posted 05-30-2007 09:19 PM               

Something tells me there must be a "rest of the story" ...

posted 06-18-2007 03:38 PM               

Then we read about things dealing with Second Life, paying $XXXX for a limited graphical simulation or animation.

There are exception, like my own experience with the great people at Glenn in Cleveland, but in general it is hard to get anybody's attention at NASA.

A lot of people view rocketry and space flight as something nearly impossible. Orbiter can combat that perception by showing that is possible for the average joe to learn to pilot a rocket or spacecraft. With suitable aids make a jupiter slingshot or land on the moon.

Plus Orbiter makes for beautiful animations as a far lower cost than other space sim software.

posted 06-18-2007 05:42 PM               

When I was working for the National Space Society, we helped organize such a tour but (in my opinion) it was the wrong message. Mission HOME (Harvesting Opportunities for Mother Earth) was an organization comprised by 22 aerospace companies and two non-profit advocacy groups (the Space Foundation and the National Space Society). A nationwide tour was organized to promote the message that space exploration made life here on Earth better.

The problem, as I felt it, was that it tried too hard to make exploration practical and as a result, removed the inspirational message that most often excites the public. Still, it was a good effort and reached a good size audience about the benefits of a robust space program.

Regarding Second Life, it's my understanding that most of the work being put into it is by volunteers and that the NASA (Ames) money being spent to extend the NASA Colab to Second Life is a natural growth of the project's original purpose. The primary difference between trying to promote simulator software and NASA reaching out to Second Life, is that SL has hundreds of thousands, if not millions of users already using it. Smartly, NASA is going where the masses already congregate, not to mention that it is a shared user environment, whereas as earlier mentioned, Orbiter and programs like it are single-user experiences.

posted 06-18-2007 09:04 PM               

Several points,

Simulators don't have to be a solitary activity. With the internet there is opportunity for a mission control setup as well as a shared space with multiple spacecraft.

However the true value of Orbiter, or another general purpose space simulator. Is that it allows people to do rather than be told or just passive observers.

I think the big failing of NASA and space is that it doesn't appear to lead to a path where the average joe can get out there. The Astronauts are portrayed as so highly trained that many feel that it is out of reach.

By having a simulator with a good series of scenarios behind it. The public can realize that it may be difficult but it isn't that difficult. It is something we can do. In addition it can serve to educate about the what space technology can and can't do.

I realize that Orbiter isn't the answer to all of NASA's outreach problems. But the thing is there no response from NASA on taking advantage of it. That everytime I goto Glenn or another show I see people sit down and do something with it and they go "Wow I can do this".