How to get people interested in the CEV

• How to get people interested in the CEV by SimonShuttle on 31 Jan, 2006 16:26
• Kinda from another thread where people talked about the lack of people being interested in the actual CEV itself. What's the blame, what's to be done?
• #1 by Pastor/Engineer on 31 Jan, 2006 16:42
• I think people will need to get excited about the mission (i.e. Where are we going?) before getting motivated about a particular vehicle (i.e. How will we get there?).
• #2 by Jamie Young on 31 Jan, 2006 16:50
• Of course, but we're going to the ISS only from 2012 to 2018. That's less than the STS.
  
• #3 by Super George on 31 Jan, 2006 16:53
• They have to sell the Moon and Mars, but the media will say we've done the Moon before and Mars isn't till about 2030?
  
  I think NASA is going to lose a hell of a lot of interest when the Shuttles gone. The CEV and only to the ISS is and visually has nothing on the Shuttle missions.
  
  It might come back for the Moon missions, but nothing will get new and interesting until Mars.
• #4 by Terry Rocket on 31 Jan, 2006 17:29
• I think we've all got past the opinion that if it doesn't look like a plane, it's not a spaceship! But when the CEV comes into service we need to pump it as test flights to what will be trips to the Moon and Mars, for sure.
• #5 by Mark Max Q on 31 Jan, 2006 18:07
• Education and publicity. Both lacking from NASA so far.
• #6 by Dobbins on 31 Jan, 2006 18:16
• Think outside the box. We have to reach a larger audience. Everyone here and on any other space forum  already knows about the CEV and has their mind made up about it. We have to reach the people who aren't ever going to see this post. The Movie "Apollo 13" reached more people than everything NASA's PAO has done in the years since it was released.
  
  
• #7 by vt_hokie on 31 Jan, 2006 18:31
• I have been over the capsule vs. lifting body vs. true "space plane" argument before, so I will refrain from repeating myself, beyond just mentioning that as a space plane proponent, it is very difficult for me to become excited over a (possibly expendable) ballistic entry capsule derived from the 1960's Apollo CM design.
  
  But beyond that, one of my concerns is that the STS-derived launch vehicles will ensure that operational costs remain high and flight rates remain relatively low.  The CEV, with a capacity of 4 (or possibly 6?) astronauts, will fly maybe 3 or 4 times per year, correct?  So, it actually will result in fewer people flying into space than during the space shuttle era, while still requiring billions of dollars (perhaps most of NASA's budget) to keep the program going.  In terms of public perception, I think it will be a tough sell.  Spending billions to send a handful of elite astronauts on ISS expeditions or, in another 20 years, on brief excursions to the moon seems to me like a recipe for continued apathy on the part of the American public.  I believe that the general public will be more excited by the prospect of opening up access to space to an increasing number of people, and the way to do that is to build on the lessons of STS and focus on an entirely new generation of RLV's.
• #8 by Dogsbd on 31 Jan, 2006 19:17
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 31/1/2006  2:31 PM
  
  The CEV, with a capacity of 4 (or possibly 6?) astronauts, will fly maybe 3 or 4 times per year, correct?  So, it actually will result in fewer people flying into space than during the space shuttle era..

  
  CEV flights to ISS are to carry six crew; only one person less than the Shuttle. As for the number of trips per year, yes there will be fewer but that is because ISS construction will be “complete” (whatever that means now) at that time. If the Shuttle were to be used in this time period, IE post ISS completion, it would also be required to make fewer flights… most likely the same number that CEV will be used for in delivering and returning crews. Re-supply flights will be undertaken primarily by Progress, ATV as well as the Japanese supply vehicle (an whatever commercial services come available), that situation is the same regardless of the Shuttle or CEV being in the equation as crew transport. One big difference is that CEV will have the capability to stay on station at ISS for up to six months, whereas the Shuttle can only stay for around two weeks.
  
  Now on lunar flights it is true that the CEV will carry fewer people into space, yet it will carry them much further into space and sustain them there (along with the LSAM) for much longer. As a means of transporting people to and from space the CEV as envisioned has the Shuttle beaten in all aspects, IMHO.
  
  
  
• #9 by BogoMIPS on 31 Jan, 2006 19:26
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 31/1/2006  1:31 PM
  The CEV, with a capacity of 4 (or possibly 6?) astronauts, will fly maybe 3 or 4 times per year, correct?  So, it actually will result in fewer people flying into space than during the space shuttle era, while still requiring billions of dollars (perhaps most of NASA's budget) to keep the program going.

  
  Remember that two of the shuttle's 7 crew were pilots for the vehicle, so if the Shuttle was "shuttling" ISS crews, the biggest crew they could drop off would be 5.  The entire CEV crew could remain at ISS, making for an increase of one per flight for each launch.
  
  Also, CEV stays with the crew, instead of only being able to be offworld for ~2 weeks, allowing for greater man-hours in space, and a built-in lifeboat for all of them during their entire stay.
  
  I agree that we will probably only see 3-4 manned ISS flights per year, as that is as often as crew rotation would be needed.  In theory, ISS CEV flights should cost siginifigantly less than the equivalent STS ISS flight.  We'll have to see if that holds true.
• #10 by Dogsbd on 31 Jan, 2006 19:44
• Quote

  BogoMIPS - 31/1/2006  3:26 PM
  
   In theory, ISS CEV flights should cost siginifigantly less than the equivalent STS ISS flight.  We'll have to see if that holds true.

  
  If the launch of the "stick" and CEV costs as much as an STS launch I will JOIN those who call for the end of NASA's human spaceflight program.
  
  But I don't think that will happen.
  
  
• #11 by nacnud on 31 Jan, 2006 21:31
• The CEV flight rate will be over 6 per year to support the ISS from 2012 upto 2016.
• #12 by hornet on 01 Feb, 2006 01:27
• NASA need to reach out to the public period i did a power point in my computers class and not many people knew we had visited the outer planets with any kind of spacecraft. the ESAS report does a decent job outlining the moon missions and iss plans but not too much about mars which would be the best selling point to the public. we need to keep the shuttle because without it there is no point in sending the cev to a less than half finshed station. i know this sounds bad but i think NASA should cut funds in some older missions that are sending back the same data day in and day out and redirect some of that money to the cev and public out reach programs
• #13 by mr.columbus on 01 Feb, 2006 01:56
• Quote

  nacnud - 31/1/2006  5:31 PM
  
  The CEV flight rate will be over 6 per year to support the ISS from 2012 upto 2016.

  
  A flight rate of 6 CEVs per year to ISS is not realisitic. Consider that from the years 2012 to 2016 the ISS might then be serviced by
  1. Soyuz/Kliper for crews
  2. Progress/Kliper-cargoversion for cargo
  3. the ATV for cargo
  4. the H-II for cargo
  5. private cargo transports (if it turns out that private space companies are capable of doing so)
  
  Considering a permanent crew of 6 with a 6-month long-term duration (shorter periods don't really make much sense) of each crew member, only 12 astronauts have to be flown from and to the ISS per year. As the Russians will continue at least 2 Soyuz-flights or (if build) at least 2 Kliper flights to the ISS per year, it appears likely that only half of these 12 astronauts will fly to the ISS by the CEV. That makes 2 CEV flights per year with 3 astronauts for crew rotation and 1 short-term astronauts per flight the most likely scenario.
  
  To have a rate of 6 flights per year (did you derive this information from the timetable chart in the ESAS?) to ISS would thus mean 4 cargo CEV flights. But the cargo version of the CEV may not even be developed and considering other available cargo transporters will certainly not be the cheapest way cargo missions.
  
• #14 by Dogsbd on 01 Feb, 2006 03:55
• On the other hand how many missions CEV flies to ISS is near irrelevant, as it is designed for a much bigger and more ambitous mission.
  
  
• #15 by STS Tony on 06 Feb, 2006 13:35
• Interesting that "selling" is the obvious first choice. Where's the selling though?
• #16 by Seattle Dave on 06 Feb, 2006 16:46
• Thinking outside the box? And how do you make people do that? This is a typical problem NASA has, expecting Americans to think for themselves, when they are very unlikely to do so without a reason.
  
  I know this only too well, as a teacher.
• #17 by Super George on 06 Feb, 2006 17:24
• Publicity is a problem as it appears NASA to be totally unable to do that properly.
• #18 by Jonesy STS on 06 Feb, 2006 18:06
• What has caused NASA to be so bad at communicating with the public? The mainstream media always seems to be negative about then I've noticed.
• #19 by Chris Bergin on 06 Feb, 2006 18:32
• We're in danger of a misconception here. "NASA isn't some closed off, never speaks to the public" agency.
  
  They don't help the media that much, granted, but most of the time they start to give access and get stabbed in the back when they do it. (See AP during 114, See USA Today on Griffin interview, etc.)
  
  But as far as aiming at schools, education, etc. They are very good.
• #20 by Paul Howard on 06 Feb, 2006 19:09
• It's a Moon Rocket, that also can go to Mars. How hard is that to sell?
• #21 by Super George on 07 Feb, 2006 01:50
• Quote

  Paul Howard - 6/2/2006  2:09 PM
  
  It's a Moon Rocket, that also can go to Mars. How hard is that to sell?

  
  Hard because it's 12 years away minimum, I think that is a problem at present.
• #22 by vt_hokie on 07 Feb, 2006 03:45
• Quote

  Paul Howard - 6/2/2006  3:09 PM
  
  It's a Moon Rocket, that also can go to Mars. How hard is that to sell?

  
  We're a long way off from being able to send humans to Mars, and it's questionable as to how much of the lunar hardware will be usable for that mission.
• #23 by Orbiter Obvious on 10 Feb, 2006 22:16
• Sell it as something that can go past LEO then.
• #24 by DavidB on 10 Feb, 2006 23:19
• Humans have pretty simple brains; when given new information everything comes down to the question: How does it affect me? (Is it good for me or is it bad for me?).
  
  I think most people are simply too wrapped up in the daily grind of life to pay a lot of attention to ANY space-related project. The fact that a strong connection between space projects and benefits to the common person has not been made is the biggest problem. Even myself, although I am an enthusiastic supporter of space programs, I often get tied up in life, my nose gets pulled down into whatever I am focusing on, and when I finally remember to look up, a few weeks have gone by.
  
  However, I also believe that MANY people are genuinely interested in space developments. Over a billion hits on NASA's website when the two Mars Rovers first landed attest to that. And children love stories about space. At heart, I think most people still have that childish love of exploration, before the drudgery of life tries to kill it.
  
  How to get people interested . . .?
  i) Publicize the benefits of such work.
  ii) Get people involved. As any organizer of a charity event knows, people volunteer with enthusiasm, but if you don't give them anything to do, they will wander off, resentful. So give them something, anything, to do to make them feel they have contributed.
  iii) Create a "to-do" list of what plans are and the steps required to achieve them. That way people can that concrete progress is being made. Right now, I don't think anybody knows what NASA's plans are.
• #25 by Super George on 11 Feb, 2006 01:43
• I remember that note from NASA.gov on the one billion hits. That was a scam as it wasn't page impressions. Each visitor could have been generating 500 hits on each visit.
• #26 by Jim on 11 Feb, 2006 04:27
• Quote

  mr.columbus - 31/1/2006  8:56 PM
  
  

  Quote

  nacnud - 31/1/2006  5:31 PM
  
  The CEV flight rate will be over 6 per year to support the ISS from 2012 upto 2016.

  
  A flight rate of 6 CEVs per year to ISS is not realisitic. Consider that from the years 2012 to 2016 the ISS might then be serviced by
  1. Soyuz/Kliper for crews
  2. Progress/Kliper-cargoversion for cargo
  3. the ATV for cargo
  4. the H-II for cargo
  5. private cargo transports (if it turns out that private space companies are capable of doing so)
  
  Considering a permanent crew of 6 with a 6-month long-term duration (shorter periods don't really make much sense) of each crew member, only 12 astronauts have to be flown from and to the ISS per year. As the Russians will continue at least 2 Soyuz-flights or (if build) at least 2 Kliper flights to the ISS per year, it appears likely that only half of these 12 astronauts will fly to the ISS by the CEV. That makes 2 CEV flights per year with 3 astronauts for crew rotation and 1 short-term astronauts per flight the most likely scenario.
  
  To have a rate of 6 flights per year (did you derive this information from the timetable chart in the ESAS?) to ISS would thus mean 4 cargo CEV flights. But the cargo version of the CEV may not even be developed and considering other available cargo transporters will certainly not be the cheapest way cargo missions.
  

  
  Soyuz flights in support of the US segment would end once CEV comes online.  Soyuz then would only support Russian requirements.  The cargo version of the CEV is still required to meet the requirements of the US segment.   Remember, Progress, ATV,and HTV would still be make flights if the Shuttle were to continue to fly.  The CEV plus COTS is replacing the Shuttle flights that were to go to the ISS.  They are planning 6-8 flights a year
• #27 by publiusr on 17 Feb, 2006 21:31
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 6/2/2006  10:45 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Paul Howard - 6/2/2006  3:09 PM
  
  It's a Moon Rocket, that also can go to Mars. How hard is that to sell?

  
  We're a long way off from being able to send humans to Mars, and it's questionable as to how much of the lunar hardware will be usable for that mission.

  
  Well, the CaLV is certainly a must. An HLLV for a moon mission with one or two launches is MUCH better adapted to Mars than flying 100 EELVs--that's not going to happen.
• #28 by Bruhn on 17 Feb, 2006 22:08
• I think the general public also has the misconception that NASA eats up a large portion of the Federal budget, when in fact they don't.  Only 0.7%.  NASA needs to get the word out that the American public is getting alot for their money.  I heard Bono from U2 the other day state that if America only spent 1% of the federal budget to help the Africa problem ...  I tuned him out at that point, not because I'm not sympathetic, but because he said 1%.  Thats more than NASA's entire budget.  People do not understand the scale of where their money goes.
• #29 by James Lowe1 on 17 Feb, 2006 22:09
• Griffin touched upon that point at the committee yesterday, with his Golf Buddies thinking it was more like 20-30 percent.
  
  Personally, I think the US public are better informed to know that is a rediculous figure.
  
  The public want to see missions and launches. The public wish for lots of science is an argument only made by scientists.
• #30 by Dobbins on 17 Feb, 2006 22:50
• Quote

  James Lowe - 17/2/2006  6:09 PM
  
  The public want to see missions and launches. The public wish for lots of science is an argument only made by scientists.

  
  Polls consistently show science as being second only to manned exploration as a reason to have a space program. The devil is in the details, just what does the public mean when they say science? During the science committee meeting yesterday one of the members was talking about spin offs, that there is a public perception that NASA isn't delivering the kind of spin offs that it did in the 1960s. This is important, politicians have a far better knack for keeping up with the public than most scientists do. That Congress critter was talking about applied science. Many scientists may think of applied science as just being technology, a totally different field than their research, but many if not most members of the public lump both basic research and applied science under the single heading of science and they are far more interested in the applied science than in the research science.
  
  When the public says they want science from NASA most of them are talking about something very different than the scientists are.
  
  
• #31 by simonbp on 17 Feb, 2006 22:52
• Quote

  James Lowe - 17/2/2006  5:09 PM
  
  Griffin touched upon that point at the committee yesterday, with his Golf Buddies thinking it was more like 20-30 percent.
  
  Personally, I think the US public are better informed to know that is a rediculous figure.
  
  The public want to see missions and launches. The public wish for lots of science is an argument only made by scientists.

  
  And the public wish for lots of lifting bodies is an argument only made by aeronautical engineers...
  
  Really, the push will be on once the LAS abort tests start and NASA can co-opt the popular media (the Discovery Channel, for example) with documentaries of actual rockets launching and astronauts training to land on the moon. This type of visuals will have a far greater effect than the current (kinda corny) CGI animations...
  
  Simon
• #32 by vt_hokie on 20 Feb, 2006 07:19
• Quote

  simonbp - 17/2/2006  6:52 PM
  And the public wish for lots of lifting bodies is an argument only made by aeronautical engineers...
  
  

  
  I think the public would like to see something different that is a step forward, regardless of configuration.  The mating of 30 year old shuttle hardware with 40+ year old Apollo designs clearly seems like a retreat and an admission of defeat by NASA to me, after failing to follow through on more ambitious programs.
• #33 by Rocket Ronnie on 21 Feb, 2006 19:26
• What's the alternative if physics says that's the best way to do it, quoting Griffin.
• #34 by Peter NASA on 21 Feb, 2006 21:01
• That is correct. I also agree that it needs to be sold right to the public.
• #35 by Justin Space on 22 Feb, 2006 10:29
• And how do we think that 'selling it right to the pubic' can be carried out?
• #36 by Ender0319 on 22 Feb, 2006 23:36
• ..not only in CEV but in NASA in general I think the taxpayer has dished out enough $$ to warrant one free visit to the NASA facility of his/her choosing.  You pay your way to the facility but why not allow you, the visitor, a look at the NASA center.
  
  Locally at JSC, you have to stop next door at Space Center Houston and pay to ride on a tram to ride around JSC.  There is the occasional open house too but unless you know someone who can get you inside, you don't have much of a chance to see what goes on here.
  
  Or perhaps, NASA TV could do an insiders look at a particular center/operation/activity/etc. to give the viewer some more information rather than watch some other NASA TV programming.
  
  Or I could always auction off a visitors badge to the highest bidder and have them come for a visit.
  
  Long story short... give the public more and better access.
• #37 by SpaceCat on 23 Feb, 2006 04:18
• Since optimistically the first CEV flight will be in 2012- with hopes for a moon return by 2018......
  A large body of US voters we want to interest is now in Grade 8 and below!  Actually, that's good news because it's easier to impress kids- who have not yet had their imaginations beaten out of them.  If kids get excited about something- their parents will follow.
  
  I'd like to see an expansion of all NASA Outreach Programs- particularly those that send speakers into schools with cool stuff to demonstrate.  There was mention here recently of that NASA exhibit truck rolling around the country- there ought to be a FLEET of such trucks- hitting schools as well as shopping centers and community events.  
  NASA Outreach has traditionally been a long-forgotten and overlooked stepchild when it comes to budgets- that needs to change, and it would be nice to see it combined with the remains of the SpaceCamp programs.
  OK- they're gonna have to pay some salaries.... but that could be managable; particularly by recruiting some NASA or contractor retirees who are still enthusiastic about the program and looking for extra pocket change.
  It needs to be a targeted and dedicated effort by NASA for NASA- not a 'spare time' or volunteer pastime..... not a task to be 'subbed out' to Delaware North Park Service or anything like that.   The travelling exhibits and 'medicine shows' need to be continually updated with the latest concepts and the latest policies.  
  
  Last but not least- Mr. Dobbins' point about the movie "Apollo 13" is very valid.  NASA has friends in show-biz- quite a number besides Tom Hanks- and their talents and brains should be pooled for ideas.  Politicians are always quick to grab celebrity endorsements for a ratings boost; NASA should do the same.  I forget which PAC did those TV spots back in the '80's (maybe it was NASA itself?) but it was great to see people as diverse as Charlton Heston and Jesse Jackson agree that space technology benefits all.
• #38 by DigitalMan on 24 Feb, 2006 03:53
• It seems to me that during Griffins recent testimony in congress he indicated the 2012 goal was the first thing to go when it became necessary to start cutting things.  
  
  Perhaps what NASA needs is a first-class MARKETING department.  At the very least NASA TV needs to be entirely remade.  There is a library a couple blocks away here in FL where ex-NASA employees sometimes show up (pre-arranged of course) to talk to kids and the experience is pretty good for them.  Perhaps NASA can pick up some free assistance by reaching into the space enthusiast community to organize regular events all over the country in order to raise public awareness about the benefits of scientific research AND manned exploration.  Given that manned exploration has not ventured out of LEO in 30 years I think it will take a lot of effort to get the public to realize that exploration drives innovation and discovery.  
  
  Choose not to go and there is no reason to invent.