Main | February 2004 »

January 30, 2004

Pay for Performance

NSS member Richard McNeil's letter was printed in the Memphis Commercial Appeal in response to 2 editorials they ran face to face including a cartoon showing a foot labeled "space initiative" stepping on "education". Reprinted with the author's permission.

Dear Editor:

Your running the face-to-face editorials on Friday was an interesting case for the diversity of American thought.

Unfortunately, Bill Day's editorial is wrong in several ways, but John Paschal's "Voyage to Mars is a trip we must take" is a refreshing counter balance. To take the main issue with John Day's editorial, a funding plan that would cost only $20 billion to get to Mars was proposed by Robert Zubrin in "The Case for Mars". While this was proposed about 1997, and some upward adjustment may be called for, I would suspect that his figures would still work. This is what I call the 'PAY FOR PERFORMANCE' plan. That is, the government will pay $20 billion to the first group that gets to Mars.

One charm of this plan is that nothing is spent unless someone gets to the Red Planet, or meets one of the milestones on the path. Another charm is that any group pursuing the goal can get there on their timetable - whether it takes 30 years, or 3. This works, as the flights of SpaceShip 1 by Burt Rutan's group over Mojave, California, is demonstrating. It's about time the ancient art of rocketry borrowed one of the great ideas from the start of aviation.

So let's go to Mars - not only for the thrill of the exploration, the national pride, but to show that private interests can make money at it !

Richard McNeil

Posted by apsmith at 04:14 PM

January 27, 2004

Today Show Letter

The National Space Society of Australia's President, Tim McEgan, sent a letter to the Today Show in Australia, and issued two press releases to the Australian Press in support of the U.S.A.'s new space initiative. His efforts resulted in interviews with two radio networks syndicated to over 80 Stations nationally. Reprinted with the permission of the National Space Society of Australia.

Today Show Letter

Dear Today Show,

I unfortunately missed most of your interview with Martin George at 7.50 this morning. As a member of the space industry I am always enthused by Mr George's discussions of space matters. Whilst I have a great deal of respect for Mr George, I was however disappointed to hear him claim this morning that the USA's President's initiative for human space exploration was too expensive. It is regrettable that the common perception about President Bush's initiative is that it will cost too much, when in fact the opposite is true.

The main concern is, however, not the expense of the initiative, but the lack of logical context around this debate. It is very easy for Australians to hear the cost of $15 Billion and think that is a huge expenditure. Very seldom do we hear the press report that this amount is less than 1% of the total US annual budget. In fact, Americans spent double that (over $30 Billion) on pet care last year. While pet care is not government expenditure, the context is still that American pets are more important than humans moving outward to improve our lives.

It is in our nature as humans that we easily forget the "positives" and focus on the "negatives". It is therefore very easy for us to forget that space exploration has brought about thousands of commercial products and applications that have improved our lives.

The miniaturisation of electronics and the development of computers were influenced by the needs of space exploration initiatives. Our health is improved through the thousands of medical advances and technologies that were originally developed for space exploration. Fire-fighters are protected every day by fire retardants and heat protective clothing made from materials originally designed for space exploration. In Australia's hot summers we forget that the air conditioning units that keep us comfortable were partially influenced by the Apollo programme. The humble running shoe uses space technology to provide protective support and comfort while we jog. I doubt that the pet industry in the USA, or anywhere in the world for that matter, can claim as many benefits to mankind.

Over the last few decades there has been an increasing concern about our environment. But, as the lacklustre response to the Kyoto Protocol suggests, despite a huge concern for the environment, our governments appear not prepared to do anything serious about it. We as a species fail to look into the future. Our attention is always focused on the here and now. "She'll be right mate" is our attitude to the needs of our future generations. However, we know that we are quickly depleting our planets resources and that in one hundred years time we will be unable to support our current resource needs. Where will we turn to feed our need for fuel, power and even food? It is easy for people to think that space is just science fiction, but in fact space is a daily reality, and may very well be a major contributor to the prosperity and environmental survival of our planet. That is, if people begin to change their perception and realise that to protect our future we must start now.

Not only do space based satellites and technologies help us to monitor our environment, but also help us to protect it. What will happen in the future when we finally run out of resources to power our power stations and drive our trucks and cars? This is not science fiction, and space exploration is not the only answer. However, we must realise that by exploring space now, we are contributing to a better and healthier environment in the future.

If the British Admiralty had not funded James Cooks extended mission to "prove that the great south land exists" Australia would never have been discovered until much later in history. The vast resources of this country, that helped maintain the British Empire for so long, would not have been available, and England would not have had a convenient place to send her prisoners. If Queen Isabella had not risked the equivalent of millions of dollars in today's terms, America would not have been discovered and Spain's economic supremacy over the known world would have waned much earlier than it did. If China had not burnt all of its ships and had continued to explore, perhaps the world would today be a vastly different place? Exploration is a critical need within the human spirit, and we must personally go to touch, see and feel for ourselves. It is time to put the cost of President Bush's space exploration initiative back into context and realise that at some point we must go. His plan is equal to approximately US$55.00 per person in the USA per year. It will be much cheaper to go now than in another hundred year's time! 

Yours sincerely,
Tim McEgan
President
National Space Society of Australia Ltd
GPO Box 7048
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Ph (Mobile): 0413 547 150
Email: president@nssa.com.au
Web: www.nssa.com.au
Mr McEgan is currently a senior consultant and research analyst for Asia Pacific Aerospace Consultants Pty Ltd, a consultancy specialising in the Space industry, particularly serving the Asian region. Prior to taking up this position he was a space risk underwriter for GIO Space Ltd, the world's tenth largest satellite insurance and Reinsurance Company. Mr McEgan is the Treasurer of the Australian Space Industry Chamber of Commerce Inc, and has served on it's Executive Council since 1987. Mr McEgan is also President of the National Space Society of Australia Ltd, having served on the Board since 1993 and joining the organisation in 1989. Mr McEgan has also served on the Board of the National Space Society based in Washington DC. The NSS is an international Space Advocacy and lobbying group with permanent United Nations Observer status which is represented in over 30 countries worldwide.

Examples of benefits derived from space exploration:

Two commonly cited examples are CAT scans and MRI machines that provide early diagnosis of life threatening diseases in Australians every year, and help save the majority of these people. Other examples are:

Posted by apsmith at 04:16 PM

January 25, 2004

Space Program Necessary

NSS Member John Strickland had the following letter to the editor published in the Austin American-Statesman, 1/25/04. Printed with permission.

Space Program Necessary

A Jan 16 editorial correctly separated discussion of the President's new space policy from opinions about the President himself ("Bush's space plan deserves a fair study)". The Scott Stantis cartoon on the same day noted that a previous (Democratic) President, in a similar time of stress and peril, committed us to a lunar voyage. The space program has a serious purpose; we can not remain a one-planet species and survive. Space Solar Power collectors built from Moon materials at a Lunar Base could help us end Global Warming. In addition, the Near Earth Asteroids pose natural threats, which if ignored, will eventually cause catastrophes on Earth.

Today, few can remember a single leader of 1492 besides Columbus and Queen Isabella. 500 years from now, few will remember any of today's political struggles, but if we extend our permanent presence to the Moon and Mars in this century, they will remember that.

John Strickland -- jkstrick@io.com

Posted by apsmith at 04:06 PM

January 23, 2004

Costs and Benefits of Space

NSS Director J. David Baxter sent this letter to the Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News on January 23, 2004. Printed with permission.

Dear Editor:

I saw the political cartoon, in Friday's paper, depicting the Bush Space Program as costing "to infinity and beyond!". In reality, the Bush Space Program, at maximum cost, won't be above 1% of the federal budget. Also, $25 Billion per year, estimated for later development of the Space Program, will return to the economy $200 Billion per year in benefits. This estimate is based on studies from the benefits from project Apollo, given by the General Accounting Office. No other federal program gives these results.

Sincerely,

John David Baxter

Salt Lake City, Utah

Posted by apsmith at 04:09 PM

January 19, 2004

Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

NSS international member, Virgiliu Pop, had his editorial published online at http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04b.html on January 19, 2004. Reprinted with the author's permission.

Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

Virgiliu Pop, Timisoara, January 13, 2004

virgiliu_pop@lycos.co.uk

The new space policy of the Bush administration, aimed at taking the humankind back to the Moon and on to Mars, came under fire before even being released. In their bid at the Democratic nomination for the White House, several politicians criticized George W. Bush's grand space plans, arguing that the money would find a better use here, on Earth. "I also want to explore planet Earth and planet D.C.," Dennis Kucinich said. Al Sharpton too suggested that ""Bush instead try to discover the lower-income parts of Washington. I mean, it won't cost as much ... and it would be just as enlightening for him". Joseph Lieberman stated that the money would be needed "right here on Earth to give health care that's affordable to everybody, to improve our education system, and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland security". And Howard Dean agreed that "space exploration is terrific, but went on to ask "Where is the tax increase to pay for it? It is not worth bankrupting the country." Since the beginning of the space era, it has been argued that the money spent on space exploration should rather be used on meeting the needs of the underprivileged. "If our nation can spend twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on earth." were stating respected figures like Martin Luther King Jr. People like him were not necessarily opposing space exploration; they were instead disputing the priorities - is space exploration worth pursuing when money is so badly needed elsewhere? Unfortunately, the benefits of the space exploration are not self-evident, no matter how real they are. And people are genuine in their worry that money is being wasted in space. Their concern with spending priorities needs to be addressed.

The high profile of space exploration makes it appear more expensive than it actually is. The uninformed, yet caring citizen, is under the earnest impression that the money would make a genuine difference in the fight against poverty. The real dimensions of the social needs are, in reality, out of proportion with the money spent in space - be it in the past, now or in the immediate future. Otherwise, there won't be any social needs left after the Congress stopped funding the Apollo missions to the Moon.

In the same time, many of the critics of the space programme on social grounds are "limousine liberals". They point the finger at the US government for wasting their tax money in space instead of helping the poor, but they are not feeling guilty for their own consumerist life style and for their own scale of priorities.

For instance, this year, total pet-related sales in the United States are projected to be $31 billion - the double, almost to the cent, of the $15.47 billion NASA budget. An estimated $5 billion worth of holiday season gifts were offered - not to the poor - but to the roving family pets - six times more than NASA spent on its own roving Martian explorers, Spirit and Opportunity, who cost the American taxpayer $820 million both. Instead of providing a launch pad for the immorally expensive shuttles, Florida can do better and clothe the underprivileged - a genuine alligator pet collar cost only $400 a piece.

Are space rockets expensive toys for the big boys? In any case, they cost less t han the $20.3 billion a year spent in the US on the human popular toy industry. One doesn't need toys to play with when the most popular game is playing deaf and blind to the needs of the poor - provided one criticizes the waste in space.

Instead of betting on the future, Americans spend $586.5 billion a year on gambling. It is perhaps immoral to criticize one's personal choice, so instead of kicking the habit and feeding the poor with this money, one should stop instead the enormous waste in space who stands at a scandalous amount of 40 times less than gaming tokens.

Speaking about personal choice, $31 billion go annually in the US on tobacco products - twice the NASA budget -, and $58 billion is spent on alcohol consumption -almost four times the NASA budget. Forget space spin-offs - here are genuine tangible benefits: $250 billion are spent annually in the US on the medical treatment of tobacco- and alcohol-related diseases - only sixteen times more than on space exploration.

In the eve of the launch of Apollo 11, a moving event occurred at NASA's moonport. Reverend Ralph Abernathy, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and heir to Martin Luther King Jr., came to Cape Canaveral together with several hundred members of the Poor People's Campaign, to protest the money being spent on space exploration, while so many people remained poor. He was met by Thomas Paine, the administrator of NASA, who was informed that in the face of such suffering, space flight represented an inhuman priority and funds should be spent instead to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend the sick, and house the homeless.

Paine enlightened the good reverend that the advances in space exploration were child's play compared to the tremendously difficult human problems of the society, and told him that "if we could solve the problems of poverty by not pushing the button to launch men to the moon tomorrow, then we would not push that button."

Here are $976.3 billion dollars - almost a trillion - spent every year in the US on pets, toys, gambling, alcohol and tobacco. It is 63 times the amount spent on space exploration - with the difference that NASA has not destroyed lives as the alcohol, tobacco and gambling did. It is not the exploration spirit that Americans need to give up in order to alleviate poverty. It is the consumerist spirit.

Posted by apsmith at 03:27 PM

January 16, 2004

Press Release:Bush Announces America's Return to the Moon And on to Mars ... is it worth the cost?

The National Space Society of Australia's President, Tim McEgan, sent a letter to the Today Show in Australia, and issued two press releases to the Australian Press in support of the U.S.A.'s new space initiative. His efforts resulted in interviews with two radio networks syndicated to over 80 Stations nationally. Reprinted with the permission of the National Space Society of Australia.

Press Release: Bush Announces America's Return to the Moon And on to Mars ... is it worth the cost?

Following the announcement of a new wide ranging space policy and direction for NASA by US President George W Bush yesterday some questions have been raised regarding gove rnment expenditure for such a program. Since the shuttle Columbia accident of nearly one year ago, the US has been in engaged in an unprecedented review, assessing the entire American space program which has been stuck in low earth orbit since the last lunar astronauts returned to Earth in Apollo 17 over 31 years ago.

The announcement outlined sweeping reforms of the US space program including: