As a co-lead on JSC’s Barrier Analysis team for Center Director Mike Coats’ Inclusion & Innovation Council, I have been involved in some fascinating conversations over the past couple of months — Hurricane Ike not withstanding — about the culture and organization we work in. Our team includes engineers, various support staff, career veterans, and even an astronaut.
We’ve been specifically chartered to examine barriers to inclusion and innovation at the Center and, by January, propose a few solutions for breaking down those roadblocks. One issue, in particular, that we’ve touched on has come up before in this very blog, though perhaps not as directly or as clearly. That issue is relevance - fulfilling our social and civic responsibilities by providing and demonstrating value in our mission to the American people.
Perhaps the biggest problem we face in regards to relevance is that we labor under the assumption that everyone will come around to our vision if we just explain it better . ‘Telescopes on the Moon are a great idea.’ ‘Human beings are explorers… that’s what we do.’ ‘It’s the only way to ensure the survival of the species.’ ‘Get NASA out of LEO so private industry can move in.’
I’ve made many of those arguments myself. While those sentiments may be true in and of themselves, they may not necessarily resonate with an American public - and a federal government - increasingly squeezed financially. Thus, we have a responsibility as leaders in space flight to make what we do relevant. We can’t just say it is.
One of the JSC Barrier Analysis team members pointed out that we have no process for relevance. There is no effective mechanism for integrating the technical worlds and the policy world in human space flight, like the National Academy of Sciences does for the research community. Additionally, we do public outreach until we’re blue in the face, but we’re only just now starting to do “market research” to really understand the needs of the American people and get them involved.
We need to grasp how what we do will have the best benefit for the country and ensure that our technical solutions meet the goals laid out for us by the policymakers. In fact, the Space Act itself demands it of NASA, while giving us a surprising amount of discretion in how we do so.
Indulge me in a thought experiment for a moment, if you will. Ben Bova proposed last month that the next President catapult America into a transformational position on energy issues by directing NASA to build a technology demonstrator for a beamed solar power satellite and, then, providing low-interest loans for private industry to take that technology and built a network of powersats.
This would be akin to the ventures that built the massive hydroelectric dams out West in the early 20th century. American private space ventures like Elon Musk’s SpaceX would be called upon to provide the necessary launch services for such a strategic investment, and perhaps provide an impetus for their growth much like US air mail led to the development of the modern airline.
While this may serve as an extreme example (and I’m sure there are many in our community that would say NASA has no business being involved in such a venture), I think it’s a very clear illustration of how NASA could perform a mission that sells itself to policymakers and the American public. Such an undertaking would create tens of thousands of high-tech jobs for Americans. Integrating powersat transmission stations with the high-efficiency power grid called for by Al Gore would be an infrastructure investment to make Eisenhower’s national highway system pale in comparison.
Powersats would give us the prestige and environmental benefits of taking the first tangible steps away from fossil fuel-based power generation. Reliable clean power could itself spur the transition away from traditional ICE vehicles to plug-in hybrids and, perhaps, even fully electric cars. In any event, NASA would be seen as playing a key role in developing true energy independence for America. In a powersat economy, I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue against NASA’s relevance.
Ultimately, we need a robust and mature framework for understanding the goals of our policymakers, providing them the data and analysis they need to make informed decisions, and converting those goals into actionable missions with clear value to the American people. (I can’t help but notice the parallels with my experience in the Intelligence Community.)
Such a framework would certainly make our community more inclusive and collaborative. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming yet another government agency chasing its own tail instead of chasing the boundaries of the human experience.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:16 am
I am not certain what part of NASA’s charter (i.e. its mandate) would call for the agency to develop solar power satellites for domestic electricity production (as cool and useful as they could be).
November 18th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I’d say the Space Act covers it.
Sec.102.(b) says that space activities are the purview of a civilian space agency so long as such activities are not primarily defense-related.
Sec.102.(c) requires that agency to “seek and encourage” the fullest commercial use of space.
NASA must also “contribute materially” to the following:
Sec.102.(d)(4) - The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
Sec.102.(d)(5) - The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.
Right at the beginning, NASA is given a charter to study the utilization of space for the national benefit and take the lead in the application of space science and technology.
It’s a bit of a stretch, but Sec.102.(e) also calls for NASA to “contribute to the objectives of developing energy- and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems.” Clean energy for pluggable hybrids and electric cars could be considered a contribution to that effect.
Another option could be to exercise NASA’s prize authority under Sec.314 and open up a “Powersat Challenge.”
November 18th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Oh I have been a SPS fans since the 70’s. The first thing I ever wrote that was published in 1978 was on SPS concepts. These days, however, with so much else already on NASA’s plate, I cannot imagine how this could be added without wholesale abandonment of other programs - programs other people are just as enthusiastic about. Personally I think learning how to use and improve what energy resources we already have offers greater potential for money resources expended. Just adding more power to the grid- cheaply - doesn’t get to the issue of waste or spur efficency. But at some point humanity will be uber efficient - yet it need more energy than can be generated on Earth’s surface.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
You definitely have a point there with the issue of NASA’s already limited resources. There’s been talk in some corners of a comprehensive energy independence effort on the scale of the Moon Shot, though. Perhaps powersats could play a role in such an effort. NASA would almost certainly need additional funding to perform such a mission and meet its existing obligations, though.
Even if it’s not a macroengineering project like powersats, I think we - as a community - really need to start thinking about how what we do is beneficial in a way that the American public can embrace. If our answers come up short, then we should instead think about what we can do that America will actually get behind.
That’s where a formal mechanism for better relating and coordinating public policy with human space flight would really be a big help. With the relatively broad support NASA has in Congress these days, now would be a good time to build those bridges.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Agreed, NASA needs to be relevant (again) to everyone. That takes direction to NASA and action by NASA. Right now NASA (and space exploration) is distant to many, peripheral to the rest, and only a burning, relevant issue to a small subset of the populace. When I was growing up in the 60’s everyone seemed to get what this space stuff was all about and everyone was excited about it. Of course, that was then, and this is now - but people are still people.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Wow! Now that is the type of Strategy that I can get excited about. Justin, I agree that work that is relevant in a large way to the American people is what NASA should be doing.
We must work on things that people can get excited about. Things that inspire the American people like they were inspired in the 60’s. We have to spur the imagination of the American people again. Doing so will not and cannot be a small act, but a large one. We do this and the economy will come up again, because these types of acts give the American people confidence in the economy.
A lot of the positive impact we have will have to be psychological, but the engineering and science will also have to be able to substantiate those thoughts. The work will be expensive but the funds that go into it will not be an expense; they will be an investment. An investment with tangible results that have midterm payoff and short term economic stimulation.
Possible ideas that we could work on include:
1. Further development of “vertical farms” — which could be used in in the exploration of Mars some day. On earth it could be used to create ethanol and food; while allowing the farm land to become forests again — which will help earth balance itself and eliminate global warming. http://www.verticalfarm.com/ for more info
2. Like I said in a previous post we can help develop open source tools that allow small business technological firms to be created at low costs. A lot of tools have been developed by NASA to help exploration of space. In the past these tools were given to private industry for further development and maintenance. In the 80s that was the best strategy, but today open source development from research institutions and universities is a much better approach. It allows anybody to have access and that is a great thing…this could be limited to Americans if politically necessary.
3. We have to open up the information that is not critical to national security up to the research public at large. We have to work on making it accessible to everyone — not just the ones that know about it.
4. We can also need to tap the intellect and knowledge of our many scientist and engineers to develop educational material that is accessible to everyone. The work that they do will help the young engineers and scientist as well as help industry.
5. Whatever happened to the Space Elevator Project? The technology needed to complete that project would have remarkable industrial use. Although I doubt it is as simple as the previously mentioned ideas. However this might be something that is better left for massive development a few years from now.
6. Programs like STEMS which is NASA sponsored have to be magnified. Those are the programs that will inspire our youth to help NASA continue its legacy. Education over the internet about space and science could help this cause as well. NASA could take the driving seat on Internet education (for math, science and engineering) which is something that our country is currently lacking and I believe will be a huge aid in helping our school systems become competitive in comparison to those of foreign countries.
—-
Well those are some ideas of things I think could have an impact to the American people in a very direct way. I hope that people will follow this with more brainstorming ideas.
Again, I completely agree that part of our mission should be the massive development of things the American people will benefit from directly.
We have to inspire the general population, not just us tech geeks. In order to do this we will need more funding, but we will also have to become more efficient ( which is where I think a good chunk of the extra funding should go into).