Slashdot Mirror
NASA Gets Its Marching Orders: Look Up! Look Out!
TheRealHocusLocus writes: HR 2039: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act for 2016 and 2017 (press release, full text, and as a pretty RGB bitmap) is in the House. In $18B of goodies we see things that actually resemble a space program. The ~20,000 word document is even a good read, especially the parts about decadal cadence. There is more focus on launch systems and manned exploration, also to "expand the Administration's Near-Earth Object Program to include the detection, tracking, cataloguing, and characterization of potentially hazardous near-Earth objects less than 140 meters in diameter." I find it awesome that the fate of the dinosaurs is explicitly mentioned in this bill. If it passes we will have a law with dinosaurs in it. Someone read the T-shirt. There is also a very specific six month review of NASA's "Earth science global datasets for the purpose of identifying those datasets that are useful for understanding regional changes and variability, and for informing applied science research." Could this be an emerging Earth Sciences turf war between NOAA and NASA? Lately it seems more of a National Atmospheric Space Administration. Mission creep, much?
There's no question what this is really about. When you don't like the results kill the studies.
but SOMEONE must be studying climate intensely, be it NASA or NOAA, it's all the same to me. But trying to gut the program smells distinctly of defensive profiteers with their hands far too deep into the people's government
So you're suggesting that a bill co-sponsored by 16 House Republicans (including 6 from Texas, home of JSC) rah-rahing manned space exploration and defunding Earth observations might somehow have ulterior motives?
The "review" of NASA's programs focused on studying Earth seems more like an attempt by climate-science deniers to stifle research that doesn't confirm what they want to hear, than anything to do with a supposed "turf battle with NOAA".
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Since ther days of Apollo NASA's principle task has been the exploration of space and the development of means to travel to space. After Apollo, it's capabilities have been degrading more and more till now the US has to pay Russia to put our stuff on their "trampolines".
TIme to take away their climate toys until they get their primary mission right.
It's about small-government people wanting agencies to get back to the core stuff they were created to do (aeronautical research, space flight, and space exploration for NASA)
You can start whining that the GOP hates the result of climate studies when they zero-out the budgets of NOAA, the NSF, the EPA, and eliminates all those dollars being spent annually on climate studies in other government agencies and universites. Telling NASA that it has become so confused about its core mission that it is no longer effective and telling it to re-focus on its core mission is the responsible thing for the adults in the room to do; it's LONG overdue.
NASA today is so messed-up it could not even put a monkey into space for a single orbit of the Earth (something it originally managed to do 50 years ago). If the agency cannot do even the basics, it has no business diversifying into all sorts of other junk that overlaps what half a dozen other agencies are tasked with also doing.
Republicans have been the primary Congressional force running interference for the old space industry, either by throwing money at the likes of ATK to build rockets that will never fly, or actively blocking SpaceX from competing with the established players on contracts.
While the big government contracting model can get crews into space, it does so at such an exorbitant price it's simply not worth it. SpaceX, or more precisely the discarding of legacy design and especially legacy contracting models that SpaceX represents, at least gives us a chance of a sustainable space program because it is far, far better value for money. It's also far more in alignment with professed Republican principles, as distinct from revealed preferences from observed behaviour.
A revived crewed space program under the old model will result in bugger-all flying, lots of money wasted, and will get cancelled soon enough. Why bother?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
No, it's also a thing for two sides to be outraged about and have a flame war. Thus, it's money in the bank for Dice Holdings.
You really should recognize what's important in this world. Short term bottom line and minimizing any legal liability. Occasional intelligent conversation is just a way to lure in the sucker... I mean users.
Why do these people act so shock that the agency that is largely responsible for space holds most of the assets in space, even if theose assets ultimately complement other agencies? I thought cooperation between agencies is a good thing? (Or should scientific research have the sort of systemic walls between agencies that let to the intelligence failure known as 9/11 ??)
NASA has the bulk of space based sensors monitoring the Earth.
This is of course, completely logical.
Even for assets actually owned by other agencies, they still interact and support them, particularly in the launching and maintaining aspects.
But NASA has the bulk. So the gameplan here lays itself out. First they reduce NASA's earth monitoring capability. Note they dont kill it outright...they rarely do. First you reduce its capability and effectiveness to justify further cuts in the future. And then you just never replace that capability in the agencies they argued should have it.
Such as:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
We know this is the game plan, because the GOP has -already tried- to interfere with NOAA's earth monitoring and climate research capabilities, and defund it's climate research. Whereas with NASA They claim that work is best left to NOAA, when talking about NOAA they instead claim that NOAA's true mission is "weather forecasting", not "climate research", as if understanding the bigger picture better and monitoring the planet wouldn't improve the ability to predict weather to as a byproduct.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.