Americans Still Support NASA

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia...ory2A9473A.htm

"Americans still support NASA -
Accidents an acceptable risk, poll finds"
Gannett News Service
Aug 18, 7:26 PM

WASHINGTON -- Americans love their space program, especially after
tragedy strikes, according to a USA TODAY-CNN-Gallup Poll.

Six months after shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry, support
to increase NASA's budget is as high as it has been since the Challenger
disaster in 1986, the poll found. People also said that some deadly
accidents were "an acceptable price to pay" for space travel.

But the poll results and interviews with space historians reveal a
troublesome undercurrent: The public's affection for space exploration
isn't very deep. Those polled placed a low priority on spaceflight,
compared to federal spending on defense and health care. That leaves
NASA vulnerable when the economy turns bad or political tides run
against its interests.

The depth of public support could prove crucial in the coming months.
Next week, the board investigating the cause of the Columbia disaster is
set to release its findings. Its report is expected to sharply criticize
NASA and call for improving safety in the shuttle program. Reaction to
the report by members of Congress and their constituents will play a
critical role in whether NASA will get the resources it needs.

Pollsters interviewed 1,003 people Aug. 4-6. The poll is accurate to
within 3 percentage points. It found:

Only 17 percent of people said spending on the space program should be
cut. That's less than half of the 41 percent who wanted spending cuts in
1993. The level is the lowest since 1989, just months after shuttle
flights resumed following the Challenger explosion.

The number of people who favor increasing NASA funding, 24 percent, is
the highest since 1989. About half of those polled said they prefer
current funding levels, the highest since 1986.

The public accepts some risk that astronauts will die. Only 17 percent
considered any shuttle accidents "unacceptable." Slightly fewer than
half, 43 percent, said they would accept one accident every 100 flights;
32 percent said they would accept an accident every 50 missions or more.
Two shuttles have crashed in 113 flights.

"Support goes up when there's a crisis," says Roger Launius, chairman of
the space history division at the Smithsonian National Air and Space
Museum. A similar surge in support occurred in the years after
Challenger.

But Launius and others think the public's feelings about space are
fickle.

When asked if they would shave money from the space budget to fund other
programs, people overwhelmingly favored defense and health care. Only
welfare fared more poorly than NASA funding.

NASA's budget was cut during the 1990s, with even steeper cuts to the
shuttle program. Most people polled were unaware of those cuts. Only 29
percent of people thought NASA's budget had shrunk during the past 10
years compared to the overall federal budget. Nearly twice as many
people, 56 percent, thought the budget had remained the same or
increased.

[end of article]

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

Six months after shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry, support
to increase NASA's budget is as high as it has been since the Challenger
disaster in 1986, the poll found. People also said that some deadly
accidents were "an acceptable price to pay" for space travel.

I don't know if I'd call those accidents "acceptable" (especially in the case
of Challenger), however, at least the public seems to recognize that NASA is in
a risky buisness.

But the poll results and interviews with space historians reveal a
troublesome undercurrent: The public's affection for space exploration
isn't very deep. Those polled placed a low priority on spaceflight,
compared to federal spending on defense and health care.

As honestly, it probably should be...though I hate seeing the money wasted on
this war in Iraq in the name of "national security"...some of that money would
probably be better spent invested in NASA.

The level is the lowest since 1989, just months after shuttle
flights resumed following the Challenger explosion.

......

1989 was "months" after Challenger?

NASA's budget was cut during the 1990s, with even steeper cuts to the
shuttle program. Most people polled were unaware of those cuts. Only 29
percent of people thought NASA's budget had shrunk during the past 10
years compared to the overall federal budget. Nearly twice as many
people, 56 percent, thought the budget had remained the same or
increased.


Typical...I recall Michael Collins mentioning in his book that people seem
rather unaware of just how much (or) little of their taxes get spent on NASA.
Because of the extravagance of the program though its easy to try and pick and
and say "oh, we can shave a little off their budget".

I'm sure the usual talk about how ISS was eating up funds probably creates the
image to the public that NASA is getting more money.

-A.L.

"MasterShrink" wrote in message ...
Six months after shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry, support
to increase NASA's budget is as high as it has been since the Challenger
disaster in 1986, the poll found. People also said that some deadly
accidents were "an acceptable price to pay" for space travel.

snip

In my home I have explained the harsh reality of never having manned space flight again.
It was a pretty convincing argument. I picture it as our population being stranded here
on Earth with it's depleting resources with no way of getting to an alternate site.

That is just one small aspect of it. Is Earth strong enough to support life forever
with no end? At some point would we have to relocate and start over?

PM

(MasterShrink) wrote in
:

The level is the lowest since 1989, just months after shuttle
flights resumed following the Challenger explosion.

1989 was "months" after Challenger?

Months after return-to-flight, not the accident itself.

NASA's budget was cut during the 1990s, with even steeper cuts to the
shuttle program. Most people polled were unaware of those cuts. Only
29 percent of people thought NASA's budget had shrunk during the past
10 years compared to the overall federal budget. Nearly twice as many
people, 56 percent, thought the budget had remained the same or
increased.

Typical...I recall Michael Collins mentioning in his book that people
seem rather unaware of just how much (or) little of their taxes get
spent on NASA. Because of the extravagance of the program though its
easy to try and pick and and say "oh, we can shave a little off their
budget".

ISTR there was a poll long ago (70s or 80s) that asked what percentage of
the federal budget 1) people *thought* NASA got, and 2) people thought NASA
*should* get. The median was around 20% for 1), 10% for 2). If they only
knew NASA gets 0.7% now...


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In message , MasterShrink
writes

The level is the lowest since 1989, just months after shuttle
flights resumed following the Challenger explosion.

.....

1989 was "months" after Challenger?


Months after flights resumed.

Is support affected by reporting of a major failure, such as the Hubble
mirror problem?
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

"Paul Maxson" wrote in message
...

"MasterShrink" wrote in message
...
Six months after shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry, support
to increase NASA's budget is as high as it has been since the
Challenger
disaster in 1986, the poll found. People also said that some deadly
accidents were "an acceptable price to pay" for space travel.

snip

In my home I have explained the harsh reality of never having manned space
flight again.
It was a pretty convincing argument. I picture it as our population being
stranded here
on Earth with it's depleting resources with no way of getting to an
alternate site.

What resources exactly are we depleting?


That is just one small aspect of it. Is Earth strong enough to support
life forever
with no end? At some point would we have to relocate and start over?


Probably in a few billion years when the Sun goes to Red Giant phase.
PM

In my home I have explained the harsh reality of never having manned space
flight again.
It was a pretty convincing argument. I picture it as our population being
stranded here
on Earth with it's depleting resources with no way of getting to an alternate
site.

That is just one small aspect of it. Is Earth strong enough to support life
forever
with no end? At some point would we have to relocate and start over?

PM



Ahh just 2 points. The end to shuttles and even ISS isnt necessarily the end
to maned spaceflight. As a matrter if fact a LESS EXPENSIVE manned ship just
might get us moving again. Doing essentially the same round and round
endlessely while having folks die because of management errors, now THAT can
kill manned space

Imagine putting the money we toss down the shuttles blackhole budget on a new
capsule system to orbit? Lower costs, more flights, cargo version?

Remember the shuttles yearly budget divided by its flight rate of about 4 per
year

EQUALS ONE BILLION PER FLIGHT

Certinally we can do better than this!

Were like a family with a old worn out car. It costing a fortune to keep on the
road. Its old design isnt as safe, practical, or cost effective anymore.

But the replacement cost is just so much we cant afford a new one, and only
bite the bullet when theres no choice.

NASA studies new designs but never bends any metal. For two solid reasons.

1 Too many jobs and money are dependent on the existing program. That standing
amy would shrink dramatically with a new system. No one really wants to see
people loose their jobs. The culture remembers the end of apollo, where every
flight meant more layoffs.

2 The cost to design and build a new system for NASA is just too much. They
doint have the bucks. They are all being spent on the old car

I fear it will take one or two more lost vehicles and crew to get a new low
cost practical launch system.

Now back to your original point. That we must be in space to keep the species
alive. I agree completely but sadly the present system is a hindrance rather
than a help. Shuttles are tying up resources and have little to show for it.

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/html/starsbackground.htm
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101stars.html gives a decent
explanation of stellar evolution - the gist is that, in a few billion
years, under current theories, the sun will extend to somewhere around
Jupiter. Probably a good idea to have moved out the neigbourhood by
then, if we're still around...

Shave that number down to "a couple of hundred million", actually. Earth
will be uninhabitable long before it's swallowed up inside the sun itself. I
read this in an article in Astronomy magazine, I think... I'll see what I
can dig up.

In any case, the sooner we get off this rock, the better.

The public is supporting NASA. Frankly, I think most of the public
always has. I've yet to meet someone who is vehemently opposed to
space exploration. Most people think it is interesting at the least.

I also think that the US government missed a real oppurtunity to
recapture some of that enthusiasm that existed during the 1960's. Set
the wayback machine to the mid 90's. Hubble was repaired with a
brilliant EVA and bringing back pretty pictures. Apollo 11 was 25
years old. The movie "Apollo 13" was very popular. NASA scored big
with Pathfinder and Sojourner. The press, usually very negative about
space exploration, was finally willing to admit that Apollo was more
important than Woodstock. John Glenn was in training. Astronauts were
heroes again. I really think the public wanted more of what we had in
the 60's and less of endless studies and viewgraphs.

But yet our elected leaders and appointed officials didn't feel the
groundswell. NASA bungled some Mars missions. ISS started to overun.
Suddenly it was like the 70's all over again. By the time John Glenn
got his second ride, it was all over.

Gene

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message . ..
In article , Paul Maxson wrote:

I have never heard of "Red Giant" phase. Work with me. Are
you saying the sun is a star and like a light bulb has a certain life
span and then will burn out like smaller ones do?

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/html/starsbackground.htm
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101stars.html gives a decent
explanation of stellar evolution - the gist is that, in a few billion
years, under current theories, the sun will extend to somewhere around
Jupiter. Probably a good idea to have moved out the neigbourhood by
then, if we're still around...

--
-Andrew Gray


Fascinating,

Thanks for the links and info, much to read. Do we have a plan of escape in place
or is it sort of like cross the bridge when we come to it? I mean it's like give or
take thousands of years right? That's allot of lives.

PM