Beyond Earth (ATWG) - Chapter 12 - Space as a Popular National Goal by David Livingston

From The Space Library

Jump to: navigation, search

Chapter 12

Space as a Popular National Goal

By David Livingston

Introduction

Space is not the popular national goal that it once was. President Kennedy's pledge to place an American on the moon and return him safely to Earth was a source of national pride and a strong motivator for American space policy, but after that goal was met, the American public's interest in a national space policy waned. Those of us in the space community know that the space program has proven to be a strong force for world peace and stability, as evidenced by United Nations treaties and agreements assuring cooperation and restricting weapons in space that were enacted by the superpowers and most other countries. Today, former enemies are partners in space development, pursuing space commerce and development together.

Those of us in the space community and those involved in the latest advances of technology also know that the American space program, under the auspices of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), has produced extraordinary benefits for people all over the world, not just the wealthy or those associated with space enterprises. These benefits extend to the fields of health, medicine, public safety, energy, the environment, resource management, art, recreation, computers, automation, transportation, manufacturing, construction, and many more.

Unfortunately, the many benefits of space are not often understood by average Americans, and only when regular citizens recognize the far-reaching humanitarian advantages, or can personally experience the technological advantages of the space program will a national space policy have broad support.

How space agencies communicate with the public and how the public understands space policy are issues that I examine on a weekly basis through my radio talk show, The Space Show(r). For almost five years, in nearly 450 interviews, I have been talking with the general public and the informed space community about how best to become spacefaring, to expand and enhance space commerce, and to develop an economic space infrastructure. In this chapter, I will share with you some of what I have learned, and I will propose solutions for restoring space to its rightful place as a popular national goal.

Communications 101

The Space Show(r) has taught me how to talk to the public about space. For our society to devote a great deal of attention and resources to space, we as space advocates must be able to communicate with the population at large, not just with those on the inside of the space community or with those who have romantic notions of space travel. Obtaining general support for space as a national goal is not easy, especially during a time of war, federal budget deficits, and political scandals. Still, if we can present a strong, practical argument that space enterprises and explorations are in the best interests of our nation and its citizens, then a popular space policy will surely follow.

Typically, when space is being discussed or promoted, several reasons are given for the need to be in space and to spend public money on space development. Among the reasons most often cited for a continued and expanding space presence are scientific knowledge; environmental monitoring; possible extraction of extraterrestrial resources, including vast supplies of energy; planetary protection from a large meteor or asteroid on course to strike the Earth; settlements that could save humanity if the Earth is somehow destroyed; jobs; and just plain fun. While these are valid, even exceptional, rationales for spending public money on space development, they appear to be distant and not easy for people to assimilate. For example, to say that we need to go to Mars to save humanity in case the Earth is destroyed by an incoming asteroid is not an easy sell to large numbers of people. When this topic comes up on the show, a listener invariably will e-mail or call in to say that it only makes sense if his family is the one chosen to be saved. This objection is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but the point is that it is difficult to get motivated about something when you know at the outset you will likely be the loser. As I have also discovered by hosting the show, not everybody who has an interest in space cares about future generations of humanity. If the space community wants to make space a popular goal for our country, then we need to begin an open discussion about space. For starters, a productive exchange of ideas is more easily facilitated when representatives of the space industry communicate in plain language to other people or groups. The purpose is not to dazzle or impress others with technical jargon, but to include those outside the space community in the discussion of why it is important for humanity to be in space. Rather than present our ideas as the only important ones in the discussion, we need to both respect and welcome the ideas of others into the dialogue; then we need to listen to what is being told to us, even if it is anti-space. At the same time, we must let people know that benefits from space accrue to everyone in society, not just selected communities or individuals. We need to respond reasonably and appropriately to specific concerns. Our arguments for space will probably not be their arguments for space. We need to remember that the public did not enroll in our lecture series. Other people may have strange reasons for liking or disliking space, and we must be prepared.

I would like to cite a recent Space Show program as an example of a breakdown in communication between a guest and a listener. The guest for this particular show was a well-respected scientist, engineer, and proponent of manned missions to Mars. A listener asked the guest why we should spend taxpayer money to go to Mars. The listener said that there was no economic justification for putting tax dollars into a manned Mars mission right now because Mars would still be there in a hundred years. The listener wanted justification for the hurry-up attitude to get there. The listener further reasoned that if Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is not even cost effective, why not focus on very low-cost space access rather than an expensive project having no economic merit, like a manned Mars mission.

Without thinking, the guest began rattling off the usual reasons for wanting to go Mars, including exploration, adventure, scientific knowledge, and the establishing of a "second home" for humanity should the Earth become destroyed or uninhabitable. The listener was not buying any of it. The exchange between the guest and the listener continued for several minutes. The listener talked about wasting tax dollars on Mars, which, he asserted, would produce little or no economic benefit for the country. The guest continued to cite his preferred reasons and his agenda, all of which the listener could care less about. I was disappointed that neither party really listened to the other, that neither party addressed the issues and concerns of the other. They were talking at each other. Sometimes I think we would rather hear ourselves talk as an expert than listen and learn-and this applies as much to the guests as to the listeners. If space is to become a popular national objective, then those nonexperts outside the space community must be heard.

After pondering this exchange for several weeks, I began asking other guests and listeners how they would have handled this line of questioning regarding public financing of a manned Mars mission. Perhaps the best response I received was from another guest, who suggested that, like the rain forest today, Mars may very well prove to be a productive place for the discovery of new medicines and pharmaceuticals. He said that it might be possible to use what is unique on Mars to significantly improve our health and well-being on Earth, as long as we are extremely careful about returning Martian samples to Earth. This guest then logically added that sickness and disease reduce economic productivity. For a fraction of what is cumulatively spent on these conditions on Earth, if we as a nation would invest some of our wealth in going to Mars, we might well create a national and even global economic boost, let alone realize significant benefits for all mankind. What this guest did was take the listener's taxpayer issue and modify it to show that going to Mars may be a better public investment than not going to Mars. He then talked about the risk-reward ratio of a Mars mission. He said he would ask the listener if the potential reward were worth the risk of a mission failure. Even if the risk were not worthwhile to the listener, the two would have had a useful discussion. They would not have talked at cross purposes, and maybe the listener would have had his mind opened a bit, or at least the issue might have been diffused.

Logistical Barriers Are Not the Real Hindrance

Industry advocates, policy makers, and other adherents of space development frequently cite scientific, financial, and political barriers that prevent the realization of space objectives. While these barriers are formidable, they do not always justify the relatively slow pace of space development. Those who claim that enterprises in space are too risky and that our taxpayer dollars could be spent more wisely create the real drag on our progress in space.


Another recent Space Show interview highlighted this critical perspective on future space projects. The guest for this program was San Francisco Chronicle science writer Keay Davidson, an articulate and well-educated journalist with a strong background in space technology. A former L5 supporter and member, Mr. Davidson has reported on the space community for a long time, both the government program with NASA and the fledgling entrepreneurial, alternative space community. As he suggested in his interview (which can be heard at www.thespaceshow.com for November 22, 2005), he was an early advocate of human endeavors in space-that we would be on the Moon and well on our way to Mars and beyond, performing useful research and making beneficial discoveries in space that would enhance our lives. His focus was, and still is, the betterment of humanity. As time went on, however, a struggle ensued between his fascination with space and his core political values. What happened to Mr. Davidson has actually happened to millions of people across this country, and during his interview he placed the issue square in the face of the space community. He lost his conviction that all that cool space stuff was worthwhile. In other words, space cities and the potential for technical innovation in space once seemed fascinating to him; but now these priorities seem to pale in comparison to basic human needs on Earth. To be clear, Keay Davidson did not say that space cities were worthless. He believes that space cities will probably exist some day, probably long after we're dead. But then he asks, what's the rush? Mr. Davidson further claimed that there was no need to develop space cities as fast as the L5ers (how young we were, then!) once advocated, suggesting that we were all young and idealistic back in the days of L5.

In our after-show e-mail exchanges, Mr. Davidson told me that for two decades he tended to view much of the hype over space exploration as a modern form of bread and circuses, i.e., a distraction from the more pressing issues that face humanity. He confirmed that not just he but others across our nation have disconnected from the space program, viewing it as mostly driven by corporate and political interests who are vying for billions in NASA dollars, especially in electoral vote-rich states like Florida, Texas, California, Louisiana, and Alabama. He pointed out that space has become a type of entertainment that distracts Americans from serious and challenging issues. Nonetheless, he remains interested in and enthralled by space exploration, specifically the robotic space missions. He would send a million robots to Mars before sending humans (again, sound familiar, anyone?), though to him and others sharing his views, space exploration must always take a back seat to what he and others see as the more pressing needs of humanity.

Toward the end of the show I asked Mr. Davidson what it would take to convince him, as well as millions of other Americans, to support space exploration and research as a predominant national objective. His reply was short, saying he wanted proof of how space can improve humanity. He was not interested in more rhetoric or promises. He and millions like him want to see results. They want to see and experience on a personal, national, and global level the benefits of space that we talk about, promise, and say are possible, but are not yet available to us. He wants to see better prospects for human life on Earth, not just read about it or hear it promised by government, space, and business officials.

Keay Davidson was not talking about complex and challenging technological space barriers, economic issues concerning the cost to orbit, or the rigidity of the laws of physics. He was talking about political and human failures that dampened his enthusiasm for space development. For those in the space community, both public and private, if you are willing to listen and learn from Keay Davidson, you will certainly change the way you advocate space as a national priority.

We all know the barriers to space commerce and development. We talk about them and discuss the solutions among ourselves all the time. We even address the problems Mr. Davidson addresses. But for the public, Mr. Davidson has nailed it. We must from time to time step out of our space world and pay attention to what Mr. Davidson and others see. If we cannot adequately respond to what they are telling us, if we cannot find a way to demonstrate that space can answer their legitimate concerns, then-and I know this will be a tough one for us in the space community to accept-perhaps space should not be a national goal, at least not at this time.

Sometimes Facts Just Don't Matter

All of us have heard the arguments against spending public money on space programs. The arguments are based on assumptions that the public's money can be better used for something on Earth, usually a program that is important to the person engaged in the argument or discussion. After hearing this complaint again and again, I decided to research what does happen to public money spent on space compared to public money spent on other federal programs. My research results support the creation and funding of high-quality publicly financed space programs. I compared a successful public infrastructure revenue-generating project, Hoover Dam; a successful entitlement program, the federally funded School Breakfast Program (SBP); and a successful public space program, Apollo. I wanted to see what impact such programs had and still have on the economy. I wanted to know if there was any validity to the many claims suggesting better uses of taxpayer money than spending it on space.

According to David Moore, P.E., for its first forty years of operation, from its opening in 1936 through 1976, Hoover Dam had an economic multiplier of 2.29:1. (1) For every $1 dollar spent by the government on the project, the government received $2.29 from power generation revenue. It is noteworthy that this number does not include any value represented by regional economic development, which is ongoing today, nor does it represent added value for the contribution of Hoover Dam to our winning World War II through the abundant production of power to Pacific Coast shipyards along with producing major supplies of magnesium which was used for war munitions. (2) Hoover Dam was originally financed by 4% bonds in the amount of $165 million. The bonds were paid in full and retired two years prior to their due date. Hoover Dam is now part of a larger regional power authority, the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), which is part of the Boulder Canyon Project. Though WAPA financial losses have occurred, the overall benefits and contributions of Hoover Dam to the nation and the region remain undisputed except by a few who challenge large dam construction projects for environmental and other reasons.

The federal School Breakfast Program (SBP) is an entitlement program that provides breakfasts to certain children of primary school age. To qualify, children must come from low-income families; suffer particular hardships at home; or face long, difficult transportation to school early in the morning. Through SBP, more than 8.1 million children regularly received breakfast in 2002. (3) The public's investment in this program through congressional funding and allocation is now in excess of $1.63 billion. (4)

Determining the economic multiplier for SBP proved illusive because it is an entitlement program designed to meet social objectives, not generate revenue, create jobs, or support industrial development. Following the money flow of an entitlement program would not provide the same type of data as the other two projects. While the program's funding can be thought of as an investment for the nation, several very different issues would need to be evaluated over a long period of time to even attempt to determine a potential economic return for the country. Also, the choosing of a control group might lead to ethical questions. Nonetheless, I decided to use an entitlement program for comparison in my mini-study because of the common objection to public space funding, "The money would be better used for an entitlement program."

In selecting Apollo for the space program, I discovered that not all public space programs are created equally. Apollo was and still is the most successful of the public space programs. The economic multiplier for Apollo varies from 5-7:1, returning between $5 and $7 to the taxpayer for each $1 invested in the program. (5) Estimates reach 14:1, 20:1, and even 340:1 for Apollo's specialized technologies and spin-offs. Unfortunately, the higher multiplier returns cannot be substantiated by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) because of the excessive number of variables in the econometric equations used by the economists. (6)

Other facts regarding the Apollo program include the creation of more than 400,000 jobs at its peak in 1965. What is so interesting about Apollo is that it continues to have a positive impact on our economy today, long after the program was shut down, funding and all. I like to poll Space Show guests to determine what caused them to enter a space- related field, and the vast majority tell me about Apollo's impact on their education, their careers, and even their outlook in life. This phenomenon exists as well for the guests that I have interviewed living outside the United States. Were the SBP funding and were Hoover Dam's repairs, maintenance, and upgrades to cease, within a short time the economic and humanitarian benefits of the project would also come to an end. Conversely, although Apollo ended in 1974, the program still generates significant benefits. This continued return of benefits distinguishes Apollo from other federal programs whose benefits cease once funding, maintenance, and improvements are discontinued. The economic, educational, and inspirational results from Apollo were most likely unintentional. But I believe the continued role of Apollo as a wealth builder for individuals and the nation sets Apollo apart from the other programs in this study. Apollo stands alone in what it has accomplished and in what it is still accomplishing today, scientifically, economically, and inspirationally.

Ironically, as I began sharing my findings with Space Show listeners, attendees at space conferences, and the public, I noticed that while people were interested, the facts made little difference in their opinions about space. People didn't seem to care much about facts as they are driven far more by their agendas, beliefs, and ideology.


What Constitutes a Quality Public Space Program?

From my study of the Hoover Dam, SBP, and Apollo programs, I have been able to identify certain characteristics that make for a quality public program, especially a space program. Understanding these attributes can help us to reach more people with today's space programming, so long as we communicate effectively and encourage the American public to become involved. Though some of the initial success of Apollo was spurred by the zeitgeist-the program was jump-started by a charismatic President Kennedy when the United States was considered to be lagging behind the Soviet Union in space, science, and math-there were other characteristics of Apollo that contributed to its own success. Based on my analysis of the Apollo program, I've listed eleven essential characteristics that make for a quality public space program: Vision. The program must be visionary, and the vision has to speak to everyone in the country. It also has to be obtainable. Individual citizens should be able to easily claim ownership of the vision.

  • Inspiration and motivation. The program must inspire and motivate all people, not just those working on the project or involved in the industry.
  • Leadership. The program must have strong, ethical leadership. The leadership must drive the program to reach its objectives. The leadership must be accountable for all results.
  • Clear goals. The program must have a strong purpose with clearly stated and obtainable goals.
  • Quantifiable results. Progress must be quantifiable and measurable so that successes and failures can be evaluated. This needs to be an open process, not a classified process. While leadership alone assumes the final responsibility for the project, everyone associated with the project has to have accountability for his distinct role.
  • A good investment. The project should be able to pay for itself over time by producing wealth for the country and its people. All cost data must be disclosed and variables clearly identified. All accounting must be transparent. The project cost should be viewed as an investment in the future of the nation, bringing many different payback possibilities from a variety of different sources.
  • A plausible challenge. The program has to be challenging, but also plausible.
  • A service for the people. The program needs to serve the American people, not the other way around.
  • Economic benefits. The economic benefits must be apparent and broad based. Special expertise or status as an insider need not be a requisite for understanding or experiencing benefits.
  • A nonpartisan orientation. The space program must be nonpartisan. It needs to appeal to conservatives, liberals, and independents, and it needs rise above the political fray. This is especially important today in our polarized political environment.
  • Ongoing benefits. The program should be designed and managed so that benefits continue to flow even when the program has been closed down. In this way, future generations will be motivated and inspired to continue the progress of those who came before them. The fact that the program should continue to produce economic benefits after funding has ceased is fundamental to bringing the people a high return on their investment and for creating important national and individual wealth.

Why Not Market the Space Program?

The marketing of space programs is a frequent topic on The Space Show(r). Some guests assert that NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) do a lousy job of promoting, marketing, selling, and educating people about the true value of space and space programming. NASA and JPL advocates, on the other hand, are usually quick to point out that the law forbids a federal agency from promoting or advertising itself. These agencies prefer to win supporters by coalition building rather than formal marketing.

Clearly, there is a preference to focus on science and mission facts when talking about and promoting space programs. Space Show guests and listeners alike are always making the case for both science and marketing because one tactic does not have to preclude the other. As for promoting or advertising a governmental program, listeners are quick to point out that the armed services always use slick, professionally created ads to promote themselves in print, radio, and TV. Surely a balance can be struck to excite Americans about the space program and still obey existing laws. In earlier days, NASA employed a different style of communicating its purposes to the public. Werner Von Braun made himself available to the American people. For example, the July 1971 issue of Popular Science has Von Braun on the cover with the headline "Apollo 15: What We Will Learn This Time." His essay in that issue is a direct, simply stated presentation to the people about the Apollo mission. Another recent Space Show guest Jim McDade-a space education outreach professional, media pro, and space historian-suggests that the current NASA administration has forgotten how to talk to people because the organization has become arrogant, even in its educational materials. The promotion of space as a national goal is difficult enough without NASA creating a distorted image.

Another example of how space could be better promoted involves the Mars-themed Space Show program mentioned earlier in this chapter. During that particular program a listener in Nebraska asked about marketing the Mars mission and Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). He couldn't understand why NASA or JPL didn't focus on the controversial Cydonia region of Mars and the possibility of life on the red planet to stimulate the interest of the American people.

Millions of Americans would be fascinated by a mission to investigate the Cydonia region of Mars. For a variety of reasons, however, Cydonia causes problems for scientists probably stemming from the 1976 Viking pictures showing what appears to be a face on the Cydonia plateau and the "Face on Mars" subculture that has arisen as a result. The caller to the program was not emphasizing Cydonia for the sake of Cydonia; he was recognizing that Cydonia had marketing power for the millions of people who would lend support to an important public space program. Instead, these millions of people-who, by the way, pay taxes to help pay for the space program-are ignored because scientists at NASA, JPL, and elsewhere discount the validity of anything important at Cydonia. The guest for this show replied to the Nebraska listener that it would not be ethical to promote Mars by marketing Cydonia because nothing of interest was at Cydonia. Disregard of public interest, as in this example, is one of the problems that I often hear expressed on The Space Show(r). It goes something like this: "The scientists and mission planners are elitist, out of touch with society, and we are getting ripped off. We have no input into the system, so why should we care about it. They don't care about anything other than what they deem to be important." In the almost five years that I have been hosting The Space Show(r), the frequency of this complaint has not diminished!

I am not suggesting even for a minute that science bend to the public will, because that would severely impair scientific development and advancement. To pay attention, however, to the millions who are curious about Cydonia is not an ethical issue or a threat to science. Early Mars missions need to locate resources, places for settlement, and determine the crucial landing points for future Mars exploration. But it would not be a stretch to say to Americans: "We know that many people have an interest in the Cydonia region of Mars. While we doubt that the region contains any vital scientific information, because the space program is for all Americans we will visit Cydonia to determine what's there." To say and do something like this is not a breach of ethics. It is inclusive; it brings people into the program. Such an approach is not alienating; rather, it builds coalitions. It is smart, low-key marketing and public relations. But more than that, it shows that the space agencies do care what Americans want. It also shows that the space agency realizes that this segment of the population should be included in the process.

The Nebraska listener's second point was to use the probability of life being discovered on Mars to interest people. Again, this likelihood is downplayed by NASA and JPL, thus alienating a large part of the population. There is very strong evidence of water on Mars, and this may well suggest some sort of primitive biological life in the past or even now. Credible scientists have also studied Martian photographs and found amazing evidence of fossil-like rocks. Again, why not market a future Mars mission to investigate all this, to include the interests of millions of Americans who would like to feel as if the space program were their space program? Instead, millions of Americans must accept the directives of public agencies and they feel alienated by it all.

I am fully aware of the controversial nature of these suggestions. But I've also learned that Americans need to be sold and want to be sold. The public has an abiding interest in space. Let's find a way to reach people without sacrificing the long-term goals of the space program.


Summarizing and Moving Forward

To elevate space exploration and development to a national priority will be a challenge. The goal implies a return to the enthusiasm for space in the early 1960s, but 2006 is undeniably a different time with different conditions. Because so many compelling interests compete for scarce public resources, we must clearly demonstrate how the space program reflects real long-term value.

In this chapter, I have shared some of what I have learned as host of The Space Show(r). You may be curious to know what others in the space community have said in response to this information. I can sum it up quickly: The feedback has been both positive and defensive. All sorts of reasons have been given to discount what I have shared with you, among these are that The Space Show(r) audience is too small to be statistically significant, that as a host I am too negative, that I seek out these types of listeners, or that The Space Show(r) simply appeals to opinionated people. Yet another thing I've learned is that because the space community is not always open minded, and I can expect rationalizations to deflect unwanted information.

The Space Show(r) has changed me, not just in how I think and see space development, but in all sorts of ways I never imagined. I know how easy it is to be seduced by space-its promises, toys, and adventure, and learning to be grounded in reality is, I believe, an important quality for spacers to possess.

For me, the proof of what I say is simple. When will the United States be comfortable with its role as a space-faring nation? How much real support is there for the Vision for Space Exploration? Will it continue when President Bush leaves office? Will Congress continue to finance the space program, and at what level? What about the embryonic New Space Industry? Will it confirm the existence of markets and demand? If so, when? Will NASA open up its programs to be more inclusive for both the developing New Space Industry and the American people? Will space programs start connecting with more Americans? I believe that we can have positive answers and outcomes to many, if not all, of these questions, but I also believe that we need to change the way we do things, talk about space, reach out to people, run our education programs, and prioritize space as a national objective.

If we continue with business as usual, I suspect that we will see some advancement, mission successes, and positive headlines, but a relatively slow evolution in our space program. But if we learn to reexamine the benefits of space development and bring more people into our vision, I know that space will finally become the important national goal that it deserves to be.

References

About the Author

Extracted from the book Beyond Earth - The Future of Humans in Space edited by Bob Krone ©2006 Apogee Books ISBN 978-1-894959-41-4

Buy This Book Click here

Retrieved from "http://www.thespacelibrary.com/mediawiki/index.php/Beyond_Earth_%28ATWG%29_-_Chapter_12_-_Space_as_a_Popular_National_Goal_by_David_Livingston"