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,