NASA Gets Its Marching Orders: Look Up! Look Out! 179
TheRealHocusLocus writes: HR 2039: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act for 2016 and 2017 (press release, full text, and as a pretty RGB bitmap) is in the House. In $18B of goodies we see things that actually resemble a space program. The ~20,000 word document is even a good read, especially the parts about decadal cadence. There is more focus on launch systems and manned exploration, also to "expand the Administration's Near-Earth Object Program to include the detection, tracking, cataloguing, and characterization of potentially hazardous near-Earth objects less than 140 meters in diameter." I find it awesome that the fate of the dinosaurs is explicitly mentioned in this bill. If it passes we will have a law with dinosaurs in it. Someone read the T-shirt. There is also a very specific six month review of NASA's "Earth science global datasets for the purpose of identifying those datasets that are useful for understanding regional changes and variability, and for informing applied science research." Could this be an emerging Earth Sciences turf war between NOAA and NASA? Lately it seems more of a National Atmospheric Space Administration. Mission creep, much?
it's only a bill (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
for you young whippersnappers that don't get the reference..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re:it's only a bill (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's also a thing for two sides to be outraged about and have a flame war. Thus, it's money in the bank for Dice Holdings.
You really should recognize what's important in this world. Short term bottom line and minimizing any legal liability. Occasional intelligent conversation is just a way to lure in the sucker... I mean users.
Re: (Score:3)
And the mod sayeth: Bad user! offtopic. Thou shalt not comment on the elephant in the room!
Re:it's only a Mantis Shrimp in disguise (Score:2)
No, it's also a thing for two sides to be outraged about and have a flame war. Thus, it's money in the bank for Dice Holdings. You really should recognize what's important in this world. Short term bottom line and minimizing any legal liability. Occasional intelligent conversation is just a way to lure in the sucker... I mean users.
I have utmost sympathy and respect for Dice Holdings, host of this forum.
Some goofball nobody in Silicon Valley can cut cheese on a smartphone and hold out a smelly app for everyone to sniff, say cutesy things in a press release, and you guys (and gal) eat it up. Or the other end of the spectrum, when tech luminaries go on about planet-sized lithium batteries that will save the planet, even the Musk can be pungent around here.
But let some poor someone even vaguely associated with Dice Holdings submit a che
Re: (Score:2)
In the cartoon world, they call what I did "4th wall breaking". Referring to the reality behind the facade of the comic (or in this case, the fact that the web site we write on indeed is a business.)
Forgive me, but what I thought of during your reply was that it was a wonderful imitation of the studied serious moralizing of Sam the Eagle from the Muppets. ;)
Did a paid shill write this summary? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously. The real story with this bill is that the republicans are defunding the climate monitoring programs. It will take decades to regain the capabilities we'll lose by defunding them now. There's no turf war between NASA and NOAA, just one between republicans and science.
Nice job trying to write a summary for geeks that attempts to bury the real story.
Re:Did a paid shill write this summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about time someone defunded this utterly ridiculous and transparent scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough, Darwin followed the scientific process when he went to the Galapagos and attempted to DISPROVE his own theory. What he found there REINFORCED IT. THAT is how science of discovery is done!
Re: (Score:3)
The sheer mass of ignorance in that post is staggering. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection wasn't even formed in the Galapagos, much less before visiting. It came years after his return to England, though it was in large part informed by his observations on the voyage. He wasn't trying to disprove anything, so far as I know, though as a botanist with theological training but low (for his time) personal piety he may have questioned the theological explanations already.
Also, merely
Re: (Score:3)
Funnily enough, Darwin followed the scientific process when he went to the Galapagos and attempted to DISPROVE his own theory. What he found there REINFORCED IT. THAT is how science of discovery is done!
Well, since evolution is wrong, and Darwin couldn't disprove it, that proves that he was a bad scientist, which proves that his theory of evolution is wrong. QED.
Re: (Score:2)
baseless assumption followed by a logical fallacy, congratulations you win the internets.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it's about time they defund SLS/Orion!
Don't get me wrong, NASA should be in the launch systems business. In the revolutionary launch systems business. Government programs are supposed to exist to do the important thing that private industry is unwilling or unable to do - in the science field this means things like such as science without immediate commercial applications, very expensive basic research, etc. There is no sho
Re: (Score:3)
Still, it's nice to see John Boehner's office embracing Slashdot as a campaign tool. Other politicians can waste their money on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram; House Republicans will stick with what moves to masses.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. The real story with this bill is that the republicans are defunding the climate monitoring programs. It will take decades to regain the capabilities we'll lose by defunding them now. There's no turf war between NASA and NOAA, just one between republicans and science.
Decades to regain capabilities you say? You mean like the current US capability for manned space flight? Or are you all jazzed up about the first and only country to put astronauts on the moon and return them safely to earth being reduced to having its astronauts hitchhike a ride into space from other countries like Russia (under embargo for aggression, probing the US with nuclear bombers and subs), China (nuclear threats against US), or maybe India?
If you want to beat the gong about "wars on science" you
Concorde MKII (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans have been the primary Congressional force running interference for the old space industry, either by throwing money at the likes of ATK to build rockets that will never fly, or actively blocking SpaceX from competing with the established players on contracts.
While the big government contracting model can get crews into space, it does so at such an exorbitant price it's simply not worth it. SpaceX, or more precisely the discarding of legacy design and especially legacy contracting models that SpaceX represents, at least gives us a chance of a sustainable space program because it is far, far better value for money. It's also far more in alignment with professed Republican principles, as distinct from revealed preferences from observed behaviour.
A revived crewed space program under the old model will result in bugger-all flying, lots of money wasted, and will get cancelled soon enough. Why bother?
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans hate big government, except when it comes to a) building big machines designed to kill people, and b) firing rockets into space.
Republicans have been the primary Congressional force running interference for the old space industry, either by throwing money at the likes of ATK to build rockets that will never fly, or actively blocking SpaceX from competing with the established players on contracts.
More specifically they hate big government the same way worship love freedom of individuals. They like to talk about it, but their policies are the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the real story, that the US is going to reinvigorate its moribund manned space capability is clearly mentioned. Or don't you think geeks interested in that?
But we all know that's not going to happen. They just want to move money from taxpayers to their buddies.
Garbage (Score:5, Informative)
We have a federal agency to study dirt and rocks - the United States Geological Survey (USGS). They claim [usgs.gov] to be "a science organization that provides impartial information on the health of our ecosystems and environment, the natural hazards that threaten us, the natural resources we rely on, the impacts of climate and land-use change, and the core science systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and usable information."
We have a federal agency to study the atmosphere and the oceans - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They claim [noaa.gov] their mission is "Science, Service, and Stewardship. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, To share that knowledge and information with others, and To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. "
BOTH claim to study the Earth and its climate. NEITHER claims to advance aviation of spaceflight or exploration beyond the Earth
We HAD an agency to study and advance aviation - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) whose mission was "to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution, and to determine the problems which should be experimentally attacked and to discuss their solution and their application to practical questions." After Russia launched Sputnik, the US government went into panic mode and in 1958 transformed the agency into a new organization which we now have called the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The 1958 law that created NASA gave it the following duties: (which I will quote directly)
"(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;"
"(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;"
"(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;"
"(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes."
"(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere."
"(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;"
"(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and"
"(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment."
NASA's study of the Earth and its atmosphere was ONLY for the purpose of advancing flight in, out of, and back into, the atmosphere. In the 1970s as the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations were messing NASA up and trying to appeal to voters they tainted NASA with eco-related tasks that actually belong at NOAA and USGS (and other agencies) and over time various entrenched interests (like the earth-sciences employees at Goddard who SHOULD apply for jobs at NOAA) have made the problem worse. NASA spent more money studying climate change in 2014 than it spent launching men into space (NASA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans in congress did NOT kill-off any climate science work at NOAA or USGS, or EPA, etc.
Yes they fucking did, anonymous shill.
Re: (Score:2)
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad... [slate.com]
http://archives.politicususa.c... [politicususa.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The ISS is garbage (Score:3)
It's not like NASA's manned space flight program does much better
1) We've been putting humans into low earth orbit for decades. There's not much "expansion of human knowledge" here. Well, they did study ants in space on the ISS recently...
2) ISS is old tech; there's no "improvement" to speak of. Well, they did put a new espresso machine up there recently, right?
3) Unless "development" means "making more of the same thing we already know how to make", then ISS fails again.
4) Maybe the ISS does this, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Snide references to nonexistent rivalries and 'siphoning billions' are complete rubbish. I suspect someone has hired a PR consultant, and not a very bright one, to compose this longwinded, rambling diatribe. It would even work, if it got
Re: (Score:3)
If we are not going to eventually send people into space to colonize other worlds, then there is no point in sending them to explore - and ALSO then no point in sending robots to precede them, and then also no reason to build telescopes and other probes to see what's out there to explore
Sending robots is fun. I'm curious if there's ever been life on Mars, for instance, and robots are the perfect tool to find that out. Building telescopes is also fun, because we learn interesting stuff, and some of it has relevance for the nature of matter and energy, and could lead to useful discoveries here on earth.
Colonization is best left to SF writers. It's completely unrealistic. If you care about humanity, our efforts are best spent here on earth.
We can cut all government climate science funds and leave it to commercial entities .... right???
Of course not. We can leave launching things into orb
Re: (Score:2)
Colonisation is unrealistic today. The technology is decades away from practicality at least, and the expense of establishing a long-term colony is such that it may well be the single most expensive project in all of human history. Yet the prospects are so exciting - how long as it been since there was a true age of exploration? We can't plan colonisation today, but we can lay the first stones of the foundation that a future generation can build upon.
Re: (Score:2)
the first stones of the foundation that a future generation can build upon.
The first stones need to be made here on the ground, because before we can even start to think about colonization, we need better propulsion and other tech. Sending a few people to Mars with current tech is like cavemen trying to get to the moon by finding bigger and bigger trees to climb, and thinking they're making progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Sending a few people to Mars with current tech is like cavemen trying to get to the moon by finding bigger and bigger trees to climb, and thinking they're making progress.
The first ancestor to actually hold a flaming branch in hand after a lightning strike, after all the others had sensibly run away... was a total loon doing something terrifying and incomprehensible. Once it became clear that one end was on fire and the other was not, it was easy to gather the courage to pick it up and examine the fire closely. Carrying it and touching flame to dried leaves, fire-daughters are born and take on a life of their own. This is amazing stuff. Blowing on orange embers, the flame is
Re: (Score:2)
That was fun to read. Patronizing, but fun.
Re: (Score:2)
If only it made sense, then it would be a perfect comment.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not a "Christian conservative" if you're Catholic. Catholics aren't even Christians. (Don't believe me? Go find some Southern Baptists or some fundamentalists and ask them if you're a Christian; they'll say no.)
Here's some litmus tests for you:
1) Do you believe the Rapture is going to happen soon?
2) Do you watch Christian movies starring Kirk Cameron?
3) Are you a fan of the "Left Behind" books?
4) Do you believe there's a "gay agenda"?
5) Do you believe President Obama is literally the anti-Christ?
I
Re:Did a paid shill write this summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do these people act so shock that the agency that is largely responsible for space holds most of the assets in space, even if theose assets ultimately complement other agencies? I thought cooperation between agencies is a good thing? (Or should scientific research have the sort of systemic walls between agencies that let to the intelligence failure known as 9/11 ??)
NASA has the bulk of space based sensors monitoring the Earth.
This is of course, completely logical.
Even for assets actually owned by other agencies, they still interact and support them, particularly in the launching and maintaining aspects.
But NASA has the bulk. So the gameplan here lays itself out. First they reduce NASA's earth monitoring capability. Note they dont kill it outright...they rarely do. First you reduce its capability and effectiveness to justify further cuts in the future. And then you just never replace that capability in the agencies they argued should have it.
Such as:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad... [slate.com]
We know this is the game plan, because the GOP has -already tried- to interfere with NOAA's earth monitoring and climate research capabilities, and defund it's climate research. Whereas with NASA They claim that work is best left to NOAA, when talking about NOAA they instead claim that NOAA's true mission is "weather forecasting", not "climate research", as if understanding the bigger picture better and monitoring the planet wouldn't improve the ability to predict weather to as a byproduct.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet here you are.
Re: (Score:2)
He lies. He was still learning to spell his own name five years ago. And, his password is LMNOpeee.
timothy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been a Democrat since 1979. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders if he weren't an abrasive, self-righteous prig who'd inevitably do more damage to his allies than to his enemies. But despite that I'm almost 100% in agreement with the man. And I haven't seen any rampant Republican agenda here. More like rampant laziness, if there were such a thing.
If the editors spent a whole minute between the moment they opened the story and the moment they hit "post" I'd be flabbergasted.
usually the complaints are for too much politics (Score:3)
Re:usually the complaints are for too much politic (Score:4, Informative)
That might be true if this was some sort of dispassionate commentary on the bill. But it's not, it's a ringing endorsement of a highly partisan bill. Surely you see the difference.
For those who are serious, here's the Planetary Society's commentary [planetary.org], with a link to an indepth but nonpartisan analysis [spacepolicyonline.com] at SpacePolicyOnline. The Planetary Society is very happy with the planetary science numbers, not happy with the earth science numbers, and couldn't seem to care less about the funding for SLS/Orion.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And what about that space stuff? Remember the space stuff?
Why yes, we just saw a story about space stuff: [slashdot.org]
NASA hopes to send the first round-trip, manned spaceflight to Mars by the 2030s. If the mission succeeds, astronauts could spend several years potentially being bombarded with cosmic rays- high-energy particles launched across space by supernovae and other galactic explosions. Now, a study in mice suggests these particles could alter the shape of neurons, impairing astronauts' memories and other cognitive abilities. In the prefrontal cortex, a brain region associated with executive function, a range of high-level cognitive tasks such as reasoning, short-term memory, and problem-solving, neurons had 30% to 40% fewer branches, called dendrites, which receive electrical input from other cells.
It's pretty clear that Republicans are seeking to get people into space so they can expand their voter base.
Why did the porridge bird lay his egg in the air? (Score:2)
It's pretty clear that Republicans are seeking to get people into space so they can expand their voter base.
And you my friend --- you would look especially good in space. [slashdot.org]
Some day the boorish branding of people by (say) registered political party will be perceived negatively yet casually, as with a dismissive shake of the head. Kids are doing this today. Learn more about 'Space Madness' [youtube.com], then sit thee dunne to watch BBC: Space Odyssey: Voyage to the Planets Part 1 [youtube.com] and Part 2 [youtube.com] Try to sort out the Republicans from the People.
There are folks who just don't understand why humans need to go into space.
We'll get there
Re: (Score:2)
So in summary, not a paid shill, but a dyed in the wool "climate skeptic". It got cold this winter, so much for global warming huh!
One liner portrayal of me FAIL. Since we are using an ancient threaded discussion board scarcely evolved from USENET and there is no keyword based contextual linking it takes a diligent effort to find out where someone stands on something, and why. Sometimes it is worth the effort. You have to do a lot of reading. You'd have to follow back in time [slashdot.org] to discover that I do have a position on the subject [slashdot.org] that is not as simple as you describe. Usually I just don't mention it.
Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing.
~Robert Benchley
And since your "position on the subject" is the delusional:
Temperature has not risen.
you are a dyed in the wool "climate skeptic"
Re: (Score:3)
The claims of temperature increasing to "highest levels on record" are not accurate. They only count records from 1976. Before that, their graphs show a flat line.
The records from before 1976 are all lower, so 2014 is still the highest on record.
mainstream view that temperature records describe a fucking hockey stick.
The fucking hockey stick is supported by the fucking data. Where's your data ?
that annoying white blob called the Sun which itself exhibits wild temperature variations of upwards of +/-1500C at the photosphere?
We can measure the total solar radiation. It's only fluctuating by tiny amounts, and since the '80s, it has actually gone down a little bit.
Re: (Score:3)
it's warmer during the daytime than it is at night.
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we should secretly replace their employees with Folgers crystals and see if anyone notices.
NASA Earth Science budget slashed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
NASA today is so messed-up it could not even put a monkey into space for a single orbit of the Earth (something it originally managed to do 50 years ago). If the agency cannot do even the basics, it has no business diversifying into all sorts of other junk that overlaps what half a dozen other agencies are tasked with also doing.
We have a fleet of robots on Mars that would like a word with you.
Re: (Score:2)
"the core stuff they were created to do"
Of the objectives specifically listed in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, the very first one is "The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that and it is so tidy that they are attempting to get NASA out of the sort of science that tells the Republicans they have shit for brains.
Look Up! Look Out! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sitting right next to a dinosaur now [xkcd.com] and scratching its head.
There wasn't an extinction of the dinosaurs. There was an extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs.
Or, we could just declare war on space itself. (Score:2)
We have tolerated this insolence long enough [slashdot.org].
Popular support (Score:3)
more focus on launch systems and manned exploration
Perhaps a joke for the 'robotic exploration' crew out there. A man walks into a bar. Tells the bartender "Well, it's over for MESSENGER but we're getting a lot of New Horizons data soon!" Bartender: (blank stare).
Look up some old footage of public interest in NASA during the Apollo program. NASA needs to have heroes, and they need to have something that is seen as a major accomplishment. And they need it soon. Luckily the Chinese are the new Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard of sex change operations, but nationality change? How did they do that?
Re: (Score:3)
I was eight years old when Neil Armstrong stepped off the LEM onto the Moon. It was an overcast day but the thing I remember vividly was how quiet the city was; aside from a few trucks in the distance and the wind blowing between the buildings there was simply nothing to be heard. The street was utterly deserted, more deserted than it would have been in the middle of the night. I'd gone out to find someone to play with, but gave it up for a bad job. I came in just in time to watch Armstrong step off the LE
Re: (Score:3)
five words: The Six Million Dollar Man. Made to try to boost NASA's image of a room full of fearless heroes after the cancellation of Apollo three missions early due to lack of public attention.
Maybe NASA needs more fictional heroes like Steve Austin. I expect hardly anybody remembers these names any more, I remember every one of them, because I cried for a week when Challenger exploded; by the time Columbia went up in 2003 I was no longer 10 years old and I had come to accept that spaceflight was a dangero
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think NASA needs to make the fictional heroes; I think every piece of sci-fi that comes out helps inspire the next generation. I guarantee you that there's tons kids and young teens who saw, say, Gravity and think that's what it is to work at NASA and have set that as their aspiration. "Astronaut" is usually in the top 10 of what kids want to be when they grow up.
More than anything else, I see the main point of having astronauts is just to inspire kids. Just knowing that there's people going up ther
Re: (Score:3)
How many current astronauts can you name?
How many current astronauts can anyone here name off the top of their head?
The time of astronauts as heroes has passed. Far, far more people today do care about MESSENGER and New Horizons than they do about what astronauts are doing in space. They get more coverage in the popular press too. MESSENGER hasn't been a big public eye-catcher (except briefly when it crashed) but there was lots of attention about Rosetta, MERs, MSL, Cassini periodically (for example, the ge
Re: (Score:2)
But then, there wasn't much interest in Astronauts driving around the moon, because it interrupted soap operas and game shows on TV.
Shuttle stopped making the news a long time ago except when it was threatened with shutdown, hubble was threatened with shutdown, or one crashed. People have been in LEO fairly regularly for a long time now.
I don't care whom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A New Hope (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully this is a sign the space race is back on. Far more to do out there, then to squabble back here with, who can destroy the world the most number of times with their military, a real dead end and I mean dead end. Something is needed to drive humanity, to focus it's efforts and who is the greediest and most selfish or who can kill the most, are insanely, stupendously pointless and self destructive of society.
Making use of the resources of the solar system, is not about bringing stuff back to earth, it is about humanity expanding it's horizons further out. The difference between dwelling upon your genitals (hollywood et al) or dwelling upon your mind (NASA et al).
Re:A New Hope (Score:4, Informative)
Hopefully this is a sign the space race is back on.
I agree. It's either that, or admit defeat to the Russians.
Phrased like that, no self-respecting US politician can say 'no' to it.
Atmosphere study is in NASA's fucking 1958 charter (Score:5, Informative)
From the very moment of its inception, NASA has been directed to study the atmosphere:
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html
"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;"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So? Isn't it about time that NASA grew up, and looked further into space? We already have NOAA. Every nation on earth has weather and climate scientists. WTF do we need NASA to study the weather? We need NASA to build big honking SPACESHIPS to move mankind into the solar system. Screw the weather, in 150 years, half of mankind won't give a small damn about weather on earth.
Re:Atmosphere study is in NASA's fucking 1958 char (Score:5, Interesting)
Every nation on earth has weather and climate scientists. WTF do we need NASA to study the weather?
First of all, weather is not climate.
Second, those scientists in other nations depend on the data collected by NASA, since no one else can do it as well.
Third, the idiot currently heading the committee that plans to eviscerate the NASA earth sciences program to the tune of $300 million per year sees no problem blowing hundreds of times as much money on Cold War fighter jets. [youtube.com] One might ask,why do we need to spend $1.5 trillion dollars on F35 strike fighters that can't turn, can't climb, run hackable software, and explode when struck by lightning or running on warm fuel? [businessinsider.com]
This is not about the money at all. They just don't want anyone looking into this, period.
Re: (Score:2)
We need NASA to build big honking SPACESHIPS to move mankind into the solar system
Maybe, if we weren't wasting the earth, we could stay here.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe YOU can. I don't want MY descendants waiting around for the next huge ass rock to collide with the rock we are living on. I really want my descendants (notice that you can find DNA in the word?) spread over a few dozens of rocks. Maybe even some in another solar system.
I don't much care if your descendants put their heads under rocks, and stay here. That's their business.
Re: (Score:3)
I have better things to do than worry about what happens to certain DNA sequences million years in the future that are as closely related to me, as I am to a chimp in a lab. There are plenty of things to worry about that threaten me and my kids and grandkids in the next couple of decades. If we don't survive those, I won't even have any descendants left to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
next you'll be claiming that this planet can only support a human population of between fifty and ninety million.
I mean that the only future of the human species is here on earth, where we have the best environment for survival. The chances of survival anywhere else is in the solar system is much worse than the most inhospitable place on earth, and beyond the solar system is just empty space as far as we can reach. Therefore, it would be smarter to allocate some of NASAs budget to study the earth, especially where they can use their expertise to do so from earth orbit. Studying space is interesting, but only from a sc
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're an astronaut ?
Re: (Score:2)
8/10 trolling, I'd say. The strawman is a bit of a long shot, but it connects well with the Godwin line, and so it is likely to give you passionate replies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Low earth orbit" and "space" are not quite synonymous. Let NOAA have LEO, and NASA can go to space.
Re: (Score:3)
No reason why NASA can't work together with NOAA, and they can both do LEO. Some overlap, for a trivial amount of money, for something so important, can't hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Ehhh. I just watched this short video again. I am mesmerized by the face of the woman in the last scene. I imagine that she's waiting for a "bus" to come along, to take her to college. Or to bring home a loved one from a years long journey. Or, maybe she's just headed to the local version of an amusement park. Or, joining classmates, then heading off to the mall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, the relatively less bright elder brother can continue dabbling in old science, while the brighter, younger sister forges ahead into new territory.
No matter how you cut it, we don't need NASA putzing around in the atmosphere, there is another agency already dedicated to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Each has different missions. Maybe those missions are repetitively redundant, but at least they each have a different perspective on the same problems.
What I am saying is, NASA has a much bigger, much more important mission that studying weather and/or climate.
Re:Atmosphere study is in NASA's fucking 1958 char (Score:5, Interesting)
That mission is exploratory, not studious. NASA's job is to explore the atmosphere (pretty much done) and space (barely even scratched the surface). NOAA's job is to study the ocean and atmosphere. So NASA goes and finds it, then hands it off to NOAA for detailed study. NASA is inherently concerned with "getting there", while NOAA is concerned with "what's there". If NOAA wants a better look or needs new instruments installed in an otherwise unreachable or hostile environment (space), then NASA is their go-to agency to get that job done.
NOAA's on their own for deep sea research, though. And that's stupid. Have the NASA physics geniuses build better vehicles for every environment, let NOAA's geological geniuses do the boring data mining and science from the tools the vehicles deliver. (And, yes, the "real" science part is boring compared to the part that consists of blowing things up in a controlled manner in order to eject a large amount of mass out of the Earth's gravity well. Whee!)
Re: (Score:2)
space (barely even scratched the surface).
It's a vacuum. It's cold. There's nasty radiation. We're pretty much done.
Re: (Score:2)
Space is actually very, very hot - the very few atoms you find floating around have a great deal of kinetic energy. If you could create a perfectly non-radiating/reflective material and leave it in space, it would eventually get hot. This doesn't happen because the density is so low: The heat transfered to an object by conduction is a negligable fraction of that lost to radiation. Also, anything with water in will freeze in seconds due to evaporative cooling: At near-vacuum, just about everything is above t
Inconvenient Data (Score:5, Insightful)
The "review" of NASA's programs focused on studying Earth seems more like an attempt by climate-science deniers to stifle research that doesn't confirm what they want to hear, than anything to do with a supposed "turf battle with NOAA".
Sorry I'm always suspicious (Score:2)
"expand the Administration's Near-Earth Object Program to include the detection, tracking, cataloguing, and characterization of potentially hazardous near-Earth objects less than 140 meters in diameter."
Toe in the water for weaponization of space?
Other than that I look forward to interesting projects.
Good! Show us the results! (Score:2, Insightful)
Since ther days of Apollo NASA's principle task has been the exploration of space and the development of means to travel to space. After Apollo, it's capabilities have been degrading more and more till now the US has to pay Russia to put our stuff on their "trampolines".
TIme to take away their climate toys until they get their primary mission right.
Re: (Score:2)
So where the hell is the budget or plan for the shuttle replacement?
It vanished when Congress decided that launching pork into space was more important than launching humans.
Stop this nonsense (Score:2)
Re:Stop this Nunsense (Score:3)
If you could stop trying to make headlines cute, that would be great.
The headline was part inspired by "It Can Happen" [Yes] [youtube.com], a fine anthem for space exploration.
Look up - Look down
Look out - Look around
Look up - Look down
There's a crazy world outside
We're not about to lose our pride
Metrics? (Score:2)
[...] less than 140 meters in diameter.
Metric units? In a US government paper about NASA? One would almost get hopeful.
Opportunity rover extension? (Score:2)
The Earth is not in Space (Score:5, Interesting)
So let's just ignore the fact that the Earth is just one of the many things that are in space, and that it s the easiest thing in space we can get to. We're already here. It just doesn't count.
Also ignore that the Earth is the planet that we know the most about. So if we want to study other planets, we shouldn't study the Earth from space. There is no way that the things that we learn from Earth observation could be a baseline so that we know how to examine other thing that are in space, like say Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and it's moons, Saturn and it's moons and rings, and the same for Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (planet or not).
I hope this gives the Republicans amongst you a slight clue how stupid you sound. And how much you've substituted ideology for rational thought. But I warn you, don't let your vision of the US flag over every rock and planet in the solar system go to your head. It's only a mater of time until the christian fanatic wing of the party decides that the Earth is flat, the space program is a front for the devil, and the money needs to be spent on proving that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Decadal cadence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think American politicians are allowed to talk about ten year plans, as it sounds dangerously communist.
Wow! $8B Dollars! How About Some Perspective? (Score:5, Informative)
If NASA isn't supposed to do earth science... (Score:2)
then its earth science division should be moved to NOAA (or whatever is appropriate). I'd be fine with that. However that's not in the plan. Yes, maybe NASA wasn't the right place to study climate science (debatable), but it needs to be done somewhere; simply cutting it is not acceptable.
Moreover, this is hardly the first time a government agency has had mission creep or that multiple government agencies have overlapped. Mission creep/overlap to the tune of $300 million is absolutely nothing; that's not eve
Not mission creep. (Score:2)
Nope, it's fully in compliance with the 2013 OMB memo on an Open Data policy [whitehouse.gov]. The subheading on that memo is 'Managing Information as an Asset', and there is a real lack of a comprehensive catalog of NASA's data. (note that this is *not* the same as the 2013 OSTP memo on public access to federally funded data [whitehouse.gov], but they're related.)
Even with the r
Re: (Score:2)
before you do that, try googling their actual charter and mission statement.
Re: (Score:3)
I've read the remarks about the current climate change argument, but personally I think that needs to be under NOAA or other climate related institution. NASA needs to get back to what it was designed to do: Push the boundries of Space Exploration.
Any of the climate related satellites have a huge selection of launch capabilities, and do not need the umbrella of NASA to launch.
Sure. Until the next bill tells NOAA not to send satellites up, because they don't have "Space" in their name. Anything involving both "Space" and "Atmosphere" are to be done by private enterprise to save tax money.