Know your market*
Every once in a while I comment about the negative comments I receive regarding the Space Elevator. Specially from those people who think that we are a horrible bunch of individuals who are wasting money in loony projects instead of using them for more noble causes. E.g., giving it to the poor.
It has taken me almost four years to learn how to answer them. It isn’t easy but I am darn proud of what I have learned. But that doesn’t mean that my learning process has stopped. As a matter of fact, I have found something more to do.
Ribbon deployed. Source: Liftport Group.
Almost every week I check 10 sites through Google, searching for Space Elevator news in Spanish and responding the posted comments. It wasn’t until today that I thought of something. What if I do an analysis of what is bothering people? How many negative and positive comments exist, and which are the most common questions?
Oh, I know much of that info but as once I learned in HP while improving customer satisfaction, there may be more than meets the eye.
I’ll maintain you updated on the advances of this small study.
* This entry was originally posted in Liftport’s blog.
Alex Says:
June 15th, 2006 at 9:31 am
So how exactly do you answer them? My roommate and I get into rather heated discussions about what we should be investing money in. He believes the population and humanity can sort itself out without venturing in space but I’m of the belief that the world will probably wipe itself out before we can resolve these social “issues.”
skey Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
The issue that you are experiencing is the age old battle of sceptic versus optimistic. What you are realy facing is a philosophicla delimea that we all experience when we co habit with a person that is from a diffrent famile, cultural, and life experience. What you and your roomate needs to do is ask what type of investor you realy are. If you believe that humanity will be fine, then conventional investment would be sufficent, but if you believe that humanity is doom, then invest in risky investments. However, risky investments is a name that needs to be studied closley.
Risky investments are the ones that are not tested. Risky investments are also those that have been tested and have succed but have succumb to if it worked the first time it wil work again. Convnetional company’s that have a proven track record are the ones that suffer the latter. The little risk taking company, suffers from the first definition.
The issue that realy exist in your debate is more complicated than a blog can illuminate. The investment aspect is easy to point out and in my opinion is not the sole problem of the argument. The real meat of the argument is as old as man himself. Courage or comfort is the delimea that we need to focus on, in this discussion, and we will save it for a time when I can afford to illuminate the theory, that I am formulating.
Jordix Says:
June 26th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
En efecto, por muy meticuloso que intentes ser en los enfoques de tus estudios, siempre habrá algún “quisquilloso” con ganas de buscar las cosquillas; chicos, lo que haceis es grandioso y harto soñado.
Mi mas sincero ánimo,
Jordi Maura
Manuel Antonio Cuba Says:
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:20 am
Hi Alex,
I am very sorry for not answering you before. I misplaced this replay and didn’t notice it until today.
Well, the first answer I give is that Liftport is a private enterprise, whose duty to society is to create wealth and new technology that can improve the life of human beings.
Approximately 50% of people will understand it. The other 50% will find themselves consternated with the response, so it’s quite probable that they will push for a “better answer”.
If they do that, I deepen a bit more and mention that it’s the labor of the State to veil for the welfare of it’s citizens, and the only way to do it is through an adequate administration of the resources collected from taxes (which are obtained from private enterprise).
Some people still don’t get the answer so they push it a bit more. In these cases you need to consider that you are going into the realm of the emotional, not the rational. That’s when space has to be brought down to Earth. There are hundreds of examples, but I am going to use only 5:
1. Peru is the biggest producer of fish meal in the world. Thanks to GPS, the State can now control fishing boats and avoid the over fishing that occurred in the decade of the sixties that almost killed this industry. Without fishmeal, forget about aquiculture in the whole world.
2. Thanks to telemedicine (which uses satellites), countries like India can take the doctor to the patient even through difficult terrain. It was widely used after the tsunami of 2004.
3. Kidney dialysis machines were developed thanks to the Apollo program. How many people are alive because of it?
4. Without satellites, it would be impossible to check the state of the weather as we do today. There was no Weather Channel in the pre-space era. A friend of mine who lives in Galveston (which was devastated in 1900), could escape because she knew what it was coming. Fortunately, the hurricane never reached this port.
5. Poor, underdeveloped countries like Vietnam, need to use satellites for reaching remote areas through television and radio. Plus, it helps their aviation industry, making it more safe and reliable.
If, after these kind of examples, the individual or group of individuals still think that space is a bad thing, then there isn’t much to do. And it ain’t worth, either. You will end in a bitter discussion against emotional arguments.
But that’s ok, after all, you could transmit your message to a 95% of the people. That’s a incredible hit rate for me!
If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Take care,
Manuel Antonio Cuba
Latin America Research Coordinator
* This comments were originally posted in Liftport’s blog.