This goes back to the debate that we were having elsewhere about Bridenstine's American Space Renaissance Act but stating that NASA's main objective is pioneering space would not make planetary science and Earth science less important...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/03/2017 03:46 pmWhat the public has seen in the press over the past couple of years has been mostly science related, since it has dealt with our science missions on Mars, to Pluto, on the ISS, and so on.The only other NASA news has been rocket engine tests and such about the SLS and Orion, but over the past number of years the most news - and public excitement - has been about our science missions in space.I would argue that there is a big item which you are missing, which is hugely important, and does get discussed in the press - the rise of commercial space, and NASA's involvement in it.
What the public has seen in the press over the past couple of years has been mostly science related, since it has dealt with our science missions on Mars, to Pluto, on the ISS, and so on.The only other NASA news has been rocket engine tests and such about the SLS and Orion, but over the past number of years the most news - and public excitement - has been about our science missions in space.
Things like Commercial Crew and COTS and SpaceX fall outside of science, but are space related and NASA related.
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/03/2017 10:07 pmYour goal. Not NASA policy. Not United States policy.Actually, settlement has been identified as the overarching goal of NASA by every review that's ever been done and there's been numerous attempts to write it into the Space Act. "Expanding the sphere of human influence into space" and other such words have appeared in numerous authorization acts.
Your goal. Not NASA policy. Not United States policy.
Quote from: yg1968 on 11/04/2017 02:17 amThis goes back to the debate that we were having elsewhere about Bridenstine's American Space Renaissance Act but stating that NASA's main objective is pioneering space would not make planetary science and Earth science less important...Look, if you're LITERALLY removing/replacing this section of the charter:"The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;"...then you quite obviously are making science a less important objective to NASA. It's literally the first objective, and the language in Bridenstine's bill removes it. That is, objectively and legally, a significant change in its status.I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here. The thread title starts with "language matters," but the OP and friends are saying the opposite.
It's a /fact/ that one of the principle goals of NASA is science. Objectively, those arguing that NASA isn't a* "science agency" are wrong. Subjectively, I doubt the OP will admit this as it goes against their narrative. I hope to be proven wrong here.Bridenstine wants to /change/ that fact. Quite clearly, it's in his bill. Fine. But that doesn't change what NASA has been since the VERY start in 1958. It's a twisted lie to pretend NASA isn't about science as one of its top priorities when it couldn't possibly be clearer that science is a chief priority for NASA.If you're talking about what NASA /should/ do, then go ahead and start a thread about your opinion. But you're abso-freaking-lutely right that "language matters." It's some heady Orwellian stuff to talk about how "language matters" when you're, in fact, twisting language into a complete mockery.https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.htmlNational Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958"(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;"*(non-exclusively, as with any other singular label)
Quote from: QuantumG on 11/03/2017 10:10 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 11/03/2017 10:07 pmYour goal. Not NASA policy. Not United States policy.Actually, settlement has been identified as the overarching goal of NASA by every review that's ever been done and there's been numerous attempts to write it into the Space Act. "Expanding the sphere of human influence into space" and other such words have appeared in numerous authorization acts."numerous attempts to write it into the Space Act"So, not yet, huh?
Congress finds that ... the establishment of a permanent presence in space leading ultimately to space settlements is fully consistent with the goals of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
The Congress declares that the extension of human life beyond Earth's atmosphere, leading ultimately to the establishment of space settlements, will fulfill the purposes of advancing science, exploration, and development and will enhance the general welfare
(a) Long Term Goal.--The long term goal of the human space flight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit and to do so, where practical, in a manner involving international partners. (b) Key Objectives.--The key objectives of the United States for human expansion into space shall be-- (1) to sustain the capability for long-duration presence in low-Earth orbit, initially through continuation of the ISS and full utilization of the United States segment of the ISS as a National Laboratory, and through assisting and enabling an expanded commercial presence in, and access to, low-Earth orbit, as elements of a low-Earth orbit infrastructure; (2) to determine if humans can live in an extended manner in space with decreasing reliance on Earth, starting with utilization of low-Earth orbit infrastructure, to identify potential roles that space resources such as energy and materials may play, to meet national and global needs and challenges, such as potential cataclysmic threats, and to explore the viability of and lay the foundation for sustainable economic activities in space;
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/04/2017 02:25 amQuote from: yg1968 on 11/04/2017 02:17 amThis goes back to the debate that we were having elsewhere about Bridenstine's American Space Renaissance Act but stating that NASA's main objective is pioneering space would not make planetary science and Earth science less important...Look, if you're LITERALLY removing/replacing this section of the charter:"The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;"...then you quite obviously are making science a less important objective to NASA. It's literally the first objective, and the language in Bridenstine's bill removes it. That is, objectively and legally, a significant change in its status.I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here. The thread title starts with "language matters," but the OP and friends are saying the opposite.Some people are very good at construing legislation and do this for a living (e.g. lawyers). Other people don't understand the subtleties of laws. I will leave it at that.
Commercial space is not NASA. NASA uses commercial space as a supplier, but otherwise what commercial space does is separate.
Commercial Cargo and Crew, while exciting for many reasons, are worthy non-science type topics, although if you think about it they are only there to support our only National Laboratory in space - the ISS. Which is devoted to science.BTW, I am baffled why anyone would think NASA is not one of the preeminent science organizations in the world. Baffled.And sure, it does lots of other things too, but science permeates every section of NASA in one way or another.
Mr Scott,First, i would disagree that NASA can't try new things. NASA has tried new things. It is true that NASA, like any institution, develops its own culture, and things that run counter to that culture are difficult to implement. But, if you have the right combination of circumstances, you can get it to try new things, and embrace changes. But that is dictated by a combination of who cares about the situation being discussed, and why do they care. For example, I pose an interesting counterfactual - suppose Clinton had been elected, and she had nominated Bill Nelson to be NASA administrator - would there be the equivalent opposition that we are seeing now? i would argue no, but I would argue that doens't make sense since Nelson and Bridenstine have significant overlap in terms of management experience. Also, there has been substantial discussion of the theater aspect of the confirmation hearing, which raises a question - are those the real issues that are driving the opposition to Bridenstine's nomination? Or are there other issues, but those are the easiest to communicate? I tend to suspect the later, but I acknowledge that is only a suspicion of mine. Anyway, the point of my thread isn't about whether we should change NASA's mission, or move some activities out of it. It's merely a question of what best describes NASA.
The issue is that "being an enabler of development and settlement"
And I disagree that science is more encompassing - I would submit space is more encompassing.
NASA is currently run as a science agency and this has detrimental effect on settlement.
Settlement of the solar system, and eventually the stars, is the goal. Everything NASA does should be in support of that goal.
NASA is a mission operations and logistics agency.
NASA does science for a purpose and that purpose is getting humanity off this rock.