Best to watch the video its up there for replay atmLot's of good stuff if you enjoy the 'political" nature.
What the Senator doesn't understand is that sensors developed to study Mars can be used to study Earth.
Quote from: JBF on 03/12/2015 01:34 pmWhat the Senator doesn't understand is that sensors developed to study Mars can be used to study Earth.Mr Cruz's angle seems to be to cut NASA out of earth science and reallocate to the other divisions. It is not hard to understand why. NASA's earth science missions have taken an increased focus on studying climate change in recent years.
That's funny, congress just chased a bunch of earth science responsibilities out of other divisions (NOAA, USGS) and into NASA.Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say Cruz et. al maybe just have an aversion to spending any money on earth science at all...
Without getting into any debate about the politics of climate change, or really anything else about Senator Cruz I would posit that there is a different angle to his comments. Earth Science is a line item on the budget as well as Planetary, Helophysics, and Astronomy. Historically the ratios of each of those line items to each other have been relatively similar throughout the years. That changed with the current administration which made the policy decision to prioritize Earth science. That line item is the only one which has consistently been proposed higher then the last enacted level while the others have either essentially been kept level or proposed to be cut. For example Planetary Science was proposed to get an inflation pacing increase of $16 million dollars while Earth Sciences is proposed for an increase of roughly $123 million over last year's enactment. This is not atypical of past years.Personally I'm very much in favor of Earth science missions, my avatar picture is Landsat 8. That was a satellite paid for and launched in part as a part of the priority on Earth Science. However, I do not see a problem in reevaluating the priorities if working and scientifically fruitful missions keep getting zeroed out on the budget proposals to save money while the over all science budget is increasing.
All this started under the Clinton administration as the "Mission to Plant Earth" IIRC... I don't see anything wrong with NASA doing this if it is funded properly.
Without getting into any debate about the politics of climate change, or really anything else about Senator Cruz I would posit that there is a different angle to his comments. Earth Science is a line item on the budget as well as Planetary, Helophysics, and Astronomy. Historically the ratios of each of those line items to each other have been relatively similar throughout the years. That changed with the current administration which made the policy decision to prioritize Earth science. That line item is the only one which has consistently been proposed higher then the last enacted level while the others have either essentially been kept level or proposed to be cut. For example Planetary Science was proposed to get an inflation pacing increase of $16 million dollars while Earth Sciences is proposed for an increase of roughly $123 million over last year's enactment. This is not atypical of past years.
That's funny, congress just chased a bunch of earth science responsibilities out of other divisions (NOAA, USGS) and into NASA.
Now it is common for some conservatives, particularly in the blogosphere, to say that since NOAA has "atmospheric" right in its name and runs weather satellites the Earth sciences stuff should be pushed over to NOAA. But you might notice that the people who advocate this don't endorse it because they think that would actually be GOOD for Earth sciences. They advocate doing it because they don't actually care about Earth sciences. In other words, it's not about good government, it's about doing away with something they don't like in a disingenuous way. The people who do care about Earth sciences, including people who don't necessarily love it, but would at least like to see it done properly, don't want it over at NOAA.
In the second view, NASA has a limited budget and a limited number of things it is good at. The things it is good at are the things that no other agency does - planetary science, heliophysics, astronomy. But certain politicians, for their own reasons, are pushing NASA to do this Earth science thing. Since Earth science is "not what NASA does", it is a distraction and makes the agency less efficient at what it is good at. Since NASA's budget is a zero-sum game, the Earth science focus is draining money from what it should be doing.This is the way people are thinking about it. And this line of reasoning is about good government. It's presumptuous of you to claim that it isn't.
In the second view, NASA has a limited budget and a limited number of things it is good at. The things it is good at are the things that no other agency does - planetary science, heliophysics, astronomy. But certain politicians, for their own reasons, are pushing NASA to do this Earth science thing. Since Earth science is "not what NASA does", it is a distraction and makes the agency less efficient at what it is good at. Since NASA's budget is a zero-sum game, the Earth science focus is draining money from what it should be doing.
Not for the purposes of planning and budgeting, which is the distinction being made here.
Quote from: Sesquipedalian on 03/13/2015 05:07 amIn the second view, NASA has a limited budget and a limited number of things it is good at. The things it is good at are the things that no other agency does - planetary science, heliophysics, astronomy. But certain politicians, for their own reasons, are pushing NASA to do this Earth science thing. Since Earth science is "not what NASA does", it is a distraction and makes the agency less efficient at what it is good at. Since NASA's budget is a zero-sum game, the Earth science focus is draining money from what it should be doing.No, you're pretty much completely wrong about this. One of the things that NASA is good at is Earth science. And that's why the arguments that it should be pushed over to NOAA are disingenuous, because taking that stuff and putting it on another government agency would be highly disruptive and create inefficiencies and would screw it all up. It's not broke, don't fix it.Oh, and go look at the National Aeronautics and Space Act and the long history of the agency and then come back and say that "Earth science is 'not what NASA does.'"
Quote from: Sesquipedalian on 03/13/2015 01:31 pmNot for the purposes of planning and budgeting, which is the distinction being made here.For the purpose of building and running it is, analysis is done by other agencies.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/13/2015 03:11 amNow it is common for some conservatives, particularly in the blogosphere, to say that since NOAA has "atmospheric" right in its name and runs weather satellites the Earth sciences stuff should be pushed over to NOAA. But you might notice that the people who advocate this don't endorse it because they think that would actually be GOOD for Earth sciences. They advocate doing it because they don't actually care about Earth sciences. In other words, it's not about good government, it's about doing away with something they don't like in a disingenuous way. The people who do care about Earth sciences, including people who don't necessarily love it, but would at least like to see it done properly, don't want it over at NOAA.It does not follow that people who "don't actually care about Earth sciences" want to "do away with" it because they "don't like" it. That is a conflating of two positions. If you want to get rid of something, you do very much care about it, just not in a positive way.People who truly don't care about Earth science will look at other factors. They will see two parallel agencies doing much the same thing and wonder why it is necessary to have two of them. Did someone not want to give up their own personal fiefdom? Did some scientist from one agency see something cool in a different agency and decide to copy what they were doing? Is there some pork-barrel arrangement where the two agencies benefit two jurisdictions?People with that mindset will come to one of two views which are really two perspectives on the same conclusion. In the first view, there are duplicate bureaucracies doing twice as much work and spending twice as much money as is necessary, so they should be consolidated. Since Earth science seems to be a better fit for NOAA, that's where it should go.In the second view, NASA has a limited budget and a limited number of things it is good at. The things it is good at are the things that no other agency does - planetary science, heliophysics, astronomy. But certain politicians, for their own reasons, are pushing NASA to do this Earth science thing. Since Earth science is "not what NASA does", it is a distraction and makes the agency less efficient at what it is good at. Since NASA's budget is a zero-sum game, the Earth science focus is draining money from what it should be doing.This is the way people are thinking about it. And this line of reasoning is about good government. It's presumptuous of you to claim that it isn't.Now of course people in the know are going to have a more complex understanding of the factors involved. It doesn't surprise me that NASA is pretty good at doing science no matter the stripe. If that was more widely known, then the good government advocates might start thinking that maybe it is NOAA that should be shuttered and its funding and responsibilities given to NASA.
I'm trying to point out that although the budgetary side comes from different places the design, development, production and deployment are all funneled through the same expertise and institutional knowledge that is NASA.
It seems to me that the whole point of this hearing was to let Sen. Cruz to show his chart, so that he can say to Republican base: "Look at me! I'm anti-anti-global warming!"
It was a lousy hearing, little more than a Cruz-for-president misinfomercial.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/13/2015 04:01 pmIt was a lousy hearing, little more than a Cruz-for-president misinfomercial.Fully agree with you. These Senate hearings generally are pretty much subpar, but this one was particularly bad. Cruz at his worst, for now. Time will tell whether the guy can go even lower.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 03/12/2015 06:46 pmAll this started under the Clinton administration as the "Mission to Plant Earth" IIRC... I don't see anything wrong with NASA doing this if it is funded properly.Actually, that program started in the late 1980s under the first Bush administration.
But I did go back and look at this now just the same... You decide, It's all good for me...http://history.nasa.gov/databooksvol8/NASA_Historical_Data_Book_8.pdf
Another article about the hearing:http://thehill.com/policy/technology/235719-battle-brewing-over-nasa-funding
(c) 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;...
I wish Bolden would read a copy of NASA's charter sometime at one of these hearings so we're all on the same page. NASA has a broad mandate, and they do a pretty good job at hitting all the things in their charter and doing most of them pretty effectively.