So, this brings us to the point - why I say NASA's not a science organization. There are a lot of activities that NASA has done, and is doing, and should do, that aren't about enabling or doing science. For example - the COTS program and the Commercial Crew program - they enable science, but that is not to say they are about science. And yes, they utilize science in their program, but again - they aren't about science, in the way that something like the Curiosity Rover is.
Thus - NASA is a space agency, not a science agency. (and yes, I still don't have a way to address the issue of NASA aeronautics)
I can help you with that last point. Since science is a major portion of NASA's mission, if you want to people to stop saying "NASA is a science agency" you also just have to be opposed to all statements of the form "NASA is a _____ agency". For anything that you can fill in the blank with, whether aeronautics, space, science, etc. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.Or you could accept the fact that such short statements are not meant to be a complete description of all agency functions.
Is is good of you to start this thread to not derail the "Who should be the next NASA Administrator"...Allow me to restate. Pure science (understanding fundamentals) Applied Science eg. engineering (using knowledge gained from understanding the fundamentals to solve problems)... This my opening line for the junior courses I have taught over my career...
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 12:57 pmSo, this brings us to the point - why I say NASA's not a science organization. There are a lot of activities that NASA has done, and is doing, and should do, that aren't about enabling or doing science. For example - the COTS program and the Commercial Crew program - they enable science, but that is not to say they are about science. And yes, they utilize science in their program, but again - they aren't about science, in the way that something like the Curiosity Rover is. The exact same can be said about NASA in relation to space. One of its primary missions is to study aeronautics and the atmosphere, not even with the goal of enabling spaceflight.The rest of your post is irrelevant or just a repetition of this point.Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 12:57 pmThus - NASA is a space agency, not a science agency. (and yes, I still don't have a way to address the issue of NASA aeronautics)You must have not read my post in the thread this split from, since I gave you the simple solution. Quote from: meberbs on 11/02/2017 08:41 pmI can help you with that last point. Since science is a major portion of NASA's mission, if you want to people to stop saying "NASA is a science agency" you also just have to be opposed to all statements of the form "NASA is a _____ agency". For anything that you can fill in the blank with, whether aeronautics, space, science, etc. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.Or you could accept the fact that such short statements are not meant to be a complete description of all agency functions.
The problem is that I do actually think a lot of the general public do think its a complete description. I wish that wasn't the case, but if you engage with a lot of them, they see it as a complete pure description. And that is a problem
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 02:14 pmThe problem is that I do actually think a lot of the general public do think its a complete description. I wish that wasn't the case, but if you engage with a lot of them, they see it as a complete pure description. And that is a problemAgain, you have the same problem if you call NASA a space agency.
Quote from: meberbs on 11/03/2017 02:25 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 02:14 pmThe problem is that I do actually think a lot of the general public do think its a complete description. I wish that wasn't the case, but if you engage with a lot of them, they see it as a complete pure description. And that is a problemAgain, you have the same problem if you call NASA a space agency.I would argue that space is at least closer to a better solution than science. I welcome an alternative suggestion.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 02:26 pmQuote from: meberbs on 11/03/2017 02:25 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 02:14 pmThe problem is that I do actually think a lot of the general public do think its a complete description. I wish that wasn't the case, but if you engage with a lot of them, they see it as a complete pure description. And that is a problemAgain, you have the same problem if you call NASA a space agency.I would argue that space is at least closer to a better solution than science. I welcome an alternative suggestion. Why?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/03/2017 02:30 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 02:26 pmQuote from: meberbs on 11/03/2017 02:25 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 02:14 pmThe problem is that I do actually think a lot of the general public do think its a complete description. I wish that wasn't the case, but if you engage with a lot of them, they see it as a complete pure description. And that is a problemAgain, you have the same problem if you call NASA a space agency.I would argue that space is at least closer to a better solution than science. I welcome an alternative suggestion. Why?Because most people don't view science and applied science very broadly. They don't view lawyers as "applied legal scientists", or business people as "applied market scientists." In short - I would argue that it is more inclusive, and allows people to think about space beyond the hard sciences.
While engineering – building the rockets and spacecraft and getting them out to their destinations in working order – was clearly the driving force of NASA in the early years, science was always an integral part of the space program.
Just as a point of reference, according to NASA this is who they employ:- Professional, Engineering and Scientific (60% of NASA's positions)- Administrative and Management (24% of NASA's positions)- Clerical and Administrative Support (7% of NASA's positions)- Technical and Medical Support (9% of NASA's positions)I agree with others about the challenge of coming up with a one-word description for NASA.It's clear NASA is tasked by the President and Congress to do many things, and my point has always been that science is a big part of that. And in fact science is an activity that is done not only here on Earth but in space too, so it's not as silo'd as just aeronautics or just space - which are both identified in NASA's name.Poking around the NASA website trying to find out how many scientists are employed there, I found this:QuoteWhile engineering – building the rockets and spacecraft and getting them out to their destinations in working order – was clearly the driving force of NASA in the early years, science was always an integral part of the space program.So can we agree to say that science is an integral part of NASA?
I appreciate what you are saying because of it's association to being "elitist in nature" in these highly polarized times. First, can you apply the "scientific method" to those occupations you mentioned? My only suggestion as I have encountered the general public is to ask them first to have an open mind and that no one person has "all" the answers. Second, as I have told my students, "the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know"... "Simply learn how to learn and learn how to think" There is nothing wrong with saying "I do not know"... Allow our friend Commander Data to elucidate...
the problem is you are trying to pigeon-hole the agency into one descriptive word, when in fact it has many missions in varying fields and for varying purposes. But the word "science" encompasses those missions far more than "space" does.
Now if you are talking about public perception, that is a different thing, but the agency shouldnt be defined by public opinion
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/03/2017 03:12 pmI appreciate what you are saying because of it's association to being "elitist in nature" in these highly polarized times. First, can you apply the "scientific method" to those occupations you mentioned? My only suggestion as I have encountered the general public is to ask them first to have an open mind and that no one person has "all" the answers. Second, as I have told my students, "the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know"... "Simply learn how to learn and learn how to think" There is nothing wrong with saying "I do not know"... Allow our friend Commander Data to elucidate...With regard to your question - I would submit that it is possible to apply the scientific method to almost all activities. The scientific method, in many respects, is a more systematized version of logic and critical thinking. But, as state, most people don't perceive the world that way, and don't think that way. I fully agree that having people have more open minds is a good thing, and to push them that way. The problem is that the world remains messy (including communications)(and if you want to get to a word I REALLY get annoyed at, it's exploration - but that's a different discussion)
Actually, the agency is always defined by public opinion, ultimately. That heavily influences why we have this problem.
The example of planetary protection is ultimately a legal issue,
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 03:26 pmActually, the agency is always defined by public opinion, ultimately. That heavily influences why we have this problem.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.
Quote from: chrisking0997 on 11/03/2017 03:01 pmthe problem is you are trying to pigeon-hole the agency into one descriptive word, when in fact it has many missions in varying fields and for varying purposes. But the word "science" encompasses those missions far more than "space" does.No, the problem isn't me. The problem is that society is clumsy with it's language, and thus people broadly pigeon hole items and activities. (This in fact, IMHO, is the real issue when it comes to discussions about whether we are too "politically correct" - people don't understand and accept how clumsy we are with language).
And I disagree that science is more encompassing - I would submit space is more encompassing. Science only works if you require everyone to view every activity as fundamentally a science activity. And most people reject that as well.
Quote from: chrisking0997 on 11/03/2017 03:01 pmNow if you are talking about public perception, that is a different thing, but the agency shouldnt be defined by public opinionActually, the agency is always defined by public opinion, ultimately. That heavily influences why we have this problem.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 02:13 pmThe example of planetary protection is ultimately a legal issue,Can you cite the relevant legal statutes?
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 03:23 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 11/03/2017 03:12 pmI appreciate what you are saying because of it's association to being "elitist in nature" in these highly polarized times. First, can you apply the "scientific method" to those occupations you mentioned? My only suggestion as I have encountered the general public is to ask them first to have an open mind and that no one person has "all" the answers. Second, as I have told my students, "the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know"... "Simply learn how to learn and learn how to think" There is nothing wrong with saying "I do not know"... Allow our friend Commander Data to elucidate...With regard to your question - I would submit that it is possible to apply the scientific method to almost all activities. The scientific method, in many respects, is a more systematized version of logic and critical thinking. But, as state, most people don't perceive the world that way, and don't think that way. I fully agree that having people have more open minds is a good thing, and to push them that way. The problem is that the world remains messy (including communications)(and if you want to get to a word I REALLY get annoyed at, it's exploration - but that's a different discussion)When it comes to the scientific method, there really is no room for interpretation. The key is reproducibilty in the result no matter who or where the experiment is conducted when all variables are controlled.Because the "world is messy" is not a good reason to lower the bar in our institutions but to ask the populace to rise to the occasion...
I'm at a loss as to why this matters. I read the OP's opener and remain unenlightened.Thanks for moving it to its own thread though, it was clogging up the thread it spawned from.
Do yourself a favor - google "federal science agencies"You will see, right across the top of the screen, several agencies' logos, NASA among them. All of the agencies listed (NOAA, NIH, etc) do other things in addition to science. As I said in the other post, there is only one government agency that ONLY does science and that is the National Science Foundation.
You are right - language does matter. And you don't get to unilaterally decide to change how a term is commonly used, formally or informally, no matter how much you want to.
Informally, "science agency" means an agency that does a relatively significant amount of science. Formally, "federal science agency" means an agency that sponsors or performs scientific research. This is important because it means by law the agency must have a scientific integrity policy, must have an open access policy for the extramural research they sponsor, etc.
I suspect we are at an impasse for the first part of your response. However, I did want to address a specific point.
The lack of a clean and clear positive public perception about NASA IS the problem, and is the point I am getting at.
Quote from: incoming on 11/03/2017 05:39 pmYou are right - language does matter. And you don't get to unilaterally decide to change how a term is commonly used, formally or informally, no matter how much you want to. I acknowledge I don't get to unilaterally decide this, but I do get a say in it (since I am part of the community). Hence, I make my case and stand by it.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:11 pmI suspect we are at an impasse for the first part of your response. However, I did want to address a specific point.You want clarity and preciseness and better public understanding of what NASA does. I stated that you cannot boil down what NASA does to a single word. How exactly are we at an impasse?
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:11 pmThe lack of a clean and clear positive public perception about NASA IS the problem, and is the point I am getting at.If you think that saying "NASA is a science agency" impedes this, then saying "NASA is a space agency" is just as bad.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:52 pmQuote from: incoming on 11/03/2017 05:39 pmYou are right - language does matter. And you don't get to unilaterally decide to change how a term is commonly used, formally or informally, no matter how much you want to. I acknowledge I don't get to unilaterally decide this, but I do get a say in it (since I am part of the community). Hence, I make my case and stand by it.Guess what, everyone else in this thread has made a case too, and they all disagree with you. At what point do you realize that you are the one whose definition doesn't match common usage, and that you are definitely failing at #3 and possibly at #2 from your list above?
And I tend to be of the opinion that those agencies aren't science agencies either, and the only science agency is NSF.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:52 pmAnd I tend to be of the opinion that those agencies aren't science agencies either, and the only science agency is NSF.This is fun.What other aspects of reality do you redefine in your universe?
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/03/2017 07:28 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 05:52 pmAnd I tend to be of the opinion that those agencies aren't science agencies either, and the only science agency is NSF.This is fun.What other aspects of reality do you redefine in your universe? Are you implying that this thread should be moved to the "Spock's beard" sub forum?
And I say that although you can't boil it down to a single word, most people do that, and so we have to find something better. You seem to be saying (and feel free to correct me) that we can't boil it down, and we shouldn't try, and we should try and push people not to do that. I don't believe that is viable.
Further, you said that you don't need to take an extreme all encompassing view of what science is, but I disagree (see my points about lawyers vs applied legal scientists). While I can't point to the exist place of disagreement, I can see that this is a philosophical disagreement.
Quote from: meberbs on 11/03/2017 06:06 pmIf you think that saying "NASA is a science agency" impedes this, then saying "NASA is a space agency" is just as bad. I disagree.
If you think that saying "NASA is a science agency" impedes this, then saying "NASA is a space agency" is just as bad.
1) This isn't actually a hugely populated thread with lots of people providing comments. 2) I think that it does provide more clarity, because it allows for discussions of development and the like, and I've gotten responses from non-space people who seem to understand my point.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/03/2017 03:43 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 03:23 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 11/03/2017 03:12 pmI appreciate what you are saying because of it's association to being "elitist in nature" in these highly polarized times. First, can you apply the "scientific method" to those occupations you mentioned? My only suggestion as I have encountered the general public is to ask them first to have an open mind and that no one person has "all" the answers. Second, as I have told my students, "the more I know, the more I realize what I don't know"... "Simply learn how to learn and learn how to think" There is nothing wrong with saying "I do not know"... Allow our friend Commander Data to elucidate...With regard to your question - I would submit that it is possible to apply the scientific method to almost all activities. The scientific method, in many respects, is a more systematized version of logic and critical thinking. But, as state, most people don't perceive the world that way, and don't think that way. I fully agree that having people have more open minds is a good thing, and to push them that way. The problem is that the world remains messy (including communications)(and if you want to get to a word I REALLY get annoyed at, it's exploration - but that's a different discussion)When it comes to the scientific method, there really is no room for interpretation. The key is reproducibilty in the result no matter who or where the experiment is conducted when all variables are controlled.Because the "world is messy" is not a good reason to lower the bar in our institutions but to ask the populace to rise to the occasion...Let me know how that works out, because IMHO, most of the populace has decided it doesn't want to.
Settlement of the solar system, and eventually the stars, is the goal.
Your goal. Not NASA policy. Not United States policy.
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.
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.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 03:26 pmAnd 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.
• Earth Science -- Not Space related • Planetary Science -- Partially Space related • Astrophysics -- Partially Space related • James Webb Space Telescope -- Definitely Space related • Heliophysics -- Partially Space related • Education -- Not Space related
Quote from: spacetraveler on 11/07/2017 09:00 pm • Earth Science -- Not Space related • Planetary Science -- Partially Space related • Astrophysics -- Partially Space related • James Webb Space Telescope -- Definitely Space related • Heliophysics -- Partially Space related • Education -- Not Space related I love this. Gave me the second-best laugh of the day. I particularly enjoy how you have stated that something like the study of other planets--which, last I checked, are in outer space--is only "partially space related."
Space colonization has never been a core purpose of NASA nor is it today.
Quote from: spacetraveler on 11/07/2017 09:11 pmSpace colonization has never been a core purpose of NASA nor is it today.TITLE IV--ADVANCING HUMAN DEEP SPACE EXPLORATIONSubtitle A--Human Space Flight and Exploration Goals and Objectives(Sec. 411) The bill states that the long-terms goals for 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, with the involvement of international, academic, and industry partners, * crewed missions and progress toward achieving the expansion of human presence beyond low-Earth orbit * to enable the potential for subsequent human exploration and the extension of human presence throughout the solar system, and to enable a capability to extend human presence, including potential human habitation on another celestial body and a thriving space economy in the 21st Century.If that's not settlement, what is?
Quote from: QuantumG on 11/07/2017 09:44 pmQuote from: spacetraveler on 11/07/2017 09:11 pmSpace colonization has never been a core purpose of NASA nor is it today.TITLE IV--ADVANCING HUMAN DEEP SPACE EXPLORATIONSubtitle A--Human Space Flight and Exploration Goals and Objectives(Sec. 411) The bill states that the long-terms goals for 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, with the involvement of international, academic, and industry partners, * crewed missions and progress toward achieving the expansion of human presence beyond low-Earth orbit * to enable the potential for subsequent human exploration and the extension of human presence throughout the solar system, and to enable a capability to extend human presence, including potential human habitation on another celestial body and a thriving space economy in the 21st Century.If that's not settlement, what is?I interpret that through the exploration framework. ISS is a "human presence in LEO", but I would not call it a colonization of LEO. NASA is about sending small professional teams of explorers to space destinations. I would see a "permanent human presence" outside LEO to be something like a moon base or L2 base staffed with scientists and professional astronauts, not a head of a colonization effort for anyone that wants to get off this rock.
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.
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?
Beating the Russians?
Quote from: Jim on 11/07/2017 10:55 pmBeating the Russians?yes... at what? What was it that the Russians were trying to do that mobilized so many brilliant minds to come take on the challenge? What did they have in their heads and hearts? It wasn't "science". It was the stars.
No, the Russians were not looking to the stars. They were just looking to sway smaller countries
Quote from: Jim on 11/07/2017 11:09 pmNo, the Russians were not looking to the stars. They were just looking to sway smaller countriesThe geopolitics paid the bills, but that's not what mobilized the hearts and minds... and it was the Americans I was talking about. If they wanted to work on ICBMs, they could have gone into the army.
They did. More people worked on the ICBMs than NASA programs.
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: QuantumG on 11/07/2017 08:53 pmNASA does science for a purpose and that purpose is getting humanity off this rock.I would disagree with this as well however.Space exploration has always been a core purpose of NASA, however "getting humanity off this rock" implies a permanent departure. Space colonization has never been a core purpose of NASA nor is it today.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 11/03/2017 02:13 pmThe issue is that "being an enabler of development and settlement"That has nothing to do with NASA
I do think there is a point in this that is also worth bringing up and that is prioritization. There are many of us who believe that the public story is that NASA's primary job is science. Not one of it's primary jobs, not an integral part of it's broad job, but it's primary job is science. That is the problem IMHO. If there is understanding that there is and are multiple things NASA does, and there are multiple reasons to do things in space, then this isn't really a problem. But from where I am sitting, I get the impression that the majority of people view NASA's PRIMARY job as science. That science is at the top of prioritization. That is a problem, IMHO
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.
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.
You could also look at the budget, but that is much more diverse than science.
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.