Go take the poll. I picked the last choice, but I think that Clark must have voted for the penultimate one. But between the two of them, they currently grab about sixty percent of the vote. The others are mostly down in the noise. Don’t expect the powers that be to pay any attention, though.
Oh, and here’s the official NASA version. Note which options are missing. Steve Gonzales has thoughts, and asks for input.
I voted for the penultimate choice as well. While the last choice would be “better” if implemented correctly, it allows more wiggle room by the NASA Administrator. I like the certainty in the penultimate choice.
I setup the other poll both to show the other options that had been ignored, but also how silly it was for Beth to have had to get OMB to approve the poll. Here’s her original tweet:
http://twitter.com/bethbeck/status/1102791749
And the original discussion on opennasa.com:
http://www.opennasa.com/2009/01/08/future-nasa-projects/
I found this pick just one option poll rather objectionable. If multiple choice had been allowed, I would have chosen everything except 2 (properly the responsibility of NOAA) and 10, which is just a silly idea.
Per your blog post, Mark, this isn’t about not having the government involved in space. NASA doesn’t do national security — the Pentagon does. There is nothing at all silly about NASA putting itself out of business, at least with the current business it has.
“NASA doesn’t do national security” Actually establishing a human presence in space, which has to have some kind of government involvement, as question 9 would seem to suggest, is a national security concern. And “everybody his own NASA” in question 10 is about the silliest thing I’ve seen. I would no more want to be my own NASA than I would want to be my own State Department or my own Marine Corps.
I’m confused by Mark’s post. Either he or I cannot count, or he is really confused on the roll of NOAA.
First, of the two polls (not sure which one he was referring too), only 1 has more than 8 choices.
In both polls, the second choice is “Establish a colony on Mars”. Mars has neither Oceans or any Atmosphere to speak of. Well ok, some Atmosphere. NOAA would be better suited for the “Study of Global Climate Change” or lack there of.
In only one poll is a 10th option available. Assuming that “—” is not really a viable option, than the 10th option is “Provide and/or purchase basic in-space infrastructure to enable private sector development of space?” I have no idea what is silly about that. NASA did just that in providing in-space infrastructure to enable other nations in development of space. That’s what the ISS is. Why not do the same for the US private space sector?
As for Rand, I would think he would support: “Build orbiting platforms to launch future space missions?” from both polls. After all, it’s not far removed from providing in-space infrastructure to private space. My only problem is that I was unaware that NASA was providing such platforms.
My preference is for NASA to do basic aerospace engineering and scientific research. I think its the first step and practical means of creating a spacefaring society.
Actually establishing a human presence in space, which has to have some kind of government involvement, as question 9 would seem to suggest, is a national security concern.
Not unless that human presence is military.
I would no more want to be my own NASA than I would want to be my own State Department or my own Marine Corps.
No one’s going to make you. And frankly, the notion of a Mark Whittington being a NASA frightens the rest of us as well. 😉
Actually establishing a human presence in space, which has to have some kind of government involvement, as question 9 would seem to suggest, is a national security concern.
An interesting admission, Mark.
If that’s true, wasn’t it a mistake to take human spaceflight away from the military, whose mission is national security, and give it to an unarmed space-going “peace corps” called NASA?
If you believe human spaceflight is a national security, why do you support a space policy that spends hundreds of billions on science expeditions and nothing on military spaceplane development?
Remember how you responded to the news that Communist China was developing a military spaceplane (Divine Dragon). You said you wouldn’t be concerned until it was actually flying into orbit on a regular basis.
Contrast that to your panicky response to vague Chinese statements about landing a man on the Moon sometime in the next 50 years.
And “everybody his own NASA” in question 10 is about the silliest thing I’ve seen. I would no more want to be my own NASA than I would want to be my own State Department or my own Marine Corps.
Obviously, Mike meant “everyone who desires to.”
It’s no surprise that you would not want to explore space yourself, but many Americans do want to.
Should everyone give up their dreams just because you think their desire to explore space is “the silliest thing I’ve seen”?
I voted for more telescopes. Which almost no one voted for, interestingly. I think there would be a huge boost for interstellar space propulsion research if someone actually found an Earth like exo-planet. What the heck happened with the Space Interferometry Mission anyway? That was supposed to have launched already.