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?

Comments

it's only a bill

[turkeydance]

on Capitol Hill.

Did a paid shill write this summary?

[rockmuelle]

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.

Re:Did a paid shill write this summary?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

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?

Re:Did a paid shill write this summary?

[dywolf]

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.

NASA Earth Science budget slashed

[cahuenga]

There's no question what this is really about. When you don't like the results kill the studies.

I don't care whom

[emagery]

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

A New Hope

[rtb61]

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).

Atmosphere study is in NASA's fucking 1958 charter

[Anonymous Coward]

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;"

Inconvenient Data

[tverbeek]

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".

Re:Atmosphere study is in NASA's fucking 1958 char

[Anonymous Coward]

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!)

Garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Atmosphere study is in NASA's fucking 1958 char

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Concorde MKII

[Goonie]

Republicans hate big government, except when it comes to a) building big machines designed to kill people, and b) firing rockets into space.

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?

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The Earth is not in Space

[Required Snark]

Yes, just like a little kid, every Republican knows that you see space when you look up. You can't see space when you look down. All you see is dirt, i.e. the Earth. So it can't be in space.

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.

Wow! $8B Dollars! How About Some Perspective?

[Irate Engineer]

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...