Advice To A Recent Grad

I got this email a few days ago, and haven’t had the time to respond to it, but I thought I’d at least let my readers pick up the slack:

My name is XXXX and I have read your blog for a while now after being introduced to it through Instapundit. I’m sure you get plenty of e-mails like this where people ask for your advice or opinions on something so if you don’t have time to respond it’s more than understandable.

Some background on me; I recently graduated from the University of Massachusetts with a B.A. in Political Science and just finished my first semester in the University of North Dakota’s M.S. in Space Studies program. Also, I am in the Army National Guard and just transitioned into the public affairs career field, completing a basic course at the Defense Information School.

I had originally planned to go to law school and hope for a career in space law, but after moving to public affairs I’ve fallen in love with the PR-field and now hope to find a PR-related career-path in the aerospace industry. My biggest question to you is, where do I start? I’ve tried researching which PR firms have major aerospace companies as their clients but have found nothing. Also, I don’t see aerospace-PR jobs advertised a whole lot. I’m not sure where exactly to begin looking or who to attempt to contact.

Also, do you have any advice on how I could present my qualifications once I do find someone/place to contact? My issue is that I have a liberals arts bachelors that doesn’t directly apply to the career I want (anymore) and my actual PR-training might not be understood/taken seriously since it comes from the military.

One last question, am I foolish in pursuing the North Dakota program? I talked to a few alumni before I applied and they all had great things to say, however I sometimes wonder if I’m making the wrong decision pursuing an interdisciplinary degree that an employer might not “get” when they review my resume.

Sorry if this e-mail was a bit rambling. I greatly appreciate any help or advice you could give me.

As I said, I hope that some of my readers, who understand the PR world better than I, can help.

[Update later afternoon]

Some advice from a (smart, who knows this stuff) reader who prefers to remain anonymous, but may be useful to more than the emailer:

[He should] save up enough money in his bank account to work as an unpaid intern someplace when he’s done w/ classes in North Dakota. That will give him real-world experience, and could actually turn into a job at the firm he’s interning for. Also, it’ll help him confirm that P.R., which can be a field that chews up young people and spits them out, is what he really wants to do. And if he chooses a city that has lots of outfits working in industries he likes, he can make other useful contacts.

Sounds good to me.

Bradbury At Ninety

A perspective, over at National Review. Two things struck me about the piece, one of which has nothing to do with Bradbury per se:

While he is a great advocate for NASA and space travel, his greatest fictional works address the recurrent theme of much of the modern age’s more significant literature: the separation of spirit and imagination from technological achievement and the dangers that attend this divorce.

Note that James Person assumes that NASA and space travel are synonymous. This is a mind set that we have to break if we are to move forward in space. Here’s the other:

All too soon it was time to take our leave. Hamner, ever the gracious Virginia gentleman, shook hands with Bradbury and quietly expressed his thanks again for that long-ago piece of advice. As Bradbury turned to me, I shook his hand and said quietly, “Ray Bradbury, live forever!” Tears sprang into his eyes — he is a man who cries for joy at every kindness — and his mouth moved soundlessly for a moment, searching for words. Quickly he raised my hand to his lips and gave it a quick kiss. “God bless you, Jim,” he said. “God bless you — and I wish the same for you!”

What a contrast with Asimov, who was a notorious deathist (a major theme of The Bicentennial Man). Asimov is gone now, as he wished, and Bradbury is still with us, as he apparently continues to wish.

It’s not clear though, whether things like this will increase, or decrease his remaining time with us. If it’s the end of him, not a bad way to go.

The War That Broke Us

Not.

Just a reminder to people like the ignorant idiots in the Space Politics comments section as to why NASA’s budget is almost certainly going to take a whack from the coming Deficit Commission. It’s not the war, stupid. And note who was in charge of the Congress (and then the White House) when it skyrocketed. Note also that even with the dreaded “tax cuts,” it was declining, indicating that it wasn’t a revenue problem, or at least not one caused by the lower tax rates.

Politics

not science:

The government report instantly made headlines for the astonishing conclusion that approximately 75 percent of the oil had been collected, burned, skimmed or simply disappeared. Given the magnitude of the spill — the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history — some scientists concluded it was premature to draw such conclusions.

Another independent study released this week estimated as much as 79 percent of the oil remains in the Gulf, beneath the water’s surface.

Lehr’s admission that the peer review wasn’t completed in advance of the report’s release undermines the administration’s claim that it was.

And then, there’s this:

Interior Department officials knew beforehand that President Obama’s six-month moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would cost more than 23,000 jobs and inflict devastating economic damage throughout the region.

Even so, the administration was not deferred from defying a federal judge and doing it anyway.

You’d almost think that they want to destroy the economy. I’m not sure what they’d be doing differently if they did.

And I don’t want to hear any more partisan noise about a “Republican war on science.”

Thoughts On “Islamaphobia”

From Andy McCarthy:

I have long argued that: (1) Islam is not a moderate doctrine; (2) Islamists who practice terror and are otherwise aggressive toward non-Muslims (and toward Muslims who disagree with them) are not twisting or perverting Islam; (3) this does not mean that the Islamist interpretation of Islam is the only possible viable interpretation; but (4) a concrete theology of “moderate Islam” does not exist (even though there are plenty of moderate Muslims) and therefore it will have to be created; and (5) because it will have to be non-literal and reformist, it will have a tough time competing with Islamist ideology which, however noxious it may be, has the advantage of being firmly rooted in Islamic scripture. Nevertheless, (6) Islamist ideology is anti-constitutional and anti-freedom in many of its core particulars, so that (7) if, instead of letting them pretend to be “moderates,” we force Islamists to defend their beliefs, we will marginalize them — at least in our society, which (8) will empower true moderate Muslim reformers and — maybe — give them the space they need to solidify a coherent, moderate Islam that embraces the West, and in particular the separation of secular public life from privately held religious beliefs.

It’s not a phobia if the fear is rational.

Space Access Update

Henry Vanderbilt has the latest on the space-policy battle in DC:

NASA Exploration Funding: The Battle Continues

“No man’s life and property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
– widely attributed to Mark Twain

This is a follow up to our last two Updates, both of them urgent political alerts in the continuing battle over fundamental reform of NASA’s human space exploration program. The good news is, with your help, the last round was a standoff. But the fight is far from over. It’s once again time to get active, if we don’t want to see these reforms sunk without a trace. And this time, we actually have a couple of weeks warning.

State of Play

The House NASA Authorization bill, HR.5781 was up for full House consideration, but was pulled back at the last second when it became clear there was considerable lack of consensus on major provisions. (To every one of you who called your Representative, thanks!) The Senate NASA Authorization, S.3729, meanwhile has been approved by the full Senate. Both House and Senate are now on recess till the week of September 13th.

The Senate version is not great, but is livable, with $3.9 billion overall Exploration funding split as follows: $1.6 billion for NASA development of a new in-line Shuttle-derived heavy-lift launcher, $1.1 billion for continuation of the Orion capsule, and $1.1 billion for the rest of Exploration. That last $1.1 billion includes reduced but still substantial funding for the Commercial Crew, Commercial Cargo, and other new space technology/exploration precursors we support. (S.3729 also fully funds Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research, under another account.) Close to a billion dollars of NASA exploration funding directed toward useful things is hugely better than we would have hoped for coming into this year.

The House version is extremely bad. HR. 5781 is essentially a blueprint for the destruction of NASA human space exploration in the name of saving it.
– Out of a total $4.5 billion Exploration funding, it devotes $4.2 billion to development of a new in-house NASA heavy booster (to be based on existing Ares work) plus a government-owned Station transportation system based on the Orion capsule.
– It makes drastic cuts in funding for developing US Commercial Crew and Cargo to Station capabilities, to a small fraction of NASA’s request.
– It imposes “poison pill” requirements on potential US commercial crew services that neither NASA nor existing Russian crew service providers have to meet.
– It zeroes Exploration Technology and Robotic Precursor Missions funding.

The gutting of Commercial Crew and Cargo budgets, and the Commercial Crew poison pills, will leave us spending hundreds of millions annually for non-US Station transport services for the foreseeable future, and will leave us with no backup should those non-US services have technical or political problems.

The new House-mandated NASA heavy booster and Station-transport Orion get less funding than, but a similar schedule to, what the Augustine Commission already found unworkable for the old Ares/Orion. The issue of what Station-Orion would fly on (2015 operational goal) while waiting for the new heavy lifter (2020 goal) is not even addressed, never mind funded. The odds are extremely poor that these projects would ever amount to anything beyond never-fly jobs programs. Even if the new vehicles do eventually fly, NASA would still have no deep space missions to fly on them, due to this bill’s effective starvation of all other Exploration precursor work.

Pursuing the path implicit in HR.5781 would reduce our nation’s international commercial space competitiveness, would damage our national space technology base, and would destroy NASA’s chances of moving out beyond low orbit in any meaningful way for decades to come.

What’s Next

Our understanding is that they’ll try to pass HR.5781 again right after Congress returns from this recess. There will be three opportunities to fix it: In negotiated modifications before it’s reintroduced to the House, by amendment on the House floor, or by negotiations in the House-Senate conference committee that will reconcile the two versions. The process may move very quickly once Congress is back. We need to prepare the ground now.

Recommended Action:

Contact your Representative and both your Senators, and ask them to support the Senate version of the NASA Authorization bill, because the House version is unacceptably bad. Get as many of your friends as you can to do it too. Numbers count. We need to make as many of our Representatives and Senators as possible aware of our concerns in the next few weeks, before deals start being made on the final NASA Authorization bill. Start doing it now, don’t wait till the last second. (We may ask you to do it again at the last second – a little repetition does no harm.)

Contact Info for Representative and Senators: If you know their names, you can call the US Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for their DC office. If you don’t know who your Representative is, go to http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html and enter your home zipcode. (You may need the 9-digit version.) For Senators listed by state, go to http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Once through to their office, let the person who answers know you’re calling about the NASA Authorization bill. They may switch you to another staffer (or that staffer’s voicemail) or they may take the call themselves. (If you’re calling after-hours or they’re getting a lot of calls, you may go directly to a voicemail.)

Regardless, tell them you want (Representative/Senator TheirName) to support the Senate version of the NASA Authorization, because the House version has major problems.

Briefly give one or two reasons you support the Senate version…
– it provides adequate funding for NASA Commercial Crew and Cargo
– it supports US rather than foreign crew and cargo service providers
– it provides some funding for new NASA exploration technology
– it enhances our national technological competitiveness
– it partially addresses the NASA problems pointed out by the Augustine Commission and begins to restore NASA’s ability to usefully explore
– it supports the President’s NASA policy
…then a reason why you oppose the House version – see the bullet points in the HR.5781 paragraph above. Then answer questions (if any) as best you can, and politely sign off.

OK, that’s the basic version. Some of you may want to get more involved in this effort than making a few quick phone calls. Letters and faxes are great! (Emails much less so; you know how much spam you get – now imagine the amount a Congressman gets. Better to phone than to email.) Keep letters to one page, state your basic point (Dear Representative/Senator TheirName, I am writing to request that you support the Senate NASA Authorization, since the House version is very, very bad…) in the first sentence of the first paragraph, then go into a paragraph or two of supporting detail, then politely wrap up. Faxes may be slightly better than paper mails in that they arrive faster and more reliably – if you are going to paper-mail a letter, do it early so it has time to get through the security checks.

And for you real self-starters out there, your Representative and Senators are on recess, and will probably spend some time back at home with the voters in the next few weeks.
– You can show up at a “town hall” and get in line for the microphone with your request ready (“I’m worried about the future of NASA. I’m here to ask that you support the Senate version of this year’s NASA Authorization bill, because the House version has serious problems”) plus an example or two to give if you get the time.
– You can call their local office and try to set up an appointment to meet your legislator (or an appropriate staffer) and spend a few minutes making the case in person. If you do, we strongly recommend you study up on the details, do the whole well-groomed businesslike and courteous thing, practice making your case in less than the allotted time, and unless they keep you longer with questions, depart on-time gracefully.
– You can come up with some other way entirely to let them know what you, their constituent, want. We haven’t come close to covering all the conventional effective methods here. Just remember though, if you’re thinking of getting creative – keep it legal, keep it safe, make VERY sure it gets the point across unmistakably clearly – we’ve seen way too many political messages delivered so cleverly that nobody else can tell what the message is – and make SURE it doesn’t make us all look like flakes (way too easy when we’re talking space) or annoy people counterproductively. (Simple parameters, yeah, we know…) Then let us know how you did it!

There’s one other very effective way you can help out, if you can be in Washington DC for a few days around the start of the week of September 13th: Some of our DC colleagues are very likely to be organizing citizen lobbyist visits on Capitol Hill early that week. We plan to support their efforts. More on that as soon as we know more.

What it comes down to is, if we care about US space commercial and technical competitiveness, if we want to see NASA with some hope of going new and interesting places anytime soon, we need to keep at this, and we need to get more organized about it. To that end, if you do make a call, send a letter, or otherwise deliver the message, afterwards please email us at space.access@space-access.org, with “contact” in the email title, and describe briefly who you contacted, how you contacted them, and what (if any) response you got? (If you don’t want to go onto our mailing list for Updates, be sure to mention that.) Thanks!

Now go get ’em.

Posted here, because it doesn’t seem to be up at the web site yet, at least not with a permalink.

[Late afternoon update]

Here‘s the link.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!