It doesn't? Congress would seem to disagree - see the 88 Authorization Act, the 2010 Authorization Act, and the 17 Authorization Act.
It has certainly decided that enabling commercial activities in space is core to what NASA does, which I submit is different than just science.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/08/2017 04:42 amIt doesn't? Congress would seem to disagree - see the 88 Authorization Act, the 2010 Authorization Act, and the 17 Authorization Act. Not true. 3 out of more than 60 congressional acts is not a mandate.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/08/2017 04:42 am It has certainly decided that enabling commercial activities in space is core to what NASA does, which I submit is different than just science.Not a core task
Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that [NASA] seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space
US code would disagree with you - Title 51, 20102, section (c) states QuoteCongress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that [NASA] seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of spaceHow is that not then considered a core task?
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/08/2017 11:58 amUS code would disagree with you - Title 51, 20102, section (c) states QuoteCongress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that [NASA] seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of spaceHow is that not then considered a core task?It isn't. It just means NASA is to use commercially available services when available. That is all.
Quote from: QuantumG on 11/07/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: incoming on 11/07/2017 10:15 pmSimilarly, that same bill very clearly reenforced the policy that NASA is a "multi-mission agency." No matter how much certain (relatively few) individuals WANT it to be so, NASA does not have one mission that trumps all others, and probably never will as long as we have a representative government. NASA is a science agency; NASA is a technology agency; NASA is a space exploration agency. This isn't just my opinion - it's the law, going all the way back to the establishment of NASA and reaffirmed countless times by re-authorization acts, many of which passed with huge margins or even unanimously. That's what I said in my first post on this thread... every government agency has factions. NASA has been dominated by the "science is glorious, all hail science!" crowd for a long time now. Wouldn't it be nice if NASA could get back to what it is supposed to be about?What you seem to be saying is completely opposite to what incoming just said.Your post implies that science isn't what NASA is supposed to be about, when science quite explicitly is what NASA is about. There are other things that NASA is about too, but based on your posts you seem to think that much of what NASA is about should go away.
Quote from: incoming on 11/07/2017 10:15 pmSimilarly, that same bill very clearly reenforced the policy that NASA is a "multi-mission agency." No matter how much certain (relatively few) individuals WANT it to be so, NASA does not have one mission that trumps all others, and probably never will as long as we have a representative government. NASA is a science agency; NASA is a technology agency; NASA is a space exploration agency. This isn't just my opinion - it's the law, going all the way back to the establishment of NASA and reaffirmed countless times by re-authorization acts, many of which passed with huge margins or even unanimously. That's what I said in my first post on this thread... every government agency has factions. NASA has been dominated by the "science is glorious, all hail science!" crowd for a long time now. Wouldn't it be nice if NASA could get back to what it is supposed to be about?
Similarly, that same bill very clearly reenforced the policy that NASA is a "multi-mission agency." No matter how much certain (relatively few) individuals WANT it to be so, NASA does not have one mission that trumps all others, and probably never will as long as we have a representative government. NASA is a science agency; NASA is a technology agency; NASA is a space exploration agency. This isn't just my opinion - it's the law, going all the way back to the establishment of NASA and reaffirmed countless times by re-authorization acts, many of which passed with huge margins or even unanimously.
as I stated in the thread this was spun from: National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended) Section 102.C.5.NASA IS a science agency. It's part of its very mandate.
Quote from: bad_astra on 11/08/2017 02:51 pmas I stated in the thread this was spun from: National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended) Section 102.C.5.NASA IS a science agency. It's part of its very mandate.Would you also call it a commercial development agency? Because that is in the NASA Act as well.
So, barring something crazy happening (first contact?) there will NEVER be a goal or singular purpose that unites the agency. But in many ways that's a GOOD thing - a diversity of purposes is what has sustained the agency for so long and will continue to sustain the agency (hopefully) for decades to come.
This is a breakdown of "NASA Occupations" that might assist with clarity: https://nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/occupations.htm
I think one of the problems here is that a lot of people don't understand what an authorization act does. There's a lot of stuff that goes into authorization acts that never gets implemented.
That said, in our context, Congress has dictated a role for NASA in settlement.
Quote from: incoming on 11/08/2017 03:20 pmSo, barring something crazy happening (first contact?) there will NEVER be a goal or singular purpose that unites the agency. But in many ways that's a GOOD thing - a diversity of purposes is what has sustained the agency for so long and will continue to sustain the agency (hopefully) for decades to come. I agree that there isn't a singular purpose to NASA's activities, per se. I would even go so far as to suggest that something like settlement and development aren't singular purposes (and the phrase exploration has become meaningless when applied to space flight)
The issue is whether there is a cultural issue when it comes to how the public perceives space and NASA - do they understand the nuance that NASA has a science aspect, a development aspect, etc..., or do they just lump it altogether and assume it's only scientists, or something else?As an example story - I was talking to someone who was very concerned about climate change (it's his big issue), and his response when I said I work in the space field, and started talking about NASA, his response was "well, you got a bunch of scientists and engineers there - lets have them go work on green energy, because that is what is important." In his mind, all he could imagine for space was science.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/08/2017 10:32 pmQuote from: incoming on 11/08/2017 03:20 pmSo, barring something crazy happening (first contact?) there will NEVER be a goal or singular purpose that unites the agency. But in many ways that's a GOOD thing - a diversity of purposes is what has sustained the agency for so long and will continue to sustain the agency (hopefully) for decades to come. I agree that there isn't a singular purpose to NASA's activities, per se. I would even go so far as to suggest that something like settlement and development aren't singular purposes (and the phrase exploration has become meaningless when applied to space flight)As I said in my previous post, if you agree then you need to take back all of your posts earlier in this thread claiming that NASA is not a science agency, but is a space agency. You could argue both, or you could argue neither, but one and not the other is simply opposing to the claim that NASA doesn't have a singular purpose to its activities.Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/08/2017 10:32 pmThe issue is whether there is a cultural issue when it comes to how the public perceives space and NASA - do they understand the nuance that NASA has a science aspect, a development aspect, etc..., or do they just lump it altogether and assume it's only scientists, or something else?As an example story - I was talking to someone who was very concerned about climate change (it's his big issue), and his response when I said I work in the space field, and started talking about NASA, his response was "well, you got a bunch of scientists and engineers there - lets have them go work on green energy, because that is what is important." In his mind, all he could imagine for space was science.Your final conclusion in inconsistent with the rest of your story. The person you were talking with recognized that NASA has both scientists and engineers per your quote, so it seems that he understands that NASA is not pure science, but also has development, etc. His suggestion to have them all work on green energy (which would involve development, not just science) is clearly about him thinking space exploration is basically useless and that all of the resources of NASA should redirected to green energy, ignoring many issues such as the fact that engineers specialized in rocket engines wouldn't be of much help.His understanding that NASA has engineers directly contradicts the point you are trying to make, further showing that the problem you are trying to solve does not actually exist. His ignorant idea of what NASA should do is irrelevant to this discussion of what NASA is and does.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/08/2017 10:32 pmThat said, in our context, Congress has dictated a role for NASA in settlement.Even if we were to accept this as so, the role if any that exists, is so vague and so amorphously defined that it might as well not exist at all.There is no active program or initiative that anyone at NASA is tasked with that directly impacts on efforts to establish or expand space settlements. The only thing I can think of that even comes close would be the assistance given to Bigelow with testing their hab on ISS as a stepping stone to a more permanent presence in space.If the Congress wished for NASA to be more directly involved in settlement then they would need to provide much clearer guidance to indicate that NASA should focus efforts in that area.
meberbs, I remain convinced of what I said earlier - we are at a fundamental philosophical disagreement about the perceptions of other people. When you reach this point, there isn't much purpose in discussion of issues like these. That being the case, (and with Lars' earlier comments), my vote is to simply say we've reached the point of fundamental disagreement and leave it at that.
I would challenge that. I would submit that NASA is responsible for any and all of the items that are put into an authorization bill. I will grant there are times when an authorization law contradicts a previous law, or is in conflict with another law. And there are times where events overcome specific programs or activities.
The dream that NASA could actually do anything to get us out there...
Quote from: QuantumG on 11/09/2017 02:03 amThe dream that NASA could actually do anything to get us out there...Apollo was never about "getting us out there". It was all about showing up the USSR, and that just happened to be one of the many locations where that was being done.Also, many people seem to think that even though words have been written to the effect that NASA should help to expand humanity out into space, that our U.S. Congress is willing to fund such an effort. Words are easy, but getting the money is hard, and so far the U.S. Congress has not been willing to fund (at this point) the expansion of humanity out into space.Fund space science, sure. I think that is more from a standpoint of tradition, where the U.S. Government has funded pure research in a number of fields because it has been recognized that there are long-term benefits to doing that, but little by little funding for pure research has been reduced over the past few decades, and the current Congress doesn't look likely to reverse that.