Pages

Showing posts with label Gen Y. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gen Y. Show all posts

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Potpourri XXXVIII

No word from Dar yet on how my little friend is doing with her leukemia treatments. Out of respect for her family's privacy, I wasn't using her name, but Dar just posted it, so if you'd like to focus your caring, attention, and prayers, her name is Morgan, and her web site can be found here. In my ongoing efforts to "keep things in perspective," I'll try to keep the snark to a minimum this evening.

New from Hu:

  • One of my previous customers over at Marshall, Dan Dumbacher, is heading to Washington to be NASA Associate Administrator. Dan has been the manager (director?) of the Engineering Directorate at the center. Smart guy, and a great advocate for space.
  • NBC News is reporting that Marine Corps General (Ret.) and astronaut Charles Bolden is going to be meeting with President Obama tomorrow in a prelude to being selected as Obama's choice as the next NASA Administrator.

A link from Scott: Oprah says "It's great to have a private jet." Great. Does that mean it's socially acceptable for CEOs and companies to use them again?

From the Office of Strategic Analysis and Communication's "Communicators' Corner," a link to an article on why marketing strategies fail.

The Futures Channel has a new movie posted on the Ares Projects, based here at Marshall.

A guy I've never heard of got a chance to give a talk on his book at Lucasfilm Ltd. Guess I'll have to write a book myself...that's one way to get to the Skywalker Ranch!

Mary Lynn Dittmar is reporting on how Web 2.0 is opening up public dialogues within NASA.

Tim Bailey, one of my fellow space advocates (though a bit younger) posted this link in Facebook about how law firm partners don't understand what motivates or how to motivate Generation Y. Basically, the up-and-coming generation expects concessions to "balance" in their personal lives and that they aren't as interested in base concerns like money or regular business hours. Well, good luck, if they manage it. I belong to, and was raised by parents who went to, the School of Hard Knocks. This is this school that believes in putting in long hours, occasionally missing your kids, but doing whatever it took to get the job done right and well. That was just the expectation, for the Silent Generation, the Greatest Generation, and I'm willing to bet a lot of American generations before that. It's only with the Baby Boomers and their offspring that ideas like personal fulfillment became vogue in the workplace. This is of a piece with that quarter-life crisis thing I was ranting about the other day. If you expect to do it all and have it all (great career, great personal life, loving family, etc.), you'll either lose focus or get burned out trying to fulfill unrealistic expectations). As it happens, I'm a workaholic, but I also have passions in life--space advocacy, science and technical writing, blogging, helping friends with their resumes and career plans--that fill a great deal of my time, and quite happily so. I also manage to stay in touch with my out-of-state family and my church. Something had to give, so I'm not married. So what? Anyhow, if Gen Y wants to go easier on their work lives to spend more time at home, that's great. I'll be in my office when they get back...the boss's office, that is.

The Hubble repair mission is proceeding nicely. Good!

And just on a personal note, I got some nice comments about the proposal I wrote (with help from my HAL5 partners in crime) to bid on the 2011 ISDC. The reward for work is more hard work. Now I get to give a formal presentation at the 2009 ISDC in Orlando in two weeks. No sweat. Need one dog, one pony, and a couple of Vannas.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Self-Indulgence, Aimlessness, and Putting Things in Perspective

So today one of my Gen Y buddies posted an article on a new phenomenon: the "quarter-life crisis." This new, self-induced crisis is neatly summarized early in the article:
This phenomenon, known as the “Quarterlife Crisis,” is as ubiquitous as it is intangible. Unrelenting indecision, isolation, confusion and anxiety about working, relationships and direction is reported by people in their mid-twenties to early thirties who are usually urban, middle class and well-educated; those who should be able to capitalize on their youth, unparalleled freedom and free-for-all individuation. They can’t make any decisions, because they don’t know what they want, and they don’t know what they want because they don’t know who they are, and they don’t know who they are because they’re allowed to be anyone they want.

The Bartish shorthand for this might be called the "What am I going to be when I grow up?" crisis. Or simply ennui brought on by lack of bounds or direction (see Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice for an extended treatment of this problem). I probably had something like this in my mid-20s, but I very quickly got sick of my own whining with asking, "Why me?" and asked, "Okay, what do I want out of life?" My rather naive answer was, "I want to go into space." Trajectory set. Date: October 31, 2004. Everything else after that was a quest to figure out what I needed to do to get there.

Now other people might come up with different answers to the question I asked myself or ask themselves different questions entirely. After spending a lot of my teens and twenties as an intellectual, it was somewhat unique for me to think about applying practical considerations to the wild ideas roaming around my head. But I think it's safe to say that from that point on, I started applying what Ayn Rand would call reasoning, my mother would call "common sense," and I ended up calling "wisdom." Once I had a goal in mind, the rest was just details, and I went forth and lived my life.

But I have a lot of friends--not just Gen Yers--who still don't have an answer to "What do I want?" Other people might be more driven by family, or more Earth-based aspirations. Bully for them. If you've got a dream, chase it. If you can't pursue it right now, take a job that supports you while pursuing what you really want in your free time. Of course, as my buddy Martin put it, "Sometimes a job is just a job." Maybe. My time at Disney's Dixie Landing Resort front desk qualifies. Hated the job, did it to pay the bills, spent my free time with my friends, reading, writing, traveling, and drinking. I took what joy from my life as I could, and I lived low-rent. And I had a great time in Orlando. I still have great friends from that time.

Of course even I'm not immune to moments of self-involved boredom. Excellent example today: I could sense myself getting p!$$y with a couple of coworkers about an absolute non-issue in even the work scheme of things, and yet I was prepared to make myself a permanent annoyance to my boss over it. If I tell you it's over an issue of grammar, that will show how shallow and terrifying the concerns of my life are right now.

And then I remembered an 8-year-old kid Darlene the Science Cheerleader knows. This girl is by all accounts a sweet kid, winning smile, the whole nine yards of what you'd like a kid to be. Well, last week Dar informed me that this little girl is going in for serious chemotherapy, radiation, and bone marrow work to cope with leukemia. She's already got a head like a ping pong ball, but her smile lights up the room. They've been treating her like a queen this past weekend--whale watching, tea party, ice cream party, whatever the hell she wants. Today was the day she was supposed to go in for the full-court medical press, and I suddenly remembered that as I caught myself being a self-involved nincompoop.

So when I read/hear about twentysomethings who don't know what they want to do with their empty little heads/lives, I think of the stuff I have left to do with my life, and then I try to think of kids like this little girl and shut up. If I have too much time to worry about my own little problems, I need to take a page from my e-buddy Laura and just do something for someone else.

Or, as the article puts it, "In other words: it might just be time to grow the f@#$ up."

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Potpourri XII

Let's see what sort of weirdness is lurking around the Internet today...I'm all a-quiver (or a-Twitter, as it were).


Oh, yeah: today is the anniversary of the wedding of my friends Tim & Gwen: 12 years, imagine that! They decided to get married at 4:04 on 4/4, just to mess with people's heads. I wonder what the numerologists would say about that. Happy anniversary, guys!


Fedora tip to Hu for this one: some ingenious folks in New Jersey set up an elaborate UFO hoax just to mess with people's heads. I'm amused.



Another reminder: the International Space Development Conference (ISDC) is coming May 28-31. The last time the event was in Orlando, they recruited me into the space business after I was convinced that I was stuck in the tourism business forever. How might it change your life? Attend the event and find out for yourself!





Nick Skytland posted this item regarding NASA's aim to hire up to 50% of civil servants as "fresh-outs" (meaning kids fresh out of college. Keith Cowing is doing his usual hatchet job of the idea. If you look at things logically, though, Gen Y is or soon will be 50% of the national workforce anyway, so this just makes sense. However, the average age of employees at NASA is 49 (with me being on the young side of the average, imagine that!).

The question continues to be asked: how does NASA make itself over into a place where the next generation of the best and brightest will want to work? I provided my thoughts here awhile back. There will no doubt need to be changes top to bottom, but the more practical questions about change, IMHO, need to focus on ideas that:

  • Keep us exploring space and advancing technology
  • Make sense from a cost, budget, and schedule perspective
  • Will not compromise U.S. technological secrets
  • Are acceptable to older, crankier generations like the Boomers and my cohort of Gen Xers
As proof that the first critic is the next volunteer, I made the mistake about griping about the format of one of the meetings I attend. Now I've got to find a "team building" activity that is high in content, low on foolishness. Ideas welcome.

Consider this quotation from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451...

"They run us so ragged by the end of the day we can't do anything but go to bed or head for a Fun Park to bully people around, break windowpanes in the Window Smasher Place or wreck cars in the Car Wrecker Place with the big steel ball."

Then check out this place: http://www.smashshack.com/. Ray gets it right again.

Scads of pictures of the Orion crew module test article undergoing water recovery testing at Carderock Test Facility in Maryland.

The following extended quotation from H. G. Wells' Things to Come was included in a recent email I received from Apogee Books:

***

(The writer is speaking about Democracy.)
The people, it was imagined, watched, listened, spoke and wisdom ensued. The Common People became therefore a mystical sympathetic being, essentially a God, whose altar was the hustings and whose oracle the ballot box. A little slow and lumpish was this God of the Age but, though his mills ground slowly, men were assured that they ground with ultimate exactitude. And meanwhile business could be carried on. You could fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, said Abraham Lincoln, but you could not fool all the people all the time. Yet for such crucial purposes as bringing about a war or exploiting an economic situation, this was manifestly a quite disastrous degree of foolability.

And the situation naturally evolved a Press of the very highest fooling capacity. This belatedly inevitable Divinity (the electorate) proved now to be altogether too slow-witted for the urgent political and economic riddles, the massive resistance in every national legislature to any but the most narrow egotism in foreign policy, the inability of the world as a whole to establish any unanimity of action in face of swift economic collapse, revealed the final bankruptcy of Parliamentary Democracy.

The inability of the world's nominal rulers to shake off their lifelong habit of speaking to, or at, a vaguely conceived crowd of prejudiced voters and their invincible repugnance from clear statement, frustrated every effort towards realism. They recoiled from any suggestion of definitive or novel action on the plea that their function was purely representative. Behind them all, the reader feels the sprawling uneasy presence of that poor invertebrate mass deity of theirs, the Voter, easily roused to panic and frantic action against novel, bold or radical measures, very amenable to patriotic claptrap, very easily scared and maddened into war, and just as easily baffled to distrust and impotence by delays, side issues and attacks on the personalities of the decisive people he might otherwise have trusted. An entirely irresponsible Press, mercenary or partisan, played upon his baser emotions, which were so easy to play upon, and made no appeal whatever to his intelligence or his conscience.

The Voter, the Mass, which was neither educated nor led, the Voter without any sincere organisations of leadership anywhere, is the basal explanation of the impotence of those culminating conferences. The World Economic Conference in London was by far the more significant. Armament and disarmament are symptoms and superficial, but economic life is fundamental. This London gathering has been made the subject of a thousand studies by our social psychologists. Many of its contradictions still perplex us profoundly. The men who assembled had just as good brains as anyone today, and, as an exhaustive analysis of the various projects advanced at the Conference proves, they had a substantial understanding of the needs of the world situation, yet collectively, and because of their haunting paralysing sense of the Mass and Press behind them and of their incalculable impulses and resentments, they achieved an effect of fatuity far beyond the pompous blunderings of (The Treaty of) Versailles. Primarily the London Conference was a belated effort to repair the vast omissions of that earlier gathering, to supplement the well-meaning political patchwork of (Woodrow) Wilson by some readjustment of the monetary and economic dislocations he had been too limited to foresee or too weak to avoid. Wraith-like conceptions of some vague monetary League of Nations and some Tariff Council and Assembly, drifted through the mists of the opening meeting. And History, with its disposition to inexact repetition, made one of the principal figures of this second world assembly also a President of the United States, belonging also to the Democratic Party and according to the ritual of that Party invoking the name of Jefferson, as the Communists invoked the name of Marx or the Moslim Mahomet. (F)or some months at least before and after his election as American President and the holding of the London Conference there was again a whispering hope in the world that a real 'Man' had arisen, who would see simply and clearly, who would speak plainly to all mankind and liberate the world from the dire obsessions and inepti¬tudes under which it suffered and to which it seemed magically enslaved. But the one thing he failed to do was to speak plainly.

Everywhere as the Conference drew near men were enquiring about this possible new leader for them. 'Is this at last the Messiah we seek, or shall we look for another?' Every bookshop in Europe proffered his newly published book of utterances to gauge what manner of mind they had to deal with. It proved rather disconcerting reading for their anxious minds. Plainly the man was firm, honest and amiable, as the frontispiece portrait with its clear frank eyes and large resolute face showed, but the text of the book was a politician's text, saturated indeed with good will, seasoned with much vague modernity, but vague and wanting in intellectual grip. 'He's good,' they said, 'but is this good enough?'

Nevertheless hope fought a stout fight. There was no other personality visible who even promised to exorcise the spell that lay upon the economic life of the race. It was (The President's) Conference or nothing. And in spite of that disappointing book there remained some sound reasons for hope. In particular the President, it was asserted, had a 'Brain Trust'. A number of indisputably able and modern-minded men were his associates, men whose later work played a significant part in that reconstruction of legal and political method which was America's particular contribution to Modern State ideas. This 'last hope of mankind', it was credibly reported, called these intimates by their Christian names... He was said to have the modesty and greatness to defer to their studied and matured opinions. Observers, still hopeful, felt that if he listened to these advisers things might not go so badly after all. He was at any rate one point better than the European politicians and heads of States who listened only to bankers and big- business men.

But was he listening? Did he grasp the threefold nature of the problem in hand? He understood, it seemed, the need for monetary inflation to reduce the burden of debt and over-capitalisation; he was apparently alive to the need for a progressive expansion of public employment; and so far he was sound. Unless, which is not quite clear, he wavered between 'public' and 'publicly assisted', which was quite another matter. But was he sound upon the necessity that these measures should be world-wide or practically world-wide?

He made some unexpected changes of attitude in these respects. Were these changes inconstancies or were they tactical manoeuvres veiling a profoundly consistent and resolute purpose? Was it wise to be tactical when all the world was in need of plain speech and simple directive ideas? His treatment took on a disconcertingly various quality. He listened, it seemed, to his advisers; but was he not also listening to everybody? He was flirting with bi-metallism. No medicine, it seemed, was to be spared.

The Conference opened with a stout determination to be brilliant and eventful; the hotels were full, the streets be-flagged, the programme of entertainments were admirable, and even the English weather seemed to make an effort. The opening addresses by the (British Monarch) and the Prime Minister make very curious reading. They express an acute recognition of the crucial condition of human affairs. They state in so many words that the failure of the Conference will precipitate world disaster. They insist upon the necessity for world co-operation, for monetary simplification and a resumption of employment; and in all that we admit they had the truth of the matter. But they make not the faintest intimation of how these desirable ends are to be obtained. They made gestures that are incomprehensible to us unless they had an inkling of the primary elements of the situation. And then immediately they turned away to other things. That mixture of resolve and failure to attack is what perplexes us most. If they saw the main essentials of the situation they certainly did not see them as a connected whole; they did not see any line of world action before them.

(T)he chief of the United States delegation, was equally large and fine. The grave and splendid words - shot with piety in the best American tradition- that he inscribed upon the roll of history were as follows: 'Selfishness must be banished. If-which God forbid! -any nation should wreck this Conference, with the notion that its local interests might profit, that nation would merit the execration of mankind.'

But after this much of lucidity, the Conference fell away to minor issues. Apparently it could not keep at so high a level of reality. The pressure of the Mass and the Press behind each delegate began to tell upon him. The national representatives began to insist with increasing explicitness that national interests must not be sacrificed to the general good, and in a little time it became doubtful if there could be such a thing as the general good. The World Economic Conference became by imperceptible transitions a World Economic Conflict just as the League of Nations had become a diplomatic bargain mart. All the fine preluding of the first seances withered to fruitlessness, because the mind of the world had still to realise the immense moral and educational effort demanded by those triple conditions that were dawning upon its apprehension, and because it was still unwilling to accept the immense political pooling they indicated. The amount of self - abnegation involved was an insurmountable psychological barrier in the way of the representatives present. It would have meant a sacrifice of the very conditions that had made them. How could men appointed as national representatives accept a pooling of national interests? They were indeed fully prepared to revolutionise the world situation and change gathering misery to hope, plenty and order, but only on the impossible condition that they were not to change themselves and that nothing essential to their importance changed. The leading ideas of the Conference were cloudily true, but the disintegrative forces of personal, party and national egotism were too strong for them.

Taken from "The Shape of Things to Come" by H.G. Wells (1933) Writing about Franklin D. Roosevelt. Nothing in this email should be construed by our loyal readers to mean that I (or anyone else at Apogee Books) endorse or sanction any of the preceding opinions. A very small amount of abridgement has been undertaken.

***

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Potpourri X

Lots of thought-provoking stuff out there, so I'll jump right into it:

NASA

  • NASA is offering content for people to develop do-it-yourself podcasts.
  • The three-year progress report for the Ares Projects is now available as a two-part video on YouTube.
  • The Great Moonbuggy Race will be running at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center this weekend.
  • The Futures Channel partnered with the Ares outreach team to develop some videos on careers at NASA.

Other Space Stuff

The Economy

  • President Obama says the U.S. Government will now cover any warranty-based maintenance for owners of GM cars. But I'm told on Facebook that I need to "calm down" because "capitalism is fine." Riiiiight.
  • Congressman Barney Frank is proposing a bill that would set caps on all employee salaries at AIG, not just the CEO. "Calm down, Bart. Capitalism is just fine." Riiiiiight.

Technology

Politics & Culture

  • One of my favorite Law & Order actresses, Angie Harmon, is sick of being called a "racist" because she disagrees with President Obama's policies. Welcome to the club, Angie. I got this accusation shortly after Election Day, and still find it offensive.
  • Venezuela-born Miss Universe had a great time at Guantanamo Bay.
  • Some advice for Gen Yers entering the workforce in Washington.
  • Hat tip to D2 for this item on evaluating "employee engagement" in the workplace.
  • Darlene the Science Cheerleader has been in contact with a congressman interested in reviving the Office of Technology Assessment.
  • On the lighter side of things, a man in Ohio was arrested for driving drunk on a motorized bar stool.
  • An interesting question from one of my acquaintances on LinkedIn.com:

"Is the concept of "Tough Love" at the root of society's problems or is it their answer?"

Some argue "spare the rod, spoil the child" and it seems to me that the underlying philosophy in this also lies in some of the advice on how best to deal with the current economic crisis. But is the deterministic righteousness of tough love the root problem in many and diverse areas of our societies, or is it rather the belief in the "Noble Savage" and laissez-faire indulgence? Or are both just perversions of love, part self-loathing part narcissism?

  • An interesting video on the mayor of Missassauga, Ontario. We should all be so good at 88!
  • I got hip-deep into a long conversation about capitalism, Obama, etc. on Facebook last night ("Calm down, Bart..."), so I decided to change my status as a way of getting free of the argument. I changed my status to "Bart is moving on to another topic." Some FB friends offered the following alternatives:
    --"I've got a topic...Socialism"
    --"How about the right to privacy issues?"
    --"Eminent domain?"
    --"The topic is me. All about me! ME, ME, ME!!!!"

    The last answer was offered by my buddy Gwen. I opted for her answer, as I was too tired at that point to offer alternatives. I promised I'd address some of these in the blog. I will, just not right now. More to come...

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Potpourri III

All sorts of interesting emails and recommendations lately...my apologies if I don't comment on all of them. Long week, and my brain is cabbage at the moment.

A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise. As far as I can tell, this is a preview of the President's new budget. If you have money, or want to have money in the future, this document will be of particular interest to you. Mr. Obama wants to put a salary cap on the American dream. Don't know what that is yet, but I'm sure if I ever hit it, my taxes will soon reflect it. It's not about economic growth, it's about "fairness," as Obama and his team define it. In my book, fairness means everyone plays by the same rules. I'm guessing his definition doesn't match mine.

*

Book recommendation from reader Rolando: Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. It's on the reading list, anyway.

Other links from Rolando...one comparing the U.S. national debt to gross domestic product. However, I prefer more official statistics. Try this one from the Bureau of the Public Debt. Not great, but not nearly the "120%" the other site was claiming. And, when you get right down to it, still not good for the country.

And there's this one on "social business." Here's how Wikipedia puts it:

Social Businesses seek to profit from acts that generate social improvements and serve a broader human development purpose. A key attribute of social businesses is that an increase in revenue corresponds to an incremental social enhancement. The social mission will permeate the culture and structure of the organization and the dual bottom lines - social and economic will be in equal standing with the firm pursuing long term maximization of both.

Here's my problem with this scheme: businesses exist to make a profit. When they exist to do other things, they will eventually cease to make a profit because the "social improvements" will eat into everything. Am I saying these things shouldn't be tried? No, I'm just saying I believe them to be impractical because social goods are moving targets, never satisfied ("the poor will always be with you"), and success is often difficult or impossible to quantify. If you make your business about anything other than providing goods or services to make a profit, it will eventually cease to be a business. What you or your shareholders do with that profit is your business.

For instance, [Paul] Newman's Own has donated 100% of its profits to charitable organizations. That's great. Terrific, in fact. I admired Mr. Newman for putting his money where his mouth is. But he created a for-profit business, not a non-profit institution. He provides quality food & beverage and other products which the public wants and enjoys, and which pays the company's employees and expenses. The profit is at the end of the day, after the taxes are counted and the bills are paid.

Now you think I'm probably splitting hairs on this. What's the big deal? The big deal is that Newman's Own's business is making products and making a profit. Their direct business is not about making the world a better place or addressing "health, education, poverty, environment or climate urgency." They're running a business and then turning their money over to those activities. It really is a matter of mindset and incentives. I'd prefer to do good while doing well rather than just doing good (a guy's got to earn a living, after all). For example, Google and Virgin both have strong corporate initiatives surrounding philanthropy and humanitarian causes, but the funding sources for these initiatives are profits, which are made possible through powerful brands and high-quality products and services that people want.

From my reading chair, starting a business with the goal of "ending poverty" only works indirectly (e.g., by creating low-cost/high-quality goods or services or jobs that contribute to the betterment of individual lives--or by making profits that can be used toward charitable activities). Otherwise, you might as well start a non-profit organization. The goals of profit-making and directly improving the general or specific public welfare are nearly incompatible; there has to be something in it for the company, or there's no return on investment besides good feelings.

*
Hat tip to Joe for the links below. They will probably appeal more to Gen Y readers, as I started reading and arguing with the writer almost immediately. Her priorities are obviously very different from mine, but then most people's are, so I guess I shouldn't be terribly shocked.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

One Gen Xer's View of the Transformation Discussion

I really appreciate being included in the ongoing discussion re: what to do with/about NASA. If I seem to lecture overmuch, I apologize. Part of that is just me, part of it is a habit I picked up from my grandparents, part of it is a sincere desire to see ambitious younger folks not make some of the same mistakes I made at their age. Allow me to ‘splain.

I came to NASA somewhat late in my career. I was 36 when I moved to Huntsville. Before that, I was a proposal writer at a defense contractor in Northern Virginia, and before that I spent 12 years at Walt Disney World, working in a variety of roles, including parks, resorts, IT, HR, and training. Most of the management stuff (e.g. change management) I picked up from reading books from the Disney University library or through writing papers for NASA. Other things, like PowerPoint, I’ve picked up on the job, through my off-duty reading, or in grad school (UCF, M.A. Technical Writing, ’02). I’ve spent my career as an hourly employee or an independent contributor, not as a manager; but I've been supporting managers, from the front line to the executive offices, so I have a pretty good handle on their wants/needs in the field of communication.

I think I learned more about interacting with the public—and management—at Disney than anywhere else. Much of what I learned came about by trying to do things “my way,” which is to say the wrong way, or in a way that usually resulted from arguments with my managers. I was a pain the neck as a 20-something employee and had more than a little impatience and “attitude.” I think it took a second verbal reprimand (guaranteeing that I wouldn’t transfer out of the job I had for at least another year) to realize that my confrontational approach with management was hurting, not helping my career.

If I wanted to stay with the company and improve my circumstances, I had to “play the game,” at least to some extent. That did not mean silencing my beliefs or sucking up to the boss. It did mean not rudely questioning the motives or intelligence of my managers every time decisions didn’t go my way; not demanding changes, but backing up my concerns with facts; and not expecting to advance simply on my own merits. If I wanted to “move up” in the organization, I had to admit (gulp) that my Silent Generation parents and Greatest Generation grandparents were right, and that I needed management coaching and support.

I am not saying Nick and the rest are doing what I did. Quite the contrary: they’ve been a lot more respectful and wise in their approach than I was. I was into my early 30s before I really understood how management thinks. From there, it was easier to know when it was appropriate to speak my mind and try to make changes and when it was better to shut up, wait, or accept things. Again, this was my particular problem, not necessarily others’.

There’s a saying I read recently that sums up my approach to my dispensing of unsolicited advice: “A smart man learns from his mistakes; a wise man learns from others’ mistakes.” So, again, I hope some of this commentary is of benefit, however tactlessly offered. Maybe more folks will learn from me what not to do. In any case, thanks again for reading. As new thoughts or approaches come to me, I’ll be sure to share them.

Monday, March 02, 2009

Transforming NASA, Part III

I have two items as food for thought this evening: change management and PowerPoint etiquette. Again, this is written in the spirit of helping, not keeping Gen Y down. I don't have the power to keep anyone down, nor am I interested in acquiring it.

Change Management
Change is hard, especially as you get older. When you're the new guy and don't have any preconceived notions, it's much easier to identify things that are wrong and to suggest ways to change them. What agents of change often face, however, is institutional resistance. Why? For reasons as old as human nature:
  • Changes could lead to job cuts--especially the jobs of people who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are. That isn't always the case when changes come, but it happens often enough that people have a natural fear of it and want to protect their own rice bowls.
  • Change takes people out of their comfort zone. Consider my recent complaint about changing from Office 2003 to Office 2007. I've been happy with 2003. I get it, I know how it works, and I can make the application do what I want using commands I know automatically. Why would I want to give that up?
  • Change takes work. Continuing the example above, I'm going to have to learn more. I'll probably have to take additional classes and use extra time to do things that I once did automatically. Learning curves take time and work, and who the heck wants to screw that up when you've got deadlines to meet?

On the other hand, change is often necessary. In high-tech companies, this is a given: stay where you are, and eventually you'll get run over. Someone else will come up with a better mousetrap, and your company will be put out of business. Government agencies work somewhat differently, and operate under a different set of constraints than business--including political considerations, institutional inertia, media attention, changes in policy, and shifting budgets.

One change process NASA has embraced--at least within the Ares Projects--is Lean Six Sigma. There are plenty of sites out there, like the one I just linked to, so I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. However, I would encourage Gen-Y folks to participate in Lean Six Sigma events if they come up in your area. While LSS is meant to reduce waste and increase quality, it also has the added advantage of gaining wider acceptance of change, as it requires input from all interested parties. LSS events are an excellent opportunity to make some impact on the work going on around you. I've had to do some writing on LSS and have been through one of the events, and I found it very educational and useful. I have left some things out from the list below, but I wanted to provide a rough background on what goes on:

Step 1: Describe the current state. You start with an existing process. Let's say, hypothetically, you've been brought into a LSS event for how engineering change requests (CRs) are handled in your area. Step 1 is pretty straightforward: you map out how the process steps are handled, and by whom, and draw a lot of lines to show how things flow (or don't, as is often the case).
Step 2: Identify "value-added" and "non-value-added" steps. This is where a group consisting of members from each constituency involved in the process identifies all those steps that contribute directly to producing the end result. The advantage of this process is that it also allows the group to identify legal and regulatory constraints, "do loops," delays, extra steps, unnecessary signature approvals, and activities that are there simply because "we've always done it that way."
[By the way, along the way, you're quantifying what's being done--how long a process takes, how much time is spent waiting on others, how much the process costs, etc.--to provide hard data to back up any decisions.]
Step 3: Define your ideal future state. After you've sorted out the current state, you start laying out how you want the process to go, using only the value-added and legally mandated steps. And you wrap it up with a bow by calculating the amount of time and money saved and presenting this data to the upper-level manager who has decision-making authority.
Again, this is an existing NASA-supported process that can be used to bring about change.
*
PowerPoint Etiquette
I've been developing PowerPoint presentations in corporate, military, and government settings for over 10 years. That doesn't mean I'm an expert on PowerPoint; it does mean I'm something of an expert on what managers want in their PowerPoint presentations. Which comes to my primary concerns with the "Gen Y presentations": your format doesn't work with many managers.
I realize I'm about to put on my old-fogie, business-as-usual hat here, but bear with me for a minute.
When I saw Nick's original presentation, I must confess, I groaned. "One hundred and three slides, is he kidding?" It felt like one of those "inspiration" presentations that hits my inbox occasionally. That doesn't mean I couldn't use a little inspiration now and then, but there's a time and place for the one-sentence-per-slide thing, and it's not in a decisional briefing. Imagine, for instance, if I had posted this entire blog as a series of blogs, one sentence or one Tweet at a time. You'd switch off after awhile, wouldn't you? Now you have some notion of how others might react to the one-sentence-at-a-time thing.
Now I realize that the text-heavy, non-dynamic PPT itself can induce groans (a Gen-Y friend of mine dropped by to complain recently about the font size on a recent management presentation, and I couldn't argue with her about it--she was right). However, the long-form PPT, with one sentence per slide, just doesn't work if you are trying to develop presentations that will prompt senior managers to make decisions. Here are some basic PPT guidelines I've absorbed and followed over the years:
  • Keep the presentation short. One chart for every 1-2 minutes of presentation time. Keep additional stuff in the backup charts if you need it.
  • Keep the bullets short. Your audience can read what's on the screen. You're there to provide the color commentary.
  • Keep your briefing focused. Include only statements or data or images that contribute to your main point.
  • Minimize the "cute." This includes wacky "fly-in" effects, flashing anything, cutesy animations, and, yes, using one sentence per slide, unless it's a heading. (I'll get to the exceptions to this later.)
  • Be realistic about your claims and objectives and focus on concrete quantifiable issues and results, if possible. "Revolutionizing the agency" will fall on deaf ears. "Increasing technological expertise, reducing cost and schedule, or improving hardware/software performance by [X number]" will get their attention.
  • The following format / flow for a presentation continues to work:
    --Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em. (Intro/agenda)
    --Tell 'em. (Main body)
    --Tell 'em what you told 'em. (Summary)

Now there are times when I think the long-form (one sentence per slide) format or other creative effects work well. These include:

  • Informal, "fun," or (yes) "inspirational/team building" settings where there are no serious time constraints.
  • When you're trying to get people to think creatively or philosophically in a relaxed way.
  • Non-decisional environments.
  • Parts of a more serious or formal briefing, where it can be used for dramatic or comic effect.

I don't want to crush creativity here. In fact, I'd like to incorporate some of the long-form format into the outreach PPTs I develop. And by all means, if you're a NextGen person and you ARE the boss, you can make your PPTs any way you darn well please. However, I am trying to explain how most managers communicate (and expect to be communicated to) in environments where they have a decision to make. I think part of the reason that they don't take some of these collaboration or intergenerational PPTs seriously is that they are receiving data in a form they're not accustomed to--it's simply too "fun" to be taken seriously. The presentations work for other NextGen people, not time-constrained Boomer (or Xer) managers.

Okay, I've ranted long enough for this evening. Feel free to pick up the pitchforks and torches if you feel the need.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Gen Y and NASA, Continued.

I've gotten many more good comments in the last couple days, and a huge spike in my hits thanks to NASAWatch. Who'da thunk it? Anyhow, many of the comments were variations on a theme. I wrote some of this in response to a response from my buddy Doc, but I'll repost here and elaborate a bit.

*

Some folks are uncomfortable with the idea of labels, generational or otherwise. However, this discussion has been going on for a long, long time. You can probably find the ancient Greeks bemoaning the degradation of the youths of their day. Others dislike the premise of "paying one's dues." I honestly don't know how long is a reasonable amount of time to "learn a system." However, for the sake of argument, let's say someone should be able to talk as though they belonged there after they've been on the job a year.

Some people manage to graduate and go right into some high-paying job. Some drop out of high school and start their own companies. Some get all the way through a doctorate and still have no idea what they're going to be when they grow up. The points here are that individuals all develop differently, but large organizations are all pretty much the same. If you are interested in establishing a career in a large, bureaucratic organization, then you're going to have to play by that organization's rules. And that sort of organization is going to have more and more gray hairs and seniority the higher up the food chain you go. If you're not interested in working in a large, bureaucratic organization, you go find a job somewhere else or you go start your own business.

The fact is that NASA IS a large, bureaucratic organization when others would like it to be something different. If Nick, Doc, and the rest of Gen Y (or, God help us, some members of Gen X) want to change NASA into something other than it is now, well...that'll require another blog. Keep those thoughts coming. I'd also like to thank Dave for his link to the Gen X Files.

And in the meantime, I'll open it this up for discussion here: how do you transform a traditional, seniority-based organization into one where younger folks with bright ideas to contribute can move up the food chain without having to wait 10-20 years for "their turn" or to "pay their dues?"

/b

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Following Up On Gen Y and NASA

Yesterday's posting on the latest "Gen Y presentation" produced some great, thought-provoking comments. Nick's response deserves to be quoted and responded to, so I'll do that below and try to comment where I think appropriate.

Re: “bigger challenges

”If you have any insight into what those “bigger challenges” are, I’d love to hear them. We’re actually going through a process of sorts right now to identify them and I’d really like to get you involved in those discussions.

Another reader comment from "1963" actually anticipated some of my thoughts:

Perhaps I'm just another grumpy old man, but sometimes these Gen-Y inputs sound like folks who demand to be respected before they have paid any dues that can be respected. While it takes smarts to come up with a good idea, it takes wisdom to know how to get it implemented in a large, political bureaucracy. And while we can complain and wish that NASA wasn't a large, political bureaucracy - the reality is what it is, and the odds of it changing are low. But does that mean we give up? Or does that mean we use our smarts to work the politics in our favor?

Here's what work comes down to for me: performance, process, politics, and people.

  • Performance boils down to the content: do you know your stuff? Are you conversant enough with the actual work being performed? Depending on the complexity of your job, mastery of it could take anywhere from one hour to one month to one year to a lifetime. I look at this shakedown part of a job as ending when I know enough to understand the tasks and boundaries expected of the content. No one respects "the new guy" until s/he has been around long enough to know the business and make positive contributions. In some jobs, the new-guy perspective is wanted/valued/respected up front (consultants come to mind), while in others a "new guy" might be anyone with less than 10 years of experience. I've heard of such organizations, and the only way to win them over is to get down enough of the language to let the others know you can speak it.
  • Processes are the things one must do to function in the organization: do you know where to get office supplies? Do you know how to get information from one group or another? Do you know which forms must be used to accomplish tasks?
  • Politics are pretty straightforward as well: what are the organizational and power relationships within a particular work group? Woe to the newbie who starts talking about their politics or telling jokes in the first week without a complete understanding of the local norms. Office politics also define the boundaries of how you advance your own agenda (once you understand the content and the processes).
  • People are who you have to work with, day in and day out. Do you understand what drives your coworkers? Do you know who knows what you need to know? Knowledge of individual motivations can be different from political knowledge. You might find someone who plays a very smooth political game, but once you get to know them one on one, you might find that they hate the game but play it out of sheer self-defense. This doesn't mean being best-buddies with everyone in the office, but it does mean having more than a vague realization of the other personalities in the room.

The point of all these basic definitions is that you need a knowledge of all of them to be truly effective in any workplace. And, as I was a pain-in-the-neck twentysomething 15-odd years ago, I can tell you that I learned most of these lessons the hard way by trying to do or fix things MY way first without bothering to learn the way things worked around me. I get the whole youthful enthusiasm thing and the desire to change the world and fix things that are obviously broken right now. However (again, after butting heads with more than a few managers in the hospitality and defense industries), I eventually had to learn to slow down, find out why things operated the way they did, and then figure out the most effective way to use the system as it is to move things in a more positive direction.

Admittedly, this is my personal approach, and might not work with everyone. However, I sometimes sense that youthful impatience in the presentations OpenNASA produces, and I've talked to enough people (like 1963) to know that Gen Y's desire to come in and fix/change things without "learning the system" or "paying their dues" can grate. Obviously, the world is changing and Gen X and the Boomers aren't getting any younger. But the Xers and the Boomers have been with the organization a bit longer, and so have a better handle on what's going on, how to get things done, and what to expect of this or that decision/idea. And there's also seniority to consider. Some people are not eager to be shown the door to make room for someone half their age, especially in the middle of a recession. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but that's how some people perceive the presentations.

One thing I've noted especially among the young is a distinct impatience with "war stories," those long rambles that can come out of the mouth of older folks (you know--anyone over 30) about some event way back in the Dark Ages (like, the 1990s). Eyes roll, sighs blow forth, and the youth crosses their arms, hoping the lecture or story will end soon. But those stories are a great deal of how human beings and institutions carry on institutional knowledge. I've heard folks talk until they're blue in the face about "knowledge management systems" and "collecting lessons learned," but the fact remains that if someone's got a question about a particular type of problem, they're more likely to march down the hall, collar an old-timer ("graybeard" being the un-PC term) and ask, "Hey, how did you solve X on Shuttle/Apollo?"

I don't think the impatience problem is a particularly Gen Y problem. Like I said, I had it myself. It's just something to think about. It's not all about the new toys/technologies. Sometimes it's about the stories and the relationships you build. One thing I'd like to see NASA try is a pairing-up of graybeard mentors with rookie engineers/scientists as a living means of knowledge transfer.

Re: “brain heavy”

That’s an interesting point. I made this presentation in particular with the Digital Astronaut (DA) project in mind – which, is brain heavy. Academics, scientists, doctors, and all that stuff. I’ll give some more thought to your observation but one thought I have on this subject is even the folks “bending metal, installing wiring, turning wrenches, and welding structures” have ideas they’d love to share. In fact, those ideas are some of the most valuable ones you can get because they are the ones who are “doing it.”

Good point. My "four P's" above would apply to this group as well.

I think there’s a pretty big misconception behind the “Gen Y” label and how it’s been spun that’s its all about the technology and fancy web 2.0 gadgets. That’s not how I see it for sure, and as a project manager, my goal with DA is going to be able to figure out how to utilize the functionality of collaborative technology without creating barriers for people to contribute. It’s a starting point, not an ending point, and something I know will take quite a bit of continuous iteration to get right. That will probably mean not using all the bells and whistles on whatever website we put up. It will also mean augmenting whatever we do with other ways of interaction. I definitely get that and it’s a big part of our plan. I’ll try to do a better job of spelling that out next time – heck, maybe that’s a whole other presentation in itself. Hmm….

Okay, that makes sense. But, again, some people might not be comfortable with your new digital environment. I experienced one of my first neo-Luddite moments this week when I learned that I've got to transition from Office 2003 to 2007, which has a completely different interface for Microsoft Word. Okay, go ahead and laugh, but I've been using the same interface professionally, with moderate changes over the years, since 1996. That's 13 years of using the same program, but by golly, I know the system I've got, and can play it like a Stradivarius. Now I've got to readjust all of my usual keyboard and mouse rhythms. My productivity will drop for a few weeks (or months) as I spend time deciphering the new menus, taking classes to learn a whole new set of shortcuts, and in general grousing about the evils of Bill Gates and his merry band of outlaw programmers. All I'd ask is that you consider the user habits of other (older) audiences.

Re: Contributions

You talked about how these tools will enable people to make fundamentally better contributions than they might make f2f. That’s something that I flush out more verbally in the talk itself, and hopefully I’ll find some time to write those notes up into a post on opennasa.com sometime soon, but essentially… yes. Again, I’ll go back to the DA project. Even the team I work with is spread out across the country. I wish we werent’ because we all much prefer F2F meetings. Part of what we are building will be built out of necessity for us to collaborate on our own project! I think that’s great and will really
help drive out the requirements, which will help us clearly articulate exactly what contributions we are looking for. We hope to have this flushed out when we launch a few months from now. But one of the major goals of the DA is to gather input from scientists, coders, doctors, students, academics, and people from all over the place. The contributions themselves can be in a few different buckets, including improving the actual code structure of the model, adding to the knowledge base behind the model, and building on the “hypothesis” of the model to run experiments and simulations and ultimately help us develop countermeasures and buy down the risk of sending humans on long duration space flights. Our eventual website will have the audiences clearly defined as well as what contributions we’re looking for. It will no doubt be a big challenge, but also one that would be immensely valuable if we can accomplish it because it won’t be just NASA funded scientists and engineers looking at the problem any more, but others as well. I’m convinced that broadening our scope of input will
help provide better solutions in the end.

Re: Global Marketplace

I think DA is a good example of what this can look like for NASA. Not everything can be out their for external collaboration for the reasons you highlighted. But there is a portion of what we do that can. If we open up the items in our work portfolio that can be collaborated on publicly, it would help us leverage our already overworked internal resources. The DA is about human physiology and science. There’s a huge reliance on knowledge from the medical profession, which is an opportune thing to open up to an outside community of collaborators.

Re: moving forward

If you’ve been following the discussion as Bart and I have, you hear a lot of feedback given that we need concrete examples of what this looks like at NASA (versus just talking about it). Although I do think there is a lot of education and awareness that also needs to be done (hence the presentations), I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, its not as easy as just being able to implement some of this stuff for the average joe at NASA for a host of reasons. Luckily, I’m in a place now that I really have an opportunity (and authority) to share a knowledge asset (the computational model that is DA) with the world and work with others on further developing the body of knowledge and digital
analogue for all to use. My hope is that not only will NASA benefit, but that people around the world will benefit by using DA as an “innovation incubator” of sorts. I see the government’s role as one of an integrator of knowledge and a facilitator of collaboration – ultimately providing the right ingredients to enable innovation and keep pushing science and exploration forward. The idea of a lone genius, sitting in his office cubicle, coming up with “the great idea” is mysterious and romantic, but maybe a bit unrealistic. True innovation happens when you have knowledge brokers taking even old tried ideas, and applying them in new ways. I’m hoping the DA helps make that happen.

When it comes to making better contributions, the primary arguments I've read--on NASAWatch and elsewhere--focus on "Showing me the money." We need high-power, high-efficiency, high-capability, low-weight spacecraft and launch vehicles. How will DA or other collaborative enviroments bring about those results? Back up those answers with data, and your agenda will move forward swiftly.

I look forward to viewing DA in more detail. Again, I would like to throw in a recommendation or two from a technical writer's point of view.

  • Who is your audience? I'm guessing web-minded people, yes? Well, that will probably mean a younger audience, meaning you might lose an older audience. You need to consider alternate delivery methods for those of us addicted to hard copies. Booklets, handouts, white papers, and other more traditional media, while passé in some quarters, are still traditional and acceptable media for conveying messages within NASA.
  • Also, what do you want your audience to do or how do you want them to react after using the information on DA? This means designing your application, interface, and outputs with particular needs in mind.
  • How much data does your audience need to accomplish what they will want from the product?
Anyway, this was a really long response, but as you can probably tell, one that I’m passionate about. I’d love to talk to anyone who has any thoughts, in particular about how to create an online, open-source, computational model of human physiology (digital astronaut).

My response was pretty long, too. If you made it this far, congratulations. Thanks for continuing to prompt and provoke debate, Nick. There are things to be done on all sides of the debate, including mine.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Missing Pieces: What NASA’s Gen Y Keeps Missing

I invite you to visit this web site, and read where Nick Skytland, a Gen-Y civil servant at Johnson Space Center (JSC), posted a presentation from the PM Challenge conference entitled “Participatory Exploration: The Role of the User Contribution System.” Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Okay, now that you’ve read that, I’ll make some obligatory grumpy comments. These are being written in the spirit of constructive criticism, not "Siddown, kid, and wait your turn!" I'm looking at specifics in the presentations and so am asking/commenting about specifics.

I’ve met Nick once or twice at space-related events, and he’s a friend in Facebook. I'm not sure he reads this blog, but I might direct him to it just to provide him with food for thought for his next presentation. Nick is one of many under-30 contributors at the agency who’s trying to get NASA to think more like a dot-com (e.g. Google) and less like a command-and-control military organization. I wish him and his compadres well. Gosh knows all government agencies could think more quickly on their feet. However, being a Gen-Xer who’s spent most of my career in large, command-and-control organizations, I suspect that Nick has bigger challenges ahead than he realizes.

One of the gripes I’ve had about these types of presentations is that they are very brain-heavy. Here’s what I mean: despite the fact that, until the recent recession, America has continued to break records in the amount of manufactured stuff we export, media pundits and younger folks focused remain captivated by the "service economy" and the “information age."

Now admittedly a lot of our mass-produced products can be assembled, packaged, or shipped robotically, and that trend will no doubt continue. However, one of the largest contributors to America’s exports has been The Boeing Company, which depends on a large, skilled workforce capable of bending metal, installing wiring, turning wrenches, welding structures, and all the rest. All of this is still too complex for robots and likely will be for some time to come. These activities involve people doing physical labor, not just sitting in front of a laptop at Starbucks, sipping lattés. I don’t know what the specific percentages are, but I think I’m safe in assuming that not all of the people producing or building stuff—from farm goods to airplanes and spacecraft—went to college. Skytland is “privileging” (a favorite phrase of one of my grad school profs) intellect and symbol manipulation over physical labor. This is a mistake because not everyone can contribute this way, nor do they necessarily want to. Any future educational system—and any future space program—must find ways for individuals with mental and physical skill sets to contribute, because we will need both educated minds and skilled hands if we want to get to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

Another issue I have with these Gen Y presentations—and I apologize now if Nick covered this, all I have to go by are the PPT slides—is how they emphasize collaborative technological tools but do not specify how these tools will enable people to make fundamentally better contributions than they might make through, say, face-to-face meetings, phone calls, or memos. I would also be interested to see what specific engineering or scientific contributions have been made in the aerospace industry using Skytland’s proposed new work environment. One example I can think of off the top of my head is the "virtual collaboration" Boeing has been doing to design and build the 787 Dreamliner at multiple locations around the globe. However, that plane is now likely to start deliveries more than a year late. Was that the result of--or despite--worldwide, international collaboration? That question should be answered.

Next on my nitpicking list: the global marketplace. It is one thing to have global “participation” in a robotic exploration mission (the standard example I’ve heard is allowing people to vote on “where to plant the flag”). It is another to have people from other countries reviewing and building the rockets--see the 787 example above. Since the dawn of the space age, rockets have been a critical national and strategic technology because of their ability to carry weapons. As noted above, if America has had one distinctive competitive advantage over the past 50 years, it has been in aerospace technology. This includes everything from materials to aerodynamic shapes or computer codes for analyzing flight paths to the guidance systems that allow a rocket to travel 25,000 miles per hour and reach a target millions of miles away with a margin of error measured in inches. These are all technologies that require United States citizens to produce them—at least if the United States wants to remain a spacefaring nation. There are some jobs that NASA and its primary contractors simply will not and cannot outsource to other countries because it’s the law.

We have a truly unique and challenging future ahead of us. I look forward to future contributions by Nick and others like him. I’d just like a little more organizational, cultural, and operational realism brought into the discussion.

Monday, December 08, 2008

Follow-Up: Bad Behavior, Embarrassing Pictures, and Job Security in Internet Age

Having vented previously on people's foolish behavior on the internet, I now must take a contrary stance. Why? Because, while the new reality of the world is that individuals can get fired for bad or embarrassing behavior they exhibit on the internet, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's good or right.

That Obama speech writer was tacky, but did his behavior rise to the level of a punishable offense? Did a hockey player deserve to be suspended from his job because of some sexist, crass remark about a former girlfriend? It depends on who you talk to.

When people talk about "political correctness," this is what they mean. There are just Some Things That Must Not Be Said. It is a manner of thinking and speaking that restrains anything that might be perceived as insulting to particular individuals or groups. Now am I endorsing full-out rudeness, crudity, or impolite behavior? No. However, I know that no one is capable of perfectly well-behaved, appropriate speech, partially because the rules keep changing, and partially just because people are people, and slips of the tongue are likely to happen. In short, we need to lighten up.

The end result of PC-speak is, as George Orwell notes in his description of Newspeak in 1984, to restrict the range of political speech and (by derivation) thought. If you can't say certain things--laughing at or judging particular behaviors--it becomes impossible to offer up alternative views. So today businesses will fire someone because of individual, personal crassness. What will be next? What happens when it's your turn to make a slip that shows up on the internet?

How do we fix this? I have no frickin' clue.

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Bad Behavior, Embarrassing Pictures, and Job Security in Internet Age

It's amazing how many people have put themselves into hot water by posting or having things posted about their behavior on the Internet. Consider the following:

An Obama speechwriter is in trouble for joking around with a friend and pretending to grope the breast of a Hillary Clinton cutout.

In the sports world, a Calgary Flames hockey player is about to be suspended for comments he made regarding another player picking up his "sloppy seconds" (i.e. his ex-girlfriend).

But one need not look to the famous to see examples of people screwing up their lives because of some bad behavior appearing on the internet. Workers have been fired for postings made on Facebook. Criminals have been caught showing off or doing bizarre things and then bragging about it on the Internet.

What is it with people? Once upon a time, people had pictures taken at inopportune times, and they could burn the negatives and be done with it. No more. Now those pictures can be taken with a phone and emailed around the world before any explanation or apology can be issued. Even the burning-the-negatives-and-prints strategy is not a guarantee that personal foibles remain private. Digital scanners can commit those pictures to electronic format, and from there they end up who knows where.

Aside from the crudity and general stupidity of the actions, there's also this seemingly willful ignorance of how actions performed in the virtual world can affect the real world. The internet, with its limited, albeit worldwide opportunity for publicity, allows people to put their personalities "out there" for all to see. I've succumbed to this myself, via blogging and Facebook. But I also know that my coworkers and managers either read or see what I do. Thus my unwillingness to get extremely foul in my language or to post pictures from friends' bachelor parties. The electronic world has made everyone potential victims of tabloid journalism, and I don't think Gen Y has fully absorbed what that can mean for their futures.

The bottom line on all this is that, if you do something stupid and photographic evidence exists that you did said stupid thing--or you yourself have posted that evidence--you have to accept that there will be consequences. That Obama speech writer and hockey player are about to learn what those consequences are. With the internet and wireless and digital cameras everywhere, it is increasingly difficult to avoid any private sins from becoming very public. And that lack of privacy and public willingness to display (or unwillingness to hide) bad behavior can result in you losing your job. It might not sound fair, but it is very much the way of the world.

There was a phrase that was very popular in the '60s: "The personal is political." Well, welcome to the 21st century, where "The personal is professional." Meaning, if you exhibit some sort of negative personal behavior or attitude or belief, and it's on the internet, your professional future can be eroded very quickly if you embarrass your employer. Bosses can Google, too.

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Young Men Not Growing Up

I'm shocked, shocked...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26317942/?GT1=43001

I guess I have another book to read, then: http://www.amazon.com/Guyland-Perilous-World-Where-Become/dp/0060831340/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220116233&sr=8-1

Though it's interesting to note that Amazon readers (so far) have given it only one star.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Apollo 11 + 39, Ares I-X, etc.

The odds are probably better than 50-50 that if you're reading this blog, you were too young to remember Apollo 11, or weren't even born yet. I myself was two weeks away (or thereabouts) from becoming a live-born citizen of the United States. Still, the event is worth commemorating. We live in the world after Apollo 11, so it's difficult to understand the mindset of the time.

In 1969, the space age was 12 years old. Human beings had only been in space for 8 years, and there was a very real threat that the Soviet Union might beat the United States to the Moon. We had never been there before. When President John F. Kennedy called upon the nation to the goal of "landing a man on the Moon, and returning him safely to Earth," the U.S. had had 20 minutes of human spaceflight experience. The folks at NASA, then only three years old as an operating entity, were charged with the largest peacetime engineering project since the building of the Panama Canal, and they'd been given nine years in which to do it.

More suspense was to be had besides the challenge of the race itself. The Mercury capsules flew on top of the Redstone rocket, named for the arsenal and the red clay to be found in northern Alabama. Redstone was not powerful enough to launch human beings into orbit. The next, bigger rocket in the Mercury program, Atlas, had the power, theoretically to get men into orbit, but they had a frightening tendency to explode.

The fuel for Atlas, like Redstone, was RP-1, a refined version of kerosene, and liquid oxygen (LOX), the element we breath, brought down to a couple hundred degrees below zero. In addition to being ultra-cold, LOX is super-flammable, causing things to burn much more rapidly than the would in air alone. If the Saturn V were to explode, it would have the explosive equivalent of just over half a kiloton of TNT, the equivalent of a small nuclear warhead.

The rockets flying with the stuff needed to be pressurized and made of materials enough to withstand the nature of fuels; the forces of acceleration, vibration, and noise as the vehicle ascended into the sky; and the odd tendencies of materials to behave differently in space. The journey itself was risky, but the engineers making the rockets and their early-model computers found the solutions to make it all happen, leaving the next challenge: getting a human being to actually set foot on another world.

The Moon has been with us for all of human history, for as long as Earth itself has been in existence--around 4.6 billion years. In our brief time here, we'd looked at it, studied it, written songs about it, and made some strange guesses about who might be living on it. Earlier NASA probes and the Apollo 8 mission had all but confirmed that life didn't exist there. Baked by the sun without benefit of an atmosphere, pelted for eons by asteroids large and small, the Moon had daytime temperatures of 250 degrees during its 14-day "day," and -250 degree temperatures at night. The distance to the Moon, nearly 240,000 miles, is so far that it takes one-and-one-quarter seconds for radio transmissions to reach Earth.

We had to take our own air with us, along with machines to filter our air and wastes and water, as well as food for the journey. Actually touching the Moon in its natural state was impossible. We had to build custom-made suits of armor with 17 different layers in them to address everything from boiling heat to freezing cold to astronaut comfort to holding in air to survive in the hard vacuum.

And we did it. Two fighter jocks piloted past their original landing place and manually selected and landed their spacecraft after their computer overloaded. They had less than 30 seconds' worth of fuel remaining when they shut down the engine. A flat, Midwestern voice drawled back to the anxious people in Mission Control, "Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." Waves of relief and triumph swept through the control room and throughout the world. A couple hours later, that same Midwesterner, a laconic test pilot from Ohio named Neil Armstrong, became part of history forever by becoming the first man to set a footprint on the Moon. In a transmission that was either garbled by static or flubbed by nervousness, Armstrong said, "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." That was July 20, 1969. Armstrong and Aldrin stayed on the Moon for less than three hours and then began the long journey home.

Until a human being sets foot on Mars in the next century, no single moment will demonstrate human accomplishment so elegantly and greatly. We live in a world now that takes the Moon landings--and there were five more of them over the next three years--for granted. What's worse is, because we stopped exploring other worlds (reaching for greatness), there is now a substantial group that doesn't believe we did it in the first place. We have spurned greatness for tackling simpler issues much closer to home. And while some of those things perhaps needed to be done, who can say how many bigger problems we might have been willing to tackle if we had kept the same faith that made us believe we could put a man on the Moon in nine years and then do it. With luck, spirit, and determination, human beings will return to the Moon. With a little more money and a lot more dedication, those human beings will again be Americans. We need the spirit of Apollo to guide our efforts as we reclaim the role of a frontier nation.

*

Today, of course, the world is different. We live in a time of unprecedented technological progress, innovation, and comfort, thanks in part to the trails blazed by Apollo. And yet we no longer go into space. We don't perceive a deadly rival to stir our competitive spirts. We don't see the rush or sometimes even the need for a human space program. The Constellation Program has been in existence for 4 years, and that existence is precarious because the taxpaying citizens still don't want to spend money on greatness, but are quite comfortable spending on comforts here on Earth. The space program is just a line item to be given a pittance in the next federal budget. Space must be marketed of all things, using practical benefits alone because greatness, competition, and national security are not seen as part of its existence anymore. Yet other nations want to do what we have done. They want the strength, prestige, advancement, and progress that we enjoyed from Apollo because they know it was real. They know that, given enough incentive, unity, and commitment, Americans really can do any project they set their minds to...if only we wanted to.

It took the deaths of seven Space Shuttle astronauts to get us out of our near-Earth lethargy and reach once more for greatness. The reasoning being: if we're going to lose astronauts in space, shouldn't they be dying for more than just a trip to Earth orbit? So now we're building Moon rockets again, at a slow clip given the limited budget and low priority of space exploration today, but we are at least returning to the path of greatness. That gives me hope. I just hope it will be enough.

*

And speaking of marketing space, NASA is beginning to take steps to reach that generation of kids who never knew Apollo except as museum pieces. The first test flight of Ares I, the crew launch vehicle that will get astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft into orbit, is happening in spring 2009. NASA.gov has been around for awhile--and has had some success reaching the public, as the Mars Rover web sites have gotten millions of hits. However, I myself have not always been able to find what I'm looking for on NASA.gov. Others prefer to get their information in different ways, like through social networking web sites. Well, the Ares I-X flight test now has a presence on MySpace as well as Facebook.

The hope is, if Generation Y won't come to NASA, NASA can where they are and learn to speak their language. The I-X team got one of their Gen Y interns to put together the sites, and after some internal negotiating with the NASA Public Affairs Office (PAO), they're now a reality. Targeted marketing (though NASA doesn't like to use that word) just might begin to bear fruit. Social networking, blogging, and other internet-based outputs are no longer side shows, but soon to become the primary output channels for public information. The days of three TV networks and three major newspapers are over; the internet thrives on content, and if the PAO isn't providing that information clearly or copiously enough, people will go to sites like NASAWatch and NASASpaceflight.com to get their information, and those sites aren't so positive about NASA activities. Better to allow more individuals to share information with the public -- as long as it's not sensitive but unclassified (SBU), proprietary, or subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) -- than to have people leak things out just to be spiteful.

In any case, the Ares I-X sites are a hopeful sign. If more people are aware of the flight test, they might pay more attention, care a little more, get a little more excited, support the Constellation Program a little more, and (wild thought) vote in such a way that the program continues and accelerates. Sometimes it's the little things that get things moving. Here's hoping the Ares I-X (and other NASA programs') social networking sites are just the little things we need.