An idea to re-ignite public passion for space

[Metiphisto]

Hey guys im kinda new to this site but i saw this thread and had an idea tell me wat you think.

Any more the majority of kids, young adults, and alot of adults now a days play videos games making a space exploration game sponsored by NASA itself i think would draw in kids and young adults alike. It could involve terraforming exploring other galaxies or even something envolving aliens and the like. The amount of data and games that could be made (Educational games that is) is limitless.

 

[General_Kenobi]

I, for one, would like to see a lot more enthusiasm from the White House. If they made even half the stink about space exploration as they have about health care, the people of this nation would follow suit. We need a set of goals & a plan to achieve them. Write them down & publish them for the world to get excited about...and for accountability purposes.

Also, this International Year of Astronomy thing seems to have generated some buzz....I think. I'd like to see something like this on an annual basis...maybe Astronomy Week (is there one already?). It could be changed from year to year to highlight any number of celestial events if needed. Or, it could be the 2nd week of November every year...or whenever. Just so that it highlights a meteor shower, or maybe one of those times when several planets are visable with the naked eye, or anything that'll get the average Joe to step outside for at least 20 or 30 minutes to actually gaze up at the night sky & think about what they are looking at.

Also, is this forum posting GMT? Interesting in lieu of a debate we had a week or so ago here.

 

[hipar]

The public is neutral on space. Passions like 'It's an obscene waste of money' to 'It's the true future of mankind' do exist but most of us are happy leaving space policy to Washington and academia.

Perhaps we get people interested in space through an actual program of space exploration. That's not about sending seven people on a joyride to the space station a few times a year .. 'Old hat'. I know robot probes can do credible science, that kind program just doesn't foster the drama of people walking on another world.

--- CHAS

 

[vulture4]

>>I think a century or so more of space races is the best way to go forth. After all would the moon landings ever have happened without the cold 'war'?

That's the whole point. Apollo wasn't intended for exploration. it was a substitute for a nuclear arms race that could have destroyed the world. Obviously when Apollo 11 landed its mission was over. Yet even von Braun apparently was surprised no one was interested in continuing to build Saturn Vs. Big surprise.

Spaceflight will progress when we develop technology that makes it affordable and practical. Both Rutan and Musk have the potential to do this, and NASA should be developing technology and providing resources to help them achieve their objectives, not using taxes to compete with them. NASA should serve industry, not vice versa. Constellation is far too expensive to fill any commercial or scientific role. America is the world's largest debtor. Americans will not pay higher taxes. We cannot afford to borrow money (largely from China) for a $100,000,000,000 program that produces no practical benefits.

>>I know robot probes can do credible science, that kind program just doesn't foster the drama of people walking on another world.

What drama? Remember Apollo 12? I do. The public was bored even by the second lunar landing. Apollo 14? Golf on the moon? Yawn. People walking on Mars might be newsworthy for about 12 hours. And that's as it should be. Spending billions just to excite the public has been bad policy since ancient Rome. Spaceflight has to have practical value. To achieve this we must make it less expensive and commercially successful. There are quite a few people who will pay to go themselves, if it can be made less expensive, and I must say I've never met anyone who was actually IN low earth orbit and claimed to be bored with it. If you want vicarious entertainment, go to the movies. Just MHO.

 

[Ruri]

First they need to address the mess they have with Ares and the mission gap between the Shuttle and Orion.
Addressing the gap and LV mess would be easy enough by switching to Direct or the side mount SDLV and funding COTS-D.
Other options include man rating the EELVs esp Delta IV-H and going with a depot based architecture or extending STS to 2015.
Really the Apollo derived hardware was a PR disaster and a logistical mistake which looked like a huge step backwards to the general public.
Due to compromises made due to funding and an under performing CLV it is a step backwards.
This could have been avoided by including depots, solar electric cargo tugs, and research on an NTR shuttle vs blowing funds reinventing the EELV Ares I and building the largest HLV in history Ares V.
Even sticking with LM CEV design would have been a smart move as they have very recent experience in hypersonic vehicles while Marshall it's self only has access to somewhat obsolete data from legacy programs.
They also need to change their development process back to a design,build,test paradigm the public is not impressed with power points esp after seeing so much vapor ware.
Next they need to work with private industry more and do more breakthrough type work again.
Lastly more X prize type competitions for concepts and hardware.

 

[ahook12]

I am hoping that when Kepler and james web get online and start to send back data it will help spark public interest. Of course I can hardly wait for the few dozen Earth-like planets that Kepler will discover in the Goldilocks zone.

Regards, ahook12

 

[Braveman]

I don't know if we can re-ignite the same possion for space like it was in the 60's. With all the video games and hi-tech crap out the for kids these days all the imagination is being stomped out of most kids. Why go out anf\d play if you can do it on TV. I'm a teacher of 6th graders and I try my best to get them interested in all the hisory of the space program, but I don't have very much luck. Most have never seen any Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo footage until I show it to them. Most have never seen a shuttle launch because the networks don't show them. It get very frustrating.

 

[lyall3]

send Elvis Presley into space. thousands think he is still alive anyway, so that will surely get public attention. he of course will have to be an Elvis impersonator[John Glenn comes to mind, just a little black dye job]. if Elvis is too busy maybe Jim Morrison of the Doors has some free time. rumor has it he was snooping around Houston Oct. 31.

 

[General_Kenobi]

Braveman, you may have touched on something so simple, yet I believe it to be a great idea. Broadcast the freakin' launches on free TV! All of them. And do it live. I don't know how it is in other places, but I now have something like 8 or 9 PBS channels since the digital TV conversion. And at least 3 of them are off of the air at any given time. There's plenty of air time to show these. I remember when I was young (3rd grade), we used to gather in the lunch room or gym to watch the shuttle launches, the entire elementary school would watch & cheer together. It was great. They ended that, certainly, when we all witnessed the Challenger disaster on live TV. Anyway, I like the idea of televising the launches. And keep up with trying to spark an interest in the field with your students. If it wasn't for my 3rd grade teacher & her interest in the shuttle missions, who knows...

Edited on 11/10:
Meteor, are you sure? Becasue we gathered & watched it. Kind of hard to forget something like that. It could have been taped, I suppose, but I'm not sure why they'd show us that on tape. Either way, you are off point. The point that I was commending was that the launches should be televised....on PBS (I never once mentioned commercial TV). I was hoping that would be the part to receive the critisisms or kudos. I don't mind you nitpicking my post as you seem to be one by nature, & that's fine, but I'd at least like you to understand what I am saying before you criticize it. Either way, I stand by my point. Good day, sir.

 

[MeteorWayne]

That's pretty interesting, since Challenger wasn't broadcast by any of the networks live. Creative imagination, I guess.

It's not boradcast on free TV now, because there are revenue generating shows on the air, and the networks aren't going to interrupt such shows, sadly.

Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN do cover launches of the Shuttle live, but not other launches (except for Ares 1X) but they're not really free TV, are they?

In today's TV market, money talks, stuff that the execs realize aren't going to generate revenue (and will get thousands of calls complaining that their favorite soap/reality show, Everybody Loves Raymond repeat, etc) just aren't going to be put on the air.

 

[Booban]

Well, perhaps Bill meant something more general, like if people were interested in space, there would generally be alot more sci fi, crappy or not, realistic or not. Tons of doctors and a CSI show for each state, don't even mention the spawns of 'survivor' (all crap).

Although I would actually say that sci fi has had an upswing in recent years.

 

[geofbrewer]

I don't think NASA can do it. It's going to take something on the order of say, Hubble finds the edge of the universe. Maybe contact ala Sagan's book or Clark's books or insert name of favorite scifi author. The are a number of other possibilities this thread could not keep up with. Suffice it to say, I have three adult children I dragged out of bed to look at Hale-Bopp when they were kids. I gave my copies of the "Universe" series to one of my grandsons. I've even softened up my wife to the idea of a personal observatory. Grandpa (Opa) can treat his grandchildren to some stargazing. I can even introduce them to the rudiments of radio astronomy. There are ways.

 

[mr_mark]

In my opinion, the only thing that is going to get people interested in space exploration again is to get operations going on the moon. That is the only place in space that the average person can understand and recognize. Mars is just a point of light in the sky, no different than Sirius, as far as the man on the street is concerned. Orbital operations don’t click with people, even though the International Space Station is quite obvious when it passes by.

"Knowing that there are people up there on the Moon, living and working, would have a profound effect on most people’s viewpoint, I believe. They would have to confront the concept that there is someplace other than ‘here’, meaning the Earth, which is the natural way of thinking. Once they get their mind around the idea that there is some where other than ‘here’, that would force them to accept that ‘here’ is not an infinite size, and can be used up.

We are dealing with a public which does not even realize that the Sun is a star, that considers sporting activities to be the most important thing in the world, unless it is some celebrity doing something stupid. People who have no concept of what the Solar System is, who probably believe that the Sun rotates around the Earth. There is only one goal in space which they can understand, only one place in space that they can find without assistance, and that is the Moon. It doesn’t matter why we are going there, or what we will do there, just that there will be people up there.

Once we wake people up with the idea that people are going to the Moon, interest will soar. Education will become more important, technology will be more than just cell phones and iPods, and our horizons will start to expand. Right now, every launch could be for a mission going to Aldebaran, for all the typical citizen knows. Low Earth Orbit is equivalent to Andromeda to many people. Give them something that they can understand, that they can see with their own eyes, and you might get them interested". halman

This is by far the best response I have ever read on this board. Halman you are so right. The public can grasp this simple concept. And you are so right about public knowledge of space. When I met my wife, she thought that the Sun was closer to Earth than the Moon.

 

[gomarsnow]

One of the biggest mistakes NASA made was selecting a destination(the Moon) that had been reached some 40 years earlier. Yes, I know the rationale: 3 days travel time vs. 6 months each way to Mars, ect. You're not going to excite the public by covering the same ground again. Most of the tax payers grew up on Star Wars, so a mult-decade effort to land on the Moon is a yawn. Mars would inspire more imaginations, but in this 24-hour news, 15 minutes of fame culture that we're living in, I don't think that even that destination would have staying power. People want to know "what's in it for me?" If we discovered an asteroid on a collision course with Earth , or a cure for cancer that can only be produced on Mars, then the public wouldn't be content to fund NASA to the tune of .5 % of the Federal Budget. If the Chinese landed on the Moon and claimed it as there own, people would get "fired-up" and insist on U.S. space supremacy again. Unfortunately, space missions are going to have trouble competing for the public's attention when "Balloon Boy" is dominating the conversation.

 

[scotty3]

To address the hook "How can NASA reignite passion for space exploration?".
Answer: They can't!
There is already plenty of passion for space exploration by the public. More than enough!
The question should read "What can NASA do to reignite the publics interest in NASA?"
Answer: Nothing!
As long as NASA continues to fall back on legacy technologies that will NEVER allow ordinary citizens to travel to space. As long as the Astronauts are the elitist squad of untouchables they are, then the public will continue to YAWN at their work.
As long as NASA continues to LIE about what they are finding out there. Be it artifacts on the moon, Martian fossils, UFO's, (insert your own conspiracy fancy here), whatever, then the discerning public will continue to get their space jollies with new Star Trek movies and television re-runs.
UNTIL the commercial sector gets into gear, UNTIL scientists are truly supported in "breakthrough" physics and space travel technologies then the public will never truly "buy in" for more than a moment in time.
Realistically these things will never come by way of government funding and programs ( StarFleet notwithstanding).
Modern governments are too concerned with keeping the old paradigm in operation. It is natural I suppose.
So... lets pray we get a Zefram Cochrane to give us a WARP DRIVE boost outa-here. In the interim we anxiously await the well intentioned and plucky (and hopefully not ultimately disappointing) exploits of the Richard Bransons and Burt Rutans of the world.
NASA however, is a dinosaur waiting for the extinction comet to hit. Good riddance.
(-:

 

[Windbourne]

To get the kids, and all ppl, interested, we will have to step beyond the routine. Right now, it is the lack of taking chances and a routine that makes ppl ignore this. What is needed is for NASA to move forward. The problem is that NASA has not been funded for the last 8 years, and likely will not be. So, the question is, how to make this work? I believe that the answer lies in getting private money involved. In particular, NASA desperately needs to quit fighting private/commercial space and make heavy use of them for the routine items. They should be pushing for COTs-D to help SpaceX get humans into space. Likewise, they need to push a COTs2 perhaps to push Scaled Composites into building SS3. Likewise, for these company to succeed and lower their prices, they need another destination or two to go to. That means more space stations or the moon. By far the cheapest one, is more space stations. To get that started, we need to prime Bigelow. Have NASA buy 2 units from Bigelow to add to the ISS.

Now, what will that do for Space? How much has SpaceX stimulated talk and interest? I would say a great deal. In fact, I have found it amazing that Musk has done a better job of getting ppl interested, than has NASA, ULA, Boeing, L-MART, and Bigelow COMBINED. Bigelow has been quiet and not done much (nor will they until a real space station with ppl go up). ULA/Boeing/L-MART are not used to thinking about this, and NASA is in disarray. With pushing private space, these companies should start pushing more education about Space.

Besides in the end, it will not matter. China is quietly pushing their weapons into space, and I think that it will shortly re-start a new space race, when the first military only space station is launched in 2 years.

 

[lcech]

We need to get a base completed on the moon allready. Once that is done, we can begin mining and develop bigger research labs. This will not only create huge public interest, but many businesses may want to expand onto the moon and take advantage of all the resources that could be available on the moon. We need to explore the moon and take advantage of all its resources. Businesses will come if we can prove that such materials exist.

 

[rockett]

I grew up in the sixties, with Yeager, X-15, Mercury, Gemeni, and Apollo. What we are missing today is heros. "The Right Stuff" movie was pretty accurate. Now we have taxi drivers. We don't have the innovation, drive, or willingness to go out on that edge anymore. Sure, safety is wonderful, but there is no drama anymore (re: Apollo 13).

The other thing that comes to mind is a phrase from that movie, "pushing the envelope". WE DON'T. I noticed that even the links to the Glenn Research Center studies on FTL are dead. The spacecraft from back then were at the leading edge of what was possible (sometimes the people that created them couldn't believe they actually worked). Yet when NASA went back to the drawing board, they found everything they had achieved from those years was gone. They couldn't recreate the Saturn 5 even though one was laying on it's side on exhibit in Houston. So instead they cobbled together a shuttle booster and the second stage engine from the Saturn 5 and dubbed it Aries. How's THAT for innovation?

We can bash NASA all we want, but "we the people" took the fire outa them. WE RUN THE GOVERNMENT not the other way around. It is ONLY what we have ALLOWED it to become. We're like stockholders that have let a company get outa control and then it begs for goverment bailouts and goes back to business as usual. You want change? New ideas? Fresh perspective? Push for term limits...

 

[rockett]

Capturing the public imagination is as simple as actually trying to build one of those ideas that used to be posted on the NASA Advanced Propulsion Glenn Center page. The public really does love science fiction (look at all the sci fi blockbuster movies that have come out in the last two years). Put some SERIOUS research into it (meaning $). Then make just TRYING to build it a big deal - publicize it. Doesn't matter if we actually manage to make it work or not. JUST THAT WE ARE SERIOUSLY TRYING TO. Would create a worldwide scramble to beat us to it, then we'd have a real horse race...

 

[deagleninja]

More gimmicks aren't the answer...

If you want the public to be excited about NASA then NASA needs to be exciting. Period.

The whole problem with NASA is that they are focused in the wrong direction.
Rather than focus on space exploration, NASA should be focused on space UTILIZATION.

Taxpayers, rightfully so, want to know where their dollars are going. And for over thirty years those dollars have been circling the Earth... literally. If NASA isn't going to make any effort to make space more accessible to their own organization (let alone the average joe) they need to be shut down.

Since the days of Apollo we've spent HUNDREDS of billions of dollars on NASA and by 2015 we'll have nothing to show for it except some Hubble pictures and data on how ants cope with zero-gravity. I'm exaggerating, but sadly not by much.

It's long past time the people of this nation demand more from their space program and quit blindly supporting a dead horse that continuously drains precious funding better spent nearly anywhere.

 

[webtaz99]

I really hate to say this, but if you want people to be exited about space, they need to learn to read. And do a little bit of {gulp} - math.

 

[rickstine]

One of many reasons why it's unrealistic

Odd how a professor in my college was the runner up to Christa McAuliffe.

Though, training takes almost a year, then you have training missions. Most of those missions have been sent well in advance.

 

[rickstine]

My point is that whether a sci-fi show is canceled or not is irrelevant to the subject of this topic, which is a passion for space exploration.
The people who can stomach watching such bad sci-fi are unlikely to understand enough of the science to support a space program.

Most those shows pander to the general audience, and are just mass marketed.

Anyway, if our goal is to understand science, education is the only way. From k-12 and beyond to supporting higher state schools as well.

 

[frankdzoier]

I agree with many of the ideas presented in this forum. Establishing a human presence of the moon is a necessary first step - call it a psychological step. The next step is to find a way to make a buck off of it. Nothing motivates people like the promise of riches. Columbus set sail to the West because he was looking for a route to India for trade. Money is almost always the great motivator for change.

NASA is not equipped to reignite a passion for space travel. Private industry is already set up to handle the R&D and marketing strategies needed to develop a space-born economy. Once there are people making money from moon-based industry, other companies will shift their focus to innovations devoted to human survival in the vacuum of space. Steve Jobs told his research department to invent the iPod, so they did. Less than ten years later, and the device itself has evolved beyond anyone's expectations. Just think if he or someone like him did the same thing for artificial gravity or self-sustaining extraterrestrial habitations? It may sound like science fiction, but so did the iPod.

 

[perineau]

I think that we need a rational approach to future space exploration. Instead of spending money on old technology ("Apollo on steroids"), NASA should devote its budget in the next few years to developing propulsion systems that would get us to Mars in two months, for example, instead of the six-month journey which is now required. Not only would this make a mars mission much less expensive and less dangerous (and much shorter !), this advance in propulsion systems would allow us to explore the moons of Jupiter and Saturn where many scientists believe life may exist...