The Amateur's Guide to Event Management

Part II: Brainstorming and Event Proposals

The bigger the event, the more people you'll need to run the show. And, quite frankly, the larger the event, the more ideas you'll need to make it work. In addition, the larger the event, the more likely it is that you'll need to codify the event plan into a formal written proposal. This part of the guide will provide you with some structure to your bright ideas.

Brainstorming
There are several ways you can brainstorm or generate event ideas, and they can run the gamut from the speakers you want to invite to what "theme" you want to what sort of table decorations you want on the dining room tables. The best format I've seen for brainstorming is a time-limited session with 6-10 participants, a facilitator, and a dry erase board or easel.

Why no more than 10 people? To keep the group orderly and within the control of a single facilitator.

Why time-limited? Because after 10-15 minutes, people get drained, even in "spontaneous mode."

Now the facilitator can just be a scribe, but it helps if s/he provides a little structure as well. For instance, the facilitator can make certain that the participants cover all the basics of the event (say, in the case of ISDC): location, speakers, registration policies, program book contents, entertainment, meal selections, special events-within-events, etc.

The ground rules for a brainstorming session, for those of you who haven't enjoyed the channeled creativity that fills corporate America, are pretty straightforward, but worth remembering:

• One person speaks at a time
• No idea is dismissed as "stupid" during the 10-15 minute storm session
• Don't take the time to question the realism of anyone's ideas during the storm session
• Participants should try to come up with as many ideas as they can
• The facilitator will write down every idea
• There isn't a price tag or "reality check" on ideas
• Once the storming session is over, THEN reality can set in--but the point of the brainstorming session is to have fun with the process

Brainstorming provides an early opportunity for your team members to "buy in" (another corporate-speak phrase that means "get their own ideas in") to the event. You won't use ALL the ideas, but you can use enough that your teammates can recognize and fight for their part of the show.

After the initial "storm," you can start applying your reality check. You go back over the hastily scribbled ideas and consider what's realistic and what's not (and if not, why not). Your event is born from this wild exchange of ideas.

Proposal Writing
The National Space Society requires bidding groups (usually NSS chapters in specific cities) to submit a written proposal. They do not provide a format. That leaves the content up to you--or does it? However, if you're serious about winning, it helps to do some research on what most business proposals include. My career before living in Huntsville was in writing proposals for government contractors, so I at least had a model. It might not always be the easiest form to follow, but it at least had the virtue (for me) of being familiar. So what goes into a proposal? Here's a broad outline:

• Technical Section (where you describe what you plan to do, where, with what facilities, events, bells, and whistles)
• Management Section (where you describe who is going to do the work/run the show, and what experience they have running or working on events like this)
• Past Performance (where you describe comparable events that your group or team members have run, how much they costs, what were their results, etc.)
• Budget (where you lay out, in the most realistic fashion you can, how much you think your event will cost and where you think the money will come from to pay for or exceed expenses)

Technical Section
This is where you lay out the what and where of your event. It should be the longest part of your proposal. Your customer/funding agency already knows who is attending. Your job is convincing them that they will want to do what you want where you want. In the case of ISDC, you can start with a description of the city in question: why come to Huntsville, Alabama? What has your city got to offer attendees besides your fearless team? You also might want to start talking early about the content of your program--what special events do you plan to include? What speakers or attractions in your area will make your event stand out? What's in it for your audience?

From there you need to talk about the specific venue of your proposed event. How many locations are large enough to host the event you plan to hold? What are your top two or three choices? (NSS, like the government, likes a couple of choices.) Why? What features does your favorite have? You need to paint your readers a picture of what their experience will be like. Make it a good one--and yes, include pictures in your proposals!

Management Section
"Why should I hire you?" You've heard that question in interviews, and that's often what makes the difference between being hired and being bewildered. This is where you need to think not just about your resume or previous job descriptions, but your results. Okay, so you've run the local charity ball--was it a success? Did it make money? Did people have a good time? Did the media say nice things? And what about your team? Have they had similar successes? Do they have experience in, or passion for, the jobs they've agreed to do?

Another important thing: organization. The 20th century might've created quite a few management ideas, but division of labor isn't an entirely bad thing, nor is a chain of command or specific depiction of your decision-making process. These things keep events and people focused on specific tasks, and you can clarify exactly who is doing what. Events like conventions all have specific things that must be done, regardless of the content (rocket science, cheerleading, what have you):

• Operations (e.g., hotel, meals)
• Recruiting, scheduling, assigning, and supervising conference volunteers
• Audio/visual
• Information technology support
• Entertainment
• Exhibits

Ideally, you've got people willing to take the lead (one on each). And you needn't recruit professionals. In fact, odds are good that if you're reading this blog, you don't have access to pros. However, you want to show that your team members--a paragraph per "officer" should be fine--can do the job you say they'll do.

A Note on Proposal Writing: In my case, I was a professional proposal writer, so I led the proposal as well. However, you might be more of a verbal person rather than a writer. Take the time to find the strongest writer you can find. You want to put your best foot forward.

Past Performance

This is where you or your team itemizes its success stories--events you've run, what they were, when they happened, how much money they made, what results they produced. You can do this in table form, narrative form, whatever. Your team should be able to show that you can do the job you're signing up to do as a group.

Budget

I'll discuss this in more detail later, but your budget should have some basis in reality. That means reviewing the price structure at your preferred location(s), multiplying by the number of rooms, days, or people, and laying out the numbers. Don't forget to add taxes and service charges!

The other half of the budget--income--is trickier because you've got to take a few leaps of faith. How much sponsorship money do you think you can bring in? How many people do you think will attend? How high of a registration price will your attendees pay? What do other groups charge for similar events? If you want to be thorough, you also might try a "worst case," "most likely case," and "best case" attendance figure.

Events begin with ideas. Those ideas come from--and must be excuted by--you and your team. You start with a dream, or series of dreams, in the form a brainstorming session. Then you start doing the hard research and laying out the first fully articulated version of your vision in a proposal. The dreams are exhilarating, and your enthusiasm should carry over into your proposal. But the proposal does more than set down your event on paper: it lays down claims that your event can be successful and proofs that your team can achieve it.

Hang onto your hat; the hard part is just beginning.

What Should Be Done With NASA?

The National Space Society issued a press release yesterday on the Obama administration's 2011 budget. The whole thing is worth reading, but the first paragraph crystallizes the argument:

The National Space Society (NSS) commends NASA and the Executive Branch for proposing to increase spending for science, technology, and sustainable economic development in space; however, we believe the President’s 2011 budget request would leave the job only partly done. NSS calls for the President and Congress to restore funding for human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit. NASA’s goal should be to make it possible to incorporate energy and resources from space into our economy and to extend human presence throughout the solar system.

If you are interested in changing the future of the space program and continuing to send Americans beyond low-Earth orbit, register now for NSS Legislative Blitz. We are organizing citizen lobbyists to visit Congressional and Senate offices February 21-23 to tell our elected officials why it's important to do so. You don't need a lot of fancy training (one day should do it); just dress nicely and be prepared to speak clearly with whatever passion you can bring to bear. Space exploration needs all the help it can get.

Potpourri CX

Friday night, and I've got an inbox to clear out. Consider yourself warned.

What has the space program done for you lately? Check out the NASA Spinoff site.

Extra credit info from Hu: The X-37B is scheduled to fly in April 2010.

Want an opportunity to help the space program? The letter posted here is being passed around Capitol Hill to get members of Congress and President Obama to support a markup of $3 billion to NASA's human spaceflight budget. This is necessary if we are going to get the Constellation Program on the right track. Truth be told, NASA needs an extra $3B per year for the next 20-30 years or more to develop a truly useful exploration program that pushes the boundaries of technology and sends humans to really cool places. But heck, you've got to start somewhere.

This press release from my NASA PAO feed deserves to be quoted in full:

From: NASA News [mailto:hqnews@mediaservices.nasa.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:52 PM
To: NASA News
Subject: NASA and X Prize Announce Winners of Lunar Lander Challenge

Nov. 02, 2009

Sonja Alexander
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1761
sonja.r.alexander@nasa.gov
RELEASE: 09-258

NASA AND X PRIZE ANNOUNCE WINNERS OF LUNAR LANDER CHALLENGE

WASHINGTON -- NASA will award $1.65 million in prize money Thursday to a pair of innovative aerospace companies that successfully simulated landing a spacecraft on the moon and lifting off again.

NASA's Centennial Challenges program will give a $1 million first prize to Masten Space Systems of Mojave, Calif., and a $500,000 second prize to Armadillo Aerospace of Rockwall, Tex., for their Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge flights. The competition was managed by the X PRIZE Foundation.

The Northrop Grumman Corporation is a commercial sponsor that provided operating funds for the contest to the X PRIZE Foundation. An awards ceremony for the winning teams will be held at noon on Nov. 5 in room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington. Journalists should contact Sonja Alexander at 202-358-1761 for more information about the ceremony.

The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge involves building and flying a rocket-powered vehicle that simulates the flight of a vehicle on the moon. The lander must take off vertically then travel horizontally, flying a mission profile designed to demonstrate both power and control before landing accurately at another spot. The same vehicle then must take off again, travel horizontally back to its original takeoff point and land successfully, all within a two-hour-and-15-minute time period.

The challenge requires exacting control and navigation, as well as precise control of engine thrust, all done automatically. The rocket's engine must be started twice in a short time with no ground servicing other than refueling. This represents the technical challenges involved in operating a reusable vehicle that could land on the moon.

The prize purse is divided into first and second prizes for Level 1 and Level 2. Level 1 requires a flight duration of at least 90 seconds on each flight and Level 2 requires a duration of at least 180 seconds. One of the landings for a Level 2 attempt must be made on a simulated lunar terrain with rocks and craters.

Masten Space Systems met the Level 2 requirements by achieving accurate landings and captured the first place prize during flights of their "Xoie" (pronounced "Zoey") vehicle Oct. 30 at the Mojave Air and Space Port. Masten also claimed a $150,000 prize as part of the Level 1 competition.

Armadillo Aerospace was the first team to qualify for the Level 2 prize with successful flights of its Scorpius rocket Sept. 12 in Caddo Mills, Tex. Armadillo placed second in the Level 2 competition, earning a $500,000 prize.

The average landing accuracy determined which teams would receive first and second place prizes. The Masten team achieved an average accuracy of 7.5 inches while Armadillo Aerospace's average accuracy was 34 inches.

The events of the past two months have brought the four-year Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge to a conclusion. All $2 million in prize money has been awarded.

"The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge has had its intended impact, with impressive performances by multiple teams representing a new generation of aerospace entrepreneurs" said Andrew Petro, NASA's Centennial Challenge program manager at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "These companies have demonstrated reusable vehicles with rapid turnaround and a surprising degree of precision in flight, and they have done all this at a much lower cost than many thought possible."

Four teams had been in pursuit of the 2009 Lunar Lander Challenge prizes during the competition that opened in July. The BonNova team dropped out of the competition last week. Unreasonable Rocket, a father-and-son team from Solana Beach, Calif., conducted flight attempts during the final days of the competition but did not complete any qualifying flights.

In the Level 1 competition, Armadillo Aerospace previously claimed the first place prize of $350,000 in 2008. Masten Space Systems qualified for the remaining second place prize on Oct. 7, 2009, with an average landing accuracy of 6.3 inches. Because there were no other qualifying Level 1 flights this year, the Masten team will receive the second place prize of $150,000.

NASA's Centennial Challenges program's goals are to drive progress in aerospace technology that is of value to NASA's missions; encourage participation of independent teams, individual inventors, student groups and private companies of all sizes in aerospace research and development; and find innovative solutions to technical challenges through competition and cooperation.

The Northop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is one of six Centennial Challenges managed by NASA's Innovative Partnership Program. The competition was managed for NASA at no cost to the taxpayer by the X PRIZE Foundation under a Space Act Agreement. NASA provided all of the prize funds.

For more information on Centennial Challenges, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/innovation_incubator/cc_home.html

Congratulations to Masten Space Systems!

Did you know Mercury had seasons? That's just one thing the Mercury MESSENGER probe has been discovering during its flyby missions.

Speaking of planets, it's getting crowded in the sky--32 new extrasolar planets (that is, planets outside our solar system) have been discovered.

A Look At NASA’s Social Media Program
http://searchengineland.com/a-look-at-nasas-social-media-program-28932

From Doc: This is just wild...someone has taken the time to do a visual diagram of the primary characters in several epic movies or movie series (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc.) and their proximity to each other over the course of the story. The character lines for Twelve Angry Men are just a hoot.

There's an educator's conference on Apollo at the Air & Space Museum in Washington, DC, November 10.

After all the fun we had with triboelectrification on Ares I-X, this t-shirt was pretty funny.

And that, as they say, is that. Have a splendid weekend. Please pray for the families of those shot and killed at Fort Hood.

Potpourri LXX

Busy day today. I'll try to keep this short so I can do some reading that doesn't require a CRT.

Ares I-X has started stacking onto the Mobile Launch Platform. Huzzah!

The American Institute of Physics' take on the confirmation hearings of Charles Bolden and Lori Garver.

The National Space Society has posted an alert (hmmmmm, wonder who wrote that!?) regarding the Augustine Panel.

What did the Apollo moon landing mean for you? Report in here.

I asked Rick Steves' Tour Department if it would be possible to make side trips to Strasbourg, France (home of the International Space University) or the CERN Large Hadron Collider in southwest Switzerland. Here's the response I got:

You could opt out of any time hiking in the Alps to visit CERN which is accessible from Geneva. This daytrip would require taking the train from Stechelberg to Geneva and then bus and tram to CERN. To visit Strasbourg you’d need to take a train from Paris so this day trip would have to happen after your tour. You can take a high speed TGV and arrive in 2.5 hrs.

Unfortunately, the day after my tour I'm going home. Matter of fact, I might be ditching one day of my Paris tour to go to Versailles, which holds a lot more interest for me than the Eiffel Tower. Still, the LHC would be fun, geekish side trip.

Breaking News: Looks like I won't be going to the LHC, either. Apparently one needs to request a visit/tour 3-4 months in advance. Serves me right for slacking off or not pushing hard enough on asking questions. Dagnabbit!

Transforming NASA, Continued

In response to my own question...

Assuming the agency makes this transformation, what should NASA do? This is a question for the agency and its employees, but also the taxpayers and our elected leadership.

First, we must accept the fact that NASA's mission derives from the mission and policies of the United States Government, however constituted. For the sake of discussion, I will borrow a premise from Philip Bobbitt's The Shield of Achilles:

The State will maximize the opportunity of its citizens.

This definition uniquely directs and constrains the direction of government agencies like NASA. From here, I would propose the following mission objectives for the agency:

• Exploration: Send human and robotic explorers to celestial bodies never previously visited.
• Science and Technology Incubation: Provide facilities and test beds for basic science and technology research, with the results being available to all.
• Technology Transfer: Identify direct-application and "spinoff" technologies derived from space hardware to solve problems and improve life on Earth.

This list, however brief, is still general enough to allow for the Constellation Program, building the first Moon base, and developing in-space technologies. If the list appears a little too brief for some, once the Shuttle retires, these will be NASA's primary missions anyway. Still, I've striven to give the list more of a NACA feel to it, which would follow neatly from the notion that government should exist to maximize opportunities for its citizens, not do everything for them. Basic facts about the nature of the universe should be available to all; what people make of those facts is the business of individuals and corporations, with the government protecting innovations and inventions through patents and copyrights.

*

Feel free to throw out your own premises. The top-level exercise of describing "what sort of space agency we want" also helps constrain and describe what sorts of transformation need to occur with the agency. Let the contemplation continue.

Space Advocacy in the Age of Obama

The National Space Society Board of Directors met here in Huntsville this past weekend, and it was quite illuminating, as always. NSS is not, of course, uniform in its demographic or ideological makeup. That's why we have committees and votes and officers--to keep things reasonably orderly. We are a consensus organization, more or less, and unlike some organizations, bipartisan in makeup. This makes life more interesting for the Policy Committee and other groups, as we have to craft documents that will reach the bulk of the American public.

Anyhow, because of this diversity of opinion, we are faced with many different perspectives on, and reactions to, the election of Barack Obama. There is obviously a great deal of uncertainty. This is common with any new presidential administration, I think. There's a a difference between electioneering and governing. Will Obama deliver on the lofty things he said regarding our nation's space program? Will he be able to?

Regardless of the speculation, space advocates must go forward accepting that Obama and his party's ideology will soon have firm control of the government. My positions were:

1. Space is not a priority for Obama (nor was it a priority for McCain, if it came to it).
2. The economy, foreign affairs, and education will be his priorities.
3. Space advocates need to tie the value of space exploration to the things that DO matter to the incoming administration.

This is probably rather pragmatic of me, but the alternatives are uglier. My libertarian friends, who advocate that space exploration be placed completely in the hands of the private sector, overlook the political popularity of NASA. The odds of having NASA disbanded? Zero. The odds of the private sector (SpaceX, etc.) getting additional support for their efforts in space? Better than even (IMHO). The odds of getting Constellation replaced by some other architecture? Slim.

So that's the political reality. That still doesn't prevent NSS from "going bold." One might hope or push for a Kennedyesque call for a return to the Moon or a human mission for Mars. Advocates can lobby for Obama to call for American greatness, technological leadership, energy independence, quality education, and peaceful international leadership, using space exploration as a vehicle. I've suggested as much in my blog on mass marketing. Could it happen? Maybe.

We also have a "friend at court" of sorts--Lori Garver, a former NSS Executive Director and NASA Associate Administrator, is Obama's space policy advisor. She speaks the advocates' language, and she had a hand in crafting Obama's most recent space policy. So: there's hope that Obama's policies can be made more pro-space.

This conversation is probably moot until Obama is sworn in, so I'll drop it for now, but "always in motion is the future," as Yoda might put it.

Tip for This Weekend

I'm off for the next 3-4 days to discuss ways the National Space Society can advocate for a spacefaring civilization during the Obama administration. I suffered pretty badly from Clinton Derangement Syndrome in the 1990s, and I refuse to succumb this year. There's too much work to do, for one thing. If your candidate did not win, take heart from the fact that the Republic still stands, life goes on, and it's a good weekend for football. If your candidate won, revel in your moment and enjoy this time of hopeful promise. Be well.

/b

Anti-Nuclear Activist Decides to Take On the National Space Society

Caveat: The opinions expressed below are strictly my own and do not reflect those of the National Space Society, the Huntsville Alabama L5 Society, or anybody else concerned that I'm shooting from the hip. I am, mind you, but I'll own up to it. My comments are in italics.

Here's a link designed to annoy me:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/SPACE-MOVEMENT--WHICH-SID-by-Bruce-K-Gagnon-080910-499.html

The National Space Society (NSS) is talking about building a "space movement." The organization is heavily funded by weapons corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Honeywell, Northrup Grumman, Aerojet and others. About support from these corporate giants NSS says, "By supporting NSS, these companies have shown their commitment to strong citizen involvement in our nation's space program."

And just what do these aerospace corporations want in return for funding this "grassroots space movement?" They are asking NSS to lobby for massive federal expenditures to move the arms race into space, to fund the space technology infrastructure to put mining colonies on the moon and Mars, and to support the development of space-based solar power technology that would put centralized solar production in corporate hands rather than development of decentralized solar technologies on homes and businesses back here on Mother Earth.

Re: moving the arms race into space

This has been going on since the 1970s or 1980s, when the Soviets used a laser to "blind" one of our satellites. Somehow, when the U.S. decides to shoot back, it's always our fault for "militarizing" space. As witness the U.S. ASAT test, in response to the Chinese shooting down one of its old satellites. Funny how that happens.

In any case, the NSS is much more interested in sending people than weapons into space. I for one have no moral objection to my country of birth defending itself in any environment where its people work or reside, but that's another argument altogether. Regardless--our primary emphasis is on the peaceful exploration, development, and settlement of space. Many of our writings have suggested that the vast resources of space--energy, materials, what have you--might make everyone on Earth so rich that resource wars become unnecessary. We hope ardently for such a future.

As one NSS leader puts it, citizen involvement in space drives power at the Congressional "negotiating table for funding."

No advocacy movement worth its sodium chloride is without lobbying or voter education efforts. How much money do people protesting nuclear power have at their disposal? Our annual legislative "blitzes" are done by private citizens on their own dime.

Because of the growing budget deficit in the U.S., the weapons industry worries that space technology funding will take a hit. They are now moving to preempt that problem.

The space technology budget will take a hit regardless--there's more than the deficit to worry about. There are unfunded entitlement commitments ("Socialized medicine, dude!") that will send the deficit from the upper troposphere to the ionosphere in my lifetime. Space activities--military or no--are among the few things that are considered "discretionary," and thus subject to cuts. It's easier to face down a few hundred thousand scientists and engineers than a few million cranky grandparents in need of their meds.

With heavy funding from the industry the NSS is undertaking a "five year Strategic Plan" and "building a stronger Space Movement is a key component of that plan."

As my pal Jim Plaxco notes ably in the responses below the post, NSS does NOT receive the majority of its funding from corporate sponsors, nor are all of those sponsors are involved entirely in defense activities. And once again I must take exception to the author's automatic disparagement of defense companies as fundamentally immoral. They provide the tools that allow our volunteer military to defend this great nation of ours. The companies and their employees bear a heavy burden, and they know it quite well.

NSS says, "Recently, the space community has become concerned about the relatively low level of support for space among America's youth....In order to strengthen the Movement, additional emphasis will be placed on chapter development and grassroots organization. We will not only appeal to people via intellectual argument, but also to their emotions through the use of space art and other media."

Naturally we are trying to reach new audiences. I myself have written several papers and presentations on the subject of targeting specific audiences to broaden the appeal of space exploration messages. Heck, that's how I got my master's degree! Is that wrong? I think not.

The aerospace industry understands how things work. If you want to control the discussion and change public perception, then you must create the grassroots thunder. NSS confirms this by saying, "The media, the public, politicians, and historians all view something to be of greater importance when it is a movement as compared to when it is not."

So, what? Space advocates aren't allowed to advocate for space, but anti-nuclear activists are allowed to advocate against nuclear power? How arbitrary. NSS does not receive "marching orders" from Bethesda or Chicago. Our policy discussions are often freewheeling, strenuous, and heated, but they are NOT focused on who's getting money for what.-

And since there is not presently a "pro-space movement" the industry has decided to create one.

On the contrary. The National Space Society traces its roots back to the L5 Society and the National Science Institute, both of which came to being as grass-roots organizations of private citizens in 1975. L5 and NSI merged in the late 1980s to become NSS. Often the organization has struggled. If we were so much in the pockets of, beholden to, and funded by, these rather profitable aerospace/defense companies, we would have succeeded better than we have to date. Some, but not most, of our officers are employed by "Big Aerospace." We are doing this for the most part on our own dimes, giving of both our time and treasure. This is a non-profit organization we belong to, not another large conglomerate, for gosh sakes!

There is much money to be made if the public can be convinced that we should spend our dwindling tax dollars on space technology. The Mars Society says that the Earth is a rotting, dying, stinking planet and that we must move our civilization to Mars and that Congress must appropriate funds to "terraform" Mars. And what does terraform mean? It means turning the dusty dry red planet into a replica of the Earth - alive and green and habitable. Just imagine how much that would cost? Imagine the profits for the aerospace corporations to be given such a mission.

Yes, there is money to be made in investments in space technology. But there are also benefits to be had. The author is described as a Vietnam-era veteran. I'd venture to say that many of his comrades in arms have benefitted from medical advances derived directly from the space program. Subsequent soldiers have had their lives saved by "eyes in the sky" (satellites) or reduced the number of civilian casualties in a combat zone by using GPS-guided smart bombs instead of manually guided weapons.

As far as the Mars Society's suggestion that we're rotting, I'd take issue with that as well (I give my time and treasure to them as well--without a lot of subsidy from "Big Defense"). TMS believes that our species would be better off having more than one world upon which to live in case we're whacked by an asteroid or some other threat preventable by our defense industry. And as for terraforming Mars, I'd like nothing better, but that is hardly an aerospace activity only. Getting there? Sure. But transforming a frozen, lifeless, nearly airless ball of rock into someplace comfortable for human habitation will require nearly every science we have, and a bunch we haven't come up with yet. And jeez, man, can't you at least see the value, the glory, the greatness in such a transformation?

Space technology development is very expensive. Just one illustration - the International Space Station was originally supposed to cost the public $10 billion, but the price tag has grown to over $100 billion and it is not yet finished. By the time the space station is completed it will be an outdated technology and on we will go to the next round. Already the aerospace industry is working on the successor programs to the space shuttle and the space station. But in order to get these massive projects funded it must create a citizens base - a movement.

Point taken on the International Space Station. It has undergone many redesigns and partner changes, which have resulted in higher costs. But that was the nature of the process, not solely the technology itself. If ISS were to be used to facilitate commerce in Earth orbit and exploration beyond Earth orbit, then it will have fulfilled its purpose and perhaps even made a return on our national investment. A movement was not needed to keep ISS flying; congressional support was, and it survived its last fight by a margin of one vote. If Mr. Gagnon is so against ISS and believes so little in its potential, perhaps he'd like us to hand the keys over to the Russians or the Chinese when it's finally completed. I'm willing to bet that a lot more than NSS's 20,000 members will rise up to protest.

Some years ago I attended a pro-space development conference at Cape Canaveral in Florida. I went to a workshop on Mars where the speaker was the head of the tourist facility at the Kennedy Space Center. Why him, what did he know about Mars? His message was simple - unless we get the kids, who will be taxpayers in 20 years, to support these space missions to the moon and Mars, we are sunk. So, he said, we are doing a complete renovation of the space center tourist facility on a Mars theme and increasing our efforts to bring school children into the space center.

If you don't understand what it takes to interest and motivate young people to stretch their brains, I won't try to explain it to you. Suffice to say that a hands-on, interactive environment is precisely the sort of thing that might--I do not say must--spark the imaginations of young people. I helped develop a proposal for the Mars Society that would create exactly that. Even if the kids don't decide to become astronauts, they might become doctors, mathematicians, chemists, computer programmers, or any of a thousand other occupations that are necessary to maintain this nation's competitiveness and standard of living. By the way, who do you think will develop the next computer that allows you to blog? One might hope that it's an American.

On the other side we have the Global Network organizing international opposition to these plans for "everything space". We understand that we can't have social progress in the U.S. and pay for "everything space" at the same time. We are also hearing from our GN affiliated groups in Sweden, England, France, South Korea, Italy, Australia, Japan, India, and other nations that their countries are being dragged into the space technology game because the U.S. needs allies to help fund this very expensive new direction. The challenge becomes global as we try to hang onto our national resources to protect life for the future generations right here on planet Earth.

Ah. At last we come to the heart of it. Mr. Gagnon represents a group that is against placing anything nuclear-powered into space. This includes batteries for things like Voyager and Cassini, which have vastly increased our appreciation and understanding of the universe. It might interest you to know that one of the grassroots chapters of the National Space Society--to its credit--organized a counter-protest in support of Cassini when it was launched in the 1990s. And the world has been richer for them: the counter-protest and the Cassini probe itself.

Yes indeed, we do need a space movement. It's just a matter of which kind we need. And the real question each of us must answer is "which side are you on?"

This hardly requires answering.

If you want a space program that will only go as far as hyper-non-polluting propellants and batteries conceived in conditions of peace will take us, then you are restricting the human race to the Earth and the Moon. Mind you, there are solar sails and other "green" space exploration products that could be sent into space, but that hardware has often been developed by "defense" companies and other such suspicious characters.

If you want a space program that goes farther (boldly!) and achieves more, then you might consider joining the National Space Society. We support a peaceful, expansive, high-technology society of free peoples living and working beyond Earth orbit. And we might be just a little safer, to boot.

What Should We Do In Space?

Here's a hypothetical question for your Sunday evening: let's say you were a space fan--not just a fan of science fiction, but the sort of person who finds exploration and human settlement of the solar system an intriguing and worthwhile notion.

• What steps do you believe are necessary to make a spacefaring civilization a reality?
• What would you want the United States to do to make that happen?
• What should we build first, where should we go, and what should we do when we get there?

Okay, maybe my hypothetical question is too much for you. There's no way in heck ANYTHING about space interests you, let alone sending people out there to live on the Moon, Mars, an asteroid, the moons of Jupiter, or beyond. However, let's say you knew that your nation was committed to going into space, and all you could do is affect what they did when they got there.

• What sort(s) of activities would make space exploration and settlement worthwhile to you as a taxpayer ("If I've gotta pay for it, I might as well get X out of it!")?
• What should the country to do to make sure space exploration was "done right?"
• If the country was going into space and you knew your one vote wasn't going to stop it, what would make you more accepting of, or interested in, the activity?

I know what my answers are to these questions. I'd appreciate hearing from others.

Thanks.

/b

DVD Review: ISDC Space Media Session

I'm finally getting caught up on the videos I purchased from the video guys covering the ISDC. I'm not in a huge rush to do this--I covered most of the sessions I wanted to cover in my first posting--so I'm watching these one at a time. Starting from the top of the pile, I picked up the Space Media panel.

First, a quality issue: the audio on this disk was bad. My friend and fellow space blogger Jeff Foust, who hosted the panel, appeared to have his microphone tied into the video people's audio system. However, all of the panelists were audible only through reverberation in ISDC's "the big room," the DC Hilton's Presidential Ballroom. The mikes were not connected to the camera, and the video (admittedly, it only cost me $5) suffered because of it.

Panelists included:

Dave Brody, LiveScience.com
Mark Mayfield, Ad Astra Magazine
Keith Cowing, NASA Watch
Warren Leary, New York Times
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com

The first question Jeff asked was whether the quality of information has improved for the space business, given the profusion of blogs, electronic information sources, etc.

Due to microphone issues, Mr. Leary's response was inaudible. Reynolds stated that the blogosphere offers magazines opportunities to obtain writers for on-the-spot reporting. Mayfield expressed concerns about accuracy in the blogosphere, but Keith Cowing ("I was blogging about space before the word 'blogging' was invented") believed that the blogosphere was inherently self-correcting, as fact-checking bloggers will correct others who get their facts wrong. As he put it, if your blog says something stupidly wrong, nobody's going to read it. Brody felt that blogs offer interesting sidebars to the traditional NASA media outlets.

Brody brought up the fact that a congressman broadcast live video from the Mars Phoenix Lander's landing via his cell phone. Brody felt this sort of reporting provided real-time commentary of a live event, but needed to be taken for what it was--often unvarnished opinion--and that such reports can make confusion of the facts occur that much more quickly.

Cowing noted that when he started NASAWatch, NASA felt threatened, asking him, "How dare you challenge us? How dare you interpret this stuff for us?" That attitude, more than anything, is enough to justify the democratic tendencies of the blogosphere, however uncomfortable it makes government officials.

Cowing did admit that "there's a certain responsibility for [blogging]" and that he "publishes admission of mistakes faster than I made them, and keep them up longer." Not always, says I, but I also confess to being a regular reader of his site, so he must be doing something right.

Mayfield noted that "Anything we say or do could be on YouTube in minutes."

Reynolds said that one advantage of the blogosphere is its ability to form groups around a story--individuals who are sufficiently interested in a story/topic will each contribute their own piece of the elephant (my favorite analogy, not his), and that they will bring depth to a story the mainstream media might cover briefly at best.

Jeff's next question was, "How do the new media affect space advocacy organizations like the National Space Society?"

Reynolds stated that activist organizations offer a particular function: activism.

Mayfield said that society magazines like Ad Astra exist to share the NSS mission with its members. Ad Astr is a cheerleader for the membership, as it should be. Content for advocacy magazines should be visually exciting and literarily compelling, and are better for analyzing issues in the "long form."

However, Reynolds cautioned that the traditional advocacy model of direct mailings and fundraising are outdated, and that newsletters and magazines are dying--they don't fit the role they once had, which was providing information heretofore not available anywhere else.

Brody said that it was becoming more difficult for advocacy organizations to raise money in traditional ways, though the internet is good for building and maintaining communities. Advocacy organizations need to "seize the conversation."

Leary warned about the dangers of advocates speaking only to themselves. For example, there are still segments of the national and world population who are NOT "wired" via cell phones, internet, etc. What are advocates doing to reach out to them?

Jeff then opened the questioning up to the floor. My pal Cassie Kloberdanz asked, "How do you get the [new] media to bridge across multiple demographics?"

Cowing's recommendations included:
"Be interesting."
"Find a niche."
"Pick a target you know about and start writing about it."

Brody: "Be passionate.
"Get your facts straight."
"Establish credibility."

Cassie followed up with "How do we reach the general public?"

Reynolds, who recently wrote a column for Popular Mechanics about lunar property rights, suggested reaching out to more mainstream or non-traditional publications.

Mayfield indicated that it's difficult selling space to young people today because teachers don't talk about space in science classes as much (I doubt this is universally true, but he might have a point).

Cowing threw in: "The worst people space advocates could talk to is each other."

Leary suggested joining a non-space organization (PTA, church group, etc.) and "force space down their throats."

Jeff Liss, former editor of Ad Astra, suggested that NSS, et al., had done well enough getting its message out to the general public, but that perhaps we hadn't made enough of an impact on media leaders.

Cowing replied that people want to know: "When do I get to go?" something NASA doesn't want to talk about. He added that "logic is not going to work."

Mayfield suggested that "No matter what you think about space tourism...it's a new form of marketing....The public doesn't care [about science]."

Brody got in the last comment, focusing on getting out good stories: "[Space Solar Power] in a high carbon footprint world is a good story."

Unfortunately, this session happened on Thursday, which was the day I flew in. Other questions might have occurred to me, had I been there. Plus, it would've been nice to hear what everyone was saying. Bottom line for me on this panel was that these guys are just making it up as they go along. They see the value of the internet--it's where most of them earn their bread and butter--but they don't have any crystal balls into what might happen next.

One question occurs to me, which I'll try to keep short: "Say one of these cell-phone bloggers posts a sensational video that's damaging to space exploration, but dead wrong. With our society's short-attention span, what can more respectable bloggers do to undo the damage of 'the first report' if that's all that gets reported by the mainstream media?"

We shall see. Gosh knows I'll do my part.

Images and Commentary: ISDC 2008

Here are some rough impressions and pictures from this past weekend's International Space Development Conference (ISDC). I was insanely busy running around on various tasks, from selling calendars to attending meetings to "working the room" (an acquired, but necessary skill), and occasionally sitting in on sessions.

Friday, May 30

The first session I have notes--but no pictures--for was Congressman Nick Lampson (D-TX). He admitted some hard facts for the audience, including:

• The political system responds quickly only to a crisis.


• NASA is being asked to do more with less.


• Research and development (R&D) and science are not "in vogue" at the moment.


• The troubled economy causes people to question space investments.


• Given the partisan environment between the Congress and the President, he doesn't hold out high hopes for NASA's budget this year. A continuing resolution is likely again.


• China is producing ten times as many science graduates as we are.


• Space, like everything else, has become a partisan issue.

However, Lampson is a space fan. "It's not always going to be about government. Space will grow our economy." He acknowledged that science and space exploration should be among the nation's top priorities going into the next presidential/congressional term. "It's all about inspiration," he said. It's about "challenging ourselves to do great things." He added that "We can't afford to put science on hold for five years." He encouraged National Space Society (NSS) members to "get to know your member of congress." He described a group of Congressmen called the "Center Aisle Caucus," which is a bipartisan group trying to reach across the aisle to get things done. Lampson sees space as one of those things. This Caucus sent a letter to the House leadership about space.

Lampson closed by saying that NASA contributes to the economy and our culture, and I think that's absolutely right. However, given the number of nations getting into unmanned space exploration, I'd say that human spaceflight is one of the "differentiators" of the American culture.

During the Q&A, Lampson explained that the partisanship on space came not within the space constituency, but more from competing budgetary priorities (e.g. veterans, housing, etc.).

He acknowledged, again, that it was going to get harder to get money for anything.

In response to a question about getting NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy to cooperate on developing space solar power, he said that "Anything is possible." He urged NSS members to "use Congress to change things."

***

After the Lampson thing, I took to wandering the hallways. I must confess to leaving the session on the Constellation program because, quite frankly, I hear about that every day. I discovered that I hadn't brought my cell phone charger and happened to pester a friend with an iPhone. He looked up a Verizon store online using said, "See? That's why you need one of these things." No thanks. Nice to have the assist, though. This is the point where one of my pals would call me a "Luddite in techie's clothing." She's right, so why argue?

In the bar, I met a gentleman who was presenting on a rocket called Neptune. This puppy is a serious behemoth: 6,000 metric tons (about 13.8 million pounds). For comparison, the currently planned Ares V is slated to be 7.5 million pounds at liftoff, while the Saturn V was around 6.7 million pounds. About the only place the U.S. could launch such a beast would be on Baker Island in the middle of the Pacific. I told him good luck with selling that in the current environment. Yikes!

***

The next speech I managed to attend (again without having my camera handy--let's face it, dear readers: I'm not much better off when I have it) was for Simon "Pete" Worden, former USAF General and now Center Director for NASA's Ames Research Center. Worden is something of a legend in the space community and NASA itself, known as he is for bucking the bureaucracy and occasionally getting himself in trouble for it. Worden's talk focused on opportunities in the future.

Worden began by reminding the audience that space is no longer solely the province of the United States. He also stated that "leading in space means leading international efforts." He then went on to note some of the upcoming international efforts heading for the Moon, including China's, Japan's, and India's.

Worden isn't afraid or ashamed to use profanity in his talks. One of his more amusing lines, in describing the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission was, "As a former Air Force guy, I really like bombing the shit out of the Moon." He is also not above taking a few good-natured pokes at rival centers, like Marshall or Goddard, as when he noted the cost of some of his "micro-satellites" and other projects compared to "that Goddard shit." One of my friends asked him, "How do you manage to survive at NASA?" Worden explained that [NASA Administrator Michael] Griffin will occasionally call him on the carpet and demand, "What'd you ask that for?" Indeed, when Worden brings in a reference (unattributed) describing NASA as "a self-licking ice cream cone," one does indeed wonder. My coworkers and I are impressed with the amount of innovation and collaboration that goes on at Ames, especially in connection with Generation Y. Being in Silicon Valley, I suppose that entrepreneurial, looser environment is more likely to occur. "We're sort of the 'un-center'," he said at one point.

Other space opportunities Worden mentioned included the Google Lunar X Prize; the International Lunar Network, which is looking to rebuild the world's community of lunar scientists; launching very large (10-25 meters wide) telescopes to the L2 Lagrange Point; using Ares/Orion for human servicing of telescopes at that location; lower-energy exploration missions to asteroids, which he described as "slicker than snot"; using biotechnology to facilitate human exploration and exploitation of space resources; and in-situ resource utilization of volatiles in asteroids to support exploration. Anyhow, Worden made quite an impression, and was undoubtedly one of the more popular NASA speakers at the conference.

***

One of the "must-see" events for me at this ISDC was the debate (more of a moderated Q&A) between representatives of the threee major presidential campaigns: Clinton, McCain, and Obama. The discussion was facilitated by CNN correspondent Miles O'Brien, and it was quite obvious early on in the discussion that O'Brien and the Clinton representative (former NSS officer, NASA policy person, and "space mom" Lori Garver). The McCain representative, Floyd Deschamps, and Obama representative, Steve Robinson, were either not up on the topic or not apparently interested.

Opening statements:

Obama sees space policy as part of science policy, which is where the other two candidates (and most presidents after Kennedy and Johnson) put it. His efforts on space/science would focus on:

• Building and supporting the pool of talented people capable of carrying science forward.


• Inspiring America's youth (can I tell you how BORED I am with that phrase?)


• Creating a supportive environment for R&D.


• Applying science and engineering toward addressing Earth-based problems, most notably climate and energy issues. On the matter of climate, Obama would use space to support "evidence-based" decision making.

McCain's presidency would focus on fiscal responsibility (in my language, budget cuts). McCain would:

• Appplying information from unmanned spacecraft (i.e. satellites, orbiters, landers) to human exploration activities.


• Evaluating the best way to address the human spaceflight gap.


• Establishing a balanced program of human/robotic exploration and addressing climate change monitoring via satellites.

Hillary Clinton, much as it pains me to say so, has the most clear, forward-thinking, and positive space agenda of the three (but then I was never a one-issue voter--and Hillary's got many other issues that are trouble-making without including space in the mix). Clinton's priorities include:

• Promoting an ambitious space agenda, which sounds nice but was somewhat vague on the execution side. She did mention human and robotic exploration, though.


• Promoting Earth science.


• Promoting aeronautical research.

These points were included in a speech she delivered on October 4, 2007. Garver also pointed out that Clinton was one of the few Senators from a "non-space" state who signed on to the Mikulski-Hutchison bill to add $2 billion to NASA's budget to make up for losses due to Hurricane Katrina and other issues.

In the Q&A section, Deschamps and Robinson made it clear that science/R&D spending needed to increase; however, Robinson ducked the issue of Obama wishing to fund education initiatives by delaying the Constellation Program for five years.

Deschamps dodged a similar question about whether McCain would restore funding to Al Gore's Triana environmental monitoring program, but indicated that McCain would evaluate any gaps in environmental monitoring knowledge.

Robinson drew hisses from the audience when he said that "We've been on Mars for four days," when in fact the U.S. has had probes on Mars since 1977. He compounded his error by repeating the comment later. He stated that it would be more inspiring to students to have a probe on Mars that the could interact with. "We shouldn't say inspiration comes in just one form." I believe Miles O'Brien retorted that "We've never named a high school after a robot." In any case, the crowd got the distinct vibe that human spaceflight was not high on Obama's list of space activities to pursue.

Asked what their top priority for NASA would be, the camps answered as follows:

• Clinton: "Exploration (human and robotic)." Possibly increase NASA's budget, but shift more money toward robotic exploration and Earth science (which might end up being a wash, as far as Constellation is concerned).


• McCain: Science and climate change.


• Obama: The decisions will be made by the space community (in other words, he punted).

Asked about privatizing operations in space, Lori Garver stated that that approach was right for operations in low Earth orbit (LEO), but "the devil's in the details," whatever the hell that means. Asked if NASA was a good midwife for business, Garver said, diplomatically, "They're still learning."

McCain wanted to focus on return on investment to the taxpayers and privatizing the International Space Station via private-sector research activities. He added that "prizes were a good thing."

On the issue of military space, Robinson had a clear set of talking points, which boiled down to: "We don't need new battlegrounds" and "We need to find ways to foster cooperation." A follow-up question caused him to repeat these points.

Deschamps indicated the need for the U.S. to protect its space assets, but also added that McCain was not looking for a new battleground.

Garver reitered the policy of keeping military and civilian space activities separate, though she noted that cooperation with the Chinese would be difficult since they did not do so.

On the subject of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which has been causing the U.S. to lose its competitive edge through excessive export control laws, Garver said Clinton wanted to fix ITAR. One such reform might include moving some items on the ITAR list from the control of the State Department to the Department of Commerce. McCain's camp would review the situation (though I'm baffled as to what yet another review would do to help--we've known about the problem for at least 8 years). Deschamps reminded the audience that "technology is always ahead of the law," but then committed McCain to trying to have the law keep up with it anyway. Robinson answered truthfully, if painfully, "I have nothing to add."

Asked if space is a priority, the answers generally went like this:

• Clinton: Having the presdient make a declaration is not enough. An announcement of a mission needs to be backed by funding and policies.


• McCain: [Not in my notes--I bought a DVD of the session, so I will review later and revise].


• Obama: "We cannot tell kids to 'go be scientists' if they can't go to schools where they can become them."

My overall assessment:

• There seemed to be very little difference between the candidates.


• Space won't be a priority to the President until there's a crisis.


• NASA's budget is unlikely to increase, but basic science/R&D funding will, possibly via the National Science Foundation.


• Human spaceflight will muddle along based on whatever budget it can eke out.


• Robotic exploration and Earth science (i.e. climate change) will be the priorities of all three candidates when they finally get around to addressing space issues.

I'll take a shot at explaining the pictures below later. I didn't get much sleep last night, and sleeping on an airplane doesn't quite cut it, though I did make a valiant attempt. I think I need one of those neck pillows.

More later.

***

The first event I have photos for was the Friday evening gala, where the NSS was presenting the Robert A. Heinlein Award to Burt Rutan, builder of SpaceShipOne and the forthcoming SpaceShipTwo. The Master of Ceremonies (MC or "emcee" in Americanish) was CNN's Miles O'Brien. He was followed by former 20/20 anchor and NSS Governor Hugh Downs, who shared some remiscences of his childhood (including his less-than-six-degrees-of-separation connection to astronaut Neil Armstrong) and focused on how and why the way we record and present the space exploration events of the present will have an effect on the future.

Hugh (I feel I can call him by his first name here--I actually talked with the man during the 2005 ISDC) was followed by Fred Ordway III, an eminent NASA rocket guy and author who served as a consultant on the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Ordway gave a tribute to the late Sir Arthur C. Clarke.










Finally, O'Brien introduced and gave the Heinlein Award to Mr. Rutan. Perhaps I should share some of the blame for what happened next. Earlier that afternoon, Rutan had stopped by the NSS booth, where Dan Linehan was selling his new book on SpaceShipOne (more on that later). Rutan hadn't decided what he was going to say that night, so I jokingly asked him if he was going to repeat his 2006 appearance, where he appeared in "the capacity of a humorist." That was the performance where he'd taken the time to pick on every single program represented in the room. He indicated that he was offended and more than a little upset with the speech that Neil deGrasse Tyson had delivered the night before. He took umbrage with the notion that Apollo/Saturn had nothing to do with being visionary and were all about "war." He stated that Buzz Aldrin was similarly uncomfortable and angry with Tyson's remarks and at one point said, "Okay, I'll hold his arms, you punch him."



















Rutan then began repeating his 2006 performance, starting out by saying that he only came here (Washington) under duress, and strongly urged that NSS hold its conventions "anywhere but here." He explained that he was "depressed in the presence of regulators" because "the folks here tell us what we cannot do...and I spend a lot of my time telling my people that they can do anything. There's no limits on what you can do if you believe you can do it."

He moved on to discuss the difference between research and development. He described Apollo as research: "You're only doing research when more than half the people you're working with think what you're doing is impossible." He stated that the Constellation Program amounted to development work. "We are averse to doing research." He predicted that the current operational model, where NASA designs and the contractors build would fail. That came as a surprise to me, since I just helped Steve Cook write a speech about the fact that the NASA-leads-contractors-follow model derives directly from the Apollo model he claims to admire.

Another good pull quote: "Our best visionaries couldn't predict what we could do if we're challenged." When Rutan is on a roll, there are few forces on Earth that can stand in his way.

Rutan then set off a landmine, and kept setting them off for the next 30+ minutes: he dared to question, in the midst of a rather liberal capital society, the orthodoxy of global warming: "This will prove to be the biggest sham in history." And he went on from there.

Imagine yourself at a family reunion with other non-family guests present. A grandfather or uncle whom you deeply admire, love, and respect gets ripped and suddenly goes off on a tear about some political topic using none-too-polite language while doing so. Say he says that X group or Y profession is destroying the country, and whoever believes X or Y group was a g-damned idjit. You might happen to agree with your grandfather or uncle, but you know that many of your guests do not, and that your grandfather is, in fact, coarsely insulting some deeply held beliefs of said guests or the guests themselves (an example being one of his comments about the media: "I'm am so relieved that you are now irrelevant"). What do you do? You get embarrassed, and hope to hell he shuts up soon. That's sort of what listening to Rutan was like, but he did it all stone sober.

Here's the thing: Rutan is The Man in this business right now. He can write his own ticket. He designs aircraft like nobody else on this Earth, and he did what others said was impossible: build a new vehicle capable of reaching space for around $30 million. He is now building a bigger version to carry passengers, something that means access to space for anyone healthy and wealthy enough to pay. He also recently recovered from heart surgery. He lives in an area (Mojave, CA) and profession where competence is admired above all, and he's made great contributions demonstrating said competence. His work is proceeding without government payment or favor. Does he perhaps feel that he can say anything he damn well pleases? Most likely. Does that mean he should? I leave that to the discriminating reader. As an observer who is both a personal admirer and someone who agreed with much of what he said, I still found his behavior and performance boorish and unnecessarily rude. It's not like he's going to listen to me, but he should have enough "situational awareness" to realize that he did himself no favors with that speech, and might in fact have cost himself a fair amount of goodwill.

Suffice to say, Rutan is better off in Mojave, as he bloody well knows. If you wish to advance by accomplishing something in the physical world, you're better off outside the Beltway. If you want to succeed by winning friends and influencing people, you're better off in Washington.

***

Saturday, May 31
On Saturday, I paid a brief visit to the Near Earth Object (NEO) track, which was not exactly presenting to a full room. A couple of items I did pick up from the talk:

• The number of NEOs found larger than 1 kilometer (km) across is leveling off, while the number of NEOs <1km>


• NEOs are an international issue, which requires trust and serious diplomatic effort.


• The risk line of where the Apophis asteroid could strike is long, running from Siberia to the mid-Pacific to Venezuela to the west coast of Africa. That's a hell of a margin of error!


• There is a 600-meter-wide gravity-induced "keyhole" for Apophis. If it flies near Earth within this 600 m range in 2019, it will likely strike Earth in 2036. Yow!


• Potential asteroid deflection technologies include direct kinetic impact, attaching thrusters, moving the asteroid via space/gravity tugs, and "standoff nukes."


• Stopping km-sized objects is currently beyond our abilities. Food for thought.

***

The next session was on space tourism investing. Speakers for the session included Brett Alexander from the Personal Spaceflight Federation, Carissa Christensen from the Tauri Group, and Andrew Nelson from XCOR Aerospace. Ms. Christensen spoke first.

The Tauri Group did a two-year study on investment indicators within the personal spaceflight (PSF) industry. She described the types of investments as happening in three types:

1. PSF services (the act of actually putting people in space).


2. PSF-related hardware (e.g. rockets, which might be used for other applications).


3. Non-PSF-related revenue (e.g. advertising).

Total investments in all services amounted to $175 million in 2006, $268 million in 2007. Overall employment in personal spaceflight was 1,227 people. Total investment committed to personal spaceflight is $1.2 billion, with ~25% of that spent so far.

Christensen described PSF as being in an "investment and development" phase. I later asked her if she (or anyone else) had done any comparisons between PSF investments and historical investments in commercial aviation at a similar phase of development. She said no, but indicated that market demand and World War II had a greater influence in commercial aviation's development than investment alone.

Mr. Nelson, who was soon to start as Chief Operating OFficer of XCOR, described PSF as "an interesting marketplace." He described his primary customers as thrill-seekers or consumers of adventure tourism. He wants to give them an experience that makes people say, "Holy crap, I wanna get back on," sort of like roller coaster enthusiasts.

Like Ms. Christensen, Mr. Nelson stressed the importance of market demand: "If you don't have a good market, then a good team and good technology won't help you." He stated that demand for PSF needs to be in the hundreds or thousands of flights per year to become a serious enterprise.

Nelson also stressed business basics, like personal assets, capital, and cashflow: "Cashflow is more important than your mother."

***

Saturday's lunch speaker was Anousheh Ansari, the third person to visit the International Space Station as a paying tourist. (If you're a tracker of such things, she was also the first woman and the first Iranian-American.) She was introduced by my buddy (and coauthor) Loretta Whitesides.

Ms. Ansari's first comment did not fill me with a great deal of optimism: "I want to talk about hope." A few comments later, she said, "They [the children of the world/nation] can be the change they want," more or less confirming for me that she's an Obama supporter. However, unlike Mr. Rutan, Ansari did not delve too deeply into the political. She said some good, if cliched things that won applause:

"Impossible is possible."

• "Space is open for business."
• "[Space] represents hope."
• "[Space] is the ultimate way to think outside the box."
• "Let's create a generation of dreamers."
• "I think spaceflight should be mandatory for heads of state."

She concluded her talk with the following poem/saying from Karen Ravn:

Only as high as I reach can I grow
Only as far as I seek can I go
Only as deep as I look can I see
Only as much as I dream can I be

I guess I'm getting cynical in my old age, but it takes a little more than poetry to move me. That said, I still appreciated the sentiments. While I envy her success and her trip to ISS, I don't look at Ms. Ansari as some sort of visionary, like Rutan or Bob Zubrin. She's a consumer of space tourism services, as I one day hope to be. Still, Homer Hickam is currently writing up Ansari's biography, and that story might be worth reading. After all, how does one transition from a 16-year-old Iranian exile to a multi-millionaire and space fan? That would be a tale worth knowing.

***

For reasons that elude me (but far be it for me to complain about them), I bought a ticket for a movie being screened at ISDC, The Wonder of it All. Boy, and am I glad I did! At a shade over 82 minutes, Wonder manages to capture biographies of some of the men who walked on the Moon, which the American public probably hasn't seen in ~40 years. The movie is like an extended sidebar of In the Shadow of the Moon, another recent Apollo documentary I enjoyed, dealing as it does with the astronauts' personal lives. The ones being interviewed included Buzz Aldrin, Alan Bean, Gene Cernan, Charlie Duke, Ed Mitchell, and John Young.

What comes across fairly quickly is how extraordinary these men were, either through their intelligence or eloquence, or both. Gene Cernan, for example, was on track to become a combat pilot in Vietnam before he became an astronaut. Most of the men were combat or test pilots, a profession with a 75% survival rate. Most of them are Silent Generation folks--low-key, humble, stoic. Buzz Aldrin discusses his mother's suicide a year before the landing of Apollo 11, as well as his own bouts with alcoholism, almost stoically. These men are much as they were when introduced to the public in the 1960s: soft-spoken, no-BS kinds of guys who would rather talk about (or better, just fly) spacecraft than become subjects of history. And yet they are. One wonders what would have become of them had they not all become astronauts.

Here's one of my favorite lines from Al Bean, the astronaut who became quite an accomplished artist after his journeys to the Moon: "If you've got a song in your heart, you'd better sing it." This was his big "lesson learned" from his adventures. He seemed to be saying, "If you don't share what talents you have in this life, no one will ever know about them." While my pastor probably wouldn't approve, I understood the sentiment.

***

Saturday was also the date for the Space Shuttle Discovery launch. A good chunk of the ISDC crowd turned out in "the big room" to watch the launch on the TV. And ya know, I like to think of myself as this hardbitten cynic who's had enough of the shuttle and all of its little crises--it bugs me to no end that every Shuttle flight has become a nail-biter thanks to that stupid foam. But damn, put me in a room full of fellow enthusiasts cheering the liftoff at the correct places (liftoff, separation, MECO), and all the old feelings come back: humility, patriotism, pride.

Just after the launch, the next track/session was announced, and it was all about Generation Y. Interestingly, despite the fact that the session was designed to help over-40s understand and work better with Gen Y, most folks over 40 left the room. Hell, most people over 30 left the room! Not exactly the best way to keep a conversation going.

The session was hosted by my buddy Loretta Whitesides, who began with a talk of her own. She stated that the goals of an inter-generational dialogue should be:

• Bringing in more young people.
• Mentoring more young people.
• Finding ways for Gen Y to contribute its unique skill set.

Loretta, perhaps because she's an Xer like me, made some good conciliatory gestures to the previous (Boomer) generation, including a note that "We are standing on the shoulders of giants." She also was more constructive than the "gimme gimme" attitude of some Gen Y folks, by stating the need to "ask not what the space program can do for us, but what we can do for our space program." Unfortunately, the next speaker (Rivers Lamb, I believe) was not on the same track.

Using an advanced version of a PowerPoint presentation the Gen Y set has given in other NASA venues, Lamb did his level best to characterize Gen Y as willing to serve, but then ended up contradicting a great deal of that by emphasizing what NASA needed to do to cater to them. He provided a bunch of different words to describe Gen Y (parenthetical remarks are my own):

• Confident
• Ambitious
• Expecting (to be entitled?)
• "Famous" (a la the Internet, Facebook, etc.)
• Open (to the point of TMI)
• Direct
• Empowered
• Wired
• Global
• Mobile
• Independent (except when living at home with Mom and Dad into their 30s)
• Information-rich
• Multitasking (short attention span)
• Associative
• Instantaneous (I want my data/promotion now)
• Always "on" (inability to disconnect from electronic toys, helpless in a blackout)
• Impatient--occasionally unrealistically so
• Diverse

As far as the abilities of Gen Y go, Lamb had these to offer:

• Able to absorb discontinuous information and analyze it.
• Can see global view
• Want to change the world
• Used to complex information
• Engaged, productive
• Creative communicators

Lamb described failure for Gen Y in the following terms:

• Not pursuing opportunity
• Not trying
• Not being true to oneself
• Not getting dream
• Compromising integrity

Additional Gen Y behavioral traits included:

• Need to feel valued
• Follow leaders based on credibility, not authority (this is also a Gen X trait)
• Failure is an option (and if failure happens, one can always go back and live with Mom and Dad, right?)
• Openly talk about career paths, options, and salaries (this is such a no-no in my world, that I hesitate to even explain it, but I will in case a Gen Yer is reading: You don't tell your boss that you're looking for another job, unless said job is in the same line of work you're in now. If you're an undertaker and you tell the boss you want to be an underwater basket weaver, said boss might not discourage you, but s/he might stop giving you any useful assignments in the job you're in now, under the assumption that you're gonna leave soon. I love the earnestness and niceness of Gen Y, but their political naiveity is startling.)

As advice to Gen Y, Lamb provided the following:

• Seek out mentors
• Turn boredom into positive contributions
• Strive to understand the system (this is a good one, and a bit of advice that is often overlooked)
• Share success
• This one I add from my own experience and from having to lead Gen Y workers: take time to listen to your elders' "war stories." You might want an answer, NOW, quick and dirty. However, you can miss a lot of the nuance, situational awareness, and "why" that comes with experience if you ask for only the quick-and-dirty answer. You can ask for a quick answer, but if the boss starts giving you a long answer anyway, sit there and listen because there's reason why you're getting the long version.

As far as advice for non-Gen Y bosses, Lamb offered the following:

• Be direct, not abstract, in your feedback.
• Allow for a collaborative environment (i.e., one that gives Gen Y a voice in the decision-making).
• Allow learning by doing.
• Emphasize skill development, not loyalty. (I hate to break it to Gen Y, but loyalty still counts for something. A lot of large organizations are nearly feudal in their expectation of loyalty up and down the chain of command. Demonstrate that you're willing to follow the boss's program, and s/he is more likely to back you up when you come in seeking that promotion or transfer you're wanting.)

The next person I have notes about is my pal Cassie Kloberdanz, whom I wrote a paper with for last year's Mars Society Convention. Cassie gave more of a first-person narrative of her experiences as a Gen Yer within NASA. She makes clear that she had different experiences at different centers: good at Marshall Space Flight Center, not so good at Kennedy Space Center.

What differentiated a good from a bad experience for Cassie were the following traits:

• Earning responsibility.
• Leadership that had interest in her goals.
• Coaching and communicating.
• Excitement, training.
• A culture of inclusion.

In short, Cassie thrived best in environments where the management showed interest in her and her personal goals and aspirations. I think it's safe to say that most people would thrive in such organizations. However, Gen Y has some unrealistic aspirations if they expect all managers to cater to their needs in this fashion. Many bosses have their own careers to worry about, as well as their bosses' goals. And that means any Gen Y worker must understand that in order to advance their own careers, they might occasionally have to set aside their own, personal goals to serve the goals of the organization or people for which they work.

Unfortunately, I had to go to an NSS Policy Committee meeting, and so was unable to participate in the Q&A afterwards. That might have proven interesting.

***

The dinner Saturday night was supposed to have Buzz Aldrin as the guest speaker. However, at the last minute Buzz had to bow out because he wasn't feeling well. And jeez, who can blame him? He'd spent something like three weeks on the road prior to ISDC, and he's 78 years old! The man's entitled to a break now and then.

As a substitute speaker, NSS brought in Lt. Col. Michael "Coyote" Smith, USAF.

Lt. Col. Smith was responsible, along with a group within the Department of Defense called the "Caballeros," for developing a collaborative, online discussion and report about space-based solar power. The report got some traction because DoD, as one of the largest purchasers of petroleum products in the world, is interested in reducing its fuel costs as much as (or more than) the American consumer.

"Coyote," along with his pals "Lips" and "Green Hornet" ("Horny," if truth be told) met in a variety of Irish pubs around the DC area to develop the SBSP idea, as they had little support from within DoD. The Caballeros did something unique, as they opened up their discussions to select members of the general public, seeking guidance and input, as "this is too important to the U.S., our allies, and the world."

I found the forward thinking of the Caballeros--more formally, the National Security Space Office--refreshing and much less militaristic than some of my more paranoid space advocacy peers might have expected. For example, Smith was eager to promote the following up front:

• Prevention of an energy/resource war in the future
• Freedom from war
• Real wealth creation
• Economic security

Coyote pointed out that low-cost SBSP being developed and used in the industrialized world would reduce the cost of more traditional (i.e. petroleum-based) resources for the rest of the world. He did admit that "the business case is not there yet," but felt the matter was "too important to the U.S., our allies, and the world" (he repeated the phrase, lest we miss the point) to ignore.

The Caballeros received one of NSS's Space Pioneer Awards in recognition of their efforts to change the conversation about SBSP. I myself won an Award for Excellence for my efforts in supporting the Society for the past year (no pictures as of yet). However, I decided that a future goal of mine would be to do something minor like "change the world." I want one of those pewter globes, dammit!











Sunday, June 1
The last speech I attended in full was presented by Lori Garver, space policy advisor for the Hillary Clinton campaign, and former NASA policy person, and Executive Director of NSS.











Ms. Garver almost became the first female space tourist ahead of Anousheh Ansari, but the funding/sponsorships fell through. She said a couple of curious things during her talk. One of them was that she was a former Republican who subsequently switched camps (she supported Kerry in 2004, Clinton in 2008). She stated that Sean O'Keefe didn't want Democrats supporting the Vision for Space Exploration, which makes no damned sense, given how hard it is to sell space as it is.

When asked what NASA should be doing in 20 years, she suggested the following priorities:

• Focusing on new technologies.
• Conducting science.
• Investing in things that do not produce a commercial return on investment.

She admitted that NASA probably could/should do more about SBSP and seemed enthusiastic about the idea of building solar cells out of the lunar regolith. She also indicated that NASA was in danger of losing its budget unless it tied its activities to more Earth-based concerns (i.e. energy, the environment), but stated that there was still bipartisan support for Constellation. The big argument with Constellation? "It's not the architecture, it's the rationale." Sounds like the mother of all mixed messages, if you ask me.

In any case, Ms. Garver wished us well, thanked us for our efforts, and encouraged us to continue advocating with our elected officials about space issues.

***

When I wasn't buzzing around meetings or meal speeches, I was in the exhibitors' room. The following images are from there.

The item on the table is a mockup of a solar power satellite built by the Moon Society.

Constellation had a presence in the room, albeit in model and video kiosk form only. You can tell I've been in this business too long when I start griping about the fact that the model is not the right Ares I configuration.











Case in point: the shape of the Orion Launch Abort System has since changed to a more aerodynmic shape to cover the entire crew module.










Other items of interest in the Exhibitors room included a display for the Space Elevator Centennial Challenge, which is sponsored by the Spaceward Foundation. The climber competition is much more ambitious than previous events: elevator climber vehicles must now climb one kilometer. The 3/8-inch cable will be suspended from an aerostat (tethered blimp).











Other displays in the room included Apogee Books and David Robinson, a space artist who helped judge the 2009 Space Settlement Calendar Art Contest I ran this year.




















And, lastly, we have Your Humble Narrator, relatively at ease at the Calendar sales booth. Thanks for reading.