The US space program in decline?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm all for a global space program wherein the world would combine resources to get something really big going. If the US, Europe/Russia, the Chinese, Indians, Koreans and Japanese would pitch in the effort, I would be quite in favor of that.

I don't give a flying fuck what you're offended by.

So give your rendition of what other social forces are motivating people away from the idea of developing spaceflight technology?

I can tell you in the US, the factors that I see being very influential are:

1. The decline in science and technology education in the US. There is a dramatic ignorance and lack of education in the US about science, and our younger students are lacking in science education, severely. This leads them to view science in general, and the space program in particular, without an understanding of why they are important. They view science and space exploration as sort of "academic" with little or no value to them. They don't understand science, don't know how it advances, don't know what is required to keep the advancement of science going, etc.

2. Also, over the last 40 years, the public perception of scientists and engineers has changed to the negative. Younger kids and teenagers no longer are encouraged to become scientists and engineers, who are depicted as raving nerds, quirky and unappealing. And, adults who are ignorant of science and technology are ill-equipped to provide the necessary encouragement and motivation to get into those fields.

3. There is a lack of understanding of why space exploration is important, and what it means for the future of mankind.

4. Many people are taught, and accept, the idea that the money spent on space exploration is what could be used to "correct all the problems here on Earth," and they fail to see the fallacy in that argument.

IMO, these are features of the human emotional landscape, and if spaceflight and scientific information obtained from exploration missions has not dimmed these kinds of selfish concerns substantially, how do you propose to change that landscape? Is the argument "human species survival" on everyone's lips these days?

The argument of "human species survival" is on many people's lips these days, only it's in the context of climate change and global warming.

I propose to change the landscape by creating a climate where there is opportunity in the space industry. By increasing funding dramatically in the space industry and setting lofty and several decades long goals and milestones, the education system can be geared to encourage bright students to enter the field. There will be opportunity there. In addition, I would propose to increase support for science and technology education, and to try to change the public perception of the scientist from it's current "mad/nerdy geek in a lab coat that can't communicate to humans" to a more favorable view in general. It's a combination of education, opportunity and marketing.

[Coito ergo sum]

This article says it very well.

Why Democrats should support space exploration

by Jeff Brooks
Monday, November 21, 2005
I spent a large chunk of 2004 in the trenches of a vicious political battle in Austin, serving as a staffer to a Democratic candidate who was attempting to unseat a Republican member of the Texas State Legislature. It was one of hundreds of such campaigns then being waged across the country, some large and others small, all of them taking place in the shadow of the fierce presidential contest between George W. Bush and John Kerry.

Surrounded as I was by partisan Democrats, I heard more than my fair share of ridicule and exasperation directed against President Bush. In most cases, I laughed at the jokes or joined in the denouncements just as heartily as any of my colleagues. After all, I strongly disagreed with Bush’s positions on just about every conceivable issue and still do. I imagine that veterans of 2004 Republican campaigns heard similar digs directed towards John Kerry.

But, much to the surprise of my colleagues, I rushed to the defense of President Bush whenever the subject of the Vision for Space Exploration came up.

Among my Democratic colleagues on the campaign staff, opposition to Bush’s space policy sometimes seemed to fester into opposition to space exploration in general.
Immediately following Bush’s January, 2004, announcement of NASA’s new mandate to return to the Moon and prepare for an expedition to Mars, it became fashionable for Democrats to trash the project. Most of the major contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination tossed out sarcastic or dismissive comments. Senator Lieberman went so far as to claim, without evidence, that the program would cost a trillion dollars. When the Spirit Mars rover experienced a near-fatal glitch shortly after Bush’s announcement, some Democrats made comments that sounded suspiciously as if they actually wanted the robot to fail.

Needless to say, space policy was not an issue in the local campaign I was involved in. But every once in a while the subject would come up in conversation. Among my Democratic colleagues on the campaign staff, opposition to Bush’s space policy sometimes seemed to fester into opposition to space exploration in general. The old arguments were tossed out again:

“Space exploration costs too much. The money would be better spent on healthcare and education.”
“Space exploration is dangerous. Look what happened to the poor people on the Columbia.”
“Space exploration doesn’t really give us any benefit. What good is it to have people walk around on the Moon? Besides, we’ve already been there.”
“We shouldn’t go into space until we have solved all the problems we have here on Earth.”
Since this was about politics, it didn’t come as a surprise. Bush was for it, so Democrats were against it. Had President Clinton announced an identical program of space exploration in the middle of his time in office, Republicans undoubtedly would have viciously attacked him for it, probably using many of the same arguments.

If unsurprising, I did find the sudden Democratic opposition to space exploration rather ironic. After all, the Democratic Party has historically been very supportive of space exploration. It is no coincidence that the two most important NASA facilities in the country, Kennedy Space Center and Johnson Space Center, are named after Democratic presidents. John F. Kennedy had the political courage and wisdom to launch the Apollo program and Lyndon B. Johnson had the political skill and willpower to see it through. When John Glenn ran for the Senate, he did so as a Democrat.

The Democratic Party supposedly stands for progressive values, while the Republican Party ostensibly stands for conservative ideals. It sometimes seems that these identifications have ceased to have any real meaning, but in terms of classical political philosophy, conservatism seeks to maintain society as it is or go back to what it once was, while progressivism seeks the transformation of society from what it is to what it should be. If the Democratic Party still holds true to its progressive beliefs, it should be a staunch defender and supporter of space exploration. Rather than jeer Bush for the Vision for Space Exploration, the Democrats should have cheered him for it.

It might strike some as odd to associate space exploration with political progressivism. But space exploration is about far more than sending robots to take pictures of the rings of Saturn or sending astronauts to pick up rocks on the Moon. Like political progressivism itself, space exploration is about a glorious and hopeful vision of the future. It’s about making the future better than the past.

In response to the suggestion that we should solve our problems on Earth before we head out into space, which is what most objections to space exploration eventually come down to, I would respond that the solutions to many of our problems are to be found in space.

Consider protecting the environment, which Democrats claim as one of their main issues. A solid reason to support a robust space program is that, in the long run, genuine solutions to our planet’s environmental problem will require easy access to space.

If the Democratic Party still holds true to its progressive beliefs, it should be a staunch defender and supporter of space exploration. Rather than jeer Bush for the Vision for Space Exploration, the Democrats should have cheered him for it.
The single greatest cause of environmental damage is the production of energy. Conventional power-generation technology involves the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil or the use of nuclear fission reactors, and we know that renewable energy sources can only go so far in replacing fossil fuel and nuclear fission power. In the long run, the only genuine solutions to these problems require the use of space resources. Space-based solar power is one possible answer; nuclear fusion using lunar helium-3 is another. Energy beyond imagining, more than enough to lift the entire world up into an acceptable standard of living, without polluting a single environment, is ours for the taking. We simply have to decide to do it.

Others have pointed out the immense potential of exploiting the resources of the asteroid belt, which contains sufficient raw materials to meet every conceivable need of humanity. Automated mining operations could dismantle the asteroids and transport them to Earth orbit, where they could be brought down to the surface using space elevator technology, now under development. If we could successfully exploit the resources of the Asteroid Belt, we would never again have to carve huge scars into our planet’s surface in our quest for resources.

So, imagine a world without smokestacks or strip mines, a world where the air we breathe and the water we drink is not tainted with noxious chemicals, a world where all our energy and material needs are met by the resources of the solar system, freeing the Earth to be the paradise we all want it to be. Rather than simply complaining about environmental problems, easy access to space would give us the power to actually do something about this.

This kind of thinking may be visionary and imaginative, but what’s wrong with having vision and imagination? If you ask me, the main problem in modern politics is that our so-called “leaders” are distinctly lacking in the field of vision and imagination. Societies that become overly cautious and averse to risk are societies that will not be around for very long.

As the party that claims to be the progressive force in American politics, the Democrats could use some vision and imagination as they lay out what their vision of the future. The knee-jerk opposition to Bush’s space proposals among the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates illustrates that the powers-that-be within the party are more concerned with scoring political points than holding true to their progressive values.

The advocates of space exploration tend to be a starry-eyed bunch. We envision a future that sees humanity thriving in colonies on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. We envision a future where heroic tales of exploration and discovery have replaced stories of bloody warfare in the collective imagination of humanity—where the exploration of space has become what the philosopher William James called “the moral equivalent of war.” We envision a future where the resources of the solar system have created such abundance that no human being is in need. In short, we envision a future here humanity lives up to its full potential.

The people I had the honor of working with during the 2004 campaign season were some of the most intelligent and idealistic people I have ever known. They also had a hopeful vision of the future, where poor children had access to proper healthcare, everyone was given a good education, and one could take a deep breath and not worry about inhaling pollution. To these people, if not to people in the upper echelons of the party, being a Democrat was all about wanting to create a good future for all people. They also want to help humanity live up to its full potential.

Space advocates can come from both parties and might be bitterly divided over the war in Iraq, abortion, tax policy, and uncountable other things. However, on the subject of space exploration, there is no reason why Democrats and Republicans cannot be allies.
Far from being antagonistic, it seems to me that these two visions are natural allies. Each is oriented to the future and each is full of hope. More importantly, if pursued in the right way, they can mutually support one another. The space program can provide the solutions to many of the problems Democrats care about, while the pursuit of egalitarianism, international cooperation, excellence in education and other Democratic issues can contribute to a successful space program.

All this is not to say that Republicans are opposed or should be opposed to space exploration—far from it. There are many aspects of Republican ideology which should make it supportive of space exploration, too. In my mind, space exploration should not be a partisan issue. Space advocates can come from both parties and might be bitterly divided over the war in Iraq, abortion, tax policy, and uncountable other things. However, on the subject of space exploration, there is no reason why Democrats and Republicans cannot be allies.

The fact that it has fallen to a Republican president to issue the Vision for Space Exploration should not keep Democrats from supporting it. Divided as Americans are on so many other issues, the expansion of humanity throughout the solar system is a cause worthy of a Grand Alliance.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/499/1

[Surendra Darathy]

I propose to change the landscape by creating a climate where there is opportunity in the space industry. By increasing funding dramatically in the space industry and setting lofty and several decades long goals and milestones, the education system can be geared to encourage bright students to enter the field. There will be opportunity there. In addition, I would propose to increase support for science and technology education, and to try to change the public perception of the scientist from it's current "mad/nerdy geek in a lab coat that can't communicate to humans" to a more favorable view in general. It's a combination of education, opportunity and marketing.

Well, like other politicians, you talk out of both sides. You are not a scientist or engineer yourself, and a scientist can see that. You pay lip service to the declining reputation of scientists and of scientific education in the US, and then in the next breath you "propose to change the landscape by creating a climate where there is opportunity in the space industry", which smells mercantile to me. You probably know how many scientists and engineers are actually necessary and employable in a "space industry" (given the way corporate capitalism seems to be increasingly hostage to its own bad decision-making, which, I might add is not really being done very scientifically). It's as if you think training of scientists and engineers should be driven by corporate demand rather than the other way round. Especially if you're telling people space exploration is "something they should want".

In fact it's just fucking bass-ackwards, as is entirely typical for politico-economic visioneering.

Lip service, man. You propose to change the landscape and don't really know what you're talking about. If you don't really believe in science education broadly, don't pay lip service to it in the context of "making friends for the space industry". I've heard enough politicking in my life. If science education is valued, engineers and scientists will pop out of the entrepreneurial woodwork. I don't value a "privatised space industry" nearly as much as I value a sincere effort to promote science and tech education. The rest will take care of itself, unless you realize thinking people are not good for politics as usual.

[Coito ergo sum]

I propose to change the landscape by creating a climate where there is opportunity in the space industry. By increasing funding dramatically in the space industry and setting lofty and several decades long goals and milestones, the education system can be geared to encourage bright students to enter the field. There will be opportunity there. In addition, I would propose to increase support for science and technology education, and to try to change the public perception of the scientist from it's current "mad/nerdy geek in a lab coat that can't communicate to humans" to a more favorable view in general. It's a combination of education, opportunity and marketing.

Well, like other politicians, you talk out of both sides. You are not a scientist or engineer yourself, and a scientist can see that.

I majored in electrical engineering in undergraduate college.

You pay lip service to the declining reputation of scientists and of scientific education in the US,

I state my opinion based on the facts. It's not "lip service."

and then in the next breath you "propose to change the landscape by creating a climate where there is opportunity in the space industry", which smells mercantile to me.

I don't give a shit what it "smells" like to you. The reality is that in order for there to be a space program, then people have to do the work. In order for people to do the work, they have to have have an opportunity. Expanding the space program expands the need for relevant professionals to work in the space program, obviously. That need will have to be filled, and the fact that the opportunities exist will encourage more people to move toward those open opportunities.

You accuse me of being "mercantile?" I'm not the one looking to "privatize" the space program.

You probably know how many scientists and engineers are actually necessary and employable in a "space industry" (given the way corporate capitalism seems to be increasingly hostage to its own bad decision-making, which, I might add is not really being done very scientifically).

I don't know exactly how many. I do know that if you don't have a Mars Mission, then you need zero engineers and scientists to work on the Mars Mission. If you have a Mars Mission, then you need some. Exactly how many will be determined by the scope of the project and those managing the program.

Lip service, man. You propose to change the landscape and don't really know what you're talking about.

I clearly know more than you do.

If you don't really believe in science education broadly,

I do believe in science education broadly.

don't pay lip service to it in the context of "making friends for the space industry".

I haven't said anything about "making friends for the space industry."

I've heard enough politicking in my life.

You do enough of it, for my taste.

If science education is valued,

It is by me. The problem is, it's not as valued as it should be, generally speaking, in the United States. I can't speak for other countries. Too many people undervalue it, treat it as purely academic, and view it as irrelevant and worthless.

engineers and scientists will pop out of the entrepreneurial woodwork.

That's why one of my suggestions was to take steps to educate people about the value of science and the need for more scientists, and to try to change the view of scientists (which is presently very negative in too large of a segment of society) to make it more positive.

I don't value a "privatised space industry" nearly as much as I value a sincere effort to promote science and tech education.

I have no problem with a privatized space industry. If private companies, with adequate regulation, are able to develop space transportation and travel, then more power to them. That, however, does not have to be to the exclusion of a public space program. I value a public space program far more than private endeavors, because a public space program can do things that are not geared towards a direct profit motive. A private company will not build a moon base or engage in a manned Mars mission. Private companies, at least for the foreseeable future, will see the easier profits in space tourism, satellite launches for hire, and other low Earth orbit activities that they can make money off of. There is nobody other than large governments that are going to have the money or the will to put together things like a manned mission to Mars at any time in the near future.

[Surendra Darathy]

I majored in electrical engineering in undergraduate college.

and then in the next breath you "propose to change the landscape by creating a climate where there is opportunity in the space industry", which smells mercantile to me.

The reality is that in order for there to be a space program, then people have to do the work. In order for people to do the work, they have to have have an opportunity. Expanding the space program expands the need for relevant professionals to work in the space program, obviously. That need will have to be filled, and the fact that the opportunities exist will encourage more people to move toward those open opportunities.

Still that smells to me like the same-old, same-old from the supply-siders.

I'm glad to hear you have some engineering background. Not that it's any of my business, but what did you do with it? Take an MBA? Because that's how you talk. I'm not strictly anti-business, mind you, but it's a little bit odd to try to save the human race from that platform. Well, no. Not really. It's as good a religion as any for saving the human race. Just always seems to be going about things bass-ackwards, the cart pushing the horse.

You talked about "creating the climate". Let's see some know-how. Anyone can have eyes bigger than his stomach. We've already had the shit kicked out of us with unmentionable amounts of deficit spending on bagatelles and trying to excuse our own blindnesses toward big businesses. How do you propose to stop all that shit? When you have some ideas, then we'll talk. Until then, you're playing a big shell game.

[Trolldor]

When mankind sets foot on another world, you will see all the importance of big business wash down the drains.

[Coito ergo sum]

I majored in electrical engineering in undergraduate college.

and then in the next breath you "propose to change the landscape by creating a climate where there is opportunity in the space industry", which smells mercantile to me.

The reality is that in order for there to be a space program, then people have to do the work. In order for people to do the work, they have to have have an opportunity. Expanding the space program expands the need for relevant professionals to work in the space program, obviously. That need will have to be filled, and the fact that the opportunities exist will encourage more people to move toward those open opportunities.

Still that smells to me like the same-old, same-old from the supply-siders.

You just sound like someone who makes unwarranted assumptions based on your own politically motivated preconceptions. Learn something about economics before you claim that adding and expanding NASA programs which will necessarily require more scientists and engineers to do work is somehow "supply side" economics.

I'm glad to hear you have some engineering background. Not that it's any of my business, but what did you do with it? Take an MBA? Because that's how you talk.

That's not how I talk at all. You're making this shit up in your head. It's not your business.

I'm not strictly anti-business,

Oh, but you sound like you are. This just smells like typical anti-business rhetoric.

See how that sounds?

mind you, but it's a little bit odd to try to save the human race from that platform.

From what platform? The survival of the species argument is only one of many arguments in favor of pursuing manned space exploration. It's common sense. A species confined to one tiny planet is less likely to survive than a species that has expanded to other worlds.

Well, no. Not really. It's as good a religion as any for saving the human race.

It's not a religion at all. And, religions aren't good at saving the human race. Every one of them has failed.

Just always seems to be going about things bass-ackwards, the cart pushing the horse.

How would you suggest space exploration be handled?

You talked about "creating the climate". Let's see some know-how. Anyone can have eyes bigger than his stomach. We've already had the shit kicked out of us with unmentionable amounts of deficit spending on bagatelles and trying to excuse our own blindnesses toward big businesses. How do you propose to stop all that shit? When you have some ideas, then we'll talk. Until then, you're playing a big shell game.

I am not claiming to have all the answers. This thread is just about the US space program and whether it is in decline, and whether Mr. Armstrong's comments were meritorious.

I agree that we need to stop the deficit spending. I would propose to stop that by not spending as much, and cancelling/reducing many wasteful programs, and at the same time increasing the tax revenues to the government to pay off the debt as much as possible. That's it in general. The details, of course, would involve a discussion of which programs get cut and which don't.

[RuleBritannia]

When mankind sets foot on another world, you will see all the importance of big business wash down the drains.

Done.

[Coito ergo sum]

When mankind sets foot on another world, you will see all the importance of big business wash down the drains.

Done.

Look, there are no stars in the background. Clearly, that was done on a movie set.

[RuleBritannia]

[Coito ergo sum]

The reason Bush authorized the Constellation program was because his dad was behind the Apollo Moon Hoax in the 1960s and 70s.

[Surendra Darathy]

The survival of the species argument is only one of many arguments in favor of pursuing manned space exploration. It's common sense. A species confined to one tiny planet is less likely to survive than a species that has expanded to other worlds.

But it is soft soap, philosophically. Species go extinct. There's nobody in the audience anymore, which prompts my comments about this being a religion. You obviously think that evolution leads somewhere. That must be your engineering training talking to you. Intelligent design, and all.

Well, no. Not really. It's as good a religion as any for saving the human race.

It's not a religion at all. And, religions aren't good at saving the human race. Every one of them has failed.

Yours will, too. In all likelihood, let us say, given the track record of ex recto assertions. Space exploration is attractive on the merits of human curiosity alone, and "big ideas" like "saving the human race" belong with religion. You can't scale up the individual organism's survival to the species level. That's just a perversion of the understanding of evolutionary theory.

This thread is just about the US space program and whether it is in decline, and whether Mr. Armstrong's comments were meritorious.

Then you should have stayed on what you thought was the topic, instead of all getting into "saving the human race". You know what makes technical and scientific pronouncements "meritorious". We call it "evidence", instead of "soft soap".

I would propose to stop that by not spending as much, and cancelling/reducing many wasteful programs, and at the same time increasing the tax revenues to the government to pay off the debt as much as possible. That's it in general. The details, of course, would involve a discussion of which programs get cut and which don't.

Short on specifics again, are we? That's not how engineers talk. That's how MBA's talk. I'm not anti-business, CES. I'm anti-bullshit.

I am not claiming to have all the answers.

I agree that we need to stop the deficit spending.

Oooh. Give that man a cigar.

How would you suggest space exploration be handled?

I suggest abandoning nationalism, vis-a-vis big projects, just as you have. We're on the same page there. It just seems to me that your left hand does not really know what your right is up to.

The reality is that in order for there to be a space program, then people have to do the work. In order for people to do the work, they have to have have an opportunity. Expanding the space program expands the need for relevant professionals to work in the space program, obviously. That need will have to be filled, and the fact that the opportunities exist will encourage more people to move toward those open opportunities.

That's it for the specifics? Wha'd they teach you in that MBA program, anyway? Soft fucking soap, is my guess.

I'm giving you a hard time about the business culture, which squashes people for being too smart. Think about how squashed by it you might be, by this time. Business nowadays takes big risks with other people's money, most of the money it deploys not really being its own. Fuck all.

[Clinton Huxley]

Meanwhile, the UK space program soldiers manfully onwards - we made the batteries for the Herschel space telescope. Woo!

[Surendra Darathy]

Meanwhile, the UK space program soldiers manfully onwards - we made the batteries for the Herschel space telescope. Woo!

Remember "The Mouse That Roared". The UK gave the world Peter Sellers. Is that not enough?

[Clinton Huxley]

Meanwhile, the UK space program soldiers manfully onwards - we made the batteries for the Herschel space telescope. Woo!

Remember "The Mouse That Roared". The UK gave the world Peter Sellers. Is that not enough?

I believe the Peter Sellers has depreciated significantly against the Miley Cyrus in recent years.