Recently, I was reading elsewhere about public knowledge of the space industry, the unfortunate lack of it, and people's opinions of how to raise it. This was all well and good, its certainly great to get more people interested, but there seemed to be large support for getting more media coverage. Its here that I say take very great care.
The problem in my opinion is that media coverage, even honored news, is not necessarily truth. I'm not saying its lies either, I don't believe its manipulated by the government or any such nonsense; it is simply a business, one concerned first and foremost with its own profits. Therefore there is of course an emphasis on ratings, and a taste for drama. Successful space launches are interesting, sure, but whats even better for ratings is failure. Columbia and Challenger together probably got as much notice as all of the Apollo missions combined. And that is a tremendous killer of public support.
The fact is, space technology is risky, and more importantly, its perfectly okay that it is risky. This is a fact the greater public does not understand, and one the media industry simply does not care about. When you stop and think about what a rocket is really doing, riding on an explosion, it tends to make rocket science look shockingly successful.
So whenever new technologies in the space sector are being developed, they must be tested. They must be tried out, and no one who understands the process should be disappointed by a few failures. Early failures are often welcome - they help flesh out the kinks in the system, bring flaws into the light, where they can be fixed, long before a technology is used more commercial. Take the several failed flights of SpaceX's Falcon 1. The trouble is, Falcon 1 was tiny, little more than a satellite pusher, and of not much interest to the general media. The Falcon 9 is a different story, this is the vehicle that WILL be moving supplies to the ISS, the vehicle that very realistically could be the first commercial vehicle to carry astronauts. Fortunately, its first test was quite a success.
So lets assume for a moment it wasn't. Immediately, the media would jump at it, and opponents of the commercial direction would jump on the band wagon saying that, somehow, even though it WAS just a test, this proves conclusively that the commercial sector can't handle this (same thing could, ironically, be said for a federal program bogged down in bureaucracy, and indeed it has been), that its too dangerous. Media spin would support this to make it more sexy to viewers, public support would drop, funding would drop, corners would be cut in the future, the whole program would suffer and possible even fail. But why? Because of one "failed" test? Wasn't the test meant to find such problems, so they could be fixed? Why take away the funding that can fix them?
That being said, be careful what you wish for. Yes, public awareness of the space industry most certainly needs to be raised. But perhaps the media is not the best way to do this. Perhaps Blue Origin has the right idea, keeping its plans and its testing quite under wraps.
So, converse. Is media coverage to promote awareness worth the risk? Talk about it.
The problem in my opinion is that media coverage, even honored news, is not necessarily truth. I'm not saying its lies either, I don't believe its manipulated by the government or any such nonsense; it is simply a business, one concerned first and foremost with its own profits. Therefore there is of course an emphasis on ratings, and a taste for drama. Successful space launches are interesting, sure, but whats even better for ratings is failure. Columbia and Challenger together probably got as much notice as all of the Apollo missions combined. And that is a tremendous killer of public support.
The fact is, space technology is risky, and more importantly, its perfectly okay that it is risky. This is a fact the greater public does not understand, and one the media industry simply does not care about. When you stop and think about what a rocket is really doing, riding on an explosion, it tends to make rocket science look shockingly successful.
So whenever new technologies in the space sector are being developed, they must be tested. They must be tried out, and no one who understands the process should be disappointed by a few failures. Early failures are often welcome - they help flesh out the kinks in the system, bring flaws into the light, where they can be fixed, long before a technology is used more commercial. Take the several failed flights of SpaceX's Falcon 1. The trouble is, Falcon 1 was tiny, little more than a satellite pusher, and of not much interest to the general media. The Falcon 9 is a different story, this is the vehicle that WILL be moving supplies to the ISS, the vehicle that very realistically could be the first commercial vehicle to carry astronauts. Fortunately, its first test was quite a success.
So lets assume for a moment it wasn't. Immediately, the media would jump at it, and opponents of the commercial direction would jump on the band wagon saying that, somehow, even though it WAS just a test, this proves conclusively that the commercial sector can't handle this (same thing could, ironically, be said for a federal program bogged down in bureaucracy, and indeed it has been), that its too dangerous. Media spin would support this to make it more sexy to viewers, public support would drop, funding would drop, corners would be cut in the future, the whole program would suffer and possible even fail. But why? Because of one "failed" test? Wasn't the test meant to find such problems, so they could be fixed? Why take away the funding that can fix them?
That being said, be careful what you wish for. Yes, public awareness of the space industry most certainly needs to be raised. But perhaps the media is not the best way to do this. Perhaps Blue Origin has the right idea, keeping its plans and its testing quite under wraps.
So, converse. Is media coverage to promote awareness worth the risk? Talk about it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram