A Case for the 2010 Census, from a GIS perspective

Yesterday, I mailed in my first census.

For myself (and some of my housemates), I filled out 10 questions, regarding our ages and ethnicities, that the government is required by law (see US Constitution: Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) to ask me every ten years or so (notably, I am also "legally required"-- as a US resident--to answer these questions). Overall, I'm happy to report is was a positive experience. Beyond taking exactly 20 minutes to fill out (longer then average--but shorter then that Facebook quiz I took to find out whether whether my musical choices made me an 'Emo' or a 'Hick'), I learned how to spell my Filipino roommate's last name, and I feel like I significantly contributed to the future of my community (...no really, I feel like I did just that).

This marks one of the few cases of my adult life that I was actually happy to oblige the government with what it was asking of me (I doubt I'll feel the same towards the IRS on the 15th, but that's another story). In fact, I was so eager to help my government, I scrounged 1.75 from my broke self (thanks again IRS) to encapsulate and mail the thing (First Class) to the National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana (yes, I lost the paid-postage envelope that came with the form). I do not--in ANYWAY--have second thoughts about supporting the 2010 US Census.

...however, there are some among us whom apparently do.

In February, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that nearly 1 in 5 people were not willing to fill out the Census (notably: 1/4th of those 'no' responses said their refusal was due to "distrust of government or concerns about privacy".) In web surfing, I uncovered a lot of evidence that corresponded with the poll's findings. Just by goggling the words "scared" and "Census" and "2010", I wandered across a whole lot of forum posts and news sources (note: if you consider Fox.com a real "news" source) dedicated to voicing doubts, fears-- and even anger--at the 2010 Census and the Government's (alleged) intents with collecting the data. Among some of the most note-worthy comments were:

I will not fill in names or ages of my children. The last thing i want is some pedophile working for the census bureau having my address and the choice of ages that he likes. Yes, I have a tinfoil hat, no, I don't care that people think I'm crazy.

...Why does the Census care about race? How about questions like education, health, etc.. Why so much on race? I thought we were supposed to be blind to race. I smell a big pile of politics.

...and my personal favorite (mostly because it is soooo over-the-top and devoid of any logical, factual, and reasonable thought):

...Above all, ACORN is pulling the strings! They're secretly behind everything, and they're going to use the census to bring down the country! DON'T TREAD ON ME, ACORN! I may not KNOW very much, but based on what little I know, or think I know, let me tell you, I am angry, angry, angry! Very angry! I want my country back, Acorn! AARRGHH!

Okay people....where to start?

Well, for starters, let me just say that I have a healthy amount of respect for those who take the time to question authority (be it government or otherwise). However, there is a difference between 'questioning' authority and bringing to the table a fact-based inquiry of the system....versus indulging in some paranoid 'over-the-top' rant of things that you (clearly) don't understand and don't appear to want to understand.

Overall, it seems to me, that the Census Bureau is facing the same problem that NASA is: bad PR.

The question is simple: Why do so many people distrust the Census?
Answer: ...because very few people know what the Census is used for.


Allow me to enlighten you a bit.

The Census is a multi-year effort to create a cumulative data source that accounts for the number and demographics (i.e. age, race, and on a more general scale income) of our entire population. As anyone who has worked with large-scale and multi-year data collecting will tell you-- an effort this big is bound to have some complexities and flaws.

For instance, the "race" categorization.

Over the years, our definition and understanding of race has changed and evolved to levels that cannot easily be defined within check-boxes 1 or 2. Who in this country-- at this point--doesn't epitomize the American melting pot? I, myself, can name 4 "racial" definitions that could apply to me (i.e. Caucasian, Pakistani, Middle Eastern, Asian-Pacific). Race is not a simple question anymore, and perhaps, it never was.

However, we are talking about standard data entry here. We are also talking about data entry over a large time scale, where we hope to compare previous data sets (i.e. previous census results) to current data sets. Sure, I find the Census term "Negro" offensive and wildly out-dated. But I have no doubt that it is being used-- not because the government is interested in Civil Right's abuses--but because data entry is one particularly tedious and laborious task. How many Census years have African-American's defined themselves (and have been defined by others) as "Negroes". Keep in mind that the first census was taken in 1790. I'd bet the fill-in-the-blank "applicable race" section of the census saw that term many times over many different time periods**.

It is a common question we run into in GIS: How do we 'deal' with our data? How do we go about collecting our data, organizing it, and distributing it? How do we--from start to finish--create a framework of research and data collection from which we can create the most unbiased, most accurate--but still incredibly generalized-- analysis possible?

It's not an easy question to answer, and I have faith that the Government struggled just as long as I have in creating a data-collection process that synthesized the wide-variety of answers into a few clear (but generationally comparative) check boxes.

As for the (paranoid) insistence that the Government is "out to get us" with the Census. All I can say, is I doubt that is true. Census workers, just like all government employees, have to go through a rigorous (and red-taped to the tenth degree) background check. If you've ever applied for a government position--you know what I'm talking about.

Furthermore, as a GIS tech, I am privy to one of the many positives that the US Census data provides us: the Tiger/Census files. Recently, these (free) files helped out a non-profit group I interact with (and volunteer services for) occasionally.

This particular non-profit group works with Bay Area teenagers, specifically, teenagers who are suffering from a wide range of disabilities: including severe asthma and chronic lung diseases. The teenagers are almost all African-American and Mexican-American--there is not a single Caucasian student among them. Recently, authorities have reported that diesel emissions are a leading cause of childhood asthma and cancer.

The non-profit asked me if I could map the dominant Under-18/race types (i.e. White, African-American, and Mexican-American) from the 2000 Census and overlay it with their refineries and port cargo facilities data (which they knew to be--based on topography and emissions data--the dominant contributors of diesel exhaust in the Bay Area). I did that and drew a 5-mile buffer around the facilities to visualize the density of race types in the facilities neighborhood. The results were sobering.

Here is the UNDER-18/Caucasian map:





...versus the UNDER-18/African-American:



...and the UNDER-18/Mexican-American:



Without the 2000 Census, there would've been no way for us to (reasonably) assume and/or argue that the causes of these kids illnesses could be due to their close proximity to the factories. Furthermore, there wouldn't have been much reason to even suspect that these illnesses were not (just) due to genetic, racial, or even age susceptibilities.

Just think: if every parent who provided that 2000 Census information (used here) left their kids age and race off the Census form...we'd be looking at a much different series of maps. It's possible we'd also be running the risk that these sick kids would never know the true cause of their illnesses. Nor would the government know how to help them, and identify the other 'at-risk' communities in their neighborhood.

The Census is a big deal, people. Not just to the Government (and your Congressman, who wants to keep his/her district), but it is a big deal to you, and for me.

Do yourself a favor: drop the fear, and fill it out.

**True, with database technology these days, it would be feasible to do a (so-called) "Find-and-Replace" query to re-classify the race "terminology" of decades of census data. However...in doing so, you run into numerous possibilities of errors (for ex: how to re-classify, or even recognize, misspellings). With database entry, one must always carefully consider the risks of introducing statistical errors into raw data versus the advantages of changing 'offensive' terminology.

Life (aka research) is not a game

Avatar and Copenhagen

Our Great Mother does not take sides, Jake. She protects only the balance of life.

-Neytiri, Avatar, December 2009.

I call upon our neighbors, even those with whom we have not yet reached diplomatic relations, to join hands in an effort to save our region. Political disagreements should not hinder environmental co-operation. Carbon molecules carry no passport. Rivers require no visa. Pollution travels with them. All of us - Jews, Muslims and Christians - pray that the Jordan River will flow, fresh and holy.

- Shimon Peres, Israeli President, Copenhagen Climate Talks, December 2009.

If our planet had an Academy Award ceremony, I think it would be inviting fewer politicians and scientists this year and more CGI-enhanced, leggy, pony-tailed, 12-ft smurfs carrying bows and wearing DayGLO paint.

This month, scientists and politicians alike were watching the Copenhagen Climate talks like it was the Giants vs. Patriots Super Bowl. Obama was suppose to be our young Eli Manning, the upstart Giants QB, bravely facing the undefeated (and viciously scheming) Patriots-like behemoth--China. Right up to the last day (long before our young Eli took the field to play one last quarter of hardball with one stubborn geologist), the "white coats" were deep into their doomsday prophesying. Thomas Stoker from the IPCC, repeated and repeated "warming in the climate system is unequivocal" (a direct quote from 2007 IPCC's 4th Assessment Report). Robert Dunbar, of the Center for Ocean Solutions, reminded us that the ocean levels weren't just rising but--for extra fun--they were also lapping carbonic acid onto our shores and marine life (how are you going to like sticking your toesies in that?).

The real "fourth-quarter" at this event began with the struggle to set a legitimate, legally-binding, point-of-no-return, internationally approved, scientifically justified, CO2 target for our planet. Basically, the question at hand was as follows:

Were we, as the foremost governing species on this planet, going to:

Option A) Arrest our descent into planetary madness and destruction by capping our CO2 emissions below their current levels (387 ppm and increasing 2-9 ppm annually) by setting the benchmark at 300-350 ppm (parts per million). True, the 350 ppm max number is a much trumpeted figure by the (so-called) treehugging community, but it is definitely not without it's scientific proof and consensus. 350 ppm takes into account the numerous scientific factoids that show that our planet will be absent one Arctic tophat in 30 years should our emissions continue to push towards and beyond 390 ppm. This number corresponds to maintaining almost all existing modern marine life which evolved and adapted in CO2 levels which ranged from 180 ppm to 280 ppm. 350 ppm also refers to terrestrial life, as one (of many) studies have shown that the biodiversity balance in eco-hotspots, like the Amazon, are shifting as inflated CO2 levels drive particular plant species to drastically out-compete other plant species.

350 ppm also corresponds to keeping landmasses that are a mere 1-meter above sea level (including not only small island states, but most of the Netherlands, extensive tracts of land in Bangladesh, and the eastern United States) from becoming underwater cities.

Or...

Option B) Sign up for inevitable, irreversible, planetary feedback-cycle of disaster by capping CO2 emissions at the politically popular 450 ppm. And when I say "popular", I mean popular in the sense that it has it's own US Bill (see: Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill—aka the American Clean Energy and Security Act, ACES, H.R. 2454) and the political backing of three recession crippled nations- the U.S., Britain, and Australia (who, incidentally, would all have to slash carbon dioxide emissions by 5% each year over the next decade to hit the 450ppm target).


And that's basically what it boils down to.

Scientific evidence shows that our planet and population levels cannot be sustained at 450 ppm. Political leaders show that our economy cannot function or meet the 350 ppm cap. Ultimately, it's a scientific-economic conundrum. Even though an emissions cap of 450 ppm would mean nothing less then water touching the torch of the Statue of Liberty, California becoming an island, and coral reefs only existing in history books...at our current economic state, 450 ppm is the best we can do and hope for. It's unfortunate that science doesn't support that message, but we must accept.

Which, incidentally, is the background story of Avatar.

The latest in James Cameron-movie wizardry brings us the tale of a gone-broke, gone-legless, gone-native ex-marine who lands on planet Pandora: mankind's last hope for economic and environmental salvation (...and if Obama and his politcal friends are damn lucky, this place actually might exist). I won't spoil specific plot details for the few of you who haven't seen it, but suffice to say the movie takes place in 2154, when Earth is a "dying planet". The hero, who is white (notably following the tradition of all gone-native Hollywood storyline's, i.e. Dances with Wolves, Ferngullyy, Pocahontas, and Last of the Mohicans), turns himself into a giant blue 'avatar' and mingles with Pandora's indigenous population, the Na'vi. An identity struggle ensues (...oh dear, am I white or am I blue?...) while the marine finds himself a pawn caught between the differing priorities and objectives of science and economy.

The problem really seems to begin with who built the blue suit. Avatar's were originally designed for the relatively benign purpose of researching and studying the Na'vi and Pandora. However, this scientific cocktail was bought and paid for by a mining operation, for the chief purpose of identifying materials and producing 'diplomatic' indigenous relations (i.e. indigenous relocation from prime mining sites). En-route to producing 'diplomatic' relations, the science team makes several important discoveries regarding Pandora's unique environment, discoveries that could essentially create the roadmap for successful cohabitation between the two species. Discoveries that could--possibly--improve human health and existence.

However, the interests of economy and the robber barons funding the Avatar program were not swayed by these discoveries. Fear of financial loss, and of having a "bad fiscal quarter", drives the mining CEO to dismiss the pleading scientists and push ahead with the usual raping and pillaging of planetary resources. Barking that "it's a forest, they can find another tree!" the CEO kicks the Na'vi out of their native home, and embarks on a quest for planetary ruin.

Financial investors do need their payday, after all.

The story of Avatar is much more black-and-white then the story of Copenhagen, but the primary character's are all there (...just in different colors, albeit). It's a playoff between the politicians who are worried about the economy and the scientists that are worried about the environment. The politicians are functioning on this belief that there can be a compromise (i.e. 450 ppm instead of 350 ppm) between the interests of environment and economy. They believe in this compromise even though much of the science shows that such a compromise is not sustainable or even environmentally beneficial. They believe in this compromise to the point that they are ready to dismiss science.

Unlike the character's in Avatar, climate scientists do not have the speaking finesse of Sigourney Weaver to argue their position against the glib likes of Obama. Trained to be objective rather then emotional, they do not have the impassioned speeches needed to convince a depressed public floundering in debt and unemployment that 450 ppm is simply NOT an option. Real-life scientists are not movie stars or even actors. They are merely people who were hired to tell us what is the best environmental solution to an environmental problem.

They have told us. Now it is our turn, as citizens, to NOT accept the argument that "it's a forest, they can find another tree!"....because, truth is, this isn't Pandora, and there is no other tree..

Senator Al Franken draws map of USA

I've been making maps for years...and there isn't half a hope I could pull this off. Hats off to Franken!

Blog Action Day: Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

This post is one of the 9,721 blogs that have been written in celebration of Blog Action Day.

(North Carolina's Outer Banks, with a marker identifying Manteo, NC. Image taken from Google Earth. )

Welcome to Manteo.

I've never been here, but during my second year as a student in UC Berkeley's Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning I became intimately familiar with with this small 1,000+ person town. You see, Manteo is at a very low elevation. Located on the 8-mile long Roanoke Island, Manteo's elevation ranges from sea level to 20ft. It's mild topography is punctuated with marshy outcrops, soft beach slopes, and sun-warmed humic soil. Developed as a touristy 'second-home' town, Manteo is a beloved summer resort for many North Carolina residents. Full of Native American and English colonial history (i.e. Roanoke Island was home of the first English settlement, the famed 'Lost Colony'), bird nesting grounds, and ample beach access, Manteo is the spot to be in the warm pre-hurricane months.

Or at least, for a few more years it will be...

Manteo's low elevation (and that of it's protecting eastern islands) makes it particularly vunerable for climate-induced sea level rise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that changes in the earth’s climate could raise global sea levels by one to more than two feet over the next 25 to 75 years. On the North Carolina coastline, that could mean complete inundation of all North Carolina barrier islands within the next 100 years... Manteo included.

Recent research conducted at the The University of North Carolina Wilmington shows that the impacts of sea level rise on North Carolina's coastline could be disastorous on North Carolina's "property values, recreation, and quality of life". To summarize the findings, the study found:

• North Carolina’s coastal topography makes it especially vulnerable to sea level rise and hurricanes—both economically and ecologically.
• A one- to three-foot rise in sea level along four North Carolina coastal counties could mean billions of dollars in private property losses.
• Recreational fishing and beach trips also are vulnerable to increased erosion from sea level rise and increased hurricane severity/frequency.
• Business interruption losses from hurricanes could increase by as much as $157 million per storm event by 2080.

(Cited from Science News:North Carolina Coastal Economy Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise.)

The economic and ecological findings of this study struck a chord with one of my professors at Berkeley. As a North Carolinian native, my professor dispatched his entire graduate class of planning students on a 5-week assignment to do what could be "done" to save his beloved Manteo and it's neighboring beach islands. It was a difficult assignment to say the least. What does somebody do for a town that is going to be 3 ft under water by 2100? There were many caffine-induced talks of floating cities, stilted buildings, sea walls, relocation of bird sanctuaries, and then...

I made things a little worse.

On a whim, while running the GIS figures for coastal erosion, I took a look at what was happening west of Manteo. While my class was focused on the islands (and Manteo, specifically) I GIS-ed my way towards the Albemarle Sound and the inland land masses. Caculating just for sea level rise (and not adding in the average 50 to 100 feet of land lost for every foot of sea-level rise), I produced these maps:

(50-yr Sea Level Rise)
(100-yr Sea Level Rise)

My professor's were stunned. The increase in the Sound size was highly unexpected, and not mention, none of our previous research and literature suggested that this was going to happen (indeed, all of our maps regarding Dare County coastal flooding/land loss were focused on the coast not the inland). Suddenly, we were not just dealing with your typical million dollar vacation-home, beach-property, bird-sanctuary, tourism-industry 'global warming' problem. We were dealing with the potential loss of valuable farmland, nonriverine peatland, permanent residences, highway/bridge developments, and the relocation of 100,000+ residents 60 miles inland from the initial study site. All set to occur within the span of 100 years.

If we thought our first case scenario was challenging...this was definitely a new story. Questions became more stressed and confounding. For example: even if we did build a sea wall strong enough to protect island residences from savage hurricanes and sea level rise, how in the world would tourists get to their vacation homes when it would mean constructing a 60 mile bridge? How would we feed these tourists when all the local farms were sitting under the new Sound? How and where would we provide water and electricity to these islands?

The cost estimates of all our plans and disaster scenarios easily cleared billions and trillions of dollars. By the end of our 5-week assignment, everyone was exhausted from the stress of trying to confront and deal with a million different economic and ecological landscape woes. Even the hardcore environmentalists among us were ready to take a break and move on to planning something--ANYTHING--other then the North Carolina-version of Atlantis. We wanted to do something cute, easy, and short-term. Like a golf course or a playground slide.

However, this one assignment definitely had a long-lasting impact on me. Climate-induced sea level rise is a problem that is going to affect a lot of people. Even people who do not live near the ocean are in imminent danger. Our ways of life, communication, and perception need to change immediately, so that we can begin to fully envision and perceive the change that is upon us.

It's only when we know the full scope of the problem that we can truly begin to resolve it.

Today, on Blog Action Day, I encourage you to take the first step in understanding how vast this problem is, and how vast our global response must be.

Computers, K-12 education, and GIS

Recently, I ran across an interesting (but old, 2005) article by one of my favorite bloggers: Atanas Entchev. It was an editorial, in Directions Magazine, called "What Makes a Perfect GIS Job Candidate?". In the article, Entchev asks:

What makes a perfect GIS job candidate? Good education or good training?

...and ultimately concludes

Education and training are complementary, but distinct. Education is important, especially in the long run. But training is necessary, too.

I like Entchev's discussion on this and I also find it to be exceptionally true. GIS is something that takes learning both from the classroom and in the field to really master. I've definitely found this to be the case in my academic and professional life. However, one unfortunate fact remains that without classroom training, it's very unlikely that you will get professional training. In my experience, there really is no chicken-and-egg debate on obtaining computer skills. If you want a GIS (or any computer related job), you need to: 1) go to school for it and then 2) pick up the industry experience after you graduate. The real question is: when should students begin their GIS training?

These days, getting the initial academic training for GIS is relatively easy, provided you have access to a community college/university and a decent computer station. If you don't: then you are in trouble. Which is unfortunate, because GIS training can open doors to thousands of jobs and a multitude of different career pathways. It also is a great way to gain geographical literacy and improve spatial skills, something that young American's are showing an alarming lack of (according to the 2006 Roper survey, half of the 18-24 year olds surveyed couldn't find New York on a map). Studies have also shown that GIS has the potential to "improve problem and enquiry-based learning" and advance critical thinking skills in young children (Tschirner and O'Brien 2006, Hall-Wallace and McAuliffe 2001).

As a GIS specialist, encouraging young (and soon-to-be-working) K-12 students to learn GIS, is an important life goal for me. This might seem strange, given that I myself didn't learn about GIS till my final years of undergrad, and didn't gain mastery of the software till graduate school. However, my lack of early life computer skills and my current awareness of how important GIS is to the workforce, has made me all the more determine to advocate it's full-integration into K-12 public education system. I began this campaign little over a year ago, by holding GIS and geography technology workshops in an inner-city West Oakland high school as part of my work as an Albert Schweitzer Fellow.

During my work at Excel, I noticed a few things about today's K-12 students and their computer skills that I did not expect to notice. For one, I noticed that almost all the students I met had far more access to computers then I ever did at their grade level. Where as I learned typing skills on 10-year old typewriters, all my students learned how to type with word processors. I also noticed that my students were aware of computer 'lingo' in a way I never was at there age. They could easily tell the difference between a Mac and a PC, and were very informed about different internet sites, web browsing, and social networking.

However, for all their advanced computer skills, these 11th and 12th grade students did have some noticeable training gaps. In my earliest work with them, I quickly noticed that many of the students had rudimentary to non-existent geographical skills. Many of them did not know how to read a map, and couldn't tell the difference between a topo line and a rhumb line. We had to go over what a projection, what a datum was, what scale was...and, well, everything.

Looking back, I guess I shouldn't have been too surprised about my students imbalance of skills. In 1998, it was reported that 55% of American's owned a home computer. That number was up to 76% in 2005. Current reports show that more than 90% of students in grades 6-12 use computers regularly during school hours. However, starkly contrasting with the increase of computer skills is the steady decline of basic geographical training in our K-12 system. As early as 1979, researchers have notice that the "geographic knowledge of high school students is inadequate and that enrollment and achievement in geography education are low" (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1979). This decline was particularly noticeable in the years when I was a K-12 student (80's-90's), when researchers found that only 16% of sampled high school students had taken a geography class (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

Recent data on the geographic performance of fourth, eighth, and twelth graders (see The Nation's Report Card: Geography 2001) shows a slight trend towards improvement in K-12 geographic training since 1994 (particularly for fourth and eighth graders). But that improvement appears to favor a particular racial and economic demographic. As the report shows, "the average score for students who were eligible for the Free/Reduced-Price School Lunch program was lower than the average for students who were not eligible for the program (i.e. above poverty guidelines)". Furthmore, inner-city kids appear to be at a distinct disadvantage, with "students in rural and urban fringe locations [having] higher average scores than central city students".

My year of work with the Excel students was definitely an eye-opening experience about what public education is currently offering lower-income students on the topics of computer skills and geography. On one hand, all my students were far more computationally advanced then I was at their age (and, thanks to a generous donation from Dell, they had many more on-campus computer resources then I did at their age). However, on the other hand, they were still suffering (as much as I was at their age) from the obvious decline of geographic training in our K-12 system.

I'm not going to make a fool of myself here and declare that everyone of my students wanted or was well-suited to pursue a career in GIS (many were not interested). However, the fact of the matter is we live in a digital world where computer skills are necessary for job placement and for everyday life. Furthermore, in order to have a competitive advantage in the employment market, students need more then just your average IT skills (i.e. typing, web browsing) that were standard K-12 learning fare in the 80's and 90's. In order to have the competitive edge, students today need to have computer skills that enable them to treat computers as analytical tools and not as mere data storage (or facebook-frenzy) devices. Furthermore, in our digital world, where geographical boundaries are being made shorter everyday, it is important to keep striving to improve geographical literacy in our K-12 students. To fail to do so, would only place the US labor and intellectual market further behind it's international competitors.

GIS can accomplish these tasks. Not just for the poor students, but for every student. In an education system where approximately 93% of geography teachers had degrees in education (note: only 28% had a degree in geography), GIS offers a (relatively, when compared to teacher re-training) low-cost and immediate way to jump start a large-scale US geographical curriculum. By combining computer training with geography lessons, teachers have a way to kill "two birds with one stone". Students will learn to use an industry-based software program that goes beyond the usual drill-and-practice educational software. At the same time, students will also increase their spatial-thinking and critical thinking skills, and gain introduction to basic geographical concepts (which notably, research shows that students who used computer tools even to a small or moderate extent had higher geography scores than students who did not use these tools at all).

I'm not assuming that implementation of this will be easy (it won't be....afterall, there is buying the software, making sure you have enough computers, sufficient IT help, etc etc). However, I think introducing a software into an existing K-12 classroom/curriculum structure is way better (and easier) then adding a new class or teacher to the K-12 curriculum. The beauty of GIS is in the vastness of it's applicability. Anyone (not just a geography class) can offer training in it, since so many fields use it.

End of story: GIS is a good idea for solving many of the current problems in the K-12 system. I hope my kids get a chance to learn it there, rather then having to wait to learn it in college (like I did).

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.