|
An Open Letter and Request for Comments to the Mars Society Steering Committee To the Mars Society Steering Committee: (from list online at http://www.marssociety.org/about/committee.asp )
Dr. Buzz Aldrin - Astronaut I am doing research for an article on how the Mars Society views NASA's decision not to send a Shuttle Servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. As publicly identified members of the Mars Society's Steering Committee I would like to solicit your comments and thoughts regarding positions taken and statements made on behalf of the Mars Society by the Society's President Robert Zubrin and how they were arrived at. Please note that this request letter is also posted on NASA Watch at http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/mshst.html In particular I direct your attention to the following quotes by Dr. Zubrin speaking as President of the Mars Society and have provided links to the source documents: *********** "The desertion of Hubble is an offense against science and civilization. It represents a departure from the pioneer spirit, and its ratification as policy would preclude any possibility of a human future in space. It is an inexcusable decision, and it needs to be reversed." -- From a 9 February 2004 Space News OpEd "Don't Desert Hubble" online at http://www.marssociety.org/news/2004/0218.asp which also appeared in shorter form as a 12 February 2040 OpEd in the Washington Times online at http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040211-093526-3983r.htm "The answer to this is straightforward. We must defend Hubble because the abortion of the Hubble program is a crime against science. Furthermore, the grounds given for deserting Hubble are irrational, and constitute a form of moral cowardice that if accepted as the basis of space policy, would absolutely prevent any human missions to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else." -- From a 1 February 2004 Mars Society Statement "Why We Must Defend Hubble" online at http://www.marssociety.org/news/2004/0202.asp "What's happening is that a bunch of bureaucrats are wanting to feel decisive, to show they can make the tough calls to support the president's moon and Mars program. They'll say: 'Much as it might rend our hearts, we're willing to give this up.' That's all a crock," Zubrin said. "If the first thing this new space policy does is murder Hubble, then it's born with the mark of Cain on it." -- From a 31 January 2004 Wired article "Scientists Clamor to Save Hubble" online at http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62103,00.html "It is unfortunate that Mr. O'Keefe has decided that it within his purview as a manager to insist that NASA engineers withhold analysis that does not support his opinions. It was precisely such managerial insistence on dictating technical reality to engineers that prevented any effective action to avert the Shuttle Columbia tragedy. This illegitimate exercise of management authority was harshly condemned afterwards by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. In response, Mr. O'Keefe pledged to discontinue the practice. Apparently, that has not occurred." -- From a 24 February 2004 Mars Society Newsletter "Wall Street Journal Blasts Hubble Desertion Decision" online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marssocietynewsletter/message/184 *********** I would like to know, based on the terms of service outlined below (taken from the Mars Society's formal bylaws online at http://www.marssociety.org/about/bylaws.asp ) how the process of developing the official opinions of the Mars Society, as voiced by Dr. Zubrin, were arrived at.
I would like to have your comments on the record with full attribution. If you are unable or unwilling to provide comments on the record can you explain what prevents you from doing so? Thank you.
Keith Cowing *********** Appendix: From the Mars Society Bylaws: (http://www.marssociety.org/about/bylaws.asp) "VII Steering Committee The Steering Committee of the Mars Society is charged with the duty of determining the policy, campaigns, and projects of the Mars Society. The Steering Committee will meet in person twice a year. One meeting will take place at the annual convention, and the other roughly 6 months later. In addition, it will meet by electronic mail, as necessary, to assess its consensus on major issues facing the Society. The Steering Committee, or relevant subsections of it shall be consulted by the Board whenever possible on beginning all major Society initiatives, campaigns, or projects. The Steering Committee will consist of between 24 and 30 people. Its membership shall be selected as follows; At the time of the annual convention in odd-numbered years, the Board will present a recommended slate of 24 people for the Steering Committee. Any member not nominated may then place his or her name in nomination by presenting a petition within 90 days that includes the signatures of 50 Mars Society members, with at least 5 members included from each of four separate chapters. A ballot will then be sent out to the entire membership. The 24 candidates with the highest number of votes will be deemed the winners and be made members of the Steering Committee for the following two years. In addition to the 24 elected members of the Steering Committee, up to 6 Steering Committee members may be appointed by the Board, to serve for such terms as the Board sees fit." *********** Replies Lorraine Bell replied: I can answer some of your questions very quickly. An official statement from the Mars Society was indeed voted on by the SC via an email exchange. Initially a draft was emailed to the SC and then comments and suggestions were taken and a new version was voted upon. However, as I am certain you are aware, the president of the Mars Society does not seek approval of all comments prior to issuing statements to the press. I personally feel that some of his comments in the past have been poorly phrased and often helped to create a hostile atmosphere between space advocacy groups and NASA. The most recent "face to face" SC meeting took place at the annual Mars Society conference held in Eugene, OR in the Summer of 2003. Since then the SC has held numerous email discussions as well as a few votes. However, there has not been a general membership election of the SC members as outlined in the bylaws. Richard Heidmann replied: "My personal thinking is that the deliberations within the Steering Committee of an organization such as this one does not have to be put on the public scene. What is important is what get out of it! Be sure that, being not an American, I am specially interested that this society works in its full spirit of international cooperation and commitment. This is the case. That said, I totally approve the Mars Society position about Hubble, as defended by our president." Frank Shubert replied: "I usually don't have too many comments about what anyone says. I mean so many people in the space biz take themselves so damn seriously. And it is all so petty. Not saying that your article will be that way.ÊI am not sure what your focus will be. The Mars Society or Bob. Anyway, as a card caring Mars Society Member I don't agree with everything Bob says. But I sure do back his right to say it. And I agree with a lot of it too. Scrapping the Hubble is just plain stupid. We all know that. I mean, you too, right. So I would say he gets my support as a member. I would vote to keep him talking." Gregory Benford replied "Bob Z & I, with the Board, have discussed in depth the change in focus and resolve necessary to get us into space, especially Mars, and his statement evolved directly from that. Indeed, I wrote an entire novel, THE MARTIAN RACE (1999) about these ideas. Unless we acknowledge risk, we will never attempt anything significant." When I asked Benford "So you would then endorse and/or support the words Dr. Zubrin used - as cited in the quotes?" Benford replied "Yes". Richard Wagner replied "the Mars Society apparently hasn't gotten around to stripping my name from the management list. I indeed resigned from the Mars Society two years ago." Gary Fisher replied: Keith, I am not sure what the point of your inquiry is, but I will say that the policy statement of the Mars Society Steering Committee on Bush's new space policy - and in particular, Hubble, - was the result of an email discussion among most of the members of the SC. Dr. Zubrin prepared a draft statement, this was discussed, modified, discussed, modified again and put up for a vote. It passed overwhelmingly. As with any such a diverse body, different people felt the emphasis should of been here, or there, or sometimes elsewhere, but I can with confidence say it represents the will of the SC. The SC discusses many issues openly at the annual Mars Society Convention. I hope you attend the next one in Chicago. I hope you understand that I am not trying to hide anything, but such major policy statements dealing with potentially divisive issues, in my opinion, need to be arrived at behind closed doors, else the private opinions of the participants can be reported with equal weight to the final consensus product. That can lead to a confused understanding of what the actual position of the body, in this case the SC speaking for the Mars Society, is. I feel comfortable that all the members of the SC stand behind our statement on Bush's space agenda including the section on Hubble. I believe Dr. Zubrin's comments on Hubble have been supportive of that statement, both when he speaks or writes on behalf of the Mars Society, and when he has stated his personal opinion. The statement stands by itself. I would prefer, at this time, not to go on the record with my personal opinions about this or any other topic in a forum where I feel that my opinions might confuse others as to the policy of the Mars Society. I am confident that Dr. Zubrin will, if his position should differ from the statements of the SC, identify his comments as being personal and not those of the Mars Society. I have shared this letter with the SC so they are aware of my reply to your inquiry. How they may choose to respond is, of course, up to them. For myself, I would prefer you not bother me again with an inquiry concerning how MS policy is formulated. Inquiries on more substantive issues will be welcome, subject to the caveat above about not wanting to muddy the waters around statements of the SC made while I am a member. Regards, Gary Fisher |