Author Topic: Things we can personally do to help spread the word of space flight  (Read 17261 times)

Offline Andy L

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Been wondering about this for a while.

What simple things can we all do as followers of space flight to help build interest with our friends and work collegues?

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
Andy L - 21/5/2007  8:51 PM

Been wondering about this for a while.

What simple things can we all do as followers of space flight to help build interest with our friends and work collegues?

One suggestion would be to sit them down in front of a cool launch video, say one of the camcorder videos where you get the sound. Something visually stunning, and throw in some comments about where the vehicle is heading, and what they'll be doing.

If you're passionate about what you're talking about, they'll feed off that. I really haven't found anyone who doesn't think a launch video is "cool".

First impressions count...and you can't beat a launch video. Takes a few minutes and can provide a great hook into them wanting to know some more.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Argosy

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I've been wondering the same question. Back here where I live not many people are interested in spaceflight. Actually, I don't remember meeting anyone with my scale of interests at all, not even close(and I'm no fanatic as some are), eventhough I went thru physics college, and now I'm doing computer science. That always struck me as being quite odd... I've been thinking lately about doing a web page about this very subject in my native language, to spread the word. But then, you must realize that most people have more important and urgent issues to resolve...

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
Argosy - 21/5/2007  9:15 PM

Back here where I live not many people are interested in spaceflight

Understood, but we need to assume people aren't interested in space flight. We need to get them interested in space flight.

Seems this thread has been met with a wide-scale "Errr, dunno" which is not acceptable. Let's get our thinking caps on and get pro-active.

Maybe we need to get our hands dirty. Infiltrate the mega popular forums on the top subjects of today (unfortunately American Idol and Big Brother no doubt). Throw in a curve ball by saying there's a shuttle launch coming up. Post the coolest picture you can find (maybe this one from 51D Mascot - I'm sure he won't mind): http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5058

I used to do this a lot years ago, and it worked! You'll find people out of the blue will say they are interested! Sure, not everyone, but it will happen and does happen.

Make it easy for them, link up a youtube clip of the best launch video you can find.

You know, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to set up a team here and try it out, see what the results are, turn it up a notch, maybe work with other sites like SDC. I'll have a think about that.

However, we all need to do our bit.

Suggestions?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

  • Guest
An outstanding launch video would be great. Have all the communications along with the video, and video of inside mission control.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
heres my candidate:

tell them you dont have to be a rocket scientists to do any of this stuff ( noone at armadillo is calling themselves that ), tell them it doesnt take billions, tell them it can be built in garage by a bunch of volunteers.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Launch Fan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 44
Absolutely Chris!!

Quote
savuporo - 22/5/2007  9:46 AM

heres my candidate:

tell them you dont have to be a rocket scientists to do any of this stuff ( noone at armadillo is calling themselves that ), tell them it doesnt take billions, tell them it can be built in garage by a bunch of volunteers.

No x10. This is nothing to do with NASA and would only attack geeks who are interested in bits of metal jumping up and down off the ground.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
"Things we can personally do to help spread the world of space flight" is the topic of the thread. NASA is, in the year 2007, only one of the few organizations involved in space flight.

Guys like these, Armadillo, Masten and so on, are going to bring space flight to the common people, and this makes it exciting for people. a chance to go by themselves.

just sitting back and watching other people fly is kind of voyerism, and not a lot of people stay interested in that.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Chris Bergin

I'd note that we're best working on the basis of NASA and Shuttle. This is the most popular area of space flight and needs to be the key that unlocks the door to the rest of the industry.

However, you did bring up a great example of "you don't need seven degrees to get into the space flight industry" - so keep that on saved. Although commercial companies are a different kettle of fish. The priority is the US space program which is struggling for public and political support.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Andy L

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Let's do it! Sign me up.

We need to get a video, say Infinity?, on youtube, and use that to see how many go to it through our mentionings of a shuttle launch, with a cool picture, link to video, couple of lines about what's happening. We need to avoid it seeming like spam.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
"NASA and Shuttle. This is the most popular area of space flight "

Thats precisely what needs to be changed, IMO. Another excellent video:


part of the trouble the space program is in, is that everyone associates space automatically with "NASA, PHds, expensive, billions, only for top pilots in astronaut corps"

well, in 21st century, this is changing, like it or not. people will get to go, and this will by itself make space much more popular. the momentum will do good for public space program and NASA as well.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Far Reach

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 10
Sign me up too and it does work. Someone started a thread on somethingawful.com, which is a very heavily read forum, mainly full of jokers, nothing specific to anything. Someone started a thread about spacex's launch and it went crazy. We need to see about that sort of "by the way".

We need an inspirational sentance too. Something to hit people about this being special.

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
savuporo - 22/5/2007  4:04 PM

"NASA and Shuttle. This is the most popular area of space flight "

Thats precisely what needs to be changed, IMO.


That's your opinion, but let's not dilute this by, imo, far less inspirational video of what will be a suborbital joyride for Paris Hilton. I'm sure Branson can buy his own exposure.

In fact that decides it. This is going to be NASA specific.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
Far Reach - 22/5/2007  4:09 PM

We need an inspirational sentance too. Something to hit people about this being special.

Doesn't get much better than this:

Mike Griffin, Dec 2006, post landing Discovery 116: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4990

'I think we are in fact better than before, because I think we have a new understanding in this country and in the space community that each and every time we do this it is a minor miracle.

"It is the hardest thing that humans beings have yet learned to do. It is extraordinarily difficult to do it and to get it right.

'We've learned again (STS-107), in a very sad fashion, that it is a dangerous and difficult activity, and that we have to stay hungry all the time for new data and new lessons.

'This is an enterprise that is right on the cutting edge of what is possible for human beings to do at all.'
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Quote
Andy L - 21/5/2007  2:51 PM

Been wondering about this for a while.

What simple things can we all do as followers of space flight to help build interest with our friends and work collegues?

Show them your GPS receiver, or your XM or Sirius satellite radio, or a satellite photo of their house or place of work from Google Earth or Yahoo Maps (maybe their car will appear), or show them a weather satellite image, or give them the link to the JPL Mars Rover pages, or tell them about the nearly half dozen people who have already paid their own way to orbit.  Tell them about Bigelow and SpaceX and the others.  Tell them about Celestis.  Don't mention the phrase "NASA" unless you must, as it might conjure up a discussion of crazy astronauts in diapers, etc..  

- Ed Kyle

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
"This is going to be NASA specific."

Why ? The question at the top of the thread, and the title of the thread is "spreading the word of space flight"

To gather more support for space flight, you need to get more people involved in space flight. The very notion that "space flight is only for elite few" that current public/government space programs around the world perpetuate, works to keep the support base extremely narrow.

if much more, orders of magnitude more, people get to go, and orders of magnitude more of people are involved in making this happen, the grassroots support base for space flight is going to be much much wider and deeper than it is now.

I think, for example, an event like X-Prize CUP is the perfect idea of "spreading the word".
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Chris Bergin

Then there's no reason we can't do both. However, NASA is the priority, and I'm obviously a little wary of comments like "this should change" when I noted NASA was the top dog in public awareness of space flight, because I certainly do not agree with that personally.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
Chris Bergin - 22/5/2007  3:55 PM
I'd note that we're best working on the basis of NASA and Shuttle. This is the most popular area of space flight and needs to be the key that unlocks the door to the rest of the industry.

I agree with NASA but I'm not so sure about the Shuttle. There was a great deal of interest in the Mars Rovers, for example, and at the moment the frontier of exploration is with unmanned missions. I don't hold to this view that people won't be interested in space exploration if it doesn't have a human attached. Obviously people are going to care more about a manned landing on Mars than an unmanned one... but if unmanned is what you've got, then unmanned is where the action is.

How many people have seen the video of Huygens landing on Titan? How many people have seen the video of a volcano erupting on Io? How many people realize that the Mars Rovers are still going? All of these things seem likely to catalyze interest in a way that another Shuttle flight probably won't.

That's my view, anyway.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
"However, NASA is the priority"

Where does this unquestioned assumption of yours come from ? If we are speaking of spreading the word of space flight, then NASA is what is known for people ( or at least they think they know it )
What they often dont know, is that spaceflight can be more, and in fact is much more than is done at NASA. They dont know that space flight does not necessarily mean millions in budgets, timelines measured in decades and most importantly, only few are realizing that they, their friends, people they know can get to go to space in near future, and if they so choose, help make spaceflight happen.

Like i said, if you want more broader and deeper support for space flight, spread the message of making spaceflight much more common than it is today, so that lots of people can go there.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
savuporo - 22/5/2007  5:52 PM
... most importantly, only few are realizing that they, their friends, people they know can get to go to space in near future, and if they so choose, help make spaceflight happen.

I don't think that we need to worry about promoting companies like Virgin Galactic. If Richard Branson and his multi-million dollar advertising budget can't drum up enthusiasm and awareness about the opportunity for ordinary people to experience spaceflight, then we'd better give up right now.

Far more important is catalyzing support for the sort of spaceflight that doesn't benefit people directly... the sort of spaceflight that is funded by the taxpayer. We need to get people speaking out in favor of space exploration, and voting in favor of it too.

How do we do this? Well, this is the hard part, but I think it's time to start turning this thread towards constructive suggestions, whatever their precise aim might be. I've been thinking about various taglines that could be used in advertisements. Pretty pictures and consciousness-raising are always a good place to start. On the theme of gaining attention for NASA's unmanned exploration programs, I might start with something like this. Each line would be paired with appropriately striking pictures:

"Sunset on Mars.
Volcanos on Io.
Saturn's mysterious hexagon.
Titan's methane seas.
Science fiction?
Science fact.
Brought to you by NASA."

In terms of manned missions, I would want to try to counter the idea that space exploration was something that happened in the 60s, to my parents' generation...

"Party like it's 1999?
That's so last century. [picture of a nineties-era rave fades to black]
Why not fly like it's 2019?" [cool Orion moonlanding graphic]

"Remember when spaceflight looked like this? [picture of John Glenn in shiny foil spacesuit]
Didn't think so.
Well, it doesn't anymore. [more cool Orion graphics]
Look to the future. Project Orion."

Offline Launch Fan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 44
Savuporo, if you think people are going to get excited over a flying tin 10 feet off the ground, then you really are on another world.

NASA and Shuttle are the biggest pulling points 100 times over. Anyone that thinks different clearly does not know what they are talking about.

Hubble, maybe for the geeks, sure.
Rovers, maybe for the people with rock samples in their bedrooms.
44 million horsepower of American pride, f*ck yeah!

Offline STSFan10

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
savuporo - 22/5/2007  11:52 AM

"However, NASA is the priority"

Where does this unquestioned assumption of yours come from ?

I find that post insulting and pathetic. Where do you THINK it comes from? Wise up Savuporo, you're on a site that concentrates mainly on shuttle, and it's always damn busy. Go figure.

Quote
Launch Fan - 22/5/2007  8:23 PM

Savuporo, if you think people are going to get excited over a flying tin 10 feet off the ground, then you really are on another world.

NASA and Shuttle are the biggest pulling points 100 times over. Anyone that thinks different clearly does not know what they are talking about.

Hubble, maybe for the geeks, sure.
Rovers, maybe for the people with rock samples in their bedrooms.
44 million horsepower of American pride, f*ck yeah!

Great post!!!!
"Damn it's good to be a Cylon.....There ain't no Earth anyway."

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1677
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 106
Quote
Launch Fan - 22/5/2007  8:23 PM

Savuporo, if you think people are going to get excited over a flying tin 10 feet off the ground, then you really are on another world.

NASA and Shuttle are the biggest pulling points 100 times over. Anyone that thinks different clearly does not know what they are talking about.

Hubble, maybe for the geeks, sure.
Rovers, maybe for the people with rock samples in their bedrooms.
44 million horsepower of American pride, f*ck yeah!

Absolutely agree with this. The shuttle has an amazing history and is happening now. It is not some 20 minute suborbital ride for rich people, it is a workhorse and represents the best of America. It's here, it's now, and it's absolutely most people's first taste of space flight.

Sure Rovers are interesting to a point, but the public aren't all watching Discovery channel. Sure these start up companies are interesting, but they are NOT NASA. NASA is a word universally known, it represents the best of the best. It fights back from disaster and gets it right.

Put me down for this as it is the key. We should all fight for NASA and for Shuttle cause the world would be a boring place without their leadership.

Offline Seattle Dave

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 48
Apart from the anti-NASA guy here, I'm really heartened by the passion shown in here so far. I also agree with Shuttle as a focal point.

That, to me, is what's been lacking with the way the public have been given a taste of space flight.

It's there, the passion is all to see, but it has been badly presented, partly the fault of NASA and partly the fault of the media.

Count me in.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Quote
Launch Fan - 22/5/2007  8:23 PM

NASA and Shuttle are the biggest pulling points 100 times over. Anyone that thinks different clearly does not know what they are talking about.

Hubble, maybe for the geeks, sure.
Rovers, maybe for the people with rock samples in their bedrooms.
44 million horsepower of American pride, f*ck yeah!

I don't think that the average, non-space-oriented person is actually all that impressed with Space Shuttle.  Most "average people" really find it dull.  Shuttle makes noise.  It goes up.  It goes around.  It comes back down.  But what does it do that is really useful?  What contribution does it make to the daily lives of average people?

On the other hand, satellite radio, GPS, weather satellites, etc, are real space-based systems that actually affect average people's lives.  Howard Stern is broadcast on those things, man!  When one of the sat radio systems went down yesterday, it made national news.

It also seems to me that most Americans, busy buying Toyotas and flat screens made in China, aren't the least bit impressed with "American" technology any more.  To many, Shuttle is a fading remnant of a bygone era.    

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Super George

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Well I'm glad those who obviously don't like shuttle and Nasa (two and counting) think that a shock jock on satellite radio is going to get them interested in space flight, the same watching Paris Hilton make a mess of her very expensive pants on SS2. Because I'm pretty much sure that if someone came up to me and said "Howard Stern is broadcast on those things, man!" I'd be wanting to punch him.

Think of the greater good, not what you personally have a hobby in, because I'm not sure how this would play out:

"Yo. I've got GPS in my car now.

"Oh really. Hey, you know that actually works from a collection of satellites in space!!"

"Yeah, cause I do. The clue was SAT nav, and GP "S". I'm not dumb.

"Does that make you want to go check out websites about space flight!!"

"No, why?"

"Cause your GPS is all thanks to Satellites!!"

"I don't give a crap, so long as I get from A to B with it.

"Oh, ok. Hey, wanna check out what latest rocks Spirit has found on Mars? Rumour has it that it's a slightly different shade of red!!!"

"Wow, get a life!"

There's your problem.

Offline Firestarter

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
edkyle99 - 22/5/2007  9:36 PM

 To many, Shuttle is a fading remnant of a bygone era.    

 - Ed Kyle

The same could be said about Howard Stern ;)

See this is the problem with those with viewpoints, it's always presented as "to many".

The problem is "the many" haven't been exposed to it properly, thus don't have a valid or reasonable viewpoint. You do! That's the irony there as you obvious follow space flight, found that Shuttle wasn't for you. That's your call and the call of a number of other people. There's no doubting that.

The issue is how to change that incorrect statement of the Shuttle being a fading remnant of a bygone era, because *newsflash* there's a lot more launches to come. Hardly a remnant of a bygone era. In fact, I suggest the Shuttle is about to come of age, with a triumpant finale to show DESPITE all the tradegy, NASA, the best people we have in space flight, finally got the problems solved, serviced Hubble and got the ISS completed.

We should rejoice, not diss it or go looking to a goofy faced Englishman called Branson as the new leader of space flight!

Put me down for this drive. I'm all fired up.

Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
Launch Fan - 23/5/2007  2:23 AM
NASA and Shuttle are the biggest pulling points 100 times over. Anyone that thinks different clearly does not know what they are talking about.

If we, as members of NASA Spaceflight--in many cases paying members--can't even agree on what is exciting about spaceflight, then I don't hold out much hope for our prospects in sharing that excitement with the rest of the world.

It would be really nice to get this thread moving in a positive direction. To everyone who's posted in this thread: whatever your point of view, why not offer some constructive suggestions about how you would spread the word of spaceflight? You never know, you might convince the rest of us. :)

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Quote
Naraht - 23/5/2007  4:01 AM

If we, as members of NASA Spaceflight--in many cases paying members--can't even agree on what is exciting about spaceflight, then I don't hold out much hope for our prospects in sharing that excitement with the rest of the world.

It would be really nice to get this thread moving in a positive direction. To everyone who's posted in this thread: whatever your point of view, why not offer some constructive suggestions about how you would spread the word of spaceflight? You never know, you might convince the rest of us. :)

I think it's a shame that much of the exciting cutting edge research has either been cut to fund the pork (like ATK's 1970's vintage underperforming SRB based launch vehicle), or handed over to the military and relegated to the black world, so nobody knows about it.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Quote
Firestarter - 23/5/2007  12:37 AM

The same could be said about Howard Stern ;)

Hahaha....and yet, the aforementioned Sirius Radio is paying the guy, what, $100 million a year?!  I guess that says something about our society.  Why did I ever decide to study engineering when you can make a fortune telling fart jokes?!    ;)

Offline 02hurnella

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I know most people involved in spaceflight aren't hot on the ISS but lots of people don't know its there. Its quite an interesting topic because its over our heads right now. You can see it on clear nights  if you look up @ the right time and I think a great thing to do would be like
         "hey the ISS (brief explanation) is visible now, do you wanna look?"
That would be pretty good starter.
>
It tells you when to look up here, you can search for your town.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESAWW4KE43D_FeatureWeek_0.html

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Naraht - 23/5/2007  4:01 AM

Quote
Launch Fan - 23/5/2007  2:23 AM
NASA and Shuttle are the biggest pulling points 100 times over. Anyone that thinks different clearly does not know what they are talking about.

If we, as members of NASA Spaceflight--in many cases paying members--can't even agree on what is exciting about spaceflight, then I don't hold out much hope for our prospects in sharing that excitement with the rest of the world.

It would be really nice to get this thread moving in a positive direction. To everyone who's posted in this thread: whatever your point of view, why not offer some constructive suggestions about how you would spread the word of spaceflight? You never know, you might convince the rest of us. :)

For what it's worth, I agree. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between what we find interesting (whether that's the flash-bang of the Shuttle or the ooh-ah of planetary robots) and what non-enthusiasts find interesting.

Unfortunately, I think the only thing that spreads the interest in spaceflight is actual spaceflight doing something interesting. And when we put our private enthusiasms aside, we can't seem to come up with anything other than "American pride," "spinoffs," and advert-like media "spin" (pretty pictures and slogans).  And people don't actually care that they have space-based GPS. Even if they understand that it involves satellites, how does that involve men on Mars or rovers on Europa? I think you could get the public excited about the search for extraterrestrial life (both telescopic searches for habitable planets around other stars and the in situ search for extremophiles and fossils in this solar system), but there's opposition to that too, both from spaceflight enthusiast who think it's "sci-fi crap" and religious people who believe there can be no ET's because God made us here and only here. Not to mention people who found the SETI search for LGM signals a bit silly.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Here's a question: How many Americans would voluntarily tithe $1,000 a year to pay for a manned expedition to Mars? It'd take about ten million people to do such a thing. Compared to the audience for Star Wars movies, that's not many. But the membership in organizations like NSS is small (in the few tens of thousands the last time I checked) and subscription rates for magazines like Analog are down around 30,000 nowadays. Which suggests you might have trouble rounding up those ten million people.

Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
William Barton - 23/5/2007  12:12 PM
Unfortunately, I think the only thing that spreads the interest in spaceflight is actual spaceflight doing something interesting.

This is very true. I'd be willing to bet that when (if?) Orion gets going, there will be a big revival of interest. The question is... can we afford to wait that long?

An interesting measure of the declining public interest in spaceflight is provided by this collection of Life magazine space-themed covers. Compare the 80s or the 90s with any of the periods from the 60s:

http://www.life.com/Life/space/covers/coversspace.html

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
To those supporting the Space Shuttle as the path to encouraging public interest in space think again.  The shuttle utterly failed to live up to its promises, $500/lb, 50 flights/year, routine space access,….  The shuttle, with its enormous expense, in-frequent, unreliable flight rate is what is keeping us in LEO, and barely at that.  The Shuttle’s been around longer than half the folks on this site and has a bad rep as a death machine (like it or not).  This is the poster child that is supposed to get the internet generation excited?

What will get folks excited is actual success, be it crewed or robotic.  Waiting 8 years for Orion or 13 years for the moon is a lifetime in this instant gratification society we live in.  If we are talking about NASA, we should demand results!!!  Not once a decade, but numerous times per year.  Golden’s better, faster, cheaper gave us multiple missions/year instead of the once a decade battle star galatica’s, that was a start.  

NASA needs to provide missions that are relevant and appeal to a large cross section of America and the world:
-   Earth science, monitoring global warming and hurricanes
-   Unmanned rovers creeping around Mars, Jupiter and such
-   LEO science, enabling discoveries of how space can help society on Earth
-   Crewed exploration in a reasonable time frame
-   And actually helping industry move space commerce forward

NASA is already doing a lot of the above, and can do soooo much more.  The public doesn’t care if NASA keeps the shuttle, saving 10,000 NASA jobs, when Ford is laying off 40,000.  Switch the Shuttles $5B budget to the above, drop the shuttle like a hot potato and make real progress now!!!

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Quote
Kayla - 23/5/2007  7:12 PM

NASA needs to provide missions that are relevant and appeal to a large cross section of America and the world:
-   Earth science, monitoring global warming and hurricanes
-   Unmanned rovers creeping around Mars, Jupiter and such
-   LEO science, enabling discoveries of how space can help society on Earth
-   Crewed exploration in a reasonable time frame
-   And actually helping industry move space commerce forward

NASA is already doing a lot of the above, and can do soooo much more.  The public doesn’t care if NASA keeps the shuttle, saving 10,000 NASA jobs, when Ford is laying off 40,000.  Switch the Shuttles $5B budget to the above, drop the shuttle like a hot potato and make real progress now!!!

Isn't "switch[ing] the Shuttles $5B budget to the above" exactly what they are doing? Flying STS until 2010 to finish ISS (allowing LEO science for the next decade); getting ready to send a nuclear-power monster truck of a Mars rover (MSL) in 2009; creating a lunar transport infrastructure that will allow both a lunar base and manned Mars mission, but within a timeframe that doesn't break the bank; and finally, bootstrapping the infant commercial manned space industry through COTS I and II by essentially subsidizing the development of innovative commercial spacecraft. Aside from implementation issues (e.g. Ares vs. whatever), and within the budget, what more can NASA do?

Simon ;)

Offline Launch Fan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 44
If they dropped Shuttle now, it would be a disaster. 1) Fail to carry out international obligations for ISS. 2) Fail to complete ISS. 3) No massive increase in getting Orion/Ares due to development timeline. 4) 1000s of pink slips for those involved in Shuttle. 5) Money goes back to Congress, not stay with NASA.

Utterly the worst idea ever.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
It's very humbling to see the empassioned comments about Shuttle. I can understand Kayla's post, but you can be absolutely sure that ending Shuttle early would not help and I take offense to the 'death machine' tag.

Offline SpaceCat

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
My suggestion would be this- join the space society of your choice.....NSS, Planetary Society, BIS, Mars Society-- the list is endless, and even local astronomy clubs are bound to have members interested in spaceflight.....

Preferably one with a chapter local to you- if there is none, contact the main office and look into starting a local chapter- and make it active with regular meetings.  Make the meetings open to anyone with interest or curiousity- encourage members to bring guests.  Make the meetings interesting to all with short film/video presentations, book discussions, show and tell, guest speakers, etc....  If you're not close to a launch site, host a launch-watching party on big-screen TV. Make sure local news media gets both announcement of meetings and reports on what went on.

Organise group activities for the chapter.... field trips to museums or space centers if close enough, tours of aerospace industries. model rocketry if there is interest, telescope parties, public service activities, member family gatherings, picnics, cookouts, build displays, exhibits or floats for local events like fairs or parades..... involve children wherever possible because most youngsters still find space and spaceflight thrilling.

It's amazing how little is taught about space in public schools.  Contact local schools and offer 'experts' from your chapter- even knowledgeable hobbyists- to give presentations in science classes.  (Be VERY diplomatic about this.  Teachers are generally overworked and underpaid and may not be receptive to outsiders with suggestions, so concentrate on things you can present that will make their job easier- by getting the students excited to learn about space and science in general.)

Above all make it fun, make it personal-- influence everyone you know, everyone you meet.

Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
SpaceCat - 24/5/2007  5:38 AM

My suggestion would be this- join the space society of your choice.....NSS, Planetary Society, BIS, Mars Society-- the list is endless, and even local astronomy clubs are bound to have members interested in spaceflight.....

Now, see, this is what I call a constructive suggestion. Thanks for being so sensible. :)

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Problems with that...

Those societys are like chess clubs. Only those who already have a major fascination (and most aren't pure space flight, most are about sitting outside with a bunch of X-Files fans staring through a telescope) join such things. We have to look at the bigger picture and impact the public. Some people are thinking like geeks here (dont mean that insultinly), but those geeky organisations have obviously failed to attract joe public.

Geeky is not cool. That's where Shuttle comes in, as it's certainly not a geeky thing. Space planes are cool.
Let's go and explore space.

Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
Space101 - 24/5/2007  10:05 AM
Those societys are like chess clubs. Only those who already have a major fascination (and most aren't pure space flight, most are about sitting outside with a bunch of X-Files fans staring through a telescope) join such things. We have to look at the bigger picture and impact the public.

If I can speak for SpaceCat, the point isn't just to join a society. The point is that, as every campaigner knows, the way to impact public opinion is to organize. SpaceCat was talking about the ways in which space societies can organize outreach activities that can actually involve the public and show them what spaceflight is all about. And I think that this is a great approach.

I once was at a conference in Washington DC at which NASA had set up a stall. It was located in a public atrium through which a lot of office workers were passing. At the stall they were handing out posters, monographs, postcards, bookmarks etc., and let me tell you, those things were flying off the table. People *are* actually interested in space if you give them the chance. That interest just has to be tapped.

Quote
Geeky is not cool. That's where Shuttle comes in, as it's certainly not a geeky thing. Space planes are cool.

Some posters on this forum certainly agree with you; I venture to say that thousands wouldn't. Most people don't think about the differences between capsules and space planes. It wouldn't even occur to them to think that one is cooler or geekier than the other. And to tell you the truth I'm not sure where everyone got the idea that the Shuttle is a magic bullet to interest people in spaceflight. It's been flying for longer than I've been alive. If it hasn't done the job yet, do you really think that it's ever going to?

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
simonbp - 23/5/2007  8:09 PM
Isn't "switch[ing] the Shuttles $5B budget to the above" exactly what they are doing? Flying STS until 2010 to finish ISS (allowing LEO science for the next decade); getting ready to send a nuclear-power monster truck of a Mars rover (MSL) in 2009; creating a lunar transport infrastructure that will allow both a lunar base and manned Mars mission, but within a timeframe that doesn't break the bank; and finally, bootstrapping the infant commercial manned space industry through COTS I and II by essentially subsidizing the development of innovative commercial spacecraft. Aside from implementation issues (e.g. Ares vs. whatever), and within the budget, what more can NASA do?

Simon ;)

These science missions that you refer to are remnants of a bygone era pre-Griffin.  MSL, Juno, JWST, etc. are perfect examples of NASA at its best and something that captures the publics interest, but what follows?  Griffin has nearly eliminated follow on programs.         
COTS is a great example of booststrapping a new capability!

As to a time frame that doesn’t break the bank...  At JPC last summer I was listening to a session summarizing VSE in the large auditorium.  There was a young lady only a year out of college that stood up and asked a question that I’ll try to paraphrase.  “All of this great Apollo stuff that you are talking about is great history, but long before my time.  My question is why should it now take 15 years to get to the moon, when in the 1960's it only took 7?”  What is amazing is that her question received a standing ovation.  Have you ever heard of a question at one of these conferences getting a standing ovation?  If 15 years is the best that NASA can do with a $4B exploration budget between now and 2010 and $10B there after we need new leadership!

I’m not a fan of immediately stopping shuttle, I agree that our commitments to ISS and our international partners require some amount of shuttle support in the short term.  But some on this blog indicate using the current shuttle as a poster child to capture the publics interest.  That is completely wrong in my opinion.  Shuttle flights should be absolutely minimized, used COTS and other launch capabilities wherever possible to support ISS and its assembly.  Only use shuttle where these other services can’t support.

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
Space101 - 24/5/2007  10:05 AM

Problems with that...

Can we stick to making suggestions, rather than trying to dismiss other peoples, please.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Shuttle is NOT a good candidate to capture public interest.
The only time you see Shuttle in the news, outside of the space coast, is to report on a disaster, like Challenger or Columbia. Shuttle hasn’t interested the public for more than 20 years. It’s not only old news, its yesterday’s history. It’s a non-starter.

Stopping Shuttle flights before ISS completion would be a bad idea however. In spite of Griffin’s disdain for the station, we need to complete it. For all we can learn on the lunar surface, it’s unlikely that the Mars transit will be in anything but micro-gravity. We need long term experience in that environment. There is much still to learn, and ISS is the place to do that. Research on the lunar surface should compliment ISS, not replace it.

The problem is, as Kayla has pointed out above, is that all the exciting stuff is pre-Griffin. Griffin has all but killed any additional things to capture the public interest. He forgets that the public is just not as dedicated to space as he is. But he has tied his own hands. He has chosen a VSE architecture that bleeds the budget dry leaving NO money for anything that might reverse that.

1. Do as suggested above: Join a society so that you can be part of an organized effort.

2. Use that effort to do everything suggested above AND in addition, to lobby your state and federal representatives and senators to increase NASA’s budget to 1% of the GNP. That would be a LOT of money to restore the kinds of missions that WOULD interest the public.

3. Find some really impressive images such as wallpaper and photos. Print them on photo paper and frame them. Hang them in your office. I did and you’d be surprised how they generate conversation. Especially if you change them periodically. If your colleagues know you change them periodically, they look for the new ones - starts conversations.

4. Do you work at a NASA center? Hang some pictures of an EELV-based VSE launcher or DIRECT’s Jupiter VSE launcher. You don’t need to be vocal about it, just keep the options in front of people. Hang an Ares picture also so that your manager can’t fault you. You’re just displaying your interests. If either LV system replaces Ares, a LOT of money becomes available to pump back into science missions that WILL interest the public.

5. Join or start a model rocket club and concentrate on scale rockets of existing launch vehicles. Fly them at public events like the local fairs most towns have in the summer. Become the “local rocket expert” for boy scouts or girl scouts. Kids love these things and in some cases it draws the parents into the mix. It grows. I built a 1/48 scale Saturn-V and fly it occassionally. With the LAS it's almost 8 feet tall. It ALWAYS draws a crowd and generates lots of conversation. I give the interested people a small packet with information about the space program and NASA.

6. When involved in conversations with colleagues, don’t let an opportunity to “mention” spaceflight in the conversation go by. Don’t belabor the subject; unless the others want to turn the conversation that way. But don’t shy away from the opportunity.

7. Too many men are afraid to talk about spaceflight to women, thinking they wouldn’t be interested. Don’t be afraid to talk about spaceflight to them! Some of the smartest engineers I know are female. One of them has an office down the hall from me and her favorite subjects are her 3 kids, her flower garden and liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket engines. And god! is she smart!

8. I have grandkids that come to visit me and want to ask me about rockets. They never tire of looking at my photo album of KSC. I started years ago showing them plastic models. Their attention-span was short, and they went on to something else, but gradually grew because I fostered the interest. You can do the same if you have kids or grandkids, or neighbor kids around that you see occasionally. Involve the younger generation in whatever is appropriate for their age group. They are the ones we will pass the torch to. Nurture them, and nurture the interest.

9. Write short opinion articles for your local newspaper. Make it a habit to submit something every month. Become a sort-of unofficial columnist. The Opinion section of papers is open subject; you don’t need a lead-in. Just be informative and interesting. Sometimes the opinion piece will actually get printed. Do that enough times, and you will become known around the area as the subject-matter expert and you WILL get contacts to follow up on.

10. Make yourself available to speak to civic groups, school science classes and scout meetings. You’d be surprised at the interest that’s there to be fostered.

11. There are lots of space-related websites and forums out there. NSF is my favorite and, IMHO, the most informative and useful. Make a list of these places on the net and give the list to anyone who might show an interest.

And by the way – there is NOTHING wrong with being a geek. I’ve been one for 60 years and have never felt deprived in any way. At nine years old I was transforming C-cell batteries to see how big a spark I could get to jump between 2 nails in a board. Almost burned the barn down :) . I’ve got lots of friends and family and an active social life. My wife tells her friends that she married a geek and I take that as a compliment. She’s kept me for 40 years, so I guess it works.

Basically, just look for and take opportunities to express your own interest. There are lots of others out there who would be more interested if they could find someone to ask questions of and talk to. Make yourself available.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
What do I do in my community? I have given up on trying to convince adults that space exploration ( human and robotic) is a necessary part of our civilization. However, children are still fascinated by rocketry, simple physics,  and astronomy. I help run a Cub Scout Pack.

Astronomy nights have been an important part of our meetings. I'll bring my telescope, some binoculars and an additional 'scope for the kids to use. They usually have a blast. Our pack will a rocketry challenge on our family picnic. Spot landing, time aloft, and altitude tracking using an Estes Maxtrax rocket are some of the contests I have planned.  The boys are looking forward to it.

I try and keep an aerospace theme in our pack. The Webelos of our pack have started to call themselves the Flying Tigers, a silhouette of a Curtiss P-40 is on their flag. We have several meetings where the boys have built airplane models. We then have a short lesson on what the parts on aircraft do. The Cubs get really into it, it's fun.  

So I guess my suggestion is to get involved with youth groups, give them simple "science fair" kinds of experiments to play with so get interested in spaceflight. Keep that interest going by taking them to science and aviation museums. I think you'll get more enthusiasts by growing them than by trying to convince adults.

Gene

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
clongton - 24/5/2007  3:19 PM

Shuttle is NOT a good candidate to capture public interest.
The only time you see Shuttle in the news, outside of the space coast, is to report on a disaster, like Challenger or Columbia. Shuttle hasn’t interested the public for more than 20 years. It’s not only old news, its yesterday’s history. It’s a non-starter.

*Sirens* I have to interject *Sirens* ;)

That's a problem with the media, not the Shuttle. An example shown in history. Look how fast the media dropped Apollo until 13. Mass media feed of disaster.

From my media experience, nothing comes close to touching Shuttle in the media. The launches are shown live around the world. Youtube is awash with Shuttle video (and not a lot else when it comes to space flight).

Besides, this site would have died a death if your comment "It’s not only old news, its yesterday’s history. It’s a non-starter" was accurate. You're on a site that covers Shuttle as the primary news subject, a subject that is anything other than yesterdays with another highly complex mission coming up in a couple of weeks.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
Chris Bergin - 24/5/2007  10:28 AM

Quote
clongton - 24/5/2007  3:19 PM

Shuttle is NOT a good candidate to capture public interest.
The only time you see Shuttle in the news, outside of the space coast, is to report on a disaster, like Challenger or Columbia. Shuttle hasn’t interested the public for more than 20 years. It’s not only old news, its yesterday’s history. It’s a non-starter.

*Sirens* I have to interject *Sirens* ;)

That's a problem with the media, not the Shuttle. An example shown in history. Look how fast the media dropped Apollo until 13. Mass media feed of disaster.

From my media experience, nothing comes close to touching Shuttle in the media. The launches are shown live around the world. Youtube is awash with Shuttle video (and not a lot else when it comes to space flight).

Besides, this site would have died a death if your comment "It’s not only old news, its yesterday’s history. It’s a non-starter" was accurate. You're on a site that covers Shuttle as the primary news subject, a subject that is anything other than yesterdays with another highly complex mission coming up in a couple of weeks.
Don't get me wrong. Shuttle is an absolute marvel! But this site is populated by people who are already interested. People on this site are the kinds of folks that will put NASA TV on and watch the P-1 truss being assembled on ISS, for example. YouTube videos are frequented by people who already have the interest.

My statement about yesterday's history is from the viewpoint of people who are NOT already sold. The point of this thread is to suggest ways to reach THOSE people, not the ones already in the mix. That starts with accurately depicting how Shuttle is viewed in the general, uninterested, population. From THEIR point of view, the statement is accurate. Shuttle isn't doing anything that captures their interest. From their point of view, Shuttle is old hat. And in 36 months, Shuttle will be gone - forever.

I watch my local paper, and also the Washington Post and the NY Times. I RARELY see a story about Shuttle. When Shuttle returns, the news networks will usually show a short clip, 3-5 seconds, of the landing. Then it's on to Paris Hilton.

Yes, it's a media problem. But Shuttle isn't doing anything to change that, and will be retired before MOST people even know it's being planned. It's time to find something else to get people's attention. That's why Shuttle is not the right candidate for the general public. They are not interested, by and large, except in passing. The media doesn't help that. And THAT's our project; to do things that will change that. But by the time it can begin to have an effect, Shuttle will be gone. So don't build the house on a Shuttle foundation. It only has 36 months left to live before the last of the 3 is decomissioned.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
clongton - 24/5/2007  3:51 PM
But Shuttle isn't doing anything to change that, and will be retired before MOST people even know it's being planned. It's time to find something else to get people's attention.

This is the heart of the matter. However you feel about the Shuttle (and I respect it even if I don't love it), it doesn't seem like a very effective strategy to try to sell people on something that's going to be mothballed soon.

And clongton, I just wanted to applaud your list, which is fantastic and has the sort of optimistic approach that we need. Particularly I liked your point about not assuming that women won't be interested in spaceflight. As a female spaceflight fan, I get a bit tired of people assuming that we don't exist!

Offline Orbiter Obvious

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Had it not of been for Shuttle I'd never of gotten interested in space flight. This is the same experience everyone I know agrees with who also follow NASA.

Offline Donna Spaceships

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Naraht - 24/5/2007  9:55 AM

Particularly I liked your point about not assuming that women won't be interested in spaceflight. As a female spaceflight fan, I get a bit tired of people assuming that we don't exist!

Yeah. But unlike you it was the space shuttle that got me interested. Beautiful ships.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
I added a number 11 to the list
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
Donna Spaceships - 24/5/2007  4:00 PM
Quote
Naraht - 24/5/2007  9:55 AM

Particularly I liked your point about not assuming that women won't be interested in spaceflight. As a female spaceflight fan, I get a bit tired of people assuming that we don't exist!

Yeah. But unlike you it was the space shuttle that got me interested. Beautiful ships.

I should give the space shuttle its due. I was definitely interested in spaceflight and the shuttle all through my childhood, and I went through the usual phase of wanting to be an astronaut. It's just that it took the movie "Apollo 13" to get me really passionate about things.

Love the username, by the way. :)

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
Naraht - 24/5/2007  3:55 PM

Particularly I liked your point about not assuming that women won't be interested in spaceflight. As a female spaceflight fan, I get a bit tired of people assuming that we don't exist!

Seconded, and we appear to have a lot of ladies on here, as per http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=606&start=1
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 140
Quote
Naraht - 24/5/2007  10:08 AM

Quote
Donna Spaceships - 24/5/2007  4:00 PM
Quote
Naraht - 24/5/2007  9:55 AM

Particularly I liked your point about not assuming that women won't be interested in spaceflight. As a female spaceflight fan, I get a bit tired of people assuming that we don't exist!

Yeah. But unlike you it was the space shuttle that got me interested. Beautiful ships.

I should give the space shuttle its due. I was definitely interested in spaceflight and the shuttle all through my childhood, and I went through the usual phase of wanting to be an astronaut. It's just that it took the movie "Apollo 13" to get me really passionate about things.

Love the username, by the way. :)

Ah ha! So is it fair to say that your first taste of space flight was Shuttle, from which you branched out to the other areas which you are now more interested in. That's how it worked for me.

[Sigmund Freud]Please lay down on the couch and tell me about your childhood[/Sigmund Freud] ;)

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
I became interested in space flight before space flight existed, via the Colliers magazine articles about Von Braun's supposed plans, and the Walt Disney mini-series (what today we might call a docudrama) "Man Into Space," both from the 1950s. I was 7 when Sputnik 1 went up, 10 for Vostok 1, and 18 for Apollo 11. When I was 30, I got a press pass and watched STS-1 standing next to the countdown sign. When I was a teenager, I thought "2001" was excessively optimistic, to say the least, but I did expect space stations, moon bases, and a manned flight to Mars to take place during the balance of the 20th century. The general public's expectations were conditioned the same way mine were, which is why, I think, they turned away from repeated billion-dollar landings on safely flat moonspots, and equally expensive winged flights to nowhere. Whether we like it or not, space flight is about adventure and discovery, not about the glories of engineering, or the minutia of zero-gee medicine.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
William Barton - 24/5/2007  11:38 AM

I became interested in space flight before space flight existed, via the Colliers magazine articles about Von Braun's supposed plans, and the Walt Disney mini-series (what today we might call a docudrama) "Man Into Space," both from the 1950s. I was 7 when Sputnik 1 went up, 10 for Vostok 1, and 18 for Apollo 11. When I was 30, I got a press pass and watched STS-1 standing next to the countdown sign. When I was a teenager, I thought "2001" was excessively optimistic, to say the least, but I did expect space stations, moon bases, and a manned flight to Mars to take place during the balance of the 20th century. The general public's expectations were conditioned the same way mine were, which is why, I think, they turned away from repeated billion-dollar landings on safely flat moonspots, and equally expensive winged flights to nowhere. Whether we like it or not, space flight is about adventure and discovery, not about the glories of engineering, or the minutia of zero-gee medicine.
My point exactly. For better or worse, the general public’s perception of spaceflight is not shaped by medical, engineering and aeronautical advances and achievements. For folks like us, it’s the Holy Grail, but not for John Q Public. While they are not so naive to think that what they see in Star Wars and Star Trek is in any way representative of reality, they do take away the impression that spaceflight is much more adventurous than what Shuttle does. Star Trek began shaping minds in the 1960’s. This is 2007, almost 40 years of mind-set thru 3 generations of young people. That is the battle we are up against. And to boot, less and less young people are pursuing careers in engineering, math and the sciences. Those of us who have, understand the lure, but the rest do not. They have not come to appreciate the beauty in function. We look at Shuttle and begin to admire function and engineering. We look at Shuttle’s underside and see plasma boundaries. They look at Shuttle and say “sexy”!  But Shuttle has been doing the same thing for 30 years. It’s not “sexy” anymore to them. That’s what we have to change. We have to turn more people to understanding beauty in function, while at the same time doing more things that excite the rest of them.

I don’t want to leave the impression that I am a Shuttle hater – I’m not. I love that spacecraft. But it’s time is past. For better or worse, the manufacturing infrastructure is already closing. A lot of the subcontractors are already either out of business or have completely retooled for different work. 2010 is the deadline, and even if we wanted to, there isn’t enough funding to reverse it. Shuttle dies in 2010, only 36 months away. That’s why it’s a mistake to use Shuttle as the poster child. We have to start pushing VSE, not Shuttle. Shuttle belonged to our generations, but for the one now arriving, they may have begun with Shuttle, but their appetite will be wetted on VSE, on the Moon and the beginning of Mars. For the next generation, Shuttle will be to them what Mercury and Gemini are to us. We have to be realistic about this and play to the next 2 generations, not ours.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline SpaceCat

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
I think we're missing the big picture here-- the question is not 'Shuttle vs something else,' not 'moon vs mars,' not 'humans vs robots'......

The question is: shall we explore, or stagnate?

Our mission as space advocates is to 'convert' those who are content to stagnate.  
Relative to my earlier post, I suspect space organisations, societies, PAC's- have minimal impact in the hubs of government- but I think they can be very effective on a local level to promote understanding and interest.  The point is to NOT make them like geeky chess clubs as one response mentioned- but to be fun and high-profile by encouraging 'outsiders' to take a look, get informed- and discover that maybe they are intrigued by this stuff.

Speaking of 'stuff,' (yes, I did grow up listening to Jean Shepherd)-- one of the most prophetic lines in an otherwise dubious "The Right Stuff" movie is- "No bucks; no Buck Rogers."  Promoting space on a local level not only has the advantage of personal, face-to-face interaction- but can attract some attention from local government representatives. If it does not, invite them in for a Q & A.  Most representatives will only become pro-space if they can see it being an advantage toward their re-election either by bringing jobs to their communities; or by sharing interests with their constituents.

Children are naturally interested in exploring space.... adults will follow the interests of their children.... adults vote.

Mr. Barton's post indicates he's probably the same age as I- and I agree; one of my most used phrases is "Now that the future is here, it is quite disappointing."  (I expected the future to look like the 1964 World's Fair!)  Still, with difficulty, I try to remain optimistic that the small mundane steps we take will eventually lead to something great- if not for us, for our children and theirs.  The Moody Blues' "To Our Children's, Children's Children" ode to spaceflight makes more sense every day! :)

Gene- YES! Right On!

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
My dreams started with Apollo and the first lunar landing.  My interest deepened with the space colony work of Gerard O'Neill.  I dreamed of thousands of people living and working in such colonies and bases on the Moon and Mars.  Clean power beamed back to Earth.  Pharmaceutical and computer manufacturing in the clean, zero-G vacuum of space.  The thought of the shuttle providing cheep, frequent access to space to enabling such dreams.  

These dreams were dashed with the reality (vs. promises) of the shuttle followed by the long delays of ISS.  Anyone talking of colonization today is practically considered a lunatic. VSE again offered promises of a robust era of space exploration. But 4 people on the moon for a week in 2020, Mars shifting to the right to never, doesn't light my candle.  

SpaceShip Ones suborbital flights, although well short of orbital, caught broad public attraction. As have the meager endeavours of the 2 MER robots on Mars.  Bigelow, and his hopes for commercial space station's starting in ?2010? appear much more credible to me than VSE.  Elon’s dreams of cheap space access enabling Mars colonization, very exciting.  All of the COTS contenders hopes of starting truly robust space access servicing this robust space future, enabled with NASA contracts for ISS servicing.  Once again, hope for real, robust, near term progress is what keeps me excited and working hard.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
One of the problems is that the MSM and 'general public' responds more to (and is much more interested in) things that emphasise "adventure" over (to their view) merely "exploration".

*Adventure* is dramatic, life-and-death things; 'exploration' is more boring and mundane... at least the way the media interprets it to the masses.

Offline Stratist

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Doing my part, so to speak
« Reply #61 on: 06/11/2007 03:57 pm »

Hello,

I am new to the community here, so I hope to not be too much of an annoyance.

I've been going through many of the topics on the boards here but this one caught my eye.

I am fortunate to be in a position where I can channel my interest for the space program into my work, and thereby, pass it on to a few others.

In the pages of today's USA TODAY (11.06.07), I have been able to showcase the STS-117 Mission into a full page informational graphic. This is a first for the shuttle or ISS in the paper.  Usually to get this kind of real-estate in any paper has to be something of significance, like when we did our color, informational graphic page on the return to flight.

Personally, I have had an interest in space/sci-fi since I can remember. Being an artist, long study halls were filled up with designing my own spacecraft. At least until the teachers would stop by my desk and tell me to stop doodling because it would never lead anywhere. When I got started on my first 3D program, my first 'practice' piece of art was the classic Star Trek Enterprise, it seemed only right at the time.

Professionally, I have been able to produce many graphics on the space program, past and present, for newspaper readers. Its in the hopes that this does generate some sort of interest out there for those that still read the papers.

So, just doing my part for a few readers out there in hopes that there are those (that still read the papers, mind you) that may catch some interest in the future of the space program.

Thank you,

~Robert W. Ahrens

 


Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Doing my part, so to speak
« Reply #62 on: 06/11/2007 05:25 pm »
Quote
Stratist - 11/6/2007  4:57 PM
In the pages of today's USA TODAY (11.06.07), I have been able to showcase the STS-117 Mission into a full page informational graphic. This is a first for the shuttle or ISS in the paper.  Usually to get this kind of real-estate in any paper has to be something of significance, like when we did our color, informational graphic page on the return to flight.

Welcome to the board, Stratist! Sounds like you've done more to advance the public understanding of spaceflight than most of us will ever get to do. That must have been a fun project to do. Wish I could get hold of a copy of USA Today so that I could check out your work...

Offline Stratist

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Doing my part, so to speak
« Reply #63 on: 06/11/2007 06:33 pm »
Thanks for the welcome, Naraht,

It was a fun project. I've created a decent 3D model of the ISS that has been a work-in-progress since Columbia. So, anytime I can get this into the paper...I am a happy person.

It used to be we'd drop .pdf files of print pages on our Website. If it shows up there, I'd be happy to post the link here.

This project's timetable made it impossible for me to get it into our international edition.


Offline Naraht

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Doing my part, so to speak
« Reply #64 on: 06/11/2007 09:04 pm »
Quote
Stratist - 11/6/2007  7:33 PM
It used to be we'd drop .pdf files of print pages on our Website. If it shows up there, I'd be happy to post the link here.
Please do. I'd definitely be interested in seeing any of your space work.

Offline Andy L

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Giving this a push back up for new members.

Offline elmarko

  • I am very curious about THIS little conundrum
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1298
  • Preston, UK
    • ElMarko.org
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
I haven't posted in here yet, so I thought I'd let you know that I currently do my bit by posting threads on the forum of the very popular website Something Awful for each mission that has a webcast, although I have been slacking a bit lately. I always post lots of information on each Space Shuttle mission, and what happens is that we get a "Live" thread, much like the type we have here on NSF. Myself and a few other people (including contractors at KSC) post information about what's happening and give technical information from our own knowledge, in order to further enhance peoples understanding of what is going on.

It's immensely enjoyable to be watching the thread as people post stuff like "Woah! This is awesome!" and "Kudos to the people that put all of this together" because it means that collectively, the people that contribute to the thread have made an impact in some way.

I've already started a thread for STS-118, and I'll be posting in it until the mission is over. Hopefully, I can spread the word a bit further still :)

Offline Velomir

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • Warsaw, Poland
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 1
Hi, I'll tell you what I tried to do spreading the word

I was part of two editor teams of the two Polish spaceflight-only magazines, "Astronautyka" and the webbased "Astronautilus", we released a number of issues, covering current and historical space events.

A few months ago I became the new secretary of the Polish Astronautical Society; we take part in things like The Planetary Society's Apophis Tracking Mission Design. I am personally part of the team, which will help organize the 50 Years Sputnik Anniversary in Poland with help of  government organizations / comittees
Also we organize a small scientific congress every two years on current developments of space engines. We will try to lobby the government, so Poland at least my get its own satellite, or at least a bit more developed space industry... :)
I hope to make an exhibition of my astronauts' autographs collection, got more than 70 - so it can be made into a small presentation :)

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 75
All you can do, but it makes a difference, is to try and tell your friends about what you think is cool about it all. It usually works.

Offline MechTech

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
One thing I thought would be a great way to help could be done fairly cheap from the Visitor Center . Choose randomnly 1 or 2 families a day that are entering the Visitor Center to go on a behind the scenes tour for free .
Take them inside the pad gates , let them get out and stand on the pad surface .
Take them into the VAB , maybe a ride in a elevator (the nifty glass window ones) .
Stop by the CT yard for up close pictures with the crawlers .
Visit the OPF , dunno about bay entry due to non training of ELSA's and such , but stroll through the building . If not , visit the tile shop .

Take a couple families to some really cool places out there and show them upclose . They would return home and tell everyone they know about the experience , and it would be a positive word to boot .

Can you imagine a school age child returning home to tell all of their friends about the space center and all they saw ?

I dunno , silly idea but I thought it would be a good one .

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Perhaps this is a subject for another thread, but I don't know that there is a compelling reason to "spread the word" of space flight. Either we will find compelling reasons (most likely economic) for a large scale presence in space during our lifetimes or we won't. If those compelling reasons fail to materialize, then our case for space won't get very far. I find how I talk about space is determined by my interests.

In the US, there is a poor case right now for entering the space industry. The EELV programs are barely functioning (with Boeing threatening to end its LV for several years now), surviving mostly on government handouts. OSC seems to be chugging along with its new Minotaur, but most of its income seems only marginally related to space flight. The startups ("Alt.Space") look promising, but they are a long ways from making a profit. NASA funding isn't particularly reliable, but it's high margin and usually delivers. Then there are a few government jobs (in NASA, the military, and some other parts). Encouraging a person to go into a field where little happens is irresponsible in my mind. I won't promote space development as a career choice unless there's more signs of growth in this area.

As you can guess (especially from reading my posts on the matter), I'm not a supporter of NASA and I don't consider current NASA funding to be a tide that raises all boats. So I don't consider it a good idea to boost NASA projects for my associates. Having said that, I don't see a good reason to go out of my way to disparage NASA. It's not a zero-sum game.

Space development is interesting in that it combines many disciplines into solving problems. One can't figure out how to keep humans alive in space for long periods of time merely by knowing chemistry, astronomy, mechanical engineering, or medical science. There is a confluence of many streams of knowledge here. For example, I showed the SpaceX flight video to a couple of applied math graduate students in my department (I'll also a graduate student for your information). The development of the oscillations that resulted in the premature shutdown of the second stage engine is classic behavior familiar to many mathematicians (and of course many people in other areas of engineering and science too).

I don't want to be considered a crazy person merely because I support space development. So giving my associates some exposure to the interesting aspects of space flight is a way to preserve my status.

There are certain public policy decisions that can hinder space development like unachievably high standards of safety, security  (the problems of ITAR), or subject (for example, scientific or political endeavors considered more important than economic ones). It is reasonable to advocate against short-sighted policies (in one's humble opinion, of course) in order to hinder obstructions to progress in space development.
Karl Hallowell

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
clongton - 24/5/2007  9:26 AM
My point exactly. For better or worse, the general public’s perception of spaceflight is not shaped by medical, engineering and aeronautical advances and achievements.

You are absolutely right about this. NASA and indeed many space supporters have clung to this idea for so many years ("just tell John Q Public about all the spin-offs! Tang! Teflon! Pacemakers! ..." ) The problem is that all these things are spin-offs. WE understand then when you try something REALLY difficult, so difficult you need to invent new technologies just to do it, many odd things will shake-out and be useful. BUT (and this is a big concept to some space supporters) many in the general public think "yeah, but it should not take billions to invent Tang or Teflon..."
The problem with pitching space by selling the spin-offs is that the spin-offs are the frosting on the cake; they are the bonus goodies and, as such, will never justify the program to the public.

Quote
For folks like us, it’s the Holy Grail, but not for John Q Public. While they are not so naive to think that what they see in Star Wars and Star Trek is in any way representative of reality, they do take away the impression that spaceflight is much more adventurous than what Shuttle does. Star Trek began shaping minds in the 1960’s. This is 2007, almost 40 years of mind-set thru 3 generations of young people.

You are SO right here. I used to LOVE science fiction, but I would now only admit to liking occasional small doses, in private. I can appreciate the creativity, inspiration and vision some of it can provide... but ultimately it provides a healthy dose of ammunition AGAINST manned spaceflight. No matter how high-tech NASA goes, it will always look slow, timid, primitive and pointless to 90% of the people who walk out of the theater after a Start Trek or Star Wars flick.
Unless something major destroys the Fermi Paradox, there will be no cool aliens ( and luckily no space combat, though with Putin I am starting to worry a wee bit ;) ) Yes, these movies stoke the fires of hardcore space and scifi addicts, but many of the rest of the public think those scifi fans are nuts.

Quote
That is the battle we are up against. And to boot, less and less young people are pursuing careers in engineering, math and the sciences. Those of us who have, understand the lure, but the rest do not.

Here is where many U.S. companies (even ones that build the rockets) are killing the dream. You cannot depress the wages of engineers and scientists by importing cheap ones on H1-Bs and by out-sourcing them and then stand-back and moan at the lack of new young American talent. Why should any but the most hard-core-geek work so hard to study all those math/science/engineering subjects and risk low GPA if the aerospace industry will lay him off on a heartbeat and if he could take a 4 days/week business major and make WAY more money with more time off. Lockheed, Boeing,Loral, and the rest do us NO favors when they set-up facilities in Russia or China and transfer tech to those engineers so that the cheap Chinese and Russian rockets get even better. Do not even TRY to argue that these xfers do not happen. Every time a U.S. firm's engineers meet with foreign engineers there's a management pressure for them to show each other how things work and how to do things (more so if the foreign engineers "work for us")

Quote
They have not come to appreciate the beauty in function. We look at Shuttle and begin to admire function and engineering. We look at Shuttle’s underside and see plasma boundaries.

This is something we need to un-learn. When engineers and space supporters watch something like STS fly, it is fine that we admire the thing. We can grasp the problems that had to be solved to make it work and all of the skill and talent, and mix of genius, blood, sweat and tears that its operation represents. To John Q Public, it is just doing what a bottle rocket does, only on a much bigger scale... and that shouldn't be very hard, should it?

Quote
They look at Shuttle and say “sexy”!  But Shuttle has been doing the same thing for 30 years. It’s not “sexy” anymore to them. That’s what we have to change. We have to turn more people to understanding beauty in function, while at the same time doing more things that excite the rest of them.

Not to make too fine of a point of it, but I think "sexy" is a dangerous appeal. "Sexy" is related to fashion and fashions change quickly (I am NOT misunderstanding you and thinking we need lady astronauts in bikinis... I am using the term the same way you are). When something is flashy or sexy, I personally suspect it appeals to some very primitive (and VERY small) part of the brain that has no staying power...the part that likes the rapidly changing scenery of MTV. I worry that this would require more-and-more sexiness with an ever-shrinking return.

Quote
I don’t want to leave the impression that I am a Shuttle hater – I’m not. I love that spacecraft. But it’s time is past. For better or worse, the manufacturing infrastructure is already closing. A lot of the subcontractors are already either out of business or have completely retooled for different work. 2010 is the deadline, and even if we wanted to, there isn’t enough funding to reverse it. Shuttle dies in 2010, only 36 months away. That’s why it’s a mistake to use Shuttle as the poster child. We have to start pushing VSE, not Shuttle. Shuttle belonged to our generations, but for the one now arriving, they may have begun with Shuttle, but their appetite will be wetted on VSE, on the Moon and the beginning of Mars. For the next generation, Shuttle will be to them what Mercury and Gemini are to us. We have to be realistic about this and play to the next 2 generations, not ours.


You are SO VERY RIGHT here. We need to learn the lessons of history. Americans were inspired when a lone astronaut in a shiny silver suit climbed into a small capsule and was blasted out into the Atlantic. They were inspired again when another man in a silver suit orbited the earth to match the Russian effort. They were inspired again when Ed White got out and gently floated over an awe-inspiring view of our beautiful blue planet with that American flag on his stark white shoulder. Americans were inspired again when Boreman, Lovell and Anders swept around the moon and read from Genesis at Christmas time. Their pictures of Earth probably sparked some of the environmental movement. Americans were proud and inspired when Armstrong took his step. The public has other things to think about. They have their lives, their jobs, their kids, schools, taxes, vacations, etc to think about. They have given NASA its best support when it inspired them, when it gave their kids role models, when it stunned them with majestic new vistas, or with breathtaking acts of courage and resolve. Support has tapered-off when NASA bored them with what appeared to be re-runs; this has been a real problem for STS. I suspect the ONLY reason STS has not COMPLETELY bored them silly is that they travel on airliners which are big and loud and scare them a bit, and they can extrapolate to this winged bird and feel at least on some level that it must be that much more scary and dangerous and dynamic than the jets they fly on.

We need to never get trapped orbiting ANY world again. We need to return to being a frontier nation. We need to establish the base on the moon, but declare that it is the government's outpost around which OTHER people will build the colonies. As we explore the moon from that outpost, we need to press-on to the next horizon.

We need to sell them on the MAJESTY, on the ADVENTURE, on the old Kennedy idea that if we as a nation stand still, we stagnate, and falter, and become timid; we become shadows of those who came before us, and we cede the future to others who would do lesser things with that future. We need to remind them that "...we go to the moon, and do the other things, NOT because they are easy, but because they are HARD."

 That's just my humble opinion.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
khallow - 8/8/2007  3:08 PM
Perhaps this is a subject for another thread, but I don't know that there is a compelling reason to "spread the word" of space flight. Either we will find compelling reasons (most likely economic) for a large scale presence in space during our lifetimes or we won't.

Get OUT, NOW! Go to your ROOM!
 :laugh:

Seriously, Here is why we need to "spread the word":
Commercial reasons alone for the forseeable future will not provide anything but the cheapest ELVs that will launch the smallest stuff possible into LEO. That future will mostly just fill-up Earth orbit with comm sats, weather sats, spy sats, etc. With electronics getting ever smaller and cheaper, nothing says there will be a need for any bigger better rockets. Indeed, all it would take would be ONE breakthrough in some other field and a given satellite might be able to do its job at one tenth or one percent of the mass; the market would then shift to much smaller rockets and the current ELVs would be abandoned as giant dinosaurs (remember, they are inefficient in that we throw the rockets away... smaller rockets are cheaper to build and you throw away even less) So if commercial is unlikely to get us where we want, then government must to it. NASA gets its money from the taxpayers, via the congress. You want NASA to get more money? You have to get congress to give it to them. You want congress to give NASA more money? You have to get the voters to make them do it. Some will say commercial interests will get us to the moon and beyond. Not likely. Commercial interests will not throw billions at the moon unless there is a pretty good chance of a return on the investment. If a US base there doing pure research (at a big financial loss, as all such endeavors are) finds some really exotic thing that is valuable, THEN commercial interests will go after it. If you think hotels are the future path, you should re-think it. A hotel on orbit will be FANTASTICALLY expensive for a primitive room with bad air and food, and with very few paying to go there (until it is a well-established, frequently-used stepping stone to some OTHER place, anyway). A hotel on the moon will be orders of magnitude MORE expensive to stay at if established any time before a full-scale colony is being built (though I admit it WOULD likely have better amenities and be more comfortable). There is little precedent for luxury-hotels-for-billionaires as the reason to push any true frontier. The west was not won by either the Hiltons or by Motel6... they all came along MUCH later.


Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
MechTech - 7/8/2007  5:59 PM
One thing I thought would be a great way to help could be done fairly cheap from the Visitor Center . I dunno , silly idea but I thought it would be a good one .

Improving the visitor centers and such is not a silly idea; it is a good, albeit small, idea. The problem with it is in several parts:
1. It mostly attracts people who are at least moderately interested in spaceflight to begin with.
2. I think it is in the opposite direction from where NASA is going. Looks to me like a bunch of free-market neocons or libertarian economic types got their hands on NASA and said "Make your sites pay for some of themselves!" Looks like the visitor sites are being farmed-out to outside businesses to jack-up prices, over-commercialize what the TAXPAYER/VISITOR IS ALREADY PAYING FOR, and squeeze out money. Nobody ever seems to demand the same for other branches of government. Perhaps the IRS should stop using so much tax money and just supplement their budget with visitor centers; how about the State Department? The national parks? The coast guard?
3. Most taxpayers have REAL lives. They will never go to Houston or KSC, or headquarters, or Glenn or Marshall...

Unfortunately, NASA needs to wake-up and realize that their civilian support base is simply too small to do all the lifting. WE need to convince out families and neighbors and co-workers that the nation's future is worth investing in. We need to convince them that their kids and grandkids will have lesser futures without the space program, and that all the money "spent in space" by NASA is actually spent here on Earth on American scientists and engineers and technicians. Finally, WE need to always make sure the congress (the Senate, certainly, but the HOUSE members in particular know that we DEMAND healthy INVESTMENTS in NASA). House members must run for re-election every 2 years (this makes them much more responsive to voters than senators who feel aloof and think they can ignore voters for 4 of their 6 year terms). Also, each senator represents and entire state...so they just cannot be bothered with little people unless there's some really good press or money in it. House members each represent FAR fewer people. Do you know the name of your House member? Do you know how he or she voted on this year's NASA budget? Did you contact him or her with a hand-written letter explaining how important NASA is for America's future and for your kids and grandkids? Have you visited your house member in the local office when he or she was home on a break? Did you visit his or her office in DC when you were there on a vacation?

These things are important. You need to be in touch with these people. They represent you. The listen to you best when you have a short, reasonable, personal message that makes sense. They react less well to mass-mailings, form letters, lots of unverified names on some petition, or to being hounded and pestered by one person instead of contacted well by many persons from their district. They only need the votes from their district, so they do not generally care much about how much they hear from people who are not THEIR people; This is why you must convince family, neighbors, and co-workers; once you have convinced THEM, then you need to encourage them to convince their members of congress. One voice from back-home telling a member of congress that NASA is important and needs more money is good, but 50 tells him or her to notice and 100 gets their attention even more.




Offline AstroRJY

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
  • Erie, Pennsylvania USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Another good idea to change their opinion-- and this works on almost ANYBODY-- is to  get them to KSC to see a launch or encourage them if they're in the nnearby Florida  area to make an effort to see it.  If that is not feasible, see if there is a good IMAX film like Dream is Alive or Destiony in Space playing at a science center nearby.

Back when I was a teenager (damn that  makes me sound old) myself and my best friend were known as the "space nerds" and  many made fun of us.  However over the summer one of our critics was in Florida and  saw a shuttle launch in person and was so awestruck that he actually made an effort  when the next school year started to seek  us out and apologize for ever making fun of our interests and wanted to know a little more about it.  Quite the conversion,  almost like non-believers finding Jesus.


Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Quote
MrTim - 9/8/2007  8:32 PM

This is why you must convince family, neighbors, and co-workers; once you have convinced THEM, then you need to encourage them to convince their members of congress. One voice from back-home telling a member of congress that NASA is important and needs more money is good, but 50 tells him or her to notice and 100 gets their attention even more.
Tim,

Are you saying we should become missionaries for NASA?  It sounds in several of your posts like that kind of suggestion, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.  If not a missionary, what?  Emissary?

What do you say to those who don't want to give space money to NASA anymore?

Thanks.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
psloss - 9/8/2007  5:51 PM
Tim,
Are you saying we should become missionaries for NASA?  It sounds in several of your posts like that kind of suggestion, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.  If not a missionary, what?  Emissary?
What do you say to those who don't want to give space money to NASA anymore?
Thanks.

Good question. I do not like the term "missionary" as applied to this; it has other connotations to many citizens who associated it with selfless people who are sometimes killed trying to save to souls of others. ( Some here will HATE that notion or that I mentioned it... but when you want to talk to people and persuade them you should not start-off by taking a term they treat with a bit of reverence or respect and sullying it with secular matters. FWIW I think techies who talk about "evangelists" and "evangelism" on behalf of some company or consumer product really HONK-OFF a lot of potential customers without ever realizing it )

What I am saying is that on many levels NASA is completely incompetent at anything but planes and rockets. As an agency, it has NEVER communicated well. When it WAS in touch with America, it really WASN'T... TIME magazine and LIFE magazine were, and the feats of the astronauts were bold enough to thrill the public IN SPITE of the NASA PAO effort to make it all boring. What I AM saying is that WE need to learn to PROPERLY and EFFECTIVELY lobby our representatives (not as some non-profit space geek PAC, there are ENOUGH of THOSE and congress only cares about them as possible sources of good PR to target voter groups and and possible sources of small donors). What I AM saying is that we need to GROW THE POOL of ordinary voters contacting the congress to urge better support for NASA. Some of this is easy. If you are a space nut, and your brother is a gear-head, that's an easy thing to get him aboard. Your parents, spouse, and grandparents need to see how important this is for the kids and grandkids. Know anybody who flies planes? NASA does a lot of aerospace work and would do more and better if it had more funding. Got kids with their own kids? What sort of country do they expect those kids to live in if it gradually stops pushing forward?

I'll be the first to tell you that I do NOT have all the answers (well Jim might beat me to it  :bleh:   :laugh:  ) but we all NEED to pay a LOT more attention to the political end of all this... not as spectators, but as personally involved INDIVIDUALS (not packs of trekkies to be ignored but as concerned parents, grandparents, patriotic citizens, etc.) THAT is where the funds come from and where the laws come from that say how the funds must be used.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Quote
MrTim - 9/8/2007  5:08 PM

Quote
khallow - 8/8/2007  3:08 PM
Perhaps this is a subject for another thread, but I don't know that there is a compelling reason to "spread the word" of space flight. Either we will find compelling reasons (most likely economic) for a large scale presence in space during our lifetimes or we won't.

Get OUT, NOW! Go to your ROOM!
 :laugh:

Seriously, Here is why we need to "spread the word":
Commercial reasons alone for the forseeable future will not provide anything but the cheapest ELVs that will launch the smallest stuff possible into LEO. That future will mostly just fill-up Earth orbit with comm sats, weather sats, spy sats, etc. With electronics getting ever smaller and cheaper, nothing says there will be a need for any bigger better rockets. Indeed, all it would take would be ONE breakthrough in some other field and a given satellite might be able to do its job at one tenth or one percent of the mass; the market would then shift to much smaller rockets and the current ELVs would be abandoned as giant dinosaurs (remember, they are inefficient in that we throw the rockets away... smaller rockets are cheaper to build and you throw away even less) So if commercial is unlikely to get us where we want, then government must to it. NASA gets its money from the taxpayers, via the congress. You want NASA to get more money? You have to get congress to give it to them. You want congress to give NASA more money? You have to get the voters to make them do it. Some will say commercial interests will get us to the moon and beyond. Not likely. Commercial interests will not throw billions at the moon unless there is a pretty good chance of a return on the investment. If a US base there doing pure research (at a big financial loss, as all such endeavors are) finds some really exotic thing that is valuable, THEN commercial interests will go after it. If you think hotels are the future path, you should re-think it. A hotel on orbit will be FANTASTICALLY expensive for a primitive room with bad air and food, and with very few paying to go there (until it is a well-established, frequently-used stepping stone to some OTHER place, anyway). A hotel on the moon will be orders of magnitude MORE expensive to stay at if established any time before a full-scale colony is being built (though I admit it WOULD likely have better amenities and be more comfortable). There is little precedent for luxury-hotels-for-billionaires as the reason to push any true frontier. The west was not won by either the Hiltons or by Motel6... they all came along MUCH later.


Air travel and architecture are two examples of activities that at first were limited to the wealthy of the time. As was vacationing in the US national parks. And such things as building railroad or hotels.

And what is NASA doing with its money that furthers economic development of space? The unmanned program seems to have strong utility, but not so for the manned space program. Why give NASA more money? Why should I want this?

To restate my original point, I don't see the problem as one of insufficient propaganda, but rather lack of genuine progress in space development. I'll follow up on this to a new thread I think.
Karl Hallowell

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
khallow - 9/8/2007  11:03 PM

Quote
MrTim - 9/8/2007  5:08 PM

Quote
khallow - 8/8/2007  3:08 PM
Perhaps this is a subject for another thread, but I don't know that there is a compelling reason to "spread the word" of space flight. Either we will find compelling reasons (most likely economic) for a large scale presence in space during our lifetimes or we won't.

Get OUT, NOW! Go to your ROOM!
 :laugh:

Seriously, Here is why we need to "spread the word":

Air travel and architecture are two examples of activities that at first were limited to the wealthy of the time. As was vacationing in the US national parks. And such things as building railroad or hotels.

And what is NASA doing with its money that furthers economic development of space? The unmanned program seems to have strong utility, but not so for the manned space program. Why give NASA more money? Why should I want this?

To restate my original point, I don't see the problem as one of insufficient propaganda, but rather lack of genuine progress in space development. I'll follow up on this to a new thread I think.

Ah, yes, I DO get your point. We agree about a lack of progress is space development, and I am not for pro-space "propaganda". Propaganda cannot stand on its own and eventually collapses. My point about the hotels is mainly a cautionary one; there seem to be many who are frustrated with the pace of progress and who pin their hopes upon space hotels... but there is simply no model of that EVER having been a viable path to the frontier. We are not yet at the either the "gold-rush" or the "homestead" phase of space travel yet... there is nothing THERE yet to lure all the pioneers who will need places to go. There are not yet the things tourists need. For now, all a space hotel can do is offer a thrill to a few billionaires. While this model MAY make some money for guys like Branson or Bigelow, it will not provide a sustainable foundation for a big future. We are currently at the "Lewis & Clarke" or the "James Cook" phase where government crews on government transport using government money are out there mapping and looking around to see and document the resources that will lure waves of civilian explorers and pioneers later-on when they can find ways to afford to go (If some highly valuable resources turn-up then people will be able to get investors to pony-up for some of the high transport costs). Companies will go too, and not for artificial, HIGHLY vulnerable to economic down-turn reasons like hotels-for-billionaires, but for real and sustainable reasons like new resources, or supporting the pioneers who are out there persuing the new resources.

The reason I keep harping on people here getting involved with contacting congress members is NOT because I think we should propagandize for space and NOT because we should tell congress they need to do dumb things or wrong things that will be exposed later as wrong or hollow.
The REASON we need to get congress to support space properly NOW is precisely because we ARE in that early phase where government must do the work (because it is not cost-effective, has no assured ROI, and cannot appeal to most businesses). Until government gets that early work done, Initial trails blazed and mapped, SOME resources mapped and publicized, Initial small government outposts setup (some authority in place to allocate mining and homesteading rights, some local ability to provide aid, and resolve disputes...), I do not see the beginning of that later phase where the progress will, I believe, explode with many diverse groups and methods and lots of people. Once an initial wave of prospectors land on the moon, there WILL be a need for vendors there to provide supplies, do repairs, etc. Moving from place to place on the moon will be cheaper than getting TO the moon, so once activity picks-up things will be really interesting there...Hotels might become QUITE viable. A guy who can rent you a better moon buggy might become a good thing when you are up there competing with a hundred other prospectors.


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0