Bottom line. What can we, as US citizens do to support the space program. Practical and Proactive

[Jim]

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.

[Bill White]

Ross writes:

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:

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.

[spaceflight101]

This couldn't hurt...
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=*starlightstarbright*

Anyone wanna go for a ride?

[cz77]

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.

[Jim]

Private money can not be given to NASA.  Any monies goes to the general US Treasury fund

[copernicus]

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.  

[hornet]

Run for congress and win its a democracy we can do it im too young but its a good idea.

[psloss]

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):

[Jeff Bingham]

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.

[psloss]

Thanks.

[dwmzmm]

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/

[Jeff Bingham]

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.