The LA Times has a feature on their editorial section called the "Dust-Up," which is sort of a daily two-sided debate on a given issue, with each week having a theme. This week, in recognition of the half century since Sputnik, they're hosting a dialogue between Homer Hickam and yours truly. Homer went first today, and I get the last word du jour. It will be the other way around tomorrow, when we talk about destinations.

And note, I did not lead off with "Homer, you ignorant slut."

[Update in the evening]

I see that Keith is whining again, that I'm not sufficiently obsequious to the space agency to which I'm giving the best technical advice that I can, for pay.

Well, Keith, here's the deal. I'm a (I like to think) competent space systems engineer, who can help NASA execute its goals, however misguided. I do that because I like to think that I have professional integrity, and (honestly) because doing such things is my job, and it's how I pay my bills. They don't (at least for now) pay me to tell them how to open the cosmos, so I don't do that for pay from them. I do it in other venues. I just help them do what they're trying to do, as mistaken as it is, as best I can.

I didn't realize (as you seem to think) that part of my job is to praise their programs publicly, even though I think them not in the best interests of the nation, or our goals of opening space. If NASA thinks that's part of my job, I guess I'll hear about it. If they want to pay me to do that, I'll consider it, but I doubt if I'd take the job.

But if they did, I think that would be a sad commentary on the federal space program, and NASA's belief in what it's doing. And I'm willing to stick my neck and mortgage out and continue to write what I think.

I'll do you the courtesy of thinking that you do the same.

You let Homer off the hook with his claim that NASSA is somehow good for the economy.
Otherwise, a fairly good ( if predictable ) opening salvo.

The broken window fallacy is the first thing that comes to mind. I'd also make the point that other than self-preservation, the majority of NASA has absolutely no congressionally mandated goals.

Good start on what should be an interesting discussion.

You know I made a reference to 'Kentucky Fried Movie' at work one day and everyone look at me like "????" I was shocked that such a great comedy wasn't more recognized. Of course with the wonders of the intertubes I was able to fire up youtube and quickly bring them up to speed.

"the majority of NASA has absolutely no congressionally mandated goals."

Actually that's wrong. The space exploration initiative has been formallized by a Congressional authorization act.

"Actually that's wrong. The space exploration initiative has been formallized by a Congressional authorization act."

That was the old, Republican-controlled Congress. The new, Democrat-controlled Congress effectively cut Constellation in the 2007 budget with a continuing resolution and passed the first continuing resolution of the 2008 budget just last week. (Although, the Republican Congress was admittedly just as guilty of not meeting the VSE budget.) Authorizations mean little when the appropriators fail to fund.

I also agree strongly with the first poster. Hickam needs to expound upon his cheerleading about NASA giving "our economy a positive jolt with all its inventiveness". There's little actual economic research on NASA's prior spin-offs to back up such an assertion (it's PAO mythmaking at its best), and precious little invention or innovation going on in NASA's human space flight programs today (we're just reshuffling Shuttle components).

I think capital utilization arguments steer you away from NEO to the Moon. The scattershot approach seems to result in very little progress across the board. I think Hickam's plan to resuscitate JFK is unlikely. I think there should be a shoe string effort to encourage private citizens to start pushing the ball forward and they should be rewarded with property rights and rule of law. I predict they'll develop the Moon first.