> A big cause of waning public enthusiasm in space is, I believe, that it all still looks like the 60s
So the solution is to build a ship based on a design from 1965?
So the solution is to build a ship based on a design from 1965?
What you need is a space DC-3.
That's what needs to be actually built, but it's not how human imagination works. To capture imagination, you make people watch this:
http://youtu.be/_yijcWsLda8?hd=1&t=9s
or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7DEw70LVWs
You need to touch the heart, connect with people's desires, emotions and dreams they already have. And be it or not, Star Trek, et al. is something that is closer to general audience than another rocket. I'm not saying "let's build the Enterprise", but we shouldn't ignore the popular culture vision of space, because it's mostly Hollywood, not NASA, who drive the dreams. Let's find a way to connect to that.
BTW., to remind everyone, the very first Space Shuttle was named "Enterprise" for a reason.
People (the vast majority, anyway) don't travel because they like to travel. They travel because they want to get somewhere. What excites their imagination is the thought of being at that place, not how they got there.
Part of the reason people aren't excited about space travel today is because there's nowhere to go. There's no orbiting low-gravity resort to vacation on, no Mars colony where Cousin Phil lives with his family to go to for Thanksgiving. And a big part of why those things don't exist is because getting people into space is a damn expensive and risky business, even today. If the only way to get to Disneyworld was to spend $20,000,000 and ride a thirty-year-old Russian relic, Disneyworld wouldn't exist either.
A cheap, safe and ugly ship would do a lot more to solve that problem than an expensive and beautiful one would.
So you're left with the question of which helps more: a beautiful/sexy vehicle, or safety and cheapness, the answer is basically one of detailed analysis. I suspect you're right about where the balance leans, but I also suspect it's possible to have both.
Partially because its tone didn't feel like a Star Trek intro, but mainly because it completely ignored the incredible achievements of the Soviet space program. You would at least expect a shot of Yuri Gagarin.
I felt something quite the opposite; I think that Enterprise intro actually best captured the spirit of whole Star Trek - the dream of exploration, advancement and excellence.
Fair point about the Russians though; they deserve more credit that they usually get nowdays.