We Should Not Be Catered To

Evangelical space cadets, like me, should not be catered to. I had this idea after reading two of Seth Godin's blog posts: The paradox of the middle of the market and Fast in, fast out. Basically, people like me are not the market we have to convince to get space habitation off the ground. It is easy to get people like me excited about any idea in space. Yet, we need to average Joe to be excited about commercial space. But, there is also a bigger problem. I fear people like me will not be in the movement when the idea is less new.

Gone After The First Settlement

For this movement to live off evangelical space cadets, we will need about 10 generations of evangelical space cadets. This generation of evangelical space cadets is locked in for life, but that may be because we will not live to see humanity bask in the light of another star. I fear people like me will not exist when interstellar space flight is common and rocket launches are unimpressive. When the space field falls away from the cutting edge; when space stops being a symbol of the future; when this dream is achieved, then the space movement will loss it's current supporters if the evangelical space cadet supports the space movement because it's a dream and it's a new idea.

After reading Seth Godin's posts, I thought about why I'm in the field; why I have a passion for space. I watched a rocket launch on TV and was forever inspired by it. But, I don't think I would be in this field if I saw a rocket launch everyday. I was impressed by NASA and other space agencies. I think they are legendary. But, I don't think I would be found in the space field in the world of Star Trek, were space flight is average. In the world of Star Trek, I think I would be blogging about another, far off, dream.

Replacing The Cadets

This is a graph of percent of each group active in the space movement, verses number of generations. I think such a graph will look like this. Right now, generation number two is taking over the space movement. The type of people who could be evangelical space cadets will not become a space cadet in the space movement as we accomplish this dream. We can not assume the evangelical space cadet will be active through out this multi-generational plan. So, we must convince the average Joe. I'm sure the core of the space movement can archive this dream, but they will not have the strength to colonize every star in the universe. Today, we have an army of supports, convince the meat of the market, and we have an unstoppable force.

The Meat Of The Market

The solution, if there is one, is to enter a market to the enthusiastic cheers of those in search of the new, but to build a product/service that appeals to those in the middle. After the initial wave of enthusiasm, you hunker down and ignore those that first embraced you, obsessing instead on the needs and networks of the middle. It's a difficult balancing act, but it's the only one that works. ~ Seth's Blog

A message to the leaders of the space movement: Ignore us, but use our enthusiasm. Make a space vision that will meet the needs for the average Joe. Do not make a future that will only appeal to people like me because that future will never happen if it only appeals to me.

Reactions

I need to polish this idea. What do think? Should the evangelical space cadet be ignored?

Updated: July 7, 2009

Mediocre Dip

I just read Seth Godin's The Dip. I'm working on applying his thoughts to the space movement and humanity's pursuit of space flight. But, I ran into a problem. The book incorporates the idea of mediocrity; basically, if your mediocre, you should quit. There's the problem, can anything NASA does be mediocre? Can anything at the cutting edge be mediocre? We're building rockets and going to space, can that be mediocre in anyway? I think it can, I think you could build a mediocre rocket, but that's a tough claim to prove.

What do you think? Can you be at the cutting edge and be mediocre?

SPC #8: ASTEN Report

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper; basically I read the paper and write down my thoughts are I read it. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes are from the paper unless otherwise noted. All papers I review are available for free online.

This week we are reviewing the ASTEN Report, the paper which made a kid from Canada famous.

From the first 2 pages of the report, I was impressed. What this kid did was minimize the human extinction argument and presented it in a way the made his point not something to fear, but something that if we address would bring the improvement of mankind. He also points out the positives of a space habitation by writing about how space habitations will promote space and make it more useful.

The paper's assumptions are fairly solid. The writer has assumed that solar panels and Aerogel will have their manufacturing costs reduced. Also, sustainable public opinion is critical for this to work. This will be a major piece of a society's work and the whole society must stay behind it for a long time.

The report goes through the author's thought pattern for designing this station by showing the reader pro and con lists for each element. He presents a very good argument for smaller space stations, stating increased size would "make the project financially unfeasible".

I don't understand why the author stated that the ability to look across and see the other side of the space station as a negative. It might confuse some people and it also might not allow for the space station's residents to be immersed in the illusion of a Earth like environment. But, I don't think the later is a big deal and people eventually stop being confused in spinning structures. However, the paper does choice to use a cylindrical design, which would disprove an early concept I posted about which was spherical. Basically, cylinders allow for even gravity across all surfaces. This student's idea also allows for the modular design which also caused me to call that earlier post's idea brilliant.

What was interesting was the industrial sections are in the middle of the sphere, while the living areas are on the outside. This allows for micro-gravity to be used in industrial applications and the residents while not have all the bone zapping negative effects of Zero-G. Another design advantage over the idea which I held up as brilliant is the inflatable of this space settlement. Also, any industrial accidents would be contained to the center.

This station uses a algae oxygen recovery system. With such a critical system, a natural processes will reduce the moving parts and thus the failure rate of the system. It truly is brilliant. The station uses Demron to protect it's self from radiation.

In short, this is a very interesting idea and this kid is the next Gerard K. O'Neill. I can't wait to see his doctoral paper.

Top 15 Reasons Against Space Habitation

1. Space habitation may be a utilitarian idea
2. If we become a spacefaring species, we will forever be dependent on machine, not only for our comfort, but for the necessities of life.
3. A space habitat may be a breeding ground for mental diseases
4. A space habitation will mess with the current power structure in the world
5. Obtaining resources in space will be much, more difficult
6. As stated in the bible, we only have been given rein over Earth; we do not have the right to live elsewhere
7. A space habitation will only directly benefit a few people (those who live there)
8. This would be a very long term investment, one which the investor would not see a return on in his or her investment within his life time
9. It may divert resources from the exploration of the human consciousness
10. Space habitation will require a massive amount of resources
11. The rocket launches involved with a major space economy may be the death blow to with Earth's environment
12. When we move to another planet, we loss that area as a sterile area. We will not have a clean space environment so that if life were detected, we could be sure it's not from Earth
13. Look at what we did to this planet and it's orbits, we will do the same thing to the entirety of space
14. If we have a space habitation, we may lose our humanity (thanks to @BekahLouTaylor for the idea)
15. The risk of finding, another intelligent, hostile specious (thanks to @BekahLouTaylor for the idea)
16. Do you have any ideas for reasons against space habitation?