Over at RocketForge Mike Mealling has his RTTM trip report up. One line stands out, regarding changing perceptions: “What does work is creating value for a customer from their point of view and then slowly educating them through direct interaction with the product over time. But it requires the customer to have already made a decision to buy.”

This is an excellent point. Only after the purchase decision is made (which may be in a metaphorical sense) can you expect the customer to be sufficiently engaged to stick with a line of argument that may fly directly in the face of things they “know” to be true. As always, it’s not what people know that’s an obstacle to understanding, it’s what they know that ain’t so. Once you have buy in (either literally or in the sense of getting seriously interested) there is a possibility of getting people to change their view. It’s not just physical products that have this dynamic, it’s ideas too. In fact, I’d argue that in the case of a physical product it’s the idea associated with the product that’s important, not the product itself.

Unfortunately people tend to be very committed to their beliefs, usually without regard to how well supported they are. Everyone likes to be told stuff they already believe to be true. It takes active effort and a commitment to truth before comfort to actively seek out opposing ideas and to take them seriously. Unfortunately very few people choose that path.

Applications to RLV development, politics and anything else is left as an exercise for the reader. Bonus points for figuring out how to get the initial buy in to RLV development needed to start the process of changing perceptions. Hint: begins with “Sub,” ends with “Orbital” 🙂

Over at RocketForge Mike Mealling has his RTTM trip report up. One line stands out, regarding changing perceptions: “What does work is creating value for a customer from their point of view and then slowly educating them through direct interaction with the product over time. But it requires the customer to have already made a decision to buy.”

This is an excellent point. Only after the purchase decision is made (which may be in a metaphorical sense) can you expect the customer to be sufficiently engaged to stick with a line of argument that may fly directly in the face of things they “know” to be true. As always, it’s not what people know that’s an obstacle to understanding, it’s what they know that ain’t so. Once you have buy in (either literally or in the sense of getting seriously interested) there is a possibility of getting people to change their view. It’s not just physical products that have this dynamic, it’s ideas too. In fact, I’d argue that in the case of a physical product it’s the idea associated with the product that’s important, not the product itself.

Unfortunately people tend to be very committed to their beliefs, usually without regard to how well supported they are. Everyone likes to be told stuff they already believe to be true. It takes active effort and a commitment to truth before comfort to actively seek out opposing ideas and to take them seriously. Unfortunately very few people choose that path.

Applications to RLV development, politics and anything else is left as an exercise for the reader. Bonus points for figuring out how to get the initial buy in to RLV development needed to start the process of changing perceptions. Hint: begins with “Sub,” ends with “Orbital” 🙂

Over at RocketForge Mike Mealling has his RTTM trip report up. One line stands out, regarding changing perceptions: “What does work is creating value for a customer from their point of view and then slowly educating them through direct interaction with the product over time. But it requires the customer to have already made a decision to buy.”

This is an excellent point. Only after the purchase decision is made (which may be in a metaphorical sense) can you expect the customer to be sufficiently engaged to stick with a line of argument that may fly directly in the face of things they “know” to be true. As always, it’s not what people know that’s an obstacle to understanding, it’s what they know that ain’t so. Once you have buy in (either literally or in the sense of getting seriously interested) there is a possibility of getting people to change their view. It’s not just physical products that have this dynamic, it’s ideas too. In fact, I’d argue that in the case of a physical product it’s the idea associated with the product that’s important, not the product itself.

Unfortunately people tend to be very committed to their beliefs, usually without regard to how well supported they are. Everyone likes to be told stuff they already believe to be true. It takes active effort and a commitment to truth before comfort to actively seek out opposing ideas and to take them seriously. Unfortunately very few people choose that path.

Applications to RLV development, politics and anything else is left as an exercise for the reader. Bonus points for figuring out how to get the initial buy in to RLV development needed to start the process of changing perceptions. Hint: begins with “Sub,” ends with “Orbital” 🙂

I’ve started reading the book, but I had to drive home from Vegas yesterday, whereas Michael Mealling flew, and had time to read the whole thing. He already has a review up. Mine will come later, hopefully this week.

Also, I’ll note how much faster things happen today. The book was rushed to print (which, as Michael points out, shows), but it’s extremely timely, and only two days after its release, we already have a published review from the buying public (not from someone given a pre-publication copy).

I’ve started reading the book, but I had to drive home from Vegas yesterday, whereas Michael Mealling flew, and had time to read the whole thing. He already has a review up. Mine will come later, hopefully this week.

Also, I’ll note how much faster things happen today. The book was rushed to print (which, as Michael points out, shows), but it’s extremely timely, and only two days after its release, we already have a published review from the buying public (not from someone given a pre-publication copy).

I’ve started reading the book, but I had to drive home from Vegas yesterday, whereas Michael Mealling flew, and had time to read the whole thing. He already has a review up. Mine will come later, hopefully this week.

Also, I’ll note how much faster things happen today. The book was rushed to print (which, as Michael points out, shows), but it’s extremely timely, and only two days after its release, we already have a published review from the buying public (not from someone given a pre-publication copy).

Michael Mealing informs me that he’s going to shut down the wireless in a few minutes, so I’ll log off for now. Perhaps more conference thoughts this evening, when I get back to LA.

“I think we’ve gone overboard with this notion of safety.”

Dr. Mueller (who was head of the Apollo program) received (yet) a(nother) well-deserved award at the banquet last night, to a standing ovation, for his contributions to our nation’s lunar efforts.

Leonard David managed to find time between other deadlines, and carousing with low lifes like me, to file his first report from the conference, even before it’s over.

Brief summary: there are many institutional barriers to achieving the president’s vision, and the newly emerging private sector will be key. Go read it–it’s the first good overview of the conference so far (and probably overall, since it will be over in a couple hours.

[Via Mark Whittington–Leonard neglected to tell me at the bar last night that he’d filed…]

Andrew Chaiken, author of “A Man On The Moon,” gave a speech at the banquet last night. It was an entertaining talk, but he seems to have a misplaced nostalgia for the era that he chronicled in his excellent book. I wasn’t taking precise notes, but he said something to the effect that, when (if?) we go back, this time it will be with 3-D color high-definition television, and that this time the excitement of watching people walk once again on the moon will be sustained.

I think him far too optimistic on this score, and still out of touch with the real problem. Obviously, watching government employees gallivant on another world thrills him, but he’s mistaken to project his level of interest onto the general public. He’s apparently among the class of people who complain what philistines the public are, and just think that we need to make astronauts’ activities more exciting to revive that old Apollo spirit.

“Well, OK, people got tired of Apollo, but that’s because we just had those funky black and white images.”

“Well, OK, people aren’t that excited about watching people floating around in the space station, but if only we send NASA astronauts back to the moon, that will get their juices flowing. That’s how we’ll sustain the vision (and the funding).”

No.

The American people are not going to support a program that costs billions of dollars per year, for the vicarious “thrill” of watching a few civil servants kicking up dust on the Moon, or Mars. In fact, I won’t, and there are few more hard-core space nuts than me. We are a nation of voyeurs, true (at least judging by the financial health of the pr0n industry), but many of us don’t want to just watch, and even if that does content us, unless there are going to be lunar orgies, it’s hard to imagine it holding our attention for long.

Only a program that promises the potential of an opportunity for them to go will elicit such support. Until the supporters of the new initiative understand this, it will remain doomed to ultimate failure.