Author Topic: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency  (Read 30669 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #40 on: 11/04/2017 02:16 am »
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.html
National 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)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #41 on: 11/04/2017 02:17 am »
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. They each contribute to the pioneering of space. Stating in the 1958 NASA' Act that NASA's main objective is the pioneering of space would be a good idea but I am not sure that it would make a huge difference in NASA's day to day activities.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2017 02:18 am by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #42 on: 11/04/2017 02:25 am »
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...
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #43 on: 11/04/2017 02:31 am »
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.

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.

Commercial space is not NASA. NASA uses commercial space as a supplier, but otherwise what commercial space does is separate.

Quote
Things like Commercial Crew and COTS and SpaceX fall outside of science, but are space related and NASA related.

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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #44 on: 11/04/2017 02:34 am »
Your 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?


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #45 on: 11/04/2017 02:36 am »
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...
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.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2017 02:52 am by yg1968 »

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 #46 on: 11/04/2017 02:41 am »
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.html
National 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)

You seemed to ignore my first few points - I grant the science NASA has done.  I personally don't think it should stop.  I will 100% agree that science is one of its top priorities, and has been since it's beginning, and that its intregal to the agency. 

But, I would argue that, using your logic, NASA is also a commercial development organization - that is in the organic law that established NASA (under the non-exclusively clause), and it fits with some of its programs.  I mean, if I said that, would you accept it? 

The problem is that a lot of people don't want to take the time to learn nuances.  I'd like them all to read the NASA charter, along with US code, and so forth.  But they haven't so far, and so I believe it's worth looking for other options. 
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 #47 on: 11/04/2017 02:55 am »
Your 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?

From Section 101 of NASA Authorization act of 1988 (Public Law 100-685)

Quote
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

From Section 217 of NASA Authorization act of 1988 (Public Law 100-685)

Quote
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

From Section 202 of NASA 2010 Authorization Act
Quote
(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;
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 #48 on: 11/04/2017 02:59 am »
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...
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.

If only the entity of the world could learn to speak with the degree of nuance that can be found in law. 
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 #49 on: 11/04/2017 03:07 am »
Commercial space is not NASA. NASA uses commercial space as a supplier, but otherwise what commercial space does is separate.

The role that NASA has played in the rise of commercial space, (and particularly if it does more) would suggest that it is not distinct.  In effect, NASA is a space development agency, given that they spend money on that as well.


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.

Commerce Cargo and Crew's objectives were not JUST to support ISS.  That was written into their original objectives.  Part of their objectives was to enable the rise of commercial providers. 

Again, I come back to this point - NASA is an agency that does preeminent science.  But, because of the non-exclusive nature of NASA's activities, calling it a science agency I feel hurts it, when it is engaging in activities that aren't about doing pure science. 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #50 on: 11/04/2017 03:12 am »
Calling it a space agency also hurts it. Come on, you're trying to dance on a pin head, here. Just admit you were wrong.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

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 #51 on: 11/04/2017 03:15 am »
I think we've mined out about all we can from this. Locked. Make your case via report to PM if you think there's more.

Unlocked, let's see if a cooling off period does the trick. Avoid personal invective and stale back and forth, please.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2017 07:37 pm by Lar »
"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 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 #52 on: 11/06/2017 05:00 pm »
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.
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 #53 on: 11/07/2017 02:32 pm »
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.
I wouldn't say Bill Nelson would be my first choice, however he is old enough to be Bridenstine's dad and the lifetime of experience that comes with it in terms of his relationship with NASA and its space related needs, at least for Florida... I would rather he stay in the senate...
« Last Edit: 11/07/2017 05:06 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #54 on: 11/07/2017 08:17 pm »

The issue is that "being an enabler of development and settlement"


That has nothing to do with NASA

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #55 on: 11/07/2017 08:20 pm »

And I disagree that science is more encompassing - I would submit space is more encompassing. 

Wrong.  NASA day to day work involves science.  Space has little to do with it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #56 on: 11/07/2017 08:24 pm »
NASA is currently run as a science agency and this has detrimental effect on settlement.


Good, keep it that way.

Settlement of the solar system, and eventually the stars, is the goal. Everything NASA does should be in support of that goal.


That is 100% wrong and something NASA should avoid at all costs.
« Last Edit: 11/07/2017 08:25 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #57 on: 11/07/2017 08:28 pm »
NASA is a mission operations and logistics agency. 

That is 100% false.  NASA does more science than either of them.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #58 on: 11/07/2017 08:53 pm »
Pure science is the NSF's wheelhouse. NASA does science for a purpose and that purpose is getting humanity off this rock. Some people have quite reasonably said that it's not the job of a government agency to settle space... obviously I agree... but neither is it the job of a government agency to build airplanes and fly people where they want to go (looking at you British Airways) but no-one seems to mind the research and other work government agencies do to enable commercial entities to do that. If you're going to have a space agency at all, there should be some idea of what its goals are... otherwise shut it down.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Language matters - why I say NASA is not a science agency
« Reply #59 on: 11/07/2017 08:54 pm »
NASA does science for a purpose and that purpose is getting humanity off this rock.

No.

Hubble.

Tags:
 

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