ARTICLE IN PRESS

0265-9646/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.sp

�Correspond

6987.

E-mail addr1Commission

Industry, Final

Space Policy 20 (2004) 197–205

www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol

Needs in space education for the 21st century

Joseph N. Peltona,�, Randall Johnsonb, Don Flournoyc

aInstitute for Applied Space Research, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USAbAuburn University, USA

cOhio University, USA

Abstract

There is increasingly broad concern in the USA today about the quality, vibrancy and appeal of science and technical education in

general and space education in particular. There needs to be a robust link between the educational community (i.e. the primary and

secondary schools as well as colleges and universities) and a well-defined space research and exploration agenda that is strongly

supported by the space industry, NASA and other relevant US governmental agencies. Without such a renewal of mission and new

goals it will be difficult to re-invigorate and expand quality space education programs. A workshop was therefore convened in 2003

to analyze the problem, discuss new initiatives, organize a survey inviting suggestions from a range of relevant players and draw

conclusions on what the USA needs to do to improve space education in the 21st century. Although the focus of this workshop was

on space education in the USA the international dimensions of this problem were also addressed and the firm conclusion was

reached that similar issues and concerns apply in Europe, Canada, Japan and other spacefaring nations. This article is an edited

version of a White Paper subsequently produced to highlight the problem, summarize the proceedings of the workshop and present

the results of the survey. Greater clarity in the definition of national space goals, the upgrading of teachers’ skills and an increase in

technical scholarships are among the steps recommended.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The breakdown of America’s intellectual and indus-trial capacity is a threat to national security and ourcapability to continue as a world leader. (Commis-sion on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry)1

1. Introduction

The USA is in danger of falling behind other countriesin the quality of its aerospace industry workforce, whosecurrent members are ageing yet which is having difficultyattracting enough bright science and engineering gradu-ates. There is concern that not enough is being done in the

e front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

acepol.2004.06.009

ing author. Tel: +1-703-536-6985; fax: +1-703-536-

ess: ecjpelton@aol.com (J.N. Pelton).

on the Future of the United States Aerospace

Report, November, 2002, 8–1.

country to foster a robust science and technologyeducational system or to inspire young people to enterit. In an attempt to address these problems, a NationalSpace Education Workshop was held at George Wa-shington University in 2003 and a survey canvassingopinion on what should be done organized amongacademic, government and industry sources. Based onthe White Paper produced in the wake of these events, thisarticle analyzes the problem, summarizes the workshopproceedings and discusses the survey findings beforedrawing some conclusions. It starts with a brief historicalperspective on the aerospace industry and on the role thatgovernment support has played in it.

2. Historical perspective

World War I proved the efficacy of the aeroplane.Before the ink had dried on the Treaty of Versailles,

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.N. Pelton et al. / Space Policy 20 (2004) 197–205198

Europe was employing flight in the advancement ofcommunication and commerce. Before and during the‘‘war to end all wars,’’ European nations invested inaeronautical and communications research and thedevelopment of new technologies. Their achievementswere rooted in discovery and learning, sustained byeducation. Remarkable gains were made under adversecircumstances.

While the US National Advisory Committee onAeronautics (NACA) was created in 1915 to fosteraeronautical research, the USA would wait until 1926before launching its commercial aviation service. Thiswas in part a result of technological gaps, but the key tothis timing was that commercial aviation interestsneeded to attract political attention to develop a viableand technologically based aeronautical system—theforerunner of the aerospace industry. It was only thenthat the research and educational foundation uponwhich such an industry could be launched began to fallinto place.

The Air Commerce Act of 1926 empowered the USDepartment of Commerce to become the nexus foraeronautical and communication research. The thenSecretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover saw a relation-ship between basic and applied research and publicpolicy. Pure scientific research, as he saw it, was the‘‘raw material of applied science’’. As chairman of theNational Academy of Sciences, Hoover sought between$10 million and $20 million for the purpose of fundingAmerican research universities over a 10-year period.2

Hoover charged the National Bureau of Standards toconduct ‘‘industrial’’ research, including investigationsinto radio interference, propagation of radio waves andradio direction finding for aerial navigation. Althoughthe USA had entered the commercial aviation ‘‘race’’well behind Europe, in the mid-1920s, Hoover fashionedan alliance between government, industry and academethat became a significant national competitive force forthe advancement of flight and aeronautical communica-tion. By the time Hoover left the presidency in 1935 hehad, as Secretary of Commerce and as President,overseen the growth of an aviation industry whosetelecommunications infrastructure was a model for theworld.

Over time, in the USA and elsewhere, governmentsgot behind the establishment of national aviationindustries. Key to their success was the role universitiesand schools played in providing pilots, scientists,engineers and those educated in business, communica-tion and related applications.

In 1957, the launch of Sputnik, the Cold Warcompetition between the USA and the USSR, the

2Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and

the Presidency 1920-1933 (New York: The MacMillan Company,

1952), 74–76.

perceived ‘‘missile gap’’ highlighted in the US presiden-tial race of 1960, and John F. Kennedy’s call for anAmerican Moon mission created not only a new surgetoward the development of new space technology andscience, but also a new emphasis on technical educationin the USA and around the world. One of the mostsignificant impacts of Sputnik was the passage of theNational Defense Education Act. This period markedwhat might be considered a second stage ignition intwentieth century higher education.

Space flight found its origins in aeronautics, and is itsnatural extension. The predecessor of the NationalAeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) wasthe NACA organization charged with aeronauticsresearch for the USA. In Russia, Europe, Japan andelsewhere this evolution was also the same. As thefrontiers of flight continued to extend beyond Earth’satmosphere, space emerged as a platform for science,communication, commerce and as well as nationaldefense. Such applications required involvement of theeducational community for manpower, for innovation,and for perspective. Without a robust research agendaand close linkages to universities, the space sectorcannot and will not prosper. There is concern today inthe USA and other parts of the world that this robustlinkage and partnership is faltering and is in need ofrenaissance and renewal.

3. The problem

The people must insist upon a redirection ofemphasis; they should willingly accept their justmeasure of responsibility for the execution of oureducational programs. To all who ask: ‘What can Ido to help?’ my answer is: ‘Take active interest inwhat is being taught, how it is being taught, and bywhom’. (Werhner von Braun)3

Government and industry have historically turned touniversities for basic and applied research and fortraining young people for productive careers. Academeworking in tandem with governmental agencies serves asthe bedrock upon which our aerospace industries arebuilt. This symbiotic relationship has not only providedour nation with the best-educated workforce, but someof the most advanced research and developmentlaboratories in the world. As the US National ScienceFoundation reported in its Science and Engineering

Indicators 2002, ‘‘The United States has managed toturn its R&D strengths to its economic and commercialbenefit.’’4

3Stuglinger and Ordway, Wernher von Braun, 146.4Science and Engineering Indicators 2002, National Science Founda-

tion, 2002 (NSB-02-1) O-2.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Science and engineering doctorates awarded by broad field, 1971–2001 (Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2001, 9, Fig. 4).

J.N. Pelton et al. / Space Policy 20 (2004) 197–205 199

The number and quality of research Ph.D.s is essentialto the R&D effort. Unfortunately, the USA has recentlyexperienced a downturn in the total number ofdoctorates awarded—and more so in science andengineering (S&E),5 where totals have declined to pre-1994 levels (see Fig. 1). The recent slight increase in thenumber of enrolling graduate students may helpmitigate this downward trend.6

Continued industrial growth is dependent upon awell-educated and highly skilled workforce. As the NSFpoints out in its report, S&E and its subset, naturalsciences and engineering (NS&E), is indispensable to thenational R&D effort.

While the percentage of students entering suchacademic disciplines has remained relatively constantover the past 40 years, other nations have outpaced theUSA in percentage of baccalaureate graduates in theNS&E programs (Fig. 2).7

From 1994 through 2000, the United States experi-enced an annual growth rate of 5.8% in R&D. But itwas industry-sponsored R&D that was increasing whilefederally supported R&D was declining. Between 2000and 2001, R&D growth slowed to 4.0%. As industrytook on more of the research effort, R&D became morevulnerable to the cyclical nature of the economy. Basedon current economic conditions, the NSF was predictingthat R&D growth for 2002 would decline to 2.4%.Increases in defense and federally funded health R&D

5Science and engineering is comprised of four broad disciplines:

physical sciences, life sciences, social sciences and engineering.

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics,

Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2001, NSF 03-300, Sustan

T. Hill, Project Officer (Arlignton, VA 2002), p. 10.6NSF press release, NSF PR 03-04, 6 January 2003.7Science and Engineering Indicators–2002, 0-4.

are presumed to have helped offset the market-sensitiveprivate sector R&D support.8

The NSF cautions that the United States ‘‘may faceincreased international competition’’ as other countriescontinue to make large investments in education, R&Dand centers of excellence for science, engineering andtechnology.9

These troubling trends in science and engineeringeducation, and in research and development, areunderscored in the Report of the Commission on the

Future of the United States Aerospace Industry. Thehealth of the aerospace industry has been closely tiedhistorically to government spending, especially to theDepartment of Defense where spending fell by some53% between 1987 and 2000. Military R&D fell 20%during the same period. This, together with a 37%decrease in aerospace industry R&D and a host ofmergers, buy-outs and bankruptcies, has devastated theaerospace workforce (Fig. 3).

‘‘Clearly, there is a major workforce crisis in theaerospace industry,’’ reports the Commission.10 Notonly has the industry seen the exodus of 600,000‘‘scientific and technical aerospace jobs in the past 13years,’’ roughly 27% of the current aerospace workforcewill be eligible to retire by 2008. Replacing researchers,engineers, technicians and support personnel is difficultbecause the cyclical nature of the industry inhibits newentrants who look for long-term stability and profes-sional growth. ‘‘A consequence of this environment has

8National Science Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral,

and Economic Sciences, InfoBrief, ‘‘Slowing R&D Growth Expected in

2002’’, Brandon Shackelford, NSF 03-307, December 2002.9Science and Engineering Indicators—2002, O-4.10Ibid.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Ratio of natural science and engineering first university degrees

awarded to 24-year-old population, by country/economy (Science and

Engineering Indicators—2002).

Fig. 3. Total employment in the aerospace industry (1989–2002)

(Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry,

Final Report, November, 2002, 8-2, Fig. 8-1).

Fig. 4. US students’ science and math performance relative to other

countries Final Report, 8-7, Fig. 8-3.

12Ibid, 8–6.13Ibid. 8–1.14Stuglinger and Ordway, Wernher von Braun, 147.

J.N. Pelton et al. / Space Policy 20 (2004) 197–205200

been an overall aging of the aerospace workforce, whichrisks the loss of intellectual capital.’’11

Many of those joining the ranks of the aerospaceindustry may not be adequately prepared. The Commis-sion expressed alarm at declines in the quality of math,science and technology education in grades K-12 (Fig. 4)

11Ibid, 8–3.

and worried that our ‘‘system is doing an abysmal job ofeducating our children.’’12 Clearly, any nation wishingto exercise leadership in space, no less to participate as atechnologically based society, must invest in educationemphasizing mathematics, science and technology.

In the mid-1980s, the US aerospace industry couldboast that it dominated the aerospace market. This is nolonger the case. Europe, Russia, Canada, Japan, Chinaand Brazil are successfully challenging that position.These nations understand the importance of a work-force educated in engineering and technology. ‘‘Ourpolicymakers,’’ the Commission warns, ‘‘need toacknowledge that the nation’s apathy toward develop-ing a scientifically and technologically trained workforceis the equivalent of intellectual and industrial disarma-ment, and is a direct threat to our nation’s capability tocontinue as a world leader.’’13

3.1. A need for new initiatives

We must make these careers more attractive to inducemore young people to select them. (Von Braun)14

Wall Street Journal staff writers in a February 2003article on the plight of NASA speculated that, ‘‘Manyyoung people today with a technical bent are moreentranced with the Internet or biotechnology than spaceexploration. Space travel, after all, was a fascination oftheir parents’ generation.’’ The reporters noted thatNASA administrator Sean O’Keefe in testimony to theUS Congress in Summer 2002 acknowledged the agencyfaced a critical skills shortage in Space Shuttle andInternational Space Station programs despite ‘‘activerecruitment’’.15

The current plight of the aerospace industry is in noway unique among US high technology enterprises.

15Kemba J. Dunham and Kris Maher, ‘‘NASA Struggles to fill

Openings for Personnel,’’ The Wall Street Journal.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.N. Pelton et al. / Space Policy 20 (2004) 197–205 201

Enrolments in science and engineering courses in UScolleges and universities peaked at nearly 450,000 in1982 and have declined to around 350,000 as of theacademic year 2002/2003. During the past decade and ahalf, the number of scientific and engineering jobs in theUSA has increased by some 15% and the demand fortechnical personnel with at least some specialized skillhas increased even more rapidly. The net result has beena shortage of people to fill skilled scientific, engineeringand technical positions. A pattern has emerged ofrecruiting overseas by US aerospace, engineering,scientific and high technology industries. The NationalScience Board of the National Science Foundation in itsScience and Engineering Indicators 2002 Report noted abroad spectrum of problems and adverse trendsin science and technology education that have beenon-going for years.

4. The national space education workshop

The urgency of these problems is heightened by thefact that organizations such as NASA, NIST and theDefense Department and many high technology indus-tries are facing a situation where a sizeable percentage oftheir critical skills personnel will retire in the next 5years. Further, women and minorities are underrepre-sented among college enrolments and college graduatesin science and technology. Meanwhile the cost of collegeeducation continues to rise and new educationalmethods and on-line systems are being employed withvarying results. For these reasons a 1-day NationalSpace Education Workshop was held on 27 March 2003at George Washington University. The goal of theworkshop sponsors and participants, which representeda very broad spectrum of professional organizations andinstitutes, universities, government agencies and indus-try groups,16 was to identify new directions, newsolutions and new initiatives that could address theneed for improved space education programs for thecoming decades.

16The workshop participants were: Air Force Institute of Technol-

ogy, Air Force Space and Missile Center, Air Force Research

Laboratory, American Astronautical Society, American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics, Arianespace, Federal Aviation Admin-

istration, Florida Space Research Institute, General Dynamics,

Howard University, International Space University, MIT, National

Space Society, National Institute of Aerospace, Office of Management

and Budget, The White House, Ohio University, PBI Media, Society of

Satellite Professionals, Intelsat, Raytheon, Satellite Industry Associa-

tion, Society of Satellite Professionals International, Space Founda-

tion, Universities Space Research Association, Washington Space

Business Roundtable and World Bank-IBRD. The sponsors were:

NASA, Arthur C. Clarke Foundation, Arthur C. Clarke Institute for

Telecommunications and Information(CITI), Space Systems/Loral-

Loral Skynet, International Launch Services, Embry Riddle Aero-

nautical University, George Washington University.

The workshop accordingly addressed a numberof issues and possible new initiatives, including thefollowing:

�

distance learning, tele-education and innovative usesof the Internet;

�

shared research facilities and new approaches toresearch;

�

joint university projects and partnerships; � multidisciplinary needs and international perspectives

and languages;

� space and security issues related to education and

training;

� how to attract more students to the space and

technical disciplines at the primary and secondaryeducational levels as well as at the college level;

�

how to prepare incoming students more effectively forcollege and how to strengthen science, technology,engineering, and math programs.

4.1. Summary of the workshop proceedings

Some 120 people from over 40 space-related organi-zations from around the USA and abroad attended theworkshop, which was structured around keynoteaddresses by many well-known space personalities, andsix breakout discussion groups.

All the keynote speakers and the breakout discussiongroups found many areas of agreement as to both theproblems now faced in space education and possible newsolutions. While there were many problems andopportunities identified related to college-level spaceand technical education, the consensus was that thegreatest needs for reform and improvement were at theprimary and secondary educational level. The fact thatemployment in aerospace had declined precipitouslyover the past 15 years was found to be of seriousconcern, as was the fact that graduates in technicaldisciplines had declined in the past 15 years from450,000 to 350,000. Many voiced the view that the‘‘educational programs’’ cannot be ‘‘fixed’’ until thefuture direction and new national vision for the aero-space industry were clarified and defined with a newsense of urgency.

Workshop participants came up with a number ofinnovative suggestions as to how to find ways to recruitstudents to meet the needs of the ‘‘graying workforce’’that now exists in the aerospace field. One of the manyideas of the day was the proposal that future govern-ment contracts require that bidders provide a 1% or 2%set-aside in major contracts for training and educationthat could be carried out in cooperation with schools,universities, museums and others on the basis of ‘‘in-kind’’ programs such as internships, scholarships, co-opprograms, etc. The workshop also endorsed many of the

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.N. Pelton et al. / Space Policy 20 (2004) 197–205202

ideas that were highly rated in the national question-naire survey, as reported on in detail below.

NASA Associate Administrator for Education, Dr.Clifford Houston, noted that 27% of the NASAengineering and scientific workforce and over 50% ofall employees would retire in the next 5–7 years. Heoutlined a number of new initiatives that the spaceagency is now undertaking (in cooperation with theNSF and the Department of Education) under anexpanded budget to interest young people, traineducators, and streamline and improve its educationalofferings. He noted that NASA is placing specialemphasis on the so-called STEM programs that focuson education and training in ‘‘Science, Technology,Engineering and Math.’’ He also outlined NASA’smechanisms to bolster science and education through itsexplorer schools, its explore institutions, its NASAeducator program and NASA’s scholarship program.

Space Foundation President Elliot Pulham noted thatrevitalizing the space industry in terms of spacetransportation, space tourism and ‘‘going where noman or woman had gone before’’ had to be a part of thesolution. Scott Chase, of PBI Media, on behalf of thebreakout session on Space Applications, underscoredElliot Pulham’s message in this regard, with a simplemessage. ‘‘We’ve got to put more ‘sizzle’ back into thespace industry.’’ Suggestions of innovative programs ofthis nature (ideas that would inspire young people)included a manned mission to Mars, a lunar colony,large-scale solar power systems, space tourism and spaceplanes, a space elevator and more.

Dr. George Ebbs, President of Embry Riddle Aero-nautical University, explained that, by maintaining aclear focus on space and aviation technologies anddeveloping student-centric programs, they were able tosustain a student population of over 25,000 at their twocampuses and 100 satellite facilities around the world.Ebbs added that space applications in telecommunica-tions, remote sensing, space navigation, etc. were theheart of space-based economics and the biggest jobopportunity. He was frank in asserting that NASA hadmissed opportunities to strengthen this crucial part of aspace industry.

Professor Joseph Pelton, of George WashingtonUniversity and Director of the Arthur C. ClarkeFoundation, added that NASA officials might reflecton the thoughts of bank robber Willie Sutton when hesaid: ‘‘He robbed banks because that was where themoney was’’. Pelton noted that NASA spent less than1% of its budget on space applications when the rest ofthe space agencies around the world spent 10–40% onR&D to stimulate new space applications. Terry Hart,President of Loral Skynet and former astronaut,indicated that more US government attention to spaceapplications did not mean that this should increasegovernment regulatory control. He suggested, in fact,

that less demanding regulation of the space telecommu-nications industry was probably the most importantthing that government could do to stimulate satellitetelecommunications growth and prosperity.

Mark Albrecht, President of International LaunchServices, indicated that the success of the space industryin the years ahead would, in his opinion, be closely tiedto how ‘‘transparent’’ the technology and the servicewas to the public in terms of being linked to spacetechnology. He suggested that satellite radio, broadbandsatellite services, satellite entertainment and other spaceapplications had not only to be upgraded and improvedbut tied to the public’s appreciation that spacetechnology brought people a better and more entertain-ing life. The combined message of both Hart andAlbrecht was that stimulus to growth of the spaceindustry would go a long way to curing the decline instudent interest in space-related educational disciplines.

Rear Admiral Rand Fisher, Director of Communica-tions Systems for the National Reconnaissance Officeexplained that satellite data, communications andsensing not only made modern warfare more efficientand globally available, but that it could and did savelives. He suggested that a strong and vigorous spaceeducation program was critical to the future security ofthe USA and that space applications provided for thenational defense would actually promote longer-termprospects for peace. The breakout session on interna-tional cooperation and interdisciplinary studies built onthis theme of ‘‘peace and international cooperationthrough space’’ by suggesting that educational programsallowed for large-scale international space programs (i.e.international program management, international lan-guages, international team design projects, etc.) wereconsidered prime candidates for promoting world peaceand international collaboration in space.

MIT Professor and former astronaut Jeff Hoffmanexplained why the Columbia disaster must not slowhuman exploration and exploitation of space forscientific and industrial reasons. He set forth the manyscientific and economic reasons why the internationalspace station was a key building block to spacedevelopment. He set forth why reactivation of theShuttle fleet was critical in realizing the full deploymentof the ISS and continuing our longer-term goals towardunderstanding the evolution of the solar system and themysteries of the universe.

Following the keynote sessions six breakout sessionsexplored current problems and challenges related tospace education and what new approaches might betried to re-invigorate space educational programs.Despite the fact that these issues were addressed bygroups that looked at problems from the perspective ofaeronautical engineering, space applications, space law,regulation, economics and social sciences, spacesciences, international cooperation and new educational

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.N. Pelton et al. / Space Policy 20 (2004) 197–205 203

technologies and systems, the general conclusion acrossall the breakout groups was that the focus of newprograms and needs should be on K-12 (high school)much more so than on college programs. There was aconsistent view among the groups, as well as from theNational Delphi Survey results (see below), that therewas a need for schools and educational institutions towork more closely with governmental agencies, mu-seums, industry training programs and professionalassociations to strengthen the appeal, interest, currencyand substance of STEM-related programs. Improve-ments with regard to on-line and tele-education offer-ings, internships, co-op programs, scholarships, hands-on training projects, design activities that strengthened‘‘critical thinking skills’’ received consistent support.There was agreement, however, that, unless there wereintellectual, economic and industrial incentives topursue a career in space-related disciplines, educationalreforms and innovations alone would not be sufficient.There was in all the reports a consistent expression ofconcerns for the future of space education and the needto take into account the exploding nature of scientificand technical information, the need for life-longlearning, new electronic forms of education and train-ing, and adapting to a world that is changing at an evermore rapid pace and which is ever more interconnected,interdisciplinary, and international.

5. National Dephi Survey results

A questionnaire was prepared by the WorkshopSteering Committee and widely circulated via sponsororganizations and participating industry press and websites. In all 94 responses were received from a wide rangeof some 50 academic, professional, governmental andindustry sources.

Results of questionnaire on the future of the space

industry and space education: The final tally of thequestionnaire results, in the form of distribution chartsthat indicate the level of support for various possiblefuture approaches to space education, the areas ofprojected greatest need, and current perceptions ofproblems to be faced, is available from the authors. Thissection seeks to identify areas of particular interest oremphasis and highlights some of the particular re-sponses. Not surprisingly industry and governmentrespondents projected varying academic areas of futureneed and only a few areas showed strong consensusviews. Nevertheless there were seven initiatives thatreceived a ‘‘high level’’ of support from among themajority of those who replied to the survey.

Initiatives in higher education receiving the highest level

of support: Those proposals with the greatest amount ofsupport at the university level included:

�

more incentives to encourage university faculty toupgrade skills (62 of 94 rated this as a ‘‘highpriority’’);

�

more college scholarships in technical fields (59 of 94rated this as a ‘‘high priority’’);

�

an increase government, industry, academic andprofessional partnerships to strengthen technicalcurriculum and joint educational/research opportu-nities (55 out of 94 rated this as a ‘‘high priority’’);

�

encouragement of professional societies, industryassociations and educational associations (such asthe Space Foundation) to increase the size ofeducational (including intern) programs and morejoint undertakings with universities with regard torecruitment and curriculum development (53 out of94 rated this as a ‘‘high priority’’);

�

improved counseling and support for science andtechnology students at universities and colleges (76out of 94 giving ‘‘medium’’ or ‘‘high’’ priority).

Initiatives in secondary education receiving the highest

level of support: Proposals involving secondary educa-tion and its role as a feeder of quality students intocolleges and universities that received a majority of‘‘high priority’’ votes included the following:

�

increased counseling and support systems for scienceand technology programs in secondary education(using school, industry and professional associationresources) (61 out of 94);

�

creation of new mechanisms to allow universities,colleges, professional associations, government agen-cies, science museums and industry to work togetherto enhance the interest of secondary school studentsin science and technology and recruit students to thefield. (e.g. Space Day at the National Air and SpaceMuseum) (58 our of 92);

�

upgrading and expansion of databases that identifyuniversities and colleges that offer space educationand science and technology programs and scholar-ships (51 out of 94).

Initiatives in tele-education receiving the highest level of

support: In the area of tele-education, distance learning,web-based learning, and sharing of virtual labs amonguniversities there was a good deal of interest and severalfresh ideas expressed, but none of the initiatives in thesurvey received a majority of ‘‘high priority’’ ratings.Nevertheless all but 14 of 92 respondents gave a mediumto high priority rating to the suggestion that there bemore creative use of web sites and Internet-basededucational systems to offer training to professionalsin the field and to re-certify professional knowledge inthe field.

Projected future needs in space education: The projec-tions of future training and educational needs showed

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.N. Pelton et al. / Space Policy 20 (2004) 197–205204

clearly that the space sector requires academic programsin a very broad spectrum of disciplines and also strongsupport for interdisciplinary training and research aswell as a demand for education in areas such as policyand law, international relations, technical and engineer-ing management, risk assessment, etc.

The areas that came out with the indices of projectedneed both at the BS/BA and the MS/MA/Ph.D. levelswere as follows:

�

electrical and computer engineering; � computer science and IT; � satellite applications; � physical sciences and math; � engineering and technical management; � life sciences-biotechnology; � risk assessment.

Those that came out the lowest were:

�

astrophysics; � business, marketing, MIS; � operations research; � architecture and systems design; � chemical and materials engineering.

The skill areas that were rated as the most highlydesirable for the space sector were:

�

nano-technology and MEMS (57 out of 88 responseswere ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘highest’’);

�

artificial intelligence and expert systems (53 out of 88responses were ‘‘important or ‘‘highest’’);

�

risk assessment (43 out of 90 responses were‘‘important or ‘‘highest’’);

�

robotics and ‘‘smart systems’’ network design (42 outof 88 responses were ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘highest’’).

�

international engineering/project managementskills (37 out of 87 responses were ‘‘important’’ or‘‘highest’’).

Identification of key problems going forward: Therespondents agreed there were a number of problemsgoing forward and rated these three problems as largeconcerns:

Fifty out of 94 respondents indicated significantconcerns with regard to continued reliance on aninternational pool of talent. This is a key problem forthe space sector, especially in light of heightened securityconcerns.

Forty-eight out of 92 respondents indicated largeconcerns with the increasingly high cost of education inhighly skilled areas for the space sector.

Forty-six out of 92 respondents indicated majorconcerns with regard to recruiting highly skilled posi-tions in government, industry and academia.

Key suggestions from survey respondents: Over aquarter of survey respondents indicated a need for morecooperation in recruiting young people. There wasstrong support for distance education, more cooperativeand intern programs, interdisciplinary projects andmulti-disciplinary team activities. There were specificsuggestions such as the inclusion of topics and materialsrelated to the space sector in national and statecompetence tests, creation and certification of a newgraduate-level multi-disciplinary space engineering andmanagement studies program, and creation of newgovernment-level space research and education pro-grams or institutes at universities.

Other suggestions were much more broad. Onestatement suggested that the space sector wouldcontinue to contract in scope and would only expandagain when there was a ‘‘new and widely held publicvision’’ of space and what it means to saving the Earth’senvironment, helping the global economy, giving accessto new resources and realizing a mission for human-kind’s future role in the solar system and beyond.Another parallel statement suggested that the spacesector would continue to shrink until there was a clear-cut demand for new jobs in this area and thateducational needs and student enrolment would ‘‘takecare of themselves’’ if such a demand existed. Mostresponses, however, were positive. The majority viewseemed to be that a higher level of concern together withtargeted action with regard to space and relatedtechnical education could meet future needs. Themajority also seemed to focus on earlier educationalprograms and the need for specific improvements andnew programs at the secondary level in terms of strongerteaching capabilities and training, more counseling, andmore internships and other programs aimed at the12–17-year-old level.

6. Findings and recommendations

Key findings and recommendations from the work-shop can be summarized as the following:

�

We need more clarity and vision in defining nationalspace goals and objectives in terms of space explora-tion and sciences, space and national security, spaceapplications, and future manned space missions.

�

We need more ‘‘sizzle’’ and ‘‘intellectual interest’’ inspace among the general public in order to obtainbroadly based support for space research andexploration and to attract young people to this field.

�

We need a longer-range vision for space educationgoals and objectives to address such issues as theinformation explosion, modern electronic informa-tion systems, tele-education, life-long learning, andways of educational institutions to work more

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.N. Pelton et al. / Space Policy 20 (2004) 197–205 205

effectively with government agencies, professionalorganizations, museums, and industry.

�

We need innovative approaches to STEM educationand training (i.e. Science, Technology, Engineeringand Math), especially at the primary and secondaryeducational level. (All relevant US, state and localgovernment agencies need to coordinate their effortsand work together toward this end.)

�

We need to recognize that the world of space willbecome increasingly interdisciplinary, international,intercultural and involve private/public partnerships,giving rise to new educational and training needs thatare not now being fully met.

�

We need to sharpen current educational programs inthe USA at virtually all levels, ‘‘to develop criticalthinking skills and analytic capabilities’’; we perhapstoo often focus only on presentation of factualcontent without placing it in a problem-solving orcreative ‘‘engineering’’ context.

�

We need to recognize that a significant factor indeclining US educational performance in the science,technology, engineering and math fields is the lack ofqualified teachers at all educational levels, with asmany as a third of all math and science teachers in theUSA possessing inadequate training. Thus, efforts toupgrade teachers’ skills, educational backgrounds andgeneral capabilities must be a high priority andprograms such as those pursued by the SpaceFoundation and the Space Day program at theNational Air and Space Museum among othersshould be considered models to follow.

�

We need to pursue new approaches, such as a 1 to 2%set-aside for scientific and engineering related educa-tion and training that would be included in newgovernmental contracts (for space and defense relatedactivities), and other similar approaches should beconsidered for urgent implementation.

�

We need to continue efforts to address the challengesof future space educational needs and STEM relateddisciplines through mechanisms such as workshops,surveys, cooperative programs, internships, co-ops,and scholarships. New forms of cooperative relation-ships among every potential interest groups should beencouraged within the US Government and allsponsors and participants of the National SpaceEducation Workshop.

We need to work with NASA and other federal andstate government agencies to use existing on-line andtelevision distribution media and existing programmingto strengthen national tele-education programs so that

excellent existing space education programming can bemuch more widely distributed.

7. Final conclusions

There seems to be a broad base of evidence thatsuggests that US educational programs for the spacesector need reinvigoration and improvement. There is aneed for improved recruitment and better education atthe secondary school level. Most of all, there is a needfor a clear vision for the US space sector in the post-Columbia tragedy environment. This vision could bequite broad and diverse, from the use of spacetechnologies to combat terrorism and increasing secur-ity, to strengthening environmental and economicgrowth opportunities, to space tourism and permanentcolonies in space. It is hoped that this effort signals thestart of a new journey forward. We hope that our WhitePaper would have helped to define a new vision for thespace sector that came from the discussions and findingsreached at the National Space Education Workshop andthat these initiatives will continue forward in the monthsand years ahead. We hope that future meetings on thiskey topic will be held. We also hope that this WhitePaper can guide policy makers as they address the issuein terms of budgetary allocations, in terms of thestarting of new programs as such are outlined in thisdocument and in terms of a new focus on science,technology, engineering and math programs for K-12educational programs.

Acknowledgements

The authors would particularly like to thank Dr.Hussein J. Hussein of the Universities Space ResearchAssociation and Dr. John Logsdon and Dr. HenryHertzfeld of the Space Policy Institute, George Wa-shington University for their assistance in reviewing andproviding helpful input into this workshop summary aswell as to express our appreciation to the dozens ofpeople from sponsoring organizations who made thisworkshop possible, including particularly Dr. AdenaLoston, Dr. Clifford Houston and Ms. Angela Diaz ofthe NASA Office of Space Education, Dr. Irwin Price ofEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Tedson Meyers,Chair of the Aruthur C. Clarke Foundation and RobertBell, Executive Director of the Society of SpaceProfessionals International.