From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: Seattle NASA town meeting reflections.
Organization: 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:14:29 GMT

Well, I went to the Seattle NASA Town meeting.  Aftter much deliberation, I
had 2 questions, one was short and pointed, and given to me (well, the
bulk of it) by Henry Spencer, and the other I wrote myself.  It was a
more majestic, and threatening question, covering more topics, and I was
sure it would not be received as well.  So, I was going to ask MY question
(Something like...  Mr. Goldin, you have done an excellent job of refocusing
NASA on the projects that it has at hand, but I still see a lack of focus
for the organization as a whole.  You state in the flyer that the goal of NASA
is to expand the frontiers of ARI and SPACE for the benifits of all.  To this 
end, I feel that there are many things that NASA is doing now that they should
NOT be doing, and many things that  they SHOULD be doing.  I think that the
best way to elucidate this is Ross Perot style, and hit the most important
highlights.  1: Mission to planet earth should not be done by NASA, it is not 
space science, it is earth science that just happens to be done in space.  I
believe that this work is outside the scope of nasa.  This is not to say that 
it is not important work, it is, but it should ne done by NOAA whose charter
covers this area much better.  2:  The shuttle is a vehicle that will never
be commercialized, and as such can never be used by the vast majority of us.
In this respect it is a failure.  I believe that NASA needs to keep doing 
launch systems work, until one that is commercially viable is developed.
To this end, I believe that NASA OUGHT to be doing work like the single stage
to orbit DC-X craft that is being built by McD for the SDIO people.  3:  There
need to be many more small science missions.  These are one of the areas where
NASA has been tremendously sucessfull in the past, but we need more of this
kind of work, and finally 4, the space station is the prime example of a 
NASA project with NO focus.  The vast majority of the population sees SSF as 
a tube in the sky with air in it, and they have NO CLUE what it is for.  I think
that it is a wonderfull concept, but until it has a clear 1 or 2 paragraph
MISSION statement, the american people can never support it.  Can you
address how you plan to refocus NASA on some of these LARGER more FAR reaching
issues?  )

So, they called for questions, and being the agressive type, I had gotten there
an hour early, and got a seat 2 feet from the mike, I stood up, and naturally
was first in line. They called Prof. Hertzberger (Of the U.W.) from the other
line first, and he asked how NASA would get off the Tiger of the Shuttle.

Then they pointed to me, and I felt myself turn the page over and ask the 
second question.  (Amazing how that works, If I had been one on one with the
man, I vertainly would have asked the first question), in any case what came
out of my mouth was...  Given that we badly need a more efficient, better faster
cheaper reusable space launch vehicle that can be commercialized, and given the
success of the earlier X-Planes program, Shouldn't NASA be persuing an
X-Launcher program similar to the Single Stage to Orbit DC-X vehicle being 
built by McD for the SDIO people?

So, he answered it as 2 parts, first, he said that the x-plane program was
wonderful, and that they were ready to fly a scramjet in the 60's.  Then he
said that NASA plate was full, and that they should not take on any new
development until they deliver on the promises that they have already made.
He made mention of the fact that there are a lot of launch vehicle proposals,
but it was tiome to stop spending money on infrastructure, and get back to
space science.

I was mind numb at the time, so I sat down.

I wish I had been op the ball, I would have called him on it.  Thankfully
2 or 3 other people made mention of alternative launch systems, and Richard
Kendrick (who I talked to during the break) made a more pointed attack to
the panel.  He said basically...  I disagree with Mr. Goldin that we do not
need more launch systems.  I think that we need to explore options for ...
I forget the exact text.  The panel then dished out far more clearly than
goldin the same story.  NASA is WAY to busy with the projects that they have
promised, to take on new launch systems development.  He followed up, and they
said it again, then he said that "Well, we could debate this all day, but I 
still disagree."  It is interesting that he hates SSTO, and thinks that
ultimately a TSTO will prove to be the "REAL" answer, but I am glad that
he stood up for the concept that NASA should be doing the R & D.

After the meeting, I walked up onto the stage (with some others) and
talked to Mr. Reck for about 20 minutes.  (The guy in charge of the Advanced
Concepts and Technology Office), I started by telling him, that I thought the
point had been missed about SSTO, the point was that the Shuttle would never
be commercialized, and that what we wanted was the development work, the proof
of concept work to be done by NASA for a system that COULD be commercialized,
so that we all would have a shot at buying a ride into space.  He replied with
(and I paraphrase)  Well, I think that here, interestingly more so than at any
of the other town meetings, the launch system point came home. it was mentioned
more, and I think the message was that you are looking for the development
for all.

On another note, A lady did say that Mission to Planet Earth should be
moved to Noaa, and the reply text was that noaa couldn't find their own
satellites without the help of nasa, let alone launch them, much less analyze
the data.  I talked to that guy after the meeting for a moment, and told
him that that was not the point.  The point was the charter.  It is really
inside the NOAA jurisdiction, and not the NASA jurisdiction, and yes, I
realize that it is taking one of the crown jewels from nasa, and it is a 
threatening concept, but mission to planet earth is not space science, it
is earth science done from space.  He grudgingly gave me that point, and
said that if it turns out to be so important to the future of the world,
maybe a new agency would evolve out of it.  He never considered noaa up to
the challenge.


On a side note, there were several thoughtfull questions from both the 
women and the men in line.  There were also mindless ramblings from 
people in line  (bordering on the embarassing).  There were also important
questions raised, but the presentation was sooooo bad.  There was one
guy who wwent on for a long time about power, never once using the term
solar power satellites.  Someone next to me asked what the hell he was 
rambeling on about, and I explained the entire subject in the time his 
question was going on.  He should have just asked why nasa was not
building a demonstration solar power satellite, in order to learn if the system
would really work, and to reduce the risk for venture capitol people who would
love to invest in it.


The one thing that suprised me (although in reflection it should not) was the
number of questions on education.  How do we find out what nasa is doing, and
how do we teach our kids?  There were several times when the same question
on this topic was asked 2 or 3 times in a row by the people in line.

In reflection, there were a great number of issues that should have been raised
but weren't.  I kept wishing for some more specific questions, on certain
issues, but we kept getting rehashes of the same education stuff over and over
and over again.

Final thoughts based on the meeting:
I think that Nasa'c culture is not yet changed from the NIH syndrome, and
it will take a great effort for that to change.

I think that the Nasa people who were there did come away with a sense that
they have a long way to go in a great number of areas.

I think that it was a worthwhile effort both for the Nasa people, and the people
who attended the meeting.

I think that if they do it again, they need to advertize for a more general
crowd.

And finally I must thank Henry Spencer for the substance of my question, and
Bill Higgins for telling me to get there early to get a seat by the mike.

			John Stevens-Schlick

Newsgroups: sci.space