astropolitics.org Blog

5 Responses to “Words Matter”

1. Brent says:
   March 3rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm

   Huh.

   I don’t agree with Mr Oberg on this terminology issue, or at least not with his level of distaste about the “shoot down” term. Specialized terminology is the first refuge of an ivory tower scoundrel, and space especially is a field that is generally believed to be “unknowable” by the general public. “Rocket scientist” is used to describe a person far smarter than the average person, when in fact astronautical engineering is in many ways easier than aerodynamics (for instance).

   I tend to think that making space concepts easier for the public to understand is essential to “normalize” space. Sure, the intercept did not re-enter the satellite. However, the intercept was the closest thing to a “shoot down” in the common sense of the term that space can have. Oberg would undoubtedly rather have it called a “break up intercept” or something that may be more accurate but also less understandable to the public. He wants the “unearthly, unfamiliar reality” of space to be kept pristine, I suppose. I’d rather have space’s reality to become familiar. I would argue that “earthly” language is necessary to give unfamiliar people a frame of reference to begin to understand the complexities of space. Analogies are important.

   Oberg does have a point, to be sure. I think it must be balanced with a concern to make space understandable to the public. That means using earthly terms to explain space concepts to people. The intercept was a shoot down. That may be an imperfect term, but it is certainly an apt one.

2. Coyote says:
   March 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am

   Brent,

   You are quite right that space must be made understandable to the public.

   It is not surprising in the least that the media grabbed a simple and apt analogy from airpower to quickly describe the descending kinetic strike perpetrated on the errant target satellite…yadda, yadda, yadda–just call it a ’shoot down’ and get on with it!

   I believe Jim Oberg fully agrees with our shared sentiment that we need to make space an easily understood part of ordinary life. Doing so certainly requires using language we can relate to!

   Oberg’s point is really a kind of recurring lament for him; that the human experience in space remains so relatively paltry that we haven’t developed a better, more accurate lexicon of simple, universally understood terms. In other venues he has expressed his concern that using imperfect analogies leads to misunderstandings that may cause bad or incomplete space policy.

   You’ll think this is neat; take a look at the following excerpt from a presentation Oberg gave in May, 2003:

   “[W]e are interested in creating a useful space policy and deciding on good space policy. So far, policy has been a matter of often arbitrary decisions in response to other issues that come up. The means of choosing policy have been random. Part of the reason may be the very metaphors we use. There is a commonly used metaphor for space, that “space is the high ground.” We’ve all heard it, and perhaps even used it. But space is space is space and high ground is high ground; space is not high ground, and thinking it is, or even using the metaphor that it is, can lead us to a wrong impression of space and to wrong decisions about space policy.”

   He goes into a rather convincing argument that you’d probably enjoy reading. You can find his entire presentation online as of 12 Mar 2008 at: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/140.pdf

   I think Oberg raises an interesting concern. Are we giving space short shrift in the policy arena because we are using imperfect analogies that cause us to treat space in a way foreign to its true nature?

   What do you think? Where does the risk lie?

3. Brent says:
   March 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

   Coyote,

   Thank you for the speech. I enjoyed it. Also, great work on the SBSP report, sir. NSSO is my new hero.

   I respect Mt Oberg a great deal, and think his Space Power Theory book is groundbreaking, but still maintain he’s wrong in this.

   In this paper, he holds others to strict truths but excuses his own simplifying assumptions with abandon. I hate the “high ground” metaphor too, but I give more credit to those who use it than Oberg does. They tend to know what they’re talking about. Also, some of Oberg’s “truths” about space like space being easier to attack than the ground (he points out satellites are thin-skinned sitting ducks) are due to “short” term technical constraints and have nothing to do with the space environment itself. A cardboard castle located on a mountaintop is easier to destroy than an M-1A in Death Valley, but that says nothing of the value of the high ground. Also, his assertion that “the ‘high ground’ has nothing: it’s a vacuum and there is nothing there you don’t bring with you” is patently false. It is excusable in the limited sense of how he’s using it, but then that is the point of our argument, isn’t it?

   I think my disagreement with him may stem from the different environments we were “raised” in the space industry. I’m younger, so I think more people in my generation are at least familiar with the basics of space. I’d bet Mr Oberg has run into far more otherwise educated people without clue one about space than I have.

   Thank God for Oberg and the work he does. My disagreement with him, however insistent, is minor.

   Thanks for the reply, sir! I enjoy the discussion.

4. Brent says:
   March 12th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

   Coyote,

   To answer your question about space policy being damaged by inaccurate metaphors:

   Any damage to space policy due strictly to metaphor use is, in my opinion, negligible. Space policy is damaged by giving the responsibility of writing it to people unfamiliar with space. Here metaphors my have hurt. With space fields expanding beyond traditional science and engineering (policy, history, business, and other programs) I think policy will improve steadily. We are training policy wonks that may have taken a basic astro class as a grad requirement. That will do wonders.

   I think we are doing better

5. Coyote says:
   March 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

   Brent,

   Very nice analysis!

   You pointed out some inconsistencies in Oberg’s presentation that I had missed.

   Far from hypocrisy, it really illustrates how easy it is for all of us to stumble for words regarding space, spacefaring, and spacepower. Ironically I believe this supports Oberg’s case about how important it is for us to find an accurate lexicon, but at the same time it makes your case that we MUST use language that brings space home to all of our citizens.

   You are right, we are doing better.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.