[X] My Assistant

[djellison]

Enough of the politics and religion. I am watching you

[alan]

Also missing from the mission statement, and more important in my view

to inspire the next generation of explorers

[mcaplinger]

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

This is false and misleading reporting by the NYT. The 2006 strategic plan says NASA's mission is "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautical research." That's a completely different statement, not an alteration of the previous one. And I can't even find a mission statement in the 2007 budget request.

It's fine to be arguing about whether we're spending enough trying to understand climate change, but it's
ridiculous to be parsing these mission statements for their intent.

[David]

This is false and misleading reporting by the NYT. The 2006 strategic plan says NASA's mission is "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautical research."

Why would you say that it's "false and misleading reporting"? The new mission statement is given in full in the second paragraph of the New York Times article.

[JRehling]

Mission statements are written by middle and senior management with nothing better to do. They are worse than useless, they're actually damaging to company moral because they are such a joke. Some of the genuine MS's I've seen mentioned by Scott Adams in some of his books just defy belief.

Doug

FWIW, Jack Welch says that if done right, they're hugely beneficial, and that to be done right, they must be done with input from all levels of an organization, but they're very rarely done right. Scott Adams's observations don't contradict that theory. And Jack Welch has made a lot more money than Scott Adams. Of course, the deity status of Jack Welch should been debated elsewhere.

[mcaplinger]

Why would you say that it's "false and misleading reporting"? The new mission statement is given in full in the second paragraph of the New York Times article.

Because the article lead says that the mission statement was "quietly altered". What's "quietly altered" about a complete change of the statement? The implication is that NASA was trying to slip this past, but anybody who's knows anything about the agency's culture would realize that NASA was trying to reaffirm its commitment to aeronautics (which the previous statement said nothing about) and be more general about its science and exploration goals.

[David]

What's "quietly altered" about a complete change of the statement?

The fact that there was no press release, as far as I can tell, or any external publicity about the new mission statement at the time it was created.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Enough of the politics and religion. I am watching you

I agree with you, Doug, that such bad politics is a thing we SHOULD NOT HAVE to discuss here. And nowhere else. But alas it comes to impede in our topic...


About the other most recent posts, I am a bit reassured, that there would be a new mission statement, not just weakening it. But I would like to read it before making my opinion.

[centsworth_II]

I actually would prefer to see NASA concentrate on extra-terrestrial exploration and like the sound of the new mission statement. It's just that the change has touched a nerve, already rubbed raw by the insertion of politics into science vis-a-vis global warming.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

yes, extraterestrial exploration is its primary goal. But there are down to earth necessities. If it is not NASA's job, who else is it? This must be made clear.

[Jim from NSF.com]

extraterestrial exploration is NOT its primary goal


The National Aeronautics and Space Act
Sec. 102. (d) 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 the Earth and 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 defense 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;
(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; and
(9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.

Sec. 203. (a) The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this Act, shall--

(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;
(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof;
(4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and
(5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

If this is the latest mission statement, there is no problem, the earth study is not deleted, it is even placed in first. So our discution was pointless

At a pinch, the word "protect" has disappeared. But protecting Earth about things such a climate change is not really a space exploration problem, it is about measures and policies here on the ground.

The only cases where space exploration would have to directly involve into Earth protection are missions such as Sun observation, or about dangerous meteorites.

[lyford]

Well, the latest as of 1958.... that is the act which established the NASA.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html

[JRehling]

I agree with you, Doug, that such bad politics is a thing we SHOULD NOT HAVE to discuss here. And nowhere else. But alas it comes to impede in our topic...

I think the problem in discussion is not with politics per se but in unbound editorializing... which the topic of politics happens to attract like sugar attracts flies. If someone editorialized boundlessly about a pet scientific theory ("if"?) that would also be noxious, while contrarily, if a few people managed to make factual non-editorial statements about how a space science issue has become political, I don't think there'd be harm in that.

Earth is certainly a planet, and it has the advantage of requiring by far the least delta-v to explore (and landers are very easy to fund ). Our knowledge of it so greatly outstrips that of the other planets that it commonly falls outside the discussion, and one could imagine Earth science being handled by some other agency altogether. Since 2001, there's been a continuous erosion of the link between the agency that has been handling it and that is probably not a coincidence. If this alteration of the mission statement happened in isolation, it probably wouldn't merit attention. But it's not in isolation.

Mission Ops, Applications/Commercialization/Education/Outreach

2000 $1043mm, $75mm
2001 $862mm, $69mm
2002 $761mm, $63mm
2003 $804mm, $62mm

After that, the pie was redivided so no equivalent line items exist (don't mistake the 2003-2004 figures as indicating a jump in ANY area), but the total Earth Science budget has continued:

2004 $1.526B
2005 $1.485B
2006 $1.390B

Factor in inflation, and you're looking at a drop of about 7% per year.

I thought it was more telling that in 2003, the Associate Administrator for Earth Science, Ghassam Asrar was promoted and his previous position was simply eliminated, leaving no one person as a high-ranking advocate of Earth Science first and foremost.

And it continues...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ate_satellites/

Seen in this light, I don't take the change of the mission statement as just a trivial restyling. And without the responsibilities being handed over to some other agency, it's not a benign alignment of NASA's priorities to spaceflight... it's the use of declining budgets to accomplish an end besides saving money.

[GravityWaves]

Right...so don't expect to see it done. This is right in line with the government's recent censoring of scientists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0502150_pf.html
Or the journalist, or the teacher, or the activist....

I think the censoring of scientists is very serious, but they are two seperate issues