An interesting discussion over at Space Politics about public awareness of, ignorance about, and interest in: NASA, space, space science, and the vision. And I agree with "anonymous" that this is not a (completely) unfair characterization of the human spaceflight program:

ISS: 22 years, 100 billion. Science return: minimal. NASA has no money to use it once it’s finished. Massive public subsidy for vacation spot for billionaires. Otherwise, boring as hell and not much ROI other than for contractors and govt employees.

Space shuttle: Equally boring. 40 percent of fleet destroyed. 14 dead. Massive expense. Launched teacher when kids are out of school. Still can’t launch without putting hole in protective shield.

VSE: tanking. Badly. Negative mass to orbit. Apollo style capsule from 40 years ago. Little or no money for actual lunar lander.

It’s a good thing more people don’t know all this.

I love how when people use the $100 billion figure your ISS, around 60-65bn of that is the const incurred for the shuttle program during that timeframe yet they never explain this.

Minus the ISS, that $65 bn would almost certainly have been spent to see how ants work with tiny screws in microgravity and other such spacelab type makework.

your=for

const=cost

Mike - Considering some of the tom foolery I've heard expressed by space fans ("VSE is tanking" indeed!) it is no wonder that the general public might not be as informed as they should.

Well, Rand, this is just another argument -- actually probably the best -- for the privatization of space.

Different people are turned on by different things. Some folks love railroads and trains. They buy endless videos of trains, build model layouts in their yards, go to conventions and stuff, cheerfully spend thousands of dollars on it. Luckily, they don't need to drag the rest of us into their mania. We don't need to agree on a national model train policy, and agree on how much tax money should go into it. And if, at Christmas, the train-nuts put on a show worth seeing, we can pay attention to them, pay them money for their hard work.

Other folks are nuts about organic gardening, and growing the perfect heirloom tomato. They'd devote every waking hour to it. But luckily we don't need to share the obsession and come up with a national organic tomato policy and agree on which tomato line we're going to pursue, have Congressional hearings about spectacular failures in which Joe sprayed anhydrous ammonia on his face and went blind. But if the tomato fruits (so to speak) come up with a really good tomato, we can buy them and pay them for their hard work.

It should be that way in space. Folks enthused about reusable space planes and LEO can do that, and other folks interested in inflatable space hotels can do that, and folks who want to send robots to Mars can do that, all without needing to have a national consensus on space policy, or come up with something that everybody finds exciting. And if someone comes up with a winner, Walt Disney World Luna, we can all fork out the price of our ticket and pay them for their trouble.

Perhaps we would even have been there already, a la The Man Who Sold The Moon, if government with its Midas touch hadn't hijacked the whole enterprise in the 40s and 50s. (I do hope no lurking socialist without an economic clue is going to argue that only government can afford space travel, as if government has access to cash other than what's in our, the citizens', wallets.)

That $100B is what the OMB projected the station would cost through its entire lifetime. So far, including the share of the shuttle costs, we're only up to about $60B. And for the purpose of whining in front of congressional committees about space tourists, these should be considered sunk costs. The station most certainly isn't worth anywhere near that.

Mark: it is no wonder that the general public might not be as informed as they should.

And that's a blessing. If the general public was informed about a $217B program through 2025 which delivers very little science and roughly zero economic gain, NASA would be in a whole lot of trouble.

And again we're getting bogged down with space=NASA. I think the point that the 'Internet Rocketeers' are trying to make is that space=NASA+DoD+Private Sector. (The science, security and commerce part of the VSE) We're trying to grow that last part, so that our nation's non-military human spaceflight program isn't held to the organizational constraints of NASA's next budget.

There's billions of dollars of non-NASA assets in cislunar space, there will be billions more, and when we can get people in the loop, a la Hubble, then we will be able to use those assets even more effectively.

The media is doing little to help, as Mark has noted. I sometimes wonder if there isn't a latent hostility to the promise of space in the media, but I'm still peeved about the pith-poor performance of the Dallas media for the ISDC.

If the general public was informed about a $217B program through 2025 which delivers very little science and roughly zero economic gain, NASA would be in a whole lot of trouble.

Valid point, but it's not like NASA is really trying to hide it. Indeed, I heard an interview with Griffin in which he lamented the inability to emphasize such issues with the public, but the Administration (White House) doesn't want focus on NASA budgets and activities during the war.

As bad an idea that is, one can understand. A bridge collapses, and instead of addressing the lack of priorities in DOT and the city of Minneapolis, we hear that the war prevented funding of repairs.

"Launched teacher when kids are out of school. "

that's hilarious, i hadn't thought of that, but doesn`t that just give even more ammo to the argument 'NASA can't get ANYTHING right'.

that's hilarious, i hadn't thought of that

If the tile damage (that's apparently completely penetrated some tiles down to the felt) causes the orbiter to be lost on reentry, perhaps this will have been for the best.

As bad an idea that is, one can understand. A bridge collapses, and instead of addressing the lack of priorities in DOT and the city of Minneapolis, we hear that the war prevented funding of repairs.

Yeah, it seems like those Al-Qaeda insurgents are responsible for EVERYTHING now.

And again we're getting bogged down with space=NASA. I think the point that the 'Internet Rocketeers' are trying to make is that space=NASA+DoD+Private Sector. (The science, security and commerce part of the VSE)

You mean the part that didn't exist? Go back and read Bush's "Vision" speech, Ken, or the accompanying White House fact sheet. There was no mention of any role for the military or private sector.

The media is doing little to help, as Mark has noted.

How is saying "VSE is tanking" doing little to help?

To the extent that the media points out problems with the current Vision of space exploration as a NASA-only mission (the ONLY vision the US government has had since JFK), it helps point out the need for a new policy, which we might get in the next Administration.

Well, Ed, when I look at the 'Goal and Objectives' of the VSE, the first paragraph states:

"The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will..."

This is from document NP-2004-01-334-HQ that I picked up at the MMB hearing in NYC. It also includes such throwaway lines as "Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the ISS and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit." I'm looking at the source material, Ed, not a speech transcript or a media fact sheet. I do try to do my homework before I open my mouth. That's why I'm an analyst at a profitable investment bank. [Why yes, work has become particularly berserk of late]

With regards to your second point, I was commenting in a more general sense regarding space activities. I thought I made that clear when I mentioned the billions of dollars of non-NASA assets in cislunar space. I actually make no reference to "the VSE is tanking", as I don't make the presumption that ESAS = VSE. I do think that ESAS is the wrong approach to NASA's task in the Administrator actions, specifically item C., Space Transportation Capabilities Supporting Exploration, to wit:

"Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transport for missions beyond LEO."

By contrast, I feel that the VSE is a well done space policy position for the United States, as well as a basic roadmap for NASA. In large part this is because the first sentence of the Goals and Objectives has the phrase "advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests". I'm a banker. The more space business there is, the better that will be for me. My economic interests are very simple. I'm also concerned about our blind spots regarding NEOs, which plays into the security aspect of things, as well as science on the Moon which can help answer some larger galactic questions.

I'm not fond of the media, though I'm more than happy to assist them if need be and there is a reasonable expectation of professionalism. My larger point is that it is almost as if the media doesn't want to report on space, unless there is some drama involved.

Some would argue that it is the role of the space interested to cultivate journalists to report properly on space, but I don't think my dislike for reporters would allow me to be genuine about the effort. Still, we do need more Jim Obergs and Leonard Davids and Alan Boyles and Miles O'Briens. Someone does actually have to write the prose to get it printed in newspapers and on the web.

[But would someone please get Mark W. a spell-checker? The non sequiturs and poor re-framings I can deal with...]