The bridge between a scientific discovery and a funded mission is rarely a straight line. it is a complex web of policy, lobbying, and public imagination. For the Planetary Society, an organization dedicated to the exploration of space, that bridge is built by people who can speak the language of both astrophysicists and legislators. This intersection of science and statecraft has recently earned high-level recognition for two of the Society’s key strategists.
The American Astronomical Society’s (AAS) Division for Planetary Sciences has named Casey Dreier, the Society’s chief of space policy, and Jack Kiraly, its director of government relations, as the recipients of the 2026 Harold Masursky Award. The honor recognizes exceptional service to planetary science and space exploration, highlighting the critical role that advocacy and policy play in ensuring that the telescopes and probes of tomorrow actually leave the drawing board.
The award carries a significant historical weight. First presented in 1991 to the legendary astronomer and communicator Carl Sagan, the Masursky Award is less about a single discovery and more about the lifelong commitment to expanding humanity’s reach into the cosmos. By honoring Dreier and Kiraly, the AAS acknowledges that the “service” of space exploration now requires as much diplomatic maneuvering in Washington D.C. As it does mathematical precision in a lab.
The High Stakes of Space Policy and Artemis II
The recognition for Dreier and Kiraly comes at a time of intense transition for lunar exploration. While robotic missions have long provided the data necessary to map the moon’s surface, the upcoming Artemis II mission represents a fundamental shift. Unlike its predecessors, Artemis II will carry a human crew around the moon, marking the first time people have left low-Earth orbit since the Apollo era.
In a recent episode of Planetary Radio: Space Policy Edition, Casey Dreier explored the philosophical and practical distinctions of this shift with Rebecca Lowe, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The conversation centered on a recurring question in aerospace: why do we still send humans when robots are cheaper, safer, and increasingly sophisticated?
The consensus is that human presence introduces a level of adaptability and intuitive decision-making that AI cannot yet replicate. A human geologist can spot a subtle anomaly in a rock formation and pivot their entire search strategy in seconds—a process that, for a robotic rover, might require a series of commands sent across a multi-second communication lag from Earth. However, this human element introduces immense policy challenges, from life-support redundancies to the legalities of lunar residency and resource extraction.
The Chaos and Order of Cosmic Naming
While policymakers argue over the logistics of lunar bases, the scientific community continues the ancient tradition of naming the things they find. The process is governed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the global authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies, but the results can vary wildly from the majestic to the mundane.
The naming of planets generally follows a strict adherence to classical mythology. Mercury, Venus, and Mars are named after Roman deities, a tradition that provides a sense of continuity and universality. However, as the telescope’s reach extended to smaller, more numerous objects like asteroids, the rules loosened. Today, the naming of minor planets often falls to the discoverer, leading to a celestial catalog that reflects the eclectic nature of human culture.
This has resulted in a cosmic neighborhood where a Roman god might share a sector with an asteroid named “Potato” or one honoring actor Tom Hanks. These naming conventions serve as a historical record of what humanity valued at the moment of discovery—ranging from the high art of the Renaissance to the pop culture of the 21st century. In some cases, naming contests are opened to the public, allowing children to leave a permanent mark on the map of the solar system.
| Object Type | Naming Authority | Common Theme/Source |
|---|---|---|
| Major Planets | IAU | Roman/Greek Mythology |
| Asteroids | Discoverer (via IAU) | Diverse (Celebrities, Places, Objects) |
| Moons | IAU | Mythological figures related to the planet |
| Stars | IAU / Tradition | Arabic terms / Ancient constellations |
Bridging Reality and Speculation through Narrative
The Planetary Society also recognizes that the drive to explore is often fueled by fiction before it is realized by physics. This intersection of art and science was the focus of a recent Society book club event featuring Hugo Award-winning author Becky Chambers. The group discussed her novella, To Be Taught, If Fortunate, which follows four astronaut-scientists exploring four extraordinary worlds in a distant star system.
Chambers’ work mirrors the real-world discussions held by the Society regarding the ethics of exploration. By imagining the biological and social complexities of alien worlds, science fiction provides a “sandbox” for researchers and policymakers to consider the implications of first contact or the environmental impact of human presence on other planets. This narrative exploration complements the rigorous data of planetary science, preparing the public for the psychological reality of becoming a multi-planetary species.
For members of the Society, these discussions are more than just literary critiques; they are exercises in foresight. As the Society continues to mobilize through its “Days of Action,” the goal remains to ensure that the curiosity sparked by a novella or a star-gazing session is translated into sustainable government funding and international cooperation.
The next major milestone for the community will be the continued rollout of the Artemis program’s crewed milestones and the upcoming AAS planetary science meetings, where the 2026 Masursky Award will be formally recognized. As the line between “science fiction” and “space policy” continues to blur, the work of advocates like Dreier and Kiraly ensures that the path forward is paved with both evidence and ambition.
Do you think we should stick to mythological names for new discoveries, or is it time to embrace the “Potato” approach? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
