Confusing Public Comments From the NASA ISS Director
Keith’s note: I was at the ISS R&D Conference today in Washington, DC (I’ll be there all week). One of today’s events was a panel that discussed the role of the National Academy of Science in advising NASA – specifically the Decadal Survey done on human spaceflight back in 2011. To be certain, as I have noted before, a lot of the NASA/NAS interaction is akin to choir practice in an echo chamber. But there is a lot of useful observation and advice embedded in these NASA reports that NASA would be wise to consider with regard to human spaceflight.
There was an odd interaction toward the end of the session when ISS Director Sam Scimemi asked if there was anything that the NAS could do to interest other federal agencies in spending money on space activities – which is an odd thing to consider even asking the NAS since they simply do not do that sort of advocacy. They are supposed to be impartial. As such its rather strange for the senior NASA civil servant running the ISS to be thinking – much less to say something like this in a public forum. Does he not know what role the NAS plays? Maybe someone should explain this to him. Its even odder that Scimemi would be out trying to drum up more funds for space given how well NASA did in the FY 2018 White House budget when compared to how badly other science agencies did in that same budget proposal. This makes NASA seem greedy and/or clueless.
I think I’d need more context for this. For other things, like astronomy, it would be reasonable to ask the National Academies about NASA funding, versus funding by other government agencies. That’s always been split between NASA, NSF and a few other acronyms. “Are we splitting the costs in the most effective way?” would be a fine question to ask the National Academy of Science. A similar question about funding for research on ISS doesn’t seem out of line.
But if the comment was more like a request to help with a sales pitch (“What can we do to get NSF to foot part of the bill?”) that definitely would be way beyond what NASA should be asking the NAS.
Also, NASA (and all of us) need to hold in mind that the space program IS NOT ABOUT SCIENCE (I say, speaking as a [retired] scientist). but about human exploration of, and extension into, the larger space environment.
Is this something we can really do? If so, why should we want to? The NAS can offer us valuable advice about balancing the two, very different, drivers of the program.
This needs to be done with wisdom and clarity of purpose, lest the two are seen to be in competition for funding. That would be a shame, as the two support and benefit each other in essential ways.
With all of the hammering that done hereabouts at the expense of the ISS, it is hard to understand this criticism. You want more activity on ISS, but you don’t want the ISS Director to advocate for his program because…because why? Because “that’s not the way things are done?”
I would definitely expect the director of the ISS program to advocate for it. But if Keith’s summary is correct, asking the National Academy of Science if there was “anything that the NAS could do to interest other federal agencies in spending money on space activities”, then that’s a problem.
The National Academies aren’t chartered to lobby. They are supposed to be about giving unbiased, expert opinions on scientific and engineering issues. How unbiased they actually are is a separate issue; but that’s how it is supposed to work. Asking them to lobby other government agencies for funding is not too different from asking a Supreme Court Justice to campaign for a political cause.
Unfortunately, we’ve got Keith’s summary of the comment, not the direct quote. No offense intended, but I have a dim view of eye-witness accounts. There’s just too many examples of five people in the same room giving seven, significantly different accounts of what was actually said. When the exact details of phrasing and inflection matter, I don’t want to make a judgement based on a paraphrased version.
I would definitely expect the director of the ISS program to advocate for it. But if Keith’s summary is correct, asking the National Academy of Science if there was “anything that the NAS could do to interest other federal agencies in spending money on space activities”, then that’s a problem.
The National Academies aren’t chartered to lobby. They are supposed to be about giving unbiased, expert opinions on scientific and engineering issues. How unbiased they actually are is a separate issue; but that’s how it is supposed to work. Asking them to lobby other government agencies for funding is not too different from asking a Supreme Court Justice to campaign for a political cause.
Unfortunately, we’ve got Keith’s summary of the comment, not the direct quote. No offense intended, but I have a dim view of eye-witness accounts. There’s just too many examples of five people in the same room giving seven, significantly different accounts of what was actually said. When the exact details of phrasing and inflection matter, I don’t want to make a judgement based on a paraphrased version.
I’m still not following your argument.
Let me rephrase what I see: an under utilized national resource. Everyone appears to agree that ISS could support more science; but it’s the nature of basic research that the kind of science and the kind of investigation that could properly and beneficially use the resource is unknown. who knows what ideas could be generated from entire fields of study that never even considered the possibilities?
About here you are probably thinking that yes, maybe that’s true, but still it’s not the job of NAS, so I’ll add:
And where else do we find concentrated so many accomplished researchers? And where else is the breadth of research?
Perhaps some sort of mention by NAS to membership about the capabilities and availability would jar loose ideas for investigation from areas quite far afield from the usual life sciences, astronomy, and physics?
Sorry about the duplicate comment. Disqus seems to have had a maintenance issue and a hick up.
It is completely unrealistic to expect the vast majority of ISS science to be paid for by an agency other than NASA. The other agencies have more than enought to do and not enough money to do it.
Until the beginnings of ISS operations, NASA did pay for most ISS and other manned space program science usually through grants to educational institutions or to small, disadvantaged start-ups. The rationale was that the major ISS contractors mainly Boeing) needed the money more, so not nearly the numbers of grants or NASA sponsored research any longer. NASA withdrew the science funding very quickly, without announcement in advance, leaving lots of faculty and grad students without jobs or pay and without the fuiding required to complete their degrees or to stay on faculty. It was a stupid decision very poorly implemented mainly because of program overruns. NASA had been sponsoring science providers through Code C, T, M….and they had been doing this since Apollo so that the missions and the astronauts would have meaningful science to do.
It is hard to judge without having been in the room; however, the tenor of the comments strikes me as similar to the ‘multilateral” approach to space exploration (during later SEI days) during the Bush Administration (1989-1993) — which happens to have been the last time there was a National Space Council. I was at NASA Hq at the time and watched this then-new approach emerge (c 1989), grow (1990-1992) and die away (1993+). It is not inconceivable that the noted remarks reflect indirectly some early discussions (NASA, NSpC, etc.) regarding a similar approach to US space activities during the next several years. Just a thought…
Actually I figured that was why the ISS Utilization conference is in Washington DC. DC is not a hotbed of the other industries that might be likely to use the ISS: pharmaceuticals, energy, defense R&D, materials, medicine and physiology. I thought NASA would be interested in engaging with prospective customers at a conference like this, and the only ones around DC are in Federal government agencies. But there seem to be few attendees outside of aerospace, ISS participants and NASA groupies.