Comment on Change.Gov
So there’s been much ado about transparency and how Change.gov is helping ordinary people voice concerns to Obama and Biden on a wide range of issues and topics. Of the topics listed, there is a Coalition for Space Exploration section (link below) that had one lone comment in it. While the link to my comment is listed below, I’ve posted the text here for ease of discussion/debate:
I would like to take this time to stress to the President-elect and VP-elect how important technology advances are to the American public today. Back in the 60’s and 70’s during the hay-day of the American Space Program, many young children (as well as the rest of the nation) looked to the stars with awe as they realized for the first time that they had the technology, know-how, and will to send a man where no other human had ever been before in history; and this motivated generations of people, even today, to pursue careers in math, science, and engineering. While only a fraction of them actually worked for the space program, they were, never-the-less, inspired by it, and we are reaping the benefit of that inspiration today as those original generations of people are currently leading our country (and most of the world) in technological advances and breakthroughs. However, one must ask “will todays children pick up that same mantle I’ve carried for all these years? What will future generations do to further America’s presence at the forefront of the technology curve?” It is a question I’ve asked myself repeatedly during my matriculation through college. I grew up in awe of Neal Armstrong, John Glen, Sally Ride, and other idols of the American Space Program. Who will my little brother look up to when he gets to college? Who will inspire your own two daughters to pursue a career in the sciences, math, or engineering? Who are the idols of today’s American Space Program? Searching for names? A lot of the American public would be right along with you, searching for the name of a current astronaut who would inspire our future leaders to keep us at the front of the technological race.
I say all of this to say that while I understand our current financial crisis, I must, as an advocate of manned space exploration, implore you to continue funding of America’s Space Program. Do so smartly, and with due diligence, but please do so. For with out it, I am afraid that you will find it hard to inspire young people to become educated in the sciences, which will lead to America relinquishing it’s place as world-wide technological leader to foreign powers. Thank you for your valuable time
Isaac Q. Mensah Jr., Houston, TX: Proud member of Generation Y
The link to the site is here (link opens in new window). Let me know what you think and if any of you have posted anything on Change.gov. I’d love to hear/read about it.
6 Responses to “Comment on Change.Gov”
Leave a Reply
Justin on December 17th, 2008
I definitely agree with the sentiments expressed in your response. I’ve always thought of space exploration as investment in the future of mankind and, thus, worth its weight in gold. As I’m getting older, though, I realize that people like are us are much more in the minority and we have to demonstrate the value to the American people.
We do outreach until we’re blue in the face. We need to stop telling people how great we think we are and start actually showing people how useful we can be.
iMensah on December 17th, 2008
Justin,
I couldn’t agree more on both your points. I think those of us who would self-qualify as “star-gazers” are indeed a dwindling population. I also agree that until we prove how useful we are to the rest of Earth’s population, we will continue to decrease in numbers. Now, the million-dollar question is: “How do we SHOW people that we’re useful?”
Justin on December 17th, 2008
I think that’s where rearranging NASA’s priorities to solve problems that are immediately relevant to our nation’s needs comes in. NASA can and should be contributing to solutions on energy independence and climate change, for example, in a big way. The lead story on CNN’s website this morning was the new NASA data showing larger-than-expected polar ice melts.
If we’re smart, we can simultaneously leverage those solutions as enablers for exploration.
rquintanilla on December 18th, 2008
I strongly agree with your sentiments too Isaac. It seems to me that NASA in recent history has preferred using COTS (Commercial off the Shelf) to aid in space exploration. The rationale behind this is to reduce cost, and to that extent I think that it is a good strategy. However the extensive use of COTS items is made NASA a re-packager instead of a developer. The dollars used to develop something is an investment, the dollars used to repackage something is just a cost. Now I agree that there is little worth in reinventing the wheel, and that is why I agree using COTS items is a good strategy. What we have to do is try to develop more things, instead of repackaging things. The term R&D signifies Research and Development (I am not trying to be condescending, I am trying to make a point). I think NASA does an outstanding job at Research, but I don’t think we do a good job at Development. Work that goes into “Research” (i.e. exploration of the raw data produced by NASA satellites) is more of a long term benefit, and the benefits are hard to see to a general audience. “Development” work has a more direct benefit and we can show the public that we developed X technology.
One technology that I think we should develop or help develop is “automated assembly”. The g-loads in space are lower in space than on earth, yet the hardware that we send into space has to be extremely robust (heavy, bulky). The reason for this is because of the high launch loads the hardware sent are subjected to. If we sent the piece parts, instead of the fully configured hardware, they would be able to be more light-weight and/or would be able to withstand a higher g-load. Then they would be self-assembled in space. We already send large assemblies in smaller pieces and then configure them in space, but this is not preferred because crew time is more valuable (in general) than cost of sending a slightly larger item. The robotic technology is already mature to be able to do this. We need to help industry in this development, and study the Design Methodology necessary to be able to leverage this technology. Developing this robotic technology will most definitely help the economy. It will make it cost-effective for America to manufacture more of its products in the US which will create jobs and make us more independent. This technology might not be feasible for the Space Station, but it is necessary to cut transportation costs when we do Moon and Mars missions.
Justin on December 18th, 2008
“Automated assembly” is still providing indirect benefit to the American public, though. How could we develop that technology to directly help solve a major issue America faces?
I’m not also not convinced that it would necessarily make American domestic manufacturing more cost-effective. Don’t the American Toyota, Honda, etc. plants already do a lot of that?
rquintanilla on December 19th, 2008
Justin it depends on how you look at it and how the implementation is completed. Robotic systems today can be looked at as analogous to the vacuum tube computers of the 50s that had to be stored in a warehouse. In those days a special operating system had to be made for each computer. A robotic system for manufacturing is composed of the sensors, actuators, robotic links and the processing unit (aka the computer). All those components are analogous to the components of a computer. What is missing today is the common operating system that runs all these hardware components. Work is already being done in industry and academia in this field. It isn’t a far reach for accelerated development to commence. If NASA develops this technology for transportation of hardware the development that goes into the operating system can be made open-source. What this will do is open the field for enthusiasts, as well as niche small companies that focus on developing individual hardware components. Much like a common PC, the degree of sophistication that goes into the Robot will highly depend on the hardware used. If NASA works with industry to make it feasible that these parts can be made at a low cost, we have the beginning of the robotic evolution that rivals the computer evolution of old.
Now imagine that because of the work NASA put into creating these n-degree of freedom robots, manufacturing robotic technology actually becomes obtainable by mid-size businesses. These mid-size companies will start developing small manufacturing plants in the good ‘ol USA. It might even become feasible that each metropolitan area has it’s own ready made set of manufacturing plants ready to produce the most common goods needed in their vicinity. Companies that develop products won’t have to invest in the infrastructure to produce the products they develop, they will just contract these micro-manufacturing plants to make their products. The cost will be low and competitive, and the transportation costs will be nil. Further the manufacturing capability of the United States will be dispersed, making our economic and national security strong.
Manufacturing is at the backbone of any industrialized country. When manufacturing leaves the country, the country that it goes to starts developing the technological sophistication. This is already happening with the outsourced work that we are giving China and India. Soon these countries will not only have all the manufacturing plants they will also be doing all the valuable research and development. It might be 5, 10 or 20 years away, but the time is near. If those countries develop and manufacture the products of the future expect that we will loose more jobs, and the economic problems of today will look like a joke.
The solution to alleviating this highly probable risk is to becoming independent. We have to be able to supply our own energy, manufacture our most basic goods, and produce our own food (at a low cost). Now I am not suggesting that we isolate ourselves, just that we stay independent. Currently we are not independent. We rely on the Chinese to manufacture our goods, we rely on the Middle East to supply us our oil, and we rely on undeveloped countries to supply us our food.
We are the power house today, but consistently we have grown accustomed to outsourcing our work. We are becoming a service industry and that is dangerous for our economy. Developing my idea creates jobs, by ensuring that they stay here.