Author Topic: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency  (Read 30679 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #80 on: 11/08/2017 11:19 am »
It 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.

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

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #81 on: 11/08/2017 11:58 am »
It 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.

How is it not part of a Congressional mandate if Congress puts it into law?  I'll fully grant that in terms of prioritization, it's not been as high.  But as those statements have never been repealed, that does mean it's part of their mission

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

US code would disagree with you - Title 51, 20102, section (c) states
Quote
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

How is that not then considered a core task?
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #82 on: 11/08/2017 02:02 pm »

US code would disagree with you - Title 51, 20102, section (c) states
Quote
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

How 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.

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #83 on: 11/08/2017 02:28 pm »

US code would disagree with you - Title 51, 20102, section (c) states
Quote
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

How 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.

2 points

First, it could have said that then.  It didn't - encouraging the fullest commercial use of space doesn't just mean buy commercial when available.  It means that NASA has an active role to play in the commercial development of space. 

Second, it's codified within what is the NASA Act. 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #84 on: 11/08/2017 02:51 pm »
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.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline incoming

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #85 on: 11/08/2017 03:20 pm »
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.

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.

Maybe we can try looking at it this way. I think the Webb/JFK/etc transcript that was posted was HUGELY instructive and still relevant today. Go and read that entire thing, not just the snippet that was posted here. Webb was arguing if we make NASA just about Apollo and beating the Russians, you will lose a lot of NASA's supporters in the academic and scientific community.  And that is important not just for galvanizing support for the program, but it was important because Webb was viewing building a strong scientific and engineering "capability" as an extremely important justification for the space program.

JFK was saying that's all well and good, but that doesn't justify the massive investment they were making in NASA (in terms of % of the budget, GDP, etc far above what we invest today) and it doesn't necessarily speak to the "every day" person the same way the goal of beating the Russians to the moon did.

And they were both right.

Once that goal was met, NASA's budget has fallen off dramatically to about what it is now in current year dollars, give or take.   

Now the reason that we have any budget at all for NASA, vs. it just going away completely after Apollo, was that all of the "other stuff" NASA was doing was still important to people.  The science, the aeronautics, the technology, and at least some continuing investment in human space flight.

The notion of eventual space settlement is, to some, part of the justification for that large (though not by apollo standards) continuing investment we make in human space flight.  For others, the justification remains national prestige; for yet others the justification is more esoteric - exploration, science, inspiration, and discovery of the unknown.  And for a lot of people it's some combination of those three justifications.

But settlement and all of other human space flight justifications I've ever heard raised, are nowhere NEAR the level of a unifying goal that beating the Russians to the Moon was.  And even that was perhaps reenforced by the assassination of JFK.

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.   

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #86 on: 11/08/2017 03:38 pm »
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.

Would you also call it a commercial development agency?  Because that is in the NASA Act as well. 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #87 on: 11/08/2017 03:48 pm »
This is a breakdown of "NASA Occupations" that might assist with clarity:
https://nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/occupations.htm
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #88 on: 11/08/2017 03:55 pm »
Even in space policy, random carping about Congress (however justified it may be or not) isn't on. Don't post that. Don't respond to it either. Also random carping in general and "no it isn't" responses are not helpful. Belay those.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #89 on: 11/08/2017 05:00 pm »
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.

Would you also call it a commercial development agency?  Because that is in the NASA Act as well. 

Don't be obtuse, please. Commercial development comes by way of space and aeronautic development and the promotion thereof.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #90 on: 11/08/2017 08:55 pm »
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.

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #91 on: 11/08/2017 10:32 pm »

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.   

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. 

This is a breakdown of "NASA Occupations" that might assist with clarity:
https://nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/occupations.htm

You could also look at the budget, but that is much more diverse than science. 

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.

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. 

That said, in our context, Congress has dictated a role for NASA in settlement.
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #92 on: 11/08/2017 11:26 pm »
That 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.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2017 11:28 pm by spacetraveler »

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #93 on: 11/08/2017 11:30 pm »

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.   

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.

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.
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.

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #94 on: 11/08/2017 11:46 pm »

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.   

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.

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.
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.

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. 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #95 on: 11/08/2017 11:58 pm »
That 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.

Strategic direction often has some level of vagueness - that is usually necessary.  For example (and I stipulate up front I am not looking to have this turn into an SLS litigation thread) - there is a strong argument that SLS violates the section (c) of 20102, and yet, you can also argue that it doesn't, because of the "where practicable" language. 

It also depends on the issue of how close we consider we are to developing space settlements (whether they are planetary body based or free space settlements), and what activities you are going after.  In many respects, the loss of the space settlement studies in the 90s makes this a lot harder. 

That doesn't mean that the language has isn't there, and that those implications and requirements cannot be folded into the broader NASA activities.  For example - one area that will be necessary for space settlement is the development of a robust space economy, and a robust space transportation economy.  Then the question comes into play - does Commercial Crew enable space settlement?  Does SLS enable space settlement? 

Another area that will need to be addressed is the issue of prioritization when it comes to interacting with the space environment, and NASA plays a huge role in this, with the issue of planetary protection - again, who determines the prioritization when it comes to life science vs resource development? 

In short - yes, I agree, greater clarity from Congress would be useful.  That said, there is enough clarity from Congress dictating the importance of this that it should be factored into discussions when NASA is developing programs, much in the same way sections (c) and (d) from 20102 are part of those activities. 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #96 on: 11/09/2017 12:15 am »
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.
This is not a philosophical disagreement, this is me directly pointing out specific contradictions in the statements that you have made. The last time you called it a "philosophical disagreement" you had taken something I said so far out of context as to completely change its meaning. Also, the general public's perception of NASA is something that can be objectively determined, it is not "philosophical." You were even kind enough in your last post to provide an anecdote that counters your claim that people think NASA is only about science.

Since you did not respond to any of the points I made, I can only conclude that you cannot come up with any counterarguments, but are unwilling to admit that you are wrong.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2017 12:19 am by meberbs »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #97 on: 11/09/2017 01:51 am »
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. 

Well, for starters, authorization acts have established budget amounts significantly higher than actual appropriations (something that Senator Nelson used to complain about a lot).

Authorization acts establish overall frameworks, not budgets, and are often the source of unfunded mandates. In Washington there's a saying: "Budget is policy."


Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #98 on: 11/09/2017 02:15 am »
The 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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #99 on: 11/09/2017 02:23 am »
The 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.

I wonder if that is true. It seems that everything that NASA does for BLEO exploration is a lot more than it actually needs. The architecture proposed by Golden Spike or by SpaceX seems more reasonable and could fit within the current budget.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2017 02:32 am by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1