Via Mark Whittington, here's a more detailed description of yesterday's space policy hearing than Keith Cowing's truncated summary. It's not quite as bad as Keith made it sound, but it's still chock full of conventional "wisdom," (scare quotes to indicate that I don't find it particularly wise). I found Mike Griffin's quote interesting:

"NASA costs each American 14 cents a day. A really robust program could be had for about 20 cents a day," Griffin said. "Americans spend more on pizza then they do on space."

Well, Mike, there's a really big difference between pizza and NASA. When people pay for pizza, they get to eat it, so maybe it's not shocking that they're more willing to spend their money on it.

In addition to that point, there's another fallacy here, and I'm working on a column about fallacies of space advocacy, spurred by the SF writer's panel at last week's Space Frontier Conference, which abounded with them.

But, speaking of Mark Whittington, I'll also note that, in contrast to his absurd caricature of the position of advocates of alternate space programs in the comments section here, I would have had some interesting things to say had I been called to testify, and I think that I may sit down and write up some congressional testimony, should that unlikely event ever occur.

> But, speaking of Mark Whittington, I'll also
> note that, in contrast to his absurd caricature
> of the position of advocates of alternate space
> programs

Extremists tend to believe their (perceived-) opponents must have some kind of hidden, malevolent agenda... My, er, least pleasant aquaintances in the sci.space newsgroups (Ed Wright, Mark Reiff, to some extent Rich Robbins) were all like that.

For example, if a libertarian- leaning blogger such as Rand makes a neutral claim that the Chinese man-in-space program is unimportant, it implies said person must be afraid the ChiComs somehow will "prove" government-financed space could work! It isn't merely a neutral observation of the way things work. No -- it must be a calculated piece of libertarian propaganda to discredit the possibility that U.S. government-funded human space exploration could ever be successful!

MARCU$

Space enthusiasts of the NASA apologist persuation have been using the pizza/junk food/cosmetics/video games/[insert trivial product here] argument for decades. It's as tired and unimaginative an argument as the ones that start with "we can send a man to the moon, why can't we do..." (And as we all know here, we can't send anyone to the moon, anymore.)

Why don't they go all the way and really turn the space program something people would willingly blow their money on? How about setting up lotteries where you get various priviliges, up to and including a Garn/Nelson/Glenn junket in orbit? Below that you can hand out real space stuff-- moonrocks, spare parts, and other artifacts. Or free trips like that stupid artic vacation that Cowling went on over the summer, (I hope our tax dollars weren't at work there...) or even in person tours of the parts of NASA the great unwashed never get to see in person (like inside a shuttle?)

I guess it's just easier to steal your funding from everyone, a little slice at a time.

You said you might write up potential congressional testimony. Please do. I enjoy your blog, and Keith Cowing's blog (even though you two often disagree). I'd like to see some of your ideas:

Should NASA be killed? Should it be restricted to aeronautical research? Should it do robotic probes only? Should it concentrate on asteroid detection? Should it research solar energy from satellites? Solar energy from lunar bases? Research methods of dealing with asteroid threats, such as destruction (http://home.earthlink.net/~kstengel226/astro/meteor/destroy.html), diversion(http://home.earthlink.net/~kstengel226/astro/meteor/divert.html), or mining (http://home.earthlink.net/~kstengel226/astro/meteor/mine.html)?

Should it fund X-Prize-like awards to encourage exploration? What kinds?

Rand - Why wait? Why not write up an opening statement and post it here for everyone's benefit? It is easy to slam other people's proposals. It is harder to come up with some of your own.

Why wait? Because I have other things to do presently, like attempting to earn a living. If you'd like to give me a big hit in the tip jar, I might move it up the priority queue, but otherwise I can only afford it when I have the time to give it some serious thought.

Here's a bit easier challenge ( for all space and actually other pundits) : if you had the power to arrange for nation-wide referendum, and _you_ have been tasked to think of two yes/no type questions that really need to be asked, what would you ask ?

My trip(s) to the arctic were hardly free - or paid for with tax dollars. Indeed between the hardware we have doanted, the trips we make, and the logistics we consume my business partner and I have written checks for several tens of thousands of dollars - thus far.

As to whether the trips ars stupid - that's your call to make.

Unlike most of you pundits, I actually put my money where my mouth is. I do not have the funds to start up a rocket company, so I chose something else within reach wherein I could make a difference.

Do us all a favor and stay in the artic next time.

Keith, maybe I'm missing something here, but when did anyone mention anything about your trips to the Arctic (which for one, I considerable admirable)?

Keith, my apologies. I see, in reviewing the comments, that Karl Hallowell did make a snarky comment about your trip.

I assume that an apology from him will be forthcoming.

Rand:

No apology required.

I do not make my contributions (financial or otherwise) for praise, etc. I make them because I deem them worthy of *my* money.

If others find my efforts to be 'stupid' - again, that is their call.

Rand: If I interpret your comments format correctly it was someone posting as "Raoul Ortega" who called my efforts "stupid" - not Karl - who actually posted much more pleasant thoughts.

As for the anonymous poster who suggested I "stay in the artic (sic) next time" - y'know, it is a marvelous place and I'd really like to spend a lot more time there - finances taken into consideration, of course (new roof needed on the house next year according to my wife).

And that was a different Karl. Oh well, just a simple case of "friendly fire". Nothing to worry about.

While Raoul didn't aim before he cut loose, he still made a couple of valid points. But perhaps such participation of the public in the affairs of NASA would threaten the little empires of the bureaucrats.

D'oh!

My apologies to both Karl Hollowell and Karl Stengel. And a cyberruler across Raoul's knuckles.

This is actually a valuable point, because Keith is in fact demonstrating how we'll ultimately get into space--with dedicated people spending their own money. This is just a precursor, but it's a valuable one, in my opinion.