And remember, as Buzz says of Apollo 13 and other films about space exploration he liked- "They were fascinating, because it was reality history, and reality fiction can be good if you stick to reality."
Aldrin then broke into the chorus of Really Rosie, which was kind of weird.
(But I kid the second man on the Moon.)
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently Mr. Aldrin does not believe the truth is stranger than fiction.
Oddly enough those documentaries that deal with, "humanity in 3000AD!" or "Technology that will be here decades from now!" have never been very interesting to me. Whereas Modern Marvels or How It's Made as well as those space ship movies are quite entertaining to me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about anyone else, but it was my early exposure to SF that lead to an interest in space exploration...it hardly killed my delight in the cool things real people have done. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like Mr. Aldrin has a fairly narrow view of what constitutes science fiction.
I'm sad to say I think that the material costs of the space program are likely to be far more of a killer than any kind of youth disinterest.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe he should be more worried that there are so many young people out there that can not distinguish fact from fiction!
Posts: 176 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um... I know lots of rocket engineers and such at JPL who say it's sci-fi that got them interested in the space program to begin with...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In some ways, reality has surpassed older science fiction. Kirk had his communicator. It had voice transmission and a locator beacon of some kind.
I have a cell phone, about the same size and shape. It has voice transmission and a locator beacon. It also has a camera, a calculator, 2 gigabytes of storage, the ability to send text messages, and a screen that can display graphics.
The great thing about science fiction is that we dream about all these wonderful things. And some of us are inspired to make them come true. Science fiction overestimated the progress of our space program, yes, but look at all the amazing technologies we have here on earth.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's ridiculous. I know several San Franciscans, and they have never done anything to diminish my interest in the space program.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I don't know about anyone else, but it was my early exposure to SF that lead to an interest in space exploration...it hardly killed my delight in the cool things real people have done.
I will say on Aldrin's behalf that "real" scientists can be fascinating when they do write fiction. A lot of people will say that Carl Sagaan was just an "ok" writer, but there were elements of his books, even the fiction, with a ring of authenticity I don't experience in much science fiction... or any I can think of. His was not exactly speculative science fiction, but extrapolative science fiction, where his imagination was bound by his training as a scientist. That which appeared to be magical or speculative was portrayed very correctly, as being an element of the story world which was not well understood by the characters, and thus not clearly rendered. Contact was a fascinating novel just for that reason, and even if he was otherwise not the greatest of fiction writers.
I agree somewhat with Aldrin mainly because I can think of so many examples of non-speculative or purely expository writing about the real world being more interesting and enlightening than examples of fiction. Take, for instance, the journalistic and sociological writings of Thomas Friedman, or Tom Wolfe, or Philippe Bourgois, and compare them to wholly fictional works in the same vein. The works based in experience and personal discovery, rather than less focused or constricted creative exercises seem to offer more insight, and a better grip on reality.
I probably feel exactly the same way about most other art forms. The works that are focused by immediate expository goals can be quite a bit more depth full and accessible all at once.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "Buzz" Aldrin is partly correct. True, he over estimates and uses badly concieved descriptions of the Sci-Fi on television. In fact, I think he should have just said "Star Trek" is the cause by what he describes.
His argument seems correct to me when reality and what is expected in space acheivements by now are so far apart. It is some thing I have thought about when, for instance, I watch 2001 and think where we are at 7 years later of that date.
The blame I put on NASA, starting with the Challenger disaster and followed up with the Columbia tragedy. I remember when Challenger launched it was to be the begining of a new age in the likeness of a teacher, a civilian. Since then the only major development of proper excitement was a telescope that almost became a joke. My guess is that NASA has a horrible reputation and that is the true source of the lack of enthusiasm. Since NASA and the future of space travel technology are synonymous, its no wonder the young don't care. There is always talk of a space station, living on the moon, and people walking on Mars. Instead we get nice pictures from robots and having to repair an old "space station" that is more like a rust bucket. (Edit: Actually, that sounds like a good story about the slow death of a civilization. *shudders*)
The lack of progress sends me to reading science fiction, that reminds me of the lack of progress. Its a vicious cycle, I know.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Which many of us youth find fascinating and sit there going OMGOMGOMG.
quote:...having to repair an old "space station" that is more like a rust bucket.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I've only heard of the toilet going wrong. It's the Shuttles that are old, not necessarily the station. Even the most advanced piece of technology can go wrong and will go wrong. Apollo 13 is about that. I loved the story
People no longer care to the extent they did fourty years ago (!) because nothing can grip the planet's undivided attention en masse for decades on end. The 1960s and 1970s were a huge momentous occasion and so people were thrilled. Since then, the thrill has simply waned as all thrills or interests of this kind do. The young people living now were born into a world where walking on the moon is a historical fact, and sending people to space is normal. Most of them, however, would still find it more interesting than a trip to the local supercollider.
The fact that we do not ooh and aah over it is merely a sign that we have normalized this kind of amazing and astonishing fact. Humans in space all the time. It's routine!
I think that's amazing.
Important scientific work about space is going on all the time. However, it is not so dramatic on a human level as sending men to the moon. I do not know if it will ever be so dramatic again. Once you've made that giant leap, you've gotta take a lot of small steps to fill in the leap and catch up. Revolutions in science seem to occur spaced apart, after research in an area reaches a critical mass.
To most people, space is not amazing simply because it is space. Buzz Aldrin will of course miss the days when every eye was turned upward, but the young accept spaceflight and high technology with ease. It no longer changing people to the core (although it may be changing science, a phenomenon which should not be confused with the former. People who are not scientists are concerned with humanity in a more direct sense. They think about war and climate change and things.)
quote:"All the shows where they beam people around and things like that have made young people think that that is what the space program should be doing. It's not realistic."
Star Trek was being made concurrently with the lead up to walking on the moon. I don't think anyone was worried that people would expect more, except to boldly go where no man had gone before. (But I doubt Buzz Aldrin was watching Star Trek, since he was living something slightly more exciting).
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm trying to think of a single current TV show which has rocket ships as an important element. So far, I've failed. Anybody else?
He could be referencing movies as well. Correct me if I am wrong, for I certainly have no experience on the matter but don't alot of the recent Stargate iterations feature space ships?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Contact was a fascinating novel just for that reason, and even if he was otherwise not the greatest of fiction writers.
Contact, the novel where he claimed Mormons worship a being named "Moroni" and would totally deny any evidence that life exists on worlds besides Earth?
I'll admit it, after I read that part, I just skimmed the rest of the book.
I did read his non-fiction book Cosmos over and over again when I was a kid. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The parts I skimmed seemed good, yeah. Still, I couldn't take it as seriously as I was prepared to after that part.
(I had the same problem with A Study in Scarlet. My interest took a major dip after a certain point.)
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
We could within a few years have a permament prescence on Mars if we tried and it wouldn't be expensive (relatively speaking).
IP: Logged |
quote:He could be referencing movies as well. Correct me if I am wrong, for I certainly have no experience on the matter but don't alot of the recent Stargate iterations feature space ships?
I think we're making the distinction between spaceships and 'rocketships' (in this case long skinny tubes that blow fire out of one end). Stargate has plenty of spaceships, but no rocketships.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People no longer care to the extent they did fourty years ago (!) because nothing can grip the planet's undivided attention en masse for decades on end. The 1960s and 1970s were a huge momentous occasion and so people were thrilled. Since then, the thrill has simply waned as all thrills or interests of this kind do. The young people living now were born into a world where walking on the moon is a historical fact, and sending people to space is normal. Most of them, however, would still find it more interesting than a trip to the local supercollider.
The fact that we do not ooh and aah over it is merely a sign that we have normalized this kind of amazing and astonishing fact. Humans in space all the time. It's routine!
First of all, I would be excited about a trip to a supercollider, but I'm a geek.
Second, I think you're right about how we view space travel as history now, but I think another reason sending humans in space is routine because there has been nothing exciting happening. The experiments that are conducted are not very consequential, and we have learned nearly as much about near-Earth space, low-Earth orbit, and its effects on humans as we can.
Humans in space would not be routine if we were trying to go a little further and do a little more with each voyage, as we did during Apollo. That could be trying distant earth orbits, returning to the Moon, or experimenting with new propulsion technologies. Thankfully, a return to the Moon is in the works, but in my opinion that isn't enough, and a trip to Mars is only the beginning of enough. What really should be happening is an acceleration of the search for Earth-size and Earth-like planets, and as a consequence, the search for extraterrestrial life.
Sure, that's romantic, but I like to think big. Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:First of all, I would be excited about a trip to a supercollider, but I'm a geek.
Me too; I was trying to pick something that would be exciting to geeks but less interesting to "normal people."
And I suppose you're right. There certainly could be more going on, but I think because the focus of populous has slipped the focus of the politicians and the money has also slipped. I think it takes more than your average scientist to push through political ennui and stop doing small-scale experiments and ask for support for the really big ones to restart the engines, as it were, on projects that think as romantically and big-ly as you want to, The Reader.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: We could within a few years have a permament prescence on Mars if we tried and it wouldn't be expensive (relatively speaking).
posted
I'm another one whose interest in space was definitely sparked by science fiction. A better way to put it would be that an interest in science fiction gave me my present "worldview" which situates the planet Earth more realistically within the frame of the universe than I had thought when I was younger. In other words, the earth is a gorgeous planet circling a quite modest star in the outer reaches of a decent sized galaxy in the Virgo cluster, which is one insignificant section of a cosmos which is literally unimaginably huge comparatively. We live here on this wet rock which is hurtling precariously through mostly empty space. The green earth tilts through a sphere of air and bathes in a flame of space. Imagine the smallest thing you can possibly imagine and then realize that the whole earth is much much smaller than that compared to the size of the universe. We definitely need to explore and colonize space, for many reasons.
1. to find out about this universe in which we find ourselves. 2. because it's there 3. because the earth is too small and too fragile a basket for the human species to put all our eggs in. 4. for the wonder and awe of it all. 5. for knowledge 6. for raw materials 7. for technology, understanding, and unimaginable wealth. 8. because it is like our ancestors' decision to come down from the trees. 9. because it will be like growing up. 10. because we'll never know what we could have become unless we try. 11. because the universe can be hostile and the more we know about the dangers out there the better. 12. for the sake of our descendants 13. so that the earth can be a beautiful garden home for our species and our descendant species for millions of years, rather than become an ecological disaster when its resources are laid waste and its wilderness is strip mined to serve our needs. 14. because space is beautiful. 15. because who wants to spend their lives at the bottom of a gravity well anyway? 16. because flatlanders are so short-sighted and provincial. 17. because the smartest, hardest working, and best of our species will certainly move out into space, and we don't want to be left behind. 18. because in space the opportunity to spawn many small colony worlds (most likely in inside out asteroids) will give us the opportunity to explore all different sorts of societies and find out a lot more about what works best.
Reading science fiction is what gave me this broader point of view. I think Buzz Aldrin is badly mistaken.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:First of all, I would be excited about a trip to a supercollider, but I'm a geek.
Me too; I was trying to pick something that would be exciting to geeks but less interesting to "normal people."
And I suppose you're right. There certainly could be more going on, but I think because the focus of populous has slipped the focus of the politicians and the money has also slipped. I think it takes more than your average scientist to push through political ennui and stop doing small-scale experiments and ask for support for the really big ones to restart the engines, as it were, on projects that think as romantically and big-ly as you want to, The Reader.
Scientists can ask for the money to do big scale things, but it doesn't matter if they are always turned down. Bigger scale means potential failure. I think this is one of the big things scientists actually need to start doing- not being ashamed of failing. I would love a journal where you could publish things you have tried that failed miserably.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
the low budget and probably more reliable route is 50 billion over 10 years, the Von Braun plan is roughly 450-550 billion.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised that no one mentioned the Van Allen belts in a response to my post. I remembered earlier today that they exist and would make more distant orbits from Earth impossible without heavy shielding.
I guess that doesn't detract from the larger point. I agree with you on all points, Tatiana.
I want to know: how close are we to producing technology that allows propulsion at or close to recognizably relativistic speeds? If there is ever another Earth discovered, we'll doubtless want to visit, with either a probe or a manned craft, and we'll want to do it in at least one human lifetime.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
