NASA is not a corporation and should not be expected to communicate like one. What NASA is required to do is inform/educate the public about NASA activities

If NASA’s job is to educate, then there was major failure when the budget was rolled out. Maybe the current administration is to blame for that but NASA hasn’t been very effective in defending, informing, or educating about the changes.

Contrary to what is stupidly called “conventional wisdom” (invoked frequently in these types of discussions by people who have no clue what is actually involved in developing a coherent communications plan and then implementing it), NASA has adopted “industry best practices”

Industry best practices as compared to what? Other governments space exploration institution’s PR and communications? Depending on how you define the industry, NASA is by itself and that does not help with adopting best practices from other similar organizations.

It seems that NASA’s “best practices” have been some of the things causing problems.

As long as I’m rolling… the words “regular people” have absolutely no meaning from a communications perspective. Neither does “the public”. Any discussion that bandies those terms about while asserting what NASA should and should not do is so ill-informed that one hardly knows where to start in response.

I agree that “regular people” or “the public” are not very specific, neither is the term stakeholder. But if you want to get more specific, then drill down to to define the target audience when people say “the public”. Finding the target audience is the most important part of any PR. IMO, NASA hasn’t been targeting the right audience for its PR or effectively utilizing communication channels.

When writing a communications plan a person would use the generic term stakeholder then go on to identify which stakeholders they would like to reach and how they would like to reach them. Just substitute “the public” for stakeholder and then carry out the same process.

You shouldn’t expect an entire communications plan in the comments section of a web site. There are limitations to any medium.

I know there is one part of “the public” which likes to be informed on all of the big issues. They read online, in print, and watch TV. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to identify channels in those three mediums to reach a larger audience. They key thing is, these people want to know more and are not getting the information.

Hmm. Ad hominem attacks? Like what? When did I criticize your anonimity? I was merely asking whether you are in this business. I am. And I am anonymous, so?

As for the rest of the post. You think what you want. Most of your views seem to be those of the past and they have led us to the current debacle. Not Obama, not Augustine. But yes Obama’s original plan is the way to go but we’ll have to go for an HLV instead because people want to “explore” or so they say. Which follows your line of argumentation. Anyway.

“You keep insisting that I explain how HSF improves people’s prosperity, thereby proving Griffin’s point that this is the “acceptable reason”. I’m not going to explain how HSF make people more prosperous, because I don’t accept your premise that this is the standard by which exploration should be valued in the first place. That’s my point. (And Griffin’s in the speech I was referring to).”

You are the only one talking “prosperity”. For example, let’s assume that exploration finds some exotic material on the Moon and said material reduces the cost of some medical device hereby allowing more people to get some treatment. I would say that is a significant return. It does not necessarily make people more prosperous.

* So we can add “health” to “prosperity” in your narrow list of “acceptable reasons” for anything? It still remains hypocritical to argue that HSF is not worth pursuing because it contributes to neither prosperity nor health, without applying the same standard to art, sport, entertainment, tourism, and scholarship.

“Valuing exploration for it’s own sake rather than solely as a means to some other end such as prosperity or national prestige was not an aberration of of the 60′s or any other particular time. Humankind had been exploring for centuries before the 1960′s. I see no reason to think this aspect of human nature has recently vanished, nor that it should.”

Humankind explored to get some return, be it wealth or a more expeditious route to somewhere else. People did not explore for the sake of it. Sorry. Or please give me an example.

Hillary, Amundsen, I could go on but you get the idea. Christoforo Columbo is an excellent example of Griffin’s thesis: His “real reasons” for exploring was for its own sake, but he knew well enough what the “acceptable reasons” were to sell the idea to Isabella with the BS about a trade route to India. By the standard of the “acceptable reason” he used to get funding he was a complete failure.

“Most of the billion people watching Apollo 11 were not Americans, so I find it difficult to believe rooting for their country vs the Soviet Union was the reason they were so inspired. Even to the extent that national prestige was involved, prestige is not “making their lives better”, which lends weight to Griffin’s argument that the “real reasons” for HSF are the intangibles rather than material comforts.”

Billions did indeed watch Apollo XI but that was it. And yes probably because they could see one of their own kind on a different world. When all was said and done nobody was watching any longer, so?

* Exactly. Few people are interested in repetitions of the same accomplishment. As Obama noted, we’ve been there an done that. Which is why his plan for NASA, which would have pursued a continuous string of ‘firsts’ while leaving the routine taxi flights to industry, was a good one. Too bad that plan was scuttled by a few members of Congress defending their pork.

“My point about the money people spend on art, sport, entertainment, tourism, and scholarship in fields of no practical applications, was not that these efforts are examples of waste; just the opposite, the point is that people (once their immediate and basic needs are met) do in fact value intangibles.”

Yes as you say *people* do those things. They do not pay others to do it for them!

* People pay to watch sports, not just to participate. Pay to view and buy art, not just to create it. Pay for travel books and travel TV shows, not just for to travel in person.

Get them a ticket to space and I am sure a lot will go.

* Obama’s budget would have advanced us further towards personal space travel than either the House or Senate versions.

Griffin’s exploration is NOT about that. It was about building a mega rocket, ill conceived at that.

*The fact that Griffin’s Constellation program was a disaster has no bearing on the correctness of his point about “real reasons” vs “acceptable reasons”, which as I said was one of his few admirable points.

“Exploration for exploration’s sake is valued in intangibles, just as as art, sport, entertainment, tourism, and curiosity-driven inquiry (areas to which people voluntarily devote much larger resources than we do to exploration) are valued. It expands the range of human exploration, it inspires, it lifts the spirit. This is why a billion people watched Apollo 11. This is why most people think the question of whether life has evolved elsewhere in the universe is one worthy of pursuing. This is why the WH proposed budget, which would have had NASA pursue a continuous stream of “firsts” (at the rate of approximately one per year) while leaving the routine taxi flights to industry, was a good plan (before it was gutted by the porkers).”

I am sorry but this is total fantasy. I am not saying it is not a good kind of fantasy but it is an expensive one and people are not willing to pay for someone else to set foot on another world.

*People *did* pay for someone else to set foot on another world. Apollo. History – not fantasy.

@Space Cadet wrote @ October 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm

“What basis do you you have for your assumption that I don’t?”

A hunch. Do you?

* So you have no basis. You’re just grasping for an ad hominem attack.

Do you?

* Sorry, but anonymous posters have no standing to criticize others for anonymity. Try addressing the post rather than making baseless assumptions about poster.

“You keep insisting that I explain how HSF improves people’s prosperity, thereby proving Griffin’s point that this is the “acceptable reason”. I’m not going to explain how HSF make people more prosperous, because I don’t accept your premise that this is the standard by which exploration should be valued in the first place. That’s my point. (And Griffin’s in the speech I was referring to).”

You are the only one talking “prosperity”. For example, let’s assume that exploration finds some exotic material on the Moon and said material reduces the cost of some medical device hereby allowing more people to get some treatment. I would say that is a significant return. It does not necessarily make people more prosperous.

“Valuing exploration for it’s own sake rather than solely as a means to some other end such as prosperity or national prestige was not an aberration of of the 60′s or any other particular time. Humankind had been exploring for centuries before the 1960′s. I see no reason to think this aspect of human nature has recently vanished, nor that it should.”

Humankind explored to get some return, be it wealth or a more expeditious route to somewhere else. People did not explore for the sake of it. Sorry. Or please give me an example.

“Most of the billion people watching Apollo 11 were not Americans, so I find it difficult to believe rooting for their country vs the Soviet Union was the reason they were so inspired. Even to the extent that national prestige was involved, prestige is not “making their lives better”, which lends weight to Griffin’s argument that the “real reasons” for HSF are the intangibles rather than material comforts.”

Billions did indeed watch Apollo XI but that was it. And yes probably because they could see one of their own kind on a different world. When all was said and done nobody was watching any longer, so?

“My point about the money people spend on art, sport, entertainment, tourism, and scholarship in fields of no practical applications, was not that these efforts are examples of waste; just the opposite, the point is that people (once their immediate and basic needs are met) do in fact value intangibles.”

Yes as you say *people* do those things. They do not pay others to do it for them! Get them a ticket to space and I am sure a lot will go. Griffin’s exploration is NOT about that. It was about building a mega rocket, ill conceived at that.

*Exploration for exploration’s sake is valued in intangibles, just as as art, sport, entertainment, tourism, and curiosity-driven inquiry (areas to which people voluntarily devote much larger resources than we do to exploration) are valued. It expands the range of human exploration, it inspires, it lifts the spirit. This is why a billion people watched Apollo 11. This is why most people think the question of whether life has evolved elsewhere in the universe is one worthy of pursuing. This is why the WH proposed budget, which would have had NASA pursue a continuous stream of “firsts” (at the rate of approximately one per year) while leaving the routine taxi flights to industry, was a good plan (before it was gutted by the porkers).”

I am sorry but this is total fantasy. I am not saying it is not a good kind of fantasy but it is an expensive one and people are not willing to pay for someone else to set foot on another world.

@Space Cadet wrote @ October 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm

“What basis do you you have for your assumption that I don’t?”

A hunch. Do you?

“But if you’re so passionate about this I would recommend: 1. Work in this business area ”

What basis do you you have for your assumption that I don’t?

Valuing exploration for it’s own sake rather than solely as a means to some other end such as prosperity or national prestige was not an aberration of of the 60’s or any other particular time. Humankind had been exploring for centuries before the 1960’s. I see no reason to think this aspect of human nature has recently vanished, nor that it should.

Most of the billion people watching Apollo 11 were not Americans, so I find it difficult to believe rooting for their country vs the Soviet Union was the reason they were so inspired. Even to the extent that national prestige was involved, prestige is not “making their lives better”, which lends weight to Griffin’s argument that the “real reasons” for HSF are the intangibles rather than material comforts.

My point about the money people spend on art, sport, entertainment, tourism, and scholarship in fields of no practical applications, was not that these efforts are examples of waste; just the opposite, the point is that people (once their immediate and basic needs are met) do in fact value intangibles.

Exploration for exploration’s sake is valued in intangibles, just as as art, sport, entertainment, tourism, and curiosity-driven inquiry (areas to which people voluntarily devote much larger resources than we do to exploration) are valued. It expands the range of human exploration, it inspires, it lifts the spirit. This is why a billion people watched Apollo 11. This is why most people think the question of whether life has evolved elsewhere in the universe is one worthy of pursuing. This is why the WH proposed budget, which would have had NASA pursue a continuous stream of “firsts” (at the rate of approximately one per year) while leaving the routine taxi flights to industry, was a good plan (before it was gutted by the porkers).

It’s not important for this forum, but in English, Swedish, and most other Germanic languages, it doesn’t matter whether the word “also” comes before the verb or after the object.

I didn’t bother trying to find the ring diacritic on my keyboard.

FWIW…

But trust me when I say that I have 100% control over the basics in biology and so called [sic] patogenous [sic] alien bacteria”

First, it’s “pathogenic” in English, or “patogenos” in certain Romance languages. There is no such word as “patogenous”.

Second, contrary to what you’ve stated, the National Academies has identified pathogenic diseases as the primary risk of Mars missions to humanity and the Earth’s ecosystems. From a 2009 report:

“The committee concurs with the basic conclusion of the NRC’s 1997 Mars study that the potential risks of large-scale effects arising from the intentional return of martian materials to Earth are primarily those associated with replicating biological entities, rather than toxic effects attributed to microbes, their cellular structures, or extracellular products. Therefore, the focus of attention should be placed on the potential for pathogenic-infectious diseases, or negative ecological effects on Earth’s environments.”

nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12576

FWIW…

“(Jag kan tala svenska, ocksa, FWIW…)”

A correct sentence should be: “jag kan ocksÃ¥ tala svenska”

John G

But trust me when I say that I have 100% control over the basics in biology and so called patogenous alien bacteria (that doesn’t exist).

The question I answered was about the likelihood of impact.

John G