So I claim there are more than 100 space advocacy groups out there. A person might reasonably ask: Do we need so many? Could we fold them all together into one? And, more importantly, do we really need yet another space group?
Not to keep you in suspense, I am in favor of a multiplicity of groups. That much is obvious, as I have already created another one. Let me explain.
Some of the "pushback" on this issue naturally comes from some of the larger groups. But let me assure you, I'm not here to bash the NSS or the Mars Society or anyone else in our broader community. I assume we're ultimately all on the same side.
I once attended ISDC as a representative of MarsDrive, one of the more "obscure" space groups. Although everyone I talked to was polite, many were dubious or hesitant. A Mars Society member expressed concern about the "dilution of the message." A fairly high-ranking NSS person seemed to exhibit mild exasperation. "Is it a matter of control?" she asked me. I probably didn't answer to her satisfaction.
The attitude is natural, understandable, defensible. You can imagine many such people saying, in effect, "We're already doing that stuff. Just join us and give us your money and your time." In many ways, this is perfectly reasonable.
If my ideas were already being implemented by an existing group, why would I join (or create) another one? I wanted to ask: Is the larger group willing to support my ideas and give resources to them? Would they even listen to my ideas? If they did, would I have any authority or autonomy at all?
Most of these organizations are run by an "inner circle" that can be nearly impossible to break into. Would the leaders fund my projects, lend their endorsement? Not until I spent years drinking their proverbial Kool-Aid (TM) and fighting to rise in their ranks. In the meantime, would they even hear me out? Speaking from experience, I think it's doubtful.
The deeper the hierarchy of an organization, the more bureaucracy and resistance and inefficiency there will be. That's not necessarily fatal, but it does put a damper on morale, creativity, and individual initiative. A shallow hierarchy means that the leaders are in the trenches themselves, not sitting in a high tower sending messages and observing through binoculars.
But what is perhaps more important is the groups are all somewhat different in character. They may differ in their overall philosophies, their reasons for existing, their approaches to problem solving. They may differ in their specific focus, in the activities and projects they pursue. The Mars Society will never be the Moon Society (and it's not just about "moon versus Mars," but about many other things). The Space Foundation will never be the NSS, and neither one will ever be the Planetary Society.
People sometimes fear duplication of effort. I'm not sure I've ever really observed that. I can better understand the concept of "diluting the message" as that one person put it. But I don't think I consider that wholly valid either. He might have had more faith in the leadership of his group than in any other. Sometimes people have a certain "loyalty" to their groups or even to certain personalities; and they may see a message as suspicious or sketchy because it didn't come through their own channels.
But the mentality of "let's all join forces" is one that I run across from time to time. I suppose the rationale is "Strength in numbers, strength in unity," or something similar.
That's not necessarily wrong, of course. I'd even say it could be a good thing if some groups were combined (though I'd still fear the deepening of the hierarchy and the decreased initiative of the individual).
Sometimes someone will float the idea of an "umbrella organization" of some kind. Usually that same person wants the umbrella to be the one belonging to the group of his choice (perhaps even a brand new one which he will run himself from his mother's basement). When I hear people talk about an umbrella group, I often find it's some silly attempt to seize power or wield control.
Of course, the concept of a "zero sum" enters here. Generally speaking, if I give my time and/or money to one group, I can't give that same time and money to another group.
However, I do not like to think of us in the space community as fighting over slices of a pie. Space is infinite. Let's find more pies.
Here is my take on the issue of the "multiplicity of space groups." I explain this with a very random analogy.
Imagine you are a bronze age chieftain. You have enemies in the area. They are preparing for battle, so you do the same. You have (let's say) 500 pounds of bronze for making weapons. Do you (a) make a single giant battering ram; or (b) make 250 bronze-tipped spears?
The first option is a force to be reckoned with, but it can only be focused in one place at one time. The second option permits you to be agile, to adapt quickly, to act in multiple places at different times, to use the judgment and initiative of multiple people. If my time machine ever lands me in the bronze age, and I am faced with this dilemma, I know which alternative I would choose.
So yes, we have started "yet another" space group. You have that option as well.
On the one hand: Maybe you are working with a group that is fully in line with the "correct" goals and priorities (as you perceive them); and maybe you feel your skills are used effectively, and you're helping the group make a difference. In that case, why would you make a change? Stick with what works.
But maybe you have a slightly different slant or spin, your own unconventional ideas that you believe in. Maybe you want to try a different set of strategies based on a different world view. In that case, why wouldn't you strike out on your own with something new?
That is the situation where I found myself. And therefore, striking out on my own was exactly what I did (with the help of a few friends). More details later!