Clark Lindsey points out this article in The Atlantic about a new attempt by the Planetary Society to launch a solar sail. He also points out Ann Druyan’s and Lou Friedman’s obvious disdain for millionaires more interested in going into space themselves than developing technology or sending robots.
…she can’t get over the general timidity and lack of imagination she keeps encountering, and she’s particularly aghast at the scads of cash some ego-tripping big-money men seem willing to spend on personal space tourism: “Isn’t the whole planet enough for them?” Google’s Sergey Brin—whose company the project also appealed to, unsuccessfully, years ago—is yet another billionaire who hopes to romp around in orbit….
…“Basically, you’re asking somebody to fund an idea,” Friedman admits. He has good science at his back. But if 50 years ago Slava Linkin could not have imagined the disappearance of the U.S.S.R., it’s fair to say that Friedman would not have imagined his own country, the Cold War’s victor, with a space agency so blinkered and elephantine that he has to mount a long guerrilla operation to get his plausible vision off the ground.
He has had the same bellyful of talk about private entrepreneurial funding that Ann Druyan has, and he shares her contempt for the thrill-seeking, space-touring fat cats. But even so, a fundamental optimism survives in him, nourished not just by faith but by disbelief: “You come back to that $4 million, and the chance to take the first step to the stars—how can that not be funded?”
Well, Lou, one way might be that the “fat cats” don’t appreciate being publicly denigrated because they have different priorities than you and Ann do.
I hope that the sail gets funded — it’s a critical technology for the future that could result in reduced costs of doing solar system exploration (and maybe even interstellar, though that’s a much tougher problem). And I can understand their frustration — four million is a rounding error in the Constellation overrun, and in the new currency, in which we could express a mere trillion dollars as a “barack,” it’s only four microbaracks, a drop in the celestial bucket, and couch-cushion change inside the Beltway.
But it makes no more sense to curse millionaires who choose to spend their money on space trips than it does to curse Bill and Melinda Gates because they have better things to do with their money. I suspect that they’re upset with Brin and the others because they think that they should get it, because they’re so close — they’re interested in space — but they don’t quite. It’s probably in their minds a so-close-and-yet-so-far thing, and they view them as traitors to the cause because their space vision is flawed.
But no, Ann. For some, this “whole planet” is not enough. And it’s not enough for you, either. The difference is that you’re satisfied to send a robot emissary out, while others view that as in itself lacking vision. I could be just as churlish as you, and complain that you didn’t spend your studio’s money on developing space tourism, which will grow a large enough market to drop launch costs and improve reliability, so that projects like this solar sail would become much more affordable, and have a better chance of getting to orbit than the first failed attempt. But unlike you, I recognize that people have different visions, and that they’re not mine doesn’t make them wrong, and that their money is theirs to spend as they wish. But the latter notion has apparently gone quite out of fashion in our brave new world of ever-increasing collectivism.
[Update a while later]
I also find it amusing that she considers people who want to go into space “timid” and “lacking imagination.” Apparently her irony detector is on the fritz.
Reminds me of a couple stories about Carl Sagan and how he got livid when he saw a presentation on going to Mars with a painting of a mining system mining one of the moons of Mars for fuel..
The planetary society always wanted space revered, but not used or entered by other then a scientific (presumably government) priesthood or by robots. The idea of tourists and industrialists moving into space is a nightmare to them.
Look at the solar sail. People won’t go anywhere in solar sails – just robots drifting elegantly and cleanly through space.
Kelly is right on in that assessment. Lou Friedmann has never ever understood that space is a place for humans just as much as it is a place for rocks and pretty space probes.
We are going to do this (develop the resources of space) whether he likes it or not. Its time to get over it or go away.
WTF? How can there be any question that the world is not enough? It was even the title of a James Bond movie.
It was even the title of a James Bond movie.
Somehow, I suspect that Ann Druyan would find that a less-than-compelling argument.
Simply another example of her shortcomings.
That’s the beauty of money, the person spending it get’s to decide… until someone decides that your money really isn’t yours and has the means to steal it from you… most thieves being a poor imitation of politicians.
I think the sole necessary retort to Ann Druyan is “Blow me”.
If se were only a tenth as smart as she thinks she is. The more I have read of her musings, the less I have been impressed.
She simply is a (person who) :
Can’t
Understand
Normal
Thought patterns
“In the sharp teeth of the new recession, Druyan is still offering potential donors the chance “to enter history,” to make possible the “Kitty Hawk moment” for solar sailing, and she often points out that the price, $4 million to $5 million, is about what you’d pay for “a nice New York apartment.” But so far she’s been pointing this out to an audience that would rather stay home. ”
Damn Ann! All these years and the remnants of the Sagan estate aren’t worth $4-5 mil? Just how much jay have you been smoking Ann? Must have been the high-grade stuff!
Put you own fvcking money where your stupid pie hole is Ann! Please do that or stick something in it.
“Somehow, I suspect that Ann Druyan would find that a less-than-compelling argument.”
Well, I have no idea who this Ann Druyan (if that really IS her name) is, but if she doesn’t get a tingling feeling up her leg every time the Bond theme starts… well, she is just sorry.
“Before she met Sagan, her interest in science stemmed in part, according to one author, from her interest in the philosophy of Karl Marx.[1]”
FWIW, it appears to be an attributed quote form Wikipedia.
This sort of thing made me stop reading Parabola. That blog just dripped with the envy for other people’s money.
An interesting part of this post is the idea of the “barack.” Very apt. Did you, umm, coin the word, or has it been in use?. I like it.
Thanks, Ann & Louis for reminding me why I, an initial member for many years, quit contributing to the Planetary Society.
Very apt. Did you, umm, coin the word, or has it been in use?
A few of us came up with it at Space Access.
It is easy to criticize Druyan and Friedman however it remains true that the Planetary Society has about 5x the membership of the National Space Society (100,000 versus 20,000) and the Planetary Society’s version of the “Vision” certainly appears to have a stronger grip on the top inner circle at NASA than any other interpretation of the Vision.
Changing this remains on the “to do” list rather than the mission accomplished list:
“Well, I have no idea who this Ann Druyan (if that really IS her name) is, but if she doesn’t get a tingling feeling up her leg every time the Bond theme starts… well, she is just sorry.”
I would say she sympathizes with the villians but they are too dynamic and visonary for her.
“Reminds me of a couple stories about Carl Sagan and how he got livid when he saw a presentation on going to Mars with a painting of a mining system mining one of the moons of Mars for fuel..”
I also know that he believed that somehow fostering international cooperation and peace was for Carl the *only* reason to send humans to Mars.
I, however, would put it at the bottom of the list. Interesting though it was, wasn’t ASTP that brought down the Berlin wall. But it did require a docking adapter that could allegedly be used later for space rescues, though I said at the time that Americans would have no opportunity to be in space (and possibly need or offer rescue) again until the Shuttle was flying (which, also using oxygen-nitrogen at 1 atm could conceivably dock directly with Soyuz), and Soyuz couldn’t carry an adapter to orbit with it to rescue Americans who again wouldn’t be there to get into trouble anyway.
I do, however, believe a paragraph in one of many space studies of the late 70’s that said; ‘The political situation in space will reflect he political situation on Earth, not the other way around.’
“I also find it amusing that she considers people who want to go into space “timid” and “lacking imagination.” Apparently her irony detector is on the fritz.”
Indeed. So much for the ‘boldly going’ thing…
100,000 versus 20,000
Bill
I am dubious of the numbers that the Planetary Society puts out here. If they had 100,000 committed members, all they would have to do is have each one of them write a check for $50 bucks and be done with it.
As for influence, yes they did get one of theirs (Dr. Mike Griffin) in as administrator. We have seen how that has gone haven’t we.
I would posit that having not one but two past NSS executive directors at NASA/Obama Administration (Whitesides/Garver), indicates that the pendulum has swung quite a bit now.
That is a good thing.
Whitesides & Garver versus Senators Nelson & Shelby isn’t a bad way to describe the current battle lines.
I wish George and Lori all the best, of course.
But I also wonder how many of the remaining top tier at NASA remain genuine Ares advocates. My current fear is that a significant house cleaning might be required for NASA to change course and that house cleaning process could hobble NASA for a number of years.
I am dubious of the numbers that the Planetary Society puts out here. If they had 100,000 committed members, all they would have to do is have each one of them write a check for $50 bucks and be done with it.
It doesn’t work that way, Dennis. A “Committed member” is simply a subscriber to their magazine. Simply because someone spends $25 (or whatever it is these days) for a magazine subscription doesn’t mean they’ll be willing to spend another $50, which doesn’t even get them another magazine.
My current fear is that a significant house cleaning might be required for NASA to change course and that house cleaning process could hobble NASA for a number of years.
In the mid-80’s, NASA sent 58 people into space each year. Today, it flies less than half that number. If Orion succeeds, it will fly about half the number it does today.
What you fail to grok, Bill, is that “the course” has hobbled NASA, not for a few years but for 50 years.
Dennis: The Discovery Channel offers a free Planetary Society membership — “a $30 value!” — to anyone who buys a $100 telescope from their online store.
So, the actual value of a “committed member” is even less.
Ed
Thanks for making my point, their true political and financial power is probably 1/100th of what they state that it is.
Dennis (and Ed) –
I hope you are both correct since this issue contributes to whether Obama sticks with Ares 1 and Ares V, or not.
But my point was about the top inner circle at NASA (above George Whitesides current pay grade) — how sympathetic are they to the Planetary Society’s perspective?