Neil Tyson's Stealth Presentation at National Academy of Sciences
Keith’s note: Neil Tyson will be talking about “Delusions of Space Enthusiasts” on Wednesday from 9:00 – 10:00 am EDT at the National Academy of Sciences’ Human Spaceflight panel. WebEx Access Call-in toll-free number: 1-(866) 668-0721 Conference Code: 448 560 9647. If none of these things work check here.
NAS will only allow 150 people to watch on WebEx. What is baffling is why the NAS can’t simply do a Google Hangout. All you need is a laptop and the potential reach of their “public” events would be vastly enhanced. And it is free too. Of course, the NAS goes out of its way not to tell anyone about this “public” presentation. Only wonks and media can usually figure out what’s going on in these meetings.
Keith’s update: If you did not tune in to Tyson’s presentation you did not miss much. He referred to slides a lot – but the NAS did not show his slides. Nor did the NAS capture the presentation for posting on YouTube. Based on his somewhat rambling presentation this morning, it is clear Tyson is not a big fan of commercial space. He thinks that only governments can lead the way in space and that commerce can only follow. He said that due to risk and expense one cannot valuate space from a commercial perspective. He also more or less dismissed the notion out of hand that America has ever really done anything in space for scientific, exploratory, or inspirational purposes and thinks that everything done in space can be traced back to war funding. He also dismissed the notion that investing in NASA has significant economic payback.
Thoughts on @neiltyson ? Disagree w pessimistic view on commercial space future & we have the extraordinary members to back it up!
— CSF Spaceflight (@csf_spaceflight) October 23, 2013
NAS Space Studies Board Quietly Announces Online Public Access After Event Starts, earlier post
This could easily be set up as a Google Hangout on Air, broadcasting live through YouTube at no charge to NASA. It would also be archived at no cost. There’s no reason they could not feed the video both to WebEx for live interaction and to the Hangout for the general public to simply watch in real time.
Please stop finding simple solutions for the NAS. They are not interested. 😉
Yep, not invented there 😉
NASA already does live YouTube stuff all the time. They don’t do it because they don’t want to.
You needed 3 numbers to get onto this WEB EX telecast: The phone number, the conference code and a security code.
How DARE NASA have ANY meetings that aren’t fully open to everyone. One wonders how Neil Tyson’s voice will ever be heard if such chicanery is allowed to continue!
Keith, your love for Neil knows no bounds. 😉
Perhaps I misinterpreted something, but it seems to me that Keith just objectively reported facts in his comments above. He included no opinion or judgement of Tyson’s obvious points of view that I could see.
I posted as much detail as possible such that people could tune in and listen for themselves.
I listened to NDT’s remarks on the telephone. Keith postings were direct quotes of what was presented.
He thinks that only governments can lead the way in space and that commerce can only follow. He said that due to risk and expense one cannot valuate space from a commercial perspective. Keith your tone suggest you think he is wrong. What commercial, stock holder driven entity is doing space exploration? Space X is private AND AND AND is dependent on federal $$ to do its work. Boeing would not be allowed to do space were it not for finances from the government. So TECHNICALLY he is right. Should it be all Govt? No, but it never was. You cannot put a business plan together to value space from a commercial perspective. Insurance risk too high. So, Commercialization of LEO is now coming but only after the governments lead the way.
Tyson is trying to make this whole discussion black or white – yes or no – either you are government or you are commercial. One or the other. He tries to debunk statements that it was the private sector that built railroads across the U.S. and opened up the West by claiming instead that the government did this by claiming land that the railroads were built on. The answer is that it was both government and the private sector. But again Tyson feels like he has to deal in clear-cut distinctions – which is foolish since the real world does not operate that way.
I actually don’t think he is talking about clear cut/black or white world. I think (at least this is my read – YMMV) what he was actually talking about was an integrated strategy, that isn’t about Government vs commercial, but is focused on a bigger picture ideal.
The problem was, he was not connecting anything together, and thus we end up with the speech that was hard to actually tease anything out.
I’ve got it!!
Someone needs to get the government to pay for them to build a whole fleet of recoverable rockets!! Then they could use these same rockets to charge their customers much less to kick off more business in outer space. Wouldn’t that be likely to work????
They’re basically already doing this with all the money SpaceX and others get. And yes, it’s on purpose. How NDGT is so blind to this I have no idea.
Lololol that was my point Sir!
Spacex has 4 or 5 cargo dragons in the barn already. And if they can land their booster they get to keep the booster. The vehicle remains theirs. The commercial company only provides the service. That was the point/joke of my post, that whatever this talking head says NASA has found a way to stimulate the commercial Space market through Spacex and Musks desire to make affordable recoverable rockets.
Nasa requires new unused vehicles!
Cygnus shouldn’t be being used to dump garbage either it could and should be designed to stay in space and be reused somehow!! We have engineers that should design a way to deorbit garbage cheaper than burning up a human rated vehicle.
Joe Q Public
Yes, I was agreeing with you and adding details.
There will come a day when, beleive it or not, the new vehicles will be considered less safe because the reusable ones will have flown near flawlessly for quite a few flights, so a new one runs the risk of having an unseen manufacturing defect. . . So I don’t buy your NASA argument.
But I like your style ;).
I think Tyson is making the same mistake as a lot of other orators — NASA and SpaceX are not the only players in the game; the US is not the only country in the game; and science and short-term profits are not the only motivations in the game.
The news from the last 10+ years has shown us lots of projects that don’t fit into the neat little slots of government and “commercial,” and many of these are/were very significant ventures, starting with Burt Rutan’s group winning the X-Prize. His company is now an integral part of Virgin Galactic, who are pouring plenty of money into their goals, without government subsidies and without expectation of short-term profits. Yet they get plenty of investment from people putting down ticket deposits against the future.
And that’s just one example; there are plenty of individuals and new companies who are doing their own things in space, without employing the stereotyped processes of either the big, established aerospace companies or national governments. At this point in history, I think that any analysis that doesn’t take all of these players and their work into account is very much incomplete.
In a different field, but with similar characteristics, look a the difference one man, Paul Allen, is making to SETI. History offers plenty of examples in various science and technology fields of one person or small outfit making a big difference in a new field, and when you combine the effects of multiple cases together you can get results exceeding those of the big players.
I won’t be surprised if 100 years from now people talk about Elon Musk and Richard Branson the way people have talked about Henry Ford for the last 50 years. Meanwhile, the names of the senior people at NASA and in government space committees will have been completely forgotten.
Synergy says the whole can be more than the sum of the parts, but we must consider all of the part to be accurate.
Nothing the US has done in space was for science purposes – true!
Everything the US has done in space is either defense based or a side effect of the cold war – true!
The economic benefit of space exploration is small – true!
So…
Why does NdGT think that government sponsored exploration is the way to go? Based on his arguments, all we’ll get is a flag-and-boots I-got-there-first mission, no economic benefit or sustainable basis, and then again 40 years of doing nothing.
Commercial space is looking to circumvent exactly all these problems rather than perpetuate them. Even if NdGT thinks it’s too hard for non-NASA groups, at least they should be allowed to try, no?
Just for the long shot that NdGT is underestimating them?
They can not do worse!!
One of Dr. Tyson’s main arguments for space exploration is the economic one – that economic prosperity should be replacing war as the main driver. His goal is to get the public to see this and more funding for NASA means more money to SpaceX and other private companies. Get the average voter interested and you get commercial space and a whole lot more. Until the risk for space exploration goes down, investors will not put money down to take a company from start to finish without govt help. You could argue that Virgin Galactic proves this theory wrong, but I think Elon Musk is lightyears ahead of Richard Branson when it comes to commercial space exploration.
I’m still trying to understand how this guy got to be in such a position of prominence. His astrophysics track record of refereed journal publication is minimal.
http://www.haydenplanetariu…
He collects honorary doctorates for giving commencement speeches. But, here he is. The shortcomings of the NAS are many but their members generally have accomplished something in their fields.
Sorry, I have worked on science programs with Neil and attacks on his publication record are wholly unwarranted. It’s unusual for senior people to publish much (you have students that do that). In any case Neil is a planetarium director, and mostly is doing a very important outreach job over purely academic research. Although I disagree with him over many of his opinions on the space program, I definitely respect him for the job he does.
I agree. Unless you consider Tyson’s public comments about Stephen Hawking’s research. In that case Tyson is not even close to Hawking – and his publication record (or lack thereof ) is totally relevant.
I’d prefer that space science policy be set by scientists not media star planetarium directors unless they’re doubling up and staying on top of their field. He got on the celebrity track early and, credit to him, is riding it for all it is worth.
I think everyone should have a say. FWIW I usually find myself in strong agreement with what Neil Tyson says – and how he says it. But I also disagree with many things he says.
Generally in science, senior people get to be senior people after rising through the ranks of research and publication.
Well said!
its funny that on the day when the second private companies (fourth of fifth method) payload is returned from ISS – NDT shows incredible blinders……. if we can just leave it alone and let it grow what is happening now with NASA vs private space is reminiscent of the NACA played for private airplanes manufacturers. Why under any circumstances would you want to mess with it. Cheaper and more plentiful access to space will follow from the private world.
When was the last time we had a ticker tape parade for something besides a sports team? The Apollo 11 crew? Since the 1960s, it looks like we do not have ticker tape parades for astronauts either.
New hypothesis for Dr. Tyson’s way of thought, and possibly a way out of the corner he is painting himself in if SpaceX, or others, succeed at conducing exploration without big government support:
He likes to bring up examples of previous explorations to support his own ideas about how and why exploration is conducted. Fine. We all know that some metaphors are better than others. It depends. But one thing about historical terrestrial exploration at least, it used to be that we could not see over the horizon and when humans laid eyes on new lands and set foot on them. We had no idea what to expect for the most part. It was a complete surprise much of the time. We did not yet have airplanes to scout ahead. We didn’t have satellites that covered the globe. In retrospect, some of the locations of the original North American settlements, for example, could have been better planned with Google Satellite Maps.
Today we have government funded telescopes that explore the solar system. We have even more expensive government funded robotic probes that orbit distant planets and rove their surfaces. This is exactly the type of exploration that Tyson is talking about. Much of it will be useful for first human explorers that go there. They will have a better idea what to expect. Dare I say, some risk, among the huge mountain of risk that remains to human life, will be alleviated by these prior robotic explorations.
So even if Elon Musk reinvests the billions he will make with SpaceX into launching a successful, well placed, settlement on Mars, Tyson may still be able to say “It was because big gov’t led the way!”