Why Space? (aka "get a new PR department NASA")

Earthrise. December 24, 1968.


A few years ago, Elon Musk, stood before Congress and pointed out that the powerful dream and institution that once committed roughly two to four cents out of every U.S. tax dollar, employed up to 409,000 workers, and succeeded in having American's land on the moon was dying.

His reason? Normal people couldn't afford to make it into space.

Well, no disrespect to Mr. Musk, but I'm not sure that's the real reason. In fact, given that a lot of American's (like myself) are afraid of heights, I doubt many of us want to go into space-- even if we could afford it. Heck, I suspect the whole operation of getting people up there (even if it was cheap) would be highly unpleasant. It's cold (something every Californian fears), I hear there are no coffee shops (something every researcher needs), and I don't like how those white suits make my butt look (something every women is secretly thinking about).

Basically, I think Musk is assuming a lot by saying "every" American wants to go to space. However, he has a point in saying that the space program is in decline. It is a well-known fact that America's prominence in space is under siege. The signs are everywhere: decreased federal spending to NASA (NASA's current budget is little over 1/2 of what the budget was during the NASA's 1966 Apollo peak--in current dollars and utterly incomparable to what American's currently spend on pizza). The prolonged layoff of our current shuttle fleet (How's this for some Cold-War irony? If the US wants a ride to the space station we helped build, we are going to have to hitchhike with the Russians. ::insert one big Werner von Braun laugh here::). Continued project delays, China and India's new breakthroughs...add it all up, and it spells one, big, clear message: "Houston, we failed".

But, is the reason this is all happening because the U.S. public has stopped dreaming of space? Or is this (very real) disinterest tied to something else? Is it just a symptom of the cause? Is the incomprehensible cost and feat of taking an ordinary American to space, doing what Musk suggests: stifling our dreams and stopped us from striving?

My answer is no. I think American's are very interested and inspired by space exploration and space related technology. For evidence, look at how the most classic story of space exploration--Star Trek--did in the movie theaters this year (fyi, it was the 8th highest-grossing film of 2009).

Still not convinced? Okay. Think those dollars reflect more about Chris Pine's 'stumble-and-grin' line delivery then how the nation feels about space exploration? Fair enough. I'd really like to cite the rave reviews of Hubble 3-D in Imax as further case-and-point to this argument...however, that won't be released till next year. So, in lacking better evidence, I'll just google up some recent headlines, like:

1) The MIT kids who launched a $150.00 space balloon...

2) ...and the IOS's work to create an 8,000 launch price for personal satellites...

3) ...and Bolonkin's idea for a High G-force Magnetic Space Launcher (think: big techno slingshot in the middle of somewhere large and remote...like that space between George W's ears....how freaking cool is that)?

For me, these are all prime examples of U.S. innovation currently taking place to feed our healthy and robust space interest. Because space exploration is cost-prohibitive, there are indeed a slew of students, private industries, and professors currently dedicating their lives to creating the next affordable taxi cab to Mars. Furthermore, because funding is bad, many of these people are performing these feats of brilliance for far less money then what the newest blond is making on the reality show "The Hills" -- which, to me, only emphasizes how dedicated these individuals are to making space a national priority.

However, what about the "other" folk? The folk without the PhD's, corporate funding, and MIT's resources? What about the "public opinion"? Why are there polls saying that space exploration isn't a public priority anymore and why is public opinion being held responsible for the recent reductions in federal research funds (because, as Abraham Lincoln once eloquently put it, “Public opinion in this country is everything”)?

Quite simply, I don't think the public clearly understands what space research is, how much it does (and is doing), and how important it's going to be for helping us tackle the pressing issues that trouble us here on Earth.

Maybe it is because NASA only get's 1% of the overall federal budget, but their PR engine is pretty bad. Atrociously bad in fact. Most people seem to associate NASA with rocket launching and space walks and are completely unaware of the numerous social benefits that NASA has contributed to. To emphasize this fact, in 2007, USA Today offered a list of the “Top 25 Scientific Breakthroughs” that occurred in it the past 25 years. Of these 25 breakthroughs, nine of these came from space, eight directly from NASA. Michael Griffin, on NASA's website, is quoted saying:

“We see the transformative effects of the Space Economy all around us through numerous technologies and life-saving capabilities. We see the Space Economy in the lives saved when advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient’s heart….We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea.”

As a remote sensing specialist, I cannot agree with Michael more. I personally "see" the effects of space travel all around me. It is heart and soul of my own life, and with me in (almost) all of my cartographic work. In fact, I still remember the moment, when looking at the Earthrise photo in my first GIS textbook, when I realized that Armstrong's walk might have been a cool journey, but his photos were the real discovery.

Thanks to space technology, I am able to map our planet and it's inhabitants in a manner that would've never been possible had we kept our feet (and funding) on Earth. By doing this I am able to generate information and insight that not only creates cool maps, but serves the U.S. by providing cheap, critical, and strategic information about key public interests which (unlike space exploration) did happen to make the 'priority' list (such as defense, clean energy, environmental concerns, economic development...just to name a few).

Thanks to space technology, I also don't need to be in space to perform this job either. Which is good, because I still don't think I want to go.

Which brings me to my point. Considering that everytime a United States citizen sleeps on a Tempur-Pedic bed, or contemplates neurosurgery, or answers their cell phone...we are experiencing a benefit that we can thank NASA for, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say NASA just needs a new PR department. Not a special discount on space tickets.

I mean, really Mr. Musk, with all the things NASA has done on Earth, why do any of us need to leave the neighborhood to see the local improvements? The value of exploring space is all around us, just as the dream is clearly alive in every sci-fi movie, book, and game we have in circulation.

The only thing missing here, Mr. Musk, is the "Courtesy of NASA" stamp.

Remote, sick, and employment

Montage of madness is the only way to describe my current events...

Ben was hit hard by a plague/cold/kiss of death last week, which inevitably decided to take turns with me this week. Not the best of timing, as I had some hardcore job interviews lined up. Should've expected that though. Doesn't it seem only like my classic good-luck that I would come down with this plague right when I resume my ever-eventful search for that next post-grad step? Naturally.

Anyways, I (definitely) know I'm better off then some in this economy. Having said that, I definitely won't resort to whining about my current career prospects (especially since I do currently have a steady, if not well-paying, gig...with the much needed at the moment health-insurance) . However, I must admit it's hard to sum up where I feel like I fit in (career-wise) at this point. I hold a Master's in Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, but my interests and training go very beyond the job offerings of those fields. So, honestly, as I sit here punching away at my C.V. trying to define and redefine that "career objective", the next step is very unclear and ambiguous to me.

I think, the heart of my problem here is what I studied and how I studied it. To be specific, I spent a healthy bulk of my time in grad school learning and perfecting my remote sensing skills. I liked what I learned about the field, and definitely would like to carry it over to industry if I could (where I could learn more without going further into grad debt). However, unfortunately, most of the remote sensing positions I'm interested in are more leaning more towards candidates with hard-core programming experience (we are talking the C++ hard core coder engineers). This appears to be true even if they don't mention it in their recruiting ads. For example: a very interesting SF carbon start-up called Terra Global, seemed by their job description to fit me very well (ENVI experience? Check. Supervised and unsupervised land classification? Check Check. Biomass inventory and forestry work? CHECK!!!). In fact, I actually got a call back for an interview (EXCITEMENT!!)....but unfortunately, they hired someone before my interview turn came around (bummer.). I sent my usual "I understand, please keep me informed of opportunities, and P.S. how could I improve to meet your needs(?)", and got a very polite letter from the managing director explaining that though I definitely had a strong developing remote sensing skill set, I still lacked the hard languages background and programming experience he thought were necessary (also, he added, "was I interested in consulting offers(?)").

And so the story goes....

I'd definitely be lying if I didn't say that I felt like my minimal programming experience was a weakness of mine, and a hinderance in getting into the hard core remote sensing stuff. Both my geography and (definitely) my environmental planning background did not place any sort of emphasis on programming talents. What I do know are mostly sub-languages like SQL and Visual Basic, (which are more handy for heavily-GUI'd packages like ESRI GIS and Microsoft Access)...and those skills I mostly picked up from doing database work.

Problem with remote sensing is that it is a very hard skill set to develop outside of very elite academic institutions. The software is very cost prohibited (Definiens licenses can run 7500-10,000) . ENVI isn't much better (4,000-6,000). Even with educational discounts, many institutions just find it too darn expensive to provide for their students. Also, there is the instructor problem. The few professors with the professional aptitude and intellectual interest for teaching remote sensing (i.e. which, I find, requires an unusual combo of atmospheric physics, geostatistics, computer science, and geospatial training) rarely, if ever, have the technical programming aspects down. That particular widget of info is delegated to either a T.A. (recruited, most likely, from a department outside of Geography and Planning... usually in the electrical engineering/computer science ranks)...or just ignored all together. As a result, many remote sensing classes are more entrenched in teaching the "statisticals and the theoreticals" of the field, rather then practicing with the latest software and learning the necessary computational techniques (as I personally found to be the case with my earliest remote sensing classes at Berkeley...which is why I started taking classes at Davis later in the game).

At the end of the day, I think my only option for really boosting my resume to offer the remote sensing skills that company's (like Terra Global) require is going back to grad school. Not just any grad school either, but an "elite" program, like UCSB Geography or UC Davis. I can't say the prospect of doing that really thrills me at the moment...especially since I'm so exhausted after jumping through the hoops at my last program. However, in my (at this point, very real,) feverish delirium of where my career is pointing me, I am becoming very aware of something I wasn't aware of before I applied for that legendary master's of landscape architecture and environmental planning.

This summer, while en-route to new career paths, I've been taking the time to talk to some like-minded undergrads who want to transition their theoretical geographical background into a landscape architecture or environmental planning career. This of course makes sense for them to do, since the program that I just jumped hoops through was a Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning program (and ranked #2 or #3 last time I heard), and well...it (*seems) like I'm actually currently employed in it (I say 'seems' because I think my actual workload has transcended the limits of the typical architecture & planning education several times).

I've got to admit, just by looking for jobs, you begin to realize that Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning are very broad (and sometimes, very separate) fields. There are also many career paths in them. However, one common theme I'm struck by (as I am busy scouting the job market and advising new recruits) is how many environmental planning and landscape management firms are really starting to thinking about the "big" picture. The scale and the scope of the assignments out there have grown. People are not turning to landscape architects and environmental planners to ask how to best plant their garden, or manage their local creek. They are now turning to landscape architects and environmental planners to ask how to stop global warming, or fix the multitude of ailments of entire watersheds.

I feel like my graduate program openly embraced these large scale questions, but did not have many classes addressing what tools are necessary and how to work at such a comprehensive and holistic scale. GIS, CAD and hand drawing were the typical 'tools-of-trade' taught in my program. Remote sensing was entirely ignored by the students and the professors...and anyone interested in it (like me) had to go far outside of the department to find the training and resources. CAD and hand-drawings, only really useful for fine-scale design rather then large scale analysis, left GIS as the only pathway for understanding these large scale questions. Frankly, I think that's a bad thing. GIS data is progressively moving further away from being files captured by ground-based instruments (i.e. GPS, weather/water gauges, etc) and more closely to being files generated by large-scale models and from high-resolution imagery. This is not to say that there isn't a place or use for ground-based data (definitely, it is necessary to have it to be capable of validating accuracy in all image and model dependent data), it's just to say that more and more the vector and raster layers we use in GIS are somehow tied to a science that most landscape architects and environmental planners have no training or familiarity with.

GIS, for all it's merits, can be an exceptionally dangerous thing in the hands of the ill-informed. With the plethora of (mostly free) data out there, it's all too easy to add a bunch of data layers and make pretty maps of large scale phenomenon that really have no basis in logic or reality. With the multitude of pressures my colleagues face (from development deadlines, to permitting applications, to the competitive bid processes), I see too much of this "pretty map making" and very little logical thought process behind the "map making". The emphasis almost always seems to be placed on making the map look "good" as oppose to making it make sense.

A wise-teacher once told me that the methodology of properly adding, modifying, and modeling GIS layers is intrinsically dependent on how the information was gathered, by what source, and for what purpose. Since much of this large-scale GIS information is now coming to 'us' (i.e. landscape architects and environmental planners) via satellite feed and computer simulations, it's important for us to be able to interpret how these remote process work and what laws they obey. You simply can't learn that by blithely adding GIS output data layers at your whimsy till they assemble the pretty patterns of your mind. It's just utter ignorance to do such, and raging stupidity to present such information under the deceiving visual guise of a "fact-based" map.

I can definitely respect landscape architects and environmental planners for the scale and scope of their vision....but unless their information comes to me in the form of a clear, methods based, map product...I have little hope that their information will actually accomplish large-scale change or actually answer the large-scale issues they endeavor to address.

So, to all the new landscape and planning recruits with big-lollipop dreams of solving the next global crisis, I find I'm leaving them with this advice (advice, that I dearly hope all the wall street investors are taking into account these days): diversify yourself. Take the time outside your program to learn the source and makings of your data. Venture out of that GIS box, and meet up with the raw source, data, and code. Yeah, it's tricky...and it sure isn't what they are advising you to do right now in your program, but trust me, it will make you think better. Even with 3 years of remote sensing training under my belt, I truly believe I understand the logic (and deception) of geospatial maps better then ever before. As a result I also believe I understand the large-scale issues and their influences better then before.

Of course, there is a lot for even me to still learn (which takes us back to the top). Ideally, I'd hope to learn this on the job, but realistically, it might not be possible without further education. However, at the moment, I'm going to keep plodding (or wandering...depending on which day of the week it is) on this subject...because someday, I believe, my ability to know the source of the problem will enable me to make a earnest attempt in solving it.

::steps off puplit and heads to the sneezing room for more sudafed:::