An article in Thursday’s issue of the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill mentions the existence of a new organization, the Coalition for Space Exploration, whose intent is to promote the new space initiative. Several major aerospace companies, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are members of this group, as well as organizations like the Aerospace Industries Association. The March issue of SpaceWatch, the newsletter of the Space Foundation, mentions that the coalition actually predates the new initiative, having been in the planning stages since last May. Curiously, the coalition has been very quiet, although Space Foundation president Elliot Pulham writes that “You’ve probably seen the group’s advertising and editorial messages in USA Today and other newspapers across the country.” I can’t recall seeing any, but then, I don’t read USA Today other than through its web site.
The Hill articles does make a couple significant errors: it identifies Brian Chase as executive director of the National Space Society, a position he ceded in January to become vice president for Washington operations of the Space Foundation. The article also claims that the NSS established a Washington office this year in addition to its Colorado Springs headquarters; it is the Space Foundation that has a Colorado headquarters and Washington office.
PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Source: Space Foundation
Jim Banke named Director of Communications at Space Foundation
Colorado Springs, Colo. The Space Foundation today named veteran space journalist Jim Banke director of communications. Banke brings 20 years of award-winning space journalism experience and a vast knowledge of the space industry. He has covered scores of manned and unmanned launches from Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Kourou, French Guiana, as well as shuttle landings at Edwards Air Force Base, NASA mission operations in Houston and the 1989 Voyager 2 encounter of Neptune from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
“Jim’s strong communications background, space expertise and familiarity with our NASA and Air Force customers brings new strength to our team,” said Jim Jannette, Space Foundation Chief of Staff.
Banke assumes responsibility for all Space Foundation communications, including media relations and publications. An immediate priority will be management of all public outreach communications for the Coalition for Space Exploration – a Foundation-led coalition of aerospace companies and organizations working to support the new U.S. Space Exploration Policy.
For the past four years, Banke was SPACE.com’s senior producer in the Cape Canaveral Bureau, where he produced authoritative reports for Space News and SPACE.com, and provided live launch coverage for WMMB-AM radio. Prior to joining SPACE.com, he covered space for Florida Today and helped create the Space Online Web service.
Banke and his SPACE.com colleagues were awarded the 2003 Online News Association’s Breaking News Award for his coverage of the Columbia disaster, and he has been recognized with a variety of honors for his writing and online work. He earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Aviation and Business Administration from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.
About the Space Foundation The Space Foundation is a non-profit organization with the mission “to vigorously advance civil, commercial, and national security space endeavors and educational excellence.” The Foundation conducts events and symposia for industry, has trained more than 30,000 teachers, administers the Space Technology Hall of Fame and Space Product Certification programs, is actively engaged in space policy issues on a national and international level, and offers unique master’s degree programs for educators.
Its flagship event, the National Space Symposium, this year marks its 20th anniversary on March 29-April 1. The Space Foundation is headquartered in Colorado Springs and has additional operations in Washington, D.C. and Cape Canaveral, Fla. For more information on Space Foundation services, programs or events, visit http://www.spacefoundation.org.
Although I also do not read USA Today, I wonder if the ads that they are referring to are the full page space exploration ads that have run in the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Brian Chase remains Executive Director of the National Space Society. He is serving both the NSS and SF until the new NSS ED is announced.
You can see one of the ads run by the Coalition here:
http://spacealliance.org/docs/news_ad.pdf
Jeff, the USA Today ads were regional and avoided preaching to the choir, e.g. my edition of USA Today at Cape Canaveral did not have the ad in it.
The Coalition has been a little quiet of late, mostly because I have just started work and have begun prepping/writing a bunch of stuff that soon will see its way out to the public.
Anyone reading this with suggestions on how we can help gain support for this refocused national vision is invited to e-mail me at jbanke@spacefoundation.org.
Jim Banke
I sent Jim the following comments just now… thought you all might be interested:
I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit, as I’m sure many of us have. I think there’s a critical fundamental issue here that goes to the heart of the way we spend money on science and technology projects in this country, a philosophical issue we need to somehow overcome or we will never get media, public, or political support behind what we want to do. I think the problem can be stated in 4 words:
We don’t set goals.
We used to set goals for our science and technology, but we’ve quit doing that. Apollo was clearly goal-directed; the Manhattan project, the WW-II jet engine, etc., the solid-state transistor from a goal of miniaturization and reliability. Moore’s law still acts to some extent as a year-in year-out goal for improvement in semiconductors, but it’s getting old, and it was never a government-funded technology goal anyway…
We spend a lot of money, but spending money doesn’t set goals. We do a lot of “curiosity-driven” research and “development”, but that’s basically the opposite of goal-setting. We occasionally set unrealistic goals we have no hope of meeting soon (and with no real schedule), ostensibly to spur development but in fact to just give another excuse for “curiosity-driven” work: the war on cancer, the hydrogen economy, nanotechnology initiatives, genetic engineering. Occasionally real goal-setting programs, like the space launch initiative (though I’m not sure how realistic that was), get started, but they seem to die quickly and are never adequately funded or supported. The human genome project may be one interesting recent exception to all this – but now that’s been completed. There seems to be a general, consistent and worrying reluctance to set real goals for government-funded science and technology.
The death of the Kyoto treaty in the US is a perfect example of our goal-aversion behavior.
Goals need to be near-term, achievable, measurable, with a deadline (time-based). They should also be simple to state and understand. It’s ok if we sometimes fail to meet them; we learn from our mistakes and try again. But when we make them we do need to commit to meeting them as far as is possible. Also, I believe it’s not as important exactly what the goals we set are, as long as they’re individually worthwhile. A commitment for greater energy independence (as in the Apollo Alliance proposal), a commitment to establish a permanent presence on the Moon, a commitment to an improved US electrical grid or improved US transportation (funding new rail lines, perhaps?) – all are legitimate worthwhile goals.
Whatever the goal, the fact it exists leads to focus: activities that don’t help meet the goal are dropped. The goal may result in less development of dramatic new technologies – that’s ok, the better purpose is to prove out existing technologies on a larger scale or under different circumstances than they may ever have been tried before. I think most space advocates, except perhaps the space elevator folks, realize we already have “enough technology” – what we lack is real experience in using the technology we have in space applications; we need to gain that experience through a real goal-directed program.
Re: Setting goals
The Bush plan sets goals:
1. Complete the International Space Station by 2010.
2. Develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014.
3. Return to the moon by 2020.
They’re all worthwhile goals.
All are affordable (with the possible exception of Goal 3).
(Could someone remove the spam message about Paris Hilton?)
The Coalition for Space Exploration has its main website here:
http://www.space-exploration.us/
but it also has a website more suitable for space advocates and the public:
http://spacefoundation.org/spacevision/