Here's an article from the Guardian about space tourism. It's not too bad, but I found this irritating (as I often do these sorts of things):

...even if space tourism will benefit science done in low Earth orbit, such as launching satellites, it is unlikely to help scientists reach further out into the solar system, says Kevin Fong, a leading UK expert on space medicine at University College London. "It is extremely unlikely that a successful, profitable space tourism operator would find a workable business plan for the exploration of the Moon or Mars," he said.

Why in the world would anyone expect an "expert on space medicine" to know anything about "workable business plans"? Why is it that journalists think that they should go to scientists and researchers to learn about this stuff? They're often the least knowledgable.

Most people think that science is the be all and end all reason for space exploration. So naturally they turn to scientists for all questions on space exploration.

Also by definition a space "tourism" operator would not be in the business of space "exploration". Not that the two have to be mutually exclusive but the tourism operator is in the business primarily to make a profit not to make scientific discovery.

Woud this consitue a boudary violation?

Can we get him for the first ever case of space malpractice?

If ever there was a need for Harvey Birdman!

He might have a quote that will some day be famous for its short-sightedness.

Well, we're not *all* a bunch of know-nothing ivory tower dwellers ;-) I try to stay knowledgeable about NewSpace developments, I'm a regular reader of websites like Clark's and Jon's.

One of the authors of the recent Royal Astronomical Society report on Human Spaceflight is a work colleague of mine. I had a lengthy argument with him about the potential impact of developments in the commercial sector. Similar to Dr. Fong, he was convinced that commercial human spaceflight would not be a significant factor beyond LEO. I *think* by the end he was coming round to my point of view. Unfortunately, we had this conversation *after* he'd written the report and not before ;-)

I gave a seminar on NewSpace developments last week (mostly to an audience of postgrads, but with a scattering of faculty), and I've got plans for other stuff to do in "consciousness raising". With a bit of luck, I'll be the institute's go-to guy for media questions about commercial space developments, and you might see some vaguely sensible answers get published for a change :-)

> Also by definition a space "tourism" operator would not be in the business of
> space "exploration".

By your definition, not the dictionary's.

> Not that the two have to be mutually exclusive but the tourism operator
> is in the business primarily to make a profit not to make
> scientific discovery.

That would come as a big surprise to organizations like Earthwatch and the National Geographic Society.

You also err in believing exploration is limited to "scientific discovery."

Even Mike Griffin says that exploration is not just about science.

> Well, we're not *all* a bunch of know-nothing ivory tower dwellers ;-) I
> try to stay knowledgeable about NewSpace developments,

Yes, it's possible for a scientist to keep informed about developments in spaceflight, aviation, marine architecture, or automotives. But no one *assumes* that a scientist will automatically be an expert on aviation, shipping, or automobiles.

If a journalist wants an expert opinion on air, sea, or land vehicles, he asks people who design, build, or operate those vehicles. He doesn't seek out scientists who study the air, sea, and land. But when the same journalist wants an expert opinion on spaceflight, who does he call? More often than not, a scientist who "studies space."

> One of the authors of the recent Royal Astronomical Society report
> on Human Spaceflight is a work colleague of mine.

That is exactly the problem. Why was the Royal Astronomical Society doing a report on human spaceflight to begin with? That's like tasking the Royal Geological Society to do a report on the future of the British automobile industry. Even if you find some genuine automotive experts in the society, it's not a logical place to look for them.

But when the same journalist wants an expert opinion on spaceflight, who does he call? More often than not, a scientist who "studies space."

Possibly because, as far as the UK is concerned, there basically *aren't any* reputable professionals directly involved in human spaceflight who are easily quotable. The (former) UK nationals working as NASA astronauts aren't easy to get on the end of a phone, Richard Branson is kind of busy right now, and Steve Bennett is regarded as a bit of a nut.

Why was the Royal Astronomical Society doing a report on human spaceflight to begin with?

Why indeed. The logical choice of non-governmental organisations would have been the British Interplanetary Society, an organisation with a long and distinguished history. Sadly, the BIS seems somewhat moribund these days; it has confined itself to reacting to the RAS report, rather than initiating something like it:-

http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/sitesia.aspx/page/1191/l/en-us

The fact remains that the RAS is a more prestigious, and more publicly visible organisation than the BIS, and more likely to be taken seriously by government, it appears.

*shrugs* If we can't provide the right pundits for the journos, the least we can do is ensure that the wrong pundits give the right answers.