The Rising Sun and Space Habitation

The National Space Society Blog has reported that Japan is to Spend $21 Billion on Space Solar Power. This news is significant because SSP is often cited as the catalysis for that habitation of space. Many point to SSP as the thing that will bring in the initial funding for a space faring society to develop. So, Japan might have just set in motion the initial investments in space habitation. This is something to keep your eyes on.

 

Reactions

-Will this push the US to spend more on space?

In Case You Skimmed

-Japan is making a significant investment in space.

Dear Space Community, Welcome to the Dip

Last updated: July 8th, 2009

I was wandering about my local library when I stumbled across Seth Godin's The Dip. I love Seth Godin's blog, so I had to read this book. There is only one word to describe The Dip : enlightening. As I was reading it, questions started to flood my mind. Is the space program mediocre? Can anything on the cutting edge be mediocre? Should we give up on a mediocre space program? What would you define as a mediocre space program? What would you define as a exceptional space program? Was Apollo only beginner's luck; something bound to happen because is was humanity's first trip to the moon? Is this the worst period of the space age? Is the space movement suffering from a temporary setback that we will overcome if we keep pushing?

This post is my attempt to answer these question. Also, my head will roll because of this post. I want to create a discussion and the space community needs to hear this.

Apollo was beginner's luck. The public was stunned by entering the space age, it was new, it was fresh and it generated support because of this. Fear accelerated and fueled Apollo. During the time of Apollo, you where nearly a traitor if you didn't support NASA.The public fully supported space because of those reasons.

Apollo existed in a time where the motivations for space where different. Times have changed.

CNN has a segment called The Cafferty File where views give their comments on questions Jack Cafferty asks. The best comments are then read on air. On July 6, 2009, Mr. Cafferty asked "In light of the ballooning National Debt, what priority should the U.S. space program have?". The pro-space comments where very good and concise, all far better then my comment. But, the anti-space comments where interesting. Check them out here. Those comments can be summed up with the following statement: "the space program is a waste of money". The space program seems to be the scapegoat for the recession. What once inspired is now hated. That's not the end to the public opinion hole we have dug ourselves into. The National Space Society says, in regards to barriers to space habitation,

The general public is rapidly losing interest in space development: (1) because the pace of space development is frustratingly slow, especially when compared to incredibly fast pace of the home computer revolution; (2) because NASA is forced by taxpayer watchdogs to portray human space activities in the most boring manner; (3) because the real and exaggerated perceived risks of outer space frightens them; and (4) because little activity, planning, and public discussion occurs regarding private trips into space. ~NSS

“The dip is the long stretch between beginner's luck and real accomplishment” (Godin 18). Welcome to the dip, the time will be between Apollo and the next moon landings will be painful. Apollo was humanity's beginner's luck in space, welcome to the real space experience, humanity. Welcome to a frontier the demands a sustainable reason to explore. We can't even go to the moon based on fear, nationalism and new experiences. Commercial space will be a real accomplishment. An international effort in space will be a real accomplishment.

Trenches of Public Opinion

We might be breaking a few laws of physics because of how deep this hole is. But, I think Seth Godin's book gives us the reason behind this. “It's called Zipf's law, and it applies to resumes and college application rates and best-selling records and everything in between. Winners win big because the marketplace loves a winner” (Godin 7). Space habitation is in second place in terms of public support for a vision of the future. First place goes to human extinction. I need to do a study to prove this claim, but, from what I over heard in the halls of my classroom, more students are worrying about, thinking about and imagining the world ending on December 12, 2012 then students considering a future where space is settled. The 2012 "movement" is taking what should be our supporters.

But, in a way, the 2012 "movement" is the best vision of the future. "The consumer get[s] to decide [the best vision of the future], not [us]" (Godin 11). This is a problem because "now there are a million micromarkets, but each micromarket still has a best" vision of the future (Godin 11). The space movement is a micromarket, a market that is well saturated. There are a ton of micromarkets that we haven't touched. For example, I need to run a another study to prove my point, but, I think people are more likely to support the 2012 "movement" then the space movement because the bible portrays human extinction; there is no mention of space habitation in the bible. This is regardless of religion. NASA can not give out press releases and hope convince the public. We, the grunts of the space movement, have to go into as many micromarkets as possible and convince each one. We must become the best vision of space for each group of people on this planet. NASA can not convince our friends, we must convince our friends because we can only craft a message the appeals to the values held by each micromarket.

Reinventing a Movement

So many in the space movement are telling the public that we can not quit on space. But, “the opposite of quitting isn't waiting around. No, the opposite of quitting is rededication. The opposite of quitting is an invigorated new strategy designed to break the problem apart” (Godin 51). What I'm suggesting is scraping most, if not all of our strategy, and reinventing it without the influence of Apollo because Apollo was a fluke. In other words, the mindset that brought us to the moon will not bring us to the moon again.

Reactions

So, I stuck my neck out by posting this. I'm struggling with those questions I posted at the beginning. Was Apollo really a fluke? Can we get past the decline in public opinion? Should we reinvent the movement? Feel free to flame me.

Sources

Godin, Seth. The Dip. New York, Penguin Group, 2007.

Photo by adamhenning

SPC #7: Maslow Windows

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes are from the paper unless otherwise noted. All papers I review are available for free online.

This week we are reviewing the paper 21st Century Waves: Forecasting Technology Booms and Human Expansion Into the Cosmos.

Photo by Grant MacDonald

One of my favorite rebuttals for economic arguments against space habitation is the Maslow Window theory. However, when I asked a question on the blog Ask Me Anything, I found myself unable to explain this theory in depth. If I am going to continue to use this theory to support the space habitation argument, I must at least read the paper.

Basically, Maslow Windows are economic time periods that are similar to the 1960s, the height of the space race. Every major event in human history tends to be clustered in 56 year bursts. This theory suggests that economic booms are the driving force behind history's biggest wars and finest engineering projects.

An optimistic society is a more productive one. During times of economic prosperity, the people of the world tend to be happier. If they are happier they are more productive, plus they have the time and resources to dream. I can tell you right now, no major progress in space will be made during this recession. In my opinion, humanity is focused on the negative; we are a pessimistic society. I see extreme movements with negative opinions of the future, like the 2012 movement, forming and growing. If we think humanity is on a downward slide to it's doom, if we think that we will never return to the good old days, then we will not have the will to better ourselves.

I feel, right now, only the most passionate people are in the space field. You can only find people who where born to work in this field, supporting and funding this field. The general public simply doesn't care about space anymore. Dreams of space cities are crazy when your in a world stocking up emergency supplies for a end of the world date which was born out of fear for the future.

It is possible that this recession, a time where the space field is in danger, was born out of the lack of hope in the future. If you thought everything was going downhill, you would roll up into a ball and pull all your money into gold. Look at the news, just looking at this small sample of human event, it is very reasonable to conclude that we are all doomed. But, if you where to look at each industry, each area of human life in depth, there is reason for hope. "The critical factor is our belief about what's going to happen to us".

"Rene Dubos [said] [t]he most distressing thing about the modern world is not the gravity of its problems...it is the dampening of the human spirit...[o]ut very survival as a species depends on hope". I agree with and have first hand experience with this statement. I'm graduating from high school on Monday, yet the morale of my high school's class of 2009 is at an all-time low. My class has a sense of impeding doom; the child-free movement is strong in my class, 2012 is a favorite topic. My class does not have the ambition and passion and all the other characteristics of youth that a fresh, 18 year old, high school graduate should have. Let me give you an example, this is a discussion thread on Facebook. The names have been blacked out for legal reasons. My real name is Daniel Sims.

I see comments like this all the time. We are the youth and we are hopeless. Space dreams can not survive if they can't even seek refugee in our youth. The human spirit is crushed and with it, dreams of space. The Internet might be a factor in triggering the mindset change needed for space habitation. With the Internet, bigger audiences then ever are reachable. One person can try and comfort someone with a dark mind. The great events that happened today are easier to find.

Something I found interesting was the description of a Macro-engineering project: "although sometimes practical in purpose, they are often aimed at satisfying intangible needs of a spiritual or psychological nature and are highly inspiring". A mass space habitation project would be enough to push my classmates out of the dark frame of mind. Since it is a need, maybe, as we get darker, the support for any inspiration will grow. Just like how people start wanting to eat anything as they get hungry.

Maslow windows also call attention to the need for humanity to stop fighting each other. Maslow windows are often shattered by war. The reason we are not in an infinite time of abundance is because of the destruction war brings. "To a visitor from Mars, it must have appeared that the Western world in 1914 was on the brink of Utopia". WW1 brought us away from that joyous brink. Something that is stopping NASA from getting more funding is the Iraq war; if we weren't in Iraq, we might have more money for dreams.

Maslow windows are triggered by great technological developments. If someone where to develop a very cheap rocket, then humanity would less economic reasons not to go, and more reasons to go to space. Which we need to have because if we do not establish space habitations by 2025, according the the theory, we will have to wait till 2081.

Catalysis for a Space Economy

China is moving forward with it's Tiangong-1 project: a manned, military, space laboratory. With this action China has set in motion a space race that will motivate the development of space.


"'The People's Liberation Army's General Armament Department aims to finish systems for the Tiangong-1 mission this year,' says an official Chinese government statement on the new project. Work on a ground prototype is nearly finished...

The Tiangong vehicle's debut in late 2010, and increase in Chinese manned mission flight rates will coincide with the planned termination of the U.S. space shuttle program and a five year hiatus in American manned space launches" (Spaceflight Now 1).


I think there is only one way to explain what China just did: using xkcd... They should call America Mario land, because we just got 1-up'd (xkcd 2). China is taking America's place as the leader of space, which is a big problem for us, because Americans have assumed that we would always be the leader in space. This is why we have vulnerable space systems which we are depended on.


A Day without Space would be a crippling day as reported by LTG Joseph M. Cosumano, Jr. This report makes it clear how dependent we are on space. “Effective Space control leads to Space superiority which, like air and information superiority, is critical to our success as a military [and economic] force” (US Army 3). We rely on space for global positioning, necessary not only in civilian navigation, but military control and command. Furthermore, we need space to track and provide early warning of incoming ballistic missiles. Space superiority is just as critical as air superiority.


Thus, the military does not want to loss space superiority, not only for their needs, but to protect civilian space-assets as well. I predict that the US Army will respond with a space laboratory of their own. But, China wants to gain space superiority, so they will build something bigger than American space systems. This new space race will provide the motivation to build the infrastructure to support a space-based economy as each nation 1-ups each other. This could even push us to establish a moon base to beat China in this race.

Do you think this is provide motivation to the US to develop space?



---------------------------------------------------

(1): China readies military space station – launch coincides with shuttle phaseout. 2 Mar. 2009. Spaceflight Now. 7 Mar. 2009 <http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0903/02chinastation/>.

(2): Mario. Xkcd. 7 Mar. 2009 <http://xkcd.com/151/>

(3): A Day Without Space: Ensuring It Doesn't Happen. US Army. 7 Mar. 2009 <http://www.armyspace.army.mil/SpaceJournal/Article.asp?AID=15>

President Obama’s proposed budget and NASA

While dropping entrecards I came across the blog First Door on the Left where I found a scribd document detailing the proposed budget for 2010. It was really interesting reading through the financial plan for this nation, but then I came across the section on NASA; $18.7 billion dollars plus $1 billion from the American Recovery and Investment Act. The budget also gives a commitment to manned spaceflight and a return to the moon. The development of a replacement for the suttle and the International Space Station (ISS) are also funded. NASA's section in the report on the budget begin on page 109 of the scribd document below. It is really amazing that public support (assuming the action of politicians indicates what the public wants which could be a bad assumtion) is still in favor of space exploration.

I'm curious through, do you think that this is a apporpriate use of tax dollars.
A New Era of Responsibility: The President's 2010 Budget Proposal

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Periodicals & Report budget Barack Obama

Analysis of the Poll "Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?"

Introduction

Public opinion will be a huge factor when advancing to humanity's colonization of other planets and the future of manned space flight. Disasters like the space shuttle Columbia have the possibility of reducing public support. However, “A poll taken yesterday [,a few days after the Columbia accident,] suggests that Americans still support the shuttle program, with 82 per cent in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll saying manned flights should continue. That's about the same percentage who said it should continue after the 1986 Challenger disaster. The poll of 462 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points”(The Globe and Mail 1). In a poll more recent poll with a larger sample size, the Coalition for Space Exploration found that 43% of American adults placed a very, very high value on the space program, compared to 12% placing very little to no value, and the rest ranging in between those extremes. This report found that the highest source of value American adults what in technological innovation and development that came with the field, at 77%, and consumer goods developed from the space program, at 73%. A interesting part of the Coalition for Space Exploration's report pointed out a problem the space community faces, before giving examples of spin-off technology, only 38% said that they where completely sure they interacted with technology developed from space. After being show examples of spin-offs, 93% said they where completely sure they interacted with technology developed from space. Further education in the survey increased respondents opinions of the space program, 76% and 79% strongly affected positively by learning that the aerospace industry contributes 2% to the gross domestic produce and adds 500,000 jobs to the Unites States, respectively. The survey gave more information and education throughout, resulting in a gain of 30 percentage points in those who placed a huge value on the space program, up from 43% to 73%. This survey had a large sample of American adults (n = 1,018), so these results can be generalized to the whole population of American adults. (Coalition for Space Exploration 2)

Aim

This study is geared to find the opinions of those who visited my blog. The results should be of use to those blogging about manned spaceflight so they may gear their articles to better serve their readers.

Methods

Design

This study used the blogger.com poll widget to ask the question “Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?”. The poll had the following options: “No, it is too risky.”, “No, there is no will to do so.”, “Yes, there is a big enough of a reason to go.”, “Yes, we need to move off earth to survive.”, “Maybe, only if we get out if this bad economy”, “Other”, “Maybe, only if the public is motivated enough to support it”. The subjects where then invited to leave their blog's URL and post a explanation of their vote and voice their opinions on the subject using the blog's comment system. A dedicated post was “sticked” for this purpose. The participants where offered a free backlink for participating in the survey, this was a voluntary sample, yielding 17 responses.

Because of the high bounce rate and the low time amount of time visitors spend on my blog, this survey had to be quick. I also did not have a large enough subject poll to take an SRS (simple random sample) from. This survey took place over a week, but comments where left open to allow non-subjects to voice their opinions.

Subjects

We do not know much about the subjects because we did not ask for any demographical information. We can assume they all have Internet access and that they vast majority are bloggers because many subjects left URLs.

Results and Discussion

Technicalities

Because of the low sample size, I can not generalize these results to the population of Americans, I may be able to generalize to my readers, but it is a stretch at best. It is also possible for a person to enter their opinion twice, over the course of 2 days. Also, bias may be formed because of the voluntary nature of the survey because only interested people will take the survey.

Outcomes

The answer choices were: “No, it is too risky.”(5%), “No, there is no will to do so.”(29%), “Yes, there is a big enough of a reason to go.”(11%), “Yes, we need to move off earth to survive.”(17%), “Maybe, only if we get out if this bad economy”(0%), “Other”(17%), “Maybe, only if the public is motivated enough to support it”(17%). They are numbered in this order on the above chart.

Conclusions

Though I got opposite results when compared to current research, this is not surprising. Because of the huge increases in opinion of manned space flight when subjects where provided literature on the subject, I think may sample did not know the benefits of space or I got extremes of opinions because of the low sample size and voluntary nature of this survey. These results show a failing of the space community to educate the public on space. These results could also show my selection of a voluntary survey type which is prone to error and underrepresentation.

Another anomaly is the general pro-space stance of the comments, verses the less positive survey results. Because of the errors in my method I have to label this as inconclusive. However, I have learned enough to modify my methods and try again, building a survey that will reduce the number of people who answer “Other” is crucial as well. Further exploration into what other opinion exist is necessary, as well as a more in depth survey. Maybe I can offer entrecard credits to increase my sample size.

Acknowledgments

The participants who chose to identify themselves are:

chato of Mental Health Humor and Cartoons,
sarah of PC Game Trek,
Bob of Black holes and astrostuff,
Spicybugz of Spicybugz World,
Metallman of Metallman's Reverie,
Ravyn of Exchange of Realities,
bstone of planet earth looks blue,
nipsy of its completely nipplelicious,
Jude of Mature Not Senile,
April of The Crazy Green Cheapskate,
RevOxley,
Stephanie of Rocket Scientist,
webbielady of Webloglearner,
Lubasa of Lubasa sketchlog.
Thank you to all the other poll takers who did not identify themselves and to those who did id themselves.

Sources

(1) Ha, Tu Thanh. “NASA woes put space future on hold” The Global and Mail. 3 Feb. 2003. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20030203/UNASAN/International/international/internationalAmericasHeadline_temp/9/9/18/>

(2) CSE_Gen Pop National TOPLINE_090203. No publication date given. Coalition for Space Exploration. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.spacecoalition.com/banners/09_88percent/CSE_Gen%20Pop_National_TOPLINE_090203_adjusted.pdf>

4. chota. “No humanity” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15277006> 28 Feb. 2009

3. sarah. “I think” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15277185> 28 Feb. 2009

4. Bob. “We have to” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15282426> 28 Feb. 2009

5. Spicybugz. “And where” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15284076> 28 Feb. 2009

6. Metallman. “Hey there” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15293712> 28 Feb. 2009

7. Ravyn. “It's all dependent” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15373370> 28 Feb. 2009

8. bstone. “well, we've always” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15379180> 28 Feb. 2009

9. nipsy. “Unfortunately” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15403953> 28 Feb. 2009

10. Jude. “I think many” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15423662> 28 Feb. 2009

11. April. “I think the” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15480089> 28 Feb. 2009

12. RevOxley. “I think eventually” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15646321> 28 Feb. 2009

13. Stephanie. “No. I hope we do” [Weblog comment.] 24 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15716415> 28 Feb. 2009

14. webbielady. “Unless the earth” [Weblog comment.] 25 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15750241> 28 Feb. 2009

15. Lebasa. “Probably” [Weblog comment.] 27 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15828434> 28 Feb. 2009

So, What Does the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act say about NASA

That is a really long title, sorry about that. But, either way, please enjoy what the stimulus package says about NASA. We are tossing huge amounts of money into changing the game, we may even move into a space based economy because of this act. Furthermore, NASA is not getting a blank check, they have to mange these funds with a strong plan. I will follow this post with detailed explanation of some of the programs detailed in this act. I'm also looking through the act for research funding to other areas of science, but this part of the act is on the main topic of my blog, so I'm posting it.

But, 400 million dollars to exploration is very impressive considering the political environment and that 400 million is less than half of what NASA is getting. It is an amazing time to be in this field, even politicians see the benefit of space. Well, I'm not going to hold you back any more, please, sit back and enjoy the jaw dropping, mouth watering, NASA stimulus.

SCIENCE
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
NASA is directed to submit to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
spending plan, signed by the Administrator,
detailing its intended allocation of funds
provided in this Act within 60 days of enactment
of this Act.
SCIENCE
The conference agreement includes
$400,000,000 for Science, to remain available
until September 30, 2010. Funding is included
herein to accelerate the development of the
tier 1 set of Earth science climate research
missions recommended by the National
Academies Decadal Survey and to increase
the agency’s supercomputing capabilities.
AERONAUTICS
The conference agreement includes
$150,000,000 for aeronautics, to remain available
until September 30, 2010. These funds
are available for system-level research, development
and demonstration activities related
to aviation safety, environmental impact
mitigation and the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen).
EXPLORATION
The conference agreement includes
$400,000,000 for exploration, to remain available
until September 30, 2010.
CROSS AGENCY SUPPORT
The conference agreement includes
$50,000,000 for cross agency support, to remain
available until September 30, 2010. In
allocating these funds, NASA shall give its
highest priority to restore NASA-owned facilities
damaged from hurricanes and other
natural disasters occurring during calendar
year 2008.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
The conference agreement includes
$2,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General,
to remain available until September 30, 2013.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
NSF is directed to submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations a
spending plan, signed by the Director, detailing
its intended allocation of funds provided
in this Act within 60 days of enactment of
this Act.
RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
For research and related activities, the
conference agreement provides a total of
$2,500,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2010. Within this amount,
$300,000,000 shall be available solely for the
major research instrumentation program
and $200,000,000 shall be available for activities
authorized by title II of Public Law 100–
570 for academic facilities modernization. In
allocating the resources provided under this
heading, the conferees direct that NSF support
all research divisions and support advancements
in supercomputing technology.
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
The conference agreement includes
$100,000,000 for education and human resources,
to remain available until September
30, 2010. These funds shall be allocated as follows:
Robert Noyce Scholarship
Program ......................... $60,000,000
Math and Science Partnerships
............................... 25,000,000
Professional Science Master’s
Programs ................ 15,000,000
MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION
The conference agreement includes
$400,000,000 for major research equipment and
facilities construction, to remain available
until September 30, 2010.

The original document is here.

A Flaw in My Last Post

I have a very strong bias in support of NASA and all they do, so in my last post, Creativity in Negative Times, I assumed that NASA would be open to internal innovation. But, I have found evidence that proves this is not the case. While dropping entrecards I ran into a mispelt bog [sic]. The first post was an embedded youtube video called Barriers to Innovation and Inclusion directed by NASA astronaut Andrew S. W. Thomas. This video is based on real events that occurred at NASA.
The video details the following roadblocks to innovation at NASA. They are...

• Superiors wanting to stay within their comfort zones
• Compartmentalizing employees
• Assuming ideas from contractors means they are wasting working time and contract restrictions (It is possible that a passionate employ spends his/her free time doing work)
• Fear of retribution from superiors and other departments
• Fear of losing a contract because of an idea
• Lack of trust in employees and deferring problems to the chain of command
• Conformity to the current direction/Institutional inertia
• Ad Hominem Arguments (Attacking the source of an argument or an idea to disprove the argument or idea)
• Risk aversion
• Worrying about the process to develop the idea with disregard of the outcome.

So, it seems that NASA is not as supportive of innovation as I originally assumed. I found an article about someone who tried to fix this called Wayne Hale's NASA Blog: Stifling Dissent, but after working on fixing this problem...

Still, it is hard to tell how effective the change effort has been. Even though I personally try to solicit information from a variety of folks in a variety of places and ways, the reports were generally that alternate opinions are welcomed, dissent is accepted and evaluated, and we are doing better than ever.
But the anonymous polls and [Internet] feed back says there is still a lot of work to be done.
Recently I had a couple of events which affected my thinking on this. I have been out of the Shuttle Program manager job for almost a year now and a trusted coworker just a week ago told me that people in his organization had been prevented from giving me important alternative choices for some program choices that occurred a couple of years ago. This was staggering. It was happening right in front of me and I was totally unaware that people - who I trusted, who I hoped would trust me - kept their lips sealed because somebody in their middle management made it clear to them that speaking up would not be good.

I will write further blog posts about this flaw I found, it is fascinating and I want to understand why it occurs. This is only my opinion though, is there good that can come out of what I think is a flaw in NASA's management.

Creativity in Negative Times

Many space bloggers have been ranting about the reduction in science funds included in the stimulus package while it was in debate. While they do have a valid point and I agree that a reduction is a move in the wrong direction, I think the space community should be gracious. I believe there is enough public will to shut down NASA and other government funded science programs. Someone who has lost their job simply would want the government to focus on creating jobs, not going to mars. The space community must tread lightly when discussing issues involving funding at this time.

The title of this post comes from a Morningcoach podcast of the same name. JB Glossinger presents a very positive commentary on the nation's economic crisis. JB quotes a blog post by Seth Godin. From Seth's blog, "Grave new world". Both the podcast and the blog post have inspired me to write this.

Creativity loves a problem, but it hates a lousy audience.

If everyone around you is sure the economy is tanking, that the end is near, that time is up and the company is headed for the tubes, it's almost impossible to find a creative solution.

Creativity changes the game, whatever game is being played. "We're going to run out of cash by the end of the year," is accurate unless you count creativity into the equation. Then the accurate statement is, "Under the current rules and assumptions, we're going to run out of cash..." Big difference.

Creativity demands exposure to market needs, and insulation from market fears. Give it some time to work, some support, some breathing room. That's when creativity has a chance to change the game(1).

Creativity loves this economic problem. The US government is trying plans on unheard of 20 years ago. The economy is redefining American society and those who can find a way serve the new society will be ultra successful. The bad news is, America is doomed if one looks at our current social/political/economic structure. We can not compete in manufacturing like we once did. We are losing our edge in the global market place. But, let us look outside the box.

We are a nation of thinkers and of free thought, but we are also a nation of businessmen and businesswomen. It is my observations of the stock market and bank lending practices (or, lack there of) at this time that I base the following claim on: the investors of this nation are curled up in the fetal position, rocking back and forth, sucking their thumbs and screaming "The world is over, the world is over". That is a problem because those investors are the audience for game changing ideas. Creativity does not like this "lousy audience"(2).

So, here is my comment on the funding of science in the economic package. The US needs to change the game, that means we need people out their who will listen to our creative people. The President is striving for this, but we can do more. We need a place were ideas can flourish, we are all exposed to the market needs, but, because of media over saturation, we are also exposed to market fears. Under the current rules and assumptions ideas like a moon and mars colony or space solar power would be laughed at. With tons of people whining about the lack of money when it still exists, game changing ideas will be crushed. We need to support this nation's ideas. The only thing that can save us now is an idea.

The science agencies of this nation will always listen. For example, if someone claimed to have invited anti-gravity, NASA will at least look at the paper or the experiment. Universities might not as they tighten their belts. We need a professional audience, unaffected by market fears. Unmotivated by money, but by curiosity. So, the following numbers are great:

Science:

• $8.5 billion for programs at the National Institutes of Health, including biomedical research on Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer and heart disease.

• $3 billion for basic research by the National Science Foundation.

• $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science for areas such as climate, biofuels, high-energy physics, nuclear physics and fusion energy.

• $1.5 billion for NIH to renovate university research facilities.

• $1 billion for NASA, including $400 million for climate change research.(3)

But I ask you, is that enough to create a game changing audience and a sanctuary from the market.

Sources:

• 1 and 2: Seth G. Seth's Blog: A grave new world [Internet]. Feb. 3, 2009 - [Cited Feb. 14, 2009]. Available from: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/02/grave-new-world.html
• 3: Gannett News Service. What’s in the stimulus package [Internet]. Deb 13, 2009 - [Cited Feb. 14, 2009] Available from: http://www.freep.com/article/20090213/NEWS15/90213102