Yesterday we launched open.nasa.gov. Like openNASA, the new site will be a collaborative platform for the open government community to share success stories and projects they are working on. We are excited to finally have a home on nasa.gov and look forward to highlighting the ways that transparency, participation, and collaboration are being embraced by NASA policy, technology, and culture and discuss the amazing future that becomes possible because of that commitment.

Content from authors who will participate in the new open.nasa.gov site will be ported over, but this site will remain online and serve as an archive for the content from all those who have contributed to the project.  We have a lot planned for the new site, and anticipate it will be an even more successful project than openNASA.  We encourage you to check out the new site and let us know what you think! See you at nasa.gov.

http://open.nasa.gov

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

Over the past year and a half I have seen Tx/Rx Labs grow from a 300 sqft room to a 4000 sqft lab.  By collaborating with each other, Tx/Rx Labs makes innovation accessible to everyone.  Whether it be learning new skills, accessing equipment, tapping into another member’s knowledge, Tx/Rx Labs facilitates the path to working on technology.  In March, Tx/Rx Labs will be hosting HACK-B-Q, a technology demo series where we will show some of the cool projects we have been working on.  Please show your support for the movement by coming out, and telling your friends.

What’s a Hack-B-Q? Think free B-B-Q with the added bonus of getting to share knowledge with TXRX Members who have expertise in exciting DIY technology projects. And that’s just for starters: There are tons of exciting projects in progress and members with expertise in chemistry, electrical engineering, biology, physics, programming, mechanical engineering, and many others, all of whom are interested in sharing that knowledge for the benefit of the community.





Please see the Space Technology Research Grants and Fellowships page for more information.

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)

That morning, I sat in absolute disbelief as I watched the news unfold, while file footage provided graphic evidence of the disaster that took place over the skies of Texas.  My thoughts immediately turned to not just the immediate family and friends of those who perished onboard Columbia, but to all of those who belonged to the NASA family…to my NASA family.  Tears flowed as I saw images of the flight control team reacting to what they knew was the absolute worst possible scenario, a bad day amplified by a magnitude of infinity.  Without even personally knowing those onboard, I felt a deep sorrow for their loss, for those close to them, and for NASA.

The Apollo 1 fire was well before my time, and almost my parents’.   And though it took place during my lifetime, I was hardly a toddler with little cognitive ability to remember the Challenger disaster in 1986. And now with Columbia’s demise, we were once again faced with the stark realities of the dangers of human spaceflight and forced to weigh the benefits versus those very risks. Uncertainty loomed, and in the midst, I couldn’t help but wonder what this would mean for the future of our national human spaceflight program.

As pledges of sympathy and support poured in from all over in the subsequent days, President Bush delivered an address vowing that human spaceflight in the US would continue, just as it had after both the Apollo 1 and Challenger accidents.  And almost one year later, he announced his Vision for Space Exploration, setting forth legislation that would send us back to the Moon and onto Mars.  This promise ignited hope and inspiration in those of us who spent their youths dreaming of “slipping the surly bonds of Earth” and setting foot on extraterrestrial soil, while honoring the legacy of those who’ve made space exploration possible.

Since the inception of the US human spaceflight program, countless individuals have devoted their livelihoods to further the cause for exploration, to test the limits of mankind’s knowledge and experience, and to expand the boundaries of our terrestrial existence. We have been, are, and forever will remain an agency of people who believe in space exploration.  We are a collective group of passionate, dedicated workers who are inspired by the contributions of spaceflight to humanity.  We are men and women who were awed by Sputnik, by Neil Armstrong’s first steps, by the first joint Russian-American venture in space, by the Space Shuttle’s maiden voyage, by the building of the International Space Station, piece by piece, before our eyes and who are still inspired on a daily basis by the feats we help accomplish.  We are an agency motivated by man’s innate desire to achieve the impossible, “not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

We believe in our hearts with the greatest conviction that the greatest accomplishments in human spaceflight are still ahead of us; and yet we recognize that we must honor the legacy left by our space-faring forefathers and our colleagues who’ve given their lives in the name of exploration. Our every decision, our every action is motivated by the events of our past and our hope for the future. Let us not forget the magnitude of their contributions or the extent of their devotion.

Eight years after the announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration, we sit at a pivotal juncture, one that will determine the course of the future of our nation’s human spaceflight program.  As we wait for our new Congress to set a fiscal year budget, my thoughts turn to all those who’ve dedicated and given their lives in the pursuit of humanity’s innate desire to explore.

As we step into a difficult transition period, one wrought with anticipation, nail-biting, nerves, disappointment, and frustration, let us not dwell on the opinions and assessments of others, but rather move forward with hope and inspiration drawn from the legends of spaceflight past.

As we decide on the feasibility of plans for the nation’s space program, let us remember that our forefathers, in the face of adversity, accomplished seemingly impossible tasks.

And, this week, as we commemorate the lives of our colleagues whom we have lost, let us remember that their ultimate sacrifice must not be in vain, that we must accept our constraints, our limitations, and from that, build plans of sustaining a robust human spaceflight program, capable of inspiring generations to come.

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