I’ve spent some time thinking about the Gen-Y presentation, the reactions to it, and what it means to NASA. Around NASA and around the ‘net, many people are saying that the Gen-Y presentation is, for lack of a better term, selfish. After all, we the people of Gen-Y, are asking, and almost demanding, that a government organization do better to connect with us. And while on the surface, this may seem to be a very selfish thing to demand, I think it points to a much larger issue.
In the most simple of terms, the Gen-Y presentation is saying that NASA is failing to communicate with the people of Gen-Y. Is this a true statement? I believe it is. Is it selfish for us to say that we want NASA to make a better effort to communicate with us? Well, it can seem that way, but you have to realize one thing: communication is a two way street. It takes both parties being willing to sit down at the table and lay the issues out. In my view, this presentation is about the Gen-Y people employed by NASA standing up and saying “we’re at the table”. Now NASA has to be willing to meet us halfway. However, as I stated before, I believe the Gen-Y presentation points to a larger issue: NASA is failing to communicate, period.
How many people in the general public can say more than a few well-known things about NASA? You may be surprised to find out just how little the public knows about what we do, and how we do it. It’s certainly not due to a lack of available information; NASA.gov really provides just about all the information the general public would ever need on the various projects and programs at NASA. However, merely providing the information doesn’t seem to be enough. To effectively reach people, an organization needs to utilize the tools their targets are comfortable with using. Twitter, blogs like this one, YouTube, Facebook…all are great examples of how individuals inside of NASA have helped spread the word (I opened up a Facebook group, NASA-JSC Coops), but to really be effective in getting a new generation and various minority groups involved and informed with and about NASA, NASA as an organization has to put forth a better (and bigger) effort. Things change from generation to generation, and how each generation communicates with each other changes. Comments and Thoughts are welcome, as always.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Back before the dot-com bubble popped there were many companies who’s business plan was essentially “build it and they will come”. It rarely ever did unless you somehow tied sex into it. There’s a _reason_ why companies spend billions on advertising. It takes a lot of work to figure out how to get a compelling, actionable and memorable message in front of a person.
What you are describing isn’t so much about asking to be at the table but for NASA to keep up with the rest of the world when it comes to Marketing. People have been dinging NASA on that one from the very beginning. I doubt its going to change internally. People have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new world. You do that by showing them how its done and showing them the fact that you are successful and they aren’t.
Stop asking for people’s permission and just go do it. You’re going to piss people off and you will end up with enemies and battle scars. But that’s pretty much the only way to do it.
Noli nothis permittere te terere…
(Don’t let the bastards wear you down.)
March 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
And one other thing, IMHO its not sufficient to just create a better message around the information. It has to be participatory. That means others get access to the data. It means people get to touch the rockets (NO MORE VELVET ROPES!). It means people get to fly, not just government employees.
One way you can create change inside NASA is start to show ways that you can do what NASA does without involving them at all. Fear is a great motivator. There are companies like mine out here providing launch services on the cheap. There are other sources of money besides the US Federal Government. NASA does not have a monopoly on space…
March 13th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I agree with you on the fact that NASA has to seriously get with the program, so to speak. They (NASA as a whole) needs to invest more in connecting with various groups, the current and future generations, minorities, and the public in general. However, I don’t think it’s a problem that’s specific to NASA. It’s how our government has been doing business since it’s conception.
I do have to disagree with you on a few things, though. The main thing is that I don’t think fear, in this case, is the proper motivator. I would hope someone with enough common sense (and enough “pull”) would see the worthiness of presenting NASA to the public more effectively. It’s true that our government moves excruciatingly slowly, but change can, and in my view should, be made for the proper reasons.
Secondly, I do like the active roll that NASA is playing in commercialized space flight, but I honestly don’t see commercial space flight posing a serious threat to NASA’s position in space flight anytime soon. However, I do agree that a more publicly accessible and transparent NASA is good not only for the public, but for NASA as well.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
If internal communications is broken, then external communications doesn’t really have a strong or cohesive ground to stand on.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:15 am
I guess I am even more confused by your GenY goals now. do you want NASA to hire a hip hig priced PR firm to get people interested in space? what are they PBS where they have to beg for $ every quarter? sure it would great if people were more enthusiastic about the space program, but this isn’t a GenY specific issue. Heck by Apollo 13 the public didn’t care about the program that was putting people on the moon until the explosion (and they didn’t have the distraction of 500 channels and the internet). I still don’t think NASA should be spending it’s limited budget $ to chase the next new way to get it’s message out. what works for you and your twitter generation, would seem like a monkey on crack randomly typing on a keyboard to the older folks. Until NASA has to get its budget directly from public sponsorship or the American public starts tuning in more to shuttle launches than the latest Survivor series, who cares let the agency be. Let them focus on completing the ISS construction, working on the next generation vehicle and continuing to expand our understanding of the planet and the solar system. Every dollar they spend on getting their message out with some flashy new fangled web service or PR campaign is another dollar taken from already cash strapped programs. let the individuals like you folks who understand the technology do it on your own time, don’t mandate that the agency do it.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I’m sorry, but I don’t follow how anyone should expect a space industry to cater to them and arouse their interest any more than I would expect the automotive industry to buy me race tickets. If I wanted to build cars, I would go to Detroit. Where NASA fails, is in market the breakthrough technology and inventions to the that got us to the moon and keep NASA as world leader in space and to show the general tax payer what they get for every 0.7 cents for every $1 the IRS collects. NASA needs highly motivated, bright, and interested people who want to be a part of something bigger than they are; not luke-warm paycheck collectors. BTW - I am a proud and highly motivated Gen X, Kennedy Space Center Engineer who loves my job and figured out what I wanted to do at age 18. I also happened to have worked in the automotive industry and can tell you space is much more rewarding.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
The public perception is that NASA doesn’t do a lot “for me.” Those of us that are of Gen Y must spread the word about all the great things that NASA does. Word of mouth is the best form of advertising, and if anyone is going to be successful about recruiting the brightest and the best out there, then it is those of us who are a part of the mission.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:54 am
Just found your site via the Wired article. As a member of Gen Y, reading your presentation I felt both a little embarrassment about seeming so demanding and also pride in your audacity. Gen X had the “Melissa Manifesto” and “Cluetrain Manifesto”. This is ours.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:58 am
mike,
NASA’s Public Affairs Office already spends money on getting the word out. If anything, we’re advocating for figuring out ways to do that better with the resources already allocated. Are you arguing that we should abolish PAO?
March 18th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Yes, NASA needs to reach out to Gen Y, as well as other audiences. However, it’s not just a matter of Gen Y being brought to the table. The biggest gripes I hear on this subject are: What are you going to DO once you’re given a seat? What will you contribute? Aside from being able to play video games, run rings around older folks on the Internet, and do slick marketing, can you do the engineering/science? I realize the folks on this page can. What about the rest of your peers?
March 19th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I am a Gen xer and have found I am less interested in Nasa now than before for different reasons. This coming form a HUGE fan of the Apollo program.
So why do I now feel this way?
When we go to places there is too much emphasis on “Was or is there life” and not enough on “let’s look all around as much of this planet as we can as fast as we can with both camera eyes and ears (microphones) and feeds everyone can see live to see if we find something cool we weren’t expecting”
The issue of life is obviously very important to some people lost in an old debate about religion versus science but frankly not to most people.
If we find life and it’s a bacteria - guess what - it won’t impress people! And guess what? most will think we brought it on the spacecraft at this point!
However if you find an incredible spot to watch a europeon (as in moon not europe) sunset and you have a live mic capturing the sounds of the icy winds that will make a helluava lot more people interested in seeing more of that place with new probes and trips.
THE people who are PAYING for the trips want tourism - the science experiments get funded by the free ride the tourisim provides. People NEVER wanted to go to the moon to study the rocks. They wanted to see what it LOOKED like and the rockhounds got a free trip paid for by the public tourists. NEVER FORGET THAT.
NEVER FORGET THE APPEAL OF WEBCAM AND VIRTUAL REALITY VIA TELEPRESENCE. THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE WANT!
Also I am tired of sending probes to planets without microscopes if you are looking for signs of life.
I have begun to believe scientists really don’t want a final answer on whether or not there is life on mars. If they did they would send a damn microscope and absolutely positively look to see if their are bugs in the soil or not.
The viking landers did secondary tests which determined there could be life way back int he 1970’s. why weren’t we sure then? becuase they didn’t have any microscops hooked to a video feed which could have shown us if microbes were creating the respone or some rock reaction!
The latest rovers have found there was water on mars so there could have been life.
Yet I was amazed when I called JPL 2 years ago and found that even on the next mars lander we STILL will not be able to look at a bit of soil and really see it microscopically to see if anything moves if we heat it up!
ANOTHER WASTED TRIP AT THE COST OF BILLIONS to SEND A TRUCK TO DO WHAT THE ROVERS ALREADY DID!
COME ON!
STOP STALLING!
Find life or not and then spend our money building fast traveling aircraft or balloons with live COLOR cameras in stereoscopic vision that REALLY LET US EXPLORE THE DAMN PLANET.
STOP FEEDING IT TO US PEICEMEAL TO GIVE YOURSELVES CAREER LONGEVITY!
Lastly - it is pretty hard to get excited about things that we have already done.
Do I want to spend a bunch of money to go back to the moon with some people when I already saw that happen once? NO. DO I want to see a fast little rover or orbiting rocket feeding me closeups of the moon it goes over everyday so I can explore a whole new world - hell yes.
DO I want to see more people floating in a tin can in orbit NO. No wyou put some real people up there and let them show us what life in space is really like and I might be interested and you would get better real science with 6 college kids of both sexes living in space than you would with a bunch of trained astronauts who are told not to do anything that might offend someone.
we want to see sex in space, real life in space, real views form space, a live camera looking down at the world in hdtv that we can pull up anytime. we want cameras on the mice in space and we want to know there names just like meerkat manor.
We want SOMETHING NEW!
The problem is we have 50 and 60 year old people setting nasa goals who have old goals that were impressive we getting to space was the achievement.
now that we are there we need goals beyond getting there and more goals about doing interesting and fun things WE CAN ALL DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE IN WHEN THE SPACECRAFT ARE THERE.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
BD,
I think your argument is a valid one. We have to prove ourselves worthy of a seat at NASA’s communication table, but I also think you have to remember one thing: the same people who control access also gave us our jobs. Therefore, they must think we have, at the very least, the ability to make positive contributions, and I would agree. I’ve seen many members of Gen-Y given leadership opportunities at NASA very early in their careers, so I think we’re living up to, and exceeding, many expectations thus far; and those people are not limited to the authors of this page. Everyday, I work with people my age (27) and younger who routinely make positive impacts on their group and NASA as a whole.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
>>I work with people my age (27) and younger who routinely make positive impacts on their group and NASA as a whole.<<
Good! Keep it up. On the whole, I’ve found Gen Y a pleasant bunch of kids (I can say that as a grumpy old Xer) to work with. They’re a lot more optimistic than I was at their age, even if I don’t always appreciate the same cultural habits/interests.
Again, my concern wasn’t about the Gen Yers within the space community now. My question is, “Before NASA goes off and tries to reach the rest of your generation, is it worthwhile? How many others among that 70-million-strong cohort can actually do the aerospace engineering (”rocket science”)?
March 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
>>My question is, “Before NASA goes off and tries to reach the rest of your generation, is it worthwhile? How many others among that 70-million-strong cohort can actually do the aerospace engineering (”rocket science”)?<<
Ah, now I understand your point; forgive me for misinterpreting you. On the whole, I think the number of people who can do the “rocket science” is a fraction of the population, no matter how you decide to divide the population (age, race, sex, etc). It doesn’t mean, however, that the number of people who are at least interested, and thus can influence government to fund us, can’t be increased.
To comment about some of the previous statements made on this post: I’m not suggesting that NASA fire it’s PAO office; I’m also not suggesting that NASA hire some huge, trendy marketing firm (though I think having something along those lines implemented internally would definitely be a good thing).
Mr. Mealling suggesting having NASA be more open and accessible to the work we do. That’s a great idea, but in most cases, access must be controlled or denied for the safety of the public as well as the operational and mechanical security of the various projects. In most cases, the only public access to these projects is the information and science they produce after the fact.