🚀 go-pugleaf

              SYNOPSIS OF TOM HARRIS' MEETING WITH LOUIS FORTIER
                    OF THE CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY (CSA)
                        (as recorded by Tom Harris)


DATE / TIME OF MEETING: August 30, 1995 / 9:30 am -10:15 am
LOCATION:  CSA Ottawa office

ATTENDED BY: (1) MR. LOUIS FORTIER, Head of Public Relations for the CSA;
             (2) MR. TOM HARRIS, Speaker, Space Exploration and Environment.


                         MEETING PURPOSE

I am trying to convince the CSA to use more of the social science
arguments for manned flight when they market the program.  More
specifically, to quote from one of the handouts I gave Mr. Fortier at this
meeting:

"An increasing number of social scientists are maintaining that national
space agencies should focus more on the social science arguments for
manned space exploration and development when marketing the program.
These specialists  believe that, considering the financial pressures faced
by most governments these days, unless these concepts are soon promoted
vigorously, manned space flight will not survive far into the future as a
publicly funded activity."

Fine and good, you might say.  But what are the chances of actually
convincing the CSA to start using the social science arguments (to be
outlined later in this posting) in a powerful way in their marketing?  I
think the chances are pretty good -- over the past few years I have
received correspondences from a number of CSA leaders which show an
impressive open-mindedness to the ideas I am promoting.  Consider the
following  (with the possible exception of Dr. Garneau, all of the people
quoted below are aware of the approach I am encouraging):

(1) In 1994, in two separate letters to me, Industry Minister John Manley
said that he agreed that social science arguments should be taken more
seriously in the CSA's marketing.  In particular, Mr. Manley said (July
29, 1994): "I indeed share your point of view that the humans in space
component of the programme should be marketed in a way that will focus
more on social science ramifications".  He also said (March 24, 1994):
"The government recognizes the value of cooperation between academia and
the public sector in the space field."

(2) Similarly, both CSA President Mac Evans and Mr. Manley's Special
Assistant-Policy, Diana Durnford, in their June 9, 1995 meeting with me,
were generally supportive of this approach as well;

(3) In 1993, when he was Director General of the Space Station Program,
Dr. Karl Doetsch (currently head of the CSA's manned space program and a
past CSA president) wrote to me saying: "It is important that someone with
your background and understanding help broaden the discussion on human
activity in space by restating the idea that its origins lie to some
considerable extent in the basic human interest in exploration and
survival."  Dr. Doetsch continued to say that he found this approach
refreshing and encouraged me to continue writing articles on this topic;

(4) Past CSA (and NRC) president, Dr. Larkin Kerwin also wrote to me in
1993 saying: "I am glad to hear of the themes about which you are
currently speaking and encourage you to pursue them vigorously."
Concerning the possibility of the CSA actually doing in-house work on the
social science implications of the human expansion into space, Dr. Kerwin
said : "The CSA, in my time, did not have an in-house anthropological
program.  However, the space science group could contract out such work,
and it was hoped to increase in this area." (note that he had just retired
from the agency);

(5) Finally, Canada's first man in space, Dr. Marc Garneau, said recently
to me on a call-in television program (re - using more of the long range
human centered reasons for space flight): "I think that you raise a good
point in saying that maybe we don't do a good job from that point of view.
 I certainly, when I go out and have the opportunity to talk to Canadians,
try to bring up that kind of thing.  But I think we probably have a few
things to learn from the marketing point of view because I think that
people understand that, rather than looking at specific short term
objectives with each flight, that there is actually a master plan in
moving out, not only into low Earth orbit to become comfortable in our own
backyard, but eventually to move out into our solar system.  And we will
go to the Moon and we will go to Mars early in the next century.  But
eventually trying to develop the technology so that we can leave our solar
system and go visit neighboring stars and go to other parts of our galaxy.
 And perhaps that does tend to get forgotten ..."
(please see my previous posting for the full interview; or let me know if
you want me to e-mail it to you).

So far, no one at the CSA has disputed the social science arguments at all
-- the only issue still to be resolved is which of these concepts should
be used by the CSA and how best to incorporate them into CSA marketing.
Consequently, I understood the purpose of my meeting with Mr. Fortier to
be to examine how to integrate the social science arguments for manned
space flight into the CSA's speeches and other marketing.   Because I have
been already using these ideas for some time now in my speeches, I felt
that I could give Mr. Fortier a first-hand report of how well these
arguments work in convincing people of the importance of manned space
flight.

******************************************************************************
        MEETING OVERVIEW:  Generally friendly and cooperative -- while no
        specific agreements were reached, Mr. Fortier promised to review the
        material I left and get back to me in a few days with his comments and
        ideas about what to do next.

(Note to readers: I'll be posting the material I left Mr. Fortier on this
news group very soon under the title "Material Left With the CSA's Louis
Fortier")
******************************************************************************


                          DETAILS OF OUR MEETING

After initial pleasantries and some discussion about the important CSA
activities that are coming up (in particular, the launch of RADARSAT later
this month and Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield's visit to the Mir space
station in October) I started the meeting by giving Mr. Fortier an
overview of why I focus on the social science arguments for space flight.
I explained to him that until late 1990 my presentations focused on *what*
we were doing in space.  However, during the question periods after my
talks, audiences usually showed what they really wanted to discuss --
namely whether it was worth spending billions of dollars sending a handful
of people into space when so much of the world lived in misery.

Until 1990, I would give the standard answers to these questions outlining
the benefits that the space agencies publicize very well -- such  things
as job and wealth creation, technological spinoffs, advances in science
and education and, of course the enhancement of national prestige.
However, as I explained to Mr. Fortier, I felt that I was still missing
something very important.  Even if these tangible, short term benefits did
not exist (or if economic or scientific changes made them less attractive)
I was sure that I would still support manned space exploration and
development.  The suspicion that I was somehow missing the main point of
space flight set me off on a search that would ultimately change the focus
of my presentations entirely.

While the various space agencies did their best to help me out, it soon
became apparent that I had to look into the social sciences if I was to
get a comprehensive answer to this question.  By exceptionally good
fortune I was eventually referred to Charles Laughlin, an anthropologist
at Carleton University here in Ottawa, Canada.  I explained to Mr. Fortier
that Dr. Laughlin opened the door to what I soon saw to be a treasure room
of information that virtually no one in the space community seemed to know
about.  Here were the real reasons for human space flight, reasons that
would not evaporate no matter how the bean counters evaluated the worth of
spinoffs, etc.

My meetings with Dr. Laughlin continued on and off for a couple of years
during which time I gradually made other contacts in the field as well.  I
explained to Mr. Fortier that while Dr. Laughlin and other anthropologists
focus on the crucial evolutionary implications of space flight, it soon
became apparent that other social scientists in such fields as history and
psychology also had important contributions to make to answering the
question "Why send humans into space?".  As a result of what I was
learning about the social science implications of manned space
exploration, I completely changed the focus of my space activism.  At this
point Mr. Fortier asked me if, in my talks, I presented myself as the
"champion of the space program".  It seemed like an odd question but I
took him seriously answering: "No, I consider myself to be an
intermediary, someone who translates what the specialists are saying into
a language that intelligent lay people can understand".  I explained to
Mr. Fortier that, although I am not a social scientist by training (my
background is primarily in aerospace engineering) the social scientists
have been very patient with me, sending me their papers and then spending
many hours with me on the telephone or, in the case of Dr. Laughlin, in
his office as well, helping me out with the more difficult concepts.  I
told Mr. Fortier that I felt that I was the "big mouth", taking what the
specialists were saying in the academic community and spreading it into
mainstream society.

At this point in the meeting, I gave Mr. Fortier a handout which
summarized the issue at hand (see quote in para 2 of PURPOSE, above, svp)
as well as some of the social science arguments for manned space
exploration and development.  On this sheet was written the following:

        SOME OF THE LEADING SOCIAL SCIENCE ARGUMENTS:

* Our expansion into space is changing humanity, making us better able to
understand and solve complex global problems (i.e. the "Founder Effect");

* Satisfaction of the drive to engage in geographic exploration is crucial
to the health and well-being of society;

* Space exploration and development fosters a positive vision of the
future, something we desperately need today;

* Space Development will help prevent homogenization of human culture and
thinking patterns:
        - The establishment of human settlements out of instantaneous
          contact with the rest of our species will once again release the
          forces of cultural evolution leading to a new Renaissance
          in human development.

* The human expansion into space will eventually make our species
"unkillable", as well as give us access to limitless lands and resources,
freeing us from our dependence on one fragile biosphere.

(Note to reader: To some extent the CSA already publicizes part of this
last point - in particular, the agency's Dr. R. Bryan Erb gives fascinating
and important presentations showing how power stations in space can be
used to collect solar energy and "beam" (by microwave or, possibly, laser)
the energy to Earth to be converted into electricity.  Not surprisingly,
some of the biggest supporters of this idea are resource-poor third world
countries.  I congratulate the CSA for supporting Dr. Erb in this endeavor!).

I also gave Mr. Fortier three other handouts:

(1)  several pages of excerpts from my speeches about the space/social
science connection (this was similar to what I left with Mr. Evans and Ms.
Durnford in June - I'll post it soon for those of you who missed the first
version);

(2) a reading list detailing papers and books which present the human
centered arguments for manned space exploration and development (this too
I'll post soon for your info);

(3) a copy of an article written about the meaning of the Martian frontier
by Dr. Robert Zubrin, a space engineer and originator of the Mars Direct
plan (which, if enacted, would put the first humans on Mars within 10
years at less cost than the Apollo program).

As was initially the case with Mr. Evans in our June 9, 1995 meeting, Mr.
Fortier expressed doubt as to whether such a long range overview would be
appropriate for the CSA to present.  He said that we would not likely see
any of the space expansion I was speaking about (I presume he was talking
about Moon and Mars colonization) in either our lifetimes or even that of
our children.  Consequently, he felt that few people would respond to the
kind of approach I was promoting.   Of course, his extremely pessimistic
view of the rate at which space colonization will proceed is something I
would normally have debated but, because our time together was very
limited, I decided to not contest the point.  Instead, I pointed out that
many people are enthused by the thought that they are part of something
bigger than themselves, bigger even that their generation.  I cited the
concept of "Central Projects" (as described by Frank White is his book
"The Overview Effect" - see reading list in next posting, svp) where, at
special times in human history, inspiring multi-generational projects have
brought out the best in mankind, bringing together many of the most
advanced minds to work on long term, important undertakings (the great
cathedrals of Europe are a prime example of a Central Project.).  I also
explained to Mr. Fortier that, in my experience as both a speaker and a
listener, many audiences (especially young people) were much more
interested in hearing about the human centered reasons for space flight
than they were in the standard justifications usually presented.

I pointed out that when CSA speakers such as Dr. Garneau or Roberta Bondar
touched on how their perspectives of the environment and humanity had
changed as a result of their space flights, I had noticed a "wave" go
through each audience -- anyone who had started to doze off woke up
immediately and everyone's attention was focused.  However, from what I've
seen, these issues are usually not the focus of CSA talks, instead coming
up mainly in the question period if at all.  While this is certainly
better than nothing, more discussion of these factors is clearly needed.
I also reminded Mr. Fortier of the enthusiastic response given to past CSA
president Larkin Kerwin when in 1991 at a major international conference
in Montreal, he spoke about some of the concepts I am promoting.   We need
more speakers with the prominence of Dr. Kerwin to popularize these ideas
before there's no manned space program left to defend (by the way, I'll be
posting some excerpts from Dr. Kerwin's 1991 speech on this news group
soon - say tuned - it was impressive indeed!).

I told Mr. Fortier that I certainly understood his concerns about the
appropriateness of the CSA using the social science arguments.  I agreed
that, for some audiences, it would indeed be better to continue to stress
the short term, tangible benefits.  However, I explained that, in my
experience, the social science arguments are unquestionably more
persuasive for most audiences (probably because many people sense,
correctly, that these are the "real" reasons for human space exploration).
 Regardless, I expressed my belief that all CSA speakers should have at
least some understanding of the ideas I am promoting so that, even when
these ideas are not the focus of a talk they could be "pulled out of a
speaker's back pocket" if needed during the question period.  After all,
many of the arguments typically raised against public funding of manned
space flight are long term and philosophical in nature -- why not use even
better long term, philosophical arguments to counter them?  I also
reminded Mr. Fortier that Norman Augustine, chief executive of what used
to be Martin Marietta (a major aerospace firm in the US) and a very
pragmatic businessman, had said (concerning the intangible benefits of the
manned space program): " 'intangible' is certainly not synonymous with
unimportant or insignificant" (re - MIT's "Technology Review",
August/September, 1991 -- In fact Augustine feels that the most important
benefits of the Apollo program were the intangible ones -- certainly the
social scientists I have spoken with agree wholeheartedly!).

I also suggested to Mr. Fortier that the social science factors should be
included in whatever written marketing the CSA uses to boost manned space
flight (i.e.. glossy brochures for the public, etc.).  He said that the
CSA do not currently produce a brochure specifically highlighting the
benefits of manned space flight, however he did seem open-minded to the
idea of starting to include the social science factors in other related
brochures.  It seems to me that the best approach would be for the CSA to
put out a well illustrated brochure that specifically focuses on the
benefits of manned space exploration and development.  While I would
advocate that such a piece should focus mostly on the human centered
benefits, it should definitely include the short term, tangible benefits
as well -- we didn't discuss this much so I'll have to bring it up with
Mr. Fortier when we next communicate.

Towards the end of the meeting, Mr. Fortier asked: "So what can we, at the
CSA, do for you?"  I responded that I'd like to see the CSA concentrate
more on the social science arguments for manned flight when they market
the program.  In particular, I explained that it would make the most sense
if someone within the CSA were to be designated as the OPI (Office of
Prime Interest) for the space/social science connection.  I explained that
I was not suggesting that this person would become an expert in the field
(being so multidisciplinary, that really isn't feasible), but instead
would act as a focus person for the topic, providing a single person
within the CSA for people such as myself or the social scientists to
contact when we had additional input.  I believe that the OPI should
become well versed in a general sense in the social science arguments and
would be then able to coordinate the introduction of these concepts into
the CSA's speeches and other marketing.  Mr. Fortier agreed that
establishing a CSA OPI for this topic made sense and that he would act as
that person (except for acting as a contact person for social science
input, Mr. Fortier has not yet commented on my proposal for the OPI's
other functions -- I'm sure we'll discuss this soon).

Along the same vein, I outlined to Mr. Fortier what I could do for the CSA
if they go along the path I am advocating.  Specifically, I explained that
I wouldn't hesitate to give the CSA and the minister very positive
coverage in my speeches, articles and, of course, Internet submissions.
After all, I told Mr. Fortier, I am not interested in government or CSA
bashing -- if they do something I agree with, then I am very happy to
publicize it as much as I can.  In this way, I explained, my activities
are very different from most of the negative, "dig up the dirt" media
coverage which we are bombarded with daily.  I am a space activist, first
and foremost, and I'd definitely enjoy helping the CSA in whatever small
way I can.  Similarly, as I told Mr. Fortier, my contacts within the grass
roots space activist community have told me that they too would likely
support and speak highly of the "CSA's Bold New Direction" in the
marketing of manned space flight.  (By the way, it occurred to me after
the meeting that, at practically zero cost, the agency and the government
could look very good indeed and make an important contribution to the
international space effort if they start introducing the social
science/space connection into their marketing -- the information they need
is already available and the specialists are very willing to help out as
well -- all the CSA need do is take what's there and run with it!).

Finally, I mentioned to Mr. Fortier that, as the CSA got into this topic
further, they might choose to deal directly with the social scientists I
reference in my talks.  In that case, while I would still be willing to
help out as I could, I would likely fade into the background, my job as
facilitator complete.  A couple of days later, I sent Mr. Fortier a list
of my eight principle social science contacts along with a short
description of their contribution to the debate, their addresses, phone
numbers and e-mail address.  While I know Mr. Fortier is very busy right
now, my hope is that he will touch base with some of these people in the
near future.

In summary, Mr. Fortier demonstrated a sincere interest in studying this
issue further.  As promised, he did get back to me a few days later,
explaining, as he did in the meeting, that, while he was very interested
in the ideas I presented, he would not be able to do anything on the topic
for a few weeks as he was now fully occupied with the upcoming RADARSAT
and Hadfield launches.  Of course, these are very important activities for
Canada and I am certainly willing to wait a little longer before we get
into this again.  I would guess that Mr. Fortier will be able to get back
to this issue seriously some time about mid-October.

Of course, I'll keep the news groups up to date on what happens next.
I've e-mailed a number of the social scientists I cite in my presentations
everything I have posted on the news groups on this topic so far (as well
as some of the e-mail exchanges between Mr. Fortier and myself), so they
are totally up to date on what's going on.  After fours years of work on
this caper, things are finally coming together -- let's hope the CSA
continues to take this issue seriously and effectively incorporates the
social science arguments for manned space exploration and development into
their marketing - - with the government in such a cost cutting mood these
days, the selling points being promoted by social scientists could be
pivotal indeed!



Ad Astra,

Tom Harris

PS:  As usual, I am very open to your comments (whether supportive or not)
concerning what I am doing and how I could improve my approach.  Hope to
hear from some of you soon!