Is the universe big enough for the three of us? (credit: NASA/John Frassanito & Associates)

Letter: A space nerd responds

by Michael Huang
Monday, August 20, 2007

Regarding Louis Friedman’s reply to my essay (see “Can’t all space nerds get along?” and “A space nerd responds”, The Space Review, July 30 and August 13, 2007), I’d like to clarify some statements made in my essay. I used two terms throughout the essay: “interest groups” and “space societies”. These terms did not refer to the same things, and I am sorry for any ambiguity caused by my clumsy use of language. Space societies are grassroots organizations, space enthusiast organizations, space clubs, etc. The interest groups I was referring to in the opening paragraph are the informal political movements that fight it out in Internet forums and newspaper op-ed pages. The term “interest group” could be replaced with “political movement” throughout the article to make the distinction clearer.

I mentioned The Planetary Society in the second paragraph: “They [Sagan, Von Braun, and O’Neill] arguably have more similarities than differences. Their respective organizations—Planetary Society, National Space Society (and Mars Society), and Space Frontier Foundation—have different priorities but share many common interests.” This paragraph cites The Planetary Society as an example of how space enthusiasts have much in common.

The next paragraph starts with: “Looking at the positive and promotional side of these interest groups, they could be summarized as pro-science, pro-human, and pro-private.” The “interest groups” I was referring to here was not the space societies mentioned in the previous paragraph, but the interest groups in the opening paragraph: “Observers of space politics have identified three interest groups in the civil space sector…” I should have made that clearer with some extra text.

I did not associate The Planetary Society with the anti-human movement. There is a world of difference between being anti-human and being pro-science. Bob Park would be someone who is anti-human and pro-science. Stephen Hawking would be pro-human and pro-science, and so would Carl Sagan, The Planetary Society, and most space societies. I criticize people like Bob Park because of their anti-human views, not because of their pro-science views, which are welcome. My views could be summarized as being anti-anti-human, analogous to being anti-anti-American.

My suggestions for space societies were for joint membership and an umbrella organization. I did not suggest merges, because it’s a radical step, requiring organizations to be dissolved. The umbrella organization means an association of like-minded or industry-specific groups. I was suggesting that space societies should form an association or coalition. The joint membership refers to a handy way for people to join several space societies using one application form and one membership fee (e.g., this membership form for the Bernoulli Society and International Statistical Institute), instead of filling out multiple forms and paying multiple fees. Individual memberships are still available, and merges are not required.

I agree with Louis Friedman’s description of The Planetary Society as an organization that is positive, supportive, and inclusive. My essay was not a criticism of The Planetary Society, or any space society, but was a criticism of the Internet flame wars and op-ed “debates” that usually break out along humans-vs.-robots or private-vs.-NASA lines, where win-win scenarios are ignored. My suggestions were intended as additional ways for space enthusiasts to demonstrate their support for all space endeavors.

Michael Huang’s (fhprize@gmail.com) previous articles for The Space Review include “Can’t all space nerds get along?”, “Humans vs. robots: who should argue against humans in space?”, and “The other side of the Fermi paradox”.

Home