NASA is in the inspiration business. If you don’t know what I mean, take a trip to your local school and engage in a discussion with students. Ask them what inspires them. At the heart of most discussions, is space exploration.
I was no different. Growing up, I was inspired by the NASA story – a story filled with all the risks and rewards of exploration and discovery. At the heart of this story are people of integrity, perseverance, and persistence, who have made careers out of turning the impossible into reality every day. The more I learned, the more I wanted to participate myself. But it wasn’t until I was deeply involved in human exploration until I fully understood how valuable our space program truly is. Now, I can’t help but want to share the story with others.
But, the thing about space exploration is that it’s a complex story. When someone asks what NASA is doing, we often present a structured PowerPoint presentation with unreadable text and pictures of hardware crammed together on a chart as if we were paying by the electron. In our best monotone voice, we zap the excitement and romance right out of what we do. These presentations do not really represent the excitement, importance, and benefits of our nations investments in space exploration. The problem is that if we don’t get this right, and get it right in places far beyond the small community gathered at our normal space conferences, we may not get a chance to do much of anything our nation has planned for the future. The results of which would be much worse than any crisis that has ever faced our nation.
If you work in the space industry, public or private, I believe it is your responsibility to remind others why it is we explore. I had the opportunity to attend the American Astronautical Society’s Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama this past week. If you were fortunate enough to be there, you heard some really eloquent speakers talk about the future of our space program. One panel in particular of interest was the panel on the Constellation Program which discussed how the program is enabling research and discovery, and maybe more importantly, answering the question “why explore.” David King, the Center Director of Marshall Space Flight Center, pointed out that Dr. Wernher von Braun said that it was “curiosity” that prompted us to explore.
“It is curiosity that sets man apart. It is curiosity that makes him learn. This has been true throughout history…. First curiosity, then learning; then advancement….the guy who is curious – the restless searcher for new knowledge never knows where his curiosity will lead him. All he knows is that some time, in some way, the knowledge he digs up will better the lot of his fellow man…. That’s why we want to — and why we must – explore space. It’s our next frontier, our newest challenge, and the greatest unknown today.”
John Horack, Director of the Science and Mission Systems Office at Marshall Space Flight Center, went on to say –
There are often many answers to the question “Why” that come in a variety of forms. There’s the marketing answer: “To inspire the next generation of explorers, only as NASA can.” There’s the Philosophical: “Because exploration is in our DNA.” The economic: “Just look at the spin-offs!” And many times we answer “Why?” with “What.”: “To improve our TLI injection capacity by 30% and to enable four people to access the surface of the Moon, anywhere, and return any time, with a stay of up to six months.”
So why are we doing this? What is the point? I wish I were more eloquent with words like Wayne Hale, John Horack or Mike Griffin – but I’ve found I work best in pictures. Recognizing that at this point in time, PowerPoint is still the preferred medium of choice for many in the space industry, I try to manage the stereotype associated with the “typical space industry presentation” by using power point differently. Wayne Hale and I put together a presentation on “Why the Moon?” Wayne Hale first gave this presentation at the Von Braun Symposium with the hope others would use it to share the story of human space exploration. If you find this presentation helpful, please use it, pass it on to others, and share the story. As always, we appreciate constructive comments – and will work to continuously update this presentation and post it on this site for your benefit. Enjoy!
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Interesting pitch - some typos:
“Earnest” Shackleton? (chart 33)
“Antartica”? (chart 17)
Oh yes, most of the real world outside of NASA does not use the Powerpoint “crutch”. Such presentations are much less effective when seen by someone who does not have the benefit of the author/presenter narrating the talking points.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Keith, great catches! Thank you so much for the feedback. The presentation has been updated with the revisions on slideshare.net and is also reflected here on opennasa.com. Original presentation posted here: http://www.slideshare.net/skytland/why-the-moon-presentation/
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Pretty, but intellectually thin.
“To do science we must first explore.” What does that mean?
What “sacrifices for risky rewards” do laboratory scientists offer up? Yeah, late nights with the test tubes … Um, they must have offered some sacrifices up, or else they aren’t doing science, by your definition.
“Exploration is about people doing the impossible”. Huh? Why bother?
“Exploration — just think about Columbus”. OK, just what am I supposed to think about Columbus? If Columbus had robots or earth resources satellites like we do now, he never would have gone. So how is that a useful lesson for us.
How Shackleton’s journey can be defined as “exploration” is a bit odd. What were their “risky rewards”, aside from some cool pictures? They were fighting for survival,and the drama of their efforts was intense. But they never chose to have to do that. I guess John McCain in a box for five years qualifies as “exploration” then, right?
Your attempt to define “exploration” is noble, but like most definitions of that word, leaves a lot to be desired.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Check this out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FaaMZ3EBg
October 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am
The notion that exploration has a certain innate magic is lost on some folks but well-said in these breezy slides. Some among us- I speak of the crusty curmudgeons, and you know who you are– they despair of a finer definition, and perhaps miss the point of this presentation? It’s a *feeling* we are talking about
And I find that I just can’t get enough of Shackleton.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I must say, I do like the visual style of the presentation; however, I must agree with Damon’s opinion that it’s “intellectually thin”. I’m not sure who the target audience of this presentation was, but if I had to venture a guess, it would be the relatively uneducated (with respect to the subject matter) who ask the question “Why go?” And I would agree that this question should be answered, but I would urge you to remember that technically minded people will require a substantial technical answer (for the most part).
Oh, and Keith is correct (in my view); just seeing the powerpoint leaves much to be desired in the absence of the comments of the presenter.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Too long … sorry but this doesn’t grab me at all. I want to like it!
October 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Unfortunately this misses the point. But it does reflect NASA’s misunderstanding of what its doing and why its important. This misunderstanding has led to a significant mis-allocation of Constellation resources.
When the ‘Vision’ was established, its purpose was clearly stated to be to move into space, to the moon, and eventually to Mars, to stay; to make these a part of the sphere of operations of the human world - for purposes of civilization (the species will not survive if we do not develop this capability) and for economic competitiveness (this includes educating our youth and establishing active commerce - and by the way if moon rocks and native materials are not worth bringing back, then the commercial reason is probably something different - perhaps tourism and colonization).
What does it take to design the capability reflected in Clarke’s and Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey - and which pieces of the puzzle are we missing that we need to develop to get us to that level of civilization ?
Apollo on steroids is not going to get us there. That is analagous to using a Lockheed Vega capability for air transportation and commerce. The Vega was a great vehicle, used by handful of explorers, but it took the Ford Tri-Motor, the Boeing 247, and then the Douglas DC-3 before air transport was commercially viable. That kind of a commitment takes a national effort. NASA keeps trying to do the job itself - but events over the last few years and months have shown that the commercial world will do the job of commerce and the expansion of civilization’s interests far more efficiently. NACA helped to design the Vega and its influence carried over to the later airliners, but industry defined what they need and got the capital to support its development.
The lesson should have been learned over the last fifty years that we are not going to the moon for the sake of science - science is one of those things that some people will do and we will likely learn some interesting things - but its not the purpose and really should not be NASA’s focus. Most scientists doing science are in academia, industry, and the national labs.
In order to establish space as a part of the human world, yes it will take some exploration - but that’s just a step on the way. Unfortunately, its not exploration if you keep going back to the same place in the same manner - whether thats the moon or a specific place on the moon. The design of new technology can be looked upon as a kind of exploration. Constellation uses the same technology we have today, but in a slightly different form. Why reinvent the wheel ? Once the technology is developed, its not exploration anymore. Lunar ‘exploration’ on the five missions that followed Apollo 11, and the repetitiveness of Shuttle and Space Station orbits should be good lessons to heed.
We developed the capabilities of Apollo, and Saturn, and Shuttle and ISS at great national cost - and Atlas and Delta - too. Use the technology effectively as a steppingstone to developing new capabilities that move beyond our present capabilities. Constellation is not effectively doing either.
Unfortunately the use of Shackleton and polar exploration as an example that NASA is emulating is a poor one. A hundred years later, the arctic really is not visited that much by people, particularly not for economic purposes, and not much civilization is in place there. Why bother ? Its expensive and it really does not provide much for civilization.
This presentation misses the point of the Vision, just as the Constellation Program has missed the point. Technology, economic competitiveness, and expanding the sphere of the human world is what its about. Exploration is a step in the process. Science is a great byproduct. Neither is the reason for going there.
Unfortunately this presentation’s missing the point of the reasons for the program really is very telling and very much reflects the failure of the NASA mindset. And if the NASA management and organization does not know why they are doing it, how can they hope to convince anyone else ?
October 25th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Nick,
A good pitch that nicely covers the exploration rationale for lunar return.
However, two key aspects of lunar return are not covered: habitation of another world and lunar resources to create new spaceflight capability.
We go to the Moon not just to explore, but to learn the skills needed to survive and work productively there. These skills will be needed for all future exploration missions — to Mars, to the asteroids, and even to more exotic places. Closing the life support loop, people and machines working together, safe habitation and efficient operational procedures are all needed and living on the Moon will teach us these skills and allow us to develop those technologies.
On resources, production of lunar oxygen and hydrogen will allow us to build our first refueling station off planet. We simply must learn how to use the resources of space to explore space. If we don’t, we will always be mass, power and capability limited to very small, short, and insufficient exploratory missions. Lunar resources were originally a critical aspect of the Vision and one NASA has largely dropped the ball on it. Note well: we don’t know how to do this. We must at least learn if it’s possible or not.
Please check out the presentations on this very topic on my web site here:
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers.htm
In particular, I call your attention to the last post there, the presentation I made last July at the NASA Lunar Science Conference at Ames:
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/Spudis_NLSI_July_2008.pdf
Good job! If you don’t mind, I’ll add your page here to my links page at SLR.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Nick,
Agree with others that the narrarator helps a great deal with the pitch. When Wayne did it at Von Braun Symposium, it went over very well. I understand some of the comments on a technical audience, but different things connect with different people. Even technical people can enjoy the pitch (I can vouch that many in the audience were impressed with Wayne talking it), it just may not sway them from a data standpoint, but hey, maybe that is the point. No one would ever have invested in Columbus if Return on Investment was the decision maker, but I think in retrospect it was a pretty good investment for Spain. It seems when you mention Columbus, the potato is a unique thing, but maybe if you added interesting content or additional facts. Of course there is always the unfortunate part which is that they “plundered” the natives (probably a lesson there as well). So again, good job. I am pleased you keep plugging at new ideas.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I have to agree with James on this one. Exploration is an action, not a reason by itself. Columbus didn’t sail across the Atlantic to explore. He was on an economic mission to find a better trade route in order to decrease costs for the Spanish trade industry. Science and “exploration” were hitchhikers at best.
Personally I consider Shackleton’s trip to Antarctica to be a useless ego trip. Yes there has been some government funded science down there, but so far no one has tried to make anything in Antarctica pay for itself. If it can’t then it will never see more than its usual cadre of 4000 some odd scientists. Its resources will never be exploited, no one will live there. It will remain sterile. Is that what we want space to be like?
“It’s a *feeling* we are talking about :-)” Feelings don’t pay bills, justify long term budgets, or turn a profit. Maybe in Hollywood they do, but only in a limited unsustainable sense.
November 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I have to agree with Dr. Spudis on this one.
An issue that keeps coming up in some of the discussions I’ve been involved in is that NASA labors under the assumption that everyone will “get it” if we just explain it better. Instead, we should be doing what one person called “market research” to figure out how to make what we do relevant to the American people.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
[...] from OpenNASA with a presentation about NASA’s planned return to the Moon called “Why the Moon?” (Rivers included this link in his weekly email a few weeks back). There’s a good [...]