When it comes to financing Mars Exploration, there’s more Money in Fantasy than Reality

By Charles Polk

I recall a NASA conference some years back at which one topic dealt with how to get the people interested in space exploration.  It was decided that the problem was poor PR.  If only the people were aware of the wonderful things NASA did and planned to do, then they would be interested. 

My reaction was, “How very Soviet.”

The 21^st century is a dynamic and stunningly interconnected time.  Competition for an individual’s interest has never been so vibrant.  In a distributed web of media consumers and producers, top-down attempts to command the people’s interests are archaic and silly.

Consider the following very non-Soviet perspective and approach:

People spend most of their mental energy wondering and dreaming about things they haven’t yet done and probably never will do.  This is the basis of human creativity – the realities we create, we imagine first.  Further, and to the point of this blog post, the trillion-dollar entertainment industry exists because we are this way. 

Since before Homer there has been a thriving industry in fantasy.  The segment of the fantasy industry based on space-related themes predates the Space Race and has continued over the 42 years since the Space Race ended.  Extraterrestrial settings, aliens, and frontier adventure feature prominently in entertainment media. 

What would happen if the commercial fantasy business were connected to real space exploration; namely, could space-themed media finance space exploration?  The answer depends on the process connecting fantasy to exploration.  Consider two processes:

A.   Top-down.  Some entity – a government agency, a private foundation, or a corporation – proposes an exploration plan and earns money from media based on its plan.

B.    Bottom-up.  A membership society hosts a process through which its members experience, through media, innumerable imagined settings, characters, and themes.  Over time, the members define a specific exploration plan that is financed by proceeds from their media experiences.

Notice that neither NASA nor any other space agency goes even as far as Process A toward engaging individuals’ interests.  But let’s imagine that they did.  Their efforts would likely fail to bring in much revenue.  For the following reasons, Process B is more likely to finance space exploration:

·      Variety.  Not bound to a predetermined plan, there would be greater variety in media content, which would interest a larger audience, encourage more media production, and encourage more consumption per consumer.

·      Participation.  By connecting a member’s consumption of media to decision authority over the exploration, a member becomes more than a spectator.

·      Practicality.  With the plan dependent on the money-raising process, an intersection between financing capability and technical feasibility is more likely.

Just because it’s a better bet to finance space exploration doesn’t mean Process B is certain to finance space exploration.  There are an infinite number of Space exploration targets.  A process to finance the exploration of the infinite is too vague.  You’ve got to start somewhere, pick a target, and bind the financing process to the target.

Since before Homer, Mars has been part of the fantasy business.  Since humanity has understood that Mars is a terrestrial planet, it has been a focus of popular-culture speculation about life beyond Earth, both indigenous and transplanted.  Humanity expects to go to Mars, someday, somehow. 

Process B, with Mars as the target, offers the best chance for imagination to lead reality in the form of entertainment financing space exploration.  But it’s a process that a government agency cannot implement and no PR budget can make it so.