Yet Another Plan For Outer Space
Keith’s note: There is a strange conference “Pioneering Space National Summit” scheduled for 19-20 February at the Reagan Trade Center here in Washington DC. Lots of organizations are listed as sponsors. Oddly the agenda lists no speakers and simply talks about working groups that will “discuss” issues. Later, things will (apparently) be prioritized.
The website says that this event has “the explicit goal of creating a basic SpaceMap for the United States, and identifying strategic knowledge gaps to be overcome for this nation to successfully open the frontier beyond low Earth orbit to human development and settlement … For this to happen those involved in all areas of space must move beyond current debates and battles over priorities, goals and participation and come to a basic set of agreements, addressing the reasons we choose to go into space, where in space we want to go and in what order … etc.”
Uh huh. Every time there is an Administration change looming space folks get the urge to try things like this. It never works. In the decades I have been around the space community I have never seen a strategy of any strategic value developed in the course of a 2 day free-for-all event open to everyone and anyone. No one agrees on enough things for such a consensus to be developed. And whatever the space folks do manage to produce just gets ignored – if for no other reason than someone was not involved or some group’s favorite planet or project is not prominently mentioned. Besides, each new Administration starts more or less from scratch anyway and they want to change NASA’s course from what the previous folks did (good or bad). Their policy priorities (or lack thereof) for space are rooted in plans that are focused on themes far more broad than what bounces around inside the heads of space advocates.
Oddly, when you go to the registration page it says “This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:” Nowhere on this website are you told how to get that password. So … without the password how can you register? Emails sent to the address listed on the site are ignored. The site has been like this for weeks without this basic detail being fixed. If they cannot allow people to register for this conference I am certain that they are ill-equipped to do all of the more difficult tasks such as herding space people around in working groups and cracking the whip on consensus development.
Keith’s update: One of our readers discovered that if you go to http://newworldsinstitute.org/ (there is no actual link to this organization from the meeting website to click on) that this is an invitation-only affair. As such you now have a deliberate effort to limit input – and that almost certainly guarantees that there will be space advocates who will be left out in the cold who will promptly denounce/ignore whatever this group puts out. Where is AIAA? AIA? AAS? AAAS? Planetary Society? Mars Society? Space Foundation?, IEEE?, Challenger Center?, ASGSR?, AsMA?, ASE?, American Astronomical Society?
After ignoring my previous emails over the past few weeks I just got this response back “Thank you for your interest in the Pioneering Space National Summit. Registration is by invitation only, and is closed at this time.” Oh well, I would not invite me either.
Ad Astra or Whatever.
“The Pioneering Space Summit will be the first ever, invitation-only, VIP workshop of national level decision makers.” http://newworldsinstitute.o…
Ah, “invitation only” that is why they do not respond to my emails 😉
“To request an invitation, please use our Contact form….” http://newworldsinstitute.o… Shouldn’t be hard to track down who’s running this.
[address given at bottom of contact page]
New Worlds Institute is a project of the EarthLight Foundation, a Texas non-profit corporation with 501(c)(3) designation.
All donations are tax-deductible.
I guess you have to know that this information is located on another website (i.e. totally non-obvious).
“…Most recently he [Rick Tumlinson] has founded the EarthLight Foundation in Austin, Texas, whose first project is the New Worlds Institute, a research organization focusing on the engineering and breakthroughs needed for people to live on the Moon, Mars and in Free Space….” http://www.huffingtonpost.c…
Space Frontier Foundation 2.0 ….
So, Rick has funding. I wonder who’s signing the checks?
Brian B seems to assume this is Elon’s plan. Interesting, if so.
BTW, Keith, DC decisionmakers do occasionally listen to us space nerds, if we have a good point and put it across effectively. EG, the Commercial Crew cost-accounting “poison-pill” last year that eventually got dropped.
Gee, who was behind that again? Some damn troublemaker who isn’t invited to this thing either… No big deal, though – I’ve seen these things come, and go, and never leave a ripple a year later, at least a dozen times now.
Yes, this time might be different, of course – but I hope whoever is signing the checks for this iteration understands the history, and the odds. (Or at least has a sense of humor!)
Rocket companies that actually do things – things that NASA has forgotten how to do – or can no longer do efficiently – have far more effect on space policy than a bunch of self-appointed space advocates. The rocket companies have an effect by doing things – not talking about them. All space advocates exaggerate their imagined impact on decisions in Washington. Its a prerequisite for being a space advocate in the first place. After 3-4 decades of space advocates providing advice to Washington, just how much impact did they actually have? Either they are responsible for the current mess or are powerless to fix it. Take your pick.
Rocket companies that actually do things, but ignore DC decisionmakers, will discover to their sorrow DC decisionmakers failing to reciprocate. I don’t at all blame whoever is behind this for trying; I’m just not so sure about the methodology.
As for the level of optimism required to be a space advocate, I’m not going to argue with you – it takes a lot! FWIW though, I’ve been involved in creating non-imaginary impacts more than once. It does indeed actually happen a whole lot less often than many imagine, yes.
Whatever you say.
Well, then, I’ll say that having had a front-row seat on the space advocacy scene for twenty-nine years now, at least 90% of your skepticism is justified. (Sturgeon’s Law in action.)
(Vanderbilt’s corollary to Sturgeon’s Law: The internet regularly proves that Sturgeon was an optimist. Dates back to the usenet days, but as true or truer than ever.)
Anyway, we’ll see what comes out of this thing. Here’s hoping for a 10% result…
Those who speak do not know; those who know do not speak.
Heh. My turn…
Whatever you say, Keith!
Seriously, you have to laugh at this stuff sometimes. Well, you don’t have to, but I highly recommend it.
Keith – You are mostly right but the truth is always a little complicated. To cite one major example, COTS went a long way to support SpaceX’s development (and even survival) in its early years. I don’t have the details of who, if anyone, in the policy and advocacy community pushed COTS, but I would view that as having a major effect on space capabilities.
Hopefully it will not turn out to be another NASA/DARPA fiasco like the 100 Year Starship. They can have any meeting they want, as long as my tax dollars are not subsidizing it.
I went to that meeting – and you are right it was a fiasco – albeit one with the best of intentions.
Curious comment. I went to the one a few years ago in Orlando- and had the opportunity to (briefly) meet our amiable host, laden with gear– and found the program invigorating, with interesting thinking on the topic at hand. Speakers were very smart, thoughtful people, all well-known in the community.
To each his own, I guess.
I did not say it was uninteresting – just that its stated intent i.e. to spur the development of a mission fizzled.
OK, Keith, point taken. I would only say that the subject at hand at this particular conference- how to get to the stars- is so far in the future that advance thinking is necessarily quite general. And generally necessarily.
The one in Orlando was partially populated by SF fans- and writers, some with impressive credentials. The work of the Benford brothers on sails powered by microwaves, as a single example, is essential early work. Mostly, though, presentations were by very smart and thoughtful thinkers and scientists. Anyone interested in the subject of access to the deeper regions of the solar system as well as to nearby stars would want to check out http://www.centauri-dreams.org, where Paul Gilster does a thoughtful review of current, related research 4 or 5 times a week.
Plus, it’s fun to dream 🙂
I went to the first one they had in Houston, Texas and it was populated by science fiction fans who wanted to immediately go to a hydrogen economy, etc. The discussions that I went to, and the panels that I participated in, were totally unrealistic. I mentioned commercial space and most people dismissed it out of hand. It appeared to be a very expensive fan club meeting. I just wanted to make sure that my taxes did not go to pay for anything else like that.
Anybody want to admit that they are attending??
Man, it’s hard to take these seriously when you just know they’ll do another when the time comes to actually change space policy.
My question is whether the results will be shared, or whether they’re VIP-only as well.
From what the word is, the summit came from outside of the beltway and is designed for decision makers who usually dont talk to each other. This explains why you cant register and why no reporters (like you Keith) are invited into the room. It only makes sense – and actually gives me hope this one might be on track to do something important. Too often people just pose and make speeches. Without media in the room they might actually talk. Two days is enough to begin a new dialogue.
Why not give these folks a chance to try something? Just because you cant get in is not a reason to trash it.
Actually I do not think i’d be able to attend if I was invited. That’s not the point. Its the cloistered, hand-picked aspect of this that has me scratching my head. Where is AIAA? AIA? AAS? AAAS? Planetary Society? Mars Society? Why is a new Administration going to listen to the opinions of one portion of the space community – and not the remainder?
Don’t forget The Moon Society. We’re out there doing stuff as well.
Exactly. Yet the Heinlein Society is there and they do …. what?
To be fair, the Heinlein Prize Trust has come up to Dallas the last couple of years for Moon Day, bringing spacesuits with them that we’ve incorporated into our Girl Scout STEM program (where the girls do a compare/contrast exercise with the museum’s Apollo suit). I do have to give them props for that.
To be honest, Ken, the actual decision makers here in Washington rarely pay attention to ANY space group about ANYTHING. When they do pay attention (for their own short term purposes) its AIAA, AIA, AAS, sometimes Planetary Society who get heard. But hearing is not the same as listening. Otherwise the space advocacy community and its little factions, as currently organized, are just part of the background noise. This latest effort is not going to change that. BUT if the organizers did truly want to represent that interests of all space groups then they need to involve all space groups – not just some.
THAT is a lot of letters .. grins
for those not familier:
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA)
American Astronautical Society (AAS)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Explore SPACE Forum 2015
What to Expect
â—¦Almost 1,000 participants from more than 300 institutions in 20 countries.
â—¦More than 400 papers reporting on the latest innovations in space technology, exploration, and operations.
â—¦ITAR sessions reporting on timely, innovative ideas and progress.
â—¦A technology-driven exposition.
______________
Keith will you be attending this last event in Aug/sept?
Mr. Musk’s plan, admirable as it is (and exciting as well) is not necessarily the best way forward for the country, I would add.
In my opinion the goal of going to Mars is a mistake. However, the technology SpaceX is creating has wide applicability. The most interesting aspect of SpaceX technology is that it is post cold war and as such does not carry the legacy of being overly expensive as a goal and by design.
Lol, hey, we weren’t invited either…
I am beginning to think that quality people were deliberately not included, Andy 😉