The Space Exploration Alliance (SEA) is planning an annual “legislative blitz” in February, bringing together to people to meet Congressional staffers on space policy issues. The February 10-12 event will be focused on the FY2009 budget proposal, which will have been released about a week earlier. “Participants will be the first members of the space advocacy community to visit Congress to discuss the FY09 budget,” the announcement reads (unless someone gets there the week before). The effort will also be directed at “numerous efforts in Congress to either delay or derail NASA’s Moon-Mars plans”. The irony of all this is they could be meeting about the FY09 budget proposal before the FY08 budget is actually enacted, given the slow rate of progress on that effort so far.
Meanwhile, the SEA is also paying attention to the presidential campaign, asking the candidates to provide details on their space policy positions. “The Space Exploration Alliance applauds Senator Hillary Clinton for releasing her comprehensive space policy,” the SEA release notes, “and calls on all of the other candidates to release the details of their policies for space exploration and NASA.”
SEA and its parent organizations are well-meaning, but I really wish they’d get more professional lobbying help and advice. The breathless tone, overdone hyperbole, and inaccurate statements contained in their calls to action make them hard to take seriously, such as:
“NASA could very well decay into oblivion…”
Lawdy, lawdy!
“NASA could very well… be altered into a program that will not live up to the vision that President Kennedy laid out for the country over forty six [sic] years ago.”
Kennedy’s vision for the country revolved around NASA? And wasn’t Kennedy’s vision for NASA achieved 38 years ago, anyway?
“… space exploration is now being debated on the national stage.”
The subject has been mentioned a couple times on a national stage. Whether that qualifies as a “debate”, however…
“The scientific and technological benefits to our nation will be incalculable.”
Incalculably high? Or low?
“This is particularly relevant in light of the other nations, such as China, India, and Russia, who are now challenging our superiority in space exploration and technology.”
China may be challenging the United States in the military space arena, but it’s not clear how any of NASA’s programs can help counter that.
And in civil space, it’s hard to equate Chinese human space flight capabilities achieved by the United States 40-odd years ago; the practical absence of a human space flight program in India; or the lack of significant funds to invest in any new systems in Russia as a challenge to U.S. superiority.
“Space technology and development has much to offer to the environmental and energy challenges facing our world today.”
Or, instead of hoping for spinoffs, we can just spend those billions directly developing cleaner energy sources.
“Sometimes you need a ‘spark’ of inspiration to motivate students to enter technical and scientific fields. This type of program can produce that ‘spark’ and allow students to be part of a program that is bigger than themselves.”
Or, instead of hoping to inspire some number of student towards STEM careers, we could just spend those billions directly incentivizing them to pursue STEM education and take STEM jobs, instead.
My apologies if any of that sounds overly harsh. Again, the SEA team is well-meaning. I just wish theirs and similar efforts involved a little less bushy-tailed enthusiasm and tired old doctrine and little more carefully structured lobbying strategies and well-thought out arguments.
My 2 cents… FWIW…
It is all to clear the space communiuty as a whole still does not have the communications, advertising, marketing, promotion or sales acumen needed to sell the ideas of space development or settlement to the elites or masses in the US, or elsewhere. Until they get these skills, space will continue to be a very peripheral issue to the public at large, remain both under the radar and over the heads of elites and the masses in the first world countries, and a laughing stock to other organizations like the NRA, the Federalist Society, and various environmental organizations who learned to work together for common goals with a common purpose long ago. C’mon Space Community members- you can do better, if you admit to yourselves you don’t have theskills or training you need to sell space to a wider audience outside our shrinking demographic. Learn what you need to know, stop preaching to each other, stop being cut off from the rest of humanity, get out in the public at large,and proselytize, sell, and promote like there’s no tomorrow. And stop squabbling over the Moon vs. Mars, military space vs. NASA, public vs. private enterprise, and learn to compromise, come to a common agenda the space community can work with, and take the solar system for the common man and woman!
“Meanwhile, the SEA is also paying attention to the presidential campaign, asking the candidates to provide details on their space policy positions. “The Space Exploration Alliance applauds Senator Hillary Clinton for releasing her comprehensive space policy,†the SEA release notes, “and calls on all of the other candidates to release the details of their policies for space exploration and NASA.†”
They “apppaud” her “comprehensive space policy” that DIDN”T seem to include ANY mention of manned, lunar, mars missions. I think they should check webster’s for the meaning of comprehensive BEFORE they start applauding.
” The Space Exploration Alliance (SEA) is planning an annual “legislative blitz†in February, bringing together to people to meet Congressional staffers on space policy issues.”
Instead of blitzing staffers they should be blitzing REPORTERS demanding they start questioning politicans IN DEPTH! DEMAND NAG DEMAND NAG reporters just keep up a constant telephone and ELECTRONIC BARRAGE!
“why haven’t you asked presidential candidate XYZ this?” just keep sending millions of questions to reporters so it gets air time. Blitz radio and television call in shows and all the talking head commentators MAKE it an issue. Tell the reports to ask them which launch system do they think is safest, keep hammering reporters to DEMAND to know from them which systems they favor to protect AMERICANS from DEATH in space… the fear card always works and gets air time.
Vladislaw has a point there. If you are unable to take it to the politicians directly, take it to the media, and they’ll take care of the rest.
It has its downsides of course, as putting a question in from one end never guarantees that it comes out the same of the other end.
According to SpaceNews(Nov. 9,2007) in an article entitled “Clinton Endorses Swift Shift From Shuttle To New Rocket” Senator Clinton generally does support the lunar-Mars goals of the VSE. The article states, ” CLINTON ENDORSES SWIFT SHIFT FROM SHUTTLE TO NEW ROCKET
Democratic White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) has pledged to pursue “a successful and speedy transition” from the soon-to-be retired U.S. space shuttle fleet to “a next-generation space transportation system that can take us back to the Moon and beyond.”
The statement, provided by Clinton campaign staff in response to a query from Space News, is the presidential candidate’s first specific mention of NASA’s planned human lunar expeditions.
Clinton was silent on NASA’s lunar ambitions when she delivered a science policy speech Oct. 4 that promised, among other things, “an ambitious 21st century space exploration program.”
Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator for policy and plans who is advising the Clinton campaign on space matters, said the revised statement was produced in response to media accounts that focused on Clinton’s Moon omission. Howard McCurdy, an American University public policy professor, said Clinton “seemed to wander away from the Moon-Mars initiative” in her Oct. 4 speech. The revised statement, he said, “at least allows her to consider the initiative if and when she is elected.”
But, McCurdy added, “If elected, I would expect her to shift NASA a bit back toward science and Earth applications.” Clinton’s statement also pledges more money for aeronautics research and development, better space program management, increased international cooperation and a robust Earth science agenda focused on climate change.
“She believes that these nearer-term goals not only strengthen NASA’s current missions, but also complement and advance the worthy ambition of sending human expeditions to Mars,” the statement reads. “We cannot effectively achieve our long-term goals — in space exploration or otherwise — without putting NASA on a sound footing today.”
Until they get these skills, space will continue to be a very peripheral issue to the public at large, remain both under the radar and over the heads of elites and the masses in the first world countries, and a laughing stock to other organizations like the NRA, the Federalist Society, and various environmental organizations who learned to work together for common goals with a common purpose long ago.
If they had a good product to sell, they wouldn’t have to be good
shillssalesmen. Spending a hundred billion dollars to redo Apollo is a waste of money, even if they succeed, which seems doubtful. What they should be lobbying for is a complete overhaul of the space policy apparatus, and restructuring of NASA and the rest of the federal space establishment.Maybe we should send NASA Astronaut G.A. Custer to the black hills surrounding Shackleton crater and have him shout “GOLD”
Perry A. Noriega : And stop squabbling over the Moon vs. Mars, military space vs. NASA, public vs. private enterprise, and learn to compromise, come to a common agenda the space community can work with,
This, of course, is very good advice, but easier said than done. Our squabbles do have real physical consequences and do affect whether a project can actually be done. As Anonymous has pointed out (and I partially agree), we might have been better off had there been a bit more “squabbling” prior to settling on ESAS as the way forward.
— Donald
PERRY NORIEGA: Until they get these skills, space will continue to be a very peripheral issue to the public at large, remain both under the radar and over the heads of elites and the masses in the first world countries, and a laughing stock to other organizations like the NRA, the Federalist Society, and various environmental organizations who learned to work together for common goals with a common purpose long ago.
Perry,
Are you suggesting that the NRA, the Federalist Society, and “various environmental organizations” don’t squabble over details like prioritization of various “gun control” or “environmental” issues?
This is quite obviously false. They fight like cats & dogs.
Or are you suggesting that space organizations don’t collaborate?
This too, is quite obviously false. Collaboration is what the SEA is all about. A separate consensus coalition came together a couple months ago to promote space solar power. The various space advocacy organizations know how to work together.
I suggest, instead, that the issue is whether all this “effort” is “effective”. (e.g., I agree with anonymous)
The most valid way to measure effectiveness is to measure outputs, or results (not effort, which is an input). In that context, it would be useful for the SEA to publish — before hand — what their specific measurable goals are; and how they intend to measure wether they are effective. Just the act of thinking about this might solve some of the issues that anonymous mentions.
RAND RESPONDED TO PERRY: If they had a good product to sell, they wouldn’t have to be good shillssalesmen.
Rand — I totally agree.
Th space advocacy community does NOT need to learn how “to sell” better. We can all double down on our “efforts”, and we can all study on how to be better at “sales”, but it is highly unlikely to produce improved results.
This community needs to learn how “TO MARKET”. This means figuring out what the customer wants (in this case the American people) and then figuring out how to give them what they want.
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists don’t understand politics.”
” Th space advocacy community does NOT need to learn how “to sell†better. We can all double down on our “effortsâ€, and we can all study on how to be better at “salesâ€, but it is highly unlikely to produce improved results.
This community needs to learn how “TO MARKETâ€. This means figuring out what the customer wants (in this case the American people) and then figuring out how to give them what they want. ”
Sales IS marketing. You said the community needs to learn how “to market” and you say “this means figuring out what the customer wants”
actually that is NOT marketing. Marketing is HAVING an EXISTING product and deciding on the methods you are going to use to SELL it.
Figuring out what the customer WANTS is actually R&D, research and development.
The first rule of sales is “Sell the Sizzle NOT the steak”.
Sell the idea of a spaceship in every garage, not the spaceprogram.
“Here is what you can have TODAY Mister Jones if ONLY your congressman would do this”
If it is NOT seen as an individual BENIFIT to the individual they will never be interested in funding it. You might as well try selling them how to save the red colored smug worms that only live under limestone rocks in a granite guarry.
VLADISLAW: Sales IS marketing.
Vladislaw,
First, I want to say that you do make a valid point here, but I was keeping the issue simple, in order to communicate a very important point.
Second, let me quibble a little with your statement “EFFECTIVE sales is marketing.”
VLADISLAW: You said the community needs to learn how “to market†and you say “this means figuring out what the customer wantsâ€
actually that is NOT marketing. Marketing is HAVING an EXISTING product and deciding on the methods you are going to use to SELL it.
Figuring out what the customer WANTS is actually R&D, research and development.
I respectfully disagree. Business development is part of marketing — more accurately “EFFECTIVE business development is marketing”.
Effectively managed, R&D is also tied to marketing. Compared to the past, R&D departments these days must justify their long-term investments based on the how this might address a long-term need or problem off a customer. Company R&D divisions are doing much less basic research than they used to do.
VLADISLAW: The first rule of sales is “Sell the Sizzle NOT the steakâ€.
This assumes you know what the customer thinks the sizzle is. Making assumptions without testing can get you into trouble real fast. Fortunately, there is quick and easy way to prevent this error. To find out “what the sizzle is” you need to ask your customers “What is the sizzle for you?” (Doh.)
Asking the customer questions about “the sizzle”, really listening to their answers, quantifying those answers, and using those answers to set strategic priorities, is marketing.
Using a 60-day internal study to justify down-selecting to what you had already made your mind up to do — without any real outside input — and then spending the next 4 years trying to figure out a way to convince people to buy what you have already made up your mind to do — is selling.
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”