Spacecraft Washing Business – Sure, There Will Be A Need For Spacecraft Washes

Have you ever driven your freshly washed car through a mud puddle on the street, or had a bird dropping right on the hood just hours after paying the carwash for a deluxe car wash? Well, what do they say; ‘it happens’. After spending years in the cleaning business, washing cars, trucks, boats and planes, I’ve seen it all. I’ve personally cleaned the biofoul scum from the water line of yachts, plastered migrating butterflies off the bumpers of long-haul trucks, and dead bird carcasses off the leading edges of private jets. Let’s face it, here on Earth there is a lot of stuff floating in the air or puddled on the ground – but that is here, what about space?

Well, even though there appears to be only one molecule per square meter in space, space craft travel faster and will a lot of molecular matter when traveling afar. There was an interesting article in AstroWatch News Online on June 29, 2018 titled; “Milky Way Rich in Grease-Like Molecules, Study Finds,” which stated:

“The researchers found that there are about 100 greasy carbon atoms for every million hydrogen atoms, accounting for between a quarter and a half of the available carbon. In the Milky Way Galaxy, this amounts to about 10 billion trillion trillion tonnes of greasy matter, or enough for 40 trillion trillion trillion packs of butter.”

Before you get excited, the article goes on to note: “This space grease is not the kind of thing you’d want to spread on a slice of toast! It’s dirty, likely toxic and only forms in the environment of interstellar space (and our laboratory). It’s also intriguing that organic material of this kind – material that gets incorporated into planetary systems – is so abundant.”

Thus, if our spacecraft do “Boldly Go” and explore the Universe, no doubt they will come back totally dirty and need SpaceCraft Washing. Well, I guess as technology changes so too does industry. I know this very well as a former up-start in the car wash industry, as I was the first innovator to come up with a mobile car washing business.

In the future, Spacecraft Cleaning and Detailing might become quite a lucrative business. Think of all those ‘private space’ companies that wish to take up space tourists? Each flight they will come back totally dirty and filthy, with greasy film all over them. It probably will be hard to clean off having been frozen on the hull of the spacecraft and then backed on at super high temperatures during re-entry. Perhaps this could be a future TV episode of Dirty Jobs!

Responding to Employees’ Questions: Tell, Teach, or Ask?

Asking questions to gather knowledge is a major learning method for employees at all levels of an organization, and it a major responsibility of the manager to help them. Let’s say that in the course of your daily work, an employee comes to you with a situation that she doesn’t know how to handle. She may have tried one or more ways to solve the problem, but they didn’t resolve the situation. It doesn’t matter what kind of challenge the employee is facing – it could be an imperfect product coming from the manufacturing process, a customer complaint she can’t resolve, a line of programming code she can’t get to work, or a medical procedure about which she is uncertain. Your goal as a manager should be not just to get the situation resolved, but also to help the employee learn how to solve similar problems in the future.

These types of situations arise every day, often multiple times in a day. So, as a manager, how do you respond? Here are some common responses that employees often hear from their managers.

“Don’t bother me. Figure it out yourself.”
“Just leave it with me and I’ll take care of it.”
“Why don’t you ask Fred or Mary to show you how to do that?”
“Here’s what you need to do”
“Let me show you how to do that.”
“What do you think you should do?”

Let’s look at each response from the perspective of both the manager and the employee.

“Don’t bother me. Figure it out yourself.”

As a manager, you have a lot on your plate. Perhaps you think this employee already knows how to answer the question or solve the problem, but is relying too much on your assistance – perhaps she doesn’t have the self-assurance to solve the problem without getting your approval first. Or, perhaps, you already answered a similar question for this employee several times and feel that the employee should be able to extrapolate the right answer from other answers you have already given.

From your perspective as a manager, this answer will get rid of a potential time-sink and allow you to work on matters you think more important. Having received this response, the employee has three options:

She can come up with a solution that may or may not work. If it works, that’s great. If it doesn’t work, she can blame her manager for not helping her. From your managerial perspective, this is not an optimal solution – the problem may not get solved, and the employee has learned nothing about how to solve such problems herself in the future, so she will continue coming to you every time she faces a problem.
She can go to someone else in the group to see if they can help her – perhaps they have faced this situation before and know how to solve the problem. This may or may not result in a successful resolution, depending on the knowledge and experience of the person she approaches and their willingness to help her.
She can abandon the problem, feeling that if the manager doesn’t think it important enough to help her solve, it must not be very important. This is not a very satisfying result for the employee – the problem isn’t getting solved and whoever relies on her work, be it a customer, a supplier, or some other internal or external person or group, is stuck with the problem and no solution. It also shouldn’t be a satisfying result for the manager – there is a problem for which your group is responsible that is not getting solved, and the employee feels that you are not supporting her.

“Just leave it with me and I’ll take care of it.”

From the manager’s perspective, this may be the quickest solution. The manager knows how to solve the problem and can get it done quickly without having to take the time to explain the solution to the employee. It also ensures that the problem will get fixed correctly (at least from the manager’s view).

But how does the employee feel when this happens? He may be relieved that the doesn’t have to worry about the problem anymore and can move on to other work at which he feels more competent. But he may also feel dejected because he feels that he should have been able to solve the problem and by taking it to his manager, he is admitting weakness. The last common feeling invoked from this response it that the manager doesn’t value the employee enough to explain the answer and teach him how to solve such problems in the future.

“Why don’t you ask Fred or Mary to show you how to do that?”

This is a better response than the first two. As a manager, you are recognizing that the employee needs to learn how to solve the problem, and are delegating responsibility for teaching the employee to another of your employees. Assuming that Fred or Mary is willing and able to teach the employee, this is a good solution. It ensures that the problem will get solved (assuming that Fred and Mary know how), that the employee will learn the correct procedure, and it doesn’t take time from your other managerial work.

“Here’s what you need to do”

Simple. Straightforward. Gets the problem solved.

And, sometimes, it is necessary. If there is an immediate danger or if the situation requires an immediate response, this will get the job done. When I had a heart attack and was in the hospital emergency room and my heart stopped, I didn’t want the doctors to have a discussion about what to do. I needed immediate action. Similarly, if you are in the control room of a nuclear power plant and alarms start ringing, you don’t want to take a lot of time discussing what you should do – you need to act immediately.

For the employee, there is great relief – the problem will now get solved. Assuming the employee retains the memory of the situation and the solution to that situation, she may be able to replicate the solution if the exact same problem arises again. But has the employee really learned anything? If a similar, but not identical situation arises in the future, will the employee be able to derive a solution without going to the manager again.

The best course of action for the manager in this situation is to first get the problem solved by issuing a directive, but then to sit down with the employee to explain how to diagnose similar problems in the future and how to derive the correct solution. That is, to teach the employee.

“Let me show you how to do that.”

This is a great solution. Here the manager is taking the time to teach the employee how to solve problems, to develop the employee’s skills for the future. The manager’s explanation can be brief (“Do these steps.”) or it can require more time if the manager instructs the employee on how to think about the problem, what alternatives to consider, and how to select the best of those alternatives. This response takes more of the manager’s time than any of the earlier responses, but it will result in more learning and a greater probability that the next time the employee faces a similar situation, he or she will be able to diagnose and solve the problem without taking more of the manager’s time.

“What do you think you should do?”

This is a coaching response, rather than a directive or teaching response. It can be useful when:

You, as the manager, don’t know the answer or are interested in exploring possible solutions with the employee.
You feel that the employee can come up with a good solution himself, but doesn’t have the self-confidence to do so.

This response answers a question with a question and implies a coaching approach. It is designed to empower the employee, as Judith Ross stated in her Harvard Business Review blog. She suggests that managers who use empowering questions “create value in one of more of the following ways:

They create clarity: “can you explain more about this situation?”
They construct better working relations: Instead of “Did you make your sales goal?” ask “How have sales been going?”
They help people think analytically and critically: “What are the consequences of going this route?”
They inspire people to reflect and see things in fresh, unpredictable ways: “Why did this work?”
They encourage breakthrough thinking: “Can that be done in any other way?”
They challenge assumptions: “What do you think you will lose if you start sharing responsibility for the implementation process?”
They create ownership of solutions: “Based on your experience, what do you suggest we do here?”

The point of coaching is to help the employee develop thinking, problem analysis, and decision-making skills. It does not imply that the manager doesn’t know what to do, although coaching questions can help both the employee and the manager analyze a problem if neither of them has a ready solution. Asking coaching questions should never be used to force an employee to select the solution that the manager already has in mind – a manager should never keep asking the employee to suggest a solution and keep the employee guessing at alternative solutions until the employee comes up with the one the manager wants – that’s not coaching, it’s manipulation.

‘Official’ Blockchain Standards for 2019

The succinct statement details the government’s pending official definitions of blockchain regulations. Publicly advertised rationales may appear comparatively innocuous or indeed prudent yet such official justifications are an obvious attempt at the curtailing rather than development of decentralized technologies. Even rudimentary, preliminary investigation of the statements highlight what may generously be labelled as contentious logic.

“China is set to publish official standards on blockchain technology next year, with one official telling Xinhua they will “give the industry some guidance” on the technology.

Li Ming, a director of the Blockchain Research Office under the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), told Xinhua’s Economic Information Daily that work had already begun on forming the standards. Li, however, made clear that while standards would provide some guidance to blockchain developers, authorities did not expect official guidelines to “quickly advance the development” of the industry. Despite efforts to clamp down on the financial risks associated with cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings, the Chinese government has looked to show its support for blockchain development. China was the world’s biggest source of blockchain patents in 2017, while last September saw a blockchain research center opened by the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, a research institution under the MIIT.

The new standards being drawn up by the Blockchain Research Office will include guidelines for the application of blockchain in terms of business, information security and reliability, Li told Xinhua. Despite the exciting potential surrounding blockchain, the technology remains in a stage of infancy. Without clear regulations in place, security problems have caused nearly 2.9 billion US dollars’ worth of losses worldwide between 2011 and 2018, according to Baimaohui Security Research Center, a specialist in online security that has worked with Alibaba and Huawei.

The last two years alone have seen 1.9 billion US dollars lost because of blockchain security issues, according to Baimaohui. Not only are China’s leading tech firms and banks applying for blockchain patents and researching how the technology can improve services and boost public trust in supply chains, China’s Ministry of Public Security is also studying how to implement the technology in terms of data storage. Earlier this week, data from China’s Intellectual Property Office showed that a patent application had been filed by the Ministry of Public Security for a blockchain system that would securely and transparently save unalterable data to the cloud. Such a system could be used and shared by police across the country, allowing data to be shared rapidly between various agencies. ( CGTN )”

To begin let’s not forget the differentiation of decentralized capacities versus centralized services. A regionally authorized service naturally adheres to geographically specific governing legislation. For example an international fast food chain may, in some European countries, sell alcoholic beverages over the counter while the same operator is typically not permitted to do so in North America. This variation is possible because of service use being localized. To have ‘official’ guidelines of decentralized capabilities would be to imagine access and or use of decentralized services being regional, or under the same legislation. It may not. It is decentralized.

Secondly it has been calculated by the American Government Accountability Office ( GAO ), that the 2008 financial crises cost $12.8 trillion dollars. This further omits subsequent bailouts, unemployment and broad reaching detrimental consequences suffered by millions.

The causes of the 2008 financial crises have been largely attributed to deregulation, securitization (double dipping and bundling), sales of subprime mortgages and the Federal Reserve’s raising rates on subprime borrowers. In short, actions conducted by government, banking and financial industries.

By contrast for one set of activities to lose under $3 billion over seven years is minuscule. Regardless of political stance, decentralized technologies offer the capacity for individual’s independently enacting personal choice. Personal loss resulting from bad decision making, such as ICO investment, is contained. Moreover it is a conscious participation where any individual may only invest or access a set amount, that which is in their immediate control. Compare this ceiling to unilateral extents achievable by governments and corporations.

To incorporate decentralized technology into one regional government’s operational guidelines may prove nothing more than redundant methods of double accounting. Used by individuals whom may collectively be under no single government’s purview, concurrently decentralized technological capacity must itself be equally discovered.