|
Author
|
Topic: Blame sci-fi for lack of interest in real space?
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-11-2008 07:21 AM
   
Speaking at a National Geographic Channel press event, astronaut Buzz Aldrin told the SciFi Channel that "fantastic space science fiction shows and movies are, in part, responsible for the lack of interest in real-life space exploration among young people." "I blame the fantastic and unbelievable shows about space flight and rocket ships that are on today," Aldrin said in an interview during an ice cream party held by the National Geographic Channel at the Television Critics Association press tour in Beverly Hills, Calif., this week. "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."The second man on the moon praised real-world films such as Apollo 13. "And Tom Hanks' series From the Earth to the Moon," Aldrin added. "They were fascinating, because it was reality history, and reality fiction can be good if you stick to reality. But, if you start dealing with fantasy and beaming people up and down and traveling seven times the speed of light, you are doing damage. You're not helping. You have young people who have got expectations that are far unrealistic, and you can't possibly live up to the expectations you have created in young people. Why do they get bored with the space program? That's why." Personally, I have a somewhat split reaction. On the one hand, movies such as Star Wars and television series such as Star Trek are often credited with inspiring many modern day NASA engineers and scientists, if not also a few astronauts, for taking up an early interest in space. On the other hand, I have personally been asked by kids about warp drives and teleporters and time travel, which lends a good deal of credibility to Aldrin's perspective. Most of the time, when I explain that those things are not real and try to describe what is, they either quickly lose interest or become disappointed. What do others think? Does modern science fiction help or hurt space exploration? |
mercsim
Member Posts: 219
From: Phoenix, AZ
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 07-11-2008 08:38 AM
I think Star Trek and Star Wars did spark interest but that was a very different time, technologically speaking. People barely knew what a computer was and the sets and props were fascinating to see. The hardware and notions of computers that knew everything was awesome!In today's world, a lot of that technology has been skipped over. How many of us couldn't wait for that next National Geographic or Time magazine to see those wonderful photos of our latest space accomplishments. Now we sit at our computer every day and expect to see the latest from the ISS or Mars or whatever the flavor of the week is. How many hours did we sit staring at those photos and dreaming? Now as we are glancing at them online, our inbox is beeping, our phone tells us we have a new text message, or a pop-up distracts us from our 'dream'. It's an interesting observation about today's movies and computer games/simulations. It seems like kids get so addicted to computers. "Heck, why go play in space when I can do it all on my computer". quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Does modern science fiction help or hurt space exploration?
I think it's a double edge sword, so to speak. It could still help but I can see where it takes away some of the allure, mystery, and awe that made so many of us pick these careers.I think Buzz is onto something... |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 07-11-2008 09:24 AM
The technology we DO enjoy today (which is a spinoff from space exploration of the past) does tend to make us less patient. We want things immediately and just like a small child tearing into his presents, we get bored faster.The visual quality of special effects and an excellent script will never be matched by real exploration. Buzz got it right on this one. |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1252
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 07-11-2008 09:59 AM
I have a slightly mixed opinion. I think Buzz Aldrin is right to a degree. On the one hand sci-fi does stir some interest in spaceflight. However, seeing Luke Skywalker zoom off in his X-Wing and arrive at some planet at light speed in two minutes does nothing to promote the realities and difficulties of spaceflight. The more I have read over the years about the manned space program, the more I have come to understand and appreciate the difficulties involved. The wow factor seems to be gone for young people today. I think one of the reasons obviously is the internet. The other is computer gaming. I think NASA may be missing the boat to promote itself through gaming using a realistic spaceflight and applying it to computer gaming like Xbox or PlayStation. If a game could be developed using real spacecraft allowing kids to fly hands on realistic space flights and missions, in a manor that noted all the difficulties and complexities involved, it could go a long way in developing an appreciation and interest in REAL spaceflight. |
DavidH
Member Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 07-11-2008 11:20 AM
See, I might argue the opposite ... that the death of good scifi is responsible for a decline in interest in space.How often these days does a really good space adventure, that's not just an action flick, come along? ------------------
Homesteading Space | All These Worlds Space Blog | Hatbag.net
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972 |
kr4mula
Member Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 07-11-2008 11:36 AM
Unfortunately, I think Buzz is right. He's not talking about the sliver of population who was/is interested enough in spaceflight to consider going into engineering or working for NASA (those kids can sort out warp drives from reality), but the general population who know little or nothing about NASA. When you can watch people in movies or on TV doing all sorts of "cool" stuff in space, who is going to get excited about the professional and methodical activities of the real space program? Relatively speaking, it IS boring. I remember seeing the scene in "Armageddon" where the two shuttles simultaneously docking with the rotating Mir under hurried circumstances. Of course it was ridiculous, but it looked cool. Sometime later, I had the opportunity to watch the shuttle dock with the ISS from the Mission Control viewing room and marveled at how long it took. You could go to the bathroom, come back, and not notice a change in proximity. For someone less space nutty than me, it would've been tedious, rather than an amazing opportunity.My point is, what NASA does now isn't much of a spectator sport for those with shortened attention spans, with or without flashy competition from sci-fi. Combine that with a massive cultural shift that makes becoming an astronaut or NASA worker far less aspirational than, say, being a reality TV star or internet billionaire, and you've got a space agency bordering on irrelevance. That said, I think the cultural shift is a far more significant factor in loss of support for a space program than anything sci-fi has caused. |
Gilbert
Member Posts: 1328
From: Carrollton, GA USA
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 07-11-2008 03:46 PM
There are 2 types of science fiction movies: the realistic or hard SF (2001: A Space Odyssey, Destination Moon, Marooned, Conquest of Space) and the fantasy based scifi films (Star Trek, Star Wars, Forbidden Planet, Serenity). I think the hard SF films not only inspire but also educate audiences. Alas, how often are new realistic or hard SF films made these days? Reality can't compete with warp drives and teleporters, at least in the minds of Hollywood directors. SF is a double-edged sword. When it's good it can send imaginations soaring. When it's bad, or just plain dumb like Armageddon, it may get imaginations going, but all links to physics and reality are lost...which in my opinion is a bad thing. There are numerous hard SF novels depicting flights to Mars that could be made into exciting and educational films. That will probably never happen, however. |
kosmonavtka
Member Posts: 170
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 07-11-2008 07:11 PM
I've become increasingly disillusioned/frustrated/bored with the real-world program (which remains stuck in low-Earth orbit, not doing much in particular), and reading or watching sci-fi really spoils things for me! It's frustrating to see the disparity between sci-fi (which makes traveling around the Universe look as effortless as going for a drive around one's neighborhood) and real spaceflight (can't even get humans into LEO without a lot of money and effort). At least unmanned/robotic spacecraft are going places! |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 07-11-2008 08:27 PM
I don't think Mr. Aldrin is correct at all. If anything, scifi should fuel an interest in space exploration.I think the lack of interest is due to several factors - NASA does a poor job of getting the word out (but they probably would rather spend money on exploring instead of quality TV, rightly so) and - people are simply bored watching the shuttle go up and come down. It's been that way for a generation and a half and really was not all that impressive even 20 years ago. If moon missions bored the public after 18 months, the shuttle is not going interest anyone after 20, 25, 30 years. - The ISS, Hubble are worthy to a point but will do little to spark an interest, once you see one great image of a new galaxy, the rest hold little interest. NASA needs spokespeople the way the moonwalkers showed enthusiasm in the recent movies. That type of enthusiasm was contagious. Schools, yes I blame the schools for some of the apathy too, should be teaching more science instead of requiring 4 years of Spanish, and 4 years of Canadian and African History or even gym class where the kids play ping-pong. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 07-12-2008 12:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
The ISS, Hubble are worthy to a point but will do little to spark an interest, once you see one great image of a new galaxy, the rest hold little interest.
Wait until you get a Mars mission up-and-running... that ought to be fascinating to watch...  |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 07-12-2008 12:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by DavidH:
See, I might argue the opposite ... that the death of good scifi is responsible for a decline in interest in space.
I couldn't agree with you more. Last movie I saw was "Independence Day" with the idea that it was a sci-fi movie when in fact it was a satirical comedy of space movies. I got ripped off and at $18 a seat, I've stopped going to the movies - it's been 10+ years now. And I'm not planning to return anytime soon. Gladly there are some great comics to stir imagination and dreams (not comics in the American sense like superheroes and co.) (and a few TV shows).I think Aldrin is wrong. Apollo 13 movie was just as interesting as Titanic: you know how it ends before the movie starts. Where's the fun, excitement, stunning landscapes/ships/characters - replace Tom Hanks with Natalie Portman, for ex.  etc.? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 07-12-2008 12:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The second man on the moon praised real-world films such as Apollo 13. "And Tom Hanks' series From the Earth to the Moon," Aldrin added. "They were fascinating, because it was reality history, and reality fiction can be good if you stick to reality. But, if you start dealing with fantasy and beaming people up and down and traveling seven times the speed of light, you are doing damage. You're not helping.
Aldrin probably liked Apollo 13 and the like because he was part of it, that's all.As for the "doing damage. You're not helping" statement, well, it's not Hollywood's job to promote the space program for one and two if kids derive such high expectations from movies, well, maybe their parents ought to teach them the difference between real life and tv/movies/internet/video games. Blaming Hollywood for the lack of interest in the space program is too easy. Many people are not doing their jobs- and even if they were, I'm not quite sure that it would make a difference: Why limit kids' lack of interest (and grown-ups too) to space and not extend it to science (any kind) in general? But if you think space is under-funded, go talk to other scientists like archeologists for example. |
kosmonavtka
Member Posts: 170
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 07-12-2008 12:58 AM
Buzz Aldrin seems to have forgotten that he wrote a science fiction novel himself (Encounter with Tiber)! |
music_space
Member Posts: 1179
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 07-13-2008 08:25 PM
I don't get off much on SciFi myself, and frankly, I read and watch less and less fictional work. So I don't have a much valid opinion on the subject.All I can say is that I wish that tv- and webmedia-documentaries and their promotion/marketing would be as attractive as possible to the desirable audiences. |
SpaceCat
Member Posts: 151
From: Florida, US
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 07-15-2008 07:22 PM
I agree with Robert - and would add...There is a solid dividing line between 'serious SF' (which rarely leaves the medium of print) and 'pop SF' (the Star Wars, Star Trek big screen action genre.) Not being able to tell the difference between the two is the fault of our educational systems, and not that of science fiction itself. If I were a teacher around the 'Jr. High' levels, I'd be using the 'big screen' errors as a springboard for conveying the realities of physics. Personally, I grew up on Flash Gordon, Tom Swift, Captain Midnight & the like- but excellent teachers enlightened me on the difference between 'fun' and 'real'... and made reality fun in the process. I'm afraid we have a generation of teachers now who grew up on Star Wars, with little knowledge of real space history... and how real science made it happen. |
RR
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 07-17-2008 09:14 AM
In the past, sci fi has been credited with inspiring new inventions and directing the future. Now it is the downfall of actual space flight? I don't think so. Only a small portion of the world actually works in science and engineering. A larger portion reaps the benefits of it. I think that sci fi still has its place in inspiring those who are willing to work to make those dreams and visions a reality. The average Joe isn't really interested in reality- it is based on science. They was something fantastic, something adventuresome. Currently, the space program doesn't offer that. But for those with vision and a willingness to work, sci fi offers possibilities. |
derek
Member Posts: 297
From: N.Ireland.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-18-2008 03:03 AM
Buzz is right, I'm the first in my province to sign up for a Virgin Galactic flight, and I've been overwhelmed by the lack of interest; my two schools, the Armagh Planetarium and aviation clubs don't want to know. If I was an alcoholic footballer, a preacher with shiny teeth, or had acted in Star Wars/Dr.Who, they'd be tripping over themselves to have me. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 07-18-2008 08:12 AM
Totally agree, Derek!I spend a fair amount of time in UK High Schools, and it's been my experience that the majority of TEACHERS as well as 11 - 17 year-olds think anything to do with Astronomy or spaceflight is 'nerdy'. I have also lectured to many Astronomy groups (including the BAA and OUAS) and it is a depressing fact that the majority of the audience are fifty-plus. I once offered to donate an Apollo 11 acrylic to a school that had invited me to talk to their sixth formers: the response was underwhelming, so I didn't bother. As I walked out at the end of the day, I noticed that pride of place in the lobby was given to a football signed by the Norwich City foorball team! The UK obsession with transient musical or sporting 'heroes' is to blame in large measure, IMHO. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 07-18-2008 10:11 AM
It's a bit strange, at least to me, to see that readers tend to blame the "educational system" for the lack of interest in space (among other things...). I'm interested in space/astronomy but, as far as I know and can remember, school had nothing to do with it - at least not directly: sure I've built a Saturn V in 3rd grade and physics class did include astronomy but nobody included "space" in my studies. I think there are more than one "culprit". And you can't blame kids for being more interested in what sci-fi has to offer, whatever the format (movies, tv, games). I didn't have any of those when I grew up - I'm 42. It's a complex issue and I'm wondering if the fact that NASA as well the media still "surf on the Apollo moon program" (just read an article about NASA's 50th anniversary in the local paper), when the program has been dead for 35 years, is really helping... Just a thought. |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-03-2008 06:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Personally, I have a somewhat split reaction. On the one hand, movies such as Star Wars and television series such as Star Trek are often credited with inspiring many modern day NASA engineers and scientists, if not also a few astronauts, for taking up an early interest in space.
Of some relavance to this is a special online educator guide we have been collaborating on for the Star Trek exhibition we are currently hosting. As you can see, the guide includes quotes generously supplied by three astronauts (Walt Cunningham, Tom Jones, and Al Worden) about how science fiction can inspire young people in real-life science, engineering, math and technology careers. (note, the quotes from the astronauts do not constitute an endorsement of the exhibition, which they have not yet seen - they were supplied strictly for the associated educational materials). |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-03-2008 07:34 PM
I basically agree with Buzz Aldrin on this, but, speaking personally, sci-fi and sci-fact happened at around the same time. On 12th July, 1969, the BBC showed the first episode of "Star Trek" on British television. I was on holiday and didn't actually see "Star Trek" until the third episode, "City on the Edge of Forever" - what a great introduction to "Star Trek"!! -but a few days earlier I was transfixed by the reality of Armstrong & Aldrin at Tranquillity Base. Then, a few months later, I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" at my local cinema. It was all happening in the third quarter of 1969! (Of course there was great sci-fi before that. I remember seeing, in 1963, the first episode of Dr. Who, a BBC serial about an eccentric old scientist traveling through time and space in a police telephone-box.) |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 09-04-2008 10:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Speaking at a National Geographic Channel press event, astronaut Buzz Aldrin told the SciFi Channel that "fantastic space science fiction shows and movies are, in part, responsible for the lack of interest in real-life space exploration among young people."
Maybe. But on a more positive note (I think), the reverse is true. Real space exploration can make sci-fi movies rather dumb. Swiss tv had a replay of Peter Hyams' Outland (1981) the other night. I loved when Sean Connery is outside the complex wearing a spacesuit which is pressurized only around the head, not in the pants (nothing sleazy here!). Funny. But made watching the whole thing completely unbearable (not to mention the "greenhouse" and the like...). Much like Armagedon. Or maybe movies don't age very well. Or I'm getting old.Real space is just killing Hollywood's space movies. Chris. |
art540
Member Posts: 432
From: Orange, California USA
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 09-05-2008 01:32 AM
"Outland" was also nicknamed "High Moon". |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2008 10:10 AM
SF Signal asked a number of prominent science fiction writers to respond to Buzz Aldrin's comments regarding sci-fi versus real space. Among those who replied were J. Michael Straczynski, Larry Niven and David Brin. |
jkfaust
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 11-02-2008 02:08 AM
I think Buzz is very wrong. Sure, Scifi utilizes impossible concepts but those impossible concepts in creative and bright minds birth the futures technologies and advances. quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
On the other hand, I have personally been asked by kids about warp drives and teleporters and time travel, which lends a good deal of credibility to Aldrin's perspective. Most of the time, when I explain that those things are not real and try to describe what is, they either quickly lose interest or become disappointed.
True enough, but bottom line is they ask the questions. Many won't lose interest or become disappointed. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 11-02-2008 06:39 AM
If you think about it, apart from the great view of earth, there isn't an awful lot up there is there. If it wasn't for zero-g then I do wonder if we would even be going into space at all. |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 11-02-2008 07:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
If you think about it, apart from the great view of earth, there isn't an awful lot up there is there. If it wasn't for zero-g then I do wonder if we would even be going into space at all.
How do you know what might be there? While NASA has done some great research to date, they have not yet had the opportunity to turn smart scientists loose and let them do what they do best; evaluate their surroundings. Hopefully they can get a full crew onto the ISS and let them do their research and have some time to be creative. Many great discoveries throughout history were made by the combination of human creativity and serendipity! We need some time before we dismiss the possibilites of this new ocean. |
spaceman
Member Posts: 1104
From: Walsall, West Midlands, UK
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 11-02-2008 01:39 PM
Imagine standing at the foot of a mountain many times the height of Everest, or climbing it, or canyons that surpass that which we call the Grand and marvel at but is insignificant even in our own solar system.Imagine frozen seas,or waterfalls of liquid methane. Imagine witnessing the birth of stars - up close. Imagine life... but not as we know it, in as many myriad forms as we see on Earth and then some. That is the reason we venture into space and must continue to do so. Why settle for one setting Sun. Imagine the best of all possible worlds that can be out there... or should we stay home? Remember the world was once flat... or so they thought. It is because people have the capacity to imagine and the freedom to imagine that we are on our current course. Anything we do to stop/delay this in our lifetime will be just a blip. |
kosmonavtka
Member Posts: 170
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 11-04-2008 01:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
If you think about it, apart from the great view of earth, there isn't an awful lot up there is there. If it wasn't for zero-g then I do wonder if we would even be going into space at all.
There's a whole Universe out there! I would love to go up into orbit just to see the Milky Way in all its glory (light pollution obscures most of it from Earth). |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 11-04-2008 04:02 AM
I'm sure there are some "dark spots" in the Australian outback where you could see the Milky Way, no? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-26-2009 09:19 AM
I think it has been discussed in other threads (or somewhere else - can't recall) a while back as to why youngsters are not that interest in space exploration. Personally this would be my explanation. This is way too cool. And I'm not that young anymore!Editor's note: Threads merged. |
Linda K
Member Posts: 62
From: Greensboro, NC 27455
Registered: Aug 2008
|
posted 05-03-2009 08:58 AM
While I do agree with many of the postings here, I don't think that it's entirely accurate to blame sci-fi for a lack of interest in real space. Instead of blaming sci-fi, we should use it as another resource to promote an interest in real space.There are several examples of ideas and concepts from science fiction shows or movies that were just fantasy not too long ago, but are now parts of everyday life. One example is this article about how some of the stuff from Star Trek has become science fact. I have often used sci-fi movies as a springboard for class discussions - i.e., Armageddon. Asking students whether the scenarios are realistic and having them explain/defend their responses is a great way to get these kids thinking. NEOs do pose a threat to the Earth, so there is a very real basis for these discussions, and if a movie like Armageddon can get the kids interested in possible ways to deal with these situations, I'm all for it. Even a totally off-the-wall sci-fi movie can plant a seed that could lead one of these kids to develop something amazing in the future. The bottom line is that when one of "my" kids comes up to me excited about some totally unrealistic sci-fi movie, instead of slamming it for being pure fiction, I challenge the student to explain the things that are/are not possible, and why. In addition, I challenge them to come up with ways that some of the fantasy aspects could become reality. No major breakthroughs yet, but hope springs eternal! |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-10-2009 07:11 AM
Having read the comments of Mr Aldrin, I tend to agree with him. I don't want to disparage sci-fi; I like all the incarnations of "Star Trek", the first three "Alien" movies and my favourite movie is "Sunshine". However, with the exception of "Sunshine", the others project an unrealistic vision of human space travel. And this has made some people believe in these visions as credible. Clearly they are not. But that's the problem. How to convince the world public that the current space efforts are worth their investment and the attention span? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-11-2009 12:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
However, with the exception of "Sunshine", the others project an unrealistic vision of human space travel.
For now!  So in order to "bridge the gap" between sci-fi and real life, we need to invest in space technology. Problem solved. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 05-11-2009 11:02 AM
Fiction is to the mind as grease is to a wheel. The purpose of fiction is to inspire. |
NovaRob
Member Posts: 242
From: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Registered: Nov 2008
|
posted 05-11-2009 04:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
...as grease is to a wheel.
Fiction reduces friction. |
advertisement