Feedback: What did you think of this show?:
Guests: Dr. Haym Benaroya, Dr. John Jurist. Topics: U.S. Space Policy & how it is made & funded. Human spaceflight, Congress. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. In addition, on the blog following this article, you will find the chart we refer to in Dr. Benaroya's book on page 90, "Turning Dust to Gold: Building a Future on the Moon and Mars." You will also find the space policy outline Dr. Jurist referred to during our discussion. We welcome your feedback, criticism, and we want to hear your suggestions for improving the way space policy is made and funded. During the first hour of this program, we summarized Part 1 which was aired on Sept. 13, 2011. We then said that rather than trying to create the "perfect" space policy, we decided to address the problems within the current system for making and funding space policy. We not only outlined a few of the basic problems, but we talked about the needed payoff for those who funded the mission, either from public monies (taxpayers) or investors in a private mission. Dr. Benaroya pointed us to a chart on page 90 in his Turning Dust To Gold book which showed the corresponding rise in advanced academic degrees following NASA spending for Apollo. As this chart will be on the blog, I urge all of you to check it out. As our discussion continued, we expanded upon the idea John presented last month for an independent panel modeled to some degree like the NRC or the FCC. Dr. Benaroya added in the multiplier effect which is reported in his book at the bottom of p. 90 which references a Nature article by Bezdek & Wendling from 1992. Both John and Haym listed several examples of what they were talking about and we took our first call from John in Atlanta. As a result of John's questions and comments, Dr. Jurist went over how he thought the independent committee would work regarding funding. In the end, Congress would still be funding annually but the independent space committee would be applying those funds to the projects selected on a competitive (not pork) basis and with accountability and milestones needing to be met to keep the project going from year to year to completion. The independent committee would be composed of professionals, full time, and from all segments of the space industry from New Space to government, DOD, and traditional aerospace. In the second hour in segment two, we solicited feedback from the listeners regarding how best to refine the program we described and get it in front of presidential candidates, including possibly the remaining Republican presidential debates, as well as key members of congress and their staff members. We also talked about our publishing options once we write up the idea, connecting the dots and after listening to your feedback and suggestions. Later in this segment, Ben called in with some additional ideas along with suggestions for getting our plan in front of the Republican presidential hopefuls as well as President Obama. As Ben is in New Jersey, I asked him about space in New Jersey. We learned that the industry does not have a strong presence in the state. Before closing our program, the three of us made it very clear that we want your feedback and suggestions so don't just criticize, let us know your ideas as well. Please post all comments, questions, and suggestions on the blog URL above. Remember, any private emails I get regarding this discussion will be posted on the blog under your name as the goal is to broaden this discussion as much as possible.