"Terrell Miller" wrote in message
...
"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...

But selling a better future for people or their children,

NASA's been flying the Spinoffs flag for decades. People stopped believing
them years ago.
I didnt mean spinoffs. I meant as direct benefit from what is being done in
space.

either through
potential for clean energy sources from space ( SPS) ,

Bull****. utter bilge. SPS as a ground-based power supply is a massive
boondoggle.
Even if it will turn out to be "utter bilge" ( which i dont think it will),
its worth a try. ( I never said a word about launching all the stuff from
earth, for SPS )

You completely, entirely, with absolute certainty missed the entire point of
my post. I wasnt pitching another pet project, i wasnt pitching an solution
or destination. I dont care about endless circular arguments whether space
solar power, space tourism, space resources, or mars colonization could
technically be made to work. Any of those things might work, and it might
not. At least it doesnt mean we definitely should not try.

I was merely trying to find a .. fundamental drive for a space effort, that
lots of people could get behind. An overarching goal.

Like some said, for shuttle it was "cheaper space flight". Well, for Joe
Average it doesnt mean squat. So what if Delta V will cost ten times less
than its precedessor, Joe still cannot even imagine going to space himself.
Even some space advocates do not give a rats ass about cheaper space flight,
as long as their pet destination gets attention.
There was a grand meeting by space advocacy groups a couple of months ago,
Space Settlement Summit i think. They found the common driver to be "space
settlement". Well, for long-term vision this would work, but for near-term,
talking about space settlement to general public will be like talking about
benefits of living in Paris to native americans five hundred years ago. Joe
doesnt _want_ to live in space. Neither does he believe its possible for at
least a couple of centuries yet.
Now economic, and to somewhat lesser extent, ecologic benefits are something
that Joe could understand. So if you sell him the idea of thriving space
thrill ride industry after a decade is out, he actually might get
interested. If you sell the idea of clean power from space for his children,
he might get interested.

In short, should it be,
"ten thousand people will visit space before the decade is over", ( really ?
you mean like ... regular people ? )
"one percent of power production will come from space before the decade is
over" ( really ? how is it possible ? i thought we had to burn coal forever,
or cover the fields with windmills to cope )
"we are going to colonize space" ( umm .. ? WHAT? like star trek ? )

as opposed to traditional:
"we will have _cheaper_ space flight before the decade is over" ( no,
honestly, who cares ? )
"we will visit moon before the decade is over" ( Really ? Again ? Why ? )
"we will visit mars before the decade is over" ( some sci and space nuts
will get psyched, others will pull their hair. General public will read the
headlines and forget )
"we will build a new shiny spaceship before the decade is over" ( yeah,
w00t )
"we are going to .... enhance science in space before the decade is over"
( ok )

Now i know, like 99% of people will say that space will never turn any
economic or ecologic benefit ( of course forgetting current remote sensing
and communications satellites ), or we cant have that before we have those
other things ( cheap access, moonbases, whatever ). Well i just think
selling a simple destination as a reason itself for having a space effort,
will not work anymore.
You need to have a clear, believable reason for going there. And it has to
have a direct, traceable benefit for Joe or his children. Otherwise, you
wont get much support.

You have that reason, you devise best path, the means, intermediate goals of
getting there ( which actually might include one of those pet goals ) There
are countless roadmaps already developed for implementing either space
settlement, space solar power, and even space tourism ( X-Prize Cup, ISS as
a tourist destination etc. )

To make a long story short, im hoping that GWB will not be talking about
humanitys future, importance of science, our natural need to explore and
somesuch if and when he makes he's announcement at Kitty Hawk. I also hope
that he doesnt say that we need to go back to the moon for importance of
science, need to explore, or humanitys future, or general "benefit of
humankind". Neither to mars.
Im hoping he says something along the lines "from now on, NASA will work to
make space accessible for regular people. Ten thousand people will visit
space, before the decade is over", or, "our energy future belongs to space.
We will make a start, and produce 1% of power in space by the end of this
decade. Its a small, but important first step to take", or something that i
havent thought of, but would make _some sense_. I think i have about 0.01%
chance of being right.

-kert