that knows what they're doing, like something from Hollywood. You get what you pay for ya know. Same thing for the website, pay someone good money to fix the damn thing, it's just so god awful right now I can't stand it, neither can anyone else. Get some fun astronauts for once, we haven't had any since Mercury-Gemini-Apollo. We want some jocks and people that know how to talk in an interview. Dress them up in some cool stuff too, not the crap they're in now. Get some younger one's too, these middle aged folks with bifocals don't cut it.

Young spacejocks that look cool going out to to a dangerous job but says "F it if I die, this is my job"? Hell yeah!

You have to connect with the young people, after all they're the future!. They like video games, cool music, athletes, sports jerseys, loud stuff, young people they can relate to. What they don't like is what NASA offers, slow, boring, colorless, souless, unexciting crap. Does NASA still have those PATCHES? GOD!

I guess what I'm saying is NASA is a dinosaur. I don't see how they can even exist since they have to change course every new President anyway. It's just a mess and they'll never fix it. I used to follow this stuff religiously but yeah, I got bored. I now follow Musk and Rutan and Bigelow and others like them. Sure they don't have the money that NASA does but I love their spirit, Something NASA is sorely lacking.

Dear friends -- While I share the "outrage" (or at least upset) I am buoyed by the public interest in the misinformation -- the idea that American participation in human space exploration was being ended upset a lot of the public. OK -- it was false. That is getting corrected. But the public really cared. Nuances like rockets and spacecraft were not so interesting, but that we weren't going anywhere scared people. I think the finally admitted pull of Mars is beginning to work, and think we just might have the chance of sustaining the program because people do really care.

But don't get me wrong -- there is one heck of a lot to do to yet get it right. So keep at it. And in the meantime enjoy the Japanese twin triumphs of the past week.

Well, I say, well done! You really illustrate one fact about the realities of today.
Just to illustrate the point I am about to make. A sister in law, who is over 50 and college educated did not even know about the central influence that MSFC had on the hey-days of Apollo! When I gave her a tour of our installations in Huntsville and I inquiry about her knowledge of the era (I myself, came from Spain 18 years ago knowing then much more about NASA than she -American born- ever care to know) she surprised me enormously with her lack of knowledge about Von Braun and the rest of the Germans... But to say that the American people at large had not been informed about NASA's role is not true. Even with a small fraction of the Federal budget allocation, NASA as a civilian agency has done an incredible job of knowledge dissemination; and we cannot forget Constellation has done a lot of PR on these five years to say the least. The truth be said, in my opinion, there are multiple competing focus of attention to the Americans at large that make Constellation and NASA in particular fall through the cracks sort of speak. Try to step back and look at the great picture for a moment, let me take you to a parallel scenario once again. We are -in Huntsville- over 250000 souls living together. Say the Stars are playing baseball tonight and there is no other single event going on to attract people's attention other than perhaps the NBA finals (Boston vs LA Lakers) and the FIFA games at South Africa!...and so many other things insignificant to you perhaps?
As it is the case with any event that hits "home” your area of influence and perceived interest, we cannot comprehend the perceived apathy or lack of interest of those others residents not showing up to watch our local baseball team! And the STARS end up playing for 1/3 their seating capacity. Didn't they know the Stars were playing today? Bet you half of the population knew about it but NBA, FIFA and eating out or going to bed earlier (...) was a priority; we all have to make choices...
There are simply too many issues at stake for America at large right now and we are just -in the landscape of those many- but about a minor issue to the community at large. Perhaps said in a different way, due to the dispersion of workers on the program and the (perhaps) lack of specific weight in the distribution of that work force across the country, the policy makers do not have enough constituency to motivate them to challenge the administration decision. There simply might not be enough vote distribution to influence enough Senators and Congressmen to push for a review of the plan. And, yes! BP fiasco is enormously attractive to most of us anyway and it gets us distracted and away from “home” sometimes.

Lou,
I don't get your point.... What lure of Mars? What human space program? Obama is killing it...dead!!! Keith's question is --- Where is the outrage? Are you seeing outrage in the public that is resonating? I am not seeing any outrage except the stunned resignation throughout the NASA HSF workforce.