Why Space Exploration is Important

spacester · Jul 5, 2006

I see your point, Scott, but again I tried to avoid words that can fall victim to semantics. To reference the 'Future' without saying if it is a good or bad future is to leave open the door to pointless nit picking. Post-apocalyptic scenarios usually involve some technology and some human decency, therefore some civilization. But that’s not the kind of Future we’re talking about, is it? If we intend to ‘advance’ our civilization, we leave behind all those negative connotations about a frightening future and we in fact have issued a call to action. The conquerors you mention had their definitions of ‘advancement’, this is true. But we are free to make our own definitions, aren’t we? Perhaps we have even advanced to the point that advancement itself is no longer a moral depredation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

blackened27 · Jul 5, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> I’m saying that the concept of civilization is the one thing that is both easily grasped by the general public and serves as a unifying theme for all of the space flight aspirations of all of us here. <hr /></blockquote> I don't think this line of thought will hold a great deal of sway in the minds of the general public. And indeed, it holds little sway with myself, as it fails to capture the essence of why i find space interesting. I think it's generally impossible to create a tagline that speaks to all people on this, as space is a deeply personal issue, and everyone has their own reasons for supporting exploration. Probably the best form of advertising possible would be pictures, they convey the beauty of space and stir the heart in a way that words fail to achieve. To make a generalization, i'd guess that most here became enamored with space because of things they saw, and not because of someone trying to convince them that they should support space exploration. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Perhaps we have even advanced to the point that advancement itself is no longer a moral depredation. <hr /></blockquote> Morality is always subjective, but that aside, if man goes into space in great numbers, his conflicts will go right with him. Conflicts and wars are a natural byproduct of the human condtion, and unless the species changes in such a drastic way as to be unrecognizable, it's wishful thinking to believe the opening up of a new frontier will change that. If anything, it's likely to trigger a new form of nationalistic colonialism. To say nothing of what happens if business interests and private enterprises become involved.

rogers_buck · Jul 5, 2006

I'll go ahead and repost a post I made in the Science Forum concerning Hawking's dire urgings for man to venture out into space. The argument I am making is that there is a fairly urgent cosmological rationale that suggests itself from current thinking in m-theory and quantum reality. ================ believe there is more reason behind Hawking's insistance on the matter of the human race spreading out into space than the reasons he gives in public. Hawking has also warned that the human race needs to better interface with its machines and/or genetically engineer itself to keep up with its machines. I believe these dire warnings are related and the root reason relates to a lifetime studying entropy and black holes. Let's consider a far simpler universe from a perspective we can never enjoy from the inside. Imagine it to be the globe cosmologists frequently use with a north pole representing the initian quantum states of the universe and the south pole representing the final quantum states of the universe. Sum over histories tells us that there are infinite paths between these two poles and they all exist simultaneously in imaginary time. Eventually, all the paths except for the direct transition will be interfered out of existence. Now let's peek onto the surface of the globe. We know that the lines of latitude are imaginary time but we find a strange tensor fields resulting from the differential order between the two poles. These fields are manifest and entangled with the imaginary time and form the basis of thermodynamics and our perception of reality. Now at any arbitrary point on the surface take a look around and you will find plausible histories for your being there and viable memories of the past. You will not remember the future but your higher brain functions will be all about predicting the future. You are trapped in the field to a degree and you will observe the interference of paths as decay and

mental_avenger · Jul 6, 2006

I choose the “technologically advanced society that destroys . . .” over the “primitive society that coexists . . .” because the comparison is being made on the basis of level of technology, and one clearly scores higher in a rating of technology. You have just equated the level of civilization of a race to the level of technology of that race. Where does that take us? That insinuates that our “worth” as a race is dependent upon how far advanced we are technologically. While I am sure that some people would use that as a criteria, I am also certain that many, if not most people would disagree. Do you recall the main recurring theme in the original Star Trek series? It addressed this question dozens of times from every angle. The consensus, at least from the point of view of most of the various writers, had little to do with technological level, and almost everything to do with social integrity. If true, there are two simple explanations. First, the technology side of civilization and the humanity side of civilization are going to progress at their own rates and it’s to be expected that one will get out ahead of the other and that may be all you’re seeing: our humanity is lagging behind our technology. Examine your own answer. The real mark of civilization may be the humanity, and not the technology. However, it is rather easy to do a direct comparison of crime rates between various levels of technologically developed societies, past and present. I think you will find that crime increases with technology almost across the board. While it is true that some primitive societies had customs which seem barbaric to us, those customs usually reflected a lack of knowledge or superstition, not hate and deceit. Um, yeah, and so . . . um what was the point? Are you supposing that our “worth” is also imponderable? And what is so “mer <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

spacester · Jul 6, 2006

I'm going to have to answer the other two posts tonight, and I've just a few minutes to respond to M_A You have just equated the level of civilization of a race to the level of technology of that race. Where does that take us? No I didn’t. Your entire post is a non sequitur. Your incorrect statement can take you wherever you want, but don’t include the rest of us in your “us”. Sir you miss my point - my measure of civilization involves at least the concepts of technology and humanity. My simplest model has the two of them advancing side by side. You seem to need to keep them separate, I suppose because your objective here is to discredit my ideas and promote your own. Well I don't have time for that anymore - I am here for true dialogs, not pissing matches. So please read my post again. You posed what you supposed were conundrums; your philosophy - can you state your philosophy, or does it not go beyond the attack mode? - seems to be that nothing is knowable and these questions are imponderable. I merely showed that they were answerable questions. Your primitive debate tactic is not worthy of this important dialog. 'Aha' says you - 'he has fallen into my trap! I shall now pounce!' Well I don't have time for that crap. I have at least two concepts to guide my subjective judgments on the state of civilization past present and future. For your first case, I chose one over the other because I find one concepts overrides the other in that case. For the other case, I chose the second concept as my guide. This is how humans make subjective judgments. Is that truly beyond your experience? Now I've spent all those words just getting thru the first sentence of your response, and I've had to do that because you are not interested in anything but discrediting me. I don't have time for this crap. Please try again with an honest intellectual approach. The project of disc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jul 6, 2006

A quick follow-up . . . What does it matter that there is a multiplicity of definitions for 'civilization'? Why is that such an important thing to you? Why does it need to be a universally definable quality for it to have meaning? Are universally definable qualities the only things you are prepared to discuss? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 6, 2006

Mental Avenger said: ” You have just equated the level of civilization of a race to the level of technology of that race. Where does that take us?” Spacester responded: No I didn’t. Your entire post is a non sequitur. Your exact words: I choose the “technologically advanced society that destroys . . .” over the “primitive society that coexists . . .” because the comparison is being made on the basis of level of technology, and one clearly scores higher in a rating of technology. I did not make that comparison, YOU did. MY comparison, in the example I gave, was clearly focused on the living in harmony with nature and with one another without crime. That is backed up and supported by many of my other statements. (also see Star Trek reference) MY reference to “technological and primitive” in that example was incidental to the main point of human qualities that separate us from mindless animals. Spacester claims: Well I don't have time for that anymore - I am here for true dialogs, not pissing matches. Oh, I see. You are only interested in dialog as long as it agrees with your viewpoint. Hello…………… if everyone agreed there would be no dialog and this forum would not exist. Spacester claims: You posed what you supposed were conundrums; your philosophy …………. seems to be that nothing is knowable and these questions are imponderable. Ponderable yes. Definitively quantifiable for everyone at once, no way. Now I've spent all those words just getting thru the first sentence of your response, and I've had to do that because you are not interested in anything but discrediting me. Once again you illustrate that you are not interested in a discussion at all, unless it agree <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

quasar2 · Jul 6, 2006

I think alot of humanity`s problems stem from the gaps in our history. how high tech did "we" get? i think maybe certain factions of humanity were high tech @ one time. now i don`t think this would mean their progression toward "it" would mean they would leave traces which acording to some have never been found. what if high tech ancients were "cleaner" than us? we only have the one example of a civilization to go by. so, we assume they shoulda had candy wrappers, etc.. we`ve only been recycling for a short time. & add to the fact hitech may have steamrolled societies w/ answers we seek. most on here have discussed this. i can`t remember who, but the quote "have you asked a Maori Chief", sticks in my mind. & we had the thread about Rome enduring. i remember a scifi short story about if Richard The Lion-hearted woulda lived. or "The Difference Engine". the Victorian Era has become my fave Era for these possibilities,partly as result of that novel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rogers_buck · Jul 6, 2006

>> Mental Avenger said: ” You have just equated the level of civilization of a race to the level of technology of that race. Where does that take us?” I like the idea of equating the level of civilization with the level of technology of a society. Race has no scientific meaning, so I think society is a better word. The reason I like it so much is that the universe is all about information. What is the best information that can be developed in any given circumstance. It doesn't care much for what the outcome is or how significant or insignificant that information is, it simply tests and retests until the best rises to the top. Our total information content is the sum of our atoms and moleculs, our DNA and our society. A society without technology is limited to the information it can store in its head. A society with technology is bounded only by the amount of information it can develop and store given its level of technology. The answer to the question "What do you get when you randomly cross human beings" isn't an interesting one anymore. In a couple of decades we can simulate all the permutations and won't even need to make the humans to find out the answer. So our technological society is clearly far superior with respect to its information than any society with lesser or no technology. This isn't a subjective judgement either, there are specific metrics. 1) If the society is under physical stress, random societies without technology cannot modify their genomes in a targeted way to survive. They must go into decline and hope to get lucky. 2) Societies without superior technology have a similar problem with respect to stress. Case in point the great plauges of the middle ages. 3) Ultimately, the earth may not be a survivable place. The odd asteroid will fall home. Societies without a space program are doomed. 4) Societies with superior technology can predate upon inferior societies and plac

spacester · Jul 7, 2006

M_A, you’re as predictable as April rain. You’ll never be a full participant in any dialog because you cannot leave attack dog mode. You’re in the mode where you quote only the parts of your ‘opponents’ words where you see weekness, ignore the stuff that scored against you, take things out of context, etc etc ad naseum. That’s the crap I don’t have time for. You have one more chance to do this dialog thing and then you’re going on my ignore list. A dialog is not a debate. In a dialog, you have ‘participants’ ; in a debate, you have ‘opponents’. A debate is not possible here because there is no judging system; but a dialog can be done and has been done. I don’t have time for a phony debate with a guy who has the authority to edit my posts but not the willingness to comprehend them. This post is my last try with you, capiche? I would be thrilled to see you engage that fine intellect of yours at a new level but you cannot teach some old dogs new tricks. A pity, that. I said: I choose the “technologically advanced society that destroys . . .” over the “primitive society that coexists . . .” because the comparison is being made on the basis of level of technology, and one clearly scores higher in a rating of technology. At the same time, I choose the Tibetan Monk over the TV Evangelist preacher because the comparison is being made between modes of thought, presumably on the basis of purity of intent, and one clearly scores higher in a rating of that aspect of civilization. A comparison between the Monk’s modest cave and the TV studio is irrelevant here. You quoted the first sentence, ignored the rest, took that ball and ran with it. Well that’s just plain old 100% intellectually dishonest and I don’t have time for your stupid games. Until you shape up, I will only take the time to repeat the stuff you ignore until you address it. If that. I explained to you how subjective judgments c <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rfoshaug · Jul 7, 2006

I'd rather give the answer "To ensure the advancement of technology". As can be clearly seen from this discussion, there are a lot of opinion on what "civilization" actually is, and what type of civilization is the "best". But there's no doubt that space exploration drives a technological development. I believe that most people would agree that technological advancement is important. But people who think that Tibetan Monks are the most civilized, would disagree that space exploration ensures the advancement of civilization. They will disagree that anyone should explore space whatever good reasons you give them, simply because their priorities and ideals lie elsewhere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

j05h · Jul 7, 2006

> A primitive society that coexists successfully with nature, lives in harmony with other societies, and has no crime. Or A technologically advanced society that destroys the very planet it lives on, wars with other societies, and whose citizens commit so many crimes that entire industries are created to deal with the crimes. You gloss over both types of people so much that analysis is impossible. Just calling a different society "primitive" shows your inherent bias. I would recommend Krech's "The Ecological Indian: Myth and History" for an overview of how one-dimensional that attitude is. Examples of not "living with nature" would include buffalo jumps that killed thousands of buffalo for fairly small tribes. You can only harvest so many tongues before the whole pile of meat rots. Also, Indians burned this land every year to maintain human-compatible lands - Fire has shaped North America for millenia. Delibrate floods, mass murder (the Erie genocide), yearly warfare etc. put the lie to your assumptions about pastoralists. These kind of generic "live in harmony" claims, often made on American Indians, turn human beings into caricatures. You don't survive without being very good at what you do. The technologically advanced society might do bad things, but so does everyone else. The Law of the Jungle is human nature. Modern, global, technical society has advantages that you ignore: flowering of arts and music, global communication, vaccines, longer lifespans, less violence and predation than earlier times. And Discovery flew. The high-tech 21st Century life is similar to neolithic living because we are being liberated from Place by our technology. > Who is more civilized? A typical Tibetan Monk. Or A typical TV Evangelist preacher. The monk for many reasons. However, if you are presenting this as an "us vs them" it doesn't work. Not everyone here is a Christian, n <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

spacester · Jul 7, 2006

rfoshaug, I’ve neglected answering you fully until now and I apologize for that. What’s worse, I’m going to give you more response here than maybe you wanted. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> I'd rather give the answer "To ensure the advancement of technology". From my point of view, that is a perfectly good answer for certain audiences, and is a subset of my more over-arching answer. Perhaps I should clarify that concept a bit more. I do not seek a ‘unifying’ answer. I used to seek it, but am now convinced that if there is one, it will not emerge until some future date. To find one answer that works for everybody in the same way is a fool’s errand, and I knew that before. What I previously sought was an answer that works for everybody in different ways, and I have come close, but not quite, to that ideal. I do think it is good enough. What I seek is an answer that is maximally inclusive – one that encompasses all the other answers, one that is intrinsically over-arching. Such an answer will be a close approximation to a ‘unifying’ answer, close enough to get the job done. The answer I present here is one level of abstraction deeper than yours. A lot of people – a certain audience - are going to find the concept of ‘advancement of technology’ to be much more concrete than my abstract one. Fine with me, that’s the whole idea. Feel free to promote spaceflight on that basis to that audience. I do not insist that you ever use the word ‘civilized’, lol. But please understand that I’m not willing to give up on other audiences. The geek community may focus on technology, but a whole lot of other people are going to think of the second dictionary definition I quoted: ’Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable’.and those are the people we need to get on board this space flight movement. [Anyone familiar with <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

josh_simonson · Jul 7, 2006

'Civilized' is a subjective term. It is futile to have that as a goal because the definition continuously changes as you pursue it. Evolution, survival of the fitest, that is the process by which we came to be. Not survival of the polite, survival of the compassionate or surviaval of the content. With mammals, and humans in particular, evolution has taken a dramatic step in that the inherited traits that make up our fit-ness are in the form of ideas as well as genes. Evolution has had a few billion years to develop genetics, but only a few thousand to develop ideas. We go to space to find new ideas that contribute directly to our evolution, as well as to gurantee that we continue to evolve independant of un-natural (extra-evolutionary) events that could cause our annihilation and put evolution back on square one, or even square zero. Carl Sagan said "We are the means by which the universe can know itself." Judging from the progress of our evolution, the universe wants to know more. We would be un-fit if we denied it's wishes - and nature does not treat the un-fit in a 'civilized' manner.

crossovermaniac · Jul 7, 2006

I don't think the human race colonize space unless they're profit to be made from it.

webtaz99 · Jul 7, 2006

The question is - profit for whom? Humans have sometimes colonized simply to have more freedom or resources, at the expense of profit (in the short term, of course). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

TheShadow · Jul 7, 2006

Spacester, For someone who has been in attack mode now for quite a while, your comments are hypocritical. In addition, they are off topic and ad hominem. If you have a valid objection to how someone debates, contact the Moderators or Administration, or start a thread in Suggestions Forum. The same goes for comments regarding the color of members’ names, how the Moderators perform their duties, or their fitness to do the job. Those comments do not belong here. This is a well established and enforced Uplink policy. Do not continue to make such comments in this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 7, 2006

Whether you agree or not, this is a forum for debate, it always has been. This isn’t high school anymore, all debates don’t require “judges”, although some people think that the other participants/observers are de facto judges. You quoted the first sentence, ignored the rest, took that ball and ran with it. Yes I did, and that was appropriate. Since, in that instance, I was responding only to your claim that the comparison is being made on the basis of level of technology that was the only portion of the paragraph that required quoting. In addition, the rest of your paragraph neither supported nor refuted that specific claim. Unlike some people who quote entire passages or even entire posts, I quote only the relevant portions, including enough ancillary content to show relevant context. The operative word here is relevant. You truly don’t seem to understand that I can make the above subjective judgment and you can make your own subjective judgment, I have expressed my opinion, and you have expressed yours. From what I have seen so far in this thread, it appears that you consider those opinions that agree with yours to be “dialog”, and those opinions that differ from yours to be “attacks”. If that is how you feel, then I suggest you no longer engage in debates, discussions, or dialogs of any kind. What does it matter that there is a multiplicity of definitions for 'civilization'? Why is that such an important thing to you? Why does it need to be a universally definable quality for it to have meaning? Ok, one more time. If you are attempting to use a concept as a basis for selling space exploration to everyone, then the concept must be applicable to everyone. How many times have you indicated that you were looking for or h <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

spacester · Jul 7, 2006

'Civilized' is a subjective term. It is futile to have that as a goal because the definition continuously changes as you pursue it. 'Civilization' is not the goal, it is the 'Advancement of Civilization'. Can you see the distinction? (Sigh) The first is a product, the second is a process. It is the process we are interested in. Whatever the product of that process ends up being, at that time we can all make our subjective judgments as to exactly in what ways we have advanced civilization by expanding into space. Or not; we can ignore the philosophizing altogether if we wish and just enjoy the technology. I remain mystified why concrete, unchanging, universal definitions are required for a concept to have validity. I repeat, this strategy takes advantage of the multiplicity of definitions. It is a portal into the thought patterns of intelligent people, people we wish to recruit to our cause. We get them thinking in their own personal terms of what ‘the Advance of Civilization’ means *to them* and we’re halfway home. I remain convinced that the technologist needs the philosopher to get this space age on the right track. Evolution has had a few billion years to develop genetics, but only a few thousand to develop ideas. A good observation. Yet look at our cultural progress since the ideas took root. Still, I take your point (I think) that our ideas have lot of catching up to do compared to our genetics. We go to space to find new ideas that contribute directly to our evolution . . . I like that a lot. I’m thinking ‘evolution’ in a broad sense and along your lines of thinking is essentially equivalent to ‘civilization’ in my usage. But it’s a politically loaded word in common usage so it doesn’t make the cut for the Marketing Answer. Carl Sagan said "We are the means by which <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 7, 2006

You gloss over both types of people so much that analysis is impossible. Just That was merely an example using extremes, quite a valid procedure. It was not practical to include all the possible combinations or levels. Just calling a different society "primitive" shows your inherent bias. Bias? You must be joking. Primitive is an often used and accepted term for less technologically advanced societies. I even indicated that a “primitive” society might well be more civilized than an advanced technological society. Examples of not "living with nature" would include buffalo jumps that killed thousands of buffalo for fairly small tribes. Getting way off track there. Coexisting successfully nature would hardly include such wasteful practices. My comment was not intended to target a race or a society, it was a generalized hypothetical example, the parameters of which were indicated. Your response indicates an unwarranted hostility. The monk for many reasons. However, if you are presenting this as an "us vs them" it doesn't work. Not everyone here is a Christian, never mind Evangelical. Again, a hypothetical example used for illustrating a point. Please do not attempt to extrapolate it into something it is not, nor was ever intended to be. And if you think Buddhism is somehow "primitive", you are unbelievably naive. Non sequitur. Where did that come from? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 7, 2006

I don't think the human race colonize space unless they're profit to be made from it. Agreed. And in order to sell space exploration, those who will invest need to know when that profit is to be expected. They will no doubt also want some guarantees that they will be the ones who actually receive the benefits/profit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

spacester · Jul 7, 2006

M_A, you cannot be intellectually honest while deciding for yourself what is and is not relevant in the mind of your opponent. On that basis, no matter what I write, you can simply declare the inconvenient parts irrelevant and ‘win’! It’s totally absurd, sir! I appeal to the judges here! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I write paragraphs that are of a whole. Cripes, I explained this to you years ago! I purposely wrote that paragraph with two alternate criteria being applied and you cannot honestly just take the first sentence and ignore the rest. I refuse to write one-sentence paragraphs just because of your obstinacy! From what I have seen so far in this thread, it appears that you consider those opinions that agree with yours to be “dialog”, and those opinions that differ from yours to be “attacks”. On the contrary, those opinions which are responsive and intellectually honest are dialog and those that are not, are a waste of bandwidth, my time, everyone else’s time, even yours. There are several examples of me welcoming and embracing new ideas, but can you say the same? The use of the term ‘attack’ is a characterization of your long-term primary posting style; the record of such is abundant even without the archives from the old days. So I also leave that to the judges: at least I have to make an effort to be in attack mode and my natural mode is just the opposite. Attack mode is pretty disruptive, ain’t it? Enough on the local politics, I want to get back on topic. I repeat, this strategy of basing our case on the concept of advancement of civilization takes advantage of the multiplicity of definitions it naturally engenders. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rfoshaug · Jul 7, 2006

Well, spacester, I do see your point, and it is a good point. Talking about civilization is more inclusive than talking about technology. The main problem with talking about our civilization as I see it, is that many people think that civilization is a matter for centuries and millennia. Most would agree that mankind should once reach for the universe sometime in the future to ensure the advancement of civilization, just not in this century, or not just in this election period or this fiscal year - because advancing a civilization sounds like a slow and long process that we might not even see the fruits of in our lifetime. Many will argue that colonizing our solar system is an advancement of our civilization, while building a space station or landing on the moon for a flag and footprints mission is not. After giving this question some thought (I'll give you that, you got me thinking), I think I've come up with an even simpler answer that also justifies space exploration in the shorter term, as well as the long term. Anything from colonizing Pluto down to the next Space Shuttle mission. Not only does it answer the question of why space exploration is important but also questions about why we should have any kind of research, science or exploration at all. That's lucky, since space exploration incorporates both research and science, as well as exploration all at the same time. It is an answer we will see the benefits of within our lifetime - even before the next presidential election. And it's an answer almost anyone would agree is one of the most important aspects of the human species. And best of all: it's just two words long. Can you guess what it is? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

spacester · Jul 7, 2006

<img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> . . . because advancing a civilization sounds like a slow and long process that we might not even see the fruits of in our lifetime. Point taken. You do realize that no-one is more impatient than I, right? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Thus the second word of my six and that’s a whole ‘nother discussion. I’ll try to thumbnail this part of my overall space philosophy thesis, as briefly as I can: Not only is space flight the one activity that guarantees we advance civilization, if we fail to do it soon enough, we might not get another chance. In fact, if civilization is currently in decline then not only is space flight the prime candidate to turn that trend the other direction, but the clock is ticking and if we don’t get it done sooner than later we will not get another chance, not in our lifetimes or even any future lifetimes. That means if you think civilization is good but currently in decline, you are in a position to save the day by supporting space flight. So the call to action is kinda built-in to my six word answer, hidden below the surface. The Marketing Answer derives directly from the Intellectual Answer according to the circumstances. If you’re trying to sell space flight to a non-technical crowd, here’s a conceptual foundation you can work with. But I also want to talk about your two-word answer. Um, I’ll guess one of the words is ‘curiosity’. But I cannot resist the opportunity to offer my favorite two-word space phrase. Hehehehe Lunar Dome? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jul 7, 2006

Oh hi The_Shadow! Shoot, I um almost didn't see your message there, good thing I scrolled up, huh? Who me? Oh nuttin', I'm just playing around with my old pal Mental_Avenger, yeah I was just goofin', yeah that's it, right M_A, ol' budd . . . hey where did he go? He was just here, um, yeah, Mr. Shadow, nothin here to worry yerself about, we're cool . . . (why do I never se those two guys together, anyway?) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Why Space Exploration is Important

spacester

Guest

blackened27

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

quasar2

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

spacester

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

j05h

Guest

spacester

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

crossovermaniac

Guest

webtaz99

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

spacester

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

spacester

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page