Bolden Talks About Education

President needs to put his mouth where his money is.

We discovered water on the moon and watched the 40th anniversary of Apollo 12 pass by without mention. Yet another opportunity lost.

I hope the answer is not to spend more on education. Since that has NEVER inspired anyone. The success of planting the flag on the moon was the inspiration in and of itself for several generations of American engineers and scientists. That is how inspiration works. If you forgot how we got there, read President Kennedy's Moon Speech given at Rice University or watch it on You Tube . That formula still works. Its not cute or gimmicky, its so simple its often dismissed.

In Texas the moon landing is not inspirational.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/09/neil_armstrong_isnt_worthy_of_texas_textbooks.html

Actually a lot of kids know the name of the first man on the moon. He's about the only astronaut anyone knows the name of. But they think he got there on a Shuttle and it just happened a few years ago. Those pictures have taken on a timeless quality and a lot of people do not know we've not been back or that the Shuttle does not fly there routinely.

Almost nothing about the space program is covered in schools in the US, unless an individual teacher decides to cover it. Its not considered important history. Its not considered science. None of the standardized tests cover it.

The education system is not fixable by throwing money at. The problem Miles points to is endemic of the system, it begins at local school board and so on. That's why to inspire this and the next generations you have to by-pass the "education system". Kennedy did it, although that was not the intent. We should not subjugate the inspiration of space exploration to the education system, as it is dysfunctional.

In the late 1970's when the Shuttle was nearing it's 1981 maiden voyage, a fellow by the name of Dr. Gil Moore, of Utah St. University, and others within NASA, had an idea for creating access to space for students - in Dr. Moores particular case, college students - that ultimately manifested as the very successful Get Away Special (GAS) program.

The GAS program was ostensibly designed to allow Student organizations access to the Shuttle cargo bay. One could 'buy' their way on the Shuttle to fly a GAS payload. Over the years, other than student organizations used the GAS program as it was a cheap way ($2K to $10K) to fly from 100 to 200 lbs of experiments.

Nearly half of the over 250 GAS payloads that flew on the Shuttle were student payloads.

In the mid 1990's, folks in the Goddard Space Flight Center Shuttle Small Payloads Project, home to the GAS and Hitchhiker Shuttle programs, realized that student organizations were not all on the same level when it came to developing the necessary hardware systems (C&DH, Power, Thermal controls, structure) to accommodate their experiments to fit within the confines of the GAS canister. Project engineers therefore developed a sub-carrier that provided power, simple data interfaces, a data recorder, and a structural frame to accommodate 10 smaller and simpler experiments that would serve K-12 students. This new carrier first flew in 1995, was called the Space Experiment Module (SEM), and flew over 120 K- 12th grade student experiments before the Project Office closed in 2004.

The Hitchhiker program was also used by student organizations to fly education payloads. (Indeed, Dr. Moore's Hitchhiker StarShine satellite incorporated the hands-on effort of over 100's of schools in it's construction!) The Wallops based sounding rocket program fly's SEM type payloads on their rockets as well.

I'm pretty sure that SpaceHab, and SpaceLab, and the mid deck programs also accommodated student experiments on the Shuttle.

Anyone who worked within the Goddard Project Office, as I did, could see that these students were truly inspired by developing and flying their own experiments on the Space Shuttle or Sounding Rockets. I have also visited schools to talk about NASA and I can tell you there is a big difference in students enthusiasm level between listening to me drone on about NASA programs (however cool they may be), and flying their own experiments.

As the ISS program started to come together in the early 2000's, our Project Office studied a number of simple, FRAM based autonomous carrier system concepts based on the Shuttle GAS and SEM carriers as a means of providing a path for our Shuttle based students to access the ISS.

We conceptualized the systems to go up on any LV that flew FRAM's, and to mount to the many unused station element (US Lab, trusses, etc.) trunnions that served their purpose in the Shuttle Cargo bay, but now are free for other purposes...like autonomous attached payloads.

Of course, due to Columbia accident, these visions never materialized

A significant down-side of these programs is that the demand for them outstripped our ability to fly them. It was impossible for us to fly everyone that had a student payload, either for SEM or GAS.

What I learned though is that to inspire students, to get them to see future possibilities for themselves as they progress through their education and life, requires they get their hands dirty, to participate directly in the adventure of space/experiment exploration.

NASA certainly has a rich and creative history, as I witnessed first hand, of launching student experiments in space. The ISS is an ideal platform/venue to continue NASA Shuttle's rich tradition of flying student experiments into space.

If NASA is directed to do so, I'm sure it can create what is needed to support the Presidents STEM initiative.

Gerry Daelemans
GSFC
Former Chief Shuttle Small Payloads Office

Editor's note I first met Gil Moore in 1978 when I was a student living in Salt Lake City. I can think of no one I have met in the past 30-odd years who has done more for space education than Gil. It would be marvelous if there was a way to revive the GAS concept - perhaps on the ISS.

The GAS program indeed was inspirational, and was made so by many of the dedicated GAS personnel at GSFC who worked directly with the schools. Truth be told, the GAS cans and the GAS-Bridge were primarily flown as ballast on the Shuttle. With the Shuttle's retirement it is a bit more difficult to fly a GAS like payload as they would be competing with others for the limited flight space. The GAS payloads were tertiary class and as such were space available. But conceptually it was a fantastic program that should be examined and tailored to the accommodations available for accessing the ISS.

GAS was a great program. Even better, were the Skylab and Shuttle Student Involvement Programs that NASA coordinated with the National Science Teacher's Association in high schools throughout the country.

High school students proposed experiments and a large number were selected to fly. If chosen, a NASA engineer, scientist or a contractor was assigned to work with the student to develop whatever hardware was required to implement. Some major payloads, like the Fluid Experiment Apparatus which was a student proposal developed working with Rockwell, was used on many Shuttle and Spacehab missions, initially by the student and later by the Centers for Commercial Development.

This took strong leadership to buck the NASA JSC scientist, all of whom claimed their 'peer-reviewed' science deserved priority.

Gen Abrahamson was a great proponent and supporter of the program on Shuttle and showed real leadership. But once he was gone the program was over.

There are plenty of opportunities for NASA to leverage the educational system of the US and the emphasis the administration is placing on certain aspects of education.

Here is an example: President Obama is pushing charter and magnet schools. These schools can be set up anywhere, as public schools, and can obtain the Federal, State and Community dollars which would otherwise go to the normal public schools as long as they have the appropriately trained staff and a certified program. These schools frequently concentrate on a particular discipline or area of study, math, science, engineering, humanities, fine arts, etc. Some focus on themes like aviation, medicine, or international studies, etc. There is no reason why space affiliated schools could not be set up around the country.

In order to support such a program, there needs to be content developed that uses space as the setting but which inspires the students to learn the math, science, writing, history, social studies, political science, and other subjects the students are tested on.

A program like that could be initiated on a small scale and expanded once the content is developed.
All it would take is management support.

I just don't understand why NASA is so much on the hook for education?

It's not what we do and it is not our responsibility--that lies in the hands of the educators and school systems around the country.

NASA is way too convoluted as it is, NASA needs to get back to it's NACA roots and just do what it does best.

Spiff

Actually, NASA's original charter required that it dessiminate information learned during it's endeavors. In the sixties and seventies it was done through it's publications. Now it's done in multimedia fashion.

But to your point, the dirty little secret is that NASA is on the "hook" for education because it's another way to funnel tax monies into the public education system which means more government jobs. Jobs, we were told, that would produce the next generation of scientists and engineers but most important the taxpayers willing to fund space exploration and aeronautical research. We're still waiting on that one.

Another instance of NASA trying to be all things to all people. "Education" should not be the mission, that should be left up to the Departments of Education in the various States.

That is a very good question, and here is hopefully a good answer:

People don't care about rockets and "what we do", so politicians (including your bosses) need better excuses to justify NASA. Saying NASA makes pacemakers and smart kids keeps the status quo. You keep making rockets, and rich people from New York and New Jersey etc keep sending tax money to states that need it more.

Actually that sounds like socialism, that can't be right

Editor's note - I am often annoyed when anonymous posters do not reveal their own biases and hide behind the anonymity I offer. I need to add that you are Canadian and, to be honest, your country's space program is a faint echo of America's. When you start to take space seriously, call me back. Oh yes "socialism" um, you folks are much further down that path than we are, eh?

>But to your point, the dirty little secret is that >NASA is on the "hook" for education because it's >another way to funnel tax monies into the public
>education system which means more government jobs.

Sorry that is an enormous crock. I cannot think of a single example where a NASA grant or program resulted in the hiring of more K-12 teachers.

>"Education" should not be the mission,

No one is saying the NASA give up rockets for textbooks.

>that should be left up to the Departments of >Education in the various States.

Yeah good idea. That's worked *really* well so far. Not.

The Editor's note to RC made me chuckle a lot.

Anyways to the point, I completely agree that pouring money into education will not fix the situation. Honestly its really sad time because high schoolers and some college students just don't care about Space or NASA. They see it as some boring exercise. Recently I took 3 of my younger cousins 11, 17, 18 to the Space Center next to JSC trying to get them motivated especially since the 2 older ones were about to go to college. Out of the 3 the only one to get really excited and motivated was the 11 year old, the other two were too busy text messaging and playing with the nintendo DS games.

I guess that is the problem with our society now, these kids are so over stimulated that something real high tech seems so old fashioned and hard for them, so they don't care.

Its sad to say this, but we do need product tie-ins and celebrity endorsements now. Society has become to apathetic and selfish to try and accomplish some of the lofty goals set by us in the Space community. Something needs to be done to reverse that trend.

Sometimes I fear that the movie Idiocracy will come to be a prophetic film instead of just a comedy.

Sorry you feel that way KC, but the truth of the matter is that I know that one university department in my city has five people employed to provide science and technology shows to middle school children throughout the state. It is funded in part by grants from NASA. These employees are by definition government workers and if the funding stopped tomorrow, most would be out of jobs. No funds, no education mission. To think that this example is unique would be naive.

Crock? The facts speak otherwise.

Mike, glad to see you rely on facts. While the program you refer to I'm sure is worthwhile and all, however during the sixties when NASA was cutting edge and certainly had more funding I don't believe they funded the types of program that you refer to. Yet the inordinate amount of engineers and scientist that were inspired and produced has been unmatched since. So based on the simple "facts" let's recap, less investment in education resulted in more, and more investment in education by NASA has resulted in less scientist and engineers. With out the context of an extraordinary goal or mission as inspiration and aspiration for current students its all a waste. NASA should do what it was set up to do and that is explore, not paper studies but real challenging exploration by humans and robots. This will inspire and raise the level of students interest more then any education gimmick. It will unleash American ingenuity and will fuel the economic engine.

Actually, most of the NASA educational publication (EP) series of documents date from the Apollo era or thereabouts. As far as I can tell, that series of documents is over & done, which is sad. NASA produced educational films, too.

Thanks Eagle Eye.. I won't use this post to rehash my previous postings but will say that I was inspired to become an engineer because of the goal of going to the moon, not some NASA outreach, or education program. That one goal inspired a whole generation to study math and science and in the absence of another grand goal the same scientists and engineers have gone on to more mundane chores such as keeping the lights on, building infrastructure, and solving problems here on earth.

If you ask me, the cost of the dream in 1963 was a mere pittance of an investment in the future. It is still bearing interest today and it didn't require one dime of NASA money going to education in the sixties to do it.

NASA has had Spacemobile lecturers, professional educators who would travel around to schools and museums to put on demonstrations and talks, for about 45 years.

In the 1960s NASA sponsored development of an entire series of special publications on Space Mathematics, Space Chemistry, Space Biology, etc, all geared to the secondary grades.

The first contract that NASA signed for Apollo hardware was with a school, MIT, for the Apollo guidance and navigation system. They supported throughout the program.

NASA had grants to colleges and universities across the country for research associated with its missions.

Now NASA gives some money out through the State Space Grant Consortia.

Starting in 2 or 3 years time 6000 kg of student and researcher experiments could be delivered to the ISS for $134 million using a Falcon 9 and Dragon. The DragonLab can fly to orbit and return to Earth 3000 kg of experiments. The Taurus II can probably do something similar.