Bridenstine's Vision For A Re-focused NASA
NASA Nominee Jim Bridenstine Has Bold Vision for Space, Unclear Intentions for Science, American Institute of Physics
“Concerning NASA, [Bridenstine’s] bill states that the agency has lacked a “clear purpose or mission,” owing to a “lack of consistency in leadership along with budget uncertainty in out-years.” It declares,
“NASA should undergo reorganization, altering its mission with a clearer focus, ridding itself of extraneous responsibilities handled elsewhere within the Federal Government or private industry, and standardizing activities across the whole of NASA.”
In the bill, Bridenstine proposes that NASA amend its institutional objectives, which would include eliminating current objectives for the “expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space” and the conduct of studies on “the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.” It would also set three new objectives that would form the core of a new “pioneering doctrine”:
“(1) The expansion of the human sphere of influence throughout the Solar System.
(2) To be among those who first arrive at a destination in space and to open it for subsequent use and development by others.
(3) To create and prepare infrastructure precursors in support of the future use and development of space by others.”
Legal Basis For NASA Earth Science and Space Commercialization Activities, earlier Post
Even more unqualified for the job than I’d previously thought.
Are you referring to Bridenstine or Trump?
It sounds as though he intends to terminate the very NASA activities that provide practical benefits for America.
Yes. I’m concerned about this “get there first” approach. They visit a 100 asteroids, for example, and claim they got there first, but what’s the point if the ones they visit were all largely the same?
There is actually a good reason to visit a hundred asteroids, and it’s because they aren’t largely the same. There was a good presentation on this, at a planetary CubeSat workshop last May
https://icubesat.files.word…
The fact is that we’ve only seen a few as more than a point of light, a spectrum and a light curve. Of those we have seen, they all look different. The idea was about sending dozens or hundreds of very small spacecraft to different asteroids. Even if each one only returned a few close-up images of each asteroid, it would really revolutionize small body science.
Of course, that’s probably very different from what Mr. Bridenstine was thinking of…
I agree; the problem is that Bridenstine has not distinguished between “science” and “exploration” or suggested that missions that are logically robotic (i.e. asteroid research) can have value comparable to those which involve human spaceflight.
For those of us for whom discuss makes following links impossible: would you mind posting a few keywords I can use to Bing that link?
It’s easier to describe. icubesat.org shouldn’t be a problem (it’s short enough type in by hand.) Then scroll down to “iCubeSat 2017 presentations online.” Follow the links (two, including a “here” embedded in a paragraph of text…), then the presentation I mentioned is B.1.5
And thanks to you as well.
icubesat.
files.
wordpress.
com/2017/05/2017-
b-1-5-20170531092000-
wayfarer.
pdf
Thank you.
Why send people? Robotic probes are enough.
Well, _I_ didn’t say anything about send astronauts. I was talking about the value of sending something, even the most limited something, to a huge number of small bodies in the solar system.
Cubesats aren’t people.
I do not like these new “Republicans” who want to cover their eyes, ears, and mouths when it comes to Earth Science. For a party who seems to worship President Ronald Reagan, this is quite disheartening because it was President Ronald Reagan who signed the bill into law which added earth observation into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act.
Reference:
https://disq.us/url?url=htt…
From above:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
Note: The clause, “of the Earth and” was added by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1985,
Pub. L. No. 98-361, § I 10(b), 98 Stat. 422, 426 (Jul. 16, 1984).
They don’t cover their mouths.
Why have NOAA then?
NASA doesn’t do monitoring, NOAA does.
NOAA depends on NASA to develop new space based measurement technologies for science and ops and to manage the construction and launch their Satellites.
End NASA Earth Science and you have to duplicate this skill for NOAA and USGS and etc. space act 1958 indented to reduce agency duplication by creating NASA.
It works. NOAA GOES-16 Instrument like the ABI which is certain real for hurricane forecasting was conceived pioneered and proven by NASA science.
NOAA also includes a uniformed-service division that does aerial and ship-based surveys. It also houses the coastal surveying unit, and similar bodies that were accumulated during the two hundred years prior to it becoming NOAA.
People seem to believe (a belief encouraged by lobbyists and their political pets) that NASA’s “Earth science” is just climate change research, and likewise believe that NOAA is just a climate and weather agency.
The overlap between the agencies is virtually non-existent.
Why does the Army have helicopters? What NASA and NOAA do are quite complementary. To ban NASA from developing new earth observation techniques (while doing the same for other planets) would be like saying the Army doesn’t need helicopters because the Air Force has plenty of aircraft to support them.
Off-topic, but I’d go further, the artificial rotor/fixed-wing division between Army and USAF that was created when the USAAF was spun off from the Army has actually harmed the Army. Fixed-wing ground attack and support aircraft like the A-10, AC-130, etc, are functionally equivalent to the Army’s attack helicopters; fixed-wing transport aircraft are an obvious requirement for the Army.
(The USMC learned not to be dependent on other services, the Army needs the same freedom.)
((Aside: I’d also spin the USAF missile command back to the Army as well. It fits the artillery model better than the aircraft model, and in the USAF is a deeply neglected service.))
Missiles fit the army artillery model in term of operations and goals. I agree with that. But in terms of development and maintenance, a missile is much more like an aircraft than a tank or rifle. I’m not sure which service they best fit into, but they don’t fit with any of them all that well.
The Army already has tactical and theatre level missiles under its command. That’s what “artillery” mostly is these days.
Please give us a list of those practical benefits, provided within the past 20 years.
Here are just a handful. I don’t think we should limit it to the last twenty years because NASA was first brought to life as NACA in 1915, and since the Moon Race much of the agency’s resources has been dedicated to human spaceflight programs that were funded to achieve various geopolitical goals.
The first major NACA project, an improved radial engine cowling, cut drag in half and increased the speed of existing aircraft by twenty miles per hour. The fuel it saved in the first year of use paid for the entire budget of the agency. NACA developed the entire spectrum of airfoils, fairings, inlets, and other aerodynamic structures that made modern aircraft possible.
A NASA partnership with Boeing in developing fabrication methods for composite aircraft helped make possible the 777 with its all-composite primary structure.
A NASA partnership with SpaceX provided funding for the Falcon 9, and the additional capability for reusability, which for the first time in over a decade allowed the US to win back a significant share of the commercial satellite launch market.
The Hubble Space Telescope has revolutionized our knowledge of the universe. The Kepler telescope made possible the discovery of thousands of extrasolar planets. NASA planetary probes have given us a sense of the beauty and complexity of our Solar System.
The NASA partnership with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has revolutionized our ability to collect environmental data on the Earth, the oceans, and modeling our weather and climate.
Eric Fossum, working on a camera for Cassini, found an ingenious solution to the high dark noise of CMOS light sensors and invented the camera used today in every smartphone in the world, with its incredibly small size, high resolution and speed, and low power consumption.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/ne…
A NASA partnership with a local university allowed a small group, including myself, to apply fluid dynamic theory to publish a paper on the mechanism of cell death in Alzheimer’s disease.
http://journals.plos.org/pl…
The frustrating thing today is that NASA has excellent R&D facilities, researchers and engineers, but is given no resources to pursue the many practical developments they could provide. Aeronautics and spaceflight are completely separated, research and development funding is severely limited and largely directed to programs supposedly promoting small business rather than actually utilizing the agency’s capabilities.
You are forgetting one of President Kennedy’s goals, weather monitoring from space. That fact that is why we have days of warning for a storm like Imra is a good example.
BTW in Rep. Bridenstine’s rant on climate change he was focusing on how the budget for near term weather forecasting was being pushed aside to spend more on long range research on global warming. He argued that the government should be spending much more money on how to forecast events like tornadoes, which are a major hazard in his state, than what might happen to coastal areas in a hundred years. But as usual folks like twisting peoples words and taking them out of context to push their agendas.
BTW a recent Act on weather forecasting he push through the House.
https://lucas.house.gov/pre…
“Today the U.S. House unanimously approved H.R. 353, the Lucas-Bridenstine Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. This legislation prioritizes protecting lives and property.”
Another example from Bizzaro Land, where the names of Acts of Congress are exactly opposite the actual content.
I’m not sure I’d go that far. Saying that short-term weather forecasting and warnings are more important than studying the long-term problems may be short-sighted. I don’t agree with that view. But I wouldn’t call it bizarre or completely contradictory to “protecting lives and property.”
Why are you treating them as being incompatible?
Most of the climate data we have for the last 50 years started out as data collected to forecast the weather. And better short term forecast required better knowledge of how weather systems work, which then helps the researchers build more accurate long term models for what the climate will be in a 100 years.
I didn’t mean to imply that short-term and long-term studies were incompatible. As you point out, there are considerable overlays and synergies. But different priorities, interests and funding decisions can favor one over the other. My point was that, although I favor a long-term view, I wouldn’t call a concern for short-term predictions irrational.
We need both short and long term environmental modeling. Right now I am in the path of a hurricane, so short term modeling is important. But rising ocean temperatures will make such storms more intense and raise sea level as well, so long term modeling is also essential. They are not conflicting goals, nor are atmospheric science and aeronautics. In fact Qamar Shams, a NASA scientist at Langely, the original home of the NACA, has developed an infrasonic detector, developed to monitor wake vortices from aircraft, that can detect tornadoes hundreds of miles away by their infrasonic vibrations.
It sounds very useful. Is NASA working with NOAA to install them? Or will be up to someone to use a Space Act agreement to do so?
The next step is development and field testing. Unfortunately the way NASA works now, NASA has little or no funding for technology development, even for R&D with a very modest budget and significant potential, unless it is specifically needed for a NASA mission.
Negotiating an agreement for one government agency to fund another agency, under the Space Act, is possible. A group at KSC is doing this with an agreement between NASA and NIOSH to apply NASA cryogenic technology to emergency air packs for escape from underground mines. But the administrative process is slow and costly; the government is not organized to allow one agency to fund another.
The best strategy for the nation to efficiently use its tax dollars would be to provide line managers of R&D organizations (not just NASA) with modest funding that can be allocated at the laboratory or organizational level to work cooperatively with industry and universities to quickly bring useful technological developments to the point at which industry can commercialize them.
“…the administrative process is slow and costly; the government is not organized to allow one agency to fund another…”
It’s also structured to make managers hate the idea. In the cases I’ve seen, the funds are authorized by one agency and transferred to the other. Then the other agency spends the money as they see best, without any significant accounting or reporting. Managers like knowing (and having documentation) of how the money is spent, and not simply taking it on faith that it’s spent as intended.
“path of a hurricane”
As I write this at 835 EDT from Naples Florida the winds are picking up dramatically. We are expecting the eye overhead late this morning.
It’s a CAT3 now. Huge difference.
Aren’t you on the east coast somewhere? Not like it won’t be the same for you. It will.
I drove around this morning, also picked up some friends – Russian emigres who are terrified. But the ocean is still flat, due to offshore winds. That is going to change.
Stay safe!
Yes, I suspect the Everglades also did their job and took some energy out of it.
The bill specifically forbids NOAA from making predictions that extend more than two years into the future.
The American Institute of Physics disagrees with you. Or do you think they and the National Academies of Science are climate deniers.
https://www.aip.org/fyi/201…
“Following nearly four years of debate, discussion drafts, and hearings, the House passed the bipartisan “Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation” in a unanimous voice vote on Monday. The legislation would be the first major update to weather research and forecasting policy at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in at least a decade.”
“Many of the sections of the bill were inspired by recommendations from reports authored by experts in the U.S. weather enterprise, including a National Academy of Sciences report published in 2012 entitled Weather Services for the Nation: Becoming Second to None and a National Academy of Public Administration report published in 2013 entitled Forecast for the Future: Assuring the Capacity of the National Weather Service.”
And in case you missed the memo, Democrats voted 100% for it…
‘Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), ranking member of the Environment Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, also spoke in favor of the bill on the House floor on Monday, lauding it for tying NOAA’s research “more effectively to the forecasting needs of the National Weather Service.” House Science Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) praised the bill and reminded her colleagues that “weather affects all of us everyday.”’
Its nice to know what the climate may be like in 100 years, but for most folks knowing what the weather will be like tomorrow is far more important – Just ask the folks impacted by Hurricane Harvey or Imra.
So why not put Bridenstein in charge of NOAA? The reorganization, and refocus, of NOAA is long overdue (see Cliff Mass’s blog for insight into that).
And let NASA do what it does, by law, and better than any other government organization, which is climate research?
Maybe because Earth Observation is only a small part of NASA’s mission, a legacy of its IGY roots? For most NASA is about exploring space, and it will be good to have a New Spacer run it.
One could as easily say that human spaceflight is a legacy of the Moon Race. For human spaceflight to be sustainable, the cost of putting a human in space must be reduced to a level that a substantial number of potential passengers are willing and able to pay.
Except no other agency is doing human spaceflight. But NOAA, EPA, Dept. of Ag. Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Interior. EPA, NSF and even the Office of Naval Research are all doing climate research…
Why would this be objectionable? Several have pointed out here that the overlap is negligible. And each of these agencies have a clear-and unique- POV that drives the research they sponsor. Isn’t this a good thing? Better than a single government agency?
Perhaps. But when one sees so many agencies involved in climate research one has to wonder if it would benefit from some coordination. Maybe a Climate “Czar” to use a term common during the Obama Administration? After all if it is a crisis wouldn’t it benefit from coordinating work on it?
It’s such a weird bubble that guys like you live in. Had you really never heard the term “Czar” used for ad hoc political overseers before 2008? Seriously? Because the term first came into common use under Woodrow frickin’ Wilson. I’ve heard it used my entire life.
[Probably the first one I heard of was Reagan appointing a “Drug Czar” in 1982. I think that was when I first started paying attention to US politics. But it was in common use going back to WWI.]
President Obama may not have invented the position, but he sure used it more than any other President.
http://abcnews.go.com/Polit…
‘WASHINGTON — The latest skirmish between conservatives and the Obama administration — the proliferation of “czars” named by the president to handle pressing issues — is prompting efforts in Congress to put limits on the White House.”
“In the Senate, Democrats, such as Robert Byrd of West Virginia, are questioning the constitutionality of the advisers the White House says it needs to coordinate policy and advise the president on issues from health care to the Middle East. Republicans, such as Susan Collins of Maine, are trying to curb funding for them.”
He also appointed the first climate czar during his Administration which I was referring to…
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WOR…
updated 11:49 p.m. EST, Mon December 15, 2008
Obama names first ‘climate czar’ for U.S.
Are you saying that Carol Browner fraudulently created evidence of climate change? Or that it is wrong to coordinate climate and energy policy, when energy production is creating an unprecedented increase in atmospheric CO2? If plants were going to consume it, it would be stable, not increasing.
No other agency is developing spacecraft and instruments for collecting the hard data needed to develop a predictive model of environmental change. In fact, the Brindenstine bill explicitly forbids NOAA from developing the science for any forecasting that extends more than two years into the future.
My concern is not which agency does the work. My concern is that the Trump Administration is trying to keep any agency from doing it. My concern is that the current administration is making an audacious attempt to supress science that might discover (not create) facts essential to human survival. Why is it doing this? Could it be to protect the short term profits of the fossil fuel industry? That’s not rocket science.
Ta-da!
Mr. Woodard, which NASA Directorates, Programs, Projects, or “activities” that provided the items in your list does President Trump plan to terminate? You initial posting is a very broad statement.
Trump is not exactly transparent with regard to NASA, but he clearly plans to terminate research on anthropogenic global warming, one of the most important scientific issues facing the world today and at the present time, alone with charting the near Earth asteroids, one of two elements of the NASA mission most critical to our immediate survival as a civilization.
The purpose is to address the Space Grand Challenges and then Explore. Until NASA addresses #1 Economic Access to Space and #2 Long Duration Crew Health, it will limit Exploration within the existing budget.
One impractical activity is the continuation of the completely expendable architecture, in direct contrast to the VSE.
“For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.”
Yes. Good to hear another voice on this issue as I am sure that many here are tired of my own expositions: chiefly that one of the legacies of Apollo is the notion that expendable equipment is part of the cost of space.
The VSE was the policy announcement that lead to the SLS and Orion, with their expendable (and, regrettably, unaffordable) architecture. one can argue that the element of reusability was contained in the original policy announcement, but the VSE and the Constellation program were both conceived and implemented by the administration of George W. Bush, and one cannot argue that it was not what he wanted. Presciently, John McCain said at the very beginning, and in no uncertain terms, that there was no way to pay for Constellation.
No, more likely extend and focus them on forecasting.
FYI
https://qz.com/1070719/nasa…
“Bridenstine evidently knows the importance of weather research. “People often say, ‘Why are you so involved in space issues?’” he reportedly said (paywall) at a commercial space transportation conference this year. “My constituents get killed in tornadoes. I care about space.”
And
https://lucas.house.gov/pre…
This legislation is the product of a bipartisan effort. It directs
the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to focus resources and effort to:
· Rebalance NOAA funding to place a higher priority on weather-related research and activities;
· Emphasize developing accurate forecasts and timely warnings of high impact weather events;
· Create programs to extend warning lead times and improve forecasts for tornadoes and hurricanes;
· Develop a plan to utilize advanced technology to regain U.S. superiority in weather modeling and forecasts;
· Increase focus and continue development of seasonal forecasts and how to maximize information from these forecasts; and
· Enhance coordination among various federal government weather stakeholders.
None of this is exactly shutting down NOAA and all would have benefits for climate researchers. It just doesn’t place them at the top of the priority list anymore. I expect he will be good for Earth Sciences at NASA, although they will complain no matter what, such is their mindset at the moment.
The bill specifically forbids any NOAA research on prediction beyond a two year limit (the minimum needed by the Ag industry). This strikes me as significant. Could it have anything to do with the influence of the Koch Brothers and the rest of the fossil fuel industry, who want to deny the fact that atmospheric CO2 is rapidly increasing? I actually remember when it was 315 ppm, now it’s 407. There is no geological record of such a rapid increase.
This is probably the most optimistic thing i have read regarding NASA since the VSE speech, actually. Without hyperbole.
According to me, if NASA has to be a driver for tecnology innovation as they have been since Mercury/Apollo programs, this refocus has sense. Humans will get benefits from this as they got from Moon programs in the past (think to microelectronics as an example). Metereology including the sun and ocean cycle impacts on it, should be studied by other Instutions born for this purpose, but using also the knowledge from NASA. I think that Nasa has been involved in these kind of studies because of their methodological rigor approach that the other Institutions probably lack.
Methodological rigor may be one reason for involvement in studies not specifically directed (or funded!) by management; the NASA Field Center “hobby shop” mentality is undoubtedly another reason.
NASA cannot develop useful new technology as an inadvertent byproduct of human spaceflight. This only results in distortion of requirements to justify new projects and hyping of anything that might have a useful purpose as a “benefit” of human spaceflight. If NASA is to develop science and technology of practical value to our nation, this must be accepted as a primary mission. We need only look back to our roots, a quote from the excellent book “Engineer in Charge; A History of the Langely Research Center”: “Every project, whether theoretical or applied, was intended to be of practical value to aeronautics”.
That’s a fairly remarkable statement. Surely you don’t mean, for instance, that efforts to, say, develop printed circuit tech, or to harden processors, didn’t have wider benefits?
I’m on thin ice here, not being more grounded in tech; but inadvertent benefits appear legion, at least to me?
I strongly believe NACA/NASA has produced, funded, or catalyzed many significant commercial technological advances, but we have to be careful about attribution. Printed circuits were used in ICBMs but predate the space program by many years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi… . Radiation hardened semiconductors are vital to spacecraft but not widely used in terrestrial applications.
In contrast, the Whitcomb winglets seen on almost all airliners today are a NASA development, but they were produced by a program with the primary goal of developing new technology such as this for the benefit of American industry and public, not as a “free” side benefit of human spaceflight. It’s quite difficult to commercialize a technological advance made for a specialized NASA purpose, unless additional funds are available to do so.
The only place NASA needs to go first, at least in the next ~100 years, is Mars.And that is with humañs. They have already been everywhere else. NASAs problem has not been a lack of money. It has not even been a lack of focus. It is that the agency has become a big bureaucracy trying to preserve and grow itself and has become inefficient and ineffective. Look at the 2 biggest, most expensive systems, Shuttle and ISS. NASA got the resources it needed to develop and fly them, yet has been totally ineffective in operating them, using them, or even improving on them. Bridenstine’s changed focus would not have helped. Look at the new system, Orion/SLS. This was something NASA chose as Constellation. Yet there is no and has never been a plan for its use. The failure was lack of leadership. Remember NASA chose these because it was bored with systems built to advance space commerce. The people in charge, all astronauts and flight directors, wanted to refly those ‘exciting Apollo missions’. But the US public was bored with them then, and has consistently said it was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Bridenstine sounds like yet another wanna be flyboy.
Why?
Maybe what Brian M should have said was that Mars was the only place left to go first. I guess you can talk about other places: the Moon-they’ve already been there. Asteroids-why bother; robots are enough. Venus, Mercury, Jupiter…..not hardly likely, and once you have the ability to do long duration spaceflight for months or years, it doesn’t matter that much what direction your pointed in.
One major issue is long duration space travel, both the transportation elements and crew health, which is completely ignored/abandoned with 3 day trips to go ‘mooning’–The R&D is being phased out as we speak. The other major issues iare excess launch capacity and capsules, so no funding left for R&D and missions. Yet another is gravity well missions, extremely costly when micro-g and full GCR can be addressed in space at L2-to-the-vicinity-of-Mars (martian moons, asteroids) missions. It also makes sense to land ISRU or other robotic ‘heavy objects’ first prior to crew to test out the landing hardware and possibly provide resources to reduce costs.
SLS and Orion are the way to big carts-before-the-horse approach to feed the base.
What about Titan? It’s not exactly a day on the beach, but it’s more hospitable than the Moon or Mars.
The atmosphere on Titan is pretty substantial, but (SFAIK) not much of a magnetosphere. What is the radiation environment on the surface?
Titan has no magnetosphere of its own, but it orbits within Saturn’s magnetosphere (just; it’s outside perhaps 5% of the time.) It’s also far enough from the planet to be well outside the radiation belts. Between that and shielding from the atmosphere, the surface radiation environment should be quite mild. Actually, even without the atmosphere, Cassini measurements at 950 km above the surface show a mild environment.
Saying there’s no point in going to the Moon because we’ve already been there is the equivalent of Robert Scott saying there’s no point in going to Antarctica because the Belgica has already wintered over there. The Apollo missions were the equivalent of setting foot on the edge of an unknown continent – they were a beginning, not an end. So I humbly submit that we haven’t been everywhere else besides Mars.
I think it’s highly unlikely Captain Scott would have tried to reach the South Pole (or persisted at it to the degree he did) if he knew Raul Amundsen had already been there. He was very much interested in being “first.”
Not true – in his personal diary he noted that it was almost certain that Amundsen would get there first. Others on his expedition voiced that too. He was in denial and I assume he secretly hoped that something would befall the Norwegians before they could reach the pole. But yes, he wanted to be first, unfortunately he didn’t know Amundsen had precluded him until a days march to the pole – no point in turning back then. But this is all moot, my point is that footprints don’t equal exploration, of, in this case, The Moon.
Scott’s personal diary was heavily edited by his widow before it was published. Most historians do not consider it a reliable source. Scott and his expedition knew very little about Amundsen’s progress. The only information they had was that Amundsen was in Antarctica, wintering over on the ice shelf (a risky plan) and would be going to the pole the next spring.
In any case, I understand your point about the difference between being first and exploring. But some people are more interested in being first. Scott just isn’t a very good counter-example (nor would Amundsen or Shackleton, for that matter.)
I’m not referring to his expedition diary. But his ships diary and his reaction to getting Amundsen’s telegraph. Also he knew a little more than that – he knew Amundsen was 90 miles closer, had expert skiers (including himself) and 100 greenland sled dogs. He wasn’t stupid – he knew how the cards lay.
This is drifting a bit far off topic, but…
Scott has, in fact, been called stupid by more than a few people. One of the reasons was his general neglect of both ski and dogs. He used both, but neglected training and practice with either. It isn’t clear he would have appreciated the advantage Amundsen’s expedition had in this regard.
“I decided long ago to do exactly as I should have done had Amundsen not been down here. If he gets to the pole, he is bound to do it rapidly with dogs, but one guesses that success will justify him, and that our venture will be “out of it.” If he fails he ought to hide. Anyway, he is taking a big risk, and perhaps deserves his luck if he gets through.” SCOTT, 28 October 1911.
After 1912, humans never (except for a few stunts) trecked on foot to the pole again. The next time it was visited was with modern aircraft, built with NACA/NASA technology, which made a permanent base at the Pole not just possible, but practical.
In terms of space, the technologies that make exploration practical are robotics and AI. Of course they eliminate the need to send biological humans to Jupiter, Venus, or even Mars. But “we” are still there, scientifically, emotionally, and spiritually, and soon our AI children will be as capable as biological humans at discovering the unknown, coping with the unexpected, and even, perhaps, at experiencing the thrill of discovery.
Amundsen-Scott Station was established at the South Pole Pole before NASA was established. So NASA technology wasn’t involved. It was an air transport and aviation problem, and NACA work definitely made it easier. But I think it the base at the South Pole is correctly described as a Navy/NAS/NSF effort enabled by NACA and military aviation research.
NACA technology was present in Ford Trimotors and DC-3s. But NACA did not build the planes or supply the pilots.
Exactly my point. NACA did not fly dramatic and dangerous missions across the oceans with primitive biplanes and a few intrepid civil servants. They developed the technology that made modern aircraft practical to build for an entire industry, and made such flights routine and affordable for ordinary people.
Indeed it was a Ford Trimotor, a type already in service at that time as an airliner, utilizing NACA aerfoils and cowlings, that carried Richard Byrd and his crew over the South Pole in 1929 (he did not land), the first group to reach the pole since Amudsen and Scott. Byrd took some risk, but he had three engines and made the trip in relative comfort, in only 18 hours. Am I the only one that finds that more significant than a death-defying weeks-long trek over the ice?
Do you mean Byrd’s flight was more significant because flying was the approach people followed, and skiing or walking was a dead end? If so, I might say it should be Dufek’s landing at the Pole, not Byrd’s overflight. (And I’d note that both Byrd and Dufek were passengers not pilots on those flights.) Or, since mechanized over-snow transport has become more common in recent years, perhaps Fuchs’ Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition.
I feel the development of the technology that made a permanent South Pole base possible was the first significant advance, and the organization of the program that established it was the second.
Byrd had serious problems as an individual explorer, as he details in a very personal way in “Alone”. But he was a good planner and organizer; he led the development of the Little America base, and demonstrated that modern aircraft were a practical solution to the problem of reaching the Pole.
The IGY, which I can just remember, was significant both for science and for the demonstration, both practical and symbolic, of international collaboration.
Also note Richard Byrd’s first two expeditions were privately funded. That is how he got the Trimotor, Ford wanting to show how rugged a metal aircraft was compared to the wooden ones of the era.
But support for Richard Byrd was limited to giving him and other service members paid leave to do the expeditions. It wasn’t until the 1939 expedition that the government provided any real funding, and that was because President Roosevelt was worried about the German expedition the year before – basically a national security interest had emerged.
Ronald Amundsen’s and Sir Robert Scott’s expedition were also private ventures, although Sir Scott did receive a grant from the government that covered some of his expenses.
But it is important to keep in mind most pre-WWII expeditions, including famous polar ones, were done privately with limited IF any government money. Government funded polar expeditions only became the norm after WWII. And yes, that was probably a factor in Sir Scott decision to try to reach the pole, since it would make funding a follow up expedition to cross Antarctica easier which was the goal of the two Shackleton Expeditions that followed it.
I agree, however NACA and NASA are not different agencies, NACA became the core of NASA. The point I was making was that it was the practical development of basic and applied aeronautical technology that made the base practical and affordable, not some outpouring of “national will” and tax dollars to build a fleet of giant dogsleds.
Our current space activities being, in this model, pre-1912; we are awaiting a modern way to achieve and traverse “space”.
Another armchair explorer.
Yawn. The original diary has been published. https://www.bloomsbury.com/…
Yes, and folks forget the science he did on the way. Indeed, it was a factor that led to his death since it slowed him down. By contrast Ronald Amundsen just made a dash to the pole without doing any science.
Interesting compare/analogy of exploring South Pole to the Moon, many of you noted curious historical occurances. It seems main drive was to get there first like going to the Moon in 1960s, particularly C.O. wrote foot prints doesn’t equal exploration. It seems these days Apollo is considerable “baggage” because many keep using that model of Orion/SLS (but absent of a lander). But later going to South Pole became much safer and easier with NACA and other technologies, and they were able to do considerable science. South Pole was not commericialized (a good thing).
Analogies may be interesting but there are huge differences of South Pole and the Moon.
Getting back to NASA Administrator choice, I’m concerned it will become more political. NASA has always been political but not one of sharp divides and controversy. Cherry picking specific programs and charters based on political litmus test (i.e. all Republicans are required to deny climate studies and have to vote against funding related programs). It gets difficult when many say NASA needs to explore space which is bankrupt statement because the Apollo program is always directly or indirectly referenced. Also consider space is nothing so why explore nothing? Now exploring planets in solar system is interesting and been demonstrated much better than sending people (but not big bucks like HSF).
NASA is in ways several agencies (many people doing very different things) which share the same name.
Strictly speaking as an interested (and poorly informed) citizen, I quite like the NASA policy messiness, being fearful of directed, from-the-top research.
Do a little research. For Scott to have failed where Roald Amundsen succeeded would have been unacceptable to him and his sponsors. Yes he wanted to be first but he also wanted to get there. Not the same thing. Also Scott knew Amundsen was going for the pole. But he would not know if Amundsen made it unless he actually went there himself. Unlike today expeditions at that time could go many months – even more than a year – with no contact with the external world – and contact across Antarctica was even harder.
I did not say there is no point in going to the moon. You cannot, however, do it first again. As far as going back to develop the moon for commerce, or even to explore it geologically, I am not sure either of those are NASA’s jobs. Commerce should be the role of commercial industry. Geologic exploration is probably more the realm of USGS geologists. Maybe if there is technology to be developed, that would be NASA’s role?
If geology is the job of USGS why is NASA exploring the geology of Mars? Or Europa?
Because it’s aerology? 🙂
I think you would find that most of the science teams on the planetary missions are not NASA scientists. Even the spacecraft managers are often not NASA. Whether they come from JPL (an academic institution under contract to NASA, or academia, they frequently are not principally NASA ‘hands on’ operated projects. NASA mainly contracts these missions out.
Human space flight seems to be different with NASA trying to maintain direct control, direct management, the crew members flying the missions, and the console operators in mission control. Notice how expensive these programs are, and how slow they are to develop and fly and how once they start operating they never seem to improve.
What about aeronautics? That’s been a core of the organization since the NACA. I don’t think all aeronautical research can be pawned off to the DoD and the FAA is largely a regulatory agency.
NACA hasn’t existed for nearly 60 years. Maybe they figure there is nothing new to invent or nothing more to research into aeronautics. Kind of like director of US patent office said in 1899 something like that office can be discontinued because there is nothing more to invent.
NACA was absorbed into NASA; LaRC was the primary NACA laboratory. There are still NASA researchers in aeronautics, as in other areas of NASA R&D, who have innovative ideas and unique capabilities. However for the human spaceflight centers at least, the money is allocated to major programs with specific and somewhat arbitrary “operational” goals, so funding for practical R&D is quite limited.
I’m curious, do you know how difficult it would be to spin off a NACA-like organisation out of NASA? Have the pieces been too deeply intertwined with multi-centre activities, or is aeronautics a reasonably stand-alone activity within the agency?
I’m not sure aeronautics is the point. I suspect that could be split off, into a re-created NACA without too much trouble. (Well, any reorganization of a government agency will be a massive pain, but that one wouldn’t be exceptionally hard.)
But I think Dr. Woodard is talking about something broader than aviation. NACA used to be a research-for-the-sake-of-research organization. NASA, as it currently stands, is mission oriented. It decides to do something (land men on the Moon or build a space station) and then does what it takes to accomplish that mission. If research and development is required, it does it. But if research and development isn’t required to accomplish the mission, it isn’t done.
Even in the case of scientific research, that’s still true. There is a NASA “Science Mission Directorate” with specified goals and objectives, and the funded spacecraft and research projects have to be tied to and advance those goals and objectives. NASA would not, for example, study Venus simply because there are lots of things about Venus we don’t know and learning about new things is a good idea. NACA, on the other hand, would have studies how a a wing’s lift-to-drag ratio changed at transsonic speeds, not because someone actually planned on transsonic flight, but just because it’s an interesting piece of physics we didn’t (at the time) know much about. Transforming NASA into a science-just-for-the-sake-of-science organization would be a huge and probably impossible change.
Concerning the involvement of NASA in the Earth Sciences, perhaps there was some justification for this in the past. I don’t have strong feelings on the subject. But I do have a feeling that NASA has had a habit of extending into areas that don’t really deal with its core missions. Call it mission creep. I’m not sure that they really add a lot to capabilities that are already available from USGS, NSIDC, NCAR, NOAA, NSF and the Departments of Energy, Interior, Commerce and Agriculture. Sure they store a lot of data repositories, but is that NASA’s mission? Maybe in the past, various groups needed NASA to help with designing remote sensing satellites, but is that really needed now? If there are invaluable assets for Earth Sciences in GISS, couldn’t they be folded into other agencies, e.g. the climate stuff should really be in NOAA, no?
Read the excerpt from NASA’s charter. This is law. NASA is required to do what it does – by law.
I’m not sure how strong an argument NASA’s current charter is. That charter can, and has, been amended by Congress. That could happen again.
I think a better point is that NASA is really a better organization than NOAA when it comes to developing new measurement techniques, instruments and spacecraft. Once established and operational, NASA can turn them over to NOAA. In fact, that’s the current practice and it works fairly well.
“Expansion of the human knowledge of Earth” is really pretty nebulous. I’m sure (cough cough) everything in NASA’s charter is followed absolutely to the letter. As a practical matter, it would seem that either off-loading or at least sharing some of these duties with other more suitable agencies would make sense. Maybe Congress could help the Executive Branch reduce some of the enormous amount of overlap in federal agencies.
NASA has the expertise in developing spacecraft, and spacecraft are critical to monitoring the environment. There is absolutely no suggestion by the Trump administration that one thin dime slashed from NASA Earth observation development or climate research would be transferred to NOAA for the same purpose.
Indeed. In fact, NOAA contracts with NASA to provide that expertise to develop their satellite sensors, integrate them on a satellite, launch them, and then check them out before handing satellite and sensor operations over to them 90 days after launch.
And the suggestion from Trump is basically the exact opposite, namely to reduce the budget of NESDIS – the arm of NOAA that takes over operations of the satellites and sensors NASA produces for them, processes and analyzes the data produced by them, and provides that information to the computer modelers that then provide the model output that go into the weather service forecasts – by over 20%.
Yes. The assertion by some that climate research isn’t properly NASA’s mission are not only factually wrong, but are informed more by general climate antipathy than by any sort of governmental efficiency. Comments become suspect.
Studying the atmosphere was made part of NASA’s core purpose (indeed, the first thing in the first item) back in 1958.
And it makes sense that the agency that sends probes to study other worlds also studies ours from space. The overlap in skills should be obvious.
It is actually human spaceflight, Apollo and all that followed, that is “mission creep”. While the original legislation (and current amended version) talks about NASA developing vehicles to “transport living organisms”, there’s no explicit mention of human spaceflight in that primary listing of NASA’s purpose.
As for moving Earth science to other agencies, there might be an argument for that, except that the very politicians who push that argument in order to attack NASA are simultaneously attacking those other agencies. So it’s not just a disingenuous argument, giving them an inch is clearly a fundamental danger to all Earth science. You can’t have a realistic debate about something while assholes are shooting at you.
“So it’s not just a disingenuous argument, giving them an inch is clearly a fundamental danger to all Earth science.”
Hyperbole we much?
English?
I was just channeling my inner Al Sharpton.
Well it is certainly a fundamental danger to US Earth science. Trump EPA head Scott Pruitt is forming an EPA red team to officially promote the view that established climate science is wrong and anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. I wish it were hyperbole, but regrettably this is not the case.
I’m thinking this might not be a bad thing.
On the one hand, and as the NYTimes pointed out recently, much of what Mr. Pruitt is doing is at levels invisible to everyone except pointy-headed scientists (the denizens herein excluded, of course). He is able to do great damage with very little fanfare.
As we say here in Florida, sunshine is the best disinfectant. So let him have his red team, and let them make the case.
Bring it on.
I hate to break it to you, but Earth Science is a LOT bigger than CAGW. And for people not directly getting funded for promoting CAGW, there is lot of skepticism about CAGW. Most people who know about real natural variability view recent climate change as being well within the range of variations seen before we got here. Nobody doubts that climate changes and that man has had an effect (but some think that land use is a bigger factor than CO2). However, the concept that CO2 drives everything, which requires large positive feedbacks (unlikely on its face) that have so far eluded direct measure is not universally shared. Existing GCMs are just not up to the task and cannot model features that far exceed CO2 (e.g. variations in cloud formation, thunderstorms, etc). I’ve lived through a few paradigm changes in my life. I suspect that we’ll soon go through another one. The science is definitely not settled. We need more real data and less advocacy. We weren’t discussing EPA, but I have to say long term climate change, with its weak theoretical foundation and lack of predictive power, is a bit of a stretch for this agency. These are political issues, not scientific ones. So don’t be surprised if politics gets involved.
Red teams aren’t necessarily a bad thing. They are commonly used when people are writing big proposals. Before sending it in, they have some people from their own institution review it and rip it to pieces. Then they revise it, and it’s a stronger proposal when the real reviewers see it.
At a less formal level, I remember a couple of Cassini discoveries from an instrument I worked on. They were surprising and actually things the instrument hadn’t been designed to measure (e.g. negatively charged ions showing up in the electron sensor.) We spend a good six months trying to prove the discovery wasn’t real, that it was some sort of instrument artifact or something real but different from what we thought. We weren’t comfortable publishing until we convinced ourselves there weren’t any other explanations.
Now, I’m not saying Mr. Pruitt is trying to improve the quality of climate change research. But sometimes results really should be subject to more scrutiny than the usual level of peer review.
Red teams, when they are composed of ideologically motivated people are absolutely a bad thing. Pruitt will populate his red team with who are ideologically aligned with his interests. That team will then do a dishonest review with the foregone conclusion that global warming is not a problem, fossil fuels are not responsible, and therefore we don’t need regulations holding oil and coal industries to account and we certainly don’t need further research into the issue.
Anyone who says, “we certainly don’t need further research into this issue” is almost certainly wrong, regardless of the issue. For climate change, we definitely need more (and better) research. Not to establish its existence, but its magnitude, means of mitigation, etc.
As far as red teams go, they certainly can be abused. With luck (and I’m not holding my breath), this one won’t. But simply saying a red team review is bad is like saying fire is bad. It certainly can be (as in arson) but it can also be good (as in cooking or heating.)
There is great danger here, not so much to climate research, but more fundamentally to the body politic.
Why? Because “giving an inch” is the one thing that we are afraid to do nowadays, and yet it is the only thing that will move the country forward. It’s often called compromise.
But here we find ourselves in a difficult spot, the subject matter is a straw man. We either have certainty that scientific inquiry will prevail, or not, and if not, we join the deniers.
However, you can’t have a meaningful negotiation with someone who is lying about what they want.
Honestly don’t think there’s enough evidence? Then we can talk about what evidence would be convincing, what could be done to gather the “correct” evidence, etc etc. (That’s been happening within the research community over the last 40 years, via genuine scientific skepticism.)
But if someone is using “not enough evidence” to justify killing funding or banning research — to the point of passing laws to prevent an existing instrument in space from even being used — they were lying.
If they say, “There’s no agreement about climate change in the scientific community”, and then when you show the overwhelming consensus, starts screeching, “Science isn’t done by a vote!”, you know that their original objection was a lie.
And if they say, “Climate science is better done by NOAA/EPA”, and then attack climate science at those agencies (including banning by law any modelling of climate beyond a few years), you know that they are not concerned about “focus”, they are lying.
MichiCanuck is a perfect example. His first comment was coached solely in terms of NASA’s focus, and “mission creep”, and that other agencies are better suited to climate research. His follow-up post to Daniel showed a little more of his real agenda and hints at more, he doesn’t accept climate research, he believes in the climate-research conspiracy theory, etc. His first comment was a lie.
You can’t have a reasonable discussion with him about what he wants, because he lies about what he wants.
All pretty words (or not depending on your POV I guess) that we’ve heard before. Until they are backed up by both budgets and long term political will from the average American they won’t do much except provide the equivalent of a small cup of coffee’s worth of excitement to the portion of NASA’s workforce that aren’t curmudgeonly old pessimists like myself.
So in other words the plan is to make space a big sideshow to distract the public, and appease the scientists elsewhere while we wreck the planet…
Can’t say I’m a fan.
And I don’t care if you can twist his words to mean he’ll kill sls we all know he’d never be able to pull it off.
It sounds to me like he intends to promote the exact NASA values and activities that led it to its glory days of Apollo, which I totally support. Take the resources and corporate knowledge of NASA and combine it with the energy and innovation of private space companies, and there is no reason we cannot have a moon base, and be planning a mars base. We just need the political will and leadership. It really doesn’t need a budget increase. But yes, it will need some re-prioritization of the current budget for sure, so there will be winners and losers.
Yeah, the losers will be space and applied technology, environmental monitoring, and aeronautics, the activities that actually provide practical benefits for America. The winners will be the companies that build the SLS and Orion. Hey, that’s Lockheed and Boeing.
Well, if you look at my post, I think you will see that the real losers in my fantasy world would be SLS, maybe not Orion. But, as I say, this is only in my imagination, given the political realities. In the best of all worlds, private companies (SpaceX or Blue Origin) would provide the heavy launchers and the SLS would be cancelled.
The losers will definitely be aeronautics. NASA is linked indelibly in the public mind with space travel, so that will be lost. Environmental monitoring, yes to a certain extent that will be a loser, although Bridenstine seems to be a big advocate of weather forecasting, so there is that.
The benefits of a human space presence will be more intangible, but still real. A human (US) presence in cis-lunar space is just as valuable right now as John Paul Jones was off the shores of England!
I am afraid I do not grasp your meaning. John Paul Jones was engaged in war and was attacking the British. A US cislunar base would be neither attacking nor holding territory against an adversary. In the unlikely event that some other country wishes to establish such a base, they would be free to do so.
Edit: I see fcrary’s point. Jones did not contribute directly to Colonial military objectives but was important as an inspiration, although he was also something of a privateer.
Interesting analogy. If memory serves, Jones’ activities during the revolution were flamboyant, news-making and some might say inspiring. But they contributed virtually nothing of substance to the eventual American victory. The war would have ended in the same way for the same reasons if had remained on our side of the Atlantic.
Forgive the criticism but as I read your comments I’m mindful of the prevailing attitude in our country- one that ignores the benefits of international cooperation. The world, and the solar system, isn’t a zero-sum game, unless we make it so, to what will surely be our everlasting sorrow.
The ISS costs BILLIONS a year, how much do you think a lunar base would be?
So he would pass this research project off to NOAA? https://naames.larc.nasa.gov
NASA should remain an engineering and research center of excellence. The mission-less SLS rocket doesn’t attract the smartest engineers, they go to Spacex. With a denier in charge, NASA won’t be able to attract the best scientists either.
Every time I look more deeply at anyone’s ideas about a “refocused”, or more “focused”, or “reprioritized” NASA, all I find is a mix of Apollo nostalgia wrapped in a veneer of no longer wanting to care about costs.
The erroneous idea is founded on poor math, as if a billion a year here or there will make a difference when handed to people who will blow it all and get little done, by design, by cost plus, by lack of incentive, plus a sense of not wanting to get ones hands dirty – thinking about money and time and how it has to add up.
Add to this the importance of scientific understanding of human caused global climate change and the notion of a refocused NASA reveals it’s true colors, an entrenched arm of NASA spaceflight, now SLS and Orion and all the old-Shuttle pork, incapable of transforming to bring the solar system into our every day life.
From incompetence, politics and inefficiency, programs like SLS and Orion now pretend to fight other parts of NASA for funding. This is hardly a behavior that will create the kind of long term support, across decades, necessary to sustain exploration inside and outside NASA. To boot, does anyone believe any fund transfers today and for one or two administrations won’t just be undone, with prejudice, in another administration? Such an approach begs to be overcome by events, when what’s needed is a plan and a level of transformation in NASA spaceflight that will endure.