ISDC 2011, Already?

I've more or less signed myself on to help the Huntsville Alabama L5 Society (HAL5) put in a bid to be the host chapter for the 2011 International Space Development Conference. I was almost Operations Manager for this year's ISDC, but then I had the bad taste to go and move away from the Washington, DC, area. I needn't have run so far: ISDC followed me anyway. So much for getting a new hobby.

So what, exactly, is involved in running a space advocacy convention? Here's my preliminary "take" on the matter, scribbling rapidly in my journal this morning:

The Bid

The National Space Society doesn't just take volunteers to run a conference. They expect a little competition and some choice in the matter. So no doubt come the next ISDC there will be a competition between some unknown city and Huntsville.

This means HAL5 will need to get some of its ducks in a row. Some things we'll probably need to assemble include:

• Conference theme
• Programming tracks
• Hotel/convention space
• Sponsors
• Local (city of Huntsville) assistance
• A conference management team
• Conference logo(?)

The conference itself will be an even bigger elephant to chew (Query: "How do you eat an elephant?" Answer: "One bite at a time"). First we need a management team, consisting (at least!) of:

• Chair
• Co-Chair (Vice Chair?)
• Treasurer
• Secretary
• Legal Counsel
• Programming Chair
• Business Chair
• Operations Chair
• Public Relations Chair

Under the aforementioned, other items will be required:

Programming

• Track selection (what topics do we want to have speakers talk about at the conference?)
• Speaker selection (who do we want to invite to speak on the topics we want?)
• Track chairs (who is going to be responsible for running said tracks?)
• Room assignments (where are the various tracks going to be held?)--this is location-driven
• Schedule (this needs to be done early, IMHO, so that the Ops manager knows when events are occurring and how many volunteers s/he will need to staff the various rooms)
• There is also the Space Investment Summit (SIS), which is attached to, but not 100% a part of, ISDC. The SIS is a very clever and useful event, wherein venture capitalists, "angels," and other investors interested in putting their money into space are put into a room with would-be investees. You don't get to be a venture capitalist without a great deal of money, influence, and name recognition, which a local chapter doesn't normally have ("You're calling on behalf of HAL who?"). My guess, therefore, is that the investors in attendance are invited by--and the event is run by--NSS Headquarters. In the first year of the SIS, the would-be investees (space entrepreneurs) were also invited based on some sort of criteria. If all of that is left to NSS HQ, HAL5 will still need to provide function space as well as food and beverages for this event. Who pays? Interesting question.

Public Relations/Media/Advertising

• We'll need a decent public relations writer, that's for certain.
• We'll also need someone who knows the media and can maneuver and get attention in that world. This is a tough town to do this type of volunteering in because the government or one's employer might see you doing your day-job activities in your free time (even if you're doing it for free) as a conflict of interest. Ain't government work grand?
• ISDC 2008 managed to get a presence on C-SPAN this year, through the diligent efforts of my media-guru buddy Ian Murphy. Does HAL5 have the same sort of clout, or do we need to hire Ian again? The world wonders.
• Someone in the group suggested having a competition to design the conference logo. That, or we could hire the wife of one of our members to design it. Depends which one's less expensive, doesn't it?

Business Management

This is the "money man," so to speak. For ISDC 2005, the Business Manager dealt with things such as:

• Sponsor relations
• Conference merchandising, if any
• Obtaining giveaways--the most common conference giveaway these days is a laptop bag
• Obtaining volunteer gear (shirts)
• Negotiating and planning big-ticket items, like the obligatory conference "gala"
• Running registration, printing badges, etc.
• Setting up IT for the conference and attendees, if necessary
• Most importantly, the Business Manager is in charge of setting and sticking to the budget!

Operations

This is the area I have the most familiarity with, partially because I was more-or-less deputy to Josh Powers, who was Ops Manager for 2005 and Conference Chair for 2008. I also have some familiarity with this line of work because I worked in hotel operations and convention reservations at Walt Disney World for four years or so. I understand most of the needs here:

• Hotel liaison (getting the contract ball rolling, establishing the guest room block, determining how much convention/floor space is needed, setting up the meal menus, verifying the conference will have enough plugs for equipment, etc.)
• Convention hall liaison (if your convention space is not connected to/part of the hotel)
• Volunteer coordinator--recruiting, organizing, training, and herding those-who-volunteer to run audio/visual (A/V) equipment, registration, etc. The 2005 volunteers were trained Disney-Tradtions style, and things went off rather smoothly, thank you very much. Of course it also helps to have a group of volunteers who can think on their feet and work creatively around unique situations (which means at least a couple of volunteers over 30). We will not have Bill, Tommy, Nadine, or Giuseppina this time; but with any luck, other bright bulbs will present themselves.
• Obtaining A/V equipment, in cooperation with the Business Manager
• Establishing, laying out, and obtaining vendors to fill out exhibitor space
• Running an art show, if available
• Running a fashion show, if possible (what will fashions look like for those living offworld?)
• Conference security--this is easier if the hotel has staff on duty 24/7, but one can never be certain

Anyhow, that's a first-blush look at what we're in for. We've got about three years to get ready for this. It seems like a lot of time until reality sets in...probably about half a year into it. :-) May the force be with us.

The Amateur's Guide to Event Management

Part III: Site Selection

Location, location, location. It's important for real estate, it's important for events. For some situations, like Science Cheerleader performances, the location can already be established--a booth, a stage, whatever--as part of a larger activity. In other situations you have to go hunting. The larger the event, the larger the space needed and the more things you need the facility to do. This blog will discuss the things you need to consider when selecting a site for your event--big, small, or in between.

What Will You Do When You Get There?
What does your event include? Stage shows? Lectures? Meetings? Exhibits? All of the above? Could the event expand? Will your function spaces be used for more than one activity? Do you have extra large items that need to be brought in? Lots of questions must be answered, and these questions are made even more fun by the fact that you'll most likely have multiple sites to visit before making a decision. You'll need to do this field research before you sit down to write your proposal.

The first thing that must be done is a little online research. Pick your keywords: convention center, hotel, what have you. If you're in a big city, like Chicago or New York, you might have a lot of research to do. If you're in a smaller metropolitan area like Huntsville, the odds are pretty good you know all the large venues in town. Regardless, you can still collect a lot of information online as a first pass before you start asking questions of human beings. For instance, where is the place? Is it convenient for your attendees? Are you dealing with a hotel with a convention center attached, or a stand-alone convention hall? If you have a lot of out-of-towners coming, is there a hotel nearby? More than one? What do the hotel rooms cost per night? How many of them are there? What do the pictures of the rooms look like?

With these basics in hand, you'll be able to go on to the next step, which is a site visit.

Getting a Feel for Things
Once you've narrowed down your location to your top two or three choices, you need to check out the places in person. It's good to have two or three people along to get different perspectives on things and ask different questions. On that first visit, it also probably helps to just show up and see how the operation runs. If the term "surprise inspection" sounds familiar, that's correct. Your first impression should be unfiltered. I love my friends in the hospitality business, but having been there myself (three years at a Disney hotel, one year in Disney convention reservations), I can tell you that management and staff act differently if they know "someone's coming," whether that someone is a corporate vice president or a big customer.

So while you're on your first visit, you're looking for some of the basics: how helpful is the staff? What's the condition of the common areas, hallways, and restrooms? What's the traffic flow like? If the function areas are open, take a look inside to evaluate their condition. Does the carpet look worn? Has the place been redecorated lately? Is the place busy? How happy do the guests look? In essence, you really are on an inspection tour. Once you've completed that first run, before you leave, if you like what you see ask to make an appointment with the sales manager.

Working with the Sales Staff
When you're still in the scouting phase, it doesn't hurt to tell the sales staff that you're looking elsewhere. It keeps them competitive and interested in your business. I'm not suggesting you play a lot of games with sales staff, mind you, but you also can gauge their willingness to work with you. Depending on the size of the event, you'll be working with these folks for months (or years). No need to drive unnecessarily hard bargains. It can generate hard feelings and get you labeled as a "problem guest." And really: they want the business, you want your event to succeed. Yes, this is a business arrangement, but it's also a partnership.

Okay, end of lecture. Back to business.

The more details you can tell the sales staff, the better. Surprises aren't much help for you or them. You need to give them a good rundown on how big/long your event is, how many people you're bringing in, how many function rooms you need, what sort of audio-visual equipment you'll be using, the whole thing. The more you know up front, the better cost estimate you'll be able to provide for your proposal and budget.

Your initial negotiations are when you start to discuss special needs or requests: complimentary rooms, early check-ins, IT setup, what have you. The National Space Society, for example, has its own in-house contract that it uses for its International Space Development Conference, which is based on previous experiences and lessons learned. Will the hotel use an existing contract? It's worth asking.

Final Selection
You might not have the final say on which facility gets chosen, but you can make your best recommendation based on your direct knowledge of the place and the people involved. Sometimes the final decision will come down to price, sometimes to the appropriateness of the site to your event, sometimes to location, sometimes to a combination of all of these. But once the selection is made, you've taken your first step toward making the event real.

Final Thought on Working with Facility Staff: Last-Minute-itis
You can do as much planning as possible, but the sales staff knows--even if you haven't admitted the possibility yet--that last-minute items will continue to come up a year, a month, or a week out. This is where that goodwill you built up at the beginning pays off. The better you're able to get along with the hotel staff up front, the more likely they'll be happy and willing to help you out of a jam later.

If you learn anything from this series of event management blogs, it's just this: don't be a jerk. It makes the event management process--especially in an all-volunteer environment--much easier.

The Amateur's Guide to Event Management
Part I: The Whole Shebang: Who, What, Where

John Smith and Mary Jones

invite their friends and family to share their wedding vows

at the Lamb of God Lutheran Church

11716 County Line Road, Madison, Alabama

May 22, 2012

Formal reception, dinner, and dancing to follow at

Embassy Suites Downtown

800 Monroe Street, Huntsville, Alabama

When you receive a party invitation, you are looking at a very simple event summary, or plan. You have all the important information you need to attend the event: who's inviting you, who's attending, where the event is, when it is, and what sort of food and entertainment are involved. This who-what-where equation drives any event you are likely to host.

Who
The who of an event drives nearly everything. Your audience has a specific set of interests in mind, and you, as the host, have the job of appealing to those interests. Mind you, the audience for a wedding is a little simpler--family or friends--and their interest might simply be to see you happy and to have a good time. But even something "simple" like a wedding takes time to plan (ask my sister, a serious planner, about how long her relatively low-key wedding took). Your event is about people and providing something that interests them.

Audiences can vary by size, age, associations, and any other way you can think. If you're going to bring them together, they must have common interests, right? So you've got to get them in the room (church, hall, etc.). People require persuasion, engagement, patience. Events are about people and appealing to their interests. That means having a little insight into what motivates people.

What
The what of an event is the event itself--a wedding, a speech, a ceremony, a convention, a performance. You might be the main attraction (the bride or groom) or you might be the host or hostess while someone else is the center of attention. In any case, the odds are good that the center of your event is sufficiently different, interesting, or important that formal planning is required to get people into the room to appreciate it properly.

Event programming can be simple or complex: a single speaker or performer showing up for an hour or two or several days' worth of activities. Consider all the moving parts involved in a typical American wedding: bachelorette party, bachelor party, rehearsal dinner, wedding rehearsal, wedding, reception, honeymoon. Or a convention: keynote speaker, track speakers, meals, receptions, exhibits, entertainment. The details include funding, scheduling, booking rooms and meals, and a bunch of other things that can jump up to surprise you.

Where
The where of an event is driven by the who and what: how many people are coming? What are they doing? If you're hearing a singer, you need a concert hall (or maybe just a room big enough for the performers and a few friends); if you're hosting a wedding, you need a church or a park or a hall of some sort; if you're hosting a convention, you need a hotel and function spaces for anything ranging from formal speeches to meetings to meals to exhibits.

Locations have their own special challenges: do they have the space to accommodate all the people you plan to invite? What sort of audio-visual equipment do they have? Is their food any good? How late can events run? What do they cost? When do they want the money? How big is their staff? Do they have any house rules that will affect how you run your event? These are important questions, and they become more so the more money you or your group are spending.

If you're going to host an event, you need to have an idea in your head of who's coming, what you plan for them to do, and how big a space you'll need them to do it in. These three factors will drive most of your event activities. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

The Future of Space Could Be LOST

Why should space advocates and entrepreneurs care about a UN treaty establishing rules for the world's oceans? Because that convention—the Law of the Sea Treaty—places road blocks in the way of future resource development, both on the open seas and eventually out in space.

The U.S. already complies with most of the provisions the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). However, President Reagan rejected LOST in 1982 because of its rules for developing the resources of the unclaimed ocean and the seabeds beneath it. Instead of treating those areas as no-man's-land or open seas, the UN declares them to be “the common heritage of mankind.” In practice, this lofty-sounding phrase means that the unclaimed parts of the ocean are community property, owned by nobody but subject to a new UN bureaucracy called the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

The ISA has the authority to decide who explores for and mines the resources of the deep seabed. Any individual company wishing to develop the seabed must pay the UN a $250,000 application fee; explore two sites, giving one to the UN; and pay a portion of earnings from the seabed to ISA for its own expenses and to compensate other nations that are hurt by price shocks from developing these new resources. ISA’s governing board consists primarily of developing nations historically hostile to U.S. interests. The U.S. can form a coalition of nations to block an ISA action, but has no formal veto. And lastly, ISA expects the companies developing the deep seabed to sell the UN or developing nations the proprietary technologies used for the work. This effectively makes the UN or developing nations competitors on territory the company explored. (The treaty no longer “requires” this technology transfer, but the end result is still the same.)

This international regime creates many disincentives to developing the seabed, and offers few good choices for American businesses. They either subject their future profits and proprietary technologies to the UN or forego the opportunity altogether. Now fast-forward 10 or 20 years, and imagine these same regulations applied to the resources of space--ice on the Moon or metals in asteroids; would American businesses willingly submit to this regime when the cost of space efforts is already prohibitively expensive? That won’t happen. And yet, by endorsing LOST, President Bush and the U.S. Senate are opening the space economy to just such a plan.

In 1979, the Senate rejected the Moon Treaty because a similar UN-controlled bureaucracy would have had control over all resources developed in space. Indeed, the discredited Moon Treaty uses the very same language that is used by the Law of the Sea Treaty, as the Moon Treaty declares that space is “the common heritage of mankind.” Even the Soviet Union—the preeminent anti-American power of the day—did not sign the Moon Treaty, which is a descendant of LOST. If we accept LOST, we will face even greater pressure to accept its space-based offspring.

Private enterprise is crucial for the development of a permanent civilization on dangerous frontiers. Government might pave the way, but if people are to stay and make these undeveloped areas a long-term concern, they must have commerce, including the right to develop and profit from local resources. If the private sector does not develop the deep seabeds or the resources of the solar system, it is unlikely that governments will do so. The U.S. already follows and benefits from the bulk of LOST; we need not tie our hands on future development by signing it and accepting its seabed provisions. If the U.S. signs this convention, the future of the space economy will truly be LOST.

Marketing Space to Science Fiction Fans

This might sound like a slam-dunk. After all, "sci-fi" fans are all into Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and Firefly, right? Well, yes and no.

I made the transition from SF fan to space advocate around 1997, when I attended a space advocacy convention--which is different from an SF conference in that it is smaller, more technical, and slightly more focused in its emphasis. An SF con encompasses anything from paranormal activities and UFOs to fantasy writing, costume designing, and hard science/engineering topics. A space advocacy conference is almost entirely the latter, with a little politics, philosophy, and networking thrown in. SF cons tend to have more businessmen and political types, somewhat fewer unemployed or fantasy-worshipping people. Not that space advocates don't suffer from their own fantasies, occasionally--they do. But to their credit, most space advocates want to see their visions happen a) in the real world and b) within their lifetimes.

I've talked to fellow SF fans who, while captivated by Trek or Galactica, have little to no interest in the actual space program or even "New Space." It is even possible to encounter individuals who are major fans of space-spanning epics filled with all variety of unusual settlements, but are, on a personal, voting level, against the notion of sending human beings to explore other worlds. "Why screw other planets when we've already screwed this one up so badly?" When I hear such comments, I grind my teeth to talc and try not to use foul language.

Screwed up the planet? Have they compared the state of the environment today to what it was in 1970? We've brought lakes back to life. Rivers in Ohio no longer burn. Compared to the former Iron Curtain nations, even with our higher petroleum intake, the nations of the free West are cleaner in air and water quality. And where did we get the brilliant idea to clean up this great globe of ours? By seeing it against the blackness of space from the perspective of human astronauts circling the Moon in Apollo 8. Why is that fact left out of their pamphleteering?

But I digress. The SF community tends to be--and here I stereotype based on personal experience and some of the reactions of fellow space advocates that matched my own--more "artsy," more inner- and fantasy-directed, less reality- and progress-related. The magical worlds of their favorite stories are simply that--magical. The notion of trying to bring about any of the space-minded utopias or solutions in the here-and-now seems to elude them. My "take" on this, from a marketing point of view, would be to appeal to their interest in "origin stories." How many favorite SF episodes from TV or movie chains revolve around the first time X happened or the first time X met Y? Well, we are at the beginning of the settlement of the solar system. I can ask my audience if they would like to participate in those opening chapters or let the drama pass without notice.

Once upon a time, I wanted to be a science fiction writer. After my first advocacy convention, I wanted to be (if such a thing exists) a space marketing writer. I wanted to apply my talent forwriting toward my interest in space activities.

And yet I am going off to OmegaCon to reach back to my roots--my "people," if you will--in an effort to bring them to where I am now: an advocate for space exploration and settlement in the here and now. I might fail. I might get ignored. I might make an impact on one or two people. Whatever. I have to try. There are more SF fans than space advocates, so the effort is worthwhile. And if this trip does prove to be successful, maybe NASA will be more willing to send their own people to speak to them. Of course I'm not sure how I'll define "success," but escaping with my hide intact is setting the bar a little low. We shall see what we shall see. I might blog from my hotel room this weekend, I might have to wait until I get home. Stay tuned. I might even find some marketing answers that work.

The Mess That Was George Bush

Someone griped about the "lack of outrage" at how Bush, et al., have screwed up the country and our position in the world. My response is below.

I've been complaining about Bush for awhile now, and about the bailout since September/October because it was the wrong approach to take. It's a massive, unnecessary intrusion of government into an economic cycle, and I don't like it any better under Obama. I also didn't like his attempt to force amnesty down my throat. Or the No Child Left Behind Act he developed with Ted Kennedy. Or the Transportation Insecurity Agency. Or the prescription drug benefit expansion under Medicare. Or the insane increases in pork-barrel spending. Sorry if I haven't screamed loud enough, but there's plenty of outrage to go around. I blog and point out things I don't like, policy-wise.

As for our standing in the world, quite a few of the world leaders who didn't like Bush were totalitarians: Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Yassir Arafat, and Hu Jintao, to name some of the usual suspects. I would find it profoundly disturbing if anyone in that crowd actually approved of American policies (under Bush and sometimes Clinton), which have been pro-free market, pro-democracy, and anti-terrorism. If our "standing in the world" is based on getting nation-leading tyrants and corrupt, anti-U.S. bureaucrats in the UN to like us, I'll take a lower rating.

There are allies we haven't gotten along with as well as we'd like. Britain, France, and Germany come to mind, but they all continue to provide troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, as does Australia. (As an Aussie once put it, "Australia is the only ally south of the equator that you don't pay for.") They could just as easily refuse. They're not very happy with our financial system right now, because most of them were invested in it.

We could go back to the Community Reinvestment Act, which mandated that banks give mortgages to risky borrowers as a starting point for that. Now, the banks decided repackage those mortgages (polish the turds, if you will) as some sort of credit default swaps, which was legal under the law.

So what can Obama do to fix all this? A global New Deal is a nonstarter, in my opinion, because the original New Deal didn't work the first time. Quite frankly, I think much of the rest of the world wouldn't give a flip what Obama did if he'd just let America go back to making money, with a few extra rules added to the road. Government takeovers of businesses will not, Not, NOT make things better, and will in fact extend the depressed market.

I've been told that it's unfair to pick on Obama and "the mess he's inherited" less than 100 days after his election. Fine. But I'll ask again: when is he expected to be held accountable for results? If you're in a hole, you stop digging. Obama was dealt a bad hand. That doesn't mean you double down and make things worse. That's what his policies and budget are doing.

Another thing Obama could do is ease up on all the strings attached to bailouts. Governments do not know how to run businesses, as GM, AIG, etc., demonstrate. Suppose a company wants to fly the CEO down to a convention in Las Vegas in the corporate jet to announce a new product that will greatly improve the company's fortunes in the future? Well, right now, the jets are out, Vegas convention hotels are cutting staff, and the press will frown on any signs of public funds being invested in frivolities like food and beverage, which are a standard part of getting people to attend big publicity events. Some corporations would be better off just declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy until they can get their collective heads back together. That has to be less painful than knuckling under all the "necessary" government controls and strings that come with a bailout.

What drives me up the wall most about Bush is that most of the things that flopped were liberal (read: neocon) policies--Bush "reaching across the aisle" to work with Kennedy, et al.--and if they had been done by a Democrat, they would've been seen as great legislative achievements. So, once more this needs to be said: George W. Bush was not a conservative, except on cultural and (some) defense issues. Invading Iraq wasn't a conservative act. All the stuff I mentioned in the second paragraph was not conservative. It was big-government liberalism with a GOP/neocon sticker on it. Basic conservatism, for those who have forgotten, believes in a few basic principles and policies:

• A common civil society, deriving its principles from Judeo-Christian, Greek, Roman, and Enlightenment notions of freedom of conscience, association and religion, individual liberty, private property, and personal responsibility.
• Respect for individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• Limited government that provides law & order and basic infrastructure, alllowing individuals to prosper.
• A strong national defense capable of protecting America's vital national interests.
• Low taxes and a limited government sized to match limited means.

Bush did not favor limited government intrusion or spending, and neither did the GOP during most of this decade. Obama is increasing both. We are paying the price for that lack of vision now.

OmegaCon Pictures and Comments, Day Two and Movie Review: Yesterday Was a Lie



The next "big event" for the morning was a 30-minute session with Peter Mayhew talking and answering questions about his experiences with Star Wars. I took a couple pictures of the crowd because it was instructive. This was one event in one track at this convention, and they probably had around 200 people in the room. My last space advocacy con had 200 people at the whole event.

























Tiny horns seemed to be a "costume" of choice among the otherwise-normally dressed.

























This kid put a lot of work into his costume. A shame I couldn't keep my camera steady. Thus my career as a writer, not a photographer.
























Another costume too real for its own good. SF author Mike Resnick didn't understand why so many people were trying to imitate/live in George Lucas's world ("which is not science fiction," he was quick to add) "when there are so many other worlds they could create on their own...but then I wasn't [part of] a generation raised on television."



























The gentleman in the wheelchair was named Lightning Bear ("I'm a Native American, in case you didn't know"). Apparently, he had a couple of extra roles as a Storm Trooper in the original Star Wars and a Scout Trooper in Return of the Jedi. Both of these men looked a little worn out to be doing the convention thing. Mr. Mayhew, who is a very tall (7'4" in his youth), hobbled in on a cane and just had that "God, will you people stop making me go to these things?" expression that you see on the Trek actors occasionally. I have a lot of notes written during his talk, but only a few one-liners stuck out as being worth sharing:

• "I keep getting taken for Howard Stern, for some reason."


• "I used to be 7'4". You shrink."


• "Most of our lunches [during the making of Star Wars] were liquid."


• "I was told [on the Endor set] not to go off set in costume. That was apparently Bigfoot country."

On my way upstairs to the Hard Science track (the track I was assigned to), I heard the following comment in the elevator: "They're just geeks. All they know how to do is costume and play video games." I was tempted to respond, but why bother?

As I was eating lunch, I saw this trio of little 'uns practicing some sort of Riverdance routine in the lobby. They were quite good, from what I could see of their practice. I missed the actual performance. C'est la vie.

The image below is a nice shot of the Sheraton atrium. Being somewhat acrophobic, I was quite happy that my session was only one flight up. The fourth floor also provided some good bird's-eye views of the various alien life forms. Vader's 501st Stormtrooper Legion, Alabama Garrison, was there in force, along with several other creatures that you had to catch quickly, if at all.

Prior to my first panel, "Flying Cars and Ray Guns: Where the Hell Are They?" The track chair, Travis Taylor, and a couple of scientists (Dr. David Finkelstein and Dr. Perry Gerakines, below) got into a rather vigorous debate about the nature and purpose of quantum mechanics.

No one was rude, but you could tell that this was still contentious territory among scientists. I confess to being less well-educated than I should be about such things. Most of us are acquainted with "classical physics," which deals with issues like gravity and motion, which can be seen with the human eye. However, when you get down to the atomic level, there's a whole new level of events going on that is not nearly so neatly explained or described. Indeed, the nature of the discussion between Taylor and the other two panelists was on whether quantum mechanics was used to describe or explain phenomena at the atomic level. The argument was largely semantic to me, and the three men seemed to agree on some interpretations of QM, but applications were hazy, and issues like string theory, which is seemingly elegant, but untestable. Despite the rather esoteric nature of the discussion, the room was mostly full (50 people). More than half of those folks cleared out when it came time for my panel, which was irritating but beyond my control, unless I barred the door.

For my session, Dr. Finkelstein left, I took a chair, Perry remained, and Dr. Laura Edwards, a nanotechnologist joined as well. One thing about panel sessions is that they go very quickly. No formal presentations, just a bunch of folks sitting at a table in front of the room. We introduce ourselves, have some discussions about our opinions of the subject, and then kick it out to the audience for any questions, which leads to more questions. I'm not sure how much folks got out of this session. There was a similar discussion on Friday on the ability of SF to predict the future. My personal view, which I naturally shared with the group, is that SF is much better at predicting technological and sociological changes. For example, SF easily predicted the development of rockets, but missed the invention of the transistor. An early work by Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward, predicted powered flight, but it was via zeppelin, not heavier-than-air craft, and women in his imagined future were still not allowed to vote. Et cetera. Fun discussion, at any rate, though as the only non-scientist on the panel, I was definitely in over my head when they started talking about specific applications of this or that. My fault for getting degrees in English and jobs in marketing.

After the panel, I wandered back to the literary track, where a trio of writers I hadn't heard of before--Haley Elizabeth Garwood, Joy Ward, and Louise Marley--talked about writing "across genres." One of the more useful items in this discussion was on the content of a query letter:

• Here's my [story] setup


• Here's my character


• Here's their problem


• Here's what happens in the first 50 pages that will hook you

I'll get more into lessons learned after I get through the daily summaries, but there was some really good stuff in this session that I took to heart as a writer. Looking back, I probably should've made a better effort to attend some more of the sessions on writing. I was very diligent about attending the sessions on the business angles of things, but someone less so about mechanics; and those, after all, are what have kept me from writing sellable SF. Fortunately, I'm a) a reasonably decent nonfiction writer, and b) very persistent. (In fact, an editor in another track quoted Calvin Coolidge on persistence, a lesson I've definitely taken to heart:

Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

One of the funnier lines from the bridging genres session was, "If you want to start a fight at a romance convention, tell someone they wrote a 'bodice ripper'."

And so, having promised myself (and the lady herself) that I would do so, I headed for the screening of Yesterday Was a Lie, starring Chase Masterson. One of the reasons I gave this movie a shot, aside from its concept (altered states of reality, SF-film noir) was that James Kerwin, the writer/director, was an astronomy minor, and so knew what he was talking about, at least in theory. Brother, did he ever!

This was a seriously amazing movie. Way too smart for Hollywood, which is probably why it's had a hard time getting into some film festivals. Try this for a multi-layered movie: you've got a black-and-white film noir with dark, brooding cinematography to match anything made "back in the day." You've got a troubled, hard-bitten female detective who's having seriously bad cases of deja vu or disjointed experiences that come out of nowhere. You've got a mysterious man who appears to hold the secrets to all of this. You've got Peter Mayhew as an equally mysterious, dangerous figure. Somewhere in the mix, you've got a love story. And yes, you've got Chase Masterson starring as a lounge singer with many other roles to either help explain things or make them muddier, depending on how you interpret the dialogue. I should stress that this story is set in the present day, but it still has a lot of '40s technological artifacts, like analog telephones, old cars, and snap-brim hats. However, items like computers bring us back to the present. Thus it is what it is: a purposeful homage to film-noir set in the present day. The tone and style might evoke Raymond Chandler or The Third Man, but the story structure is more like something by Alfred Bester. As a piece of science fiction filmmaking, Yesterday Was a Lie is superb.

However, being a relentless critic, there are a couple of things that I didn't like, but they are minor, and one of them eventually corrected themselves. It took awhile to warm up to the lead character actress, Kipleigh Brown, who plays the grumpy, and at times frumpy detective, Hoyle. The '40s fedora and baggy suits don't (shall we say) suit her, but that costume isn't seen after the early part of the film. The whiskey-drinking, cigarette-smoking tough-gal act struck me as a tad ridiculous, but this, too, seems to be shed as the story develops. I asked the director afterward which scenes were shot first, because it seemed as if Brown gradually became more comfortable with the role.

The other challenge of the film is that it is, as I told the director, simply too smart for Hollywood. As a science fiction fan and occasional fan of old movies, I got it. Hell, I loved the concept! However, I might be a very niche audience. You have to be comfortable with nonlinear time-travel stories (which this isn't, really, but it's the closest I can come to explaining it without blowing the whole thing). And the concept is very high, the sort of thing that SF fans read SF for: to expand our minds and horizons. As such, it is entertainment of a specific type for a very specific audience. You either dig it or you don't. (I recall Ms. Masterson saying, "I love you guys!" as the audience debreifed afterward and was getting the whole concept. Apparently a few people had told her or the director, "I don't get it.") I hope like hell someone picks up this film and distributes it because it deserves better treatment than it's received so far.

My second panel was "The Moon, Mars, and Beyond," which featured Travis Taylor (again), Les Johnson (a NASA guy who was there on his own dime and accord), and me. One thing I discovered is that I'm not nearly as glib or smooth about explaining the Ares Project as I'd like to think, as my brain got ahead of my tongue in a few places, but I think I got in all the points I wanted to make (we're not remaking Apollo, we'll be doing things we haven't done before, etc.). Another problem, however, is that the new presentation I was given to use does not play nicely with Microsoft Windows Vista. Something new for the graphics people to work out. The picture below is Travis after a full day of track speaking, the poor guy. We had maybe 15 people in our track after (again) a full-room discussion on nanotechnology. So apparently nanotech is worth 50 people's attention, but the Moon, Mars, and beyond are not. Frustrating, given a conference of 4,000 people.






































After finishing up with the second track, I headed for the car so I too could participate in the traditional con silliness. Imagine Indiana Jones if he spent more time teaching and snagging donuts from the teachers' lounge and somewhat less time on the road running from Nazis...









































Everything after this is strictly the result of running loose with a camera and some adult beverages. I did restrain myself, as I was staying at the Embassy Suites a few miles away, not at the con hotel. Perhaps that's just as well.





Remember: "Quien no sabe" is Spanish for "He Who Knows Nothing."




























































Duff Man showed up for a few brews. Oh, yeah!









































These two were so much fun, they got their picture taken. The guy was "a reaper," he said, without specifying if he was the head Grim Reaper in Charge (I think I saw him in the OmegaCon Tavern, though). The girl was "an evil fairy." Nice.







































Unless I'm out of it completely, I believe this is a grown man dressed up as one of the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. But then I showed up as Indiana Jones; who the hell am I to talk?





































































































This hallway party called itself "Bedlam." The big gent in the white-and-blue shirt and black cowboy hat was the King of Bedlam, and everyone else was part of the court. When I introduced myself, I was dubbed Court Archaeologist. You just can't get this sort of entertainment at a NASA conference.


































The ribbons holding this girl's top on were attached to a set of eight rings pierced into her back. Yee-ow!






































I visited the gaming room briefly and caught Darth Maul and this Twi'lek deeply engaged in one of the games.


































Much to my dismay, my flash was not cooperating in the Tavern, so this is the only good shot I have from the Masquerade Ball. However, if you look carefully, you can see the Lone Ranger, Wonder Woman, and (best guess) Captain Morgan. Every time he passed by, I wanted to place my foot up on a railing somewhere.
















And that, dear reader(s), is what a Saturday night at a science fiction convention looks like. Welcome to my world.

Speaking Unpleasant Truths

When I first joined the space advocacy movement, I was simultaneously thrilled and dismayed. Thrilled because the ideas being offered were as mind-blowing as anything in science fiction--and they wanted to make them happen now, in the real world. Space elevators! Orbital slings! Low-cost Mars missions! Space tourism! Dismayed because everyone at the podiums seemed to be dry white males. Not all of them were dry: some were both brilliant and entertaining. Some managed to make world-changing technologies sound like a really bad trigonometry lecture. Others were condescending toward one or another group (some deserving, others not). Others could not manage enthusiasm.

I am not going to name names here. I am just going to make some observations on the culture of space advocacy, of which I have been a part. Twenty years ago, I understand, it was worse: people showed up at congressional offices in Star Trek uniforms, etc. Some of that hasn't gone away: we have had people show up to lobby Congress in t-shirts and gym shoes.

The problem is the space advocacy movement has been populated prirmarily by geeks--and, again, I include myself in that category--or, if that label offends, I will use a PC term like "the socially challenged" (SC). I am trying to offer a little self-reflection here to suggest ways we, the SCs, might improve our fortunes.

Think about it: space exploration as a passion, an avocation, or a lifestyle is not in the mainstream. There is some overlap between science fiction fandom and space advocacy fandom. We tend to have high IQs (always a social stigma), glasses or poor vision, poor physical coordination/athletic skills, occasional weight problems, grating voices, poor social skills, monomanias, and/or out-of-the-mainstream hair styles. The "Beautiful People" (BPs) who ignored or tormented us in high school eventually benefit from our technological prowess--think Bill Gates--but that doesn't mean the always like us. If you want to know where the former BPs from your high school went, visit human resources, sales, marketing, or maybe finance. These are good, solid, normal-people jobs done very well by people of fair-to-middlin' intelligence. But if you want someone to design, build, or maintain a computer network, you call the ones with the rumpled clothing, wild hair, and poor presentation skills.

Mind you, not all engineers or scientists are doofuses; I'm just trying to provide an explanation for why the SCs gravitate toward space-based activities. Consider your options if you're a bright lad or lass who won't be attracting a lot of dates or party invitations. What are your options? Beyond the company of your peers and like-minded individuals, you are often left to your own devices. Your schoolwork bores you because you're generally anywhere from a chapter to a couple years ahead of your class. So you read. And you don't read about mundane things like romance or truck repair--you're seeking to have your mind challenged and expanded by the unknown. So you pick up science fiction. You want to figure out how the universe works, and there's this whole section of the book store with unusual technologies, strange, new worlds, new life, and new civilizations. Et cetera.

Book reading of this sort has its downside. There might be a lot in them about how to interact with Horta or Puppeteers; not so much about how to get along with one's fellow humans in your current place and time. And when you try to share these new concepts with your peers, you're given mighty strange looks or, just as likely, a punch in the arm and a noogie for your troubles. So you turn inward even more, and it becomes a self-sustaining cycle. And this matters, because those same good-looking people who were popular but not necessarily as intellectual X years ago eventually become politicians and run the country (or advise the people who run the country). We need to learn to think like and/or communicate with the BPs, or we're doomed to the sidelines forever.

When we grow up--or at least get older--we again find a group of like-minded peers. They're generally smart, often awkward know-it-alls on this or that subject, and the arguments in the convention hallways range from the ISP of particular launch vehicles to the origins of a rocket design to the likelihood of a "gray vs. green" divide in the distant future. It's a great time, and usually much more intelligent than the water cooler talk you'd get in the average office ("How 'bout those Tide?"). But then you watch one of your space-loving peers interact with a mundane, and it all becomes clear again: you are on a different social planet from other people your age. How does this become clear? When you hear someone try to explain to a complete stranger how aerodynamics influences cloud formation when all the person next to them asked was whether it had stopped raining. Or you see someone argue with the front desk clerk for half an hour, scientific calculator in hand, because the clerk divided the bill incorrectly. Or you hear a friend chatting up a very pretty girl by explaining to her the principles of warp drive at a party not related to space or science fiction. Or you hear a guy pick on someone because they cannot write or speak in a gramatically acceptable manner (gee, who could THAT be?).

We're not normal, folks, and if we want to sell a spacefaring future, we either need to act like normal people or at least be able to use words that normal people will use. I wrote an article a year ago expressing my understated pleasure that marketing professionals were now getting into the space business. This is code for "normal people are starting to see how they can make money at this."

I have heard complaints about this change. Space advocacy conference have gotten slicker, more business-oriented and, most importantly, more expensive. When I hear a complaint that they're less inclusive, it seems to me that that's also code for, "There aren't as many geeks around." And perhaps that is so. SF or space conventions can be rather low-rent. Or perhaps the mundanes, the people with the normal jobs, are starting to outnumber us. It's not quite as "cozy" anymore. We don't recognize all the faces.

There is good news, however, as my article noted. The appearance of marketing types and other entrepreneurs is a sign that space exploration (or at least space tourism) is gaining mainstream acceptance. Of course the flip side of this situation is that we SCs have always taken a certain pride in our exclusivity. Who are all these Johnny-come-latelies trying to infiltrate our ranks? They can build a marketing plan, but they don't know the rocket equation? Who the hell are these people? Perhaps it's a sign that space is becoming democratized. And aristocrats do not always approve of the commoners invading on their privileges.

If you want to get away from the mundanes, you go to science fiction conferences, and even that is no guarantee anymore. On a weekend I was sent off to the Mars Society Convention (attendance 200 at most), another coworker went to DragonCon, where tens of thousands of people showed up. Science fiction, too, has gone mainstream--much more so than space advocacy.

So now we come to our greatest conundrum: science fiction, space fantasy, space opera, and flat-out fantasy are bigger than ever...and yet we still have a neglected space program and only the beginnings of a space economy. I've had several conversations about this, and the answer seems to be that more and more people have accept SF only as escapist entertainment. People who enjoy the grand adventures of Battlestar Galactica or Stargate: Atlantis have simultaneously, infuriatingly little interest in the actual adventures going on over our heads. That is the next great challenge for space advocates: getting more people who share our cultural interests to also share our real-world interests.

I was just reviewing this essay, and I realized how hard I've been on geeks, SCs, call 'em what you will. And I asked myself "Why? You have been among and one of them. Why are you being so critical?" First, because I care, and I actually want the space advocacy movement to make more progress than it has. And second, because, like Pinocchio who strove to be a real boy, this particular geek has always striven to just be accepted as normal--to even lead (egad) a normal life, with a normal job and family. When you grow up going through both the gifted and the LD program, there's precious little room for just being a person. You're either a freak because you're smarter than a lot of your peers, or you're defective because you can't walk (much less play sports) without tripping over your own feet. And yet, at the end of the day, my desire for the wife, family, job, house, and two-car garage gets overridden by an even deeper desire to dump everything except my book collection and become the librarian on Luna City or in an orbital habitat.

So I'm a space geek. So what? I still realize that I need a lot more normal people to support my vision of the future before I'm going to live the way I want. I guess we all have more work to do.

A Cipher Speaks and McCain’s Running Mate

I just couldn’t bring myself to watch Barack Obama’s nomination acceptance speech last night. Instead, I did what I will probably do with McCain’s speech: I read it. That takes away the theatricals, the Greek temple, the voice, the man, the cheering, applauding crowds, and leaves you with just the words on the page. Still, you can learn a lot by reading; it’s a shame more people don’t do it.

Yesterday was Obama’s big interview with the country, as I’m sure he knows. Now here’s the thing about interviews: you don’t just want to know what this presidential candidate will do for you, though that’s the most obvious thing. You also want to know what he has done. A little background is nice—he’s got a wife and kids—but what you really want to know is what he’s done with his experience. What has he learned from it? What has he done in the last four years? We know he gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. We know he has been a senator. He states that has voted against the war in Iraq, but the war began two years before he assumed office. Before he was a U.S. Senator, he was a state senator. What did he do there? What did he learn? Silence. He has been a lawyer and a community organizer. Doing what? How? With what sort(s) of people or organization? Unknown. He was a near-top-of-his-class student at arguably America’s most prestigious university. That’s a lot of hard work; certainly he can speak to that, no? I hear crickets chirping.

Who the hell is this guy? If you expected to find out during this speech, you were likely to be disappointed. And, again, as an interviewer, you’d have to be asking yourself, “This guy’s had an interesting past—why doesn’t he talk about any of it?”

So what did we get with this speech—five pages long at about an 8-point font? Three themes dominated:

• Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. This is hardly surprising, but one must consider that Mr. Bush is no longer up for election, and McCain is hardly his surrogate.
• America is suffering. He sprinkles the speech with a lot of little anecdotes that demonstrate his compassion, his superior understanding of what ails the country, and his willingness to fix it. Never mind that we’re still the richest nation on Earth, as he admits—people are suffering and it will be the sole job of his government to fix it.
• Barack will do a lot of things. This is the standard laundry list of political promises. Some of them are economically questionable, such as lowering taxes on the middle class when the rich pay the bulk of taxes and the poor pay none at all; others are grandiose and unrealistic without serious government micromanaging of the economy, such as getting America off of petroleum products in ten years. There's an awful lot of personal ownership going on--"I will..."

Going back to the interview, it is interesting to note the few places where he does talk about himself:

• “If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander in chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.” You forgot experience, laddie. But I suspect you already know that. Of course experience is what gives us temperament and judgment.
• “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” Not precisely. The more specific action you take is to stand back, and wait awhile longer until the candidate develops the record so you can have a better sense of who he is and what he has accomplished. That’s another thing missing from this speech: Obama’s accomplishments. What has the man done? Ted Kennedy, much as I dislike his politics, has a solid record of achievement there. I can probably name at least three laws he’s pushed through and several issues on which he is known to be an expert and ardent supporter. I cannot say the same about Obama.
• “I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office.” Wow. Then why should I hire you? This would be an excellent opportunity to explain that, Barack, but you didn’t do it. Your policies are what they are, and Joe Biden could sell them as easily as you could. We’re not just hiring the policies, we’re hiring the man, the mensch, and we know diddly-squat about him. Admitting that you’re not the likeliest candidate might be self-deprecating, but it might also be the truth. We just don’t know, and Obama does not follow up by explaining why the presumption of his unlikeliness is false.
• “I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of Washington.” Let’s start with the word pedigree, which is little more than another way of saying that he’s African-American. I find this notion offensive. Imagine an interviewee saying, “I realize you don’t usually hire blacks.” He’s insinuating that a) you’ve been a racist in the past or b) you are a racist if you don’t hire him now. That’s insulting, it’s blackmail, and quite frankly it’s rude.
  Earlier in this campaign (a year or two ago), I might have even considered, briefly, voting for this guy. And were I still a mushy moderate, I probably would. But in fact I don’t like his policies. I think they’re bad for the country. I don’t like the fact that he’s cagey and evasive about his past. I don’t think he’s got the experience—yet—to be president. That is not questioning the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
  Then there’s the matter of where he spent his career. As some folks like to remind us, Obama has had 143 days of experience in the U.S. Senate. His experience before that I’ve already mentioned above—but again, what has he done???
• “But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me. It’s about you. It’s about you. For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us—that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time. America, this is one of those moments.” I’m sorry, but the last 18 months have been all about Obama—whether he has the charisma and political personality people are willing to buy to vote for president. The lie is so emphatic, he has to repeat it twice to make sure people get the point. After all, if it was all about “you,” why is he asking “you” to vote for him?
  And I’ve said this before, but it still bears repeating: we’re going to get change no matter who is elected because Bush’s term ends in January. The question is, what types of change are the American public prepared to accept? Change will happen even if you don’t vote in November. And while we would also face unknowns with John McCain, we have a better clue into his character. “McCain-Feingold,” for instance, is practically part of the everyday vocabulary. We know more about him, from his pre-congressional life as a fighter pilot and prisoner in Vietnam to his previous runs for president and his willingness to battle his own party to get his way. I might not agree with him, but I feel that I at least understand him.
  Also, Obama’s ideas are not new; they are the Democratic Party’s standard talking points for the last 20+ years: soak the rich to subsidize the poor, regulate industry to protect the environment, reduce the military to encourage peace. The only things new about Obama’s candidacy are his age and his race. And when this speech was over, we still had no solid clue about the man wearing this age and race. Caveat emptor.

I did like a few lines from this speech, and they’re toward the end:

“You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores. Instead, it is that American spirit—that American promise—that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.”

That section is almost Reaganesque. However, lofty words are not enough by themselves to get me to vote for Barack Obama, nor would his policies be, were I to favor them. He’s proven that he can give a good speech, but not that he can govern well or that he can lead. In short, while impressive in bearing and political presence, Barack Obama did not pass this interview with me to become President. I wonder what effect his speech will have on the rest of the public.
*
And speaking of the public, the McCain campaign did a masterful job of sucking up the oxygen Obama hoped to gain from his speech last night. I had to chuckle a bit when a couple of friends told me that selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was an attempt to pander to or take the votes of Hillary Clinton voters. That might be the case, if there are a lot of people who would vote for Hillary solely because she’s a woman. However, from a policy perspective, Palin is not there to wow liberal feminists. She won't. She is there for one reason, and it’s a good one: to wow the conservative Republican base. It's a smart move. Brilliant, in fact. Surprisingly brilliant, considering some of McCain’s calls. Of course the MSNBC types now think McCain is no longer a "maverick" because he didn't pick a liberal (a maverick, after all, is a term of affection when it's a Republic going against his own party). He's being a maverick toward the media. He's smarter than some conservatives--including me--thought he was.

I first heard about Sarah Palin from one of my favorite conservative ladies, who’s actually from Wasilla, Alaska. She told me that Palin would make a good future president. She described Palin as much like herself: a gun-toting, environmentalist, God-fearing, pro-life conservative. So my friend sold me a few years ago. Now we’ll see how she wins over the country. Way to go, John. You just might pull this one out.