This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
News

Stealth Future In-Space Operations Telecons Are Back

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 18, 2013
Filed under

Keith’s note: Bernard Edwards, A NASA employee, is making a presentation “Overview of the Laser Communications Relay Demonstration Project” during the work day on a telecon co-sponsored by NASA – yet the agency won’t publish the invitation online such that taxpayers can participate. But if you go to this webpage it states “Note: This is NOT a public telecon. You may share this link only with qualified participants.” This is the link that can only be shared with “qualified” participants. Taxpayers are paying for this presentation, as such all taxpayers are quailfied, right? Are you “qualified”? Of course you are.
Here is how to dial into this stealth NASA telecon (but only if you are “qualified” !): Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group Telecon Presentations Co Chairs: Harley Thronson [email protected] & Dan Lester [email protected] Wednesdays, 3pm EDT Dial in: 877 921 5751 Passcode: 623679
Oh yes, they still tell people to go to this website http://futureinspaceoperations.com/ which still features the article “Skin Lightening Options For Those On A Budget”.
NASA FISO Telecon Organizers Are Confused, earlier post
Stealth Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group Telecons, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

12 responses to “Stealth Future In-Space Operations Telecons Are Back”

  1. starsandbeyond says:
    0
    0

    While I agree that this has some strange phrasing (and a very unattractive website), I’m not sure why NASA-sponsored telecons should automatically be open to any and all taxpayers. NASA holds hundreds (perhaps thousands) of telecons every day… are you suggesting that the public should be able to call into any NASA telecon because their tax dollars paid for it?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      They post all of the info on a webpage that anyone can see and then say it is limited to those who are “qualified” without ever explaining what “qualified” means or who decides. Once the meeting has happened they post things that anyone anywhere can see – but if you are on the inside, you can see earlier.

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    I appreciate your stand on this, Keith, and most of the time support your view. I do think the work you do is important.

    I can’t imagine what its like to be a government employee with 330 million people parsing every word you say because they are taxpayers. Why shouldn’t these scientist types have an opportunity for informal discussion, away from prying eyes- venues where they can be a little less exact, perhaps, or where they can ideate with others? Where they can make mistakes, or perhaps just learn what’s happening in related fields?

    As long as its not abused, and this doesn’t look abusive, I just don’t see anything wrong here.

    On the other hand, thanks for the link…

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Actually, with email and other internet technologies, and the good old-fashioned telephone and fax machine, scientists, engineers, et al, have the opportunity to communicate and interact every day, without prying eyes and without public notification (and without having to know what qualified means). And for people who work in the same buildings, the traditional impromptu hallway discussion is still the most effective collaboration communication technology ever devised.

  3. The Tinfoil Tricorn says:
    0
    0

    It’s great to know that they are having the discussions, but I would venture that posting the recording after the fact is likely an indication of some classified discussions and input. I would imagine that there are defense department contractors that would participate and exchange input under the conditions that not everything go straight to public. Keep in mind a laser system powerful enough to beam megawatts of power is also powerful enough to start a fire or melt a car from space at bare minimum. Perhaps pop a house full of popcorn, but only if James bond doesn’t intervene.

    You hear the public whine about drones, and they’ve all seen that episode of x-files, where the AI uses a beam weapon to burn up a trailer full of electronics and chase Mulder down the road exploding telephone poles and transformers along the way.

    I would venture to say that Joe Plumber is going to relate his experience to Science fiction drama TV and Movies more than the realities of research and space flight that happen in a teleconference.

    Perhaps the time would be better spent in a teleconference if they were to write screen plays and option them to Hollywood. It would be so much fun if research had to be submitted in the form of a motion picture.

    The movie might be boring at times, but at least the public would have a better understanding perhaps.

    • Karma says:
      0
      0

      The lasers used for lasercom are actually quite harmless- fraction of a Watt on the space terminal and 10’s of watts on the ground terminal. You could stand in the beam of the ground terminal and feel only some warmth… you could put your eye directly against the output aperture of the space terminal and not exceed the ANSI standards for laser exposure…

  4. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    The presence of ITAR must be assessed before these presentations are made. If there is ITAR material, then invited audience must be reviewed. During design reviews, there is frequently ITAR and IP of contractors that demands management – determining who is permitted to review. I’ve been in meetings where organizers ask any attendees that do not have privileges, to leave the room before the following material is presented. That is not the wisest means to protecting sensitive information.

    But I think the information presented in these FISO WG papers is not senstivie material and nasawatch is doing something good, i.e. helping to disseminate ideas to a wider audience.

    Everyone involved in writing and reading these comments under this blog article should also read the Science Insider article on a manifesto submitted to the European Union by concerned EU scientists. “Manifesto Urges Breaking Down Europe’s Scientific Borders”, http://news.sciencemag.org/

    It is the open society with free flow of information that will create and develop new ideas and succeed when their competitors or enemies choose to spy and restrict their flow information to a limited group of
    individuals.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      I agree with your comments, but would suggest one difference. Instead of reviewing the material for ITAR considerations prior to a conference, which could delay a conference to the point where it’s canceled, I would suggest that every conference be designated, right from the point of announcement, as either allowing or not allowing ITAR restricted material. This eliminates the contradictory announcements, such as Keith has pointed out here, avoids any delays, and keeps the responsibility for determining ITAR applicability of each issue with its presenter, where it should have been addressed anyhow.

      • Rocky J says:
        0
        0

        It would depend on the type of meeting/conference. Design reviews are pretty much internal, not open to public access. Conference organizers could set aside a secure room for sensitive material. This is all such a tough problem due to modern means of communication. But still all these problems, NSA, etc, is enviable because it is on the path to becoming Type 1 Civilization on the Kardashev scale!

  5. Hondo Lane says:
    0
    0

    This article provides some useful description of the FISO effort and WG: http://www.thespacereview.c… The piece outlines the logic behind the choice of telecon mechanism, as well as the organizers’ choices regarding recording presentations and making them publicly available after the fact (among other things). It’s an interesting read, free of vitriol.