[X] My Assistant

[JRehling]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/science/22nasa.html


From 2002 until this year, NASA’s mission statement, prominently featured in its budget and planning documents, read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.”

In early February, the statement was quietly altered, with the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted.
[...]

[Phil Stooke]

No, I do get the context, but I would hope that a responsible administration would move EO to another agency. I know this one isn't interested. I'm second to nobody in my distrust of - oh, ixnay on the oliticspay...

On the other hand I am very sceptical - cynical, in fact - about the value of mission statements anyway. If the bigwigs wanted to do something they don't need a mission statement to hang it on. If they don't want to do it they won't even if they have the statement in place. But I do have some sympathy for the complaint of the scientist who wanted to be able to refer to it.

Phil

[mcaplinger]

On the other hand I am very sceptical - cynical, in fact - about the value of mission statements anyway.

I'm completely with Phil on this one; the NASA mission statements are usually embarrassing pieces of PR hackwork (remember "to improve life here, extend life to there"?) What matters is what the NASA budget request asks for. The FY07 summary says "NASA will also continue to play a major role in the interagency Climate Change Science Program". See http://www.climatescience.gov/ for what that is. And I wonder about the cost effectiveness of the big EOS satellites anyway, especially for studying climate change.