In all the debate over who has the best plan for NASA, I think something important has been lost.  Right now, I think destinations and architectures aren’t as important as articulating a coherent vision for a space program relevant to America’s needs and values.

Given the shock that has accompanied the pending Shuttle retirement, the continuation of a Space Station that I doubt most Americans know exists, and the proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program (that I think even fewer Americans really knew about), I think it’s clear that we haven’t done that.  Instead, we have people arguing back and forth over what largely amount to platitudes.  I hear friends and colleagues, who are understandably disenchanted with the political process, wishing aloud that the government would just give us the money to go do what we want and leave us alone.

That’s never going to happen, of course.  Whether civil servant or contractor, all of us involved in NASA’s human space flight endeavors are stewards of the taxpayers’ money.  Members of Congress and the President are the duly elected representatives of those same taxpayers.  Between the Executive and Legislative branches of our political triad, policy is crafted, funded, and executed.  Human space flight is inherently tied to the political process and we fail to bridge the technical and policy worlds at our own peril.

There have been many strategies put forth to try to help NASA better navigate the winds of political change.  Most that I’ve seen propose some mechanism to make it more difficult for politicians to change course mid-stream.  The politicians control the purse strings, so that’s never going to happen, either.

I think the most effective strategy for NASA exists at a much more basic level.  It’s something I always kinda knew in the back of my head, but I didn’t really learn how to start explaining it better until I had the opportunity to serve on the Barrier Analysis Team for JSC’s Inclusion and Innovation Council.  Mark Craig, a NASA veteran and senior executive at SAIC, was one of the mentors for our team and I think I learned more from him than anyone else over that period.

If you keep up with OpenNASA, you’ll know that this isn’t the first time I’ve broached the subject.  I think NASA’s best defense is to design and pursue programs and strategies that are relevant because they contribute to solving America’s strategic problems.

On May 5th, I had the opportunity to listen to Mark discuss this topic in more detail.  He was gracious enough to let me share here on OpenNASA what I took away from his talk.

Since it was presented under the auspices of the JSC Storytelling program, Mark opened up by defining what a “story” is, according to his friend and colleague, Bob Rogers.  A story is ” a deeper level of truth by which we explain the world and our place in it to ourselves.”  (Note: Ask yourself how you explain, honestly, the world and your place in it.  How do you relate that story to other people? We’ll come back to that.)

Mark also explained that he sees relevance as having two parts.  There is the “why” and the “value.”  “Why Relevance” explains our reason for being.  It tells us where we go and what we do.  Mark offered the statements of the Augustine Committee and John Marburger, OSTP Director under President Bush, as examples.  The Augustine Committee said we go into space to expand the human presence in the Solar System, while Marburger stated that our goal was “to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.”

These statements aren’t necessarily contradictory, but they illustrate different perspectives on the “why” that must be taken into account.

“Value relevance” is defined by Mark as a “critical mass” of benefit delivered to a “critical mass” of stakeholders.  This recognizes that you probably can’t please everyone, but you can and should satisfy enough of your stakeholders to press on.  This form of relevance must actually be experienced by the stakeholders, though.  We can’t just go do something that we think is great and, then, try to sell it to everyone else. Value relevance is fostered through a continual process of research (identify what is important to your stakeholders), creation (make something that meets their needs), delivery (make sure they get it), and self-improvement (evaluate how well you did the last iteration).

This is not just a communications problem.  We’ve labored under the assumption for far too long that we don’t do a good enough job “selling” the space program to the public.  Mark rightly points out that this process of creating value relevance must be built into architectures and designs early on.  The research part is key because we have to meet other people where they are to effectively engage them, both on a technical and emotional level.  One commenter in the audience noted that, in the business world she came from, you have to know your audience or you will fail.

Mark also had a few recommendations and “Red Flags” for us to consider.  First, he advocates the creation of an external guidance and accountability function, similar to the Decadal Survey process, for human space flight.  Having an external group of “thought leaders” in science, industry, art, and culture would provide the outside perspective that we in the human space flight community lack.  This would help keep us from drinking our own bathwater.

NASA would also need its own value management system to engage external marketing experts, employ industry best practices in value management, and document the structure in NASA processes.  This gets back to the point about needing to build value relevance into our system early on.

From his experience as a NASA veteran and consultant to museums, Mark also suggested some areas where we could make a real impact.  For example, the movie Apollo 13 was compelling because it showed, in detail, what the people went through.  NASA TV’s view of Mission Control, by comparison, looks like a security camera.  We have experiences and emotions to share with the public.  Why don’t we?

Mark also believes that we could be doing more in the area of medical research for the benefit of people here on Earth.  My personal opinion is that we have a similar opportunity in the area of energy.  American-owned and operated powersats and miniaturized, passively-safe nuclear power could revolutionize both industry and space exploration while giving us avenues to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Changing our approach to how we build and conduct the space program doesn’t just involve top-down management, though.  Mark also identified what he called “red flags” for us to push back against when we see them.

1. Don’t just assume change is happening.  Ask how programs are being shaped to bring it about.  Who is in charge? What is the funding and where does it come from?
2. Ask how something improves sustainability. Changing a vehicle, destination, or program isn’t enough.
3. In regards to outreach, are we just showing up? Or are we deliberate and thoughtful in our approach so that we listen to what the people we are reaching out to are saying?
4. “We just need to explain it better.”  Be careful.  It’s a trap to convince ourselves our original idea is right.
5. “Congress is our customer.”  Be careful.  It’s a trap to blame our missteps on politics.
6. “The public is our customer.” Be careful.  It’s a trap to abrogate accountability because it’s too nebulous.
7. “Marketing is illegal.” No, it isn’t. Lobbying and advertising are, but those aren’t all there is to marketing.

I agree with Mark’s argument that we can build human space flight into the fabric of society, if we can build relevance and accountability into the human space flight program.  We just have to remember that this is relevance that is researched, understood, and delivered; not just assumed.

So, with that in mind, I ask you to consider the following questions.

What is the compelling story for the human space program?

How can we make it relevant to America’s needs and values?

How you can be a part of changing the narrative?