February 23, 2011
Vision statements for non-Visionaries
Editing needed to accommodate the new "vision" statement
A seemingly trivial event has revealed some schadenfreude about NASA, along with a lot of irritation. Apparently (as is their wont) the fertile minds running our national space agency decided that the time has come (once again) for a new and improved vision statement – out with the old and in with something new. These would be harmless exercises except to the extent that taxpayer money is being spent to no real purpose (but if I got into that, there’d be no end to this post).
I want to specifically address the newest agency vision statement. It reads: “To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.” Beyond being generous, well meaning and philanthropic, what new vision can be found here? Should we not “reach for new heights”? Isn’t the job of an agency devoted to exploration to “reveal the unknown”? And why not do all this “for the benefit of all humankind?” The first order of any lunar return must certainly be to replace that ill-conceived plaque that’s already there – “We came in peace for all mankind.” Actually, “all kind” has a certain ring about it – perhaps on the next go-around.
I could vent my spleen about the utterly vacuous nature of the new slogan. I could point out that nothing in it requires NASA (or any other entity) to actually conduct missions into space, or in fact, to do anything at all. I could find many who, like me, understand that this new slogan reflects the fact that the agency understands that it has no real mission and has employed a wordsmith to design the appropriate phrasing for such a situation.
I have written previously about the management fads that periodically sweep through the agency – the alphabet soup of TQM to Earned Value to Continuous Improvement. American industrial life is awash with self-help management cults that variously are employed to convince agency personnel they really need to become managers because NASA needs more people to manage meetings and seminars about all of the wonderful things they are going to do in space. NASA is most certainly not immune to this tendency and indeed often among the first to embrace new management fads as soon they come out of the box.
What does this say about the state of our national space program? As a longtime student and participant of many things NASA, I feel uncomfortable saying it’s because no one in charge of the agency can say (or cares to say) why we have a space program or what its mission is — or what they would do if they had one. This is not to say that there aren’t good reasons for a space program or that there aren’t people who work for NASA who do in fact know what they are trying to do. I believe that NASA dropped the ball in implementing the Vision for Space Exploration because they never took the trouble to understand exactly what it meant – that they forgot about what having a vision means beyond the obvious articulation of some destination. Clearly, you cannot see a way forward to implement what you do not understand.
Twenty years ago, NASA got a new administrator, someone who (it was fervently hoped) would breathe new life into the moribund organization. Daniel Goldin was a “take charge” guy, someone who had been successful in the commercial and defense space sector at TRW. Goldin came to NASA ready to shake things up – he reinstated NASA’s classic Technicolor “meatball” logo and claimed to want to hear all opinions. I was invited to a “Meet the New Administrator” meeting soon after he took office. During the meeting, he was thoughtful and listened carefully while about a dozen of us from a variety of backgrounds kicked around some ideas about the mission of NASA. Then, in the middle of this all-day brainstorming session, he suddenly excused himself and left. He returned a bit later, breathless and with great excitement, announced to us: “I’ve just spent the last 2 hours with Carl Sagan!”
Uh-oh. I knew what that meant. The new “mission” of NASA was to be a “Quest for Life.” And sure enough, searching for life became the mantra of NASA’s mission under Dan Goldin. But by making “the search for life” their mission, NASA faced a problem – if they didn’t find it, their mission could be considered a failure. So, in order to survive the new “mission,” the Quest for Life gradually morphed into the search for water (on Mars). After all, water is required for life. So the mission objective mutated from a long-shot miracle to something reasonably certain. It fit. No one would be seen as not fulfilling NASA’s mission and they could continue to look for water on Mars and dream of discovering new life.
Anyway, as I said, vision statements come and go. No doubt the new one will last about as long as the current occupants of NASA Headquarters.
Oh, what was my brilliant suggestion for a “vision statement,” you ask?
“To explore the universe with people and machines.”
Succinct – to the point – all-inclusive.
But what do I know?
33 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
“Extract fuel on the Moon; raise children on Mars?”
Comment by Bill White — February 23, 2011 @ 4:51 pm
I hate to admit I cringed inside when I read the new vision statement. It doesn’t mention anything about exploring the universe or becoming a multi-planet species. In fact, removed from the context of NASA I can’t see how anyone would associate it _with_ NASA. At least I rest assured that vision statements come and go – it’s more about the devotion that all of us feel in what we are doing to explore the universe and to become a multi-planet species that makes the real difference.
Comment by Joe Williams — February 23, 2011 @ 7:23 pm
Oh, what was my brilliant suggestion for a “vision statement,” you ask?
“To explore the universe with people and machines.”
I really like your vision statement, Paul.
Comment by Rick Boozer — February 23, 2011 @ 7:33 pm
NASA’s new vision statement… Bolden and Garver at their best.
Comment by Jim R. — February 23, 2011 @ 7:43 pm
“To explore the universe with people and machines.”
Succinct, to the point, all-inclusive, but grotesquely ill-defined. You see, “exploration” is different things to different people. In many respects, these different things can be contradictory. NASA has hijacked the word “exploration” to mean human space flight identically. So although you carefully add “machines” to your quest, we all know what you mean. I think.
In fact, machines don’t explore anything. It’s the people who run them that do. Machines don’t see, hear, or discover. Is that hard to understand? Machines are tools for exploration that allow people to explore, wherever those people might be. Yep, perhaps even sitting at a desk in Pasadena. Machines extend our senses to other places. OK, you said we’d explore WITH machines. I get it.
But then explore the universe WITH people? How quaint. Who or what uses people to do the exploration? Who’s pulling our strings?
Explore the “universe”? Whose universe might that be? Ah yes, the physical universe. The big one. You know, with stars and rocks. But our universe contains the Earth, and geologists, geochemists, and meteorologists might look for a way in. Hmmm. Biologists too. People and animals are part of that universe. All living creatures. Might be a tall order for NASA, no?
Let’s get back to “exploration”. Whatever it is. Is it important? Is it good? Will it “benefit all mankind? Oops. Can’t say that. I guess it has to be presumed that whatever exploration is declared to be, it’s a great thing. Hey, that was easy!
I think that vision statements are a bit stupid. Someone thinks we should have them, but to have long arguments about what they should or should not be, or do surveys about who likes or doesn’t like them, is daffy. They’re just a handful of words. Such arguments just avoid the hard part, which is taking those few words and building something meaningful around them. The blather we’re hearing about this new NASA vision statement is just escapism. It’s easier than building something meaningful.
What do you know, you ask? Good question. Your eight words sure didn’t tell me.
Comment by Herman Swift — February 23, 2011 @ 9:08 pm
Paul, I think your statement is far better than NASA’s. I would rather it be clear on where we’re headed than use soaring language which leaves one scratching their head.
However, I would modify it with one critical element:
“To explore and develop the universe with people and machines.”
NASA’s mission statement should be clearly understood by the public. The public (nor most dictionaries for that matter) do not include the concept of development in their understanding of the term “exploration”. Yet we need NASA to permanently open space by helping with the establishment of the exploitation of space-based resources starting with a Lunar Ice To LEO (LITL) system.
Certainly, commercial ventures will eventually develop space. But NASA should help get thongs started. So, my mission statement for NASA would be:
“To pioneer the exploration and development of space using machines and people.”
Comment by JohnHunt — February 24, 2011 @ 12:29 am
Herman,
Let’s get back to “exploration”. Whatever it is
I give my definition here:
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/01/have-we-forgotten-what-exploration-means/
In broad terms, I agree that vision statements are a waste of time. But if you’re going to make the effort to create one, it should have some meaning and relation to what your organization ostensibly does.
What do you know, you ask? Good question. Your eight words sure didn’t tell me.
Weren’t meant to. But feel free to go back and read my previous 79 posts and maybe you’ll get a rough notion.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 24, 2011 @ 3:44 am
John,
Your statement is a good one, I think, and I can certainly subscribe to it.
I do not include “development” for two main reasons: 1) I think that learning how to develop space is already included in the word “exploration.” Traditionally, exploration includes the enabling of wealth creation and settlement. 2) Development of space arguably is not something that government should do in any event. If you include it in the concept of “exploration” as I mention above, the issue never comes up.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 24, 2011 @ 3:48 am
How about “utilize” rather than “develop”?
That would cover Earth observation (which, it could be argued should be SEP, but is not at the moment), as well as pioneering resource utilization, habitation, and technology development.
Comment by bill — February 24, 2011 @ 8:28 am
wow.
were you having a bad day when you wrote this.
your article is totally negative.
as one who has participated in the space program since 1957, helped build the atlas rocket that put john glenn in orbit, and with centaur, sent spacecraft to all the planets and beyond, helped design the space shuttle, and more, i can attest to the greatness of nasa and industry in achieving the most significant technological accomplishments in human history.
while america has seemed to have lost it’s way (in a lot of things) it is not the fault of nasa or its workers.
give them the accolades that they deserve.
and next time instead of criticizing, suggest ways to solve problems.
we need ideas, not empty words.
Comment by bill ketchum — February 24, 2011 @ 8:41 am
bill ketchum,
Did you actually read what I wrote? Or did you just react to it?
Back in 1957 (and in 1962, when John Glenn orbited the Earth), did highly paid agency managers sit around for days, hammering out meaningless “mission statements”? Or did they get on with what they were supposed to be doing?
and next time instead of criticizing, suggest ways to solve problems.
I have been doing exactly that for the last 2 years on this blog. Next time, instead of criticizing, try reading what’s already been written.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 24, 2011 @ 9:13 am
paul.
you are right about the beginning, when we were reacting to the russian launch of sputnik, 7 months after i started work with general dynamics convair astronautics as a newly graduated engineer on the atlas rocket.
while we young (i was just 21) and inexperienced engineers were turned loose to design and build and launch the atlas, some others in your area of expertise as a writer, editor, publisher, were busy writing vision statements, and some were really good, and helped get our message out, to explore space, “the new frontier” as president kennedy later put it.
and i will read your previous blogs if you direct me to them.
Comment by bill ketchum — February 24, 2011 @ 9:38 am
Bill Ketchum,
There is a pull-down box on the right column below the list “Blogroll” called “Archives.” You can jump directly to the posts of any of the previous months.
By the way, writer/publisher/editor is not “my area of expertise.” I do this as a sideline. You can read what I’ve done here:
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Resume/Resume%202006.htm
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 24, 2011 @ 9:51 am
paul.
i will read your previous blogs and get back to you.
your resume is very impressive.
congratulations on you accomplishments, and for trying to “keep the dream alive”.
if you give me your e-mail address i will send you my resume if you wish to see it (USC graduate, MS, aerospace engineer, aiaa associate fellow, 35 years with general dynamics, u.s. army ordnance and missile command, numerous publications, public speaker on “the history of rockets and spaceflight”, lecturer at UCSD (osher institute), and now building my “personalspaceplane”, etc.
Comment by bill ketchum — February 24, 2011 @ 10:12 am
I have a “better” mission statement: To explore the wonders of the universe and expand human civilization off world.
This is what I think China is trying to do. Perhaps it’s something we should consider doing as well?
Comment by Darnell Clayton — February 24, 2011 @ 12:23 pm
I believe that NASA’s vision statement should be:
1. To continue helping to advance space and aerospace technology for both government and private commercial use
2. To help private industry in America to develop their own independent private commercial manned and unmanned space programs with the goal that these companies will eventually be financially– independent– of tax payer dollars and government contracts for their commercial viability
3. To continue NASA’s manned and unmanned exploration of the solar system and the telescopic exploration of the rest of the universe
4. To develop and test technologies to exploit the natural resources of the solar system for both government and private commercial use and to protect humans and the Earth’s environment from potential harm from natural extraterrestrial phenomena
and, finally,
5. To establish a permanent and self sustaining human presence within cis-lunar space and eventually throughout the the solar system, starting immediately with a permanently manned lunar facility at one of the lunar poles, in order to begin to pave the way for the private commercialization and the eventual colonization of the rest of the solar system.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — February 24, 2011 @ 2:41 pm
I still think that by far the best “vision statement” for NASA would be:
“To boldly go where no one has gone before”
Yes, someone else may have thought of it first, but the taxpaying public has instant recognition of and (hopefully) resonance with this statement.
Comment by Lewis Van Atta — February 24, 2011 @ 6:01 pm
LEWIS VAN ATTA GOT IT RIGHT ON TARGET.
A HUMAN MISSION TO THE ASTEROIDS OF MARS (PHOBOS, DEIMOS) IS WITHIN NASA’S CAPABILITIES NOW AND CAN OCCUR WITHIN THE NEXT 5-10 YEARS IF OBAMA AND CONGRESS DECREES IT SO.
Comment by bill ketchum — February 24, 2011 @ 8:24 pm
I hate to be the pessimist here … but it doesn’t matter. Arguing about the mission/vision statement is like debating how to rearrange the deck chairs while the ship is sinking.
I’ve pretty much given up on NASA. Heck, they even cut NASA’s budge to pay for some policemen. I’ve been giving this some thought recently and in the next day or two I’ll post a blog that I’m working on. It’s time to move the game to different level … or change it.
Comment by LoboSolo — February 24, 2011 @ 10:56 pm
Paul,
Nice article, good statement. Mine’s a little smaller and more personal.
“Going to live and work on the Moon–and taking my robots with me!”
Comment by John Bowen — February 25, 2011 @ 2:35 pm
@Bill Ketchum
Where are we going to get the several hundred tonnes of mass shielding needed to protect astronaut’s brains from getting fried in interplanetary space? One third of human brain cells would be hit by heavy nuclei in just six months during an interplanetary journey without extremely heavy shielding. And where are we going to get the thousands of tonnes of fuel to move that kind of mass from Earth orbit to Mars orbit (or an asteroid)— and back?
A manned mission to Mars or even to an asteroid is going to be far more expensive than setting up a Moon base. Plus a Moon base could eventually pay for itself with the Moon’s natural hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen resources and as a nearby commercial destination for space tourism.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — February 26, 2011 @ 11:26 am
marcel.
your points are well taken.
but advanced propulsion systems will permit faster transfer times to mars in as little as 30 days.
such engines were developed and tested many years ago and since then have been greatly improved.
in fact i worked on advanced thermal engines on the classified “timberwind” project several years ago.
more recent work on plasma engines (Diaz) also looks promising.
each depend on nuclear power systems which have now reached a state of development where the reactors are completely inert until started up, which will occur only in space.
i have even held the element materials in my hand with no adverse effect.
as for a moon base, that will happen some day, but by the private sector, to exploit the moon’s resources.
it is not nasa’s purpose to do that.
as lewis said, “to boldly go where no one has gone before” is nasa’s purpose, and always has been.
it seems to me that asteroids and mars are the next logical step for nasa.
russia and china are planning to do it.
so, lets get on with it.
Comment by bill ketchum — February 27, 2011 @ 12:16 am
> I’ve pretty much given up on NASA.
LoboSolo, I think a lot of us are frustrated with what could have been. But I think that you are probably focused on the HSF part of NASA’s mission. And yet, even in that department, recently NASA has spent money in the fairly widely praised approach of COTS. I would encourage you not to give up on NASA completely especially if they could be convinced to take it to the next logical step such as a Lunar “COTS”.
Bill, I agree that an asteroid mission is probably doable (though Marcel’s comments are noted). Yet I think that putting such resources in that direction would be yet another lengthy and costly diversion in that such a mission would not yield much in the way of sustainability. I suggest that we prioritize the development of a LEO fuel depot system first (such as a Lunar Ice to LEO) system. Once that is established, everything else becomes so much more doable and in greater frequency and size.
Paul, the issue that I have with the term “exploration” including an aspect of “development” is that this is only (arguably) defined as such “traditionally”. As a practical matter, traditional definitions don’t matter. Current and especially common definitions are what matters. Please just ask common people what they think of by the term “space exploration”. More often than not they will only discuss scientific exploration or a manned footprint and flag exercise. But ask them what “pioneering the development of space” means and I think that you’ll get pretty close to what we’re talking about.
I don’t think that defining NASA’s mission is just an academic exercise. If the mission statement were such as we are talking about, NASA administrators and workers would realize that this meant a new direction and that the programs should be aligned with it. But just look at the direction that things went when the VSE was not clearly understood.
Comment by JohnHunt — February 27, 2011 @ 1:11 pm
@bill ketchum
I agree with you that future nuclear propulsion rocket systems could probably use a lot less fuel mass and could probably get us to Mars a lot faster. But even a 60 day round trip is too much– continuous exposure– of the human brain to heavy nuclei,IMO. Besides, it should be our long term goal not merely to visit these worlds but to also settle them. And we’re only going to be able to do that by properly shielding humans on places like the Moon and Mars and by also properly protecting the human brain during long journeys that take a few months or more.
But permanently living on these other worlds is probably going to mean pretty much living in doors in shielded facilities at least 95% of the time.
Mass shielding crewed interplanetary vehicles means that we’re going to have to transport payloads beyond cis-lunar space that weigh at least 500 to 2000 tonnes. And to move that kind of mass, we’re going to have to use light sails with at least a hundred square kilometers in reflective surface area or plasma rockets with significantly large nuclear power plants.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — February 27, 2011 @ 1:33 pm
john.
one of your points, a LEO fuel depot is one of the things that i worked on before i retired from GD.
along with space-based orbit transfer vehicles.
i still have my reports.
and i wrote an AIAA paper on this subject which was presented in houston a few years ago.
and aviation week published my letter on it a few years back.
i believe that this is one of the things that nasa is currently taking a new look at.
a free-flying robotic fuel (hydrogen/oxygen) depot in near proximity to the ISS has great potential for reducing costs of future lunar or asteroid/mars missions.
Comment by bill ketchum — February 27, 2011 @ 2:08 pm
JohnHunt,
ask common people what they think of by the term “space exploration”. More often than not they will only discuss scientific exploration or a manned footprint and flag exercise.
I don’t think that this is true at all. Ask someone to name “an explorer” and you’ll hear names like Columbus, Balboa, perhaps even Erik the Red. None of them were scientists nor “flags and footprints”-only types. They all expected practical wealth-creating benefits to result from their explorations. Besides, it’s not the “common people” that are the problem — it is the allegedly informed space intelligentsia that is the biggest stumbling block to progress, those who think they know but are, in fact, terminally clueless.
Pioneering and development is now and always has been part of exploration. If some don’t fully understand that, then I guess I’ll just make it my mission to correct the misinformation.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 27, 2011 @ 2:10 pm
Dear Paul,
You write. “The first order of any lunar return must certainly be to replace that ill-conceived plaque that’s already there – ‘We came in peace for all mankind.’”
Was it just the “all mankind” portion to which you objected, or do your objections to the statement go beyond that. I can’t say the lunar plaque is terrible. Uninteresting, perhaps, but I was curious to hear more about what you think of it.
HK Bob
Comment by HK Bob — February 28, 2011 @ 1:13 pm
HK Bob,
I wasn’t objecting to it at all. I was making an ironic comment on the politically correct use of the word “humankind” in the new vision statement.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 28, 2011 @ 1:23 pm
Marcel,
All five are good, but (for brevity) if you were to simply use number five:
“5. To establish a permanent and self sustaining human presence within cis-lunar space and eventually throughout the the solar system, starting immediately with a permanently manned lunar facility at one of the lunar poles, in order to begin to pave the way for the private commercialization and the eventual colonization of the rest of the solar system.”
It pretty much forces the other four to happen.
Comment by Joe — February 28, 2011 @ 2:45 pm
It’s kind of a pity that we’re even having this discussion. On a fundamental level, Marburger’s 2005(?) Goddard speech did a pretty good job of laying out the groundwork for a usable and actionable vision statement. Perhaps part of the problem is that to make a useful vision statement, there also have to be things you *don’t* do or address. NASA may not feel confident enough in itself to say that there are space-related things that are not in its purview.
Comment by HK Bob — February 28, 2011 @ 4:54 pm
HK Bob,
On a fundamental level, Marburger’s 2005(?) Goddard speech did a pretty good job of laying out the groundwork for a usable and actionable vision statement
I completely agree and have stated so on this blog many times. The problem is that NASA never embraced Marburger’s understanding of the Vision and hence, devised an Apollo-style architecture when a more modular, incremental one was called for.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 28, 2011 @ 6:10 pm
Marcel:
If we have to send 500-2000 tonnes of shielding mass for each manned expedition to Mars, then it will not happen – at least not until we develop warp drive, or some equally fantastic transportation device. (Solar sails would take forever to get that much mass to Mars.)
Fortunately, we don’t have to send anywhere near that much shielding. Robert Zubrin has calculated that the astronauts on a 2 1/2 year Mars round-trip would receive, on average, about 50 REM, from all sources, which is not enough to cause radiation sickness, even if received all at once. That assumes a reasonably well shielded “storm shelter” for solar flares, whose particles are relatively low energy (approx. 1 MEV) and are not very difficult to stop.
Comment by Dick Morris — March 3, 2011 @ 7:39 pm
I think we may be confusing “vision statement” and “mission statement”. My intense, three-minute research on Wikipedia tells me that a vision statement is a optimistic description of what a organization’s work will produce or lead to. A mission statement is about what the organization will actually do. I think that “To explore the universe with people and machines” is a mission statement, while “To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind” is a vision statement.” I don’t know if it’s the very best vision statement for NASA, but generically, I think it’s a vision statement, and not a mission statement that describes actual work.
Does NASA have a mission statement? Well, I just looked up their 2011 strategic plan, and there, next to the vision statement, is the mission statement: “Drive advances in science, technology, and exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of Earth.” Well, yours is more succinct, theirs is more specific. And, your complaint about the vision statement also applies here — there’s nothing about exploring space in its, just “expoloration” for “the stewardship of Earth”. But I think this is the statement that ties more directly to funding requests that politicians will be asked to approve.
Comment by Jim Meadows — March 19, 2011 @ 9:50 am