Yesterday two of the best-known sons of tiny Hope, Arkansas—former president Bill Clinton and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee—were on the campaign trail in Huntsville, Alabama: Clinton in support of his wife’s bid for the Democratic nomination and Huckabee in his own pursuit of the Republican nomination. Huntsville is one of the few communities in the US where space is a big local issue, thanks to the presence of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and businesses associated with the work there. So did either speaker devote any time to space policy during their appearances? Only briefly.
Bill Clinton, in his speech, mentioned space only in passing, according to a Huntsville Times account: “‘I know this is one of the more prosperous parts of the state,”‘ he said, adding that his wife strongly supports the aerospace program.” (It’s not clear if the nonstandard “aerospace program” usage was something Clinton himself said, or was an invention of the reporter.) Huckabee said just a bit more about space in a press conference after his speech, according to another Times article:
In a press conference after the rally, the former governor said he sees the space program as being critical to the economics of North Alabama, but even more so, “it is important to our country.” He lauded science experiments and space travel as necessities that provided the world with gems such as cell phones, digital cameras, heart catheterization and the miniaturization of technology.
Nothing new here, other than that campaigners say little about space even in a place where it matters to a lot of people—and that itself is not necessarily new nor surprising.
The dreaded “spin-off” justification again.
If you wanted cell phones, then why not develop cell phones? If you wanted digital cameras, then why not just develop digital cameras?
Some argue that you can’t actually develop something by trying – that is, you only get development through spin offs while trying to do something else.
Really, hogwash. Bill Gates didn’t lead Microsoft to develop into a giant by trying to do something else.
In fact, some of the greatest spinoff success stories in the history of mankind come from porn which led to the widespread acceptance of VCRs and the internet (check the numbers).
The idea that NASA led to miniaturization of electronics is also silly. This came from the military. Of course, to turnaround and then say that we have the military so it can produce spinoffs is ridiculous.
Trying to justify space exploration with the spin-off argument would be like Columbus trying to justify his voyage to Ferdinand and Isabella by suggesting that it might lead to improvements in knot-tying or sail-manufacture.
While I do have some problems with the spin-off argument, I don’t think its entirely invalid. The reason being that investing in space is, in a lot of respects, like investing in basic research. To quote someone (who I don’t remember) what came about from studying the electron?” And then proceeded to list all of the modern inventions that came about because of our clear understanding of the electron.
The same applies to spaceflight – it is in some respects, the equivlent of basic research, in terms of what gets developed. We don’t know, and we can’t always predict, but stuff related to it has some really great usage.
That said, direct returns are easier to measure and appriciate, I agree.
I am not saying that the spin-off argument is false. It isn’t. But if we use the spin-off argument to justify the space program on a regular basis, then it appears that the space program cannot be justified in and of itself. It should only be seen as an added bonus, not a major justification.
But if we use the spin-off argument to justify the space program on a regular basis, then it appears that the space program cannot be justified in and of itself.
I guess that explains why the Chinese, Indians and Koreans are basically just giving up on space. There are no benefits to a national space program at all.
Addendum : and now Iran too it appears.
J.B. am not saying that the spin-off argument is false. It isn’t. But if we use the spin-off argument to justify the space program on a regular basis, then it appears that the space program cannot be justified in and of itself. It should only be seen as an added bonus, not a major justification.
I actually agree with this. Of course, I think space exploration (even of the human variety) can fully be justified on a number of grounds, so the spin-off argument, while true per Ferris, is not necessary and may be counterproductive.
— Donald
As I said, I have my problems with the spin-offs arguments, most especially with the idea that its the sole justification. It isn’t, and shouldn’t be.
That said, as I implied, investment in spaceflight and space development is a lot like basic research – we don’t know what will come from better understanding the universe, but quite often, great ideas/products come about because of the initial basic research. The problem is/has been getting funding for that basic research (again, my comment about studying the electron). A lot of times, arguments about funding basic research is the fact that truly great ideas and improvements come from directions of which we have no idea, and come about because of basic research.
But how to take that complex of an idea, and turn it into a soundbyte argument, that doesn’t de-generate into “spin-offs”, requires a greater mind the mine.
Well, you’ve just done it in something like one-hundred words!
— Donald
But I am talking to people who are already aware a lot of details about what space and spaceflight have done and can do. Most people are barely aware of spaceflight.
Further, most soundbytes have to be substantially less than 100 words. Get it to 50, or 25, then you might make it work. But 100 words, in a place where people understand the issue? Thats nothing special.
How about something like this (first draft):
“Studies of the electron led to knowledge of electromagnatism. More than a century later, that gave us the entire electronics industry, which nobody could have predicted in advance. Expansion into the Solar System today seems as useless as studying electrons. But, exploration and knowledge of the larger environment in which we live someday will give us skills, arts, and industries undrempt of today.”
— Donald
Thats an apple pie and mom kind of statement, Donald. Thats my problem with that. I don’t know if you remember, but back in June, Greg Easterbrook basically went after Nasa, and their human spaceflight program. One of the comments that came up was that Griffin’s comment about “One day there will be more people living in space than on earth”
Easterbrook’s response was “While I suspect thats true, why should we care about something that will take centuries to happen?”
With a statement like that, you’ll consistently be facing that battle. Also, as I said, because its a Mom and Apple pie statement, it doesn’t tie anybody to actually doing anything.
Maybe, maybe, someone like Obama could take that statement, and if he were a believer in space, and spaceflight, he could run with it, and make it work. Unfortantly, we aren’t seeing anyone like that emerge. Perhaps we can convince Obama, but I don’t have any access.
Well, I believe I simply re-stated what you said in different words. If so, than your statement was Mom and Apple pie. Why don’t you say exactly what it is you want to say, and I’ll try to turn it into language people who don’t read this site might accept. However, Joe and Jane Sixpack probably won’t ever accept any non-jingoistic argument for spaceflight, so they are probably unreachable. You’ve got to try to reac the middle-class voter who pays enough attention to understand what you are saying, and care about it, but do so in language that they can understand.
Easterbrook: why should we care about something that will take centuries to happen?â€
Because it won’t ever happen if we don’t lay the groundwork now. Where would we be today if, centuries ago, we hadn’t set down the foundations for global travel and trade? Answer = extinct.
— Donald
Nice conversation. I have a variant of Donald’s last reply with a longish preamble and a to-the-point soundbyte at the end:
Why should we care about something that will take centuries to happen?
If we don’t start now we’ll never get there, it’s too late to care a few centuries from now because in all likelihood it will take a few centuries to prepare sufficiently. If we don’t start now and we’re still around in a few centuries time everybody could still be saying “Why should we care?”. When we need it the most we will be out of time, it will be too late to care.
We know the past and it says we’ll be facing all sorts of dangers both from space and on Earth. We better start inhabiting space on a larger scale and we better do much more than we’ve done so far: our descendants depend on us.
Finishing soundbyte of about 45 words (not counting contracted words), is it good enough? Use it freely if it is (that goes for anyone including politicians, even those I disagree with ^_^).
Of course there will be plenty of detractors and that’s the point at which one stresses how human spaceflight will benefit finding solutions to all currently known problems while ultimately providing an insurance if all else fails. That’s the point at which one can tie in basic research, commercial spaceflight and habitation, spin-offs, Earth monitoring for both environmental and security concerns and so on.
Donald,
apologies for the delay – I’ve been a little busy
The statement, without the indepth arguement, of seeing the importance of basic research, is mom and apple pie. The only people who I really get the “basic research” angle with what it coudl do for humianty, is scientists (because they understand the importance of basic research), and unfortantly, there remains something of a disconnect between scientists, and human spaceflight proponants.
To put it another way – your right that this won’t reach Joe and Jane sixpack, and I’d argue it doesn’t really reach even the middle class. The only way I see it reaching the middle class on this basis, is through the spin-off argument.
As I said, I don’t think you can make this the sole justification – the more you can tie it together, and link it throughout, the better off we are (from direct science, to commerical applications, and so on).
I’m curious why no one countered Go’s assertion that the space program had nothing to do with the development of microelectronics. One can always wave their hands and argue that the microelectronics industry would have developed anyway had there not been an Apollo Program (the Minuteman ICBM Program played its part), but the fact remains (See “Beyond the Limits: Flight Enters the Computer Age, Paul Ceruzzi, MIT Press, 1989) that Apollo’s demand for reliable integrated circuits (“chips”) DID contribute to the advance of the technology and the rise of the industry. Suggesting otherwise merely illustrates one’s ignorance of the history.
This thread, though, addresses a very difficult challenge: convincing people to pay for something that they don’t necessarily see the value of. While I myself downplayed the value of the spin-off argument in terms of engaging the public with spaceflight, (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/802/1), I believe that it serves a purpose when offered as a “bonus” on top of the more direct justifications (many of which you have offered above–and then there are Mike Griffin’s “Real Reasons” (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23738)
Sure, as Go suggests, you could just put all the money straight into making a cell phone, but I don’t think a “cell phone development effort” would have done much to inspire an entire generation, including the likes of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, etc, who went on to contribute extensively to our economy before they entered the Alt-space crowd. If you want to talk about spin-offs, I personally consider such inspiration to be the most valuable of them all.
We must be careful, however, to not employ a spin-offs argument exclusively or even as a main thrust, especially given the fact that so many items that most people think are space spin-offs (Teflon, Velcro) are in fact not. As I said, people really don’t care…they just like having their cell phones. But reminding them every once in a while (inside a proper context) wouldn’t be a bad thing.
One difficulty, though, is that many spin-offs aren’t necessarily direct “rocket-to-kitchen” items. Some little breakthrough in one bit of research (whether it’s supporting the space program or not) finds its way into some other entirely different field of research, and so on, and it eventually percolates into an everyday “can’t-do-without-it” item in someone’s house. Since so much of the public doesn’t truly understand the ways & means of technological development (programs on the Discovery Channel, etc, notwithstanding), many out there have a hard time following such explanations.
I believe that before any of these arguments will succeed in any great way, we’ll need to turn folks on better to the nature of science & engineering. And I use the term “turn on” in both senses; educate them while entertaining them. Then they’ll come to value space exploration on its own merits, since they’ll be closer to being “people who are already aware.”
I believe that before any of these arguments will succeed in any great way, we’ll need to turn folks on better to the nature of science & engineering. And I use the term “turn on†in both senses; educate them while entertaining them.
That’s the dreaded post-Sputnik educational experience. What you are proposing is integrating inspiration and entertainment into that paradigm. I would further modify that with nature and science and engineering.
That should be easy enough in the modern world, with the resources at our disposal, that’s already a project I am involved in. That being said, the inspirational part of the experience will have to occur on a weekly basis, and certainly with the magnitude of the problems of space exploitation, it will be expensive to provide those sorts of continuous inspirational results.
To those of us already ‘of the body’, ‘on the team’ and in on the secret, those kinds of amazing weekly inspirational experiences do already occur every once and a while, just with the space assets we are already flying, and several of us here on the board have been engaged in, and are still employed in, relaying those results to the space consuming public. In fact, this place itself caters to the demand for ‘consumer space entertainment’.
To really punch through to the masses you need really big inspirational events, but moon landings aren’t necessarily it, since we’ve already done that, and it will be a very expensive habit to accomplish on a weekly basis. These things should be different and exciting every week to be effective. Like ‘Star Trek’, for instance.
Something will come along. I’m partial to a single all out. record breaking. hydrogen powered single stage to orbit COTS attempt, using a retired space shuttle main engine, but that’s just me. We all have our specialties. Once the planet becomes a barren wasteland, I strongly suspect that everything we do in space will become relevant to modern everyday life.
The regular folks, the ‘normalists’, just haven’t realized that yet.
They haven’t had their ‘Sputnik’ moment.
No, I wouldn’t agree that I’m suggesting the “integration” of education and entertainment per se; I just think we should make our education more entertaining and some of our entertainment more educational. And God forbid we bring back “New Math.”
And as I tried to offer in my “Space for Improvement” article, you don’t need a Moon landing every week to keep the public engaged. When executed skillfully, a trip to the grocery store can serve as material for an engaging story. Make a list of ten successful movies (or even ten fun-to-watch television commercials!); not all their plots involved Moon-landing-caliber events and yet they did succeed in holding the audience’s attention. Why? Because the storytellers (directors, writers, actors) connected the audience to the characters. That’s what good storytelling is all about, and “the public” has been susceptable to its power for millenia.
If a few more people in the space business (not just NASA) woke up to this reality about human nature and exploited it well, a Sputnik-like paradigm shift might be in the offing, where science, engineering, and math are not viewed as solely the domains of geeks. Not guaranteed, but I think it would increase the chances of such a mindset change considerably.
I’m sure you’ll admit that our space program, even today, is full of characters… Thousands of stories are out there, waiting to engage the public—if only the stories were told effectively, i.e., with proper storytelling skills. And it doesn’t have to cost that much—in many instances, the “special effects” are already finished.