...Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!

jonathan wrote:

In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup
issued this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=

Strange to see an organization like Gallup suddenly taking a political
stand. Very unusual. I won't comment on their numbers, but certainly, the
way that question was phrased, a negative result was guaranteed. They might
as well have asked: "What would you like to spend 10 billion dollars on -
the poor little starving children or a trip to Mars?"

Meanwhile, the Vision to send humans back to the moon and to
mars is going ahead.

Thank goodness.

They're spending as fast as they can to
lock-in this program

Of course. Makes sense.

that Lockheed and other contractors strong-armed
taxpayers and voters into paying for.

Arh, come on! It's a democracy - stop whining and vote for someone else next
time!

A space program to nowhere.

Oh, to nowhere - and I thought they were going to Mars ;-) For the first
time in 30 years, the American space program actually has a substantial
destination.

Costing hundreds of billions, and taking decades of precious time
that could be used for far more worthy projects such as
new energy sources and global warming solutions.

And just why isn't going to Mars a worthy project? I cannot think of a more
worthy project! It's actually true what Griffin said: NASA gets 10 billion
dollars each year. What would you like them to do with it? New energy
sources is certainly important, and I agree more money should be spent on
it, but those money shouldn't be taken from the space program!

The space program is really an investment in the future of our descendants
in much the same way as research into alternative energy sources is.

/steen

In article ,
"Steen Eiler Jørgensen" wrote:

A space program to nowhere.

Oh, to nowhere - and I thought they were going to Mars ;-)

Why do you think that? The VSE is going to the Moon. Mars was
mentioned along with "other destinations" merely in passing.

And just why isn't going to Mars a worthy project? I cannot think of a more
worthy project!

Then you're not very imaginative. Let me turn it around: why WOULD
going to Mars be a worthy project? What benefit will it produce for
humanity?

Compare this to, say, developing cislunar infrastructure, which will
actually contribute in a substantial way to making us a true spacefaring
civilization; or developing solar power satellites, which would solve
one of our century's most pressing problems (providing clean, safe
energy without further disrupting our planet's climate).

New energy sources is certainly important, and I agree more money
should be spent on it, but those money shouldn't be taken from the
space program!

I think you've missed the point there -- space solar power is one of the
most likely new energy sources that could actually contribute the bulk
of the world's energy needs. Developing that wouldn't be taking money
away from the space program; it would obviously BE the space program.

This argument is moot, however, since it seems quite clear that it's not
going to happen, not from NASA in the next couple of decades anyway.
But maybe Richard Branson will do it.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout wrote:

Why do you think that? The VSE is going to the Moon. Mars was
mentioned along with "other destinations" merely in passing.

Of course. Mea culpa. Perhaps wishful thinking ;-)

And just why isn't going to Mars a worthy project? I cannot think of
a more worthy project!

Then you're not very imaginative.

I can think of a great many projects, all of which would be worthy. Going to
Mars is one of the better.

Let me turn it around: why WOULD going to Mars be a worthy
project? What benefit will it produce for humanity?

The short answer: Read Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" ;-) There are so many
good reasons to go to Mars listed in that book.

Compare this to, say, developing cislunar infrastructure, which will
actually contribute in a substantial way to making us a true
spacefaring civilization;

That is also a very good idea.

or developing solar power satellites, which
would solve one of our century's most pressing problems (providing
clean, safe energy without further disrupting our planet's climate).

The economic feasibility of SPS is disputed. But research into nonfossil
energy sources is of course of paramount importance.

I think you've missed the point there -- space solar power is one of
the most likely new energy sources that could actually contribute the
bulk of the world's energy needs.

I beg to differ. I believe SPS is infeasible, at least for the next 50-75
years, and that our focus in space should be on, well, space, and not the
Earth.

Developing that wouldn't be taking
money away from the space program; it would obviously BE the space
program.

Well, I don't want production of energy for earthly purposes to BE the space
program - I want a visionary space program that actually takes human beings
somewhere else.

This argument is moot, however, since it seems quite clear that it's
not going to happen, not from NASA in the next couple of decades
anyway. But maybe Richard Branson will do it.

Maybe he will ;-) Let's hope someone will.

/steen

In article ,
"Steen Eiler Jørgensen" wrote:

Let me turn it around: why WOULD going to Mars be a worthy
project? What benefit will it produce for humanity?

The short answer: Read Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" ;-) There are so many
good reasons to go to Mars listed in that book.

Zubrin says a lot of things -- from my impression, he'll say just about
anything if it supports his burning desire for Mars. I don't share (nor
understand) this desire myself, and I find much of his reasoning
unconvincing, if not just plain wrong. (For example, he makes
ridiculous claims about the difficulties of growing food under
artificial light.)

The economic feasibility of SPS is disputed. But research into nonfossil
energy sources is of course of paramount importance.

The economic feasibility of SPS will continue to be disputed until it's
actually done. Until then, all we have are projections, and two
reasonable people's projections may differ wildly -- thus the dispute.
This is why actual engineering projects to develop these systems would
be so valuable.

(And unlike, say, fusion, it is strictly an engineering/economic
problem; no new science is required, nor any "new" technology -- just
new applications of existing technology.)

I think you've missed the point there -- space solar power is one of
the most likely new energy sources that could actually contribute the
bulk of the world's energy needs.

I beg to differ. I believe SPS is infeasible, at least for the next 50-75
years, and that our focus in space should be on, well, space, and not the
Earth.

I believe your belief is way off. Reference: "Advanced Technology Paths
to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet," Hoffert et
al., Science 298:981-987 (November 2002).

Developing that wouldn't be taking money away from the space program;
it would obviously BE the space program.

Well, I don't want production of energy for earthly purposes to BE the space
program - I want a visionary space program that actually takes human beings
somewhere else.

Well, OK, I can understand that. Though most likely, building SPS
plants on a large scale would require a LOT of human beings in HEO,
living and working in space stations far larger than what we've yet
built, if not in actual space colonies.

This argument is moot, however, since it seems quite clear that it's
not going to happen, not from NASA in the next couple of decades
anyway. But maybe Richard Branson will do it.

Maybe he will ;-) Let's hope someone will.

Indeed. I've grown rather skeptical that NASA is going to have much
relevance at all this century in opening the space frontier, but I'm
growing optimistic that they will at least stay out of the way. And
it's still possible they will do some good, e.g. by sponsoring prizes
and serving as an early customer for launch providers.

Meanwhile, an awful lot of private money and energy are starting to
mobilize and push upward. This is the best hope for humanity, I think.

Best,
- Joe

"Steen Eiler Jørgensen" wrote in message
news:4538e1e6$0$49204



I beg to differ. I believe SPS is infeasible, at least for the next 50-75
years,

It'll take almost that long to get people to Mars.


and that our focus in space should be on, well, space, and not the
Earth.


There's two important points to make about SPS as a Nasa long
term goal.

The first, and most important, is that the general public would
easily understand the tangible benefits, not just for a new
energy source, but also with global warming.
A /single goal/ that could address two of the greatest
long term planetary problems. The benefit to Nasa
in terms of public support and funding should be clear.

The second point is that the very first prerequisite for SPS
to work is to build cheap access to space. SPS won't
have a chance without gobs of flights. Cheap access
enables /any other/ worthy goal that might evolve from
the research. A 'power-plug' in space for space craft
would probably come before large scale power
generation.

SPS as a goal would achieve the two greatest things needed
to build a space faring future. And in the proper order.

Public support/funding
Space Infrastructure

Bush is doing the opposite, as a wasteful goal erodes
support and funding. Which means skipping past
the infrastructure and settling for the single score.
Just like Apollo.



Developing that wouldn't be taking
money away from the space program; it would obviously BE the space
program.

Well, I don't want production of energy for earthly purposes to BE the
space
program - I want a visionary space program that actually takes human
beings
somewhere else.

This argument is moot, however, since it seems quite clear that it's
not going to happen, not from NASA in the next couple of decades
anyway. But maybe Richard Branson will do it.



I firmly believe that if an idea is the better one, it'll get
around in time. With all the research Nasa has already
done over the years, it's not like this is some sci-fi
pipe-dream. Right up until Bush took office SSP was still
being actively studied.





Maybe he will ;-) Let's hope someone will.

/steen

"Steen Eiler Jørgensen" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup
issued this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=

Strange to see an organization like Gallup suddenly taking a political
stand. Very unusual. I won't comment on their numbers, but certainly, the
way that question was phrased, a negative result was guaranteed. They
might
as well have asked: "What would you like to spend 10 billion dollars on -
the poor little starving children or a trip to Mars?"

Implying going the moon and mars is free is certaintly misleading.
Even if the budget stayed the same, the trade-offs in space
and earth science would be a huge cost.

The question Nasa used is easily the less honest one.
Let me write another question using the same tactic.

"Do you support lower taxes, a higher standard of living, less
crime, lower deficits and staying the course in Iraq?"

And then claim overwhelming support for the current
policy in Iraq.

That's what Nasa did, they built a compound question
with several easy to say yes to, so they can get
an artificially high response to the moon and mars.

Asking the questions one at a time, as Gallup did, should
be the more honest way. And if you look at the Gallup
poll again, you'll see they've been asking the
same question since the sixties with the similar
results.

s

"Steen Eiler Jørgensen" wrote in message
...

The short answer: Read Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" ;-) There are so many
good reasons to go to Mars listed in that book.

My impression has been that TCfM pretty much proceeds from the assumption
that colonizing Mars would be a good thing, and then tells us how to best
get there and how to accomplish that. I'm not sure any of the reasons for
settling Mars he mentioned would influence a Joe Sixpack who wasn't already
afire with the dream of settlements beyond the Earth to start with.

Well, I don't want production of energy for earthly purposes to BE the
space program - I want a visionary space program that actually takes human
beings somewhere else.

Joe has already mentioned the space habitats which could result from a
serious SPS program. Now consider that the workers living in those habitats
would be working space resources by the megaton (derived from either the
moon, a NEA, or both). They would be turning out tons of steel, aluminum,
titanium, glass, solar cells, oxygen, etc. In a world like that, not only
would mounting an expedition to Mars be a snap, but even a large program of
massive settlement would be a piece of cake.

In such a world, the issue wouldn't be whether or not the US will go to
Mars, it will be whether the National Geographic Society will.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

Mike Combs wrote:

My impression has been that TCfM pretty much proceeds from the
assumption that colonizing Mars would be a good thing, and
then tells us how to best get there and how to accomplish
that.

Pretty much every space colonization scheme makes similar
assumptions. They're just easier to recognize in the other guy's
plans.

Jim Davis

Joe Strout wrote:

Compare this to, say, developing cislunar infrastructure, which will
actually contribute in a substantial way to making us a true spacefaring
civilization; or developing solar power satellites, which would solve
one of our century's most pressing problems (providing clean, safe
energy without further disrupting our planet's climate).

VSE is as much about that as it is about going to Mars ... that is, 'not'.

Paul

Why do we accept lies from our government?

Gallup Organization issues unusual 'video rebuttal' to Nasa Administrator
Griffin and his claim of public support for Moon/Mars missions.
.... link below




How many times have we heard Nasa and Griffin claim that
some 3/4ths of the public support sending people back to the
Moon and to Mars?

The poll they quote was commissioned by the
Coalition for Space Exploration, which is a lobbyist
front for the following corporations, among them...
http://www.spacecoalition.com/home.html


ATK Thiokol
The Boeing Company
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
Honeywell
Pratt & Whitney
Raytheon


The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll question the contractor lobbyist
group used follows.


"In January 2004, a new plan or goal for space exploration was announced.
The plan includes a stepping-stone approach to return the space shuttle
to flight, complete assembly of the space station, build a replacement
for the shuttle, go back to the Moon, and then on to Mars and beyond.
If NASA's new budget did not exceed one percent of the federal
budget, to what extent would you support or oppose this new
plan for space exploration?"'
http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000597.html


To disagree with this statement, one would have to oppose
ever flying the shuttle again, oppose completing the ISS
oppose a shuttle replacement, support an 'all at once' approach
and support higher Nasa budgets.

It's difficult to imagine a more biased or loaded poll question.

Yet Griffin cites this poll to Congress.


"Recent and very specific public opinion surveys do in fact show a
broad consensus in support of our new goals in space. Assuming
that funding levels for NASA do not exceed one percent of the budget
- and we should be so fortunate - fully three-fourths of the American
people support the goals of the Vision.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ffins_s_1.html



"Have you stopped beating your wife ...questions"
....Mike Griffin



In an rare rebuttal of Griffin's use of this biased poll, Gallup issued
this video reponse showing the true level of public support
for the Vision.
http://www.galluppoll.com/videoArchive/?ci=17596&pg=

I would have to agree with Griffin's statement in the video
that 'you can get almost any answer you like' with polls
in how they are worded. But it should be clear that it's Nasa
and Griffin that are playing the word game, and
loose with the truth.

To go from 75% support to 40% can't be called a generous
spin, it has to called what it is.

The Big Lie!

By claiming large public support in sworn statements, when
the facts show ..."negative"... public support according to Gallup.

Meanwhile, the Vision to send humans back to the moon and to
mars is going ahead. They're spending as fast as they can to
lock-in this program that Lockheed and other contractors strong-armed
taxpayers and voters into paying for.

A space program to nowhere.

Costing hundreds of billions, and taking decades of precious time
that could be used for far more worthy projects such as
new energy sources and global warming solutions.

Why do we accept this?

In a democracy, we're supposed to tell them what to do.


Jonathan


s