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?
on Capitol Hill.
Seriously. The real story with this bill is that the republicans are defunding the climate monitoring programs. It will take decades to regain the capabilities we'll lose by defunding them now. There's no turf war between NASA and NOAA, just one between republicans and science.
Nice job trying to write a summary for geeks that attempts to bury the real story.
There's no question what this is really about. When you don't like the results kill the studies.
There's a bloody dinosaur above you! And he's a perv!
"Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -Albert Einstein
more focus on launch systems and manned exploration
Perhaps a joke for the 'robotic exploration' crew out there. A man walks into a bar. Tells the bartender "Well, it's over for MESSENGER but we're getting a lot of New Horizons data soon!" Bartender: (blank stare).
Look up some old footage of public interest in NASA during the Apollo program. NASA needs to have heroes, and they need to have something that is seen as a major accomplishment. And they need it soon. Luckily the Chinese are the new Russians.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
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
Hopefully this is a sign the space race is back on. Far more to do out there, then to squabble back here with, who can destroy the world the most number of times with their military, a real dead end and I mean dead end. Something is needed to drive humanity, to focus it's efforts and who is the greediest and most selfish or who can kill the most, are insanely, stupendously pointless and self destructive of society.
Making use of the resources of the solar system, is not about bringing stuff back to earth, it is about humanity expanding it's horizons further out. The difference between dwelling upon your genitals (hollywood et al) or dwelling upon your mind (NASA et al).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
From the very moment of its inception, NASA has been directed to study the atmosphere:
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html
"The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;"
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/
"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."
Toe in the water for weaponization of space?
Other than that I look forward to interesting projects.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
That mission is exploratory, not studious. NASA's job is to explore the atmosphere (pretty much done) and space (barely even scratched the surface). NOAA's job is to study the ocean and atmosphere. So NASA goes and finds it, then hands it off to NOAA for detailed study. NASA is inherently concerned with "getting there", while NOAA is concerned with "what's there". If NOAA wants a better look or needs new instruments installed in an otherwise unreachable or hostile environment (space), then NASA is their go-to agency to get that job done.
NOAA's on their own for deep sea research, though. And that's stupid. Have the NASA physics geniuses build better vehicles for every environment, let NOAA's geological geniuses do the boring data mining and science from the tools the vehicles deliver. (And, yes, the "real" science part is boring compared to the part that consists of blowing things up in a controlled manner in order to eject a large amount of mass out of the Earth's gravity well. Whee!)
We have a federal agency to study dirt and rocks - the United States Geological Survey (USGS). They claim to be "a science organization that provides impartial information on the health of our ecosystems and environment, the natural hazards that threaten us, the natural resources we rely on, the impacts of climate and land-use change, and the core science systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and usable information."
We have a federal agency to study the atmosphere and the oceans - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They claim their mission is "Science, Service, and Stewardship. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, To share that knowledge and information with others, and To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. "
BOTH claim to study the Earth and its climate. NEITHER claims to advance aviation of spaceflight or exploration beyond the Earth
We HAD an agency to study and advance aviation - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) whose mission was "to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution, and to determine the problems which should be experimentally attacked and to discuss their solution and their application to practical questions." After Russia launched Sputnik, the US government went into panic mode and in 1958 transformed the agency into a new organization which we now have called the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The 1958 law that created NASA gave it the following duties: (which I will quote directly)
"(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;"
"(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;"
"(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;"
"(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes."
"(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere."
"(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;"
"(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and"
"(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment."
NASA's study of the Earth and its atmosphere was ONLY for the purpose of advancing flight in, out of, and back into, the atmosphere. In the 1970s as the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations were messing NASA up and trying to appeal to voters they tainted NASA with eco-related tasks that actually belong at NOAA and USGS (and other agencies) and over time various entrenched interests (like the earth-sciences employees at Goddard who SHOULD apply for jobs at NOAA) have made the problem worse. NASA spent more money studying climate change in 2014 than it spent launching men into space (NASA
Every nation on earth has weather and climate scientists. WTF do we need NASA to study the weather?
First of all, weather is not climate.
Second, those scientists in other nations depend on the data collected by NASA, since no one else can do it as well.
Third, the idiot currently heading the committee that plans to eviscerate the NASA earth sciences program to the tune of $300 million per year sees no problem blowing hundreds of times as much money on Cold War fighter jets. One might ask,why do we need to spend $1.5 trillion dollars on F35 strike fighters that can't turn, can't climb, run hackable software, and explode when struck by lightning or running on warm fuel?
This is not about the money at all. They just don't want anyone looking into this, period.
If you could stop trying to make headlines cute, that would be great.
The headline was part inspired by "It Can Happen" [Yes], a fine anthem for space exploration.
Look up - Look down
Look out - Look around
Look up - Look down
There's a crazy world outside
We're not about to lose our pride
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
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?)
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.
We have a fleet of robots on Mars that would like a word with you.
So usually the complaint around here is too much politics not enough news for nerds..... so now when they strip the politics from the article and focus on the nerdy news..complaints!! Let noaa handle terrestrial and let NASA worry about space. if noaa needs nasa for something I'm sute they will launch satellites for them.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So let's just ignore the fact that the Earth is just one of the many things that are in space, and that it s the easiest thing in space we can get to. We're already here. It just doesn't count.
Also ignore that the Earth is the planet that we know the most about. So if we want to study other planets, we shouldn't study the Earth from space. There is no way that the things that we learn from Earth observation could be a baseline so that we know how to examine other thing that are in space, like say Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and it's moons, Saturn and it's moons and rings, and the same for Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (planet or not).
I hope this gives the Republicans amongst you a slight clue how stupid you sound. And how much you've substituted ideology for rational thought. But I warn you, don't let your vision of the US flag over every rock and planet in the solar system go to your head. It's only a mater of time until the christian fanatic wing of the party decides that the Earth is flat, the space program is a front for the devil, and the money needs to be spent on proving that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Why is Snark Required?
If we are not going to eventually send people into space to colonize other worlds, then there is no point in sending them to explore - and ALSO then no point in sending robots to precede them, and then also no reason to build telescopes and other probes to see what's out there to explore
Sending robots is fun. I'm curious if there's ever been life on Mars, for instance, and robots are the perfect tool to find that out. Building telescopes is also fun, because we learn interesting stuff, and some of it has relevance for the nature of matter and energy, and could lead to useful discoveries here on earth.
Colonization is best left to SF writers. It's completely unrealistic. If you care about humanity, our efforts are best spent here on earth.
We can cut all government climate science funds and leave it to commercial entities .... right???
Of course not. We can leave launching things into orbit to SpaceX because there's a lot of money to be made doing that. There's no money in climate science, so that should be a government job.
Why increase NASA's budget and use that money for climate research???? That's NOT their job!
It's their job right now. It's not interfering with anything else they do. Moving it from one government agency to another one doesn't save any money. Most likely, it would just mess things up. So why bother ?
So in summary, not a paid shill, but a dyed in the wool "climate skeptic". It got cold this winter, so much for global warming huh!
One liner portrayal of me FAIL. Since we are using an ancient threaded discussion board scarcely evolved from USENET and there is no keyword based contextual linking it takes a diligent effort to find out where someone stands on something, and why. Sometimes it is worth the effort. You have to do a lot of reading. You'd have to follow back in time to discover that I do have a position on the subject that is not as simple as you describe. Usually I just don't mention it.
Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing.
~Robert Benchley
And since your "position on the subject" is the delusional:
Temperature has not risen.
you are a dyed in the wool "climate skeptic"
Watch this Heartland Institute video
That might be true if this was some sort of dispassionate commentary on the bill. But it's not, it's a ringing endorsement of a highly partisan bill. Surely you see the difference.
For those who are serious, here's the Planetary Society's commentary, with a link to an indepth but nonpartisan analysis at SpacePolicyOnline. The Planetary Society is very happy with the planetary science numbers, not happy with the earth science numbers, and couldn't seem to care less about the funding for SLS/Orion.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
I have better things to do than worry about what happens to certain DNA sequences million years in the future that are as closely related to me, as I am to a chimp in a lab. There are plenty of things to worry about that threaten me and my kids and grandkids in the next couple of decades. If we don't survive those, I won't even have any descendants left to worry about.
The claims of temperature increasing to "highest levels on record" are not accurate. They only count records from 1976. Before that, their graphs show a flat line.
The records from before 1976 are all lower, so 2014 is still the highest on record.
mainstream view that temperature records describe a fucking hockey stick.
The fucking hockey stick is supported by the fucking data. Where's your data ?
that annoying white blob called the Sun which itself exhibits wild temperature variations of upwards of +/-1500C at the photosphere?
We can measure the total solar radiation. It's only fluctuating by tiny amounts, and since the '80s, it has actually gone down a little bit.
The projected defense budget for FY16 is $585 Billion, so NASA's budget of $8 Billion would be enough to keep the defense department running for 5 whole days. Just saying...
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
I've read the remarks about the current climate change argument, but personally I think that needs to be under NOAA or other climate related institution. NASA needs to get back to what it was designed to do: Push the boundries of Space Exploration.
Any of the climate related satellites have a huge selection of launch capabilities, and do not need the umbrella of NASA to launch.
Sure. Until the next bill tells NOAA not to send satellites up, because they don't have "Space" in their name. Anything involving both "Space" and "Atmosphere" are to be done by private enterprise to save tax money.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
It's not like NASA's manned space flight program does much better
1) We've been putting humans into low earth orbit for decades. There's not much "expansion of human knowledge" here. Well, they did study ants in space on the ISS recently...
2) ISS is old tech; there's no "improvement" to speak of. Well, they did put a new espresso machine up there recently, right?
3) Unless "development" means "making more of the same thing we already know how to make", then ISS fails again.
4) Maybe the ISS does this, but the main conclusion of the "long-range study" is that, yes, we can keep an inhabited space station in low earth orbit while spending billions of dollars!
5) The ISS does this, but it could also be done by other means at a much lower cost.
6) Nope
7) The ISS is great for this; it's the only way the US still interacts with Russia!
8) "The most effective utilization" Ha!
If you only want to focus on missions that _effectively_ and _efficiently_ fulfill NASA's charter, then a lot of stuff has to go. Since the budget for the ISS is ~$3 billion, I'd focus on that before the climate research -- which is only 1/10th the cost and does a lot more to expand human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere. Even if climate research doesn't fit with NASA's charter (debatable), then its work should be moved to another agency -- not axed.
No reason why NASA can't work together with NOAA, and they can both do LEO. Some overlap, for a trivial amount of money, for something so important, can't hurt.
it's warmer during the daytime than it is at night.
You're welcome.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel