Not really Christmas related, but I was working on a section of the report about this, and realized that I hadn’t blogged it at the time, a few days ago. Pew Research released an opinion poll, in which they asked “what role the US government should play in advancing space exploration,” in the context of a broader poll asking what the government role should be in a wide range of activities. For “space exploration,” the public was basically split according to Pew, with almost half favoring a government role, and almost half favoring little or none. But there was a crucial assumption in the question: That everyone agreed on what “space exploration” meant.
I think polls like this are meaningless, because the public is so ill informed, and the notion of “space exploration” so (no pun intended) nebulous. Planetary probes? Space mining? Space settlement? Astronomy? The answer is going to depend very much on what the individual thinks that space exploration is. That’s why I’ve declared warfare on the phrase.
I fully agree about “space exploration” but suspect that it’s so firmly entrenched that it’s here to stay. “National security” is another such: definitions of it are all over the place.
Mining is not exploration but industrialization. Although, exploration may be a predecessor to mining. All the major mining companies have mineral exploration divisions.
Industrialization and settlement are not, properly speaking, subsets of exploration, although some people may mistakenly believe that. That does not mean that “exploration” is a meaningless term. Neurologist Oliver Sacks wrote a book entitled “The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat.” He did not suggest that the word hat was meaningless, however.
Many people mistakenly refer to space settlement and industrialization as space exploration. That does not make a poll about the government’s role in “space exploration” meaningless. Assuming the poll was conducted correctly, it is certainly meaningful for space activities which are correctly classified as exploration. It may also be meaningful for activities which respondents incorrectly classify as exploration, but that is unclear.
At the very least, it has implications for things such as NASA’s proposals for human exploration of Mars.
NewSpace wonks such as Rick Tumlinson have repeatedly said exploration of the “Far Frontier” is the legitimate responsibility of the Federal government (by which they mean, specifically, NASA). They have never explained why it is the responsibility of the government, they have simply proclaimed it, as if constant repetition makes it so. If this poll is accurate, it means that a majority of the American people disagree with them. I believe that is significant.
They have never explained why it is the responsibility of the government, they have simply proclaimed it, as if constant repetition makes it so.
What is their answer when you ask for an explanation? I find it hard to believe they’re refusing to explain. You mention Tumlinson; he for one is usually willing to explain his views at length. Are you sure you’re being entirely fair to these “NewSpace wonks”?
Another question shows that a (slim) majority of Americans think government has done a somewhat good or very good job of advancing space exploration. (Virtually the same percentage think government has done a somewhat good or very good job of ensuring high-quality education.)
http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/3-views-of-governments-performance-and-role-in-specific-areas/
This is bad news for advocates of space exploration. It shows that most people are satisfied with the degree of progress which the government has made over the past few years. So, even the 47% who desire the government to play a major role in exploration are unlikely to demand more progress.
They’re probably thinking of Project Apollo… 🙂
All the major mining companies have mineral exploration divisions.
Ditto for the petroleum industry and some companies do petroleum exploration. Though being a Texan, I suspect you already knew that. 😉
I always try to say “space development,” but of course that doesn’t cover things like New Horizons.
Rand, I think the real problem is that the default meaning of the term “space exploration” for those who only glancingly think about space is that the Apollo model is the only one possible.
Rather than doing away with the term, perhaps refining it would be better.
the notion of “space exploration” so (no pun intended) nebulous. Planetary probes? Space mining? Space settlement? Astronomy?
Two of the four are exploration and need to be done before the other two. The problem is that exploration is open ended and diverse while the activities it should support are not, at least initially. Instead of viewing exploration as something done everywhere, it should be used in the context of supporting specific activities that follow exploration. The missing part from today’s view of exploration is what’s next?
New Horizons was very cool and studying all of the planets is worthwhile but missions like that do not support what’s next.
The problem here isn’t that missions like this don’t have value or merit but rather they are competing with limited government funds. NASA’s exploration efforts should be focusing on enabling and supporting what’s next, especially if NASA wants to put people on the Moon or Mars. The agency needs to work as a team not just as a means to fund random exploration to provide work for different sects of scientists.
People who want to mine or settle the Moon or Mars could remove the government from the equation and pursue their own interests and so could Plutonian geologists. When you spend your own money, no one really cares what you do. Settlement and mining would still need exploration or prospecting. But it seems to me the argument here is not so much what people do with their own money but what the government does with our money.
The planetary scientists view themselves as entitled to government money but they also think it should come with no strings attached. They think that studying Pluto has just as much merit as Mars or the Moon but in reality it doesn’t in the context of supporting an overarching strategy. The lion’s share of planetary science should support NASA’s larger mission or the “what’s next” and if any scientists don’t like it, they are free to fund their own missions.
Of course, NASA has to have an overarching strategy to support first.