Andy L - 21/5/2007 8:51 PMBeen 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?
Argosy - 21/5/2007 9:15 PMBack here where I live not many people are interested in spaceflight
savuporo - 22/5/2007 9:46 AMheres 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.
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.
Far Reach - 22/5/2007 4:09 PMWe need an inspirational sentance too. Something to hit people about this being special.
Andy L - 21/5/2007 2:51 PMBeen 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?
Chris Bergin - 22/5/2007 3:55 PMI'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.
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.
savuporo - 22/5/2007 11:52 AM"However, NASA is the priority"Where does this unquestioned assumption of yours come from ?
Launch Fan - 22/5/2007 8:23 PMSavuporo, 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!
Launch Fan - 22/5/2007 8:23 PMNASA 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!
edkyle99 - 22/5/2007 9:36 PM To many, Shuttle is a fading remnant of a bygone era. - Ed Kyle
Launch Fan - 23/5/2007 2:23 AMNASA and Shuttle are the biggest pulling points 100 times over. Anyone that thinks different clearly does not know what they are talking about.
Naraht - 23/5/2007 4:01 AMIf 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.
Firestarter - 23/5/2007 12:37 AMThe same could be said about Howard Stern
Naraht - 23/5/2007 4:01 AMQuoteLaunch Fan - 23/5/2007 2:23 AMNASA 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.
William Barton - 23/5/2007 12:12 PMUnfortunately, I think the only thing that spreads the interest in spaceflight is actual spaceflight doing something interesting.
Kayla - 23/5/2007 7:12 PMNASA 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 forwardNASA 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!!!
SpaceCat - 24/5/2007 5:38 AMMy 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.....
Space101 - 24/5/2007 10:05 AMThose 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.
Geeky is not cool. That's where Shuttle comes in, as it's certainly not a geeky thing. Space planes are cool.
simonbp - 23/5/2007 8:09 PMIsn'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
Space101 - 24/5/2007 10:05 AMProblems with that...
clongton - 24/5/2007 3:19 PMShuttle 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.
Chris Bergin - 24/5/2007 10:28 AMQuoteclongton - 24/5/2007 3:19 PMShuttle 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.
clongton - 24/5/2007 3:51 PMBut 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.
Naraht - 24/5/2007 9:55 AMParticularly 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!
Donna Spaceships - 24/5/2007 4:00 PMQuoteNaraht - 24/5/2007 9:55 AMParticularly 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.
Naraht - 24/5/2007 3:55 PMParticularly 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!
Naraht - 24/5/2007 10:08 AMQuoteDonna Spaceships - 24/5/2007 4:00 PMQuoteNaraht - 24/5/2007 9:55 AMParticularly 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.
William Barton - 24/5/2007 11:38 AMI 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.
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
Stratist - 11/6/2007 4:57 PMIn 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.
Stratist - 11/6/2007 7:33 PMIt 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.
clongton - 24/5/2007 9:26 AMMy 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.
khallow - 8/8/2007 3:08 PMPerhaps 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.
MechTech - 7/8/2007 5:59 PMOne 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 .
MrTim - 9/8/2007 8:32 PMThis 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.
psloss - 9/8/2007 5:51 PMTim,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.
MrTim - 9/8/2007 5:08 PMQuotekhallow - 8/8/2007 3:08 PMPerhaps 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.
khallow - 9/8/2007 11:03 PMQuoteMrTim - 9/8/2007 5:08 PMQuotekhallow - 8/8/2007 3:08 PMPerhaps 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.
MrTim - 9/8/2007 5:08 PMQuotekhallow - 8/8/2007 3:08 PMPerhaps 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":