In response to my previous post citing Orson Scott Card's Star Trek critique, Tobias Buckell takes issue with my comment (and Jim Oberg's concurrence) about Trekkers' interest in space:

Boy, I'd have to quibble with that. I recall ST folk being excited enough to beg NASA to rename the first shuttle Enterprise. That hardly smacks of 'not being interested in space activities.'

This little episode, dating back to the late 1970s, actually makes my point, not his. OV-101, the test article for the Approach and Landing Tests (ALT), was originally supposed to be called the Constitution, but the Star Trek fans were mobilized to rename it the Enterprise, despite the fact that it would never actually fly in space. Many (including me) attempted to make them aware of this, but they didn't seem to care, and pressed on regardless.

It was kind of a drive-by interest, and whether or not the vehicle they were attempting to rename would actually be a space vehicle seemed to be of much less importance to them than that it be named after the Enterprise. If they thought that they could have pulled it off, they'd have probably signed a petition and sent in letters demanding that the astronaut uniforms be bell bottoms with boots, a la STTOS. If Mr. Buckell has any other data to indicate interest by Trekkers in space, or reality, I'd be interested to hear it, because this sure isn't it.

The Enterprise could have been OV-102. Maybe the Trekkies were right, although for the wrong reasons.

Rand,
Given the level of Card's writing, what I have read of it, he hardly seems fit to be throwing stones at Star Trek.
I read quite a bit, including science fiction. I have degrees in Physics and Space Science. I used to be a space shuttle payload safety engineer at JSC. I am a Star Trek fan. Most of my friends are also Star Trek fans and are intensely interested in actual space activity (you know Mark Whittington for instance). Whether we are typical or not I can not say, but there we are.
I was fairly young when OV-101 was being christened Enterprise and undergoing it's drop tests. At that time NASA was certainly giving the impression, and doing absolutely nothing to correct the notion, that it was intended eventually to fly in orbit. I understand very well why it never could have. I'm just saying NASA's PR department was getting as much mileage as they could out of the idea that it would.

I have been a star trek fan ever since the first movie. (Never really liked the old series). With Next Gen, I was hooked. I don't know if I qualify as a "Trekkie" or not. I don't own any uniforms or anything. But I am very very very pro space. I run a new space blog (click my name to see), I work as a contractor for Army Space & Missile Command, and I am working for a new space startup, Solar Skiff. Man I liked Enterprise too, dog-gon-it

Well, for what it's worth, Star Trek is one of the biggest reasons I am currently an Aerospace major (spacecraft concentration) in college.

I remember that the first time I heard a speech by Jesco Von Puttkamer (the first of many) was at a Trek convention. At the same con, Alan Dean Foster announced the preliminary results of Viking--for a brief period, there was possible life on Mars! Yes, it's become a pop culture icon, but I know many engineers and scientists who were inspired as kids by Captain Kirk and co. Remember, Trek was always entertainment, not a graduate course. It competed with everything from Wagon Train to Desperate Housewives. It sold commercial time.

Some of the fans are nuts--big surprise! Ever seen "Darth Vader" at an Oakland Raider's game? What about the Packers fans who go shirtless to games in the middle of snowstorms? Remember Beanie Babies? Did they inspire interest in veterinary science?

In short, Trek is just a TV show and we shouldn't expect miracles from it. If it inspires the slightest minority to an interest in aerospace, it's doing better than the rest of TV.

I used to be a space shuttle payload safety engineer at JSC. I am a Star Trek fan. Most of my friends are also Star Trek fans and are intensely interested in actual space activity (you know Mark Whittington for instance).

You have a misleading sample. The fact that you and your friends are interested in space and Star Trek tells us nothing about the broader Star Trek community, most of whom actually have less interest in real space activities than the general public does, in my experience (having sent out targeted mailings to both). You're interested in Star Trek because you're interested in space. Most Trekkers are just into Trek for their own reasons, little of which have to do with space (I suspect that it's largely escapism and utopianism).

I suspect the percentage of Trekkies seriously interested in space is roughly the same as the percentage of general public interest in space. It does seem quite a few aerospace engineers are fans of Trek and it has inspired many to enter the field.

I have been an active space activist since, oh, probably 1970 (I can show you letters to the editor in the Dayton Daily News I wrote decrying Apollo cutbacks).

I was also the Chairman of the 36th Annual World Science Fiction Convention, IguanaCon II, held in Phoenix, AZ, in September of 1978. (You can, as they say, look it up.)

Rand is right. The rest of you fen are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I say this as one of you; one who gave up trying to get any sf fen or Trekkers involved in the space movement decades ago, since it was OBVIOUS that none of you were interested in leaving any of your little TV and movie-driven siumulators to engage in the Real World.

I think there's a generational shift involved here, as well. I would venture to say that the first-generation Trekkers, those who created Trek fandom in the '70s had a much greater interest in real Space and Science than those who became fans once the movies and TNG were up and running.

I seem to recall (not from personal experience) that NASA reps were common guests at '70s and early '80s Star Trek conventions - before Creation over-commercialized the whole (excuse me,) enterprise.

Can anyone who was actually in fandom at the time corroborate?

When I was very young, I attended a couple of small Star Trek conventions in the early 1970's. I wanted to talk about spaceships and exploration, but everywhere I went the discussions were more along the lines of, "Isn't Spock dreamy?" Also, people wearing alien costumes and trading short stories they wrote which invariably involved Kirk or Spock making out with someone who looked suspiciously like the writer (most were female).

The whole genre of postmodern, dystopian SF also lacks enthusiasts for space travel. Your typical LeGuin fan is more likely to be one of the people who was protesting the launch of Cassini rather than supporting it... So maybe Star Trek isn't that bad.

Without a poll, I don't think we could draw a conclusion. I'm a Star Trek fan in the sense that I loved the show and can tell you more than you would ever want to know about it. But it is far from my only interest, and when it comes to science fiction series, as I've said before, I would love to see a show about near future development in the solar system with technology based on real science. I am also very much pro-space development and was an L5 member.

I have run into and been annoyed by Trekkers and Star Wars fans that love the fantasy but seem to have no interest in reality, and I've also met space advocates that love Star Trek and Star Wars. What are the percentages? I have no idea.