For over half a century, NASA has inspired people across the world to look to the heavens and wonder what secrets are hidden within the cosmos. Solving those mysteries has long been the domain of lab-coat wearing scientists in government agencies and universities. However, with the advent of the internet, social web, and open source data, it has become possible for anyone to make scientific discoveries about our universe. Find out how you can actively contribute to space exploration and how the collective power of the internet is enabling the future of scientific research.

But I find that often we are like the mad scientist who invents new technology that is going to change our lives, but can’t seem to find his wallet. It seems that we often cannot do some very practical, day-to-day activities to keep our “capability engine” well tuned, poised, and ready to strike at solving the next big problem.

I think there are tremendous opportunities for us at Goddard and more broadly across NASA to improve our process of the way we do engineering and to introduce some new tools that will substantially allow us to stop re-inventing the wheel and focus more on solving the titan challenges we face everyday.

There are three areas which I believe can tremendously help. They are the title of this article. I will dive into each of them below.

1) respect for data

I find that we are kings of silos. We have a separate, monolithic IT system for everything we do. This is not a unique approach — both industry and government weigh the options for tools to do our work, and often come to very different conclusions, depending on the schedule, manpower, and budget factors at play. But where I feel we fall short is that we do not think of our systems from a truely life-cycle perspective. What I mean is that we look at solving the engineering problem, but do not look at the larger implications of how we can keep our “capability engine” well tuned. We seem to see the data and information we work in on a daily basis no differently than a disposable ketchup wrapper — we feel it is simply for our pragmatic use to accomplish the engineering task for the day, but we forget that it has value in the knowledge in the larger organization. What if we were to actually treat the data and information more like an heirloom which we treated with care and made sure to give it a good home which others could benefit from down the road? I think this could have tremendous implications. I know this description is quite vague and is not any call for a particular way of doing things, but I do not believe I know enough to specify a call. I simply believe that that if we respected our data and information, and ultimately knowledge, that we would have a more long-term and wholistic view of the data and information we product as an effect of our day-to-day work as engineers, instead of treating it like dust under our feet.

2) culture of openness

“It’s very political” is a phrase I hear quite often at Goddard to describe when some process has slowed down to make its progress indiscernible. Unfortunately, I believe some get so caught up in the unavoidable politics, that they use that as an excuse to clamp down on advertising the good work they are doing. Perhaps they fear getting their funding taken away, or perhaps they feel they make be “discovered” by headquarters, or perhaps what they are doing may become institutionalized, potentially killing it. Whatever the reason, I believe some people have learned that the best way to operate is “under the radar.” What I believe this causes is a side-effect of paranoia, which gets in the way of our innocent nature of simply sharing by default. Certainly on a one or two person basis, most engineers at Goddard will give you a full run down of a situation. But in front of a group, their story slowly changes. I believe this politics is not unique to the government, but exists in any organization which comprises over 5 people. And I do not think we should try to eliminate it, its innate to the way any organization makes decisions when it has to weigh many factors.

But, I believe there is great potential to share information as I have laid out in the “Respect for Data” section previously. But if people have learned to fight their innate nature for openness, I believe that potential will never be realized. I think the solution is to short circuit the politics by incentivizing openness for our engineers at Goddard. How do we make openness so attractive that the alternative is outweighed 3-to-1? I do not have an answer, but I have a feeling that this process comes slowly with small wins.

3) social software

The web has evolved tremendously in the last few years, more than anyone could have predicted — even those who followed the tremendous steps forward of the early web. What the web allows is a democratization of information, whether it be personal or business. Facebook, twitter, and other sites have raised the level at which we interact with each other on the web. I say “with each other” instead of “with a computer” because the fundamental shift in the last decade on the web is that it does not just enhance an old activity, it transforms the old mechanistic activity to a deeper personal connection with others. What this allows is a interaction with others that mirrors more the “in-person” interaction than previously possible. So instead of just sharing words over email, I can tie into imagery, and a fully threaded conversation with identity which now allows me to track the progress of a discussion or look back at pictures of friends from many years ago, as it is all now cataloged on the web. And of course these are very simple examples of very rich interactions that these technologies enable every day by thousands of organizations.

You may ask what this has to do with engineering process and work? Everything. I believe the social web has tremendous possibility to provide the incentive I mention above for openness. If you give people the mechanism to democratize an idea and level the playing field, I believe then a culture of openness can flourish, because our engineers will realize that as they give one piece of their valued engineering data, they get back many fold. Imagine for a moment, if every engineer at Goddard posted the top 5 equations, tools, or principles that guide the way they do their work. As unbelievable as this may be for ever happening, imagine if it did. Wouldn’t that be a huge resource for everyone else for insight into the way others did their work? I’m not trying to say that the complex engineering we do can be reduced down to a formula, but which I believe this type of thing would do is give everyone insight into each others’ work and jump start an openness revolution.

Now finally, imagine if we were to take the engineering processes that we perform to execute our design challenges and adapt them for the social web. Now imagine a system which at least partially self-documents in that the record of the WHY of our work and not just the WHAT is fully documented in threaded conversation. Now with some simple framework, we could start to categorize and organize this information and we would be able to start to grasp the emerging concepts of the next generation of engineering process, which does not exist in any textbook yet. (By WHY I mean, the reasoning behind a technical decision, and by WHAT I mean the technical decision itself. The WHY is often something that is very difficult to pick up from existing documentation, but is often the most important question, because that is what involves our engineering problem solving.)

what I looking for from you

I am writing these ideas down to try to get feedback from others who have one foot in engineering within the space community and the other within seeing the potential at the intersection of technology and culture. Please comment below. Forward this post to friends and colleagues you may think would be interested. My ultimate aim is to develop the “game changing” incentive for our engineers to open up about their innovative work and ideas and to consider adopting the use of a new tools which may transform the way we do our business of scientific discovery.

what am I up to?

I am an Information Architect and Software Engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. I work on engineering frameworks and am trying to develop new processes for our engineers to accomplish their work, innovate, and collaborate. You can read more information and see some of my talks here: http://opennasatools.pbworks.com/AETD-Wiki Much of the thought I have shared here is from my experience in this role.

related past openNASA posts

The NASA Advisory Council provides perspective, advice, and counsel to NASA leadership on areas of importance to the agency. The Council has nine committees, one of which is the Education and Public Outreach Committee. During their meetings, they receive updates on NASA programs and activities. The names in italics below were in attendance for the LAUNCH presentation this week. Now you can see it too.

NASA Advisory Council Education and Public Outreach Committee members:

• Lars Perkins, entrepreneur
• Michael Bostick, chief executive officer of Walden Media
• Leslie Fenwick, dean of the Howard University School of Education
• Richard Garriott, entrepreneur
• Doug King, president and chief executive officer of the Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA
• Dwayne McCay, provost and executive vice president at the Florida Institute of Technology
• Ioannis Miaoulis, president and director of the Museum of Science, Boston
• Debbie Myers, general manager, Science Channel
• Dr. Scott Parazynski, director of business development at Wyle Integrated Science & Engineering
• Peter Shankman, founder of Help a Reporter Out (HARO)

Last week, we held our West Coast LAUNCHpad Salon with the LAUNCH team to talk lessons learned from two successful events, LAUNCH:Water and LAUNCH:Health; and start planning LAUNCH:Energy. The Cazneau Group, one of our implementation partners, hosted the Salon at their offices in Sausalito, California. Great conversation, great setting, great food. But best of all, great common goal — to bring about positive change to our home planet, one innovation at a time.

LAUNCH: Accelerating Innovation for a Sustainable Future.

NASA, USAID, Department of State, and NIKE joined together to form LAUNCH in an effort to identify, showcase and support innovative approaches to sustainability challenges. We’d been working on the LAUNCH concept for six months or so before having a program mature enough to bring in partners in December of 2009. In 2010, we successfully hosted two forums at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Now we look ahead to”what next” — as in LAUNCH:Energy.

During our two days together, the LAUNCH team sifted through what makes our LAUNCH brand unique. We’re still working through the process, but what really resonated with me was the concept of LAUNCH as a Fellowship of Innovators. We joked about the ONE RING to RULE them ALL….and who got to wear it, but in essence, that’s what LAUNCH is. We’re an ever-expanding fellowship of cutting-edge thinkers — though not at all in a Sauron kind of way, for all you Lord of the Rings fans.

Each of the LAUNCH team founders is an innovator in his/her field of expertise. We came together to create an innovative program called LAUNCH, which selects ten innovators to interact with 30+ LAUNCH Councilmembers, who are thought leaders in their fields. Together, we’ve become a Fellowship to help propel promising innovations forward to make a difference addressing some of the world’s most pressing challenges. Pretty cool, huh?

After returning to the office, a colleague shared with me a TED presentation by Simon Sinek: “How Great Leaders Inspire Action.” Well worth watching!

Simon says (wink) that others “don’t buy what you do, they buy WHY you do it.” He talks about why the Wright Brothers were successful. They were driven by a cause, they wanted to “change the course of the world.” And they did! Just like we want to accomplish with LAUNCH — to accelerate innovation for a sustainable future…and change the course of the world.

In his TED presentation, Simon Sinek also talks about the Law of Diffusion of Innovations, where 2.5% are Innovators, 13.5% are Early Adopters, and 34% are in the Early Majority. He claims that Innovators and Early Adaptors are comfortable making gut decisions driven by what they believe about the world vs. what product is available for their use. The Early Majority won’t try something until someone else tries it first.

With LAUNCH, we’re in the business of accelerating innovation. We operate right in the middle of the 2.5% zone on the curve. We look for innovations (and their innovators) to nurture, refine, and then showcase to Early Adopters (the LAUNCH Council). We started inside Simon Sinek’s Golden Circle and built out. We know WHY we created LAUNCH. Then we figured out HOW to implement the concept, and WHAT the product is.

Once you strip away the Innovator selection and presentation prep, the Council selection and event logistics, the Accelerator follow-up post forum, what’s left is the LAUNCH Fellowship of Innovators. We’re creating space at the far left of the Diffusion of Innovation curve where we can live and play. It’s the place where we believe we can make biggest impact on the future of this world. That’s WHY!

Innovators: We want YOU!

Crosspost on Beth Beck’s Blog and  GovLoop.com

Far too often, it seems that Americans have the perception of their government being a monolithic block, incapable of progress, change, or efficient functionality. While this may be true in some cases, it’s not something that should be allowed to continue. American government lacks the trust of its citizens, and the goal of getting it back should be our top priority.

Our government needs to be for the people. It needs to be open. It needs accountability. It needs to leverage technologies to enable citizens to participate and collaborate in the same way they do among their coworkers, friends, and family. By paving a road of information, ideas, and community between policymakers and everyday citizens, a new bond of trust can be formed, and fresh insight into our most troubling problems can be found. Our government, to an extent, has already begun to work on this challenge. Efforts such as Data.gov, the Open Government Directive, and increased citizen financial oversight have placed previously unavailable tools in the hands of the public. But what’s next? How do the tools made available get used by the average person who is likely to only use a .gov domain once a year when filing their taxes? How do the thousands of comments, criticisms, and questions flooding government inboxes everyday turn in to real, implementable solutions?

That’s the problem I want to work on. I’m fascinated by the intricate network of our government – the massive flow of information, people, and ideas that passes through a complex, and sometimes bizarre, system that runs our nation. It’s a network that is social by nature, but in most circumstances is virtually impossible to gain access to by an ordinary citizen. I want to work on breaking down the barriers that prevent the free flow of information to the people and on building the infrastructure to support their direct involvement in their governance. I’ve been fortunate to have had the opportunity to sample what a difficult challenge this is. As a Policy Studies and Economics dual major at Syracuse University, I’ve had the chance to spend the last semester living in Washington, D.C. and working at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Some of my work has tackled these very issues, and I realize the huge challenges in making such change. As much as I’d love to jump in and get my hands dirty, I also need to go back to Syracuse in the fall to finish my degree and, most likely, obtain a graduate degree before pursuing a real career in the public sector. The CampusGov and GovLoop scholarship will enable me to continue my educational pursuits, in the hope that I can use the skills I gain to help bring positive change to a process that sorely needs it.

Click here to vote on GovLoop – my essay is #7

We’ve been super busy planning our next LAUNCH sustainability forum. The topic for our second forum is “sustaining human life.” LAUNCH is our incubator program that searches for visionaries, whose world-class ideas, technologies or programs show great promise for making tangible impacts on society. At each LAUNCH forum, ten innovators and 40 thought leaders come together to address these sustainability challenges.

Often health isn’t considered a sustainability challenge, but think about it. What good is sustaining air quality, clean water supplies, and renewable energy sources if humans aren’t here to enjoy it? What happens if we’re not around to tell the story of humanity?

Sustaining quality of life for the human race is the ultimate challenge.

Human health is an important part of NASA’s portfolio. We strap human explorers (otherwise known as medical test subjects) to incendiary devices (otherwise known as rockets) and blast them outside our protective atmosphere.

Keeping astronauts healthy and safe = CRITICAL mission requirement.

Right now, our astronauts live off planet Earth for missions that last half a year. How the human body reacts to changes in gravity, radiation, and even psychological isolation, mirrors health issues faced by the rest of us who never leave the planet. For instance, we’ve learned the value of daily exercise in keeping bones strong during space missions — just like the need for exercise at home.

How we use technology to monitor and address health issues in the extreme environment of space has direct applications for use by communities living in remote locations on Earth — in developing countries or isolated regions.

Someday, we’ll leave this planet for longer periods. We’ll travel around the universe. We’ll set up colonies on other planetary surfaces. We already monitor maternal health concerns, with so many females in the astronaut corps. At some point, we’ll concern ourselves with child health — once they’re born on long-duration missions. Yes, it will happen.

The real question is: when.

Fun Fact: I’ve been part of a long-term health study for the last 25 years. I’m a “control subject” for female astronauts.

LAUNCH: Health will be held in conjunction with the STS-133 Space Shuttle launch down at the Kennedy Space Center. We’ve been working closely with our founding partners USAID, State Department and NIKE, and our forum partnersVestergaard Frandsen and IDEO, to develop criteria to select the LAUNCH: Health innovations.

We posted the LAUNCH: Health call for innovators on InnoCentive as an ideation challenge. We’ll have the challenge open for 30 days. Your solutions can be social, policy or technology innovations that have potential for disruptive impact — in a positive way, of course. You will need to sign up as an InnoCentive Solver to post your solution.

Social Change: Personally, I think TOMS Shoes, as a business concept, is an amazing example of social innovation. For every pair of TOMS shoes purchased, a second pair is donated to a child. The simple act of wearing shoes prevents cuts that expose children to tetanus, as well as diseases like human hookworm and podoconiosis. My daughter Steph and all her friends wear TOMS, and request TOMS for birthdays and holiday gifts. They believe wearing TOMS makes a statement that they care about making the world better, one pair of shoes at a time.

TOMS One for One business model succeeded in:

• creating awareness among those of us who have closets full of shoes,
• changing attitudes, and
• inspiring action.

In fact, TOMS birthed a movement. You can show your support by participating in “One Day Without Shoes” on April 5, 2011. Brilliant!

Aren’t you inspired? So, what do you have up your sleeve that you’re willing to share? Do you have what it takes to make a positive difference in world health? Get creative. I dare you.

Save the WORLD: one innovation at a time!

For more information about our previous water sustainability forum, visit: LAUNCH.org. (We’re busy updating the website to reflect LAUNCH: Health.)

Crosspost on GovLoop and Beth Beck’s Blog.

The 18th annual SXSW Interactive Festival in Austin, Texas will be held on March 11-15, 2011. They bill the event as “five days of compelling presentations from the brightest minds in emerging technology, scores of exciting networking events hosted by industry leaders.” Potential presenters submit panel session proposals, which are sifted and selected for voting.

I’ve never been to SXSW, but I’ve wanted to go for years. Now is the time, I hope — with your help.

Our panel “Space Buzz: The New High” has been selected for consideration by YOU. You’ll have to sign up for an account, then you can vote and comment. Our panel will explore NASA’s social media conversation, specifically how to create and collect the buzz.

Come visit us in the NASA Buzzroom to see what the buzz is all about.

Star -powered panel: Jesse Thomas of Jess3.com, NASA’s Stephanie Schierholz, Miles O’Brienand Ariel Waldman have agreed to share the stage, if we get selected.

It’s all up to you to GIVE SPACE A CHANCE!

Let’s create some space buzz. Vote now…and tell all your friends.

Crosspost on BethBeck’s Blog and GovLoop.com.

Some say NASA is abandoning the Moon.  The future of manned spaceflight is unclear right now, and many are experiencing losses of jobs, but I want to look at something else:  Who cares about the beauty of real scientific exploration?  Judging by participation in the Lunar Science Forum this year, I would say a lot of people.  Is the Moon ‘dead’?  A resounding NO, judging from the highest attendance yet for the meeting, the amazing science results, and the many young faces of the Next Generation of Lunar Scientists and Engineers interested in the Moon.  They are not going anywhere, and that message is loud and clear!

Forked impact melt. Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University

I guess I should give the disclaimer that I work at the NLSI but also that I used to be a Mars person.  Mars is still exciting, of course, but  in the past few years the Moon really has become a whole new Moon, most obviously with the discovery of water in amounts different than expected (a simple statement with many scientific papers enveloped in it).

One of the highlights from the meeting for me was hearing that there are craters in the polar regions of the Moon that are estimated to have high levels of water available… less than 50 km from areas with near constant availability of sunlight.  All the recent science about the Moon greatly informs human exploration… and what is better than having science and exploration walk hand in hand?

If you want to know more about the lunar science shared at the Forum, go to http://lunarscience2010.arc.nasa.gov/agenda; the talks will be posted there shortly.

In the meantime, keep dreaming about all the undiscovered secrets of the Moon:  lava tubes, pockets of water, and combining awesome LROC image data with mini-RF data (really really cool insights!)

And it is only fitting that the Lunar Science Forum is being followed up by a NewSpace Conference.  A New Moon indeed!

I had the opportunity yesterday, though, to sit down with some friends who have a little more insight into what’s really been going on up in DC.  Plain and simple, Senators Hutchison and Nelson quietly formed an alliance in the Senate and even more quietly pre-coordinated with the White House to come up with something that everyone can live with.

For all the suggestions of his inability to lead, it was NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden who made the case for a heavy-lift vehicle and that was the carrot Hutchison and Nelson used to get the support from expected intransigents like Sen. Shelby, who just earned a rather ignominious distinction from Citizens Against Government Waste.

There is an important clause in the language on heavy lift that leaves NASA an escape if it finds shuttle-derived components are impracticable.  Thus, the staffers that helped put this bill together say that NASA is not technically constrained by the Senate language.  The authorization committee also accepted amendments to provide more funding for tech R&D and robotic precursor missions.

At this point, it’s a matter of making the trades in the budget lines to come to an amicable conclusion that funds one more Shuttle flight, ISS continuation, exploration and space technology research, and a human exploration program beyond Earth orbit.  While commercial crew development is constrained in FY2011, I hear that was intended to actually provide commercial developers cover for moving out strong in FY2012 and beyond.

In any event, the Senate appropriations committee just approved the full $19 billion the President and the Senate authorization committee asked for.  This is a bonafide example of how the system really is supposed to work.  Senators, staffers, and the White House set aside partisan politics to develop a plan that we can move forward on, even while acknowledging that it isn’t perfect.

By contrast, the House legislation is a scattershot proposal, with its only clear goal being the restoration of the status quo.  Forty-three – yes, 43 – amendments were submitted against it, even as the House committee meeting was ongoing.

Our own Rep. Pete Olson filed an “emergency” amendment intended to short-circuit their own priority queue to immediately fund the Constellation spacesuit project.  Other Representatives squabbled over the $15 million CRuSR program to sponsor suborbital science research and whether NASA should foster the growth of commercial space industry at all.  (Note: The Space Act explicitly directs NASA to help grow American industry in space.  It doesn’t actually say anything about flying people in space.)  Towards the end of the day, it was silly season on display.

Senator Hutchison is showing some real leadership here and has done good work for our state and our space program.  I hope Rep. Olson and his colleagues in the House will learn from her example and stop tilting at windmills.  Rep. Kosmas from Florida submitted an amendment calling on the House to follow the Senate’s approach, so at least one person in that chamber gets it.

If the Senate’s strategy is adopted by the House and emerges from conference committee intact, we could have a bill that he will sign on the President’s desk before October and avoid a continuing resolution – which would keep NASA in limbo perhaps as long as another year.

This would be a more evolutionary change for NASA, as opposed to the revolutionary approach outlined in the President’s FY2011 budget.  Even so, NASA still gets an overall increase in its budget and breathing room for needed investments in commercial space services and technology R&D.  JSC, in particular, will have plenty of work to do.

As long as NASA retains the freedom to make appropriate technical decisions within the budget and schedule provided, I think we can make this work.

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries

Note: I am posting this because I want people to see a realistic view of things at NASA, not a sugar-coated version. This is as real as it gets.

This week I volunteered for an upcoming layoff from my job as a space shuttle technician. I will be leaving after 8.5 years of service on October 1st, 2010. Since many people would give their right arm to work on the shuttle program, you might think I’m crazy to volunteer for this. Leaving the shuttle program is a tough decision for sure, but it really isn’t a matter of if, only when. I am not choosing to leave, I am just choosing the time it will happen. Ultimately, the vast majority of shuttle workers will be let go. So why go before I am forced? Here’s an explanation so you can see it from my perspective.

One of the biggest reasons I am taking this layoff is that it will allow me to plan for my future. It is nearly impossible to make plans or look for a new job when you have no idea when your end date at work will be or what the future holds. We hear a different story every week about what is happening with the program, or with our benefits/severance. The uncertainty is exhausting. I’m not blaming my management for this- I think they are in the same boat. By volunteering for this layoff, I now know what is going to happen to me and when. Crazy as it seems, that feels good. Now I can start figuring out a good strategy to move forward.

Along the same lines, morale was a big push for me to self-nominate for this layoff. You can’t imagine what it is like to be at work surrounded by constant doom and gloom, now with a dash of panic. It is not pretty. Once the people who are to be laid off involuntarily are notified- which will be at the end of July- I expect that it will be even worse. As far as the work goes, we are finishing up with Discovery’s right OMS Pod now, and will deliver it for reinstallation this week. After that I have a few thrusters to bench test for Atlantis, which is being processed for launch on need (in case of emergency). Once that is complete, the bulk of the work we will have left in my area is decontamination of our facility for shutdown, or Transition & Retirement as NASA likes to call it. I started working on the shuttle program because I wanted to contribute to something incredible, human space exploration. I don’t find decontamination and shutdown very inspirational. In fact, it is downright depressing. For many workers, it is just a job and they don’t care what goal they’re working towards as long as they are paid. To me, it makes a difference, and I would much rather try to find work I can feel good about again.

Other reasons for taking this layoff are more practical than emotional. Leaving early gives me a better chance of finding a new job or pursuing other options because the market won’t be flooded with thousands of others doing the same. Also, it makes sense for my particular situation, because my husband works on the shuttle program as well. He will have work to do up until the last launch because he works at the launch pad. We figure that it will be best for us to take a phased approach rather than both being laid off at the same time. This way, hopefully I can get something figured out and can carry him once his job is complete, sometime next year.

So, that’s basically it. This is the reality of the situation. It is sad to see it coming to an end, but it is also a new beginning in so many ways. I am hopeful for the future of NASA, it just isn’t quite ready for me yet, so I’ll make my exit now, gracefully. I’m not looking for sympathy; I’m not feeling sorry for myself and you shouldn’t feel sorry for me either! I am looking for my next great adventure, whatever it may be…