Space Advocacy By Space Advocates Is A Failure
Red planet rumble, The Space Review
“If somebody was scoring this debate, giving a point for each well-supported argument, deducting a point for each weak one, and subtracting multiple points every time somebody conceded the other side’s argument, then Mars One lost it hands down. Not only did Barry Finger admit that MIT’s technical analysis and criticism was mostly right, but Lansdorp also admitted that their 12-year plan for landing humans to Mars by 2027 is mostly fiction. Furthermore, Lansdorp acknowledged that he pretty much twists the truth into a pretzel for potential investors when he tells them he knows how to do it and how much it will cost. He doesn’t have a clue.”
Harnessing The Martian, The Space Review
“.. [The Martian] will soon provide a tremendous opportunity particularly to space advocates to extend that excitement to the general population and to engage broad public support for sending human missions to Mars in the near future. The space advocacy community has tried valiantly to promote that goal through other recent films, such as Interstellar and Gravity. However, while those films were certainly entertaining, neither one aligned very well with our space exploration aspirations.”
Keith’s note: The space advocacy community – especially the human-oriented subset thereof – seems to be unable to discern bad rocket science from science fiction. On one hand so many of their kind believe in a marketing effort (Mars One) with no real technical plan as if it were real because … well … because they believe in anything that has to do with their destiny in space. On the other hand when several space-themed movie blockbusters really get the public’s attention the same space advocates whine when America doesn’t rush to embrace their own peculiar space exploration notions and blame the movie’s scripts for not being in precise tune with the niche views of the true space believers.
Given the chronic inability for the space advocacy community to gain any real traction for their “space exploration aspirations” it is quite clear that whatever they have been doing for decades is really not working. Nor is it going to start working any time soon. If all anyone in the space advocacy community can think of doing involves adoring lame PR Mars mission stunts and grabbing the coat tails of sci fi flicks in hope of sniffing the fumes of the film’s success, then I fear there is very little of true substance for space advocates to actually be advocating.
But there is hope. While the human spaceflight subset of the space advocacy community continues to leap mindlessly at every shiny new space thing – with little success, the robotic subset of the space faithful are quietly flying an increasing number of small satellites – in outer space. In so doing they are slowly building a ever-broadening cadre of people – a group that often includes people from outside the band of usual suspects you’d expect to be doing space stuff. These are the sorts of people that space advocates routinely ignore. As a result of these smallsat projects an increasing diverse number of people can now say “yes, I flew something in space”.
In many ways space advocates block more access to space than they facilitate due to the the stereotypes that they perpetuate and the population sectors they ignore. If space advocates want to spark a space revolution then they need to forget about all the space evangelism crap and just put actual space access into the hands of everyday citizens. Once people get interested – if they get interested, that is – they’ll know what to do when they want more of it.
By the way: if NASA expects to be able to generate and then maintain the multi-decade political and financial juggernaut needed for their #JourneyToMars they ought to be paying very close attention to the limitations of space advocates and the vast untapped potential resident within everyone else.
I’ll give it to Lansdorp – he showed up to defend his project. I always thought there was a good chance of it just being a fraud, but it seems more like he’s just deluded and hopelessly optimistic (wouldn’t be the first time, considering the history of private space companies before the late 2000s).
Otherwise, I agree with everything you said. Keeping space exploration alive and growing is going to need a strong group of advocates to find and pressure supporters in Congress. With that, good missions are possible – the Europa mission might now happen because of efforts like that.
Mars One suffers from a chronic lack of funding. They are working on that, though. With some funding they can really get going on turning the preliminary studies they have completed into reality. They may never succeed, but they certainly do appear to intend to go down fighting.
No offense, but I wouldn’t give Mars One a penny. I like the “our destiny is in space” talk, but all anyone has for that is a t-shirt. And my t-shirt money is on Mars One not being around in a couple years.
It is certainly possible that Mars One will fail. Of course, without any support it doesn’t matter how promising a space venture is, who is involved in it, or how well planned it is, it will fail.
A much more realistic plan to get to Mars.
Simple as 1 2 3 4
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/…
“Before anything with people starts, there will be a preliminary phase where SpaceX sends spacecraft to Mars without any people. The first step, Musk told me, would be to “send an automated spaceship to Mars just to make sure you can send something there and back”—this should happen before 2020. Then, there would be a handful of unmanned cargo missions to bring equipment, habitats, and supplies, so that when the first people start arriving, they’ll be able to not die—they’ll need access to water, a place to live, the tools to convert compounds on Mars to oxygen, fertilizer to grow crops, etc.”
I think it’s funny that Elon Musk and Mars One are saying the exact same things.
Both seem to have the right plan towards human exploration and settlement of Mars, with obviously differing timelines and expectations. But the main difference appears to be; Musk would like for his Martian explorers to actually be able to return to Earth. The Mars One folks are taking that out of the equation all together.
For good reason, that reduces the costs and complexity dramatically. Everything I’ve heard about SpaceX’s plans for Mars (which, by the way, is much less than the information available about Mars One) indicates that they will initially use a one-way trip as well, with the possibility of return infrastructure about a decade later.
I find some of this piling on to Mars One a certain shame, although some of it is partly their doing. Eventually, there will be something akin to Mars One that will actually send people to Mars but not until the transportation infrastructure is operational and more mature. All Mars One really had to do was to make their plans long term and contingent on future infrastructure and tech development. I guess it’s harder to plan for reality shows that way, but it is more honest to the public.
Perhaps if Mars One can scrape up enough funding to survive and continue working on turning their studies into reality, by the time the transportation infrastructure is operational and mature, they might be able to take advantage of it.
“Everyday citizens” believing they benefit in some fashion from space flight seems more significant that providing them access to space. Even if it somehow becomes affordable — priced comparably to airline flights — where do we go? Where would we want to go? Sub-orbital Beijing-New York in an hour or so? Sure, but that would be framed as air travel, not space flight.
Nothing can compare for generating public interest and enthusiasm more than doing something that has not been done before. And then pushing on quickly with another push of the envelope within a time period that’s short enough, lest the enthusiasm and interest wane. We’ve spent the last 30 years repeating ourselves, albeit with more refined tech.
I’d say a space station similar to the one in “2001: A Space Odyssey” would generate a HUGE demand for tickets if they cost the same as airline tickets.
Does “access to space” only mean physically going to space? Could it mean building your own Sputnik? Or sending your GoPro to space and watching the video?
I have online ACCESS to my library’s e-book collection, I don’t even have to GO there to get books anymore. It’s VERY convenient.
The capability of autonomous robotic systems continues to increase without any obvious limitation. It is only a matter of time before AI equals or exceeds our normal human capabilities in the role of explorer. We should embrace this progress, not disparage it. Being there in person has its advantages; as access becomes easier, as in LEO, more humans will go. But it is not at all obvious to me why we should make any philosophical distinctions based on whether the explorers at the frontier are organic human, remotely operated, or autonomous robots. What difference does it make? We are there.
I think the Planetary Society replies better than I (its well worth the read):
There is no logical justification for sending humans to do things machines can do equally well or better. It’s all about emotions and dreams and so on so forth. The desire of being there is part of the genetic defect called curiosity that helped humans survive.
I’m fine with a logical justification of humans living somewhere beyond Earth, in case of an extinction event.
The enthymeme adopted in this line of argument assumes the earth will be rendered at least worse than mars for humans in such an extinction event, natural or man made. This is unlikely to happen.
“Einstein” – Incorrect. It merely assumes that human civilization is reduced to a point that it needs to be reseeded from space. That could happen from a number of events that would leave much of the biosphere damaged, but functioning.
In that case, building an undersea gene bank is a better option.
Einstein,
Well… we are smarter than the dinosaurs.
The man-made disaster of World War II flattened Europe. The US was spared the worst of the ravages of the war, and so was in a position to enact the Marshall Plan to get Europe back up on its economic feet again.
Of course, any space based Marshall Plan would require that space settlements would need to have an economic capacity similar to that of the US when it enacted the Marshall Plan. This will require a human spaceflight program based on something more substantial than flags, photos, and footprints.
Given that Mars One intends to contract with SpaceX for launch services, you could say that Mars One has the exact same success with putting things into orbit. Mars One is indeed lacking in funding, though, and we don’t know how much money SpaceX has put into their Mars plans.
Intends? Well, I intend to be President of the United States in 2016. We do know SpaceX has launched rockets, for customers who have actually paid money for that service. Mars One has some slides about going to Mars. And some fans delusional enough to think they’re actually going on a one way trip to the Red Planet.
That sort of comment is is exactly what I heard about SpaceX back in 2001.
Every venture into space has to start somewhere, usually as a sketch on the back of a napkin that turns into more refined drawings and fleshed-out plans later on. Yes, Mars One is very short of funding needed to turn their ideas into reality – but there is every indication that they are serious about going to Mars. They may very well fail, of course, and be yet another one of the scores of failed space ventures that litter the pages of history. That hardly makes supporting Mars One delusional. No more so than supporting the L5 Society, Space Exploration Initiative, Mars Direct, etc.
Let’s start with FIVE kids first. We don’t even have that yet. We have space advocates precisely because we do NOT have sufficient accomplishments yet. We have advocates to help finds ways to get rich people and governments and corporate giants with the money to invest or donate to the company groups and entrepreneurs and non-profits who want to do all those space accomplishments we all want to see. Those five mission kids are unlikely to pay for their frog’s ride into space, so somehow, someone else has to pay.
Please provide an example where a space advocate has provided a path where actual hardware has been put into space.
Planetary Society’s Lightsail (sail.planetary.org) as well as microphones and other bits of hardware on Mars probes, working in cooperation with JPL, going back to famous recordings on the Voyager spacecraft.
Lunar Prospector started out as a campaign by space advocates. Search on “Pre-History of Lunar Prospector”.
New Horizons was significantly helped along by advocacy by the Planetary Society. Search on “Remembering the Pluto Campaign”.
Rick Tumlinson of Space Frontier Foundation led a team that leased the Russian Mir space station, and signed up the first “space tourist” Dennis Tito, which started the commercial space travel industry. Search on “Rick Tumlinson” and “Dennis Tito”.
International Space Station was saved by just one vote in 1993, which was due to strong space advocacy at the time — from all parties (grassroots and industry) on Congress. Search on “1993” and “save the space station”
The Hubble Space Telescope was saved with the help of a strong space advocacy campaign. Search on “Save Hubble”.
A push for contests by space advocates as a way to squeeze more effort out of tax dollars prompted the SEDS and ISU founders to form the X-Prize Foundation. The first prize was won in 2004 with the first private-launched suborbital reusable rocket, which is slowly building a new reusable suborbital tourism/science industry. It also inspired NASA to create the “Centennial Challenges” program, which was strongly endorsed by space advocates. Plus there is still the Google Lunar X-Prize effort in work.
Several former Executive Directors and officers from the National Space Society have had (and continue to have) some significant roles with NASA HQ or the White House shaping NASA towards a more cooperative working relationship with commercial and private space firms. One might become the next NASA Administrator.
Not all space advocacy involves writing letters to Congress, as is true for all sorts of advocacy, activism, lobbying, etc.
Half of what you claim to be the result of space advocates was not. Lunar X prize is a flop. SSF vote had nothing to do with space advocates. NASA’s budget is not what it should be if expansion beyond Earth is the goal and there is nothing remotely close to a consensus as to where NASA should go – or why. There is no budget for the next several decades to support a human mission to Mars or anywhere else. If space advocates had the influence you claim then surely there’d be a different situation after 40 years of space advocacy than we are. There needs to be a new way to do this. The old way never really worked and is inert now.
There needs to be a new way to do this. The old way never really worked and is inert now.
Suggestion?
Sending a bunch of nerds to visit congressional offices is a waste of time. Sending form letters is also rather pointless. So long as space advocates cater to ultra niche issues they will get minimal support. They need to stop with the choir practice and embrace concepts that the remaining 99.9999% of the electorate actually worries about and do so in a fashion that enlists them – instead of turning them off.
So your saying that Space advocacy groups are the girl at the end off this video
https://youtu.be/Hy9_fsL6uS8
Maybe Space advocates should concentrate on getting big money pacs etc. out of our government.
I bet 99.9999% of the people would support that.
Isn’t pork and legal corruption continuously slowly down progress in Space?
The issues that keep us from going to space aren’t even Space issues.
That doesn’t answer the question. He asked what should people do. You simply described what does not work and what is a waste.of time to try. What do you suggest?
Space advocacy surely had the power to influence ONE or TWO votes that made all the difference in 1993. I never said or made the claim that space advocacy has lots of power. Far from it. We are greatly short handed and under-funded, and thus the movement is where it is.
That is not a reason to say space advocacy is a flop, that is a reason to JOIN a space advocacy organization (or two or three, like me). As many other advocacy/lobby groups have proven from AARP to NRA, there is strength in numbers. The space movement clearly needs a lot more numbers. If those five million students had written those letters as cited above, that would be fantastic! The reality is that we would be lucky to get 5000 or perhaps only 500 of them to write a letter.
Don’t shoot the messenger, instead become part of the solution. Ad Astra!
Space advocacy’s impact has been minimal – at best – in affecting the larger scheme of things. There is a reason why it is “under funded” as you put it: it only caters to what space advocates are interested in hence a very small funding pool that is already being fished by other space advocacy groups. Various organizations regularly take credit for things that happen in Congress when in fact their influence was minimal – at best.
As you tend to ask of others, please be specific in YOUR claims that “Half of what you claim to be the result of space advocates was not.” I spent some time on my message above so please do me the courtesy of doing likewise in your rebuttal. Which half? And please cite/link to YOUR sources of evidence.
This is not the Morton Downey, Jr. Show after all. I least I hope not — you are not being negative just be negative are you? The space movement is first and foremost one to bring about a positive and hopeful and prosperous view of the future. I would hope that you are part of that movement.
Read what I wrote. I worked at NASA at the time – on SSF – and recall that Planetary Society was against SSF and/or would not lift a finger. The decision made had nothing to do with space advocates and had everything to do with congressional pork. FWIW I was co-lead on the ISEE-3 Reboot Project. Been there, done that. Oh yes, If you are going to compare me with Morton Downey Jr. then you are not going to be commenting here any more.
Yes I know you worked at NASA. TPS is only one of MANY space advocacy organizations. The NSS had a very active “Save the Station” campaign at the time. SSF was on the fence since they wanted (and still want) to turn the station over to a commercial company. (Is that what CASIS is for??? BTW, I know little of CASIS but your criticisms do seem to be valid, and CASIS never seems to have a rebuttal.)
Best of luck on ISEE-3. Space advocates are also working hard to salvage the film footer from the original lunar orbiters.
Apologies on the “Morton” comment, but I would like to see more POSITIVE postings on NASA Watch occasionally. There is enough bad stuff going on around the world; we don’t need more reasons to feel depressed. At least the space movement in general is working towards making the world (and beyond) a better place. They might not always succeed, but they should get a pat on the back occasionally.
Especially the volunteer side, who is doing all this space advocacy on their own dime and time. The only “payment” they ever get is a thank you and some recognition.
So … it is OK if Planetary Society works against human spaceflight? What kind of space advocacy is that? Sounds like do as I say not as I do.
[BTW — I am pressing “Reply” yet my comments do not indent as I think they should. Sorry if I am using Discus wrong.]
The Planetary Society has evolved its position on human space exploration, and has openly advocated sending humans to Mars since the Sagan days. Bill Nye is a “space geek” and gets just as excited as most of the rest of us when people fly.
That said, TPS is very rightly concerned about the cost of human spaceflight, and how that could/can/does take away from funding for all the robotic “precursor” missions they want to see fly to planets, moons, and beyond.
Space advocacy is people — and their societies — expressing their opinions about where and how we should move forward into space. People and thus their groups do not always agree. Fortunately, we have learned to found various alliances to press forward on areas of common interest.
Back to my earlier request about volunteer space advocates, perhaps you can thank the Mars Society for sponsoring the very debate that led to this news topic.
You are afraid to call BS on the anti-human spaceflight bias of the Planetary Society.
BS? No, official policy according to what one of your posters/commenters cites below. Here is the URL:
http://www.planetary.org/bl…
I totally agree there is a bias in the TPS against human spaceflight, certainly against space settlement and perhaps even development. But it is not BS. It is just an opinion, as are those views of NSS, Mars Society, SEDS, and a whole bunch of other space advocacy and technical (e.g., AIAA) groups to which I belong.
Or stated another way, we are ALL talking BS when it comes to our dreams about settling outer space. Add NASA, SpaceX, Boeing, and other groups to the mix. They are works of fiction, funded as studies to date, some of which have cost tens of millions of dollars. But they are the best sources of information we have.
As those many studies indicate, it is going to take a LOT more money — and/or a LOT more volunteers working for free — to turn those works of fiction into non-fiction, to turn those dreams into reality.
The only way to turn those dreams of fiction into non fiction is to get public space to reduce the cost of launch to LEO, space travel, living in Space first.
Affordability should be what you advocate.
NACA
The anti human spaceflight bias has been there since the beginning Carl Sagan days. That was the main reason I left it a few years later. Sounds like it hasn’t changed.
Does advocating for space require advocating for human space flight?
I miss Morton Downey. Anybody remember Joe Pyne?
[Now back to your regularly scheduled programming].
Joe Pyne provided me with a gold standard for rudeness. Helping me hone my skills by watching the master.
I watched Pyne in the late 60’s; he died in 1970, as I recall. I was in LA, finishing high school. And while rudeness is what I recall I wonder how his manner would compare to the ‘giants’ of today, windbags like O’Reilly.
I think he also had as guests those who would later populate the Art Bell show (who by the way is back on the air for your listening pleasure).
Week of silence???
You OK?
I agree with everything you say, except the last part. There doesn’t need to be a new way to do this thing…and there may not be…and there is no substitute for appropriate funding. And if it doesn’t occur, we are not going anywhere, sad as I am to say it. Sometimes believers in the “new paradigm” make statements that border on magical thinking. Sorry to be a buzz kill, just keep clicking the ruby slippers together…maybe it will work.
Peter Diamandis established the X-Prize. Actual hardware was put into space.
I think you’re wrong. We won back in 2004. The giggle factor is gone. Nobody laughs at Planetary Resources when they say they’re going to assay asteroids. People treat Elon Musk as if he’s Iron Man. And people took Mars One seriously enough to argue the technical merits.
Check this out from the BBC a few weeks ago:
http://www.bbc.com/future/s…
Sorry to press a raw nerve there.
I think you main concern was my inappropriate use (or placement) of “rich people” rather than “wealthy individuals” ahead of the word “governments”, as well as stating that these five [million] students are not likely to pay for their own mission.
So yes, I am saying that the five [million] students are not likely to pay for their own mission — which means some other person or group would have to. If that is taxpayer money, you bet that will require a LOT of space advocacy (aka lobbying) to convince Congress to allocate the money. And/or lots of space advocacy (aka business plans) to convince wealthy individuals or corporate giants to invest or donate the necessary money.
I am not saying that five million students flying experiments in space would not be cool — it would be VERY cool. But I am saying that some form of space advocacy is required to make it — or any one of hundreds of other cool space project ideas — happen in our lifetimes.
OK. This may be going somewhere. A 1U CubeSat costs a few million, and at least one high school has built one. What about advocating for and asking a few rich people to set up an endowment for one high school per year to do so? Interest and dividend on $50 million ought to cover it. I suspect getting that much in private donations is easier than changing congressional votes on SLS.
Actually Nanoracks will launch a 1U cubesat from ISS for approx $100,000
I was thinking of the overall, end to end cost of a CubeSat. Including design, development, hardware, launch and operations. I think that’s closer to a few million than 100 thousand for a 1U. But I could be wrong. Scale the numbers up or down as you see fit. I believe my idea would.still stand, regardless.
Keith is absolutely correct that we as space advocates (and I think everyone that is pro-space exploration is a defacto space advocate) need to reach out to the general population more and explain what space does for them.
Note that we are never going to have a catchy one liner that justifies space exploration and exploitation to everybody because there is no overarching single reason to go to space. It is only by explaining as many reasons as possible (inspiration, commercial exploitation, scientific and technological advancement ect.) that people will become more inclined to support it.
I also agree that if we make space a reality for kids (and everyday adults too, there are plenty of adults out there that would be tickled pink to have something of theirs flown in space) there will be more support for space exploration.
I am TAing 3 introductory Astro labs this semester. I won’t be able to send anything from them into space but I hope to do a good job of informing them about why we go into space and why is it worth the money we spend on it.
Musk got it down to three words that explains why we need affordable human spaceflight.
Backup hard drive
You can for example argue the same about mountain climbing. There is no practical value in such activity and not many can actually do it, but that doesn’t prevent people from getting excited and inspired by being merely spectators of the sport. HSF has pushed the boundary of human existence, and stimulated imagination of at least a generation. I think the biggest failure for space advocates is their attempts to find rationales for, say, a human mars mission. HSF is seldom about being rational, just like ourselves are seldom rational, a point David Hume had realized long ago.
depending on the hill or mountain you want to scramble up the point is almost ANYONE can be an instant participant. Currently a telescope or maybe a vomit comet ride is about all that is available to start “exploring” space.
Just drop the “space” and look at the word, explore.
“Hey Keith, wanna go explore that mountain?”
“Joe, want to go explore that NASA center?”
“DTR, lets explore that forest in your state”
That is how I use the word explore and about the only other way is when refering to oil and natural gas exploration.
Adding Space, to explore, actually takes it OUT of typical conservations with non space advocates. For me, it is more how to bring them into the subject, realistically that they are actually “exploring” something.
I agree. Space people treat space if it is somehow different than what everyone else does.
I think I agree. For me “exploration” means going out, either in person or with robotic help, and finding out what the world is really like and how the world works. My personal interest is exploring the solar system, since I think that’s the place where we can learn the most new things.
It depends?
What are the metrics we are using to judge failure or success? I can think of several instances where advocates moved in on specific issues, very focused and with a narrow message, to change legislation. I consider those successes.
I agree with the posters here that congress and lobbyists have way too much power. It is why we need to have more companies in the marketplace. Simply falling back to the two “good ole boys” will ensure stagnation.
We have to get beyond the “Only NASA” (Boeing & LockMart) can send humans to space. Its why we need more competitors in space. This is not about that X company… its about having more. SpaceX, Boeing, ATK and their project, Sierra Nevada. We are simply doing now (with the commercial crew program) what we did with the railroads and airlines.
Just one technical detail. A 4″ CubeSat doesn’t exist. The basic unit is, literally, a 10cm x 10 cm x 10 cm cube. Larger ones are a set of those units. Existing deployment systems allow 1,2,3,6, and (slightly violating the rule) 1.5 units. I guess you could do a U4 or U5, but it would be a new and sort of kinky deployment. It doesn’t alter your point, but getting the technical details straight is, for example, the difference between Mars One (which I do not consider credible) and plans by SpaceX (which I think may be credible.)
I know I am late in joining this discussion. I wondered if I should comment at all.
I do have some significant experience in reaching out to the general public. On my blog I have a posting A Tale of Two Space Days that compares a Space Day I organized at the New Jersey State Museum in 1986 with a more recent Space Day I helped out a bit with at the Udvar-Hazy Center a decade ago. For a bit about how me back then, please check out Background of an L5 Society Activist.
I did work at NASA Goddard from 1990 until 1999 in a technical position. I was driven out by really bad management. These days I am living on a quite limited income. Reforming tech fields is one thing I try to help out with. Some people do not like my ideas.
Unfortunately, Space Day seems to have fallen by the wayside, at least as a Lockheed Martin-sponsored national event. NASM seems to be keeping the flame alive (q.v. http://airandspace.si.edu/e…, but space holidays in general are tough. I’ve never been able to put together a really good Yuri’s Night event here in D/FW, nor a World Space Week.
My Moon Day event is doing well, but that’s a grassroots movement in the local community as a STEM event, given that we really have no real NASA or space industry representation here in North Texas. I’m not trying to create a national event that relies on someone else’s funding to happen. My budget has always been $0, yet we’ve created an event that drew some 1,600 attendees this year, had over three dozen exhibitors, qualified Scouts (Girl & Boy) for hundreds of patches, talked to Commander Gennady Padalka on the ISS, got teachers certified for the Moon Rock Disks, and handed out close to 3/4s of a ton of informational materials to about 240 lucky kids who got the Moon Day ISS Edition Sample Bags. Including information on Nanoracks, Cubesats, CASIS, and copies of recent Nuts & Volts and Robot magazines with ISS cover articles.
Interestingly, there are other Moon Day events popping up around the country each year. I think there is a growing recognition amongst the broader populace that landing on the Moon is an anniversary worth celebrating. Perhaps more interestingly, no one has ever really asked why we don’t have any NASA displays or astronauts at Moon Day. We do get informational materials for the Lunar Sample Bags and the museum has some historical artifacts, but otherwise NASA just isn’t there the way most people might expect. To be fair, the Destination: Station exhibit was in Boston for the ISS R&D conference, and I can’t be blowing my $0 budget on a NASAnaut for the event. Luckily we had local ‘private space traveller’ Anousheh Ansari on hand, who graciously finished up the kids’ questions after contact with the ISS was lost before presenting her own ISS experiences.
Keith can gripe all he wants about the uselessness of space advocacy efforts, but I know that what I’m doing is working. People travel to my event; I know we had visitors from Montana and Mexico this year, Girl Scouts came in from Oklahoma City, and one of our ISS questioners flew in from California. Our Lunar Sample Bags are highly coveted because they’ve got 5-7 pounds of stuff in them before the kids even get to the exhibitors. We get tons of stories of kids spending hours if not days poring over the materials from very happy parents. We’re getting repeat visitors from prior years. Our classes and lectures are packed.
There ARE lots of people interested in this space stuff. They want to learn more, but don’t know how or where. The best role that space advocates can play is as a conduit for space information into their communities to create a more knowledgeable citizenry regarding space activities. It’s not sexy, high-visibility stuff, but important nonetheless.
After 30-40+ years of space advocacy the impact is sporadic and nowhere near what space advocates claim it is. I am certain you have provided valuable services and inspiration to people and will continue to do so. But on a national level all of these organizations are simply breathing their own fumes. The size of the informed citizenry has not experienced any significant growth. Space advocacy as it is currently practiced ain’t working.
If we don’t reduce the cost of launch, space travel, living in Space.
Space advocates can talk till their blue in the face.
Doesn’t Matter
Tried to stuff these thoughts into the newer thread.
Shouldn’t it ALL be about affordability?
Isn’t that what advocates should promote?
No but the Church of Elon is well and above all politics. They have children writing letters to Dragons, not to congress.