Report: "Igniting Young Minds Through Space" Symposium

Today I attended the "Igniting Young Minds Through Space" Symposium at SciQuest, a hands-on science museum in Huntsville, Alabama. The purpose of the event was to bring together educators, students, members of industry, and others to discuss what can be done to increase the number of students studying science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) subjects, thereby improving the "pipeline" for STEM careers in Northern Alabama. I was there on my own as a writer/blogger and guest of IronSclad Solutions, Inc. (My thanks to Jeff Irons for getting me in the door).

The Importance of Science and Technology in Culture and Education

The plenary session was moderated by Steve Cook, former Ares Projects Manager and now Director of Sapce Technologies at Dynetics. Panel members included Todd May, assistant to Marshall Space Flight Center Robert Lightfoot; Dr. Doug Deason from the Missile Defense Agency; Brenda Terry, Executive Director of the Alabama Mathematics, Science, Technology, and Education Coalition (AMSTEC); Tim Pickens, Chief Propulsion Engineer and Commercial Space Consultant for Dynetics; Dan Satterfield, Meteorologist for WHNT News 19 and environmental science teacher at Calhoun Community College; and Jim Halsell, former astronaut and now an ATK executive.

Cook introduced the plenary session by focusing on how Huntsville is affected by STEM. While Huntsville has a well-deserved reputation for being the "Rocket City," it is also home to military technology firms, medical technology, and others. As I've lamented many times on this blog and on Science Cheerleader.com, U.S. leadership in STEM disciplines is falling behind and in some cases already has been surpassed. One of the introductory speakers at this event noted that around 50 percent of the economic growth in this country comes out of STEM. So why aren't students flocking to these types of high-demand, high-paying careers? And more importantly, what can we do about it? This was the topic of the all-day event, and the emphasis was on problem solving. The top two fastest-growing careers in the nation right now are STEM related (biomedical engineering and environmental engineering). By 2025, Cook said that Northern Alabama would have a 20,000-person shortfall in STEM professionals of all stripes. He said this was unacceptable and that "we need to keep the pipeline filled."

The first question put to the panel was "When did you know you wanted to work in a STEM field?" Most of the panelists mentioned experiences they'd had with their parents, ranging from flying aircraft to doing projects at home to experiences at school. All of them seemed to agree with the notion that you should "do what you love," and that the money would come from there. These personal experiences all led to the panel speakers applying themselves more seriously to learning STEM subjects. Dan Satterfield had a good point, which he repeated more than once during the day: "The nation needs citizens who are technologically and scientifically literate." Exactly the point Dar and I stress in our work.

The plenary panelists were also asked why they thought there was a lack of interest in STEM among students and what might be done to change the culture in that direction. One message that came through loud and clear was that "we need to reevaluate our priorities." For instance, if a state tells its students that STEM is important but then pays a football coach more than it pays the governor, that's a problem. Other nations are not making this mistake. Pickens noted that a purely academic solution isn't necessarily the answer. Students are more engaged when they're "making stuff." There was a lot of concern expressed about the competitive nature of schooling today and how kids can be overscheduled and focused on obtaining edges in specific activities (e.g. sports) to the detriment of inquiry and creativity. "There's more to life than book work," said Cook, quoting his father. One report cited during the discussion was A Nation at Risk, which came out in 1993, and which articulated many problems that are still prevalent today. There was also some discussion about the pressures teachers face to "teach to tests." Teachers also require professional development opportunities and access to hands-on and online STEM resources for the classroom.

Opening things up to written questions from the floor, Jim Halsell was asked how much of what he learned in college he still uses. He replied that he uses a significant amount, though the content has changed. Over his career, he's shifted from a learner (student) to a "doer" (engineer/astronaut) to a manager. He emphasized the importance of communication skills: "You can be the smartest person in the room, but if you don't have the communication skills, you're the same as the least-important person in the room."

Cook asked one of my questions for Brenda Terry, which was "Do you have the opportunity to relate technology literacy to basic civics?" Terry thought that was important, along with communication skills. Basic aptitude tests focus on math, science, and English. History is important for knowing why things happen. "Everything should be tied together as much as possible." This didn't quite answer my question, so I talked to Ms. Terry afterward to explain what I was looking for, which were resources for explaining why citizens need technological literacy. She referred me to the National Center for Technological Literacy, which is an initiative of the Museum of Science in Boston. She also suggested I check out the National Academies and the National Academies Press.

Someone asked Dan Satterfield how he overcame his aversion to math. He said he found math "elegant" and that it was "the language of science."

When specific hands-on STEM learning opportunities were asked about, Pickens suggested Science Olympiad and the FIRST Robotics competition, as well as reading Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and Make Magazine. Satterfield noted that a group of graduate students created their own project when WHNT wanted to know if their new radar could pick up debris from tornadoes. They dropped trash from a balloon in front of one of the radars and developed an algorithm to detect the debris. Pickens also mentioned that sometimes educators need to reach students in their own environment. For example, he developed a way to control a rocket using an Xbox controller, which is already familiar to most young people.

The plenary panel ended with a question from Cook: "Who would be more successful in a STEM career: someone who's formally educated or someone who's naturally curious?" All of the speakers agreed that both traits were useful and necessary. Academic training provides the grounding to do the serious work, while curiosity leads to inquiry and innovation.

During lunch I sat across from the speaker, Steve Heard, Executive Producer from The Futures Channel, which produced an excellent series on the Ares Projects here at Marshall. I told him why I was there and what some of my interests were (specifically, technological literacy for informed citizenship). He referred me to author Greg Pearson, who wrote Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology. This pairs nicely with Dar's "Science Makeover," which was based on the book Why Science? So I have more reading ahead! : /

During his talk, Heard showed a rapid-fire montage of video clips from the various careers The Futures Channel have covered. He described TFC's mission as answering the question, "Why do I need to learn this stuff?" The common denominator for all of the jobs profiled was STEM, and they ranged from food science to design to space exploration. The point of the video profiles is to get the viewer to say, "I can do that!" Last year, over five million students are estimated to have viewed TFC videos.

Connecting Space with Education and Culture

The symposium had three breakout sessions. I decided to go with "Connecting Space with Education and Culture." The participants in this panel included Satterfield, Heard, Dr. John Olson, President of Athens Bible School, Steve Moseley, an 8th grade science teacher from Monrovia Middle School, and Randy Adams, a guidance counselor from another local school(?).

Adams emphasized the need for students to do beneficial work, work that was interesting to them, but also work that would enable them to earn a living. Moseley indicated that, at the 8th grade level, the problem wasn't with "turning them on" to STEM, but avoiding turning students off from it. Heard opened by discussing his experience with pioneering the "micro-documentary," which began with chronicling the work of California teacher Jaime Escalante. Satterfield explained that he worked around "a bunch of news weasels" all day and that he was usually the only STEM-literate person in the room. As a result, whenever a science-related question comes into the WHNT studio, he's usually called upon to answer it. He also teaches environmental science at Calhoun Community College, and considers teaching the "best profession out there."

Olson started the conversation by asking the students in the audience why their peers weren't pursuing STEM subjects. The answers were well explained, though a bit disheartening. They included:

• Kids are looking for what's easy, more "practical"
• Math and science are considered "hard" or "boring"
• A lot of them don't realize how broad the STEM field is and (thus) how vital STEM-related skills are
• There's a perception that STEM-related careers require a lot of experience to break into them (my biggest problem)

In response to the last point, Satterfield opened with the following challenge: "Do you know why most students don't get into Oxford? They don't apply! You're never going to get there if you don't try." He neglected to say what one should do if they DO apply and get rejected for lack of experience.

Heard, looking at things from the entertainment perspective, pointed out that most of what's "cool" in the culture is generated by young people. STEM is urgent, but it's pushed by older people, which inevitably generates resistance. On the flip side, though, very few older adults get into Facebook or other new activities. Someone else noted that the things people think are cool--fast cars, private jets, etc.--are developed by engineers, so the "geek" image needs to change or die.

Olson discussed the need for motivation, indicating that it included persistence, choices of challenges, help from adults, and an emotional component.

When the panel opened things up to the floor for general questions, most of the students and teachers asked about career guidance and resources for helping figure out where young people should go to learn about STEM careers. Among the resources or recommendations were:

• The National Academy of Engineering
• Dictionary of Occupational Titles
• Occupational Outook Handbook
• Mentoring
• Internships
• Take the widest variety of classes that you can to broaden your knowledge
• Work hard
• Keep looking, don't stop, opportunities keep coming up
• If you're serious about particular subjects, look for schools the specialize in your passion (e.g. the Alabama School of Fine Arts or the Alabama School of Math and Science)
• General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB)
• Aptitude and Interest Test
• Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (AFVAB)
• Study hard for the ACT and/or SAT (months in advance); good scores there can lead to a scholarship
• Get a subscription to a magazine in a field that interests you
• Find somebody in the field you want to work in and learn what they do; follow blogs in fields that interest you
• Project Lead the Way
• Brain-Based Learning

In response to my question ("How do you help liberal arts majors cope with STEM?"), Satterfield said, "As citizens of a democracy, all of us should be scientifically literate. No matter what career you're in, the more well-rounded you are, the better off you are."

There was some concern about specialization. Several students and teachers nodded in agreement when an audience member indicated that it wasn't enough to choose a major, you had to pick an area of concentration. Someone asked "How do you keep students from becoming too narrow?" One of the panelists said, "You're focusing too much on a career. Pick a field. Get the STEM for basic knowledge." Without saying so, the panelists seemed to be favoring a more general education, despite the tendency of the educational system to try to channel students into very specific fields. However, there was also an acknowledgment that the science disciplines are starting to think more systemically now, with geologists studying atmospheric chemistry or atmosphere specialists investigating biology to understand living systems' effects on global temperatures.

There was some discussion about what teachers should be teaching. The good (and bad) news out there is that science and technology (and web resources supporting them) have become so broad that it's impossible to cover them all. Elementary school teachers were told told they should teach students that science was not about answers but about the process of finding answers--that approach promotes discipline, curiosity, and persistence.

I asked another question, hoping to hear a little bit about the culture aspect of this: what could be done to bridge the gap between STEM and the culture at large? Heard suggested using all available channels for sharing information, including Twitter, Facebook, etc. He also pointed to The Futures Channel's efforts at sharing "behind the scenes" information about STEM careers.

Asked for closing comments, the speakers provided the following:

Satterfield related a good news/bad news story about a local student he'd met who really liked math and science, but her parents insisted she go to cosmetology school--which they would pay for--they wouldn't pay for engineering school at UAH. The good news was that she eventually went to engineering school and is now working at NASA. However, Satterfield relayed this as a cautionary tale of how parents need to be better informed about the opportunities that exist. Satterfield also noted "a lot of anxiety" in the audience about career choices. He assured the students in the audience to "Just do well in your classes, you'll be fine."

Heard emphasized the need to learn math. He quoted from a show The Futures Channel did on Amar Bose, founder of the Bose radio company. He said that the things you learn in school everybody has learned before. The things you do after school are a discovery.

Moseley said that "great teachers motivate" and get students to learn what they don't know. He also said that "you'll learn more after school, but you need to be motivated."

Watson advised students to work and persist. "This is your life."

Olsen concluded with a football analogy: "We're great at huddling. but now we've got to go do."

Making It Real

After a short break, the three breakout sessions reported out to the group. First up was the "Making It Real" session, which focused on "bringing space to young minds and young hands."

The group got some good feedback on resources for hands-on learning (see above). The problem wasn't lack of activities; sometimes it was a matter of centralization--teachers and students need a single clearinghouse for hands-on activities (hmmm...like Science for Citizens, perchance?). Teachers would like a "one-stop shop" for science activities and resources. And while teachers need better communication from resource providers, students need to take some initiative in their own education as well.

The group asked the same question that the Connections session did--why aren't students interested in STEM?--and got similar answers: it's perceived as too tough, it's not seen as relevant, or students don't really get what STEM is.

Someone asked why there aren't a lot of (or any) girls in STEM classes. The answer was: stereotypes. Girls don't want to be seen as "geeky." However, one student replied, "Being geek is cool in this town." What we do about the rest of America is, of course, another problem.

Impediments and Solutions

The Impediments and Solutions session focused on the specific issue of "increasing interest and passion for STEM in the classroom and culture by leveraging space." The thought was, "If we can't do it here (in Huntsville), we can't do it anywhere." The problem is that space is up against a lot of other forms of entertainment, including sports, movies, and games. There was a general agreement that NASA is not good at marketing. There was also some discussion about the "geek culture" perception. There needs to be a better emphasis by parents and the community to "embrace smart people and STEM careers" (have you hugged a geek today?). This includes things like not letting parents who weren't good at math when they were young pass on their fear of math to their kids. Math is the language of science and nature and thus critical to STEM disciplines.

In the realm of community involvement, specific recommendations for how parents and the community can help foster STEM education included:

• Take kids to SciQuest, the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, etc., not Chuck-E-Cheeze
• Get a local team to win an X-Prize
• Participate in STEM-related competitions (FIRST Robotics, TARC, etc.)
• Develop more interactive displays
• Open House at Redstone Arsenal
• Star Wars Exhibit at USSRC
• Space exhibit at SciQuest
• NPR series on technology and R&D

After this group, my session debriefed...my comments above cover the situation pretty well.

Steve Cook finished up the general session with some general observations: There's a lot of talk about the "geek culture" of STEM, but the cool factor on being able to go to the top of the Ares I-X rocket and put his signature on hardware that was actually going to fly was, for him, very high. He emphasized the need for STEM work to continue to be done here in the U.S., not outsourced overseas, otherwise the U.S. would truly become "a third-world country." As a starting point for advancing STEM education, we need to take advantage of the opportunities and tools existing around us right now. People need to have a passion for what they do. Parents and members of the community need to "walk the walk and talk the talk" when it comes to making STEM a priority (as opposed to, say, sports). Students need a foundation in basic skills and need to show some intiative. "Opportunities and innovation don't just drop into your lap." People need to be curious and well rounded because technology will keep changing. That means not losing your core values but being willing to throw away everything else. Mentors will be needed to facilitate this process. And finally, when you're at the top, the only direction you can go is down. The point is not to keep others down, but to keep ourselves up.

One observation regarding this event: it's so hard getting students interested in STEM in general that the topic of space was rarely broached unless it was the speaker's specific expertise. For a specific discussion of using space exploration as a way to leverage interest in STEM subjects and careers in Northern Alabama...(warning: shameless plug alert)...I'd recommend people attend the education track at the 2011 International Space Development Conference, which brings in people more specifically interested in space advocacy. I think space is such a niche market or such a small aspect of STEM that it tends to just get lumped in with everything else (computer science, biology, engineering, etc.).


My parting thought is just that we have a lot of work ahead, in Northern Alabama and in the rest of the United States, if we're going to take STEM seriously. We'd best get started.

Potpourri CXIV

Extra-long edition of Potpourri ahead, as I haven't written here in a week, but first up, I've got a hot item from Darlene the Science Cheerleader that she wanted me to respond to ASAP.

She referred me to a blog posting (and the report it was based on, but I'm a little behind at the moment to read it) about the state of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education and the workforce. A new report from Rutgers University--which I'll read eventually, really--finds that the "pipeline" of students receiving STEM-related has remained relatively steady over the past few decades. The problem, as Dar notes in her fun, punchy style, is that not enough of them are getting jobs in the STEM disciplines after graduating.

I would take one exception to a suggestion Dar had that STEM-based companies just need to pay more. The amateur economist in me doesn't believe the economy works that way. There are two sides to the issue: supply and demand. If the findings of the Rutgers study are accurate (I've seen some OECD stats at work that might say something different), then the problem is not with supply, but with demand. Compared to the number of STEM grads produced by China and India, regardless of the quality of the educational institutions that produced them, the U.S. is woefully behind countries three or four times our size in population. The common refrain at U.S. tech gatherings is that "India has more honors students than we have students." That statement in itself can probably be scrutinized, but let's assume it's true, and that the U.S. is going to need a lot more STEM student, honors or otherwise. That means the education pipeline/student supply is either fine or below optimum for our needs, so there is still some work to do. The problem must lie on the demand side of the equation.

The demand for STEM students is driven by the U.S. private sector and the technologies they produce. Prior to World War II, most scientific research in the U.S. was funded by private organizations like the Guggenheim Foundation, which funded Robert Goddard's early experiments in liquid-fuel rockets. It was only when the nation found itself in a two-front fight for its life against nations that were directly funding science and engineering research and development (R&D) that the U.S. Government became THE player in funding basic science research, where it remains today, according to a National Science Foundation report my coworker Tracy found.

There are a couple of ways you can increase the money available to STEM careers: you can allow the federal government to spend more (which, on basic science, still isn't a bad idea) or you can provide incentives to the private sector to fund more applied R&D. Or you can do both at once by, say, increasing overall expenditures and research incentives on a space program that does really challenging things, like develop single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicles, space-based solar power satellites, and/or more exotic exploration missions and technologies. Kids will jump at the chance to do something cool, and companies won't mind doing the cool things, since they tend to increase their bottom lines and allow them to recruit high-caliber talent. And yes, there are doubtless other industries you can do this with, like Earth-based energy or biotechnology, but this nation has had serious arguments about both. NASA, on the contrary, enjoys wide appeal and support. Connect that ambitious go-where-no-one-has-gone-before stuff with serious career opportunities, and even the skeptics might agree that science and engineering, not high finance, is the way to personal and financial success in this country. And wouldn't that be great to see!?

*

On to other things, and I've got a lot of 'em...

Actually, I've got a bunch of stuff from Dar. She was participating in the Science Online 2010 conference this week, so she picked up all sorts of useful stuff/sites. I need to go to this next year--it sounds like a hoot!

• The first bit is a blog on how to "take your blog to the next level." If that means I go from 15 to 150 readers, I'll be happy. :-)
• She also provided a link to a blog that discusses the impact of social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) on reporting in Haiti and its potential for assisting science reporting.
• Another link is a directory of every type of collaborative tool available to the general public and various government entities. That doesn't mean that all of these tools will be linked; but at least now people would know, in theory, who's doing what with whom. Progress of a sort.
• Here's an interesting engineering competition for kids: design something using bubble wrap!
• Here's an article that blames mean gym teachers on childhood obesity and later adult resistance to exercise. Gotta confess, while I was on the scrawny side during childhood, it has taken the care of a good woman to make me give a darn about exercise. I sure didn't get motivated to exercise based on my joyful experiences with high school physical education.
• And lastly, Dar has a new video introducing some of the Philadelphia Eagles cheerleaders who are studying or working in STEM fields. The video is cute, and Dar asks some off-the-wall questions, but trust me, she's playing dumb. Crazy like a fox.

Here's something Tim Bailey from the Florida Space Coast Chapter posted in Facebook: a space "unconference" where, according to the site, "participants decide the topics, schedule, and structure of the event. Well, that might save some folks a lot of work (can I do that for ISDC?).

Saw this on Facebook, but can't remember who posted it...the Patterson School of Diplomacy provides workshops/simulations for students to brainstorm how various organizations would cope with various disasters--the day after Independence Day, an invasion of zombies, or an attack by vampires (this year's hot pop culture phenomenon).

The speculation and swirl around the Constellation Program continue. The speculations might or might not be true. All I know is that from my day job point of view, we've got our heads down with orders to "keep coloring" until we get new direction.

First it was sex (Lisa Nowak), now we've got reports of drugs at NASA. If we can find a way to get Steven Tyler out of rehab and Aerosmith back together for a reunion concert, say, by the Vehicle Assembly Building, we could have rock 'n' roll, too. Then the public would take NASA seriously as a pop culture phenomenon. I kid. Slightly.

New from Hu:

• A 2D trailer for the new 3D movie about the Hubble Space Telescope. That should be fun!
• A Navy Times article about the U.S. relief mission to Haiti, led in part by the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, one of our aircraft carriers.
• An article speculating on the existence of liquid diamond oceans on Uranus and Neptune. This is similar to Arthur C. Clarke's depiction of Jupiter having a diamond core in 2010: Odyssey Two.
• Ah! And speaking of 2010, Hu also forwarded an article lamenting the fact that the world wasn't yet up to the advances Clarke predicted in his novel.

The final competition for the Huntsville edition of the "Future City" competition is this weekend. Alas, I will be out of town, but these kids really come up with some ingenious stuff.

From Father Dan, the Newseum's Flash site for seeing the front pages of newspapers from across the U.S. and around the world.

From D2, a site created by Konica providing, among other things, exquisitve visuals of the Venus de Milo, which I had the privilege of seeing in Paris...and not photographing nearly as well. Also from D2, an article about an iPhone app that senses pressure on your bed and will wake you up at the proper time in your sleep cycle to prevent any jarring wakeups. Sounds great!

From Jason Clark on Facebook, a very long YouTube video (51 minutes) on human computation. Sounds interesting, but I haven't had 51 minutes to spare to watch it yet.

You really need to read Mike Boyd's columns on the Aviation Planning site if you're interested in an alternative perspective on the "whole body scanner" craze now sweeping the federal government after the underpants bomber nearly took out a plane on Christmas Day. If you think TSA is helping make things safer, Boyd will provide you with some good arguments why you should reconsider that perspective. Boyd's page is also a regular link posted on this site as a handy reference. (Warning to my liberal readers: Boyd does not agree with you. Warning to my conservative readers: he isn't too kind to Bush administration appointees, either.)

Speaking of space and education (at least I did in my opening essay), the Space Florida group is worth checking out. They provide resources to teachers--mostly in the Kennedy Space Center area--to get their students engaged in STEM educational subjects.

Miscellaneous links that have piled up in my inbox:

• Oy…Pat Robertson is about as helpful to conservatism as all the racist email “humor” I get re: Obama. Really, the real problems of the world are bad enough—this is not helping. At all.
• Are you rich? Not sure what to do with your bonus this year? CNN Money offers some suggestions.
• “Green” wine?
• Satellite imagery of Haiti earthquake devastation.
• Light from faraway planet detected
• From Martin: an article title "Reagan Was Wrong," attempting to explain how Ronald Reagan's brand of populist conservatism held within it the seeds of its own destruction. Interesting point of view, and I'm not even sure I disagree. However, the author makes a few mistakes about Reagan's philosophy, such as his "mistrust" in the inherent religious character of the American people--nothing could be farther from the truth. What infuriates many on both sides of the aisle today is that Reagan brought serious churchgoers into the Republican "big tent."
• From Twila...this isn't quite a palindrome, which must be spelled the same way coming and going, but it is a piece of writing that can be read forward and backward.
• A poetry recommendation from the ever-delightful Dr. OZMG.
• From the wise gnomes at NeedCoffee.com, an interview with the Wells Fargo VP responsible for the first ATM in Antarctica.
• From Father Dan, an article suggesting that an airport in Jacksonville, FL, could be the next spaceport for horizontally-launched suborbital tourism.
• In-flight wi-fi, etc.
• NASA looking at multiple spacesuit designs
• Russia sets aside money to build a rocket with a nuclear engine (about time someone did!)
• China announces that it has successfully conducted a missile interception test…anti-missile defense advocates take note.
• How did the first man in space die?
• You never know where Moon rocks will turn up…
• From Bruce, some links to Ares I-X images:
  --Ares I-X Development Test: Flight Day Launch Journal (photo gallery) - collectSPACE: Messages
  --Ares I-X: Launch preparations and updates (photo gallery) - collectSPACE: Messages

And believe it or not, that is NOT everything that was in the inbox. However, the stuff I did post is the "freshest" and most interesting. No need to bore you unnecessarily. Salud.

Young People and the Space Business

Believe it or not, I managed to take in a little of the actual content at the ISDC this year. Not a whole lot, mind you, but enough to cover at least one topic: the next generation of rocket scientists, astronauts, engineers, etc. I got a flavor for this in three environments:

• A panel on future workforce issues ("workforce refresh")
• A panel on hands-on education for aspiring space-minded students
• The NASA/National Space Society Space Settlement Contest

Workforce Refresh Panel
The workforce refresh panel was hosted by my buddy Loretta Whitesides, founder of Yuri's Night, blogger, and follower of inter-generational issues (like me). The participants included:

• Stacy Phillips from the Office of Human Capital at Kennedy Space Center
• Clay Yonce from Organizational Development at KSC
• Cassie Kloberdanz, Communications Associate at SpaceX
• Brooke Owens from the FAA's Office of Space Transportation
• Bob Richards, one of the founders of Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS)

Loretta began by sharing some all-too-familiar statistics and charts showing the "monogenerational organization" that NASA has become. The average age of workers at NASA is 47 (I thought it was 49, go figure), and there are not a lot of folks older or younger than that. Part of that was due to historical staffing decisions: a lot of Apollo-era people were offered buy-outs in the late '80s while the agency itself experienced a hiring freeze in the early '90s--a situation that persists because the agency has been constrained in its civil service staffing for years now. The average age of new hires is 37, and the average age of the workforce is growing by 1.1 years every year. As one person put it, NASA is "aging faster than time."

Stacy Phillips spoke first. She reminded the audience of former administrator Mike Griffin's pledge to move NASA's workforce to 50 percent "fresh outs" (as in "people fresh out of college"). That sounds nice and makes sense, but given the "echo boom" of Generation Y, that's a little deceptive because 50% of the workforce IS fresh-outs anyway. So all Griffin wanted to do was bring the agency more in line with the national averages.

Phillips discussed the fact that NASA has a mentoring program. There was a call from NASA Headquarters for each center to have some sort of mentoring problem...without mandating a particular program. The mentoring process has concerned me for some time, as I watch management struggle to figure out how to mentor and young people entering NASA try to figure out what they want out of a mentor. Mentoring is not easy, and not everyone can do it well. KSC has a "matching tool" to connect mentors and "mentees" in a Match.com sort of web environment, which I believe has met with mixed results. Some folks within the agency, Phillips said, have suggested that NASA adopt a Google type of environment, where 70% of work time is devoted to direct product tasks, 20% goes to indirect support of products, and 10% goes toward innovation. There was no real idea, though, of how to implement such an environment at KSC or elsewhere.

Clay Yonce focused on activities to prevent departures of Gen Y workers. NASA has been trying to give "early career professionals" face time with senior management through a program called "Launching Leaders." Yonce described it as "social networking outside the computer," where under-30s can meet subject matter experts. He also discussed partnering with United Way and other non-profit organizations as a way to expand the program. He explained that there was a serious lack of hands-on experience among new civil servants (more on that a bit later).

Cassie Kloberdanz, who's been a friend since 2007, started off by explaining that workforce retention was not unique to NASA. She had two mentoring experiences at NASA, one at KSC, one at Marshall, with the MSFC experience being much more positive and rewarding than the KSC experience. At MSFC, she got to touch the hardware and was given responsibility. At KSC, new employee orientation was not emphasized and she wasn't given much responsibility or feedback. This caused her to leave the agency and return to school (she was doing a co-op with the National Space Society when we met in '07). She was very passionate about giving new employees responsibility, holding them accountable, and letting them "sink or swim."

Brooke Owens started out wanting to be a pilot, but 9/11 contracted the job market. She turned toward space, attending the International Space University (ISU). She eventually ended up at the X Prize Foundation, where she was tasked with leading a team that had to build half a dozen composite models of Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne. Like Cassie, she emphasized the need for new employees being allowed to take risks, work hard, and do attractive/interesting work. She had the quote of the day for me: "If you think it's the scariest job in your life, that's probably the job you should take." I admired her go-get-'em spirit.

Bob Richards gave a narrative of the formation of SEDS, the ISU, and other groups in the time before the internet and "social networking" sites. He had a good line: "Retention is such a low bar."

I asked Brooke what educational experiences she'd had that gave her the confidence to take on something like the SpaceShipOne project. She emphasized her small-town background, where she wasn't really given a choice about working hard or "ditching class."

Cassie mentioned that the average age at SpaceX was around 35, with the technicians being somewhat older and the engineers and front-office folks being younger. She explained that "You don't get fired at SpaceX for making a mistake; you get fired for making the same mistake twice," a comment she'd made to me before the program.

Phillips mentioned that KSC offers training to mentors, which addressed my earlier concerns. I'd be interested to see what that consists of, but I'm a contractor so it wouldn't affect me anyway.

Someone else mentioned the Phaeton program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is an internally funded project for new hires.

Phillips had to field a question about bureaucracy and the inability of NASA to fire "bad employees." She shook her had and said she understood the concern: "There are good supervisors and there are not-good supervisors...we're going to start holding supervisors accountable."

Hands-On Education
This panel was sharply curtailed because the lunch preceding it ran long (like someone is going to interrupt Buzz Aldrin?), but it was still enlightening.

Tony Gannon, Director of Education, Space Florida
Space Florida has three primary activities: business development, education and workforce development, and space operations (rocket launches) at Cape Canaveral. Gannon was there to talk about the Space Florida Academy, which provides balloon-launched projects for college-level students. They're given a week to develop a payload and launch it: "The balloon goes up at 9 a.m. on Friday, whether the payload is ready or not." Students are also put into an "inquiry-based" learning environment, where questions are met with "Don't ask me, go find out for yourself." The sink-or-swim method. Works for me!

Gannon also shared with the audience that Lockheed Martin "could employ every graduate in engineering right now." That's a little scary.

Ruben Nuñez, Earthrise Space, Inc.
Here's what Earthrise Space's Facebook page has to say about what they do:

Earthrise Space, Inc. is a not for profit organization that was
founded by a group of students and professionals in Central Florida with the
common goal of advancing private and commercial space exploration. Our current
focus, the Omega Envoy project, will help realize these goals through successful
competition in the Google Lunar X PRIZE. We believe that any team with enough
dedication and sufficient engineering expertise can make incremental
technological advancements that will expand the horizons of human space
exploration.

Through outreach to all academic and professional levels, coupled
with synergistic business relationships, we hope to maintain Florida’s position
as the global leader in the space industry. Perhaps more important, however, is
the effect it will have on the public conscience. This contest will drastically
change the way the community sees space, and redefine what is “possible”.
Regardless of whom wins, the victor of the X PRIZE will have proven that you do
not need government administration, exotic technology, or industry backing to
unlock the final frontier—it is open to all people on Earth, all backgrounds,
nationalities, and all ways of life. Thanks to modern advances in digital media
and communications, everyone can take part in “the next giant step.” All that
space requires of those who explore its depths is their courage—and for those
who dare shall be rewarded with unlimited opportunity.

In practical terms, they are providing students with hands-on experience via project-based education, akin to Space Florida's work. I liked his challenge: "If you don't do it, who's going to do it?"

Josh Neuberg, Conrad Foundation
The Conrad Foundation, named for late Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad, provides prize-based, entrepreneurial education. I liked Neuberg's emphasis, which began with a brief zing on traditional book learning and championed instead "entrepreneurial education" to break down barriers between science (engineering) and business.

Michael Mealling, Masten Space Systems
I've known Mike since the 2006 X Prize Cup. He was brought into this discussion because Masten hires two college co-op students per year and because he wrote a blog about what students need to do to get into aerospace. His emphasis when hiring "fresh-outs" has been on the student's extra-curricular activities. He doesn't just ask, "What have you built?" but "What have you built without a teaching telling you to?" Masten does not want workers educated and experienced in "traditional aerospace" because it takes too long to "untrain" them (quoth Yoda: "You must unlearn what you have learned").

The introductions took up a good deal of the hour. When the Q&A session opened, the first person to speak was Gillian Evans, a math and physics teacher from Canada. The frustration in her voice was obvious. She appreciated what everyone on the panel was saying, but stated that the American system is based on GPAs and standardized tests. Today's teachers have "no incentive for inquiry-based learning."

Mealling partially agreed, but said that there are "holes" in the curriculum to allow teachers time to teach space-based, hands-on learning. Ms. Evans was adamant: "That only works with teachers who want to do it."

Another high school teacher, this one from the Florida Space Coast, said that it wasn't a teaching issue first, it was a political issue, arguing that private industry needs to lobby for loosening the test-based education model (No Child Left Behind).

Evans chimed in with "We don't need SATs. Get rid of them." There was then a brief discussion about how U.S. universities were supposed to accept students without some basis for comparison.

Gannon added that, "You don't just read science, you've got to go out and do it."

And at that point, I had to go over and make my pitch to the Conference Committee. But you get the idea. For science and engineering, as in most endeavors, students learn better by doing than just studying.

NASA/NSS Space Settlement Contest
I have no notes in my journal from this hour, and because I'm an idiot, I don't have pictures to share. Instead, I must share my impressions and all-too-fallible memories. Bear with me, the point is not to provide specifics here, anyway, but to offer some unvarnished analysis and opinion writing.

I talked to seven teams: three from India, two from Romania, one from Canada, one from the U.S.

Now the official winner was Eric Yam who was from Canada. Like many of the kids, he talked very quickly, but his concept was impressive. One of the constraints of the contest was for the students to use existing/known technologies as much as possible, and to avoid "unobtanium." The fundamental units of young Mr. Yam's massive geosynchronous structure were inflatable habitat modules based on Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space station. The "ribs" of the structure are long tubes based on existing commercial aircraft airframes.

The two teams from Romania were mostly girls. They spoke more slowly than the boys, possibly because they were less comfortable with their English, but they had answers for all of my English-major-level questions. The benefits of their projects, as near as I can remember, were the use of expandable toroid designs. One design, in its final form, could house 500,000 people!

The one American kid I saw was just arriving as I was sniffing around. He was a pretty quiet, very tall young man from Georgia. He wasn't so much a "team" as an independent genius. His structure reminded me of The Machine from the movie Contact. However, there were a couple of unique features that caught my attention. For example, the outer sections of the ring/torus were seeded with bacteria that is highly radiation-resistant, but also can be used to process wastes. The core of the station was also interesting, in that it had a very unique appearance--almost organic. The student grinned a little and said, "That's because it's grown." And by "grown," he means organically developed from space-based materials at a nanoscopic level. For this student (Jacob, I believe, is his name), the Singularity really is near.

And while I was pleased to talk to the sole American I could find, the Indian teams just blew me away. One station included vertical takeoff or landing (VTOL) aircraft, magnetic-levitation trains, magnetic shoe soles, zero-gravity toilets, electrical generators, and gosh-knows-what-else. And all of the designs were new to me, some beautiful, all ingenious.

Another Indian team had a design that was plain marvelous. They began by explaining that the purpose of this station would be to exploit the resources of Mars. For those unfamiliar with the concept, most of these stations include some sort of spinning to provide artificial gravity via centripital force (for an example of this, fill a bucket partway with water and then start twirling it in a horizontal or vertical circle--the water stays in the bucket, it doesn't fall out). Most of the students' designs used a torus (donut) shape, where occupants' heads are pointing inward toward the center of spin and their feet point downward toward the stars. This group used a "double dumbbell" design, where there are two sets of platforms pointing inward toward each other and spinning around a common center. In this case, the platforms (inner and outer) look like symmetrical, radially-sectioned lily pads complete with organic-looking tubes that connect each radial section to the central core. Beautiful. And even the interiors of these platforms were different from anything I've seen in the West. Rather than housing and farmland laid out in a Cartesian grid, if you flew overhead, the land would almost look like some sort of modern art--a combination of strange symbols and paisley. Farmland, housing, medical facilities, and other land uses have no distinct pattern to them. Like the station, they are nearly organic. I loved it, and I wish these kids from Punjab would've spoken more slowly, as I missed some of what they said. But it was all very, very cool.

So the message I took away from the Space Settlement Design contest was that I had cause for hope in the future. I've expressed more than a few concerns about the state of education in the U.S. and the world at large. What are we teaching our kids? What are they learning? Will the things they learn be useful for helping us build a better future? The teams of Indian kids and the lone American also gave me pause. All of these kids worked with teacher-mentors to ensure they were getting things right; and yet the American kid worked alone. Are they learning these things in class, or are they self-directed learners? (I suspect the latter.) Is interest in space settlement that far gone in this country? Meanwhile, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) wants to send men into orbit by 2015 and to the Moon by 2020--the Constellation timeline, oddly enough--and they just might do it. Regardless, all of these kids were dreaming BIG and thinking positively about the future, and it was refreshing to see that.

As a nation, the United States has many challenges ahead--not just in the next four years, but in the next century. A uniform government education system might work, if that system was dedicated to achievement and learning, not just meeting test scores and keeping union members happy. But if we don't end up with a government-controls-all system (which I fervently hope will be the case), then we owe it to our students to provide them the most freedom--bounded by informed wisdom--to learn what they need to learn to make the future better. As one of my fellow ISDC participants put it, it's a little disconcerting that space settlement design might be the next thing we outsourced. I wish those kids from Punjab well, but I hope for the sake of my own country that that will not be the case.

An Alternative to a College Degree

I read an article by Charles Murray recently that talked about developing test-based credentials for various professions and trades instead of relying solely on four-year college degrees. These tests would be akin to the CPA exam, and would be comprehensive in scope. The advantages to the testing approach are many:

• It would be "degree-neutral," in that no minimum amount of schooling is required.
• It also would be "institution-neutral." You could have gotten the knowledge for taking the test from a university, two-year college, trade school, the local library, or your parents' garage. All that matters is that you have the skills to pass the exam.
• It would allow individuals to obtain only the schooling they need and want.
• It wouldn't necessarily saddle people with crushing debt due to student loans, etc.

'Tis a thought, anyway. This process would've come in handy when I wanted to switch over from answering complaint letters to becoming a technical writer. As it was, I had to put myself in hock to Uncle Sam for ~$10K for grad school just to "prove" that I could be a technical writer.

Coping with Negativity in the Workplace

Last night one of my Gen Y buddies called me for some advice. I was both flattered and amused. It's nice to think that I have now reached a point in my life and career where I'm considered a voice of wisdom and reason. On the other hand, that wisdom came as a result of the troubles I've caused myself through my smart mouth and bad judgment. There's a line out there somewhere that says, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience is often the result of bad judgment."

Be that as it may, without naming names, I thought this might make a suitable--dare I say useful?--blogging topic. My friend's concern was with his coworkers. While he's a go-get-'em, true-believer type, he has landed his first real career experience in an environment with Grizzled Veterans. We all know the type:

• Their humor runs toward the pessimistic, depressing, dark, and sarcastic
• They've seen it all before
• They distrust management, even when they're trying to do good
• They bring down the attitudes of others around them through sheer contact
• The negative attitude never changes
• The common work of the group suffers
• Backstabbing is not uncommon
• They talk about (or actually are) polishing up their resumes for fear of job loss
• ...Yet somehow they keep showing up for work

I've been on the receiving and giving end of these behaviors, and I can say from personal experience that sometimes a lot of this talk is BS. Sometimes it really is just extra-dry or sharp humor. If may generalize a moment, former military people and engineers often have a bit of an edge to their senses of humor, either because they've seen human nature at its worst and had to fight it or because they've seen machinery at its worst and had to fix it. Sometimes it's worth it to ask some of these folks about their personal stories and find out what's really behind them. Inside a grumpy growler you might find a teddy bear; or you might find an even more vicious S.O.B.

Anyhow, my first recommendation is to do some environmental scanning and see if you can discover what's driving the cynicism.

• Is it centered around an individual? Some folks are attitudinal Typhoid Marys. Is it time for someone to be retired?
• Is it a local/group/team thing? Perhaps the dynamics or organization need to be addressed by changing work duties, physical environment (feng shui?), or reporting structure.
• Is it a work thing? If the project itself is what's causing the most heartache, perhaps intervention from higher up is required to identify where the project is flawed and what, if anything, can be done to put it back on track.
• Is it a political thing? Us vs. Them? Labor vs. Management? Contractor vs. Civil Servant? What is the source of the tension? How can it be resolved to both sides' satisfaction?

Now I admit these are the sorts of questions I would ask. I like to think of myself as a grownup with some sort of professional status and ability to influence the environment around me. Fifteen years ago (about where my friend is now), I had nowhere near the confidence or standing I do now, and my ability to control my environment--it seemed to me--was mostly beyond my control. The questions I would've asked 15 years ago would have been a bit more tactical: fight or flight? So here are the questions I posed to my friend, as they were more pertinent to his situation:

• Can you ignore it? This is the most socially acceptable and least confrontational course for a True Believer to take, as it would go against the grain to join in the bitching sessions.
• If you know it's one particular person causing the general malaise, you could go for the jugular and confront with that one person directly about their specific behavior, humorously or not, with or without a leader present, and find out what their beef is. This is my approach, and it does not always work. However, done politely, it's unlikely that you'll get fired for it.
• An alternative to this approach is to talk to your boss about what you've observed. Again, avoid name-calling, expressing vague feelings, or making vague accusations. You need to address specific behaviors, their effect upon you, and your (politely worded, of course) suggested course of action/resolution. Understand also that if you're more upset about how these people make you feel, you'll have less grounds to make a formal complaint than if their attitudes and behavior are interfering with your ability to do your job. A cry of hurt feelings could result in a "Grow up and get over it!" response. A specific complaint about incomplete or shoddy work will get a coworker's or manager's attention much more quickly.
• If your boss is one of the gripers--or worse, the instigator--you can always try to take the matter "upstairs," though you should make a good-faith effort to resolve such issues with the individuals concerned first. Going over the boss's head is generally considered a bad thing.

Okay, say you've exhausted all your avenues using the Conflict Resolution 101 Handbook. Then what? If the atmosphere is toxic, get out. Life is too short to be spent around unpleasant people, especially if you're doing work you love. Your options then become clear:

• Polish up your resume.
• Keep a smile on your face and a song in your heart. After all, you ARE happy to be there, and you'll be even happier once you're doing similar work in a workplace free of the toxicity.
• Talk to your friends in the same industry--inside and outside your company. Don't talk about The Evil lurking in your department. Emphasize the positive: "I'm thrilled to have a job in this business, but I'm not sure the particular job I'm in right now is a good fit for me. I'm good at X, Y, and Z, and I have a passion for J. Where do YOU think I could/should go?" This approach also works with (some, I must caution, not all) managers. If you've been busting your hump in your particular area and your manager has any sense, they will see some potential in you and perhaps refer you somewhere--inside the company or out. You could also skip the bit about your current job not being a good fit, and just start a subtle (or not-so-subtle) campaign to get moved to another area.
• Whatever you do, don't jump ship until you have the next job. And before you jump to the next job, have a good idea of what you want. There's no sense leaving the Titanic to hitch a ride on the Lusitania. (No, I'm not going to explain those references, just look 'em up!)

Seeking "what you want" should probably encompass more than just work content, but also workplace dynamics, management philosophy, autonomy, economic conditions (in the big wide world and at the particular company you're looking at), and daily work structure. By daily work structure, I mean things like, will you be on your own? Working in a small group? Working in a large group? You should be running toward something, not just away from something else.

And even after you've figured out as much of that as you can, have found a better job, and have taken the next step into another, hopefully saner place, you will still find friction. Human nature, despite what they're teaching in some schools nowadays, is neither easily changeable nor uniformly nice. Aside from a few folks like me who spent a few months in HR and have read the Conflict Resolution 101 Handbook, a lot of people will prefer to argue than listen to reason. Sometimes you just have to slug it out to get your way, and there are people who will appreciate you more for sticking to your guns than if you try to negotiate peace. It's not rational, but it is reality.

And that's about all the elder-brotherly advice I can offer this evening. Hopefully it will prove useful.

More Gasoline on the Gen Wire Fire

It looks like our friends in Generation Y have made yet another pitch to NASA. My thoughts are below.

Slide 3: As I've complained in a couple of places, Gen Y continues to harp on strategic communication. Yes, it needs to be addressed. But, again, they should be prepared for the cranky old dinosaurs to come back and say, "Fine, we'll work on our communication efforts. What are you going to do to contribute to the aerospace engineering NASA is doing?" Whenever this question is asked, Gen Y circles back to the communication thing: "How are we going to get interested in the engineering if you don't communicate better? Talk to us! Pay attention to us! We're important! It's all about me, Me, ME!" Okay, I exaggerate slightly. But my attempts to focus on Gen Y's potential engineering contributions have led to several of conversations like this. The young folks want to be listened to, the older folks want to know what the younger folks are going to do for them. There is little sense of reciprocity from these Gen Y presentations, and that is the biggest stumbling block to improving the dialogue.

As I predicted my generation has disappeared from their calculations entirely. Slide 6 differs from slide 30 of their previous pitch by eliminating Generation X. Instead of Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y, they now have only Baby Boomers and "Next Gen." Let's try this one more time, kids: despite Wikipedia's attempt to subdivide the generations, the Baby Boom Generation was born 1946 to 1961. Generation X was born 1961 to 1977. Gen X really IS different from Gen Y simply because we grew up without ubiquitous computing, nearly uninterrupted economic expansion, and electronic media until we were in our teens. Okay, the old guy needed his "ten miles to and from school in three feet of snow" rant. I'm good now. Moving on...

Slide 8 raised the following questions, which I will answer as I go along:

• What is the value of Gen Y in creating a "sustainable" space program? Theoretically, they should have a better command of computerized productivity tools, which should enable them to improve not just communication but also functionality.
• Is there a disconnect between NASA and NextGen? Obviously, or the conversation wouldn't have taken on such intensity.
• What does the hiring and retention data tell us? That NASA is losing people, through budget cuts, retirement attrition, lack of interest, and lack of qualified applicants. The best and brightest aren't attracted to NASA, because they don't perceive NASA as being "cutting edge" enough, other businesses pay better, or the path to working on actual hardware is too slow for impatient youths.
• Does Gen Y expect NASA to cater to them? In some ways, yes. I've beaten this horse enough that I should just let it lie there. However, I'll take another shot at it: insisting that NASA hire/promote you faster just because there are 70 million of you or because you can use MySpace better than the dinosaurs is not realistic.
• Do better communication tools exist? Naturally. And Gen Y is much better poised to exploit them. These tools might even change the nature of communication at NASA to become more open and transparent. However, some of the young'uns still need a few lessons in national security, ITAR, and proprietary laws.
• Why should NASA care? The reasons are already well known, but are worth repeating: Gen X and Gen Y will be the ones paying for, building, flying, and benefitting from the next generation of exploration vehicles and technologies. Or not. If these generations decide that the effort and rewards aren't worth the expense, then space exploration in America will die, and the Chinese, Indians, Russians, Japanese, and Europeans will inherit the solar system.

Slide 14: The following bullets are interesting.

We are asking that the focus on today’s urgent issues be balanced with the needs of tomorrow.
We realize that there is potential for increased risk on those projects but missions today must take the risk of raising young people and not just hiring already experienced people.

No argument with the first point. I am curious how Gen Y folks think NASA should go about hiring more of them when they're in the process of cutting 6,000 jobs in the next three years.

The next point is a little odd, either because they didn't have an English major on hand or because they had multiple purposes in mind: "Missions today must take the risk of raising young people and not just hiring already experienced people." The word raising amused me because it made me wonder if the presenters were looking to NASA as some sort of surrogate parent. But Gen Y also needs to face a simple, painful fact: few organizations are going to let you work on the very cool, cutting-edge, expensive stuff right out of college unless there are other circumstances driving the decision. In the case of the Apollo program, where the average age of folks working on the hardware was 26, the primary extenuating circumstance was John F. Kennedy's "before this decade is out" deadline. Otherwise, everybody starts at the bottom, doing small, thankless jobs first before they are given the opportunity to work on the bigger stuff. It was explained to me this way when I was starting out as a stock clerk at Osco: before I was allowed to be a cashier or work in the liquor department, I had to prove that I could sweep the floors, stock the diapers, and dump the garbage well. "Why should the boss trust you with more responsibility if you don't put in the work to do the small and simple things first?" It's called paying your dues, and everyone does it.

Slide 16 is interesting, and explains a lot about why Gen X doesn't have a large presence at NASA: right around the time a lot of us were graduating (1986 to 1994), NASA underwent a series of hiring freezes. As a result, a lot of us went into the dot-com business instead. Or, in my case, the service/hospitality industry.

Slide 20: Another one that deserves to be answered respectfully, since the presenters are at last offering some suggestions.

We’re asking to create an environment where all NASA employees can leverage their strengths to push the limits of science and space exploration by:

Providing the current NASA workforce with infusion of fresh ideas, methodologies and technologies.

Providing the Next Gen NASA workforce the programs and experience today that it needs to be the leaders in the future.

Enabling enhanced communication and collaboration between NASA centers.

Getting more young people in the door.

Regarding "Providing the current NASA workforce with infusion of fresh ideas, methodologies and technologies," fine. Which ones? And NASA doesn't just want to hear about YouTube and MySpace. What about engineering software? Materials research?

Re: "Providing the Next Gen NASA workforce the programs and experience today that it needs to be the leaders in the future." I'm glad they included this. Maybe it's a sign that they get the "paying your dues" and "starting out small" concepts. Of course programs like this are vanishingly rare, and the NASA budget doesn't show many signs of unlimited growth. These kids need to vote, something people 18 to 30 historically have not done. If they did, Congress might pay more attention to them. I could add that they need to vote for presidential candidates who have an intelligent platform that supports space exploration and need to avoid candidates who just make them feel good; however, then I would deprive Barack Obama of one of his primary voting blocs.

Re: enhanced communication and collaboration between NASA centers. Yes, that would be nice, and it does happen. However, it does not occur at all levels, not at blinding speed, and not always with the same degree of cooperation between all individuals.

Re: getting more young people in the door. Again, NASA is about to cut 6,000 jobs in the next few years. What do the presenters suggest?

Slide 24:

We propose to engage the current workforce in cross-generation discussions at every center, cross-center discussions at the agency, and connections with the American Public.

Great! Looking forward to it.

Slide 29 recaps Slide 20 to show that they did, indeed, have concrete recommendations. Okay, great. And now what? The agency is not going to be changed by a couple of PowerPoint presentations, though I confess it's been awhile since I've seen two presentations have such impact. The old folks need more details and specifics. What kinds of new technologies? What types of programs do you recommend? Whose jobs shall NASA cut in order to make room for you? And if NASA does cut those jobs, how many experienced people are going to be around to give you the mentoring you want and need? These are some of the political realities the agency faces.

My Recommendations

While I've spent most of this posting busting Gen Y's chops, I'm not disregarding what they said. Far from it. I believe NASA needs to respond constructively in some fashion. The presenters, again, have made their concerns known. Great. Now NASA needs to sit down, honestly thank these folks for bringing these concerns to their attention, and then explain a few facts of life to the presenters. Next, NASA needs to engage in that cross-center, agency-wide dialogue consisting of multiple age groups, specialties, hierarchy levels, and technical backgrounds. This dialogue needs to have a concrete deliverable as a goal/output: a plan for integrating both the 21st century workforce and its technologies. Perhaps this will require two different plans:

• A technology improvement and integration plan. This should address both communication technologies (internal and external) and engineering and hardware tools.
• A workforce integration plan. This should address NASA's future workforce needs, by skill type and workforce size, as well as training plans for transferring institutional knowledge to new employees.

Who knows? Someone might even take these ideas seriously. Of course to be taken seriously, NASA would then have to act on the plans. But after that, once the doors are opened, it will be Gen Y's time to stand and deliver.