Cygnus_X1
16th August 2009, 06:58 PM
These comments are a response to Phil Plait's statements about NASA media and outreach from the recent Balticon Podcast (BC43.81)
(sorry, I cannot yet post URLs)
Disclaimer: I am NOT a NASA spokesperson.
I sent this podcast around to a few NASA PAO & outreach people I know. The ensuing discussions were interesting and sometimes lively.
Here's a summary of the discussion
- There was some concern about the statements made concerning NASA's utilization of 'new media' which seemed to be a bit off. The main NASA twitter feed (available off the main site), has over 112,000 followers at the time I write this. I also heard about a Hubble PAO twitter that has 6,000 subscribers and the Massimino (Astro_Mike) twitter has 780,000 subscribers.
- Large numbers of NASA video productions are available via YouTube. Many of these may be due to individuals trolling NASA sites (such as the Scientific Visualization Studio) and posting new videos as they appear.
- While NASA has great stuff to show, a large amount of NASA activity is actually *boring*. And the funny part is you often *want* it to be boring, because that means your equipment is working correctly. Manned & unmanned spacecraft travel place to place and it is a *slow* process where you watch the mission-elapsed time increase and monitor telemetry streams. Most missions have less than a dozen 'mission-critical' events where excitement is high and your waiting for the signal to arrive to tell you if your spacecraft made it's landing/orbit insertion/whereever successfully.
- NASA bureaucracy exists in part to provide accountability to the taxpayers and in the final analysis, the taxpayers are NASA's customers. When something expensive goes wrong, the taxpayers have a right to understand why. Unfortunately, this process tends to favor ideas that are perceived as 'safer' and less controversial.
On the positive side, these procedures limit the ability of some of the more eccentric individuals at NASA to promote ideas such as untested or untestable cosmologies as science under the 'NASA brand'. (Yes, this is marketing-speak).
On the negative side, these procedures also inhibit those who wish to explore unique outreach opportunities using the 'NASA brand'. Many of us end up exploring these options on their own time and resources, with disclaimers attached.
Food for thought.
Ideas?
Tom
(sorry, I cannot yet post URLs)
Disclaimer: I am NOT a NASA spokesperson.
I sent this podcast around to a few NASA PAO & outreach people I know. The ensuing discussions were interesting and sometimes lively.
Here's a summary of the discussion
- There was some concern about the statements made concerning NASA's utilization of 'new media' which seemed to be a bit off. The main NASA twitter feed (available off the main site), has over 112,000 followers at the time I write this. I also heard about a Hubble PAO twitter that has 6,000 subscribers and the Massimino (Astro_Mike) twitter has 780,000 subscribers.
- Large numbers of NASA video productions are available via YouTube. Many of these may be due to individuals trolling NASA sites (such as the Scientific Visualization Studio) and posting new videos as they appear.
- While NASA has great stuff to show, a large amount of NASA activity is actually *boring*. And the funny part is you often *want* it to be boring, because that means your equipment is working correctly. Manned & unmanned spacecraft travel place to place and it is a *slow* process where you watch the mission-elapsed time increase and monitor telemetry streams. Most missions have less than a dozen 'mission-critical' events where excitement is high and your waiting for the signal to arrive to tell you if your spacecraft made it's landing/orbit insertion/whereever successfully.
- NASA bureaucracy exists in part to provide accountability to the taxpayers and in the final analysis, the taxpayers are NASA's customers. When something expensive goes wrong, the taxpayers have a right to understand why. Unfortunately, this process tends to favor ideas that are perceived as 'safer' and less controversial.
On the positive side, these procedures limit the ability of some of the more eccentric individuals at NASA to promote ideas such as untested or untestable cosmologies as science under the 'NASA brand'. (Yes, this is marketing-speak).
On the negative side, these procedures also inhibit those who wish to explore unique outreach opportunities using the 'NASA brand'. Many of us end up exploring these options on their own time and resources, with disclaimers attached.
Food for thought.
Ideas?
Tom