The Failure of Space Settlement Advocacy

and a proposal for a better approach

Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

This past week, I had the opportunity to attend this year’s ASCEND conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. ASCEND is led by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), with the aims to “embrace the opportunities and address the challenges that come with increased activity in space” and “help forge a sustainable off-world future for all.”

Although I was only in town briefly, I did get the chance to attend a panel called “What is Your Why: Defining and Communicating the Strategy of Space.” This is a topic I’m particularly interested in, as you can tell by how much I’ve written and spoken about the rhetoric and communication strategies of pro-space-settlement advocates. I was particularly heartened by the panelists’ answers when they were asked about their approach to communicating the importance of space research and exploration to the public.

I’ve been frustrated for some time now with what I see as a backwards approach to public communication among space settlement advocacy groups. Specifically, I’m talking about organizations dominated by people motivated to advance space settlement for ideological reasons, rather than the more entrepreneurially-oriented, industry-dominated attendees at ASCEND. I usually enjoy interacting with these ideological groups— I’m broadly in favor of human space settlement, myself. But as I’ve encountered them over the past few years, attending various conferences and speaking with them about my work, I’ve noticed a common theme. When talking amongst themselves, or to others who share their ideologies, I frequently hear these advocates bemoaning their struggle to convince the public that developing and settling space is worth the cost, risk, and effort. “What can we do to convince the public of the enormous value that [our plans for] space can provide?” is a question I’ve heard again and again. Indeed, polls show that the majority of the American public, at least, believes NASA’s priorities should be defending the Earth from asteroids and monitoring the climate rather than sending humans to the Moon or Mars.

The disconnect, I’ll argue, is that these advocacy organizations are making a major error in their approach. In short: the question they are asking is backwards. If you want to get the general public on board with expanding humanity’s presence in space, then instead of asking how to convince them that your plans for space will benefit humanity, you need to do the work to understand what people’s biggest concerns and priorities actually are, and then figure out whether and how space research and technology can address those problems.

Rather than approaching this as a two-way conversation with a spirit of curiosity, I often see space settlement advocacy organizations leaning heavily on vague and poetic statements about space as humanity’s destiny, that our future lies in the stars, we can’t remain in the cradle [of the Earth] forever, etc. There’s a place for emotion in advocacy, but this kind of rhetoric is really only useful for motivating people who already agree with your ideology. (My younger self found it very moving!) But to sway people who aren’t already in love with the idea of living in space, you have to get more specific and practical.

The ASCEND panelists captured a better approach. As panelist Emma Louden, an astrophysics grad student, pointed out: “It’s so important to meet people where they’re at.” She urged the audience members to consider the concerns of younger generations who may be considering careers in space, but are struggling with high levels of anxiety about job security and the future of the economy as they enter the workforce. Astrophysics, she said, can provide “practical hope”. Panelist Bryan Bender of Strategic Marketing Innovations, Inc. noted that many people these days are very concerned about the climate, so pointing out that investment in space technology can help us improve the health of our planet is a message that can “resonate.” Dan Dumbacher, the CEO of AIAA, expressed exactly the technique that I’ve been wanting to see space settlement advocates practice: when having a conversation about the importance of space, he said, you have to make it personal for the individual, so they can relate to your message. Which means, of course, that you have to understand the individual enough to know what kinds of messages they will relate to.

If space settlement advocates want more buy-in from the general public, they need to demonstrate the value of their plans to the average person, not just through conversation (although that’s a good place to start), but in practice. There’s nothing wrong with taking the long view and making plans that won’t come to fruition for generations. But if you can’t convince people to support those plans, it’s not because they’re shortsighted, it’s because they have more urgent things to worry about. There’s so much that space exploration, science, and technology can do for humans living on Earth today. But if we aren’t continually asking what it is that today’s humans actually need, and how space can address those needs, then why should we expect them to care?