Yeah. In SF, it's always so easy.

I wish that, every now and then, those bold space pilots in science fiction who skip the safety checks would sometimes blow up.

"It's a crazy idea but it just might work" almost never actually works in real life.

What has killed interest in science, is forty years of stagnation. Of presidents manipulating science to match their own beliefs. Of adminstrations that cut funding, if a study shows something different than what they wanted it to show. Of forcing scientists to enter the then hot topic of study, or they can forget ever getting funding. Of being afraid to study certain topics, because if the finding are not what is then politically correct, you will not only be condemmed, but you won't see funding again. Of ordering scientists to get approval, before they can release a study. This gives the administration a chance to silence and then end the study, or to change the leadership of the study to someone who will find the results that he or she is looking for.

True science cannot survive under these conditions. Take a poll of scientists, biologists and engineers in this country, I'll bet that you will find few that didn't grow up loving si-fi. Are si-fi shows going to be the scape goat as to why we arn't advancing as fast as we should?

I think that there is a LOT of sci-fantasy stuff that doesn't lend itself to relating to actual space exploration. In other words, the Star Wars stuff, and the like is so far removed from reality that it gives youngsters a totally distorted sense of what space exploration is all about. It's fun, but is totally beyond the "possible". Star Trek...at least the original T.V. series...while technically far beyond what is possible today, nevertheless, IMHO, had sufficient reality to look t the future.

Regardless, we have too few books about near- and mid-term space exploration adventure, such as the old Heinlein books geared to middle-school level kids. I well remember books like "Rocketship Galileo", "Farmer in the Sky", and even (with regard to today's Stargate series) "Tunnel in the Sky", which was more about youngsters in a survival situation than about space exploration.

But the real problem is that there is just not enough on T.V. about what is really going on...and not enough GOING ON to interest the general public, and especially kids. Let's face it: "operations" IS boring; exploration can be exciting! Even though the Shuttle is a dangerous vehicle, there have been enough launched that unless something goes terribly wrong, T.V. isn't going to cover much of it in prime time (and a lot of it doesn't occur in prime time anyway).

So, there are really two parts to this question: the type of sci-fi books (does any kid READ books anymore?) and shows, and the lack of interesting reality.

"Yeah. In SF, it's always so easy.

I wish that, every now and then, those bold space pilots in science fiction who skip the safety checks would sometimes blow up.

"It's a crazy idea but it just might work" almost never actually works in real life."

-- Do you check the tire pressure, brake pads, oil filter, etc every time you drive your car? No, you don't. The point of Sci-Fi is to suspend disbelief, and try to force people to imagine what is possible. At one time the automobile was merely the work of science fiction. Someday we'll be flying space shuttles the way we drive our car.. unless we turn off our imaginations.

I wasn't lucky enough to be born before the Apollo missions and had the opportunity to watch and be inspired by those brave astronauts land on the moon. But I can say that I probably wouldn't be working where I am today if it wasn't for 2001: A Space Odyssey, Contact, Star Wars, Star Trek TNG, etc... and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

And I'd be willing to bet that the very people who made space travel successful found inspiration in people like Arthur C. Clarke and Jules Verne.

Does Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations" count?

@ Geoffrey Landis

"I wish that, every now and then, those bold space pilots in science fiction who skip the safety checks would sometimes blow up."

You realise that you pretty much defined the a lot of the ships in 'Star Trek - The Next Generation' and onwards? If there ever was a spacecraft in popular sci-fi that warned us of the consequences of improperly thought-out and tested technology, it is the Ent-D. And don't get me started about some of the things of the Voyager... That ship had critical systems that weren't even SINGLE fault tolerant!

Has anyone gone into bookstores lately and looked at what they have on the shelfs in the sci-fi section? I have and it's very frustrating.

Now a days, they have very little in the way of the hard sci-fi books that many of us grew up with. Now what passes for sci-fi, is vampires, witches, ghosts and dragons. Even if you find one that is "hard sci-fi", it's not the same. Now there is little science even in the hard sci-fi books. They spend most of the book making political and social statements.

These books will never inspire someone to pick up a microscope and get an engineering degree.

I think Larry Niven said it best and most efficiently:

"I do not agree. Without the dream, most people would never look up. Most city dwellers would see nothing even if they did. We need the science fiction shows and movies to keep the goal before our eyes--and not just for young people, but for us all.
That said, I'd like to see more science fiction and less fantasy in my space operas."

Yes and no...it inspires, but also makes people think NASA should solve all our space travel problems in 20-50 minutes (if there are no commercials shown).

Howard McCurdy discusses this very issue in his excellent book "Space and the American Imagination." I also addressed some of its aspects in my Space Review articles:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/802/1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/807/1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1058/1

While we can't deny that sci fi has inspired much of what has come to pass, we must also accept that modern sci fi entertainment (especially in the movies) is what NASA and real space flight are competing against in terms of gaining public interest. Until we recognize this situation as a competition for a portion of the public's "entertainment" appetite, real spaceflight will remain extremely low on their radar.

The solution is to tell the stories of real space flight more effectively, in a more entertaining manner, in media that permit the public to get exposed to them and become engaged with them.

Too many people claim that real space operations are boring. Those of us who have participated directly in them know otherwise. The problem lies in the storytelling; until NASA PAO (and the space companies, too) learn how to actually tell an engaging story (as opposed to the dull remote bland stuff they typically generate), we haven't got a chance of recapturing the American imagination with real spaceflight...and real spaceflight will never break back into any media that can offer continuing exposure in any sustainable way.

And it doesn't have to be hokey fabricated material; some of the most compelling, engaging stories are completely factual documentaries. The key, as I explain in my first essay above, is to link the audience emotionally to the people executing the space efforts by using fundamental storytelling techniques, just like authors and Hollywood directors do to get their audience caught up with the characters in their books and movies.

Sci fi is essential for broadening the horizons of our imaginations, but sometimes even sci fi falls victim to its own creativity. Star Trek's use of the transporter, that oft-cited example of futuristic technology, was originally adopted primarily as a plot device to shorten teleplay time. Getting aboard a shuttlecraft and taking flight each time the main characters needed access to or from a planet's surface was a major time hit...or so the producers thought. While this gave up numerous plot opportunities (re-entry guidance problems, damaged engines, etc) it opened up others (Kirk splitting in two, last-minute beam-outs, etc.)

But in the end, it wasn't the hardware that was engaging the audience; it was the characters themselves and how they dealt with and ultimately resolved the crises they faced. I would submit to you that there are just as many interesting, exciting circumstances that challenge real people in real spaceflight as those dreamed up by the best sci fi authors and directors. All that's missing is full employment of the storytelling techniques that will draw the public into their midst.

Then sci fi and sci real can serve side by side again to inspire and entertain us all.

Buzz didn't mention the efforts that the Star Wars and Star Trek production people have made now and in the past to team with a science museum to present exhibits that show the parallels between the technology in their shows and movies and real space technology in use now or being researched. I've done one myself with the help of the folks at Lucasfilm and they continued to work with the Boston Museum, the Trek folks did one a few years back and now have an exhibit in concert with a San Diego Aerospace Museum. A Lightsaber flew on a Shuttle mission. I've walked around OV-101 Enterprise in the NASM Udvar-Hazy Museum. I can't think of more valid proof of the symbiosis of Real Space and Science Fiction.

And Buzz didn't mention the efforts where pilot films were made for TV series that were "real space program technology" based. I think readers here will remember
"Earth II" and "Plymouth."

What I think that Buzz didn't consider is the marketing efforts that Real Space has to compete with. Coverage of Shuttle missions (if you don't get NASA TV, which I don't) is short if broadcast at all and if you want to get the few Real Space toys or models that are available the Internet is your only source.

Some form of Star Trek is on cable or broadcast TV daily, some form of Star Wars weekly. Star Trek and Star Wars merchandise are readily available just about everywhere.
With that kind of constant exposure, naturally they have gotten some prominence in the public conciousness.

Space enthusiasts ignore Buzz's comments at their peril. He is on to something. And asking SF writers whether they are culpable produces little but entirely predictable denials. They are wrong, Buzz is right.
Most popular perceptions of the possibilities of space come through TV and movies, plus comics to some extent. There may be plenty of great novels out there, but how many people read novels?
Hollywood has given audiences the excitement they crave, but if there is little resemblance to reality then that is the fault of those in charge of real-world efforts, especially NASA. Dan Goldin lamented the public's impatience for warp drives, but later realized that such complaints revealed something important.
Everyone in "the space program" is entirely too content with too little. The public doesn't throw parades for robots, no one cares what the surface of Mercury looks like ("Oh my gosh - CRATERS! Who ever would have guessed??") and the ISS is one big yawn. The space program looks like little but a jobs program - white-collar welfare for geeks.
Does anyone in NASA today remind you of Wehrner Von Braun? Who are today's Mercury Seven heroes that the public watches with intense fascination?
The only ones who even come close are the Burt Rutans, Elon Musks and Bob Bigelows of the private sector. They at least have compelling visions and the will to make them real. It's not a lack of money that holds back NASA: it has many, many times the budget of all the new space entrepreneurs put together.
Hollywood needs a credible, interesting story to show how *realistic* space efforts can make exciting changes in viewers' lives - that means, within their lifetimes. It means, changes that matter in addressing the difficulties and worries in our lives. It means something believable yet relevant yet optimistic. This is much easier said than done!

But if anyone reading this is interested in helping create such a vision on TV, that's exactly the project I have been taking on, "on the side" (not my day job - I'm not in the entertainment industry, nor the space industry for that matter). If you'd like to help launch an idea for a hard-SF TV series about the near future, a saga leading to the first permanent colonies offworld, then I'd like to hear how you might be able to help. I can be reached at 850/678-3472 (in Florida, USA) and at jcserep at excelonline dot com (use the usual abbreviations in the email address). Thank you.
- John Cserep