GPCE 2009

I commend all of these birght minds in taking the initiative to inform Washington of their ideas, work, and beliefs. I hope it doesn't shadow Congress' ability to understand it, and assimilate the message. I sometimes wonder whether anyone in Congress can understand anything anymore.We as a country have taken a back seat to the space programs worldwide with the retirement of the Shuttle Fleet. Whereas plans were in place long ago to replace them with newer vehicles and programs, there is unfortunately no such animal anymore. We as a nation have taken second and third place in this area as we now are paying some 30 million dollars per seat to ride on the Russian built Soyuz platform to gain access to and from the ISS. And only to the ISS. Nowhere else. No exploration, no traveling to other planets, asteroids, or sectors in space for research and education.I pulled a list off the listserver at NASA on a document sometime ago on the the various spinoff technologies since NASA was known as NACA in the early early years. To date the document is hugely impressive. And large. While I didn't count them, I sat for at least two hours reading it. And still wasn't done. I am not sure if those in positions in Congress really know what they are doing, what they are accomplishing or creating as a result of their actions. I do know it is not the right course or action. We are now right back at the front of the late fifties, prior to JFK and his direction. It is sad.While commercialization of the Space Program seems to be the current buzz, one cannot keep from thinking about one critical component. Success. Commercially, companies have to be successful at conclusion of their research, development, and be able to profitably market it. Resources and funding while present now, may not be able to withstand the uncertainties of lasting in the financial arena. Granted you have the grants, and submissions of angel funding, but all these areas eventually will dry up. Because where NASA had the edge was we as a country funded this research without the overhead pressure to profit from it. We designed, built, and developed alongside technology to allow it to be applied to a problem for a project. That technology resulted in spinoff, that was THEN commercially refined, and marketed. But the groundwork was not done on a profit overhead. I am worried that these companies will go like gangbusters out of the gate. But as time progresses, if the return on investment is not where it should be, projects have a tendency to die, or be abandoned because it no longer is profitable to continue. I realize government is the so called pork barrel container of funds. I realize that there is a large area of these types in government that can be eliminated and probably should. But I don't think NASA is one of them. I do think that Commercial Spaceflight is feasible, but should as these birght minds in the letter above suggest, be concurrent to NASA. Side by side, working together. In this manner I believe it is a win-win for everyone in the country as well as our important next generation.I am 52 years old. My generation has failed in this country. We tried to fix it, we tried to dig it out of the proverbial ditch. But we failed. Now it is up to this new generation to try their hands out at fixing and repairing it. It is their turn. I sincerely hope they can pull it off where we failed at doing it. But if we deny them the primal resources to begin with, are we not basically creating and setting them all up for failure? I think we are.Therefore, Congress needs to wake up. They need to get their heads straight. And most importantly fund NASA like it should be funded. It should continue for our new generation to have the tools and the drive to fix and repair their world. And Congress needs to do it before it is too late.