Human Missions and Public Support

Marsman · 2007-05-10 20:16:31

I think the space community/industry has all the money they can get.

I'll try to make it clearer. In the first place I am talking about a readjustment/reformation of the way current space community funds are spent to focus more on public support issues. We are competing aginst other causes yes but how is that immoral? If you know anything about the benefits that have come from space travel/technology and the spin offs and the lives it has improved and saved it would be immoral NOT to seek better levels of funding. Using that argument we could then say that anything not used for eliminating poverty or providing better education is immoral. You are missing the point here. Space advocates support their cause because of the benefits it provides to humanity and the benefits it could provide in the future. It centers around hi-tech ideas and concepts but the end result is still beneficial to humanity.

The point in this thread is about increasing our numbers (of supporters and investors)so that we can achieve the goals we all hope for, including your "cheaper rockets" idea. Cheaper rockets are not being developed successfully yet. Why? Because overall the public don't care and don't support such efforts(and the investment community are staying away), and secondly because the research and development costs for such an effort are not small, just ask Elon Musk. His goal was to reduce the cost of rockets by a factor of ten but in the end he will be lucky to reduce it by a factor of 2 or 3. Lower costs also involve a thing called "Market Demand".

Significant investment will be needed to pay for any of the ideas you can think of to improve the appeal of space flight to the public. Currently, despite what you think, space advocate groups and altspace do not have anywhere near enough funds to accomplish even 5% of their lofty goals. I often read ideas like "If only we did this, or did that everything would be better..." but in the end all these ideas will still require large amounts of money to be spent in development and research costs. This money comes from the public at large (and the investor community within the public arena). The fewer supporters we have the more impossible any idea we have is in happening.

As to your comment about how well off we are, consider that in the past governments funded exploration programs (like the founding of America, Australia, etc) and also funded colonization of those places. With space it is radically different. The U.S government only spends 0.7% of its budget on space and most other national governments spend far less or nothing at all. When you compare say and NGO like World Vision with The Planetary Society who gets greater funding by far? The answer should be clear enough. I never said that people had to choose between feeding a starving kid or giving to a space group. I said that current funds need readjustment and any new funds need to used wisely in balance. The simple fact is if we do not raise greater numbers of public support and if we do not raise greater numbers of favorable investors then none of our ideas or goals will ever happen. Including cheaper/better rockets.

Fledi · 2007-05-11 16:51:27

I agree that we need a different approach on how to reach out to get the public involved. It would be nice to have more of the Arthur C. Clarke style movies and games (I'm currently working on one) about the settlement of the solar system.
He and his author colleagues made an amazing job at creating a positive view of the future, which seems to be lacking in todays popular culture.

But I don't see how we could change that just by throwing money at the problem. It requires a number of people who have that mindset and the movie making skills and the best way to achieve this is IMHO exactly through projects like FMars or all the suborbital business. These projects are less important as an actual advancement but more as new ways to look at things, in ways that are cheap enough to get into the reach of people who don't have to be millionaires.

If we can get that kind of people interested, they will then create the books/movies/games we need. You could argue of course that we need to directly finance these people, but how can you see in advance which one of them will be the successful one? (you're welcome to finance my game though if you have that much faith in me )

As for completely new concepts it is not true that all of them require giant investments in the first place. Most inventions in the past didn't. Just remember the Wright brothers as a good example. Who would believe that just two people can design and build a new airplane today, not even talking about building the first ever?

And my comment about being better off than former explorers, I would say we are. Look how much effort was spent on building robotic spacecraft with the sole purpose of looking for science data, while Columbus only got three existing ships and crews for a mission that had the goal of finding new lucrative trade routes.

Personally I would like to see a world where spaceflight requires such a small effort that society will put people on a spaceship and send them off to Moon or Mars just because they're too annoying to live with (like the colonization in old Greece used to be).
We still have a long way ahead before that, but consider me becoming one of the annoying persons if things go this way.

Marsman · 2007-05-11 19:13:27

Most movies/games and such usually get funded by production companies or the financing is organized through traditional sources in those sectors, so its not a matter of the space community even raising all the funds for such things. What we need funds for is to hire the professionals who can successfully pitch our ideas/stories etc to the entertainment sector much like evryone else does. I have come across many highly intelligent and highly creative space advocates like yourself Fledi with great ideas like a game or a book or a movie but unforunately their idea never gets to happen due to lack of what I would call human resources even more than funding. People are the key to success in public outreach and obviously the more professional your people are the better chances you will have of getting your ideas across or published.

On a side note, I looked up the You Tube Space Week Discovery promos and related Mars/Space videos there and it is dissapointing to see the low number of views compared with other non space videos. Some of them have views numbering in the millions, at last count the Space Week promo was around 200 or so. The best ranked video I found was one for the Mars rover Spirit at about 30,000 views. This is part of why our own You Tube project will not be released until we have the resources to do it right and make it interesting to the wider non space public. So no, we don't need millionaires and it really just comes down to people using their skills and abilities to make public outreach from the space community more effective.

noosfractal · 2007-05-12 03:10:39

Investors and "the public" are totally different audiences. Investors keep an eye on public sentiment, but they know that things change and that is when you make money. High end investors all have theories, and if your pitch meshes with one of their theories, you are in the running - then it comes down to ROI and risk. Right here is why "manned mission to Mars" and "Martian settlement" don't get a look. The risk is way past the redline, but worse, there is no attempt to answer the question "if I give you $x now, how much will you give me back in 5 years?" Asking private investors to look beyond 5 years is a nonstarter. Low and Middle market investors go for hypersafe stuff like real estate and franchises. If they want to live on the edge they fund gold prospectors (you could try that: “Gold ... in the sky!”).

I don't think it is immoral to ask the public for money, but here you have to be sophisticated in a different way. Once you start to compete for public attention, you will be targeted by your competitors if you are at all successful. You could easily generate a backlash that puts you behind where you started. I think the Fund for Martian Settlement is a nonstarter with practical types (“A one in a million chance for my unborn children to travel to Mars in 2050, huh? How ‘bout we lobby to have the local crack house turned into a dog park instead?”), so you have to go after the dreamers.

Here’s your first problem, ‘cause the dreamers are in the minority (I seem to recall a 60/40 bias in the West, and a little worse in the US because of their puritan streak), but worse, there is a pretty powerful movement that has caught up most of the dreamer/intuitive types – you’ve probably noticed it, it’s the one that currently equates anyone questioning the immanent threat of 60 foot sea level rises with holocaust deniers. It’s also actively hostile – at an ideological level - to realizing the solar system as a resource base, because it fatally undermines its “limits to growth” dogma, and generally grates against its obsession with romantic primitivism. For whatever reason, there is a left/right split here, so now you’re down to pitching to 20% - dreamers who aren’t actively hostile to you. (You can try for Mars = Green, but I think there is going to be some pushback).

I could go on (dreamers with disposable income whose dreams don’t revolve around the local cocktail circuit and/or their modeling career, etc, etc), but I think the point is made. You’re not really pitching to “the public,” you’re pitching to a very particular demographic set which almost certainly already includes the vast majority of current advocates. I honestly believe that efforts should be focused on networking style expansion from that base rather than any vague “Mars = Everything Good. Vote Mars!” advertising campaign.

cIclops · 2007-05-12 04:11:51

What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

FOX News wants to know what you would ask the Republican presidential candidates when they debate in Columbia, S.C., on Tuesday, May 15.

Suggestion: Are you willing to fully fund NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration?

Here's a chance to raise the awareness of space - go for it everybody!!

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-12 06:57:20

Back to X...

The public has a 0% chance to be an astronaut now. Having a X<<1% chance is a much better chance than they've ever had before, and those few folks who do make it will have families and neighbors who will know for a fact it's possible

Nonsense, its all a lie, a false illusion. Neighbors etc won't think its any more possible than winning the lottery, and the chances will be about as good.

Similarly yeah it'd be a lot of paperwork especially at the beginning. So NASA could open a center dedicated to processing the applications in say New York where if I remember correctly they lack any facilities. You'll only employ a few folks, but for a few salaries you pick up to Senate votes as well as at least 1 House vote to increase funding.

More nonsense, the paperwork would be completely ruinous, tens of thousands of applications for a high-level skill job. It would require professional scientists and engineers to even read many of the resumes. And even then, with a small army of staff able to process dozens of applications daily, how do you decide? The pool of similarly applicants qualified "on paper" will still be large, so how do you pick? A lottery?

And a little NASA office with a relatively small amount of support simply wouldn't be enough cash to buy votes in congress by any means, but I digress: the cost of NASA is too high. It would cost too much money to sift through the dead-tree deluge and there will be almost no benefit from it. In fact in the likely even a lottery-style system had to be chosen, the game show like atmosphere would cost NASA respect and support. Again again, you make hay and ignore the concept of defacto-ness, if it is essentially impossible to get accepted, then for intents and purposes nobody has any chance.

If X<<1%, then X=0 or may as well

If there are going to be that many qualified applicants I guess being an astronaut really doesn't require a skill set most folks could never achieve anyways huh?

Thats absolutionist thinking, and rejects the simple idea that there will still be a lot of people who make it through the preliminary paperwork, especially since it will be impossible to differentiate many of them, but we wouldn't know which of them are the superior candidates. So we should let all of them into astronaut training and space science?

Then it shouldn't be too hard for them to pick qualified applicants from the general public.

Your statements keep getting more nonsensical, NASA picks its astronauts from military pilots and elite academic circles because it is easy to find qualified people in those groups, as there are far far far far more worthy astronauts among them than the "general public." Your statement is diametrically opposed to reality, and embodies your irrational wishful thinking.

then being a pilot or scientist in space is a whole lot more attractive of a career than being a pilot or scientist in the atmosphere...
But that's exactly what NASA does now which is why so few people care. Folks aren't going to dedicate their lives to something they hate just so they get a little time in space.

And so NASA should just assume that they might enjoy it? If they are already pilots, and love it, then they ought to get into space travel too. The opposite however is not true. If people don't enjoy space travel, then chances are they won't perform as well as someone who does, particularly since most all the astronauts will be doing 6mo-3yr missions.

Some folks would get to go up. Everyone can live with the low chances

No! No no, this is exactly what I've been saying is untrue, chances are not just "low," they are ZERO. Its nonsense, there is no point in it, its a big waste of money and prestige to try and sift through the truckloads of paper to pick out a handful of needles in the hay stack that won't be any better than who NASA hand-picks.

Fledi · 2007-05-12 07:52:56

Thanks for the compliment Marsman, but as for the need for professionals from the gaming industry, I think that at least in the specific sector of strategy games there is a trend towards very small groups or just one person designing a complete game. If you look at titles like the Europa Universalis series for example, I believe I can create a space game of a similar size within a year or two if I mainly work just on that project. (ok without the music but I have a friend who is a musician)
This is because of the advent of freely available graphics platforms like OpenGL which enable us to do things more quickly without having to bother about graphics too much.
The problem with larger companies in this arena is that they also have very high running costs (by the way most of these now large companies started out with doing small games in the '80ies and '90ies), which forces them to design their products for the mainstream market to get more costumers and stops them from trying out new things because of the risks. That's why these companies are having an increasingly difficult time to keep the public interested in their products.

Now for the film industry I am not that familiar with that field, but YouTube is certainly a chance to do something with a smaller budget even though the likes of Discovery Channel are doing a great job now in bringing tech stuff to a wider public.

I agree with you, noosfractal, that the environmentalists are driving away a lot of dreamers who could help mankind get into space otherwise.
But on the other side I can't even understand why they think the way they do.
I mean in the end their ideology comes down to establishing total control over everyone. That's the only way they can limit growth indefinitely, while we space people only need a relatively small place on Earth where we can do what we want undisturbed. We don't need to force our way of life upon them, if they like to live like they say that's fine with me.
But of course we can never go to orbit if everyone is forced to spend less than 3000W on average instead of improving the way we create energy.
Somehow they remind me of the people who forced Chinese sailors to scrap their own fleet and never go out to the sea again during the Ming Dynasty.
But luckily there are still different cultures on Earth today so even if they manage to turn over the west someone else (Chinese, Indians) will still do the job.

cIclops · 2007-05-12 08:05:43

Come on guys, how about sending your questions to FOXNews, the more responses they get the more likely they will raise the issue of space when the GOP candidates debate next week. We MUST get space on the agenda! This is a BIG opportunity!

email the FOXNews editor

X · 2007-05-15 00:38:44

Nonsense, its all a lie, a false illusion. Neighbors etc won't think its any more possible than winning the lottery, and the chances will be about as good.

If it gets as many folks interested as play the lottery then NASA'd have more public support than it has had since the Space Race.

More nonsense, the paperwork would be completely ruinous, tens of thousands of applications for a high-level skill job. It would require professional scientists and engineers to even read many of the resumes.

So you say there's not many qualified folks out there, but at the same time it'd take scientists and engineers to separate the wheat from the chaff? If the general public is as grossly unqualified as you say then anyone should be able to throw out 99% off the top.

And even then, with a small army of staff able to process dozens of applications daily, how do you decide? The pool of similarly applicants qualified "on paper" will still be large, so how do you pick? A lottery?

Why not? It wouldn't be the first job where those given the shot are chosen for dubious reason, and if you've already whittled the applicants down to those who meet your minimum standards then you should have an equal chance with whoever you choose.

And a little NASA office with a relatively small amount of support simply wouldn't be enough cash to buy votes in congress by any means, but I digress: the cost of NASA is too high. It would cost too much money to sift through the dead-tree deluge and there will be almost no benefit from it.

We're going to need a "small army of staff" to check out these resumes, but that's not really enough for anyone to notice?

Thats absolutionist thinking, and rejects the simple idea that there will still be a lot of people who make it through the preliminary paperwork, especially since it will be impossible to differentiate many of them, but we wouldn't know which of them are the superior candidates. So we should let all of them into astronaut training and space science?

Start with allowing a low number into training so you still have some slack from your chosen few of pilots and scientists. Increase the percentage of recruits from the general population over time until it comprises the entirety of each new training class. If an abnormal number of trainees wash out you can increase overall class size to compensate for it.

And so NASA should just assume that they might enjoy it?

Yes. Perhaps I'm overestimating the public's ability to decide what it would or would not like, but I'm of the mind that folks who have no interest in being in space aren't going to apply to be astronauts.

No! No no, this is exactly what I've been saying is untrue, chances are not just "low," they are ZERO.

Incorrect. If anyone from the general public goes up then there is a chance for someone from the general public to go up.

noosfractal · 2007-05-15 00:53:16

they remind me of the people who forced Chinese sailors to scrap their own fleet and never go out to the sea again during the Ming Dynasty.

A vivid analogy.

But luckily there are still different cultures on Earth today so even if they manage to turn over the west someone else (Chinese, Indians) will still do the job.

Re-emphasizes how important that is at the top level. A little bit of good healthy competition just does wonders.

SpaceNut · 2007-05-15 20:13:25

Is a person that wants to be a colonist an astronaut...

I think an Astronaut now since the shuttle has a lot difirent meaning than when they were pilots for Apollo.

C M Edwards · 2007-05-17 11:44:14

Is a person that wants to be a colonist an astronaut...

No. And that's an important point if there is ever to be a diaspora of people into space.

The very first European explorers of North and South America were mostly sailors, but few colonists were required to pass muster as a sailor during the bulk of European colonization of the Americas. Asking every colonist to get hired on as a pilot with NASA would be an absurd way to begin any real colonization effort. The NASA model might work fine for exploration, but it's a bottleneck for colonization.

People who would be interested in colonization are content to leave exploration to others.

redhorizons · 2007-05-18 12:06:59

I am not old enough to remember the Apollo missions as I was born in 74. But I have seen and heard enough to know the media coverage around the space program was insane. I am sure every new development got some press. That is because it was new and it represented American power supremacy.
So what is wrong now. I will blame the media. There are tons of exciting things going on right now in the Altspace sector, there are currnet missions that are sending TONS or data back to Earth. But do you hear about any of this stuff in the media. No.
I live in Oklahoma. Home of Rocketplane, but when was the last time I heard anything in the local news about them. There was a very short blib on the news when they purchased Kistler. That is it. I bet most of the people in this state do not even realize this company even exists.
How can we inspire and excite people about space when it is not seen as inspiring or exciting. And the only way the brain dead American public is going to rally around something is if they are told to. And who tells us what to get excited and passionate about. The media.
Maybe if MTV (that hurt even typing that) had Real World Moon, or some crap like that, "we" would get excited.

Fledi · 2007-05-18 15:23:45

But then it also has advantages to start small and quiet. I remember reading the biography of Theodore von Karman, who emigrated to the US prior to ww2.
It's interesting what he had to tell about the people interested in rocketry in the 50'ies. He said they were a bunch of amateurs who were not taken seriously by the established aeronautical branch of people. Yet they became the key people in the Apollo program, one of them actually had to go back to China because he was accused of being a communist by McCarthy. He became the father of the Long March rockets then.
These people pretty much built the space industry up to a Moon landing within a decade and began from nothing.
The similarity between them and todays Altspacers is striking. I think they are our best bet for some completely new concepts being tried out and some really big advances to what space business is about today.

cIclops · 2007-05-18 15:25:42

Yes media has a lot of power and a lot of money. They can motivate and inspire, or simply ignore or destroy, and many of them have agendas to do just that. There is a space media, but it's specialized and you have to look hard to find it. TV still dominates and Discovery channel does quite a lot, CNN usually cover shuttle launches and big events, however space is way down the list. Thankfully we have the net now!

Many people have no idea that there are ongoing space missions, not even that astronauts have been in orbit continuously for seven years. How many know there are over 60 space missions working right now all over the solar system?

Apollo was a unique time, it won't happen again, but we will return to the Moon and go onto Mars ... one day!

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-02 03:37:18

The rebirth of NASA
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4427/1

as for Socialmedias, the twitters etc

Facebook approved pro-genocide ads in Kenya after claiming to foster 'safe and secure' elections.
https://gizmodo.com/facebook-kenya-pro- … 1849348778

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-02-19 18:06:03

Complex Subsurface Of Mars Imaged By Chinese Rover Zhurong

https://spaceref.com/science-and-explor … r-zhurong/

Elon Musk says it's 'highly likely' man will go to Mars within 10 years because he's 'congenitally optimistic'

https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-says-h … 35304.html

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-02-19 18:06:55)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-11-23 20:19:15

South Korea is interesting, they don't want to be culturally defeated by Chinese or Japanese, there is also a reason for the South to be able to make rockets and launch satellites as North Korea also does it

an issue of security is important

Ultra-Nationalists can be bad but...A little level of nationalism is not a bad thing

There is public support and historical issues in the region

Japan ordered to compensate wartime 'comfort women'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67512578

Hanwha Systems to launch a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite within year
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20231122004200320

but would South Korea have the same level of support for manned flight as Russians, the USA or Chinese have done?

There are sanctions on Putin after the invasion of Ukraine and Russia's program has entered stagnation
the USA is unique in that every four years there can be a change at the top which can lead to new direction, new vision and new policy for NASA.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2007-05-10 20:16:31

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#52 2007-05-11 16:51:27

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#53 2007-05-11 19:13:27

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#54 2007-05-12 03:10:39

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#55 2007-05-12 04:11:51

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#56 2007-05-12 06:57:20

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#57 2007-05-12 07:52:56

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#58 2007-05-12 08:05:43

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#59 2007-05-15 00:38:44

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#60 2007-05-15 00:53:16

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#61 2007-05-15 20:13:25

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#62 2007-05-17 11:44:14

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#63 2007-05-18 12:06:59

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#64 2007-05-18 15:23:45

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#65 2007-05-18 15:25:42

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#66 2022-08-02 03:37:18

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#67 2023-02-19 18:06:03

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

#68 2023-11-23 20:19:15

Re: Human Missions and Public Support

Board footer