NASA's Good Budget News Is Not Actually All That Good
Flat NASA budgets pose risk to researchers, SpaceNews
“The prospect of extended flat budgets for NASA has some scientists concerned that research funds could be raided to support other programs. In a presentation April 19 to a microgravity research colloquium at the National Academies here, Gale Allen, acting chief scientist, said she had been warned at a recent agency meeting not to expect even increases to keep pace with inflation for the next five years. “Right now it looks like our budget for the next five years will be flat. There isn’t even an inflationary aspect to it,” she said. At a meeting the previous day, she said, NASA Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot said that proposed budget profile amounted to a cut of $3.4 billion over those five years because of decreased purchasing power.”
Trump Budget Cuts “Critical” NASA Climate Missions, Scientific American
“The proposed cancellations mesh with statements made by Trump, administration officials and some members of Congress who have argued that NASA should be focused on outer space and leave the job of observing Earth to other agencies. But NASA’s unparalleled experience and expertise in developing new observational technologies and launching satellites makes it a crucial part of the Earth science enterprise, many experts say. “I don’t see anybody else who could fill that gap,” Adam Sobel, a Columbia University climate scientist, said.”
OIG Report on NASA’s Journey To Nowhere, earlier post
“… although the Agency’s combined investment for development of the SLS, Orion, and GSDO programs will reach approximately $23 billion by the end of fiscal year 2018, the programs’ average monetary reserves for the years leading up to EM-1 are much lower than the 10 to 30 percent recommended by Marshall Space Flight Center guidance.”
Trump’s OMB Does Not Know Who Operates DSCOVR, earlier post
If ‘other Agencies’ did Earth Observing science from orbit, instead of NASA, then there would have to be 2 NASA like Agencies in existence. That is a waste of synergism, money, and lots of brain power.
Well, sure, assuming that both Agencies performed precisely the same research; but the subject being wide open there’s sufficient work for nearly countless researchers.
And even if – and it’s a big IF – even if the work were duplicated, science depends on duplicated results, the better to answer critics.
Next?
In effect, there already are, as NASA has to act as NOAA’s general contractor on its largest and most complex operational spacecraft. Then NOAA operates its own tracking network for its spacecraft, as well as program management post-launch.
There is always room for improvement but there seems to be effective collaboration between NASA and NOAA; they share data and coordinate plans. Once an instrument is on orbit and functioning the requirements are different, with more emphasis on analysis and less on design, launch and checkout. Much as commercial comsats are built and launched by aerospace companies and then turned over to networks for operation.
To meet the IPCC 2C goal, rich countries must phase out coal by 2030.
1.5C is not achievable. The economics of climate change will cost trillions. Experts around the globe in many areas required with data to minimize impacts to the economy +environment. “Trump is dismantling budgets and regulations undergirding U.S. climate and environmental protection policies — in his nutty effort to revive U.S. coal-fired energy.” “ignoring science and defunding family planning, when populations are exploding and droughts expanding, are ho-hum back-page news.”
Military experts say climate change poses ‘significant risk’ to security
“Trump made the second move without seeking a comprehensive briefing from experts — he controls the world’s greatest collection of climate scientists at NASA, NOAA, the E.P.A., the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — and without ever asking for an intelligence briefing on how the combination of climate change, environmental degradation, drought and population explosions helped trigger the civil war in Syria, and spawn terrorist groups like Boko Haram around Africa’s central Lake Chad (which has lost 90 percent of its water mass since 1963), the main force the main force pushing tens of thousands of migrants from Africa and Central America into Europe and the US each year.”
And other experts talk about a surface warming hiatus whose cause may never be known http://www.nature.com/nclim…
Global warming is by definition global: the entire planet where and energy imbalance is absorbed by the oceans (~ 95%) and the rest by land and the atmosphere. Glad to see papers being published and peer reviewed to resolve uncertainties, but clearly there is much more work to be done, especially since the scale of ocean warming is truly staggering. To give perspective on surface vs ocean warming, the ocean has shielded us from the worst impacts, but if the same amount of heat that entered the oceans had been absorbed by the atmosphere, double digit degrees C would have been observed.
While efficiencies at all levels are important, when is the discussion going to be centered at the trillion dollar level?
A 2017 study of the data confirms steady warming of oceans for past 75 years–No Hiatus. Further, “Satellites and automated floats are completely independent witnesses of recent ocean warming, and their testimony matches the NOAA results. It looks like the NOAA researchers were right all along.”
The authors discuss possible causes extensively. They show that hiatuses in global warming may be due to slight changes in the atmosphere or ocean which affect heat transfer from the top of the atmosphere and into the deep ocean. However they make clear that such variations are temporary interruptions in an ongoing warming trend, not permanent halts or reversals.
https://www.nature.com/ncli…
Good points. Policy is being made on the basis of unsupported opinion. Science is being cut to avoid the discovery of facts which might contradict the “alternative facts” that the Administration promotes.
This whole politically driven foul up is a waste of time and money, and will scare off potential STEM students from studying in these fields. So very sad.
What amazes me is many NASA people view the budget as an incredible gift because it was not slashed like many other agencies.
Probably because it is.