Creating Starfleet Academy (Ongoing)

In the 60s NASA built one rocket after another. Engineers learned through practical experience. Replacing hands-on experimental learning with textbook and simulation-based learning leads to risk-adverse engineers who know how to create paper rockets.

An ideal Starfleet Academy would be a skunk works, out of the public eye (so that there's no negative penalty for failure) with lots of short life-cycle projects each competing against the others for resources.

I like Neil's comments but I don't think it has to be skunk works (Apollo wasn't) and I am not sure about using scarce resources (competition) to drive excellence, innovation or inspiration. What I do think is needed is a compelling reason to be involved. Here's where reasonable people can disagree. Rewards (prizes) can be one. High stakes another. Beat the (fill in the country - is it China now?). Save the planet and so on. I am also not sure SFA should be so much a place but a mindset in how people are trained and prepared for challenging missions. Here's where I think Neil is spot on - I would work to get as many promising (TBD on what that is/means) emerging professionals (grasshoppers) involved with current missions (and senseis). Make them "wax on" and "wax off" and if they don't want to do that, too bad. Work somewhere else.

If the brief is NASA-centric educational outreach: I would suggest a tie in with Model Rocketry. A school level "Skunk Works" as it were. Projects would be assessed and winners go on outings to the centres NASA has remaining. Or to launches of EELVs! Aim: Keep "The Dream" alive during "The Gap"!
Naturally Lunar and Martian Tele-Operations would also feature strongly, if NASA adopts that path.

A more grandiose scheme in keeping with the ethos of "Starfleet" would take the brightest and best from all over the world and relocate to a Manhatten Project sized facility. Perhaps NASA will have one going spare! Crowdsource ideas and solutions via an internet portal and see what happens! First Task: cheap access to LEO! Second Task: A μG toilet that works! The rest should be plain sailing from there...

I don't think something as important as this needs to rely on either carrot or stick. I see a potential Star Fleet Academy to be more like the Peace Corps, in that it takes people who already have many of the skills needed, and trains them to apply their talents in the service of goals they already share. Duplicating the work of our engineering schools is unnecessary, extending it should be our goal.

It depends what is meant by 'Starfleet Academy'. If it is to be an Astronaut training school, then KSC is the logical site and the school should primarily teach field geology, photo-reconnaisance skills (spot the interesting feature from orbit), electronic, software and structural engineering (keep the ship healthy) as well as space navigation.

However, if, instead, you're talking about a 'NASA School' that is to teach skills to a broader class of people, then may I suggest MSFC? It might make a nice consolation prize after the Ares-I/-V debacle. You could also build a Von Braun Museum of Rocketry at the site to inspire young engineers. Not just with the machines either, but also the vision - to send people to far away places; to defy nature and do the impossible because to do the impossible is to open the door to uncountable possibilities.

Which courses? Well, various engineering disciplines, mathematics and physics, of course. However, I also think that a NASA School of Management Excellence might be useful. Teach up-and-coming back-office types how to run an engineering department and to know just how much freedom to give your brain trust. How do you keep a project on track without squashing healthy dissent and 'blue sky' ideas?

A suggested end-of-course project: Build your own spacecraft! The project team who builds the best instrument and power package gets it shot into space on a Minotaur or Taurus.

Assuming the point is to develop scientists and engineers qualified to work at NASA/contractors... I would suggest two features of a "Starfleet Acadamy":

(1) a combination of a few geographical "centers" perhaps hosted at existing universities, with a very robust distance learning capability so that the programs are accessible to everyone everwhere; and

(2) a focus on *explicitly* teaching critical thinking -- and not just the analytical/logical end of critical thinking, but also intellectual humility, fairmindedness, an ability to recognize and avoid cognitive biases (and emotional attachments to one's pet design), etc.

So far people have been focusing on science and engineering and related kinds of education.

While important, that is not nearly enough. General education is also important. NASA -- and tech people too often -- do not relate to people all that well. Too many of them don't even understand even how to lead and manage fellow tech people. Haven't all of us experienced managers who were worse than useless because they did not understand human beings and their idea of management was to make people "do the right thing" -- even if their idea of "the right thing" was hilariously wrong because they did not -- perhaps could not -- listen effectively to their staffs.

This kind of limited learning becomes only worse when normal people must be considered. Why, for example, is support for NASA so low? In part it is because the work being done does not relate to normal people.

There is an alternate model that seems to work -- Silicon Valley. Yes, there were and are "skunk works" style engineering projects. But there has been for a long time an involvement in the world outside the gates of tech companies. NASA Ames director Worden got a good bit of attention for his center via a Yuri's Night that Wired called NASA meets Burning Man.

When people realize that NASA is doing things for them in the present, support increases. Isn't that a part of outreach? Yes, but the world must be let in as well. Engineers must listen to the world as well as tell them what they are doing. That makes connecting and winning support much, much easier.

America doesn't have enough college students seeking degrees in the STEM categories (science, technology, engineering and math.

An elite, astronaut academy or a special college for space studies isn't what is needed. What we need is for NASA and its associates to conduct inspirational outreach with elementary schools, middle schools and high schools, in a manner that encourages students to take an interest in the STEM topics.

IMO, sending an astronaut around to a school now and then helps a little bit. But what we really need is active engagement through programs that last the entire school year.

Nancy can you elaborate and provide some illustration of the type of "inspirational outreach with elementary schools, middle schools and high schools, in a manner that encourages students to take an interest in the STEM topics" that NASA should do?

I suggest that a NASA "Starfleet Academy" should not be located close to any existing NASA center. The centers should have educational initiatives. The "Starfleet Academy" idea is a that there be a location with education as the only mission.

The location should have good universities in science and engineering. This is pretty much true of all major metro areas. It should be in a state that does not have a NASA center, since this initiative should be used to create a new political incentive in congress. The location should have aerospace work in the area, but this is probably the least important quality.

With this in mind, the metro areas that come to mind are: Seattle, Denver, Chicago, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Atlanta, Minneapolis, and Memphis. The list could easily be longer. The first two, Seattle and Denver seem to be the best choices to me. Chicago would be interesting given the Obama connect. Boston has so many technology and science centers that it might be over saturated. New York would be interesting as it would put the academy at one of the financial, political, and cultural crossroads of the planet. I've listed southern cities, but would probably eliminate them on the basis that we have enough centers located in southern states.

Like others, I am not sure what you have in mind for a 'Star Fleet Academy'. There is no shortage of good colleges and universities and properly degreed and experienced educators who can educate the people who want to pursue degrees in the engineering and sciences. And there are many other degrees that are needed also. There are also the service academies and ISU.

But if you want to inspire younger children to pursue these degrees, you need to hook them by the later years of elementary school and you need to give them the appropriate background in middle school.

What this is going to take are the technical people at NASA working with competent educators to develop appropriate curriculum materials for Grades 3-9.

The key to doing the job properly are good materials that cover all the basics so that the students can pass their standardized tests in math and reading and science, and at the same time instilling an interest in spaceflight.

If you are thinking in terms of a short term school at KSC or MSFC or someplace else, then you might as well give up. The goal is not hundreds or even thousands of properly educated school students going to school for a few months; it needs to be at least in the hundreds of thousands and it needs to be a sustained multi-year effort.

And after they get into the STEM programs in the later years of high school and college, you actually have to have jobs that make use of their skills.

This would be a big project requiring large numbers of current employees to focus on curriculum development efforts over years. Then the curriculum content needs to be taken into classrooms around the country.

Eagle Eye, I'm surprised that you had to ask. :-)

Kids are already very interested in space, computers and robotics; giving them school-organized opportunities to play and interact, hands-on, is a great way to encourage their interest in these STEM-related subjects.

Of course, NASA is already engaged in K-12 educational activities. For example, NASA's FY2010 NASA budget request (available at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/344612main_Agency_Summary_Final_updates_5_6_09_R2.pdf), states that "NASA will also engage elementary and secondary school and informal education audiences by using Earth and deep space observations, the flight experience of Educator Astronaut Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger aboard STS-131, as well as future missions to the Moon and other destinations. New technologies such as social networks, Internet collaborations, a new virtual magnet school, and remote control of science instruments will expand and enhance these efforts."

Many kids take part in internet social groups (e.g., Miley World) and computer games (e.g., Wii Mario Cart races) in part because they integrate things that kids are already interested in with quick, positive feedback for successful performance. Virtual reality and the internet are extremely powerful tools for the alignment of play and education. IMO, we are only limited by our imaginations in identifying ways that K-12 students can be engaged in STEM-related topics through school-led activities.

Eagle Eye, I could say a lot more, but my guess is that a several-page monolog isn't really needed. So I'll conclude by remarking that I wonder what a space mission might look like that was selected primarily for it's ability to engage lots and lots of kids in STEM topics rather than for its science or exploration potential.

When considering the concept of an Academy specifically geared around space exploration and careers therein, I believe it should be geared towards graduate-level study. Students should be able to achieve undergraduate degrees at other institutions in related fields (STEM, as Nancy put it) while still taking "preliminary courses" that will be important/required for Academy study. This would be much like "premed" tracks are today, where despite one's major, courses such as organic chemistry and certain biology courses are required for admittance to med schools, though they are not necessarily required for the undergraduate degree they have chosen.


Such an Academy could have various "tracks", much as Starfleet Academy does, allowing people to learn and research areas of their specific interest (rocket propulsion, life support systems, terrestrial bases on other planets) with the goal of an advanced degree and employment with a space agency or contractor, but also to provide an "across-the-board" general education in all "tracks", so that graduates of the Academy are rigorously trained in all areas, despite their specialization.


That would make Academy graduates especially valuable candidates in the space sector, as specialists are valuable, but people who can understand and integrate knowledge from all aspects of a mission are especially valuable when viewed from a managing or commanding standpoint.



I absolutely believe that creating such a facility or institution would be valuable - just its existence creates a goal, a destination for people entering college: they gear their education around hopeful future enrollment in that Academy, which challenges aspiring space professionals to further their education while preparing themselves for a specific career. A combination of "job" and "school" is a great employment net for people who are rarin' to go straight to work despite still wishing to further their education. One of the greatest reasons my peers give for not going to graduate school is not a lack of interest in advanced study, but a desire to focus their lives and begin a career. Combining the two would satisfy the desires of both groups of people and also provide the space industry with more specially educated people in the areas that are most needed and required.

(This is coming from a mechanical engineering senior currently applying to graduate school, if you can't see the bias already, haha!)

Also, as for where said Academy would be located...I believe it should be one centralized location. Having multiple "Academies" would cheapen the effect, I believe, lending it more to the impression of one of a series of "trade schools", rather than a top-of-the-line graduate institute that would attract valuable candidates. Then again, if the desire was a focused training in one area instead of an across-the-board education, different centers of expertise might be valuable. Still, as I believe it should be an overall education, I would prefer one location.

Locating it near a current NASA center would be a plus, I believe. Also, I'm biased towards locating it in the Triangle area of North Carolina, which is a research and university hot-spot, surrounded by top-notch schools and businesses (I mentioned I was biased, right?) But really, locating it near several other universities would also be valuable for its use in spurring undergraduate-linked research programs.

Let me echo the calls for the Academy to be placed outside regions with NASA centers. I suggest Colorado Springs-mild weather, educated workforce,spacers aplenty. The curriculum should be flexible enough to begin with post-High School studies in the relevant disciplines and go all the way to graduate school.
My one question: who will pay the bill? Tuition?
Other wise it's a great idea!

The idea of concentrating on one or even a limited number of centers is absurd. Our children are not produce to be shipped back and forth around the country to be educated (the transportation costs alone would sink the project!).

Especially in the current economic situation we should not be talking about building anything new. How about utilizing already existing facilities such as planetariums? There already exists a robust network of something like 1,500 planetariums located in elementary schools, high schools, colleges and museums, even portable traveling ones, spread out all across the country. Some of these facilities are being gutted and turned into storage rooms and classrooms due to lack of funding! NASA has not truly made use of nor funded these facilities and its a damned shame.

The idea of concentrating only on upper level education is just nuts. You've already lost them by high school - you need to catch the while they're young.

Well, I am glad to see that the idea I did suggest in the past in several post here and elsewhere is making the subject of a thread here and now.

I called it a Space Academy, not Starfleet Academy, but still. So the first question is why an Academy? We are at a junction today for Human Space Flight. NASA's program of record is in big trouble while the commercial sector is showing a lot of hope. Hope? Yes, hope that someday not too far from now a regular citizen will fly into space without having to be a NASA astronaut. Because after all this is what it is about isn't it?

I think NASA will have to change its mode of operation soon: I can see how NASA HSF may become a standalone entity within NASA. The purpose of HSF may be defined as settlement of the Solar System, for the sake of argument. The resources will then change from developing and designing spacecraft to that of mainly operating spacecraft. A little like the US Air Force or the US Navy do. NASA would procure for spaceship for specific missions. At the same time the new private sector will want to develop its own crew for whatever reasons they wish.

An Academy will cater to all the human resources needs of the NASA and private sector missions. It would not be the purpose to form engineers and scientists even though it may (there could be a post graduate school as well).

So the first thing is to come up with a set of requirements that will cater to both the NASA and private sector missions. For example: You want to assemble a space station. Why in heck would you need a combat pilot with multiple PH.D.s or M.D.s that is well "politically" connected to do the job? You do not. So let's come up, based on the experience of those who actually did such a thing what the requirements might be. Another example might be, as simplistic as it may sound or "not glamorous", how are we going to cook is space? Because you know astronauts need to eat too! BUT I don't think the academy need to train say astrophysicists! They may take existing ones and give them the knowledge to operate in space.

Anyway. I think the first thing would be to define requirements and look at existing academies (US Naval Academy possibly best because of the very diverse mission of the Navy) to see how they cater to the very diverse needs of the armed forces. Even though I strongly believe it MUST be a civilian academy. As for our foreign friends such an academy, located in and paid for by the US will primarily be for US citizens. Note however that military academies do host foreign cadets.

I know it is very schematic at best but if anyone is interested in pursuing further I'd like that.

Location: How about New Mexico's SpacePort? Heck if it is StarFleet then San Francisco!

@ KC

I believe there are two stages of the process of encouraging youth to pursue careers in space exploration. The first is to make the career seem exciting, glorified, special, whether it's being a pilot or being a chef - the point is, it's a space chef! It's that qualifier that we want to make it exciting for kids, no matter the capacity in which you are employed. The second is to encourage them that any of them can achieve it, no matter their background, if they want it.


The second is what must be enacted everywhere, via programs in schools such as Science Stars (a program in which I was involved as a student in a public elementary school, wherein I did awesome things like grind and polish mirrors that would actually go into space on a satellite). Outreach programs to elementary schools and middle schools are a different can of worms, I think, then the concept of an Academy to train individuals specially for careers in space. Both programs are important, but for the two different reasons above. The problem today is that "being an astronaut" is perceived by kids once they hit middle school as being an "impossible dream", because astronauts are such a small pool of individuals. They should be made aware of the wide variety of jobs in the space industry via outreach programs, and they should see a direct path and goal, which I think an Academy would serve as.

If a kid wants to be a doctor, they know they need to go to college, take premed courses, go to medical school, get their M.D. The path is clearly laid out for them. What kid really knows what it takes to be an astronaut, say (much less an employee in any other space field)? There's no clear path, no matter how challenging the path may be, and a clear path with checkpoints is strong motivation.

We do need to "catch them while they're young", like I was luckily caught, but we also need to make it seem less like a hopeless dream. I'm reminded of a certain T-shirt that always rings true to me: http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=QW-ASTRO&Category_Code=005

(1) Starfleet Academy is in San Francisco. Space needs to be a part of its rich cultural and intellectual mix - it is currently absent from the thoughts of the creative parts of society.

(2) The best and brightest have knowledge and ideas that are superior to the existing programs. What they don't have is empowerment and an opportunity to realize their ideas.

(3) Therefore, there should be no money as far as these students are concerned. They should not have to worry about funding and the never-ending spiral of research proposals. They should be funded so that they only have to worry about changing the work, and they should have the freedom to work with whoever they wish on whatever they wish.

(4) The best and brightest initially lack connections. The situation should be constructed in a way that they get to socialize with each other and the movers and shakers in the space industry and US space program.

(5) This should be an advancement-of-space-centric program, not an apprenticeship-to-the-dysfunctional-ways-of-NASA program. It should involve industry, academia and government.

I think we already have three good examples of service academies called West Point, The Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy.
Being from Maryland my bias is showing by saying that the Naval Academy would be the best to emulate.
I think it should be located close to Washington because for the politicians, out of sight is out of mind. Wallops would be good choice for the location. There is already under utilized launch facilities there, land would be inexpensive, and it's a 30 minute chopper ride from DC.
As for the curriculum, the first two years would be spent on general subjects, then the cadets would be put into programs for astronauts, flight controllers or engineers. Once a cadet graduates they will be sent for more specialized training in the field and sub-field they chose which would take up to two years.
NASA would pay for their education after which they would agree to work for NASA for 8 years.
While this is all fun to think about I can't see a time in the near, or not so near, future when this will be needed.

While I think a Starfleet Academy will some day have value, I think it's all a bit premature. NASA would first have to lay out requirements for a degree that would make graduates more valuable for them and for the space industry in general. Then, the institution should be assembled virtually, with the instruction delivered over the internet. Should all this work and show promise, then and only then should a physical academy move forward.

Frankly, I would like to see the Federation created first. I have ideas on how to do this on my blog at http://12kmasec.blogspot.com/

Please let me know what you think.

This NASA Academy produces leaders, develops culture, and inculcates skills NASA requires to achieve its mission to support the existant robust web of space activity. The Academy's graduates are eagerly sought by NASA's operational and deployed elements helping to fulfill NASA's critical roles of development, exploration, and administration. The graduates bring new skills and fresh eyes to the demanding work of learning about and using space. Once their required service is complete, NASA Academy graduates are highly sought after in academe, industry, and government, particularly with the on- and off-world components of the space industry. Graduates of the NASA Academy refer to their space flight experience with the Academy as the defining point in their lives. They feel that the Academy experience is an honor and is critical to maintaining high standards of ethics, performance, and service in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

A lot of people want to live in space, a lot of people want to work in the space industry. Most all of them have been told these are not realistic goals.
The government has provided for very few seats to reach orbit and it only needs so many engineers at any given point. Its like running a Naval academy for a landlocked nation with three boats.

Starfleet had an endless demand for red shirts and ships a plenty. NASA HSF on the other hand is hanging by a thread with every political turnover. It could more easily reach its recruitment goals by working with existing universities.

Students for a real space academy would be better located in a place like Mojave airport. At least there you have new space startups, cheap aircraft parts, unrestricted airspace and a much better chance at getting hands on experience with whatever will be the next big thing in spaceflight.

Why do we need a Starfleet Academy if we have no space program worth mentioning?

It never ceases to amaze me that an organization that never seems to have enough budget to do what it wants to do, rather than taking what it has and making it work better instead seems intent on ignoring it and building something new from scratch. It must by the OCD that space folks seem to have for systems design/engineering (as opposed to actual implementation and operation).

Editor's note: please show me where I suggested that this be done - i.e. "ignoring" and "building from scratch" ? Indeed, in my opinion, it would be wise to build upon what NASA already does - and does well i.e. the NASA Academy.

NASA Academy (http://academy.nasa.gov/) represents an immersive and
integrated multidisciplinary exposure and training, for students with
various backgrounds and career aspirations of critical importance to
the National aerospace program.

What would it do?

-support and enhance the general objectives and mission of NASA.
-make available guided access to the extensive resources at the
participating NASA Research and Space Flight Centers and their
infrastructure, science, technology, and organizational and managerial
expertise.
-provide a unique, intensive, and rigorous educational and training
curriculum related to the organization of NASA, its in-house science
and technology projects, its collaboration with other National centers,
industry, and academia, and its extensive technology transfer programs.
-facilitate access to, and dissemination of valuable information on
career development paths, financial support, technical writing
standards, intellectual property, etc.
-create an environment that fosters creativity, personal initiative,
and leadership qualities, together with group mentality, teamwork, and
professional ethics.
-Provide upper level undergraduate/first year graduate students
cutting-edge research opportunities with NASA scientists, engineers,
and educators,
-Provide opportunities for leadership development, teamwork, and
relationship building,
-Connect to communities at different places in the educational pipeline
through special projects and outreach efforts,and
-Link Academy alumni to future hiring opportunities within NASA and
throughout the space program.

What location(s) would be best?

Any program that purports to be about the U.S. space program should
incorporate visits to NASA centers, universities, and relevant
companies, where they get behind-the-scenes tours.

What age group(s) should it focus on?

Junior or senior undergraduate or first or second year graduate.

What courses would it teach?

A small sampling:

Astronaut Selection and Training
Return to the Moon
From NASA Academy to NASA Scientist: How to get there and why
Dust: One of the Most Important Things in the Universe
Quantum Mechanics: What Will We Tell the Children
The Little Green Man: The Search for Life on Mars
Gear Bearings
Space Weather
History of Winter
The Unique Role of NASA in Education
Forensics
The NEAR Mission
The Mars Odyssey Mission
NASA's 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program
The Path Less Traveled: Microsatellites and the Experiences of a NASA
Academy Alumnus
Current In-House Missions and Technology Development Effort in the
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Center at GSFC
Quantum Mysteries
The Capaciflector
The Space Exploration Initiative - What Happened
The Most Massive Stars
Astrobiology: What is it and Where is it Going?
GSFC Chief Engineer Office - Ensuring Mission Success
The Search for Extra-terrestrial Life and Earth-like Planets
The Politics of Science
Cosmology
Talking Points on Leadership
Visions of Aeronautics and Space in the 21st Century

Academy students are assigned to work with a Principle Investigator
(PI) on a project, design a poster mid-way through, and give
presentations at the conclusion of the Academy on his or her work.
Some examples:

Analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Analysis of In-Situ Remote Sensing Aerosol Absorption Data
Applicability of Dielectric Mixing Theories for Use at Microwave
Frequencies
Finger Detectors: Simple Far Infrared/Submillimeter Bolometer Arrays
Investigation of MgB2 for Use In Far Infra-Red Bolometer Operating at
30 Kelvin
Development of a Turbo Bryton Cryocooler/ADR Design
Fiber Optic Raman Laser Amplification for Remote Sensing Spectroscopy

What skills would it emphasize?

An academic curriculum that balances the opportunities for direct contact with advanced science and engineering R&D and an awareness of the complex managerial, political, financial, social, international and human issues faced by current and future aerospace programs, with a Group Project that encourages and builds teamwork and leadership.

FWIW I worked as Program Support and ISU Liaison for the 2002 Goddard Academy, effectively going through the program myself (including an individual project on technology spin-offs from DDF projects). I helped arrange visits by the Goddard and Ames Academies to Capitol Hill for NASA Administrator testimony to Congress on NASA's educational activities. I got the ball rolling with the French embassy to start exchange programs with CNES providing exchange opportunities for student researchers to participate in the NASA Academy, which has since expanded to CSA and JAXA.

NASA Academy's more than fifteen years of graduates pervade the U.S. space industry, from mission flight directors at NASA to advanced concepts teams at companies to XPrize directors. This Is the program you are looking for.

P.S. Keith, nice back of the hand to International Space University. I had no idea that my education there provided no actual "hands-on experience with hardware, software, operations, design, and science." It must have all been in my imagination.

Yeesh, with friends like these...

If the idea of a 'Star Fleet' academy is to provide training for those interested in a space career of exploration, then I would suggest that many folks have offered compelling ideas for a curriculum in the posts above.

And it will be equally important that these students 'see' something in the present moment that anchors their dreams in reality. What they need to see is actual space explorers doing space exploration.

Imagine that when the last Shuttle has flown in 2010, that kindergarten kids entering the school system, also in 2010, will not see any U.S citizens flying in U.S. developed manned rated vehicles for years. For them Space Exploration will be taught in their history classes.

Star Fleet academy needs to be accompanied by real time exploration with real people.... and it needs to be seen in the media outlets that kids view.

Ken,

I agree with your sentiment that we often try to build anew rather than improving what we have, which isn't a very effective way to maximize the limited resources we have. I would say that one way though to establish what to improve is to compare your ideal end state to your current state.

But in the spirit of your comment, I'd love it if the NASA Academies or some existing organization would provide a more virtual academy that focused on space, which could provide resources / ideas to existing educators, offer classes specifically targeting space that students could attend virtually, and foster interactions between students / practitioners on class / self-started projects or discussions. A system that is a cross between TED (with projects / classes / discussions instead of conversations / talks), the iTunes App Store (with projects / classes / discussions instead of apps), and OpenNASA on steroids (with lots of blogs / discussions by students / practitioners / interested parties). The educational content for this virtual-portion of the academy would be approved by academy staff, but would be provided by many sources: the government, contractors, educators, university professors, students, authors, media members (yes, even you Keith!), etc. To ensure a balanced view, the academy staff would be drawn from across the industry: government (NASA / DoD / …), contractors (including companies like SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace), universities, and educators.

I agree with what I believe was Ken's sentiment, that there is already a lot of information / opportunities out there to get a hands-on, interdiscplinary education. We do need to do better job though of increasing knowledge of and access to those opportunities, so that more people can experience their benefits.

What a lot of the posters seem to miss is that there is NO clear path to becoming an astronaut today. It is as mysterious a path as it was at its inception. The ability to define a clear way to becoming an astronaut would open this horizon to the public. The public is what NASA and HSF in general needs in order to expend and eventually become sustainable. West Point was not taken easily at the beginning but who would question its existence today?

Without the public you and I will have to go through each and every blue ribbon panel that you can think of.

Please, chew on that for a while...

I studied Engineering in college and got a degree in Mechanical Engineering. It was a good start, and I think everyone in the rocket business needs a basic engineering education. I have been at KSC for the last 22 years. Since KSC is primarily an Ops Center, an understanding of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering is very helpful. For the NASA-side, which I’m on, it is essential to have an understanding of government budgeting and the relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches. For managing large, distributed organizations – which are the scourge of human spaceflight – management courses and some training in Industrial Psychology are useful.
A Starfleet Academy? Those of us who grew up on Star Trek and dreams of real human exploration of the universe would welcome such an entity. I would like to see it operated much like a branch of the military with rank and a defined and difficult path to reach leadership positions. I believe our biggest two problems today are leadership and decentralized power. A military model might help.

Good on the Administrator for this objective. A few simple thoughts:

1. Focus on creating a pipeline of students starting in the middle schools so that the numbers of students pursuing STEM in post secondary education will increase.

2. Provide real time online curriculum (4th - 12th grades) laden with scientific experiments to demonstrate STEM issues through the prism of Space Exploration (human and robotic). Quality science labs are rare in schools. Online lab experiments could substitute.

3. Use one of the NASA Digital Channels to provide streaming real time activities in all of the 10 NASA centers. There are amazing things happening (astro training, space vehicle construction, assembly, launching that NO ONE ever hears about) that students would enjoy watching.

There are plenty more options, but this will do for now.

I would hope if this were to come about it would operate like the Army. We need a national organization that people can just sign their time away to a good cause and be given a chance to participate in NASA like activities. I think with the number of jobless and the imaginations of the masses would be harnesed for good. I love my country but wont join the Army because of my beliefe in non violence. This could be a place for people to participate and realy make an impact in research and development of our future infrastructure(scientific and space). The detatchment that NASA has from the American people could esily be fixed with this type of organization. It feels as if we are subsidising tower sitting at the moment. The solution: let us all join, save the world, and colonize the solar system(In that order). With the collective power of all the people who want to do great things, yet cant get into position to do so, we could achieve the unbelievable.

Beaureese suggested, "Quality science labs are rare in schools. Online lab experiments could substitute."

The first sentence reflects reality. The National Research Council documented this problem well in "America's Lab Report." (ALR)

The second sentence requires some clarification. We should upgrade the quality of our school science lab experiences first before resorting to alternatives. In today's overcrowded classrooms and budget-strapped school systems, we're unlikely to achieve that goal fully. There's also the issues of time spent preparing for and taking high-stakes tests and lack of sufficient quantities of well-trained science teachers -- not to mention safety.

Online technology can be enlisted to assist but only if done carefully. Decent online material can augment classroom science labs and can be used in the classroom to aid in learning concepts. However, using them as a substitute for quality science lab experiences requires more than just being online.

Lab experiences should help students to understand the nature of science, to develop scientific reasoning skills, and to appreciate the complexity and ambiguity of the work that scientists do. One popular type of online lab, the simulation, does not advance this cause and may actually have a negative impact on these goals.

ALR says clearly that science lab experiences must take data from the "material world." That rules out made up data created from a programmer's keyboard. There still remain options for online science labs that do not utilize simulated data: large online scientific databases, remote robotic labs, prerecorded real experiments, and, perhaps, others.

We must ensure that all of our students have complete science courses. Labs for their own sake do not fill out the course. Labs must have a purpose to justify the time and expense that they require from school systems.

Do not jettison hands-on labs; improve them.

Replace labs only as required by time, budget, safety, training, and other constraints. Replace them with true science experiences, not simulations.

Online technology provides the most promising avenue for good lab alternatives but must not be used without thoroughly understanding the goals of lab experience in schools. Beaureese is right to say "online labs" rather than simulations or "virtual labs" (often used synonymously with simulations). My comment merely seeks to clarify the definitions and make sure that readers take the time to understand the critical learning differences between true lab experiences and simulations.

What we desperately need is to encourage kids to enter the fields of science and engineering. Enrollment of American kids in technical schools is at an all time low. All the current crop seem to see is the large amount of hard work necessary to achieve that technical degree and an iffy future after with your job dependent on the whims of the bean counters.
MSFC has the Space and Rocket Center and Space Camp already, but limited to those who already know enough to want to attend. More outreach could only help.
It broke my heart when NASA terminated the co-op program, though I appreciated the reasoning. When they could no longer offer co-op graduates a guaranteed job with the Agency they stopped, and rightly so. I hear they have reactivated the program which will deliver us a fresh new crop of baby engineers with realworld experience. I know back when the program was last active we were instructed in no uncertain terms that co-ops would not be given scut work, but rather real tasks that gave them a taste of how things worked.
As for astronauts, the two avenues I am aware of are to either be a military pilot with an advanced degree and perfect health or achieve recognition as the leader in your scientific field while still young and healty enough to make it through training. I do not envy them, either group. They go through no end of hoops only to get one or two missions then step aside for the next crop. ISS improves the odds somewhat, but until we have cheap launch on demand and a real space program it will continue to be a crap shoot.

I would note as a data point that in Canada, a country with a military culture only a small minority of the population participate in, recruitment in the military went UP after Canada declared it's participation in the war on terror in Afghanistan.

Anywhere you decide to go, once you actually decide to go, you will find people that want to go with you.

In the US it seems that there is much concern about two things:
- the lack of STEM students
- the fact that many STEM students end up on Wall street instead of science.

These two trends are intrinsically related: in a country founded in part on the idea of a frontier, the lack of a frontier has given the students we have no-where really exciting to go. Without the dream of a frontier, they face uninspiring choices for their future. This brings people to do things like live in New York, and question the ROI of a post secondary education, as it is not clear to many what they would do with that education if they made the investment in it.

So to the posters who ask what the point of this would be, since we do not seem to need it right now, I would answer that we need it more than ever, as an inspiration to people, as a means of asking them and incenting them to invest in themselves and their future.

There are two words in "StarFleet". Lets deconstruct:

"Star" is a place. A goal. An environment. A description of people who chase the goal.

without star you can have no fleet, as there is no where to go.

"Fleet" is a collection of vessels or vehicles. To have such a collection and to derive value from them you need to do the following:
- Design them
- build them
- commission them (place them into their medium, stock them with stuff required for operation)
- operate them
- process the data collected during their operation and create from it information
- disseminate that information as knowledge
- iterate over a period of time.

6 major strategic dimensions of focus, plus time.

AS many have pointed out today, there are two real issues with the path we have today for getting people into a position to do these very interesting things.

One is that it is very difficult to get positions of these types as a career choice. The path is exceedingly unclear to anybody. I have the impression most if not all astronauts kind of fell into it as a result of being exceptional at something else first and then being selected based on some perceived contemporary need.

The second is that, funding being what it is, there are few seats for any kind of space work, and so it seems unreachable to the majority of less than extraordinary people as a goal, to actually work at a job involving space.

So the actual function of a starfleet academy should be to create clear paths of access to careers within each of the 6 dimensions of focus.

Clear paths mean:
- minimal standards of acceptance for training
- cirricula
- testing and certification
- some sense, overwhelming or otherwise, of where the skills will be used once certification is achieved.

So what we are saying structurally is that we have:
Inspiration -> inspired people -> achieving minimum previously defined standards on their own -> entering a learning institution -> to gain subject matter knowledge specific to a career aspiration within one of the six dimensions -> so they can gain some available employment using those skills.

Note that the Academy itself is a simple learning institution. To productively instantiate it,you need to *assume* there is a fleet, there is a notion of 'stars', there is an economic infrastructure to join after the education experience is complete, and that there is a feedback loop taking knowledge back from operational experience into the classroom experience.

without these assumptions being met, which I would argue are matters of national or global strategy in areas of economics, science, technology, defense, and species survival, such an academy, as a tactical activity, will fail, as it will lack a reason for being.

However, in true chicken and egg fashion, we cannot advance those grand strategic objectives if we do not have concrete tactical plans to bootstrap ourselves into their existence, plans which will require a plan of some kind to gather and educate motivated, but more ordinary than not, people in the six dimensions of strategic focus I have identified.

Did not Robert Heinlein put THE SPACE ACADEMY at Colorado Springs?
(Maybe he was living there at the time.)
Which in fact is where the AF Academy is!

I participated in the NASA Academy Program this past summer and upon exiting we had a question posed to us about what we would change about the Academy. Looking back at that, it is more similar to the Starfleet Academy being talked about here than the NASA Academy Program some of the ideas are more related to NASA Academy, but I thought the entire response would be useful. Below is my response to the question.

I think having an internship program based on leadership, and showing us everything that NASA tries to do is amazing thing, but it tries to do too much in a short amount of time. I would make the program longer, maybe a 12 week internship. That we would get a similar amount of research time as other interns, and be able to do all the things that Academy does, or I would cut the research, and have everyone work on one very important group project, that utilizes the trips to get work done. For example going to different centers to use their facilities as well as get tours.

If I could totally change to the program I would set it up like this:

It would be run by HQ and take up a semester term and a summer term like many companies do their coop programs or perhaps even something longer. You would get a group of students (20 or so) and they would get one project to work on. This project would probably have to be chosen for them, but something that involves multiple disciplines of science and engineering. They would spend a little bit of time at every center using facilities that they can only find there, really getting to know all of NASA. I know that something like this has an insignificant chance or happening, but it something to think about. I also think a program like this would help shape the future leaders in the space industry in a way that would change the workplace for the better. We have heard a lot about the politics at NASA, I think I program like this would help cut down a lot of the inter center politics, if the participants of the Academy make it to a upper level position.

I am currently finishing my undergraduate degree, and as a space enthusiast, a program like this would be ideal for someone in my place, or someone with more schooling. I think the Starfleet Academy is best directed at someone who already knows that they will work in the space industry.

Here's my fly in the ointment:

Starfleet is a global international system. Hell, it's interplanetary, but we'll leave the Sci-fi part out of it for the sake of argument. Under current federal restrictions, we can't share the specs of a bolt on a communications satellite with another nation, so what makes anyone think there is a chance to create an educational institution as robust and forward thinking as a "Starfleet" given those conditions?

Are we suggesting this is only an American institution? Then why bother? We have hundreds of outstanding colleges and universities in this nation that produce great talent for the space industry. A NASA derived Starfleet would serve no higher purpose unless it was an international institution, and until the ITAR choke hold on reasonable sharing of peaceful space based information is abolished, none of this is possible.

And to be perfectly honest, ISU does currently serve this purpose to a point, but again, it's the major restrictions generated by cold war paranoid military people and congressional reps that hamstring any serious growth of a global space industry for the betterment of humanity.
_____________________________________

Now, if you want to increase STEM involvement, then NASA needs to get into the business of selling itself. I also totally agree with the notion that NASA doesn't know how to promote itself at all, nor do many of the people in the space industry as a whole know how to relate what the space industry means to the daily lives of the general population.

They lack a connecting presence with average non-space geek people. Of course, this is why I wrote my book and why I'm trying to become a space advocacy speaker, because I do know how to relate to complex world of the space industry to the average person.

It's very simple. The odds of becoming an Astronaut is 12 million to 1. The odds of becoming a pro athlete is 25,000 to 1. And we wonder why kids give a crap less about STEM? Not only do athletes make a lot more money and have fame, but the odds are extremely better to become one!

We must make space as fun and popular as sports, or die trying, because right now nothing is being done to sell space the way it should be.
_____________________________________

Douglas Mallette

Eagle_Eye and Nancy,

Some examples of school-year-long type STEM projects conducted by NASA are DIME & WING (microgravity drop tower), Reduced Gravity Flight Opportunity (microgravity airplane), FIRST Robotics, and the Moon Buggy Race.

All these are hands-on, minds-on type of opportunities.

Richard

While I applaud the idea of inspirational education, what's the point if there are few jobs in this sector?

@MarkMillis:

since the identified market opportunity for computers worldwide is only 30 units or so, I guess we will not be needing computer science courses anytime soon either....

If one of the goals of Starfleet Academy is to facilitate the commercial space industry. The Academy should arrange for a summer internship at respective commercial enterprises after graduating from the Academy. The key word though is "arrange". That could be impossible, so maybe just some other form of increasing the chances significantly of Academy members getting hired for specific internships useful to the goals of space exploration. The idea could be expanded by linking an Academy member, with a company, and a NASA researcher to do a summer internship. NASA already has Co-ops that employ the students after college at NASA. Why not a facilitated transition to the commercial sector?

It sounds all so interesting, however, this concept was not derived from the people controlling access to space. Therefore, if this group of people controlling access to space could easily say "No" to such an idea, they will likely say "No". The trick is to propose it to them in such a way that the simple answer of "No" means they will likely allow it to happen somewhere else. Example: "No, never in the US". Well, that could mean they have no problem with someone setting up their own academy in the jungle rainforests of Africa.

Sorry, although summer internships are valuable, STEM education is not a part-time endeavor. You need something that is ongoing through a student's entire academic a career, serving a large number of students all across the country.

It will NEVER happen as long as NASA is run my bureaucrats and politicians.

I agree that it won't matter much as long as NASA uses managers who really can't do the job. NASA has had professional development programs and 'academy' programs for educating their managers for decades. Some of us have even gone to them in expectation of being certified. The certification was eliminated years ago. Many of us have gotten advanced degrees in systems management.

It would be interesting to see how many of the managers in human space flight have actually gone through similar programs and have any kind of certification or advanced degrees.

I don't think that is the criteria. The criteria appears to be who you know.

As much as I would love to see a Star-Trek-esque Starfleet Academy (which I would have signed myself up in a heartbeat at any point in my educational career), what is realistically needed is a program that does not require a Star-Trek-esque global commitment to space exploration to be successful.

I'd like to see the Starfleet Academy as an umbrella organization that matches interested people at all levels, from K-12 students through postdocs and people in industry, with appropriate training opportunities be they internships, online courses, masters programs, summer camps, field trips, or seminars. The NASA Current Opportunities ed outreach page is a good start, but could be a lot better.

This would, for example, involve:

• * A clear, friendly, and sexy website where all of NASA’s educational outreach programs (and ideally other programs worldwide) are described in a clear and consistent manner.
• * An online search engine that allows interested people to enter in criteria for the sort of training that they are looking for (dates, duration, location, subject, education level, etc.) and finds matching programs.
• * A subscribable calendar alerting interested people to training events in their region and/or field(s) of interest.
• * A central office that coordinates the educational outreach programs of all of the NASA centers (and works closely with the Space Grant programs) and that sends people out to advertise at schools, universities, and workplaces.

Some of the advantages I see of a program like this are:

• * The same program could “catch ‘em while they’re young”, supplement the education interested students, and train established professionals.
• * It builds on and would help better advertise some of the excellent existing programs such as the NASA Academy and ISU.
• It could include both NASA, international, industry, and locally-organized programs thereby serving an international set of would-be space professionals.
• * It does not require significant new infrastructure and funding. Indeed, this could be used to consolidate and more efficiently manage the many existing NASA outreach programs (many of which are so similar at different NASA centers that you really would think they could be centrally managed).
• * By consolidating all ed outreach programs to one central umbrella organization, it would be easier to identify where educational gaps existed so that new programs could be developed without replicating old ones.
• * It maintains and encourages diversity in the space industry by drawing from and working with students of all backgrounds, educations, specialties, and interests. I believe that the space industry would be better-served by this than by a more homogenously-trained cohort that might come out of a dedicated Starfleet Academy.
• * It supplements, rather than attempts to replace the existing excellent higher education institutions in this country. As others have stated, we already have many excellent universities and service academies where people who are interested can get a good training in whatever field they are interested in working in, be it rocket science, astrobiology, space medicine, or space policy.
• * It provides what most universities and schools lack: a good way to get a basic grounding in all of the aspects of space exploration in one place. This educational niche is currently being filled by the NASA Academy, ISU, and other programs, and, as several others have stated, a Starfleet Academy should build on, rather than replace, programs such as these.
• * By providing a central source matching students and educators with a whole spectrum of educational programs, it would vastly improve the ability of students and educators to find appropriate programs.

I agree with the people who are saying that if we don't generally improve the state of American scientific literacy in general, we're not going to get very far. As an amateur astronomer & planetarium volunteer, I see a lot of people come forward with questions on really basic issues (for instance, lots of adults think that our seasons are caused by the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit). People who aren't scientifically literate won't encourage their children to enter those fields or support large R&D projects. If few scientists & engineers are hired, only a few will bother to learn their trades. As a pump-priming move, open up more funding for R&D, & people will see there's money in the STEM fields, even if they don't see the use immediately, & they'll push their children to learn math & science.

I don't think NASA has the resources to provide full time STEM education and that the whole point of these summer internships and outreach programs is to get kids interested in space during their developmental period. It helps, especially jr. high and high school students to know that there is a point to all the math and physics they're learning. I think NASA should help these kids get into summer projects and colleges with good space science related departments. The real ongoing support from NASA needs to come during a students college and grad school time because this is when people start growing up and realizing what they have to get to maintain a comfortable life style. NASA should be able to show them the rewards of research and work within the space industry for life after academia. Basically people need to be reassured that the things they love doing (building rockets, designing lunar bases, managing a space systems) can also make them successful. Networking is important with this because you find teams of like-minded people who can help make your cause a reality but more than that is the opportunity to find people who can help you grow your ideas. Starfleet should be starting this community from college on.

A Shop For Dreamers: http://www.wesleyan.edu/av/gronican.htm

I find mostly good comments from the readers. I work with a Sudbury style independent school whose format might be excellent for said school. I also have worked for the sciences of a university and also with the Gengras Planetarium in Hartford.

My own interests lie in writing, science fiction and fantasy and illustration. At the present time I'm working on an illustrated novel which explores the theme you've stated. I would like to hear from other writers and illustrators who have a similar direction.

An interesting sidegroup that I've recently joined is: steampunk.ning which seems to be composed of an imaginative group of folks. One of our members is part of the first international Steampunk exhibition, presently in progress in London, England.

Oh yes! One thing you need to require is to make sure that you have "good" character references on all who join this group. It's a necessity if you hope to survive.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Regards

Rob

I submitted this earlier but it never showed up trying again.

I have noticed that the government from time to time decides that it is in the national interest to promote science/engineering education on the basis that we don't have enough good people trained in that field. In my own case I was inspired at least partially to go into science by the "space race".

Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that by the time a generation has been trained interest wains and good people can't find work. We see the effects of this at all the universities, where the percentage of US citizens in graduate programs is very low (I would guess less than 10%). To put it simply US students don't want to study for an advanced degree that may not be marketable. By contrast most Asian countries are paying the cost for young people to come here and get graduate degrees and then they are essentially guaranteed academic positions when they go back to their country.

More recently NASA laid off most of it's good scientists to provide funds for the "vision for space exploration". In reality there is no shortage of science and engineering talent. NASA can hire back the great surplus of good people they already had and foolishly got rid of.

As others have said NASA is run by politicians. Politicians are not able to manage science/research;thus, the continued loss of US technology.

Having worked at NASA for almost 30 years, my advice to the youth of our country would be to get a real job in the private sector doing something you love. Stay away from NASA and it's contractors. We take the best talent in the world and stifle it with bureaucracy and threats against speaking out. Charlie can't change this, he's wasting his time. The status quo will hunker down and wait out any attempts to change.

Current universities offering space-related programs are often limited by the scale of projects students can involve in. Course work should not be the focus of an SA, but rather project work over at least one year, maybe two, with significant results (not a poster in a conference).

Having a centralized campus with dedicated, focused NASA, other government and industry money going to it (with accompanying problems the students are tasked to solve) might be able to host both small and large-scale projects. The focus of funding (without the dilution that happens when dividing a pot of research money over 50 institutions, each with its own overhead tax) might enable it to sustain world-class facilities for tests. Some examples:
- Neutral buoyancy pools
- Thermal-vac chambers
- Rover test areas (relevant terrain, etc)
- Mission control facilities
- Centrifuges
- Flight simulators
- Habitat simulators (closed life support environments)
- Telescopes
An SA might also enable more frequent access to other opportunities (e.g. sub-orbital micro gravity flights, Antarctic expeditions).

Bigger projects mean a greater opportunity for large-scale student teamwork, and also for a diverse set of students (future engineers, scientists, managers, writers, artists).

The SA could train its own staff to be expert in arranging for and managing these kinds of projects or gaining access to other world-class facilities, rather than having the staff from every university learn these processes independently. That said, the SA could also involve students in the proposal process (I disagree with a previous comment that advocated for students to be insulated from fundraising).

With luck, maybe a continuous funding source that enables multi-year projects, often rare at universities.

A single campus also means student immersion. I don't agree with the current trend of many top universities to create remote campuses, and then to grant equivalent degrees to students attending those remote schools. Students can't possibly get the same experience out of working remotely as they can being surrounded by the prime faculty and students of the main campus. I think the same applies for an SA.

Current universities offering space-related programs are often limited by the scale of projects students can involve in. Course work should not be the focus of an SA, but rather project work over at least one year, maybe two, with significant results (not a poster in a conference).

Having a centralized campus with dedicated, focused NASA, other government and industry money going to it (with accompanying problems the students are tasked to solve) might be able to host both small and large-scale projects. The focus of funding (without the dilution that happens when dividing a pot of research money over 50 institutions, each with its own overhead tax) might enable it to sustain world-class facilities for tests. Some examples:
- Neutral buoyancy pools
- Thermal-vac chambers
- Rover test areas (relevant terrain, etc)
- Mission control facilities
- Centrifuges
- Flight simulators
- Habitat simulators (closed life support environments)
- Telescopes
An SA might also enable more frequent access to other opportunities (e.g. sub-orbital micro gravity flights, Antarctic expeditions).

Bigger projects mean a greater opportunity for large-scale student teamwork, and also for a diverse set of students (future engineers, scientists, managers, writers, artists).

The SA could train its own staff to be expert in arranging for and managing these kinds of projects or gaining access to other world-class facilities, rather than having the staff from every university learn these processes independently. That said, the SA could also involve students in the proposal process (I disagree with a previous comment that advocated for students to be insulated from fundraising).

With luck, maybe a continuous funding source that enables multi-year projects, often rare at universities.

A single campus also means student immersion. I don't agree with the current trend of many top universities to create remote campuses, and then to grant equivalent degrees to students attending those remote schools. Students can't possibly get the same experience out of working remotely as they can being surrounded by the prime faculty and students of the main campus. I think the same applies for an SA.

Why are all these people discussing this (sometimes at considerable length) as if it meant something? If we don't have a space program, the last thing we need is a Space Academy!

Conley Powell asked, "Why are all these people discussing this...?"

Conley, I think it's because Keith raised a set of questions that interested them. It's loosely based on the President's interest in STEM education for kids and the fact that Bolden wants and understands that NASA can help on this topic. Of course, the President isn't talking about a Star Fleet Academy or astronauts or even about space studies; rather, he's trying to find ways to combat the fact that America is falling being in science, math and the other STEM topics, and this bodes poorly for the future US economy.

If we can get kids interested in science or other technical topics, they'll be more highly motivated to take STEM-type classes. However, there's nothing inherently wrong with the questions that Keith raised or with people responding to things that interest them.

Its an on again, off again, kind of a thing. O'Keefe and Bolden say they are for education initiatives. Griffin could have cared less.

This week, JSC hosted the AAS conference

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/12/watch-imagine-0.html

and there was lots of discussion about things that can be done. Some high ranking NASA managers, like Space Ops' Gerstenmaier, cared enough to spend their entire day there. But they've cut the money going into NASA education way back. The education programs are not coordinated in any fashion. Maybe we could get some of the Constellation management to lead this effort ? The real products the program produces are along the lines of this week's calendar:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_M08248_ISS_Calendar.html

in which the historic events of the space program are mainly 100+ Shuttle launches. In addition to the internet version, they produced 100,000 of these; I'd guess that translates to a lot of money ($250,000 ?) and they 'sell' it as an educational product.

There are 80 million students in US schools. Thats a quarter of the US population. An orchestrated strategy need not be too expensive and could leverage a lot of support, and education.

But NASA really does not make the effort.

So I guess I'm with you.

There is not a lot of progress in this area. Just lip-service.

There have been two types of responses to this post.

1) "Starfleet Academy" to serve only as a means to educate a workforce for NASA. The response to this idea has been that NASA has opportunities to do this: NASA academy or internships and that there are good engineering schools so why bother. Another response to this has also been a pessimistic point of view that with "no real space program" there is no need.

OR

2) "Starfleet Academy" would consolidate and promote general science and technology education: STEM education and university education. This was what I had in mind when I first replied to this post. NASA has education programs, but are they well coordinated across the entire country? Most would say no or at least say we could do better. The poor science and engineering knowledge of the general public is evidence of the poor state of STEM education in the US.

Every civilian science and technology agency of the federal government could do a much better job. In it's heyday NASA could inspire students to study science and education without much effort. We were all on the same page back then. Today we bicker and fight over the technical details and every program looks politically motivate.

Here's a slightly different idea form Keith's suggestion. Establish a new center or program in the Department of Education to which a portion of the budget of every science and technology research agency of the government much put 1% of it's budget for the purpose of consolidating and promoting STEM education. Of course every agency would need a 1% increase to their research budget to fund the program. Existing education programs would continue either in this new program or independently inside the home agency. This puts more funding into an education program than can be done by any single federal agency and doesn't make STEM education solely a NASA issue.

The problem is not with the training of the working level engineers, it is with the training of management. For nearly 40 years we have taught our SESs and higher level GS managers how to ride out the wave of on and off again programs and come out smelling like a rose. They have learned to sing the corporate song in all it variations, to take no positions that offend anyone, and to smooze with the best of Wall Street. The result is a growing list of ill conceived programs that have squandered resources, gotten people promoted, and been canceled because they were ill conceived from the beginning. ARES I is a prime example and the new ARES V (or whatever it ends up being called) will be another.

NASA needs to start over with all new management and a new pragmatic attitude of living within its means. Goals need to be established and requirements developed sans politics. Planning needs to acknowledge that resources will be limited and that because of that limitation, projects will take a long time to complete. To complete any large project, components will have to be developed and built serially rather than in parallel.

NASA already sort of works this way.

In NASA human space flight, all money goes to the programs: Shuttle, Space Station, Constellation. Each program is mandated to spend a percent of their budget on 'education'.

Within the programs, they have astronauts who support school activities such as the 'teaching from space program':

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705348648/Elementary-kids-talk-live-to-astronaut.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/aug/HQ_09_184_Kopra_student_chat.html

There are also astronaut visits to their hometowns after their missions:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25849

Their are a handful of people who plan and coordinate these 'events' (each person has a salary and benefits), and the astronaut's time and the resources of the space station, shuttle launch, mission control, etc., are factored into the percentage that supports education, based on dollars per minute of space flight time or fraction of their salary.

Once you have a few such events each year and they are costing tens of thousands of dollars a minute, and NASA TV and internet coverage of the missions, that is really most of the 'educational' support the program contributes.

There are a few other events like this week's JSC AAS conference that get some support:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/12/watch-imagine-0.html

or NASA's exhibits at airshows

http://www.wingsoverhouston.com/woh_attractions.htm the Paris Air Show

http://www.flickr.com/photos/famillesebile/3629624350/

And there are one or two products like the ISS calendar:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_M08248_ISS_Calendar.html

that are also factored into the percentage. By the time you get done with those, that is about all there is.

An academy, or even true educational products and projects implies you would have people trained in education developing educational products and managing educational projects. Even in 'informal' educational projects you'd probably want people trained in communications, marketing, etc.

NASA uses astronauts, engineers, scientists and business managers to 'lead' many of the educational programs:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2008/05/the-queen-of-all-nasa-media.html

NASA has begun to hire some trained and experienced teachers:

http://teachersinspace.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/seven-astronaut-teacher-candidates-announced/

Perhaps once they are available, they will have an opportunity to play a role.

An 'academy' requires some dedicated resources with a plan, projects and products that meet specific educational criteria:

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/science/index.html

Each state has specific criteria for each subject area. This is what their standardized tests are based on. The Obama 'Race to the Top' educational grants requires the states and publicly funded schools to implement these processes:

http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/07/07242009.html

NASA has not gotten to that point yet.

If you want to inspire younger generations to go into STEM careers, the answer is pretty simple....manned exploration of the solar system (moon, Mars, asteroids).