Thursday, June 5, 7:30pm

"What We Must Do To Make Space Exploration Happen: Speculation about the social forces that are slowing the space exploration effort, and ideas about what each of us can do."
A discussion led by Paul Beich

One of the most puzzling questions for space enthusiasts is, "When will space exploration really take off?". Humankind has proven it has the technical ability and resources to support large-scale space exploration projects, and yet the "powers that be" are constantly whittling away at the budgets of space agencies. Why? The speaker, Paul Beich, will offer ideas about the social and human forces that are behind this trend, as well as ideas about what each of us can do to move space exploration forward. The three assumptions of the speaker are: (1) Space exploration is important for our species (2) It's not moving as fast as it could and (3) There IS something we, the people, can do about it. Please join us.

May 1 Boston Chapter meeting:

"Do We Need NASA?" - The president of the Boston NSS chapter, Elaine Mullen, will moderate a discussion about the pros and cons of NASA as part of the space community. Please come and bring your comments and ideas and take part in this important discussion to find out where we stand as an NSS chapter on this controversial topic. All are welcome!

As the brand new president of the Boston chapter of NSS, my first instinct was to really get a clear idea about what our views are as a group. We simply cannot be a strong voice in the NSS if we're unclear about our views. I decided to have a series of group discussions to explore our beliefs on various topics. I felt it would be good to break away from the habit of having "lectures" at every meeting, and really get our members talking and participating.
     My intention with this first meeting was to consolidate our views about NASA. NASA was the most broad and controversial topic I could think of, and if we could get our views straight on this one, we would surely have a good solid ground to build on. However, I had a pretty good idea that it wouldn't be a piece of cake.
     I wanted to start off by briefly educating the newcomers about the basic structure of NASA. It went something like this:

1.  NASA's five enterprises:

     -Aeronautics Enterprise
          (Super fast planes and whatnot)
     -Human Exploration and Development of Space Enterprise
          (Space Shuttle, Space Station)
     -Mission to Planet Earth
          (Earth observing for weather, agriculture, and environment)
     -Space Science Enterprise
          (Exploring the solar system, the discovery program)
     -Space Technology Enterprise
          (Current X-vehicles, X-33, X-38)

2.  NASA's original and current goals, vision, and mission

3.  An extremely oversimplified overview of the budget:
     	13.5 billion dollars divided as follows:
          	-8 or so billion for human space flight in Low Earth Orbit
          	-the rest for everything else (Science, Aeronautics and 
               Technology, Mission Support, and Inspector General)

I'm afraid that having "NASA" in the title of our talk may have frightened away some of the newcomers who flocked to our last meeting to hear Jeff Foust talk about comet Hale-Bopp. This month we were only joined by the regulars, so I skipped the "NASA 101" class. I skimmed through those first slides and then we got right down to business.
     After my introduction, I encouraged the group to chime in with their opinions and comments at any time, so long as we stayed on the subject. I even encouraged them to come up front and talk for a couple of minutes if they had really strong opinions on a certain topic. They preferred to stay in their seats, however, they had no problem voicing their opinions. They chimed right in, and unfortunately, I quickly realized that we didn't agree on much of anything. In fact, during the course of the discussion, and I moved us through different topics, I had a hard time coming to a conclusion on ANY topic. There were usually at least two, sometimes three differing opinions in any one area.
     Our somewhat aggressive conversation continued for over two hours as we bulldozed through various areas of NASA politics, and then we talked and debated some more over refreshments. I had a list of closing statements that was meant for the tail end of the meeting to briefly review what we had just discussed. I had tried to predict what their responses would be to the statements, but most of my predictions were wrong, and when one person said their opinion, it always seemed like there was someone ready to counter-attack.
     I sent a follow up survey via e-mail to the Boston NSS members in the hopes that viewing their opinions in written form would make it more clear. I'll show some examples of their answers below, and this will also give an idea what topics we actually covered. I wanted to concentrate on areas that had to do with NASA vs. commercialization, the new X-vehicles and the controversy surrounding them, what areas NASA should spend more money on, and in what ways should they move aside and let Private companies handle operations, namely in Low Earth Orbit, etc.
     Not everyone who was at the meeting voicing their opinions actually responded to the survey, so the results of the survey don't accurately reflect the opinions expressed during our meeting. In fact, the responses to the survey seem to be much more in agreement. Perhaps if I had kept a slower and more controlled pace at our meeting, we would have found that we actually do agree on some key issues. Perhaps, if everyone would have paused...to let the questions I was presenting sink in...before blurting out their opinions, we would have found we were actually in agreement. The next meeting we have in our "Discussion Series" will proceed...more slowly.
     Before I show results from the survey, I will say that there is still much work on our part to be done to figure out where we stand on key issues. We need to play the devil's advocate with each other and really figure out why we think the way we do. I never expect us to agree on everything, and I don't think it would be healthy if we did, but on the other hand, we can't get much done if we disagree strongly on key issues. We must keep talking and re-evaluating our views and hopefully find some common ground so that we can become the strong voice that we want to be.

Responses to some of the questions on the follow-up NASA survey follow:

Question 1. Should NASA only focus on Research and Development, and turn over most operations in Low Earth Orbit to the private industry?

Answer 1. Shuttle operations & launches with non-experimental rockets [should be turned over] to private industry....

Answer 2. Yes. I see NASA's role as path breaker, not operations....

Answer 3. No.

Answer 4. NASA should focus on innovative, high risk R&D that industry can't or won't do (because of the risk) as well as cutting edge experimental satellite technology development programs. The Space Shuttle, ISS and mega-programs like Mission to Planet Earth should be run by industry where appropriate, other government agencies (e.g. Mission to Planet Earth should be run by NOAA who controls weather satellites and such) or a dedicated center like HST's Space Telescope Science Institute.

Question 2. Should NASA be prohibited from competing with private industry?

Answer 1. yes (not a strong opinion)

Answer 2. Yes. In fact I think this prohibition is the primary way the commercial/NASA interaction should be regulated. I am a little leery of anchor tenancy because this may freeze out other than the favored company.

Answer 3. No.

Answer 4. NASA should NOT compete against private industry where it is willing to develop a new technology. The whole debacle with the Space Shuttle, the resulting lag in US ELV technology and services and the rise of foreign launch services from China or Arianespace is the perfect example of how much such a policy hurts US competitiveness in the long run. Instead NASA should cooperate with private industry as in the DC-X or X-33 programs to help bring new technologies to maturity so that they can be incorporated with much reduced risk into space systems by industry.

Question 3. Should we be against NASA funding the final version of VentureStar if they decide to? Would it be directly competing with other private companies' RLVs?

Answer 1. yes, yes

Answer 2. Yes. However, it may be a good thing to guarantee a minimum number of flights at a maximum price. All companies could compete for these.

Answer 3. Only if they end up controlling the project then delaying it for their own reasons like they have with so many other promising space projects in the past.

Answer 4. As I stated above, yes. Once the new technologies that would be incorporated into VentureStar are developed, NASA should not be involved in its development. Instead NASA, the DoD, and other government agencies that use satellites should guarantee to use this system to launch their payloads once it is available (provided, of course, that it is really competitive with existing ELV services in terms of cost, reliability, availability, etc.)

Question 4. Should NASA create a new commercial development office at NASA? (please say no) :-)

Answer 1. no.

Answer 2. No

Answer 3. Why would they need to do this?

Answer 4. It should so long as the primary mission of this office is to move technologies developed from NASA-sponsored R&D into the commercial realm. They shouldn't be funding the development of these technologies into a commercial product. That's the job of private industry.

Question 5. Should NASA continue Mission to Planet Earth operations? If not, who should? Is it propaganda to get public support?

Answer 1. Don't know. It should be done, but not necessarily by NASA...

Answer 2. I think this kind of mission is really operational and thus not in NASA's bailiwick. NASA could test new sensors, etc., but should not handle the operation of a comprehensive system.

Answer 4. NASA should have a role in the development of the technologies needed for the instruments and what not but it should NOT be involved in its operations. Either NOAA (which runs the weather satellites) or an dedicated institution (such as HST's Space Telescope Science Center) should be running the program.

Question 6. We probably can't directly help or influence private companies to do business in space since they're profit driven, but are there things we can do to ensure that our government doesn't act as a barrier?

Answer 1. yes, e.g. Space Omnibus bill.

Answer 3. Who says we can't have an influence on private companies regarding space? I say we get to know them and see what we can do for them, regardless of profit motive. If we were some form of customer - or even better, a publicity machine - they would listen to us I believe. We are only inferior in our affects on the space programs if we believe ourselves to be.

As for our gov, since we are supposedly their bosses by being taxpayers, then we can ensure legislature that allows private companies to fly their machines into space, for one.

Answer 4. Talk to our congress critters to pass various pieces of legislation that favors the long term development of technologies. Because of the current tax laws, for example, it is virtually impossible for short-term profit driven US industry to plan much beyond a one or two year horizon. A positive change in this area will not only help space industry but many other areas of industry where we need to promote US competition in a world market.

Question 7. If we support NASA's mantra "Faster, Better, Cheaper", how can we support the Space Station? Do we fully support "Faster, Better, Cheaper"?

Answer 1. I don't fully support the space station...but it looks like it's a necessary evil: to keep money flowing into NASA & keep a highly visible presence. If there were a faster, better, AND cheaper way to do the space station, I think I'd support it, but I think it's too late for that now.

Answer 3. I support FBC if it truly enhances a mission performance and is not a detriment. I do NOT support the kind of space station that NASA is pushing on us.

Answer 4. I personally think that the ISS is a tool for technological propaganda, inspiration for the general public (person-in-space programs are known to do it despite the expense) and foreign policy. As long as it's recognized as such and we can afford it, fine, let's do it. But if you expect it to produce science "Faster, Better, Cheaper", ISS is definitely NOT the way to go. Virtually all of the science that will be done on ISS can be done "Faster, Better, Cheaper" with unmanned satellite systems. I personally support the concept of "Faster, Better, Cheaper" for all bona fide space science programs. From the point of view of my old Yankee upbringing, that is just common sense.

Please comment on the following statements:

Statement 1. Congress should reintroduce and pass legislation this year providing tax incentives for companies that develop new businesses in space.

Answer 1. Sounds good to me!

Answer 2. This sounds good, but can have some problems. If a company depends on an incentive which is available one year and not the next, as is common in politics, it may have problems. Space development may be more consistent and robust without such governmental priming of the pump. I think it is more important for NASA to avoid competing with private industry and to develop new technology.

Answer 3. You betcha! Businesses love money, wherever it comes from!

Answer 4. Definitely. The investment is well worth it and will reap greater tax revenues in the long run that will more than offset the near term costs of the incentives.

Statement 2. The US government has a history of providing the infrastructure - highways, the Internet - that spur economic growth. Once the government provides the tools, capitalism will find the profits.

Answer 1. sounds reasonable.

Answer 3. I would like to think and hope this is so.

Answer 4. This is most certainly a true statement.

Statement 3. The Private industry will find the profits in Low Earth Orbit if the US Government gets out of the way and retreats from LEO operations.

Answer 1. Yes, NASA launches may have discouraged the independent commercial launch business in the US. But getting into space is still too expensive, so I think government still needs to support R&D at even lower cost launch vehicles & technologies. Just not 'ordinary' launches.

Answer 3. I would also like to think and hope this is so.

Answer 4. Well maybe not so much "retreat from LEO" but definitely get out of the way to allow private industry to develop cost effective technologies to make use of LEO and beyond.

Statement 4. Free-enterprise made us the freest and richest nation and should be enabled in space.

Answer 1. yes, with some restrictions (analogous the environmental & labor laws in the US)

Answer 2. Yes

Answer 3. Yes!

Answer 4. Again, I would agree with this statement.

Statement 5. While working hard to maximize private industries' involvement, we should recognize that space settlement efforts beyond LEO will be initiated by the government.

Answer 1. Not True! E.G. Artemis Society's plan for a permanent manned base on the moon, privately financed, mostly by entertainment. Last I heard, the major obstacles weren't financial, they were legal. I get their monthly newsletter, as part of the "Moon Miner's Manifesto" newsletter. By the way, MMM is exciting to read, and promotes more grass-roots action than the NSS as a whole, in my opinion.

Answer 2. I think the government will handle exploration beyond LEO for some time to come, but that government will probably not initiate settlement. Rather settlement will occur when there is a commercial, economic justification for people settling in space.

Answer 3. I doubt it, unfortunately. This is where private enterprise could shine if they want to do it. We need colonies beyond Earth to survive as a species.

Answer 4. Government should be involved in the exploitation and settlement of space only to the extent that they eliminate any bureaucratic road blocks, promote the development of risky technologies, invest in the expensive infrastructure needed for exploitation and settlement, and promote its use.

PASA regular business luncheon and formal meeting from 1-3 pm, the third Saturday of every month at Smart Alex Restaurant, Sheraton University City, 35th & Chestnut. 2 hours free parking with validation.
     Next Dates: June 21st & September 6th
     Scheduled PASA activities:
     June 21st monthly meeting. (No meetings during Summer, but possible field trips.) Sept. 6th monthly meeting (location TBD). Call Dottie for details.
     May 17th Meeting Report
     Earl Bennett discussed: the June 97 Sky & Telescope articles on the repair of the Hubble Space Telescope, and photos of Mars; and the June 97 Analog Science Fiction and Fact article by G. Harry Stine on the X-33.
     Earl also discussed: the April 14, 97 Electronics Design article on a chemistry lab on a chip; the May 97 Laser Focus World article on mesoscopic optics; and the May 97 Sensors article on packaging chip modules in a stack to save space and weight.
     Jay Haines discussed the May 8-11 Space Studies Institute Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing, including Freeman Dyson's humorous keynote address, muscle wires, progress on the slingatron launch technique, a round table discussion regarding space habitats, lava tubes on Mars, and Rick Tumlinson's impressive Space Frontier Foundation presentation.
     Jay also discussed presentations on Sub-Kilogram Intelligent Tele-robots (SKIT), the Carnegie Mellon telerobotic experiment in Chile controlled from Pittsburgh mid-June into July, and information on the Newark Museum planetarium's Mars Show July 2 - Aug 17. The last two may lead to PASA field trips to Pittsburgh and Newark. Call Michelle Baker if interested: 609/561-8867.
     Mitch Gordon discussed his proposal to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and the Mayor's Business Action Committee for future-oriented non-profit organizations, e.g., PASA and the World Futures Society, among others, to use city-owned property as a place to hold public meetings.

The California Space Development Council (CSDC) will be hosting a conference at the Spaceport Inn - Vandenberg Village on July 25-27 in Lompoc, CA near Vandenberg AFB (Home of "The Western Spaceport").

For Room Reservations:

Spaceport Inn - Vandenberg Village
3955 Apollo Way
Lompoc, CA 93436
Tel: (805) 733-5000
Fax: (805) 733-0633

Ask for "National Space Society/California Space Development Council" room rate

Following Events are Tentative (I'll firm up and confirm with you ASAP):

FRIDAY, JULY 25

 - Tour of Commercial Space Launch Facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base 
 (1 pm - 5 pm)  Separate Charge (via Endeavour Center's "California
 Spaceport Tours")


SATURDAY, JULY 26

 - Breakfast (Included for Spaceport Inn Guests) 8 am - 9 am

 - Keynote Speech (9 am - 10 am) TBD (Possibly Lou Friedman - The 
Planetary Society, or Rep. Walter Capps)

 - Session on California Commercial Space Efforts OR Terry Savage's 
Management on CSDC Vision/Mission Objectives - TBD (10 am - 12noon)

 - Lunch (12noon - 1 pm)  Separate Charge

 - Leadership/Management/Training Session provided by Bakersfield 
College's Center for Professional Development (1pm - 5 pm)

 - "Santa Maria BBQ" (6pm - 7pm)  Separate Charge

 - JPL Presentation on Mars Pathfinder/Sojouner mission (7pm +)


SUNDAY, JULY 27

 - Breakfast (Included for Spaceport Inn Guests)  8 am - 9 am

 - Presentation on DS-1 (Deep Space 1) probe or NASA's "Origins" program 
- TBD (9 am - 10 am)

 - CSDC Business Meeting (10 am - 1 pm)

 - Lunch/Departure

Advanced Registration is $20 (until July 18); At the Door: $25 -- Checks made payable to California Space Development Council, c/o NSS/OASIS - P.O. Box 1231 - Redondo Beach, CA 90278

If you have any questions, please post me or Terry Savage a note.

SUBSCRIPTIONS are:
	$10/year.  $8/year for Chapters using 'Inside NSS' as their Chapter newsletter.  Credit will be extended to Chapters who sign up before issue is printed.
	Individual issues are $2.
	Send all payments to HQ.

MAKE 'INSIDE NSS' YOUR CHAPTER NEWSLETTER!

	INDEX

	NSS NEWS

It's ISDC Time In Orlando! (P.1)

Board Mail Vote in Process for Bylaw
To Skip NSS Elections Every Other Year (p.1)

Arguments for the Proposal (p.7)
	Robert Zubrin
	Charlie Walker
	Peter Diamandis
	Marianne Dyson

Arguments Against the Proposal (p.9)
	Jeffrey Liss

Peter Glaser Elected to Board of Governors (p.1)

ISDC Chairs: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow (pic, p.1)

Volunteers Needed: Spacecause Expands Activist Network (Mark Hopkins) (p.12)

Campaign for Future Kicks Into Full Swing (David Logsdon) (p.12)
	Letters Help
	New Chapter Prizes!

Report From Headquarters (David Brandt with Karen Rugg)
	NSS Briefs Congress on X-Vehicles (p.3)
	NSS Hosts Hale (p.3)
	Brandt to USSF for Mission HOME (p.3)
	Dasch to Houston (p.8)

	EDITOR'S NOTES (Jeffrey Liss)

A Thousand Words vs. a Score of Pictures (p.2)

Just Who Are These Activists? (p.2)

	LETTERS AND COMMENTARY

>From NSS's President:
News From Space Should Inspire Activists (Charlie Walker) (p.3)

CATS: An Anthem Of Change (Ben Muniz) (p.3)

The real Story on Cheap Access to Space (CATS) (Gordon Woodcock) (p.13)

	CHAPTERS AND ACTIVISM

Down Under: NSS and NSSA (Philip Young)(p.4)

No Annual reports --
Some NSS Chapters face the Ax (Bennett Rutledge) (p.4)

Education Chapter (p.4)

The Activities of PASA (Jay Haines) (p.5)

Rochester NSS Plants Moon Tree (Carl Elsbree) (p.5)

The Membership Contests and Fairness (David Logsdon) (p.5)

Atlanta Chapter Adopts "Inside NSS" As Chapter Newsletter (p.5)

CSDC July Meeting Set for Lompoc, CA (Jim Spellman) (p.6)

NSS of the Palm Beaches: A new Chapter Up and Running (Dusty Mcgee, p.6)

Have You Sent Your E-mail Address to NSS HQ Yet? (P.6)

Last call for Nominations for Chapter Awards (p.11)

Chapter Notices (p.15)

	SCIENCE / TECHNOLOGY

Maybe Warp drive Isn't So Fictional After All --
Find Antimatter Clouds, Fountain in Galaxy (p.15)