28 thoughts on “Space As Exploration”

  1. How exploration was a western concept and goal more then other cultures. If your culture doesn’t get that exploration is a good thing, like the Chinese, you just stop regardless of your abilities. And he listed and defined the various reasons that drove cultures to explore, settle, trade, etc. This contrasted with the rapid, exploration of the solar system (which doesn’t seem to have generated any solid roots in our culture) adn the 3 visions of what a space program should be for?

    von Braun – a vision of human colonization beyond Earth.

    James Van Allen, – scorned human space travel, and argued that the purpose was to extend further the frontiers of science by dispatching laboratories beyond Earth.

    William Pickering, – thought the critical value was exploration, fundamental not only to America’s national identity but to that of Western civilization.

    Who knows if any of the above 3, or some group, will gel into a driving force.

  2. This essay builds on the concept that the idea of Progress was invented by the west as outlined in this book.

    History of the Idea of Progress
    by Robert A. Nisbet
    Transaction Publishers, 1994

    Basically exploration and progress go together as the knowledge gained from the exploration drives progress. Together the two concepts have help to create an upward spiral for western civilization that has generated today’s wealth.

    This also serves to explain the results of this recent study discussed in the New York Times.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/was-todays-poverty-determined-in-1000-b-c/?hp
    August 2, 2010, 1:22 pm
    Was Today’s Poverty Determined in 1000 B.C.?
    By CATHERINE RAMPELL

    Basically the study shows that the differences in technology in a region, (Europe, China, Africa, etc.) in 1500 AD explains the level of technology in that region today. Indeed the relationship may even be seen as far back as 1000 B.C.

    The key point is that the one anomaly is China, which fell behind since the 1500’s. Of course that is also when China ended its age of exploration. The relationship is covered in much greater detail in this classic.

    The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy.
    By Kenneth Pomeranz
    Princeton University Press, 2001

    So bottom line of the essay is that is supports the accumulated evidence that exploration expands knowledge which leads to greater wealth. While the reverse, abandonment of exploration restricts knowledge generation leading to poverty.

    So why should humans explore space? Simple, it about the long term expansion of human wealth.

  3. So why should humans explore space? Simple, it about the long term expansion of human wealth.

    Okay, but how does someone close a business case, in the short term?

    In a “macro” sense your point makes sense and yet how do we achieve that objective in a “micro” sense?

    Even “low cost access to LEO” won’t help until we identify business models that require humans in space and generate revenue from sources other than taxation.

  4. Even “low cost access to LEO” won’t help until we identify business models that require humans in space and generate revenue from sources other than taxation.

    What do you mean, ‘until’? LEO tourism is a killer app for cheap lift.

  5. One mistake the author makes is in suggesting that the three views of space are in conflict. They aren’t really. Exploration is related to the scientific inquiry, which in turn gives us the knowledge that makes colonization possible. The discovery of water on the Moon for instance, makes the idea of living there, a little more likely. That discovery on the other hand, wouldn’t have happened without the drive to expand human horizons. Even the dream of colonization is related that drive. So it’s all connected.

  7. “Getting back to the original question — it’s a promo for his book.”

    Ah, good catch. I’d have a better title for it, though. I’d call it “Voyager: Seeking a Bounteous Cornucopia of Superlative Metaphor.”

  8. “Can someone explain to me the point of this long essay(?)”

    Mysterious verbosity as income-generating exploration.

  9. I’d just go ahead and ban the word exploration from the vocabulary, as long as manned spaceflight is the topic.

    Prospecting perhaps, please. It has much better connotations.

  10. Okay, but how does someone close a business case, in the short term?

    For everything there is a season. One step at a time will get us as far as we can imagine. That’s not something we can skip.

    Business along that path is already happening.

  11. > Martijn Meijering Says:

    >== LEO tourism is a killer app for cheap lift.

    With cheap lift being driven by the market, not the tech now a days, it would be the creator, not the killer app, for CATS!

  12. “Can someone explain to me the point of this long essay (assuming that it actually has one)? Because I seem to be missing it.”

    Your question answers itself. The main reason for the article is because people can’t understand what the point is. People are oblivious to the fact that the concept of “exploration” is neither well understood nor agreed upon. To the extent that human space flight is supported by a goal of “exploration”, it would be nice to understand what it is, and how we know when we’ve done it.

    The reluctance to admit that the concept of exploration is ill-defined is a curious one, and one that I suspect involves some fear of a question that is enormously challenging.

    “Getting back to the original question — it’s a promo for his book.”

    And the problem with that is … ? It’s book that deserves some promotion.

  13. I don’t disagree, Heinrich, with anything you’ve said. But my reaction to the article was similar to Rand’s. The article’s prose is more purple than any I have read in the past twenty years…and more so than any I’ve written since I was in college. It is rich in connotative language which, unfortunately, fails to get a point across without enormous effort on the reader’s part.

    It isn’t clear that a whole book would be any more enlightening, but it sure would be more tiring. You ever read any Robert Ludlum novels? I have never finished one, because of his use of italics. They are everywhere, and seldom required. It just wears me out to try to read him.

    Same with this guy. Metaphor, visual language, use of obscure words, connotation…they’re all great, but not in every freaking sentence! William F. Buckley was easier to read — MUCH easier.

    That may have been Rand’s perspective. It was certainly mine.

    If the book is as insightful as it might be, I would suggest that it would benefit more from the efforts of a really good editor than by a lot of promotion….

  14. That’s a fair assessment. But that’s just Pyne’s style. In fact, Space Review doesn’t do editorial rewrites on submissions, so you get what you pay for! I am glad to see that Pyne at least makes an effort to dig deep into the heart of what we perceive as exploration. Yes, metaphor, visual language, and connotation are all elements of what we know as “exploration”. It’s how that word has been defined in our minds. In some sense, that’s what Pyne is pointing out. OK, maybe obscure words are not an element of “exploration”, but that’s just a function of your vocabulary.

  15. Hi All

    Its important to remember he is an academic writing in an academic style which does assume a baseline knowledge of both the topic and terms used. As such The Space Review was probably not the best outlet for this article, as least not without rewriting it into a non-academic style.

  16. His publisher Viking didn’t think the book it was based on was “academic”, and the book has received excellent reviews in the popular press, both for content and style. Pyne’s style isn’t at all what I would call “academic”, but more what I would call literary.

    Another way of looking at it is that readers of the Space Review may consider it a reminder that the public can talk about things in ways that people with their heads in the space advocacy sand usually don’t. Whose problem is that?

  17. Heinrich,

    In a book you get to provide more background.

    [[[Another way of looking at it is that readers of the Space Review may consider it a reminder that the public can talk about things in ways that people with their heads in the space advocacy sand usually don’t. Whose problem is that?]]]

    I will agree with you on that. My background is in strategic management and its clear from much of what space advocates write on space commerce they haven’t a clue of how the business world works beyond their limited experience in government contracting and lifestyle businesses.

  18. “OK, maybe obscure words are not an element of “exploration”, but that’s just a function of your vocabulary.”

    No, it looks more like a function of the author showing off. In fact, in this case, it is an author *attempting* to show off, and failing by using words not in his or anyone else’s vocabulary. “Valenced”? The word “valence” is a noun, and doesn’t even mean what he evidently thought it meant when he tried to convert it to a verb by use of past tense.

    “Partied” is an oft criticized word, but at least it means “to have held or participated in a party.” “Valenced” has no similar relationship to “valence.”

    Or perhaps it’s just a case of him trying to “muddy the water to make it appear deep.”

  19. Well, if it comes down to arguing about terminoloogy … http://lmgtfy.com/?q=valenced

    It’s a word that is used regularly. Perhaps somewhat technically, but he’s not making it up. I didn’t trip over it myself. Not in anyone else’s vocabulary? Nope. No offense but, as I said, this issue is a function of your vocabulary.

    As to “partied”, I can’t see that he ever used it. But maybe I missed it?

    The water is already quite muddy, with a depth that is arguable. He sure doesn’t need to add to it to obscure anything.

  20. He’s used a made-up word “valenced” as the the past tense of bonding things together, in the sense of a chemical bond. This is absolutely clear to a technical person from the context.

    But valence refers to relative ability to bond (whether chemically, or in the Latin root of the word). It doesn’t mean “bonded,” or “coalesced,” or “came together,” or any of the other words he could have used that would have both expressed the thought that he was trying to express, with the added benefit of being actual words.

    The only “regular” use of the word “valenced” is in a bullshit pseudo-psychological context, where it is a made-up word having no relationship to the word he used. That’s where your condescending Google link points, anyway, and I don’t see its use as being “regular.”

    In any event, the word as he used it is: 1) Completely different from the “regular” use, 2) Incorrect grammatically, and 3) Incorrect conceptually.

  21. Oh, yes. My reference to “partied” as a butchering of “party” was an analogy. It was intended to demonstrate that such butchery can at least make conceptual sense, even if it is ungrammatical.

    Anything else you need to challenge, go right ahead.

  22. You know space advocates are always complaining about how few folks care about space. Yet, when individuals from other fields try their hand at space, individuals who are more likely then engineers to be able to communicate with the masses about space what happens? They get nit pick and driven from the field. And then space advocates wonder why no one cares about space or spending on it….

  23. Oh, please, Thomas. If any “space advocate” thinks anyone outside our own insular world does or should care about our obsession, they have just not had enough exposure to life.

    I was complaining about poor writing skills, and in so doing lapsed into even worse writing myself. I apologize to everyone for such poor grammar…

  26. ….though I must say that some of his subjects are intriguing, and I wouldn’t mind reading one “just in case.” For example, “How the Canyon Became Grand” is one of my favorite subjects. However, the low rating is a red flag that it might not be the one to pick. He has some higher ratings. Maybe I’ll give one of those a whirl…

  28. Another complementary review of his new book in the latest issue of The Economist.

    Pyne’s background is really quite extensive and somewhat unconventional. His interest is about the interaction of humans and nature and what he calls “environmental history”. His specialty is the human and societal costs of forest fires. The parallels between forest fires and space exploration are not immediately self evident, but there is some good commonality in that they both deal with national organization and investment in conquering nature, with no lack of risk to human life.

    My understanding is that to him “exploration” is just a hobby.

Comments are closed.