NASA Needs To Explain The Moon2024 Thing Better
The NAC Science Committee states the obvious: @NASA has no real common strategy for the whole #Artemis #Moon2024 thing – whether it is in terms of the science to be done or the nattional goals/objectives that it meets. pic.twitter.com/LYc2Zm277C
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) May 30, 2019
IMHO @NASA needs to explain in simple sentences why America needs to go back to the Moon. They've yet to make that first step other than saying "because the White House told us to." Hard for NASA to market something like this if it does not know why they are going #Moon2024
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) May 31, 2019
I’ve been trying to get people to succinctly answer the question WHY for years and have not got very far. As for selling “science” it is bantered about as if it is was a magical box of something and as such will not ever get humanity off Earth fast, if at all. And when it comes to using the word “sustainable” they must also thoroughly define it in all its facets and cover all the bases to make sure real sustainability can be determined and achieved rather than just throw it out as a sales point. Though written for Mars, much of the rational can be applied to Earth’s moon also; if they would like to read it: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a…
I agree. The most important element of sustainability is that the cost to provide the service must be less than the price customers are willing to pay.
There was a telecon presentation with the two authors of Marketing the Moon book and hopefully all the communication folks on the line got some good takeaways from their insight. Not saying we need to go back to the Disney tomorrow land series from the 50’s but I agree we need to find a good way to tell the why go back, why now, what for and what do we hope to learn.
They did not bother to tell anyone that this was happening. More stealth NASA outreach among the usual suspects.
Yes, the first step is to create a public relations department that understands public relations is about communicating to ALL of the stakeholders, not just a select few.
[ Psst! Keith! Can we talk privately? Some of the NASA people think you’re a PITA*! Just thought you’d want to know! ]
*Keep it up.
I agree with Dr. Spudis’s assessment:
“The speech Marburger gave at that symposium stands today as one of the clearest and most “visionary” articulations of a future in space ever given.”
https://www.airspacemag.com…
Two very, very bright lights extinguished when they both passed. It would be wise to not forget their offered wisdom.
Sadly, the Moon2024 effort appears to be a billion dollar Pence for President campaign rally. I am a huge space nerdy enthusiast but where did the 2024 year come from? Why not 2025? Does it have anything to do with the election that year?
I would love to see people walking on the Moon again but it needs to be an international (well, let’s leave the Russians back here on Earth) effort and not some nationalistic one. It also needs to have solid scientific goals – there are plenty so let’s write them down.
Right now NASA and Bridenstine are trying to avoid stating the obvious explanation – and they are trying to figure out how to cut corners and compromise safety enough to make it by 2024.
A good idea. Move it to a non election year. Kennedy did not anticipate Apollo landing during his term in office nor, ironically, did Johnson.
The current NASA PR team, and it includes the cheerleader, Mr. Bridenstine, thinks in tweets, brief blurbs and short inspirational videos; 1 minute is too long. I don’t think they have strung enough words together to come up with a rationale for themselves, let alone being able to explain it to anyone else. Their theme has gone from Mars, to Moon-to-Mars, to Moon2024, to Artemis in just the last month. They want to drop the name ISS and just refer to it as the LEO element of Artemis. ISS has 4 decades of name recognition (such as it is) but in 5 minutes they are ready to drop it. It does not appear they have given clear communications any thought at all. Good luck. I suspect we are no closer now than we were 15 years ago.
Hopefully the NAC Science committee doesn’t not really think its about science. Articulate science and technology advances? I don’t think there is anyone left at NASA who has any sense of the advancements they’ve made. They have essentially no sense of history or of the meaning. How would they tell anyone? I have very little faith in NASA’s ability to tell the story. So far i have not heard where they are going with the current moon effort. Does anyone really think they can get anyone there in 5 years? They have not been able to launch their new capsule and rocket in 15. And what happens after they land someone? Are they building a base? Setting up a tourist stop? Heading to Mars? What is the whole plan?