I certainly agree with you about NASA’s failure to “sell” the program … whatever program we’re talking about (from the Apollo era to the present). In fact, I had a feature story published in United Airlines’ inflight magazine some years back called “No Apollogies” which made that very point. NASA did a great job of sending men to the Moon and back. But they weren’t so good at explaining what it was all about (apart from beating the Soviet Union). That’s why public interest in the Moon plummeted after Apollo 11, never to return.

I, too, used to ‘translate’ engineering-speak into plain English when I was working with Fokker Aircraft. My job was to take what the sales engineers put together and present it in a ‘dog and pony’ show that airline executives could understand (presidents and senior vice presidents, not all of whom were well-versed in technical matters). Which is where I learned that patience is a virtue in explaining things to people.

You’re certainly right about Walter Cronkite and Jules Bergman and Roy Neal and Jay Barbree. NASA did have some good public affairs officers back then, even if they didn’t “sell” the program themselves. However, they provided reams of material to Cronkite and Bergman and the others — who, in turn, digested it and regurgitated it in language that the public could understand. Under the Bolden/Garver regime, there seems to be a fortress mentality surrounding NASA HQ. Of course, given the number of gaffes they’ve made (Bolden, in particular), one can understand why. However, their ineptness in public relations doesn’t serve NASA or the country well. Rather than inspiring America and the world, NASA is now held up for ridicule as the gang that can’t shoot straight. They (Bolden and Garver) are both public relations disasters.

As for Elon Musk …

He impressed the bejeepers out of me the first time I heard him speak quite a few years ago. But he shouldn’t stick his nose into partisan politics. Political power can shift very quickly in Washington. Musk needs to impress BOTH sides of the aisle with his vision and capabilities. Taking sides is risky business (and bad business).

Of course, no one can match the late Wernher von Braun for vision and capabilities. As Ernst Stuhlinger put it, “He was a multiple genius.” Von Braun had a keen engineering mind. He was a superb manager. And he was an outstanding salesman. Rarely does one person possess all of those talents. I only met him twice (briefly). But I was certainly impressed by his charisma. We could sure use another von Braun today. However, he was one-of-a-kind.

We could also use another Walter Cronkite. He was another one of NASA’s best sales reps … and another one-of-a-kind journalist.

You’re also right about the “Apollo 13″ film celebrating a failure. But it also celebrated the triumph of the human spirit … which was the same thing we saw when those miners were rescued in Chile last month. Both stories captured the public imagination and tugged at the heartstrings.

And that is what is missing in today’s space program … or, at least, in the media coverage of today’s space program.

If memory serves, NASA was never very adept at marketing itself and was prohibited from employing some basic elements of ‘consumer’ marketing by law back in the early days. Initially, managment did not embrace live televised coverage of their activities either and the press was kept at arms length as well, with reporters learing of impending missile launches over drinks with technicians at Cocoa Beach bars. Even as Mercury caught on, then they tried to control the message. Powers with dubbed ‘the 8th astronaut’ and did all PR work. Believe Glenn’s voice was even delayed before released to the press during his orbital flight. Same on through Apollo 8. Professionally, this writer has worked in marketing and dealt with engineers from time to time in the process. More times than not it became a matter of translating things into ‘earth english’ not unlike what Cronkite use to do. It’s not axiomatic, but more often then not engineers tend to be brilliant in a narrow field of expertise and get exasperated- or ae just inept– at pitching technical matters in lay terms to sell the concepts, chiefly due to a devotion to exactitudes. NASA’s best pitchman who was also an engineer was, of course, Von Braun. Kraft was fairly good at it as well but its uncommon to find someone comfortable in both marketing and engineering venues. But without fellas like Neal, Cronkite and Bergman, or print reports like JNWilford, the public would have been lost during the Apollo era.

“Likewise, NASA totally failed to ‘sell’ the Constellation Program to the public (including the people on Capitol Hill who allocated the funding). You can have the greatest ideas in the world. But if you don’t market them properly, you’ll get nowhere. And that certainly was the case when the Obama Administration rolled out its new space policy in February.”

Again, they just don’t know how to do it internally without it appearing forced or self-serving– and at this point, if they try, the effort is usually transparent and poorly executed. They probably feel they’re doing fine because they have a website.

“It’s also why so few average taxpayers have any idea what’s happening on the International Space Station, or what purpose it serves.”

Indifference reigns supreme. Once made a pitch to the news division while employed at one of the networks to make use of the last 30/45 seconds or so at the end of only the Friday night network news broadcast– and have the weekly credits roll over images from Hubble or downlink B-roll from the ISS or some NASA select footage to reinforce/highlight some of the NASA activities. Fell on deaf ears- more trouble than it was worth to the news division. Before DBS systems proliferated, local cable systems carried NASA Select but eventually it was bumped for more lucrative revenue streams- home shopping channels– which make money for cable carriers on each sale made. Carrying NASA Select did not earn them a cent.

“Mr. Simberg, you might do well to take a course in public relations yourself. Your sarcastic approach does little to persuade … and much to annoy. To be perfectly frank, you come across as arrogant, rude and unprofessional.”

It betrays insecurity. Or fear. Often comes across as a pitchman for SpaceX. And Musk isn’t necessarily the future of HSF although you’d get an argument. Most Americans are quiksodic and don’t linger long on past achievements be it baseball or moon landings. The civilian space agency is where HSF happens for them and if it could shutdown tomorrow and they’d wonder what it had been doing for several years anyway. Most have never seen a moon rock and know it best for a great movie, ‘Apollo 13′ … which celebrated a failure. Speaks volumes.

Given our previous exchange about Ernst Stuhlinger, you might be interested in the following:

http://www.montesano60s.com/mellberg.htm

This short essay is a draft of a feature article that was later published in Sky & Telescope magazine. Monte Sano is a mountain just east of Huntsville where many members of the von Braun rocket team built their homes, including Ernst Stuhlinger. The “Monte Sano 60s Kids” is a group of their children (now adults) who grew up on Monte Sano in the 1960s. I talked with one of the “kids” who was a friend of Christoph Stuhlinger (Ernst’s younger son) at that time. He remembers Dr. Stuhlinger as “Coach” Stuhlinger. Ernst coached their ‘Little League’ baseball team. He also remembers Dr. Stuhlinger’s “fascinating lectures about astronomy and space exploration.” It must have been great being a Monte Sano 60s kid!

It makes no sense to conclude from the fact that they haven’t issued joint press releases that they haven’t been coordinating. They have been, for years. SpaceX was Bigelow’s original planned launch provider.

@William:

“Same here. It’s a pleasure to have a rational, open discussion, especially with someone who knows so much about aerospace history as yourself. I took the liberty of googling you to find out why it is you know so much about aerospace history.”

Martijn,

Many thanks for your kind remarks — and for your thought-provoking ideas.

One of the best things about working for Fokker in my younger years was that firm’s international character. Since Fokker sold airplanes around the globe, we had employees from around the globe. My colleagues included people from the Netherlands (naturally), Germany, Canada, Britain, Australia, France, Argentina, the United States and several other countries. Which taught me to view things from multiple perspectives. In addition, I worked with people whose backgrounds went all the way back to the early age of flight. My boss was a flight engineer aboard Pan Am’s “Clipper” flying boats. His boss worked on the de Havilland Comet (during the time when they were falling out of the sky owing to unforeseen metal fatigue). My office mates came from Douglas Aircraft, KLM and TWA. Lots and lots of experience there for me to learn from. And lots and lots of different ideas from which we looked for common ground and general consensus as we plotted our own course.

As an author and historian, I’ve had the opportunity to meet and interview many more “movers and shakers” from the aerospace industry — including some of the key participants in the Apollo Program. It’s been fun sharing some of their experiences and ideas with my readers in various aerospace publications, as well as in three books. And it’s enlightening sharing thoughts and ideas with you, as well — all the more so since your focus is clearly on the future.

Best regards,

Bill

“What in the world makes you think that he has not been doing, so, for many years?”

Because I don’t see any major public relations effort demonstrating that they’ve put together an integrated master plan that might truly capture the public imagination. They all come across as individual, uncoordinated efforts.

Likewise, NASA totally failed to ‘sell’ the Constellation Program to the public (including the people on Capitol Hill who allocated the funding). You can have the greatest ideas in the world. But if you don’t market them properly, you’ll get nowhere. And that certainly was the case when the Obama Administration rolled out its new space policy in February.

It’s also why so few average taxpayers have any idea what’s happening on the International Space Station, or what purpose it serves.

Mr. Simberg, you might do well to take a course in public relations yourself. Your sarcastic approach does little to persuade … and much to annoy. To be perfectly frank, you come across as arrogant, rude and unprofessional. If you really want to ‘sell’ your ideas to skeptics (like myself), I suggest you try a little friendly persuasion rather than the smug approach. I’ve learned very little from your snide retorts. But I have learned a great deal reading some of the other comments that other people have posted here — comments intended to explain, not to belittle. Their remarks have made me stop to think. Your remarks, by and large, have turned me off (e.g., “What in the world makes you think …?”).

Well, what in the world makes YOU think that such an attitude will edify or enlighten me? Your choice of words is combative, not persuasive. If you really want to ‘sell’ your ideas, try a little tenderness.

Same here. It’s a pleasure to have a rational, open discussion, especially with someone who knows so much about aerospace history as yourself. I took the liberty of googling you to find out why it is you know so much about aerospace history.

What in the world makes you think that he has not been doing, so, for many years?