In article , says...
LewBob wrote:
Yes, as some have said, people like the pretty pictures. But what people
really crave is inspiration. The pretty pictures of our incredible universe
provide that. The space shuttle, in itself, does not. ISS does not.

NASA really really really blew it when it decided to "ignore" Tito's visit to
ISS. That was the perfect PR opportunity to provide inspiration and show that
there was indeed big progress being made since, a "tourist" with little
training could make it up. Although NASA didn't shun Shuttleworth, it also
failed to capitalise on his visit. I can see a lot of conflicts where the
astronaut office wants to maintain the illusion that space is very dangerous
and requires 10 years worth of training. (no differentiation between tourist,
mission specialist and pilot from a public perception point of view).


The shuttle is also underestimated. Look at the data generated by the SRTM
mission. While the fear-mungering regime has made much of the data unavailable
after 9-11, it is progressively being made available again. Hopefully, the
public will come to realise the value of this before the Shuttle is dead. What
would be needed is some clause whereby any media outlet that uses SRTM derived
data for 3d animations etc would be required to mention on air that this data
came from the space shuttle.

When you ask people what the space programme gave us, they are likely to
respond "microwave ovens". (Or Tang simulated orange juice). The fact is that
there are real benefits that the shuttle has provided, but NASA hasn't taken
the steps to ensure that these are attributed to the shuttle.


In general, this is a good point -- one that was addressed on a number
of levels at the public hearings held yesterday by the President's
Commission on the Implementation of the Space Exploration Initiative (or
whatever the hell the actual name of that commission is). They
televised public hearings yesterday on NASA TV, and for the final round
of this set of hearings, they invited a number of people who are either
members of the media or who work with the media to give their
perspectives on what NASA needs to do to maintain public support for a
multi-administration, 20-plus-year project.

One of the suggestions made by person after person was that NASA needs
to hire professional marketing people to inform the public of the things
NASA has done, to create support for what they plan to do, and to
attract good people to work for them. One guy pointed out that the
armed forces have retained marketing firms to recruit new people -- if
the Army can run TV ads telling young people that working for the Army
is important and builds character, why can't NASA run ads telling young
people that working for NASA is fun and important?

In the 60's, the media was so enchanted with the idea of traveling to
the Moon that they did NASA's marketing for them. Nowadays, puttering
around the solar system just isn't that big a deal to generations that
have been raised watching Luke Skywalker flit from one star system to
another, or the Enterprise (in one of its many incarnations) powering
around the galaxy at Warp 5. Good marketing could make the distinction
between watching fantasies and actually being a part of making them
realities -- if only NASA would "lower itself" to using marketing
services.

Four different people offered testimony that NASA will *never* be able
to create or maintain the kind of public support needed to mount a 20-
year program of solar system exploration unless they decide to market
themselves and the program to the public. One guy, who has worked with
NASA in the past, pointed out that this will take a change in culture at
NASA, where the very idea of marketing is treated with disdain, as
something that is "beneath" there pure engineers' souls.

So, yes. NASA needs an intelligent and comprehensive marketing campaign
if it has any hope of mounting this space exploration initiative. I've
done some marketing work in my time -- I'd love to help... *grin*...

Doug