NASA's vision lost on Web generation
NASA thinks going to the Moon is hard? The biggest challenge any space program will face from now on is convincing young, scientifically ignorant punks who think everything on YouTube is real and true that it's actually a good idea.
Good luck, guys. You're going to need it.
You simply must read this fantastic piece by Orson Scott Card. He nails the current situation, arguments, and possibilities of our global reality perfectly. Card is a well known sci-fi author who's work I've read and enjoyed, so it's nice to see his personal views so closely echo mine.
Naturally, a quick Google search of his name revealed a post on a political forum referencing this very article, in which Card is repeatedly called a "Fascist". Just as he predicts.
I came across a recent thread in a forum where someone had posted the news that new evidence suggests liquid water has been flowing on Mars at some point in the last seven years. I thought it was pretty exciting myself, since it basically suggests there's some kind of underground geology involving liquid water, which on Earth is a sure guarantee for life, and could be there as well. Almost immediately some guy jumps into the conversation with the usual "we already know there's nothing on Mars" and "I don't see any point in wasting money on a dirt ball".
Classic.
Mars offers an excellent comparative testing environment for us, mostly allowing us to reach a better understanding of why and how our own planet works by looking at one that doesn't. There is always the chance of discovering new elements or compounds there, produced by either small life forms or natural processes. There is also the undeniable cultural moral boost that a successful Mars mission would bring. Obviously, however, this person isn't going to be swayed by the typically vague NASA press release reasons for going.
The next best excuse for taking up more Moon and future Mars missions is the inevitable technological benefits that will make their way, eventually, into the private sector and all of our lives. Without going into specifics, it's pretty safe to say that the top level functioning of our entire civilization is owed to the American space program of the past, a space program that had only one ultimate goal, the Moon. The research and development of the technologies that got us to the Moon has ultimately led to our ability to deploy the countless satellites that make up the global communications network, military and intelligence satellites that allow America to maintain global dominance, and science satellites which provide weather information and allow us to study our planet, helping to recognize global climate and environment issues. There is no guarantee that, without the Moon goal, any of those things would have happened.
Necessity is the mother of all invention, but that doesn't mean we can just materialize technologies out of thin air when we need them. Constant research, development, and use of new tools and ideas is required so that when a problem arises which requires a new technology to solve, that technology is actually within reach. Another poster in the thread remarked that in 1837, Queen Victoria directed the best scientists of the time to come up with a way for her to talk to the President of the United States without the need for an ocean voyage. None of them had any idea how to do it, but research progressed, and on the back of that research more research was done, until eventually was she asked for was possible by the end of the century. That is how new technologies are developed, and unless we make deliberate efforts to continue that kind of work, we're never going to have the future world that I know we should. No other goal or project draws on so many scientific disciplines, requires so many new technologies, as a voyage to Mars, which makes it the perfect goal that everyone can work towards.
The original poster, a guy from New Jersey I might add, was also insistent that China would be the next superpower. Never mind the fact that their economy is over-inflated, their environment on the verge of collapse, their food supply tenuous, and their population largely uneducated and starving. It sounds almost as if he's already given up, and there's nothing to be done about it. I mean, the last thing you'd want to do would be to try and ensure your country's scientific and technological supremacy by embarking on technically challenging projects which educate and inspire not only your nation's children, but adults as well. Yeah, that's a ridiculous idea, better to give up before the game is played. The other team is just too good.
The second ridiculous idea he floated was the suggestion that the US should let Europe, China, or someone else develop space technologies, and that if they were needed in the future, "we could just buy them". I don't know if you've noticed or not, but foreign countries haven't exactly had a free run through the American technological warehouse in the last 50 years. The Chinese just recently were able to launch a man into orbit, because it's actually quite hard to do, even when the basics are understood and other people have been doing it for years. Countries, even European ones, don't make a habit of sharing technology all over the place, whatever the price.
For those of you actually capable of thinking more than 10 years ahead, there are even more obvious benefits to having a strong space presence. In the near future, space-based weapons will undoubtedly give any country that has them an advantage over strictly Earth-based militaries. In today's military reality, when we're fighting small groups of organized individuals instead of large states, it would be helpful to have the ability to instantly destroy ground targets from orbit as soon as intelligence is verified. Doing it with airplanes and missiles takes preparation and travel time, but a space-based weapon could be almost instantaneous. We might also be threatened by an asteroid or comet in the future, and having a substantial space infrastructure is the only thing that will allow us to mount any kind of defense. I almost wish a major city would be hit by a small rock, just so I could say "I told you so" to all of the space hating whiners who would inevitably ask "how could this happen?" and "why weren't we prepared?"
In the near future, the potential for fusion power will require Helium 3, a rare element which exists on the Moon. Someday we may even be able to turn to mining asteroids from the belt, securing an almost limitless supply of raw materials for whatever our needs may be. Thinking even further ahead, if we can establish permanent, off-world colonies, Humans will have a very good chance at ensuring that our civilization survives forever, despite any artificial or natural disasters that may occur on Earth.
One thing that does frustrate me about NASA and the space program is their horrible public relations. All I ever seem to hear these days in defense of the space program is the promise of "a greater understanding of our Universe" and about how NASA pioneered the use of Velcro back in the 60s. Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but they really don't do a very good job of explaining or defending what they've done, what they're doing, and why they're doing it. Here's a great PDF from NASA's website about what will be needed for a mission and stay on the Moon. Unfortunately, I had to search through several sub-pages and links to get to the file, that by the time I could read it I felt like I had been physically digging for treasure. People need to have this information rammed down their throats for it to stick, and they need to be educated about just what kind of technological offshoots they've seen and can expect to see from NASA in the future. Being passive about space program education is exactly why many people believe the Moon landings were faked, or why even more believe space travel is a pointless waste of money.
If America wants to maintain its status, it's going to have to work at it. Funding a robust space program will be an important ingredient in any future American technological prowess, leading to the development of new technologies with almost guaranteed global effects, and ensuring America still has access to locally based, high-tech research, development, and manufacturing resources. The space program was and still is a huge employer once all of the contractors and sub-contractors are factored in, and a lot of those jobs are the kind that you want in your country. Any country in the world can produce Starbucks employees or lawyers, but very few can produce the kind of scientific and technical minds that will push our civilization forward. By committing itself to the Moon, Mars, and eventually more, America can guarantee it will always be a technological and economic leader. Looking at what the American space program has already done for us, I know I won't have any problem with that.
I received an email from a reader in response to my "Lofty Goals" post last month, and figured what they brought up warranted more thought. The basic idea was to continue the work pioneered by Walt Disney when he sought to explain to everyone America's ambitions in space with "Tomorrowland". To continue to fascinate people with film projects like the well known "Powers of Ten". It's a solid idea; a return to the kind of programming that never should have gone away in the first place.
People like Disney, or Carl Sagan, went to huge lengths to try and explain the world of science and technology to the general population. Sagan believed in doing so to the point that, if he hadn't been such an overwhelming genius, probably would have been laughed out of academia for it. Part of the basic problem with trying to bridge the knowledge gap is that scientists tend to think everyone else is stupid, and everyone else doesn't really think about scientists.
Still, from my viewpoint, things have definitely gotten worse. I used to be able to watch The Learning Channel or The Discovery Channel daily and learn something new. While that might still technically be true today, you're much more likely to be learning about home decorating or custom motorcycle construction than about outer space, computers, or aeronautics. Even our televised science fiction has been turned into a series of soap operas where a space ship or alien may or may not be involved. As my friend Chris pointed out, when "Star Trek: The Next Generation" was on the air, you could login to Compuserve and be part of an online chat with people from NASA and JPL, talking about the new or hypothetical technologies you'd all just witnessed. These days, after an episode of "Battlestar Galactica", people scramble to the forums to talk about how bitchy Starbuck is, or about how fat Lee Adama gets.
Obviously those are generalizations, but I think they're pretty accurate. Shows like "Star Trek" were trying to show us what could be possible, if we really wanted it. "Battlestar Galactica" may be entertaining, and it does have a lot of space battles and robots, but at the end of the day it doesn't inspire me, and it certainly doesn't show me anything I would want to have. If you want a society full of responsible, moral, open minded adults, then they have to be raised in that environment. The parents play a huge role, but our general culture also has a large impact. Shows like "Galactica", "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" instead give us drama by giving us characters who will do anything at all if it serves them and who seem to have no line they won't cross to survive. We appear to live in a world where standing for "truth, justice, and the American way" is "gay", and it's foolish and naive to think that attitude isn't having an effect on young people.
So what's out there now for the potential future rocket scientist, aircraft engineer, or astrophysicist? I'm not sure, but it certainly can't be a good sign when what seems like large numbers of people don't even know how the technology we have today works. Can most parents still answer their kids' questions about how an airplane flies, or about how a computer works, without looking it up on Google? How can we expect people to support a robust space program when it seems like no one is telling them why we should have one? You can't rely on people looking for this information and inspiration on their own, it's something that has to be absorbed, almost subconsciously, from a society all around them that values such things. Only then, when the theories of today have become common knowledge tomorrow, can we begin to make real, substantial progress. Right now, that's just not happening.
I feel like I've spent enough time with Nintendo's new system to write a few things down. So far I've been very impressed, both with the console itself and the remote. Zelda has gotten the most play time so far, and while I wasn't sold on the remote at first, after enough practice I'm really liking it.
One of the great things about the Wii remote is how it levels the playing field between people who've been playing games for years and people who haven't. "Wii Sports" in particular shows this off, since the entire game functions with an extremely simple but intuitive control method, almost anyone can pick up a remote and not only be playing but competing within a few minutes. Gone are the myriad of button functions and combinations, replaced with simple gesture controls like swinging the remote like a racket or bat, or using it in place of a bowling ball.
Zelda is still Zelda however, with its many combat moves and items. It's important to remember that this new Zelda, "Twilight Princess", is essentially a Gamecube game which has been ported to the Wii for the launch. Everything about the look of the game screams Gamecube, from the low-res textures to the lack of recorded sound. The remote is used for sword slashes in the Wii version, as well as for aiming your bow and arrows and other projectile weapons. To fire at an enemy, you simply hold a button to pull back an arrow, point the remote at the enemy's location on screen, and let go of the same button. At first I found it hard to aim quickly, but after many hours of play I keep getting better. It's pretty easy at this point to pick off numerous foes with the bow, even at a distance, and I can do it much faster than in previous Zelda games which used traditional controllers.
There are a few things I haven't used yet. So far my system is totally offline, because Nintendo hasn't released their network adapter yet. The Wii is natively wireless, for people with wireless routers. I suppose I could pick up the Wi-Fi dongle to use, but I'm just not interested in wireless yet. It's too easy for people to piggyback off your internet connection. Also, the lack of HD resolution support still irks me. I'm fine with the simpler graphical look of many Wii games, but it would be nice to render at least those graphics at half HD size. Still, Zelda and other games so far have been well art directed; full of nice visual moments despite the standard definition resolution.
I think Nintendo is really onto something with the new control method, but how well it's used is ultimately going to be up to the developers. I expect to see some 3rd party games with awful controls, and some first party Nintendo efforts that really shine. I can't wait for Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Galaxy, both of which should put the controller through its paces even more. Just remember, if you're a veteran gamer, the remote will take some getting used to. It reminds me of the first time I used an analogue stick, or two of them at once. Hopefully with the Wii remote, those days will be behind us soon enough. Most importantly, the Wii is fun to play, and that should be all that matters.