Author Topic: Bottom line. What can we, as US citizens do to support the space program. Practical and Proactive  (Read 16135 times)

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 107
A lot of words have been said, but we should all join forces and work out a way of making an impact.

This is easily the busiest site covering space flight so this seems like a good place to build a ground swell.

List your ideas here.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3061
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 478
I don't have anything original at the moment, but I'll state one of the obvious ones:  Write to your representatives in Congress!

Offline halkey

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
We need to make the space program seem relevant and beneficial rather than just some big, overpriced science fair project that has no impact on reality which is how a lot, if not most, people view it.  I think we need to view NASA as more than just an agency which engages in exploration (something a lot of people view as frivolous) and help people see that space is loaded with resources and dangers that we need technology for.  I liked the administrator's speech that going into space isn't just about exploration but also about expanding our economic potential.

Offline spaceflight101

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
When the presidential candidates come to your town, buttonhole them and ask them what their beliefs on space exploration are.
Ask them if they are elected if they'll cancel Bush's initiative just because.
Ask them if they'll consider allowing Griffin to stay on (for the sake of continuity), instead of appointing a political hack to the position of administrator.
Ask them if they'll work to ensure that NASA obtains sufficient funding for the work they're tasked with.

Offline Chris Bergin

Well, rule one is do something. Proactive doesn't have to be a group effort, but it obviously needs to be conducted by Americans. Maybe 'best e-mails' etc. would we a good idea to list here etc. A group effort would be best, otherwise it can be diluted.

We'll have to see if there's any new and interesting suggestions past the 'write to your Congressman'.

There is a by product for non-Americans to maybe try and combine on, such as the the 'other' space tourism via the unknown numbers who visit Florida for launches. However, living in a huge tourism city like York (five million tourists a year), the 'main' attractions usually dominate the mindsets. Still, tourism revenue is revenue.

Ironically, I note 'main attractions' because the Florida tourism adverts shown here - for example - NEVER mention KSC or the Cape. So I wonder if this isn't recognized and potentially something that could be used in the arsenal of raising the importance of 'NASA'.

I have no idea if it's very large numbers, or if it could be raised with the right marketing.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
  • Liked: 1265
  • Likes Given: 57
My strategy was : get an engineering degree and join the industry.

Offline mmealling

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Chris,
  IMHO, the reason you don't see NASA in a lot of the "main attractions" advertisement is that there is no real way for those who are advertising to monetize NASA's existence. Who directly makes money from tourists visiting NASA?

hektor,
  My suggestion is get an engineering and a business degree. If you're already in the industry then you should really consider an Executive MBA program. All the engineering in the world won't do you any good if you can't market it, sell it, or finance it.

-MM

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38172
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22652
  • Likes Given: 432
Quote
mmealling - 16/3/2007  11:16 PM

Chris,
  IMHO, the reason you don't see NASA in a lot of the "main attractions" advertisement is that there is no real way for those who are advertising to monetize NASA's existence. Who directly makes money from tourists visiting NASA?

The profits from the visitor center are plowed back into it for more exhibits, etc

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
mmealling - 17/3/2007  3:16 PM

Chris,
  IMHO, the reason you don't see NASA in a lot of the "main attractions" advertisement is that there is no real way for those who are advertising to monetize NASA's existence. Who directly makes money from tourists visiting NASA?

If it was Disney adverts, sure, but I'm talking about the Florida Tourism Board, which is - if anything like our versions - are tasked with bringing in tourism dollars to the region for local business (shops, hotels etc.etc.)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38172
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22652
  • Likes Given: 432
There are TV spots advertising the KSC visitor center.  If you drive around the Orlando area (especially what is called the "Attractions Area" you will see KSC visitor center billboards right next to Disney's and Universal's

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
I never knew space advocacy even existed until my wife persuaded me to take our 5 year old daughter to watch John Glenn's shuttle launch during a family trip to Disney World.

A few days later we did the Visitor's Center thing and at the end of the day, while my wife and daughter bought NASA pajamas and freeze dried ice cream as gifts for the cousins back home, I bought Zubrin's "Case for Mars" and followed up with google searching and its been downhill ever since.

Since then, I've attended a few of the Capitol Hill lobbying efforts. Personal visits to Congress, as well as letters, faxes and e-mails might be useful.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Well, I can give you the standard formula and then some "with steroids" suggestions.

  • Don't hesitate to write your Congressman (the person representing your Congressional District and others in your state) & Senators (we all have two unless you live in the District of Columbia or one of the territories).  Letters should be clear, simple, and straight forward and only dealing with the issue of support for the space program/VSE.  The more extra issues and convoluted reasoning you put in a letter -- the less effective it becomes.
  • Clearly, Members of Congress on important committees that have oversight of NASA and space activities and their appropriations should receive your primary interest.  However, all Members of Congress  ultimately vote on their budget and need to understand that NASA and manned space exploration matters to you -- one of their constituents.
  • You can & should also do the above via e-mail.  Since the Anthrax scare in 2001, that is how most Congressional offices get their communications.  It also allows them to reply to your letter in a reasonable length of time.
  • Every Congressman and Senator spends a huge amount of time back in their state/district.  Thus, it is generally easier to get to see a Member "back home" than it is in Washington.  Also, look for events that the Member of Congress might be attending (speeches, etc) or "town hall meetings" that many Members of Congress hold to give them an opportunity to meet with and hear the opinions of their constituents on various issues.
  • If you can't get in to see the Member -- they really are very busy with full schedules most of the time -- don't hesitate to talk to a staffer.  This is not a blow-off.  That is what staff does -- meet with constituents -- and they are a very effective way to get your message across.  Moreover, they can serve as a long term contact in that office.  The staffer will gage your seriousness on the issues and -- for people who have a real expertise on the matter -- may also welcome and come to rely upon your knowledge/experience.
  • Think about joining a group or creating one.  Some of these "pro-space" groups have agendas that aren't particularly useful and constructive -- that is a personal decision for you to make whether you support their point of view.  If you can't find a group that you like, consider creating one.  Just see how many potential members are on this site alone.  It's not hard to form a group and it will give you -- and other like-minded persons -- a more "official" and visible profile on these issues.   It also makes it easier to get in to see Members of Congress or staff.
  • In any and all communications with Members of Congress or staff keep your conversation general -- and non-technical.  Using terms like "the stick" and raising issues like solid fuel versus liquid fueled boosters will just lose them.  Even booster choices -- always a hot topic on this site -- will be beyond the familiarity of virtually all staffers and Members of Congress.  Also, anything that indicates to them your negative attitude or pessimism over the NASA/manned space flight/VSE will indicate opposition to the space program (a conclusion many Members of Congress and their staff don't need much encouragement to reach) whether you intend for them to draw that conclusion or not.
  • Finally, for those who live in state's considering embarking on various "commercial space" ventures -- indicating your support for all of the above to state officials doesn't hurt either.  The stronger the sense of wide spread support for space efforts in this country the easier it is for NASA to get its budget through Congress to finance these ventures.

Engage....

Edit:  I forgot to mention letters to the editor.  Many local and national papers, radio and TV broadcasts will editorialize -- usually negatively -- about money spent ("wasted") on space exploration and efforts to go to the Moon and Mars -- often making the distinction that money spent on manned space exploration is a evil waste but money spent on robotic exploration is a sensible expenditure -- as long as it doesn't amount to much.  Typically these editorials/comments are woefully ignorant of relevant facts and receive very little criticism from readers/viewers.  Anything you can do to reverse this trend of negative press is extremely valuable.  It is not just that the public reads these comments and tends to take them as true, but they also help to shape opinions in the State and Federal Government.  This is a vicious cycle that all of us need to help reverse.    

 


Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Tell your friends to watch the SpaceX launch online next week! If they aren't interested you can tell them that the last one blew up.

  • Guest
If you don't have the youth, you don't have a future.  NASA should enlist the most vocal of the youth, the most involved of the youth, *regardless* of their opinion of space, and *listen* to them. Right now they ignore them as much as possible.

PAO and NASA management should foster a culture of openness, and encourage engineers and scientists to outreach neat things through popular youth oriented channels, and try not to toss out a few, highly massaged puff pieces and declare the job done. One sloppy YouTube Video by an amatuer goes light years further than a boring PAO produced animation, no matter how many tens of thousands of dollars of production applied to it.

Right now most are fearful to put one foot wrong for getting fired. Money's been stripped out of outreach programs, and frankly neither the "force through my agenda" nor the "fear the chinese taking the moon" Griffen campaigns look likely to succeed. Using fear and force doesn't work any differently for either the stupid or the smart past two director's of NASA. The fragmented space community that was walked over for years needs to unify, Griffen needs to adapt his plan to win support from them and then go back to congress with something less pork driven and more popular driven.

But it all starts with people in a community first.

Offline MarsDriver

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Some of the people from MarsDrive have sent letters to their congress representatives and senators. Some even got some responses back. Letter writing may seem a weak thing to do but it can have an impact if it is done by a sufficiently large number of pro space people. The problem is raising our numbers to such levels. I have come to see that by and large space advocates are not really the right people to be doing public outreach. To reach the public we must be relevant and we must be professional. The public need to see why they should be supportive of space projects and what it can mean for them. I believe it can be done and that we can raise large numbers of new supporters from the public but it will take time and resources that we have so far being funneling into pure tech r & d while neglecting the issue of reaching the public (who pay for all space programs one way or another).

I know some say that we should just wait until a president or future government commits us to a more robust space exploration agenda or for new technologies to save us, but I need to point out that "waiting and hoping" is NOT space advocacy. That is spectating/cheerleading. Practical things to do have been listed above but really each of us must find it within themselves to DO something, whatever that may be. This subject of "community first" and citizen based advocacy has great potential. Never underestimate the power of the public when they get together- For example- http://www.the-rocketman.com/CSXT/default.asp

Another example is my experience with MarsDrive. We started out by wanting to avoid the mistakes of older and more traditional space advocacy groups and to focus our efforts on expanding the numbers of space advocates any way we could. Many ideas flowed but we soon realized that the space community is not really focused on true public outreach. Any money that gets spent (even within space advocate circles) usually goes in large portion to technology/systems research and development while the issue of public outreach mostly gets ignored. But really the most practical thing we can do is to build a strong foundation of large scale public support. When more people come in, so does more funding, and with more funding ALL space groups(NASA or private) benefit in many ways.

Many of the leaders of space groups and chapters I have spoken to over the years tell me about the lack of interest even in their own groups and how much of a struggle it is to even keep those groups alive. That is part of why MarsDrive has a special focus on public outreach because we respect the work of the talented men and women of the science and engineering community who work on space projects and we want to see an expansion of that industry so we focus strongly on raising public support. It has been an interesting time that's for sure. Our first 2 years has been mainly spent in study of the problems that the space community has in reaching new people. As a result we have fashioned ourselves into a new type of space group. Most space groups are made up of scientists/engineers and lobbyists but with us it is average citizens from students to blue collar workers to business people. Many of us came out of traditional space advocate groups to form Marsdrive because the fact was we were being ignored by the traditional groups. We realized that the "public" was something that space advocates knew little about and every effort we have taken is to find solutions to these issues. Unfortunately the brick wall we have hit is lack of funding (for our public outreach projects) which indicates a deeper problem and that lies in the fact that space advocates really prefer technology over people. Many tech oriented projects will be quick to gain donations/funding within space groups but not so with public outreach. In the end, expanding our numbers in pro active ways is the best thing we can all do to give all space projects a brighter future.
Visit us at http://www.marsdrive.net "You must have long-range goals to keep from being frustrated by short-range failure" ~ Charles Nobel

  • Guest

Quote
MarsDriver - 18/3/2007  11:54 AM  In the end, expanding our numbers in pro active ways is the best thing we can all do to give all space projects a brighter future.

Yes! Because its apathy, ignorance, and disillusionment that have killed the momentum in space. Attack the root cause. 


Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
If you think you're the only space-crazed person in your area, you're not.  Places to start networking:
www.yurisnight.net - the world space party April 12
www.spacegeneration.org - for young folks
academy.nasa.gov - the BEST NASA internship for future space leaders
www.isunet.edu - the BEST international internship for future space leaders
The young folks who went through these programs near their inception aren't so young any more and are starting to gain positions of influence in government and industry.  A critical mass is growing from the grassroots.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 19
I'll show you how I do it... check out the videos section of this forum and view "Daddy Rocket." IMO- you start at home- take the time to instill the sense of wonder in your own children... and that takes A LOT of TIME. Yeah the TV has is fun to watch, but what makes it work is even more fun. Video games? RockSim is better... it is a lot more fun to design a rocket on your computer, build that rocket, go fly and chase it. When shown wonderous things, kids will naturally chase that wonder. I started Dr. Zooch rockets to bring that wonder back to parents who'd had it chased away from them in the 70s and for kids who'd never experienced it before. Lastly, don't trash the efforts. We have so many nay-sayers willing to do that and kids will follow their lead. Don't be one of those. ANY venture off this planet is a plus... make sure that is what you teach. You never know who you can inspire.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10565
  • Liked: 815
  • Likes Given: 40
Before I see much of a change, I think NASA is going to have to start doing more interesting things, which the general public can really connect to.

IMHO, the best activity NASA has managed in recent years were the Mars Exploration Rovers.    They were a fantastic tool and greatly raised the public's interest (worldwide) in NASA activities.   That was especially important at such a low point in the wake of Columbia's loss.   They were new probes visiting unexplored places.   They were robots - which are always cool to kids.   They landed in a spectacular way, and there was a lot of excitement to see if they arrived safely or not.   They had colourful images which raised excitement levels, and they were in a deeply mysterious place - which is always interesting.

That is a great combination to get people's interest, and it worked.

But there was never very much follow-up to this intense public interest.   There were many advertising and merchandising opportunities available which would have kept the MER's in the news, but which were never followed up.   These could have potentially raised money and interest for future missions, not to mention captured peoples interest and increased SUPPORT for such program.

To get the kids interest, a remote control MER of their own, perhaps 1ft across, with working tools, would have sold in quantity IMHO.   But JPL never released the designs to anyone, so nothing significant ever happened.   Imagine the interest in a computer controlled LEGO rover?   Or how about a virtual environment, based on the data they've collected, which would allow a kid to drive around on Mars and examine what's there for themselves?

These are educational opportunities which have never been considered.

And there have not been many missions since those which have caught the public's imagination, so there haven't been any opportunities to capture people's new attention.   New Horizons got some, limited, attention, but it won't be until the next generation of kids who will be there when that arrives.   I hope NASA has the resources to grasp the public's interest when we do start learning more about Pluto then.

So, the question becomes:   What is NASA going to do next which will get people's attention?

ISS won't.   Even Hubble servicing won't - they are both: Been there, done that.

JWST should - assuming it is ever finished and flown.

I see the next big opportunity for NASA to reach the public as being the Lunar precursor missions.   The first rover going to the moon should be sent to one of the Apollo landing sites to explore the area.   Show the public what we did nearly 40 years ago, let them get involved somehow - by providing an online virtual environment of the area for them to explore themselves!!!   Let them buy a model of the rover, let the kids have LEGO R/C models, with small cameras built in.   Produce CD's and DVD's with computer programs usable in education to show how the scientific instruments all work, and with school-lab experiments to do the same for kids to try it for themselves.   If NASA can capture their interest:   They will do the rest themselves.

NASA must identify it's greatest public attention missions, prioritize them, and back them up fully.

It will take decades to turn this current situation around, but it can start now.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

  • Guest
One bit of advice about contacting your reps.  Don't email them.  That's too easy.  Sit down and write out, by hand, on paper, a letter.  I've heard staffers say that a hand written letter is worth 100 emails, because it shows that you felt enough about the issue to put a few minutes' effort in to it.   Letters to the editor is another good idea.  Hopefully some clod will respond with the anti-position and you'll have the chance to rip up his arguments with a rebuttal.

Put a pro-space bumpersticker on your car.  Donate your old space books to your local school library.  If you have kids in school, beat them until they write NASA and request a PR visit for their school.  I still remember the ones that came to my school.   Talk to your school board and see if they would be interested in mainlining NASA TV into their science curriculum.  I know the educational shows are hokie, but they're still better than 99% of the crap we watched on school TV when I was little.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38172
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22652
  • Likes Given: 432
Quote
kraisee - 18/3/2007  5:30 AM

I see the next big opportunity for NASA to reach the public as being the Lunar precursor missions.   The first rover going to the moon should be sent to one of the Apollo landing sites to explore the area.  

Ross,

You are behind in your reading.  "Lunar precursor missions"?  There are none, LRO is it.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Ross writes:

Quote
But there was never very much follow-up to this intense public interest. There were many advertising and merchandising opportunities available which would have kept the MER's in the news, but which were never followed up. These could have potentially raised money and interest for future missions, not to mention captured peoples interest and increased SUPPORT for such program.

The following quote is part of why I believe spaceflight must become tied into with the media maelstrom that is modern America:

Quote
Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2005

New Report Shows Food Industry Advertising Overwhelms Government’s “5 A Day” Campaign to Fight Obesity and Promote Healthy Eating.  Food, beverage, candy, and restaurant advertising expenditures weigh in at $11.26 billion in 2004, versus $9.55 million to promote healthful eating

A report released today documents how money spent to advertise foods including soda, candy, snacks and fast foods, dwarfs the dollars spent to promote the California and Federal “5 A Day” programs to encourage eating vegetables and fruits. The report, written by Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, and the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN), a nonprofit health advocacy organization working with communities of color, concludes that this imbalance is one of the key factors contributing to unhealthful dietary trends in the United States that have led to the obesity crisis.

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_health_care/002657.html

For better or worse, if we desire to grow the public profile of spaceflight we need to harness the same skill-set that NASCAR and the NBA uses. Since NASA cannot possible afford to buy such exposure, then spaceflight providers must SELL marketing rights and let the private sector do the promotion for us.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline spaceflight101

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
This couldn't hurt...
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=*starlightstarbright*

Anyone wanna go for a ride?

Offline cz77

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Back in the late 80s, there was a 'drive' here in Texas to get people to turn in aluminum cans in order to help fun the drydocking of the USS Texas.  Years before that I think that there were similar programs for school kids to collect nickles or dimes or something in order to bring one of the east coast battleships for display.  Granted this is a lot less money than what would be needed for a specific NASA operation, but with advertising budgets that some companies have in the billions and how much money is spent for junk food here in the states the money is certainly there.  It seems to be more a matter of tapping that source.  It has to be done in an exciting way.  If people can be talked out of good money for designer bottles of water (!) some bright mind can certainly think of something.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38172
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22652
  • Likes Given: 432
Private money can not be given to NASA.  Any monies goes to the general US Treasury fund

Offline copernicus

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
It appears that Senator Mikulski, along with 3 other Senators, will be
offering a supplementary budget amendment to the FULL Senate when
NASA's budget is up for a vote.  This means that this additional
$1 Billion will be decided by the votes of all 100 Senators, not just
the handful that usually are involved at the subcommitttee level.  
This supplemental $1 Billion is proposed as funding to cover the costs of
RTF after Columbia.

   What can you do, as US citizens?  You can call the offices of your Senators
and urge them to support the Mikulski amendment.  It should be up for
a vote soon.  


   Just a few more thoughts on this.  For those of you who remember the 1980's,
recall that the costs of building Endeavour, the replacement for Challenger,
was NOT in Reagan's budget.  "Saint" Reagan said a lot of pretty words after
Challenger, but when it came time to back up those words, old Ronnie was
not to be found.  The "heavy-lifting" needed to add funds to NASA's budget,
so that Endeavour could be built, fell to a handful of devoted members of
Congress.  We owe a lot to those true supporters of NASA during one of its
dark chapters.  Not only did that funding bulge get Endeavour built, it also
helped to boost NASA's budget baseline, as I recall, leading to extra Billions
for NASA's budget over the last 20 years.  

   I offer best wishes to Senator Mikulski, a REAL supporter of NASA in
the Congress, and hope that her supplemental amendment becomes
law.  





Offline hornet

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Run for congress and win its a democracy we can do it im too young but its a good idea.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17996
  • Liked: 4071
  • Likes Given: 2125
Quote
copernicus - 5/7/2007  6:02 PM

   Just a few more thoughts on this.  For those of you who remember the 1980's,
recall that the costs of building Endeavour, the replacement for Challenger,
was NOT in Reagan's budget.  "Saint" Reagan said a lot of pretty words after
Challenger, but when it came time to back up those words, old Ronnie was
not to be found.  The "heavy-lifting" needed to add funds to NASA's budget,
so that Endeavour could be built, fell to a handful of devoted members of
Congress.  We owe a lot to those true supporters of NASA during one of its
dark chapters.  Not only did that funding bulge get Endeavour built, it also
helped to boost NASA's budget baseline, as I recall, leading to extra Billions
for NASA's budget over the last 20 years.  
Can you provide some references for this?  I was recently going through the CAIB presentations and one of them was on budget history by Marcia Smith:
http://caib.nasa.gov/events/public_hearings/20030612/present_smith.html

Making OV-105 out of the structural spares seems to stand out in Slide 7 (attached):

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 56
Marcia's slide reflects the money NASA was appropriated in that twenty-year period, and the spike in 1987-1989 reflects the money Congress added--that President Reagan had not requested via an amended budget request after the Challenger accident--to pay for the replacement orbiter (Endeavor). That extra money was added as a supplemental, or emergency appropriation in the Omnibus appropriations bill for FY 1987, after having been added to NASA's appropriations bill (Then the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies bill) by an agreement between then-chairmen of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the VA-HUD-IA Subcommittee, Senator Ted Stevens and Jake Garn, respectively, to transfer $2.7 billion from the Defense subcommittee allocation to the VA-HUD-IA Subcommittee allocation. It was "no-year" money, meaning it was "available until expended," as opposed to just being available in FY 1987. I'll try to find the legislative references for you; as I recall, the Stevens-Garn agreement was reached in late September of 1986, and the Omnibus appropriations bill was passed in October or November, so there must've also been a Continuing Resolution in there somewhere as well, to keep things funded after September 30th until the Omnibus appropriations passed; just don't recall. That action was cited last year by Senators Mikulski and Hutchison as the "precedent" for the Congress taking the sort of action they were requesting last year in their $1 billion "Return to Flight" amendment (now being referred to as the "NASA Restoration Amendment" in its current iteration.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17996
  • Liked: 4071
  • Likes Given: 2125

Offline dwmzmm

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Far West Houston, TX
    • Challenger 498 NAR Section
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Jim - 17/3/2007  10:45 AM

There are TV spots advertising the KSC visitor center.  If you drive around the Orlando area (especially what is called the "Attractions Area" you will see KSC visitor center billboards right next to Disney's and Universal's

Space Center Houston has become (and has been) a great attraction for both locals & out of town visitors for quite some time, especially since we no longer have the Six Flags Astroworld
anymore  :frown: .  It gets big time advertising on the medias, billboards, brochures and
coupons available at places like McDonalds, etc., year round.  My kids personally look forward
to going there, even though we've visit up to two times yearly.  

http://www.spacecenter.org/

Dave, NAR # 21853 SR.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 56
Quote
psloss - 5/7/2007  9:15 PM

Thanks.

Did some more sleuthing around in the Library of Congress website, and came up with the following:  As it turned out, both the Defense Appropriations and the House-passed VA-HUD-IA appropriations for FY 1987 were folded into the CR that was adopted October 17, 1986. (HJRes 738, which became PL 99-591 on October 30, 1986). Because the Senate FY 1987 VA-HUD-IA bill was not reported (The subcommittee Chairman, Senator Garn, was recovering from major surgery, having given a kidney for transplant to his daughter), the House-passed VA-HUD-IA version was adopted, which didn't include the shuttle appropriations, so the appropriations for the replacement orbiter was included in the Defense Appropriations bill (S.2827) that was subsequently incorporated into HJRes 738, the Omnibus CR, by reference. Title VI of S.2827 contained the specific language, which was interesting, because it referenced a "Defense Shuttle Orbiter."  Here's the language from the Library of Congress summary (couldn't find the actual bill language or the Senate Report SRept. 99-446 in the on-line archives):

"Title VI: Space Transportation System - Appropriates funds for FY 1987 for the Space Transportation System, Defense Shuttle Orbiter. Withholds the funds for space shuttle orbiter procurement until August 1, 1987, and until the Administrator of NASA and the Secretary of the Air Force jointly certify to the Congress that implementation of the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident is proceeding satisfactorily and that procurement of a replacement orbiter is in the national security interest."

Obviously, the required certifications must've been made, and NASA received the funds and Endeavour was built.

Hope that helps. It's a convoluted process, but that's what I could see from the information available, coupled with some personal, albeit a bit foggy, recollections, hehe.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1