NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw



No, NASA did not "decline" to do anything. NASA did not "decide" to do
anything, NASA does not "choose" to do anything.

They advise along with others.


NASA is an arm of the executive branch of the federal govenment of the
USA. No more or less so than, say, the army. The army doesn't "decide
to invade Iraq" -- everybody would recognize this statement as
ridiculous. And neither does NASA "decide to build a space station" or
"fly shuttles" or any such thing.

Why do people think that these are reasonable claims to make?

NASA does whatever *congress* and *the White House* decide to do. If
the White House decides tomorrow that NASA should build the next
generation toilet brush, then that is what NASA is going to do. NASA
has a certain limited amount of leeway HOW to do any one thing, just
like the army has a certain amount of freedom in that regard. But
that's about it.


They have input based upon an advisory capacity like the Pentagon does
with military action.

NASA does NOT choose it's mission statement. They are allowed to tinker
with the precise formulation, but what exactly they're supposed to DO
is something that aren't being asked.

The previous administration thought NASA was a great thing to use to
study, monitor, understand and protect our own planet. This
administration thinks they'd rather not know about our own planet and
rather go *other* planets instead. The next administration may well
decide that NASA should be building only military crap, or do unmanned
mining of asteroids, or build casinos in LEO -- and then that's what
they're going to do. Or maybe they'll be split into several agencies.
Or merged with some other one. Or whatever the folks in Washington come
up with. These are *policy* decisions and NASA has no say in them.


Not "no say", just not the final say.

If the next administration decides to withdraw all troups from Iraq,
then that's what they're going to do. And nobody is going to proclaim
that "the army decided to withdraw from Iraq". But if the next
administration decides that the whole rewarming-Apollo nonsense isn't
really a good use of resources, there will *invariably* be some poster
again telling us how "NASA abandons moon project" or similar stupidity.


You seem to not connect who runs Bush and his administration. Hint:
He's a puppet for a larger group that he himself has referred to as his
base. He tends to ALWAYS do what is most popular within that base.
This is a question of where the buck stops, and NASA is no exception.

Eric


cordially

Y.T.

--
Remove YourClothes before you email me.

Phil Hays wrote:
wrote:

NASA is an arm of the executive branch of the federal govenment of the
USA. No more or less so than, say, the army. The army doesn't "decide
to invade Iraq" -- everybody would recognize this statement as
ridiculous. And neither does NASA "decide to build a space station" or
"fly shuttles" or any such thing.

Why do people think that these are reasonable claims to make?

NASA does whatever *congress* and *the White House* decide to do. If
the White House decides tomorrow that NASA should build the next
generation toilet brush, then that is what NASA is going to do.

I suspect that if the President told the army to spend all of it's
efforts on building a "next generation toilet brush", a lot of people
would be scared/mad/upset. And rightly so.

Bush invaded Iraq and people were scared/mad/upset, but he still did
it.


The previous administration thought NASA was a great thing to use to
study, monitor, understand and protect our own planet.

This isn't just a change from the previous administration. The 1958
mission statement included "the expansion of human knowledge of the
earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space."


Agreed.

One reason to go up is to look down.


Unless by looking down you find evidence that hurts your real core
constituency.

Eric


--
Phil Hays

"Andy Resnick" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

snip
Nasa specializes in pure science.
snip

That statement is so incorrect, I don't know where to even start to
correct it.


First you say Nasa isn't into pure research.

NASA should get out of the "pure
science" business as soon as possible.

Then say they should get out of the business of pure science.
Which is it?

Here is a nice list of various Nasa missions. I'm trying to
find the ones in the list that is NOT pure research.
Perhaps you could find one or two, or suggest which
ones Nasa shouldn't have pursued?

Have you even heard of any of these missions?
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/timelin..._missions.html


NASA should do what NASA does
best- engineering. NASA makes the telescopes for others to use. NASA
makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build. NASA
specializes in knowing how long materials last in the environment above
our atmosphere, the requirements to make sure fluid cooling systems work
in zero-g, and the like.


All necessary to do what? To work, live and do research
in space. Or spend much of it's resources building a space station
for what? Oh yes, for that much heralded pure medical
research that was supposed to transform medical science
with all kinds of breakthroughs.



Ask any NASA or NASA contractor employee their favorite scene from
"Apollo 13" and they will tell you the exact same thing- when the team
has to construct an adapter for an oxygen generator, and a pile of parts
gets dumped on the table. That's what NASA does best, better than any
organization I have ever worked with.


That's not the issue, it's to what end is all that great engineering
supposed to accomplish. Are you saying all the billions and
talent involved should be used for nothing more than building
longer lasting tires?

Come on! Have you even read Nasa's charter?


Jonathan

s




snip




--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
m...

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
Rock Brentwood wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

Well, duh! That's because their job is to get people and things *off*
the Earth, not to give people more reasons to be comfortable staying
*on* it!

Three down, only 6.5 billion more to go!


Sheep always have the least brains and sense between sheep, wolves, and
sheepdogs. Always believing they are running the place, or going to run
the
place, via The Sheep Herd Theory of All Life. You sheep have few brains,
damn little sense, and no clue. No clue whatsoever.


And here's what you sheepdogs fail to understand about
sheep. In drifting games it's been shown that the optimum
strategy for a malicious sheep attempting to escape goes
towards a random path, as the number of sheep
increases.

What that means is as us sheep grow in number, it takes
ever more work and intelligence for the sheepdog to maintain control
and ever less work and intelligence for the sheep to escape.
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/piperm...03/000024.html

HA!

Now in the end neither wins, it's a draw. But maybe from a
standpoint of quality of life, I say the sheep end up the life
of less stress and longer happier lives.

So for sheepdogs it's......Worry, be unhappy.
And for sheep it's..........Don't worry, be happy!

Except for that wolf I guess.

s







GLB

"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
m...

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
Rock Brentwood wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/sc...itiKrXZazUNXdw

Well, duh! That's because their job is to get people and things *off*
the Earth, not to give people more reasons to be comfortable staying
*on* it!

Three down, only 6.5 billion more to go!


Sheep always have the least brains and sense between sheep, wolves, and
sheepdogs. Always believing they are running the place, or going to run
the
place, via The Sheep Herd Theory of All Life. You sheep have few brains,
damn little sense, and no clue. No clue whatsoever.


And here's what you sheepdogs fail to understand about
sheep. In drifting games it's been shown that the optimum
strategy for a malicious sheep attempting to escape goes
towards a random path, as the number of sheep
increases.

What that means is as us sheep grow in number, it takes
ever more work and intelligence for the sheepdog to maintain control
and ever less work and intelligence for the sheep to escape.
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/piperm...03/000024.html

HA!

Now in the end neither wins, it's a draw. But maybe from a
standpoint of quality of life, I say the sheep end up the life
of less stress and longer happier lives.

So for sheepdogs it's......Worry, be unhappy.
And for sheep it's..........Don't worry, be happy!

Except for that wolf I guess.

Interesting. I didn't think you had in you to realize that punch line. At
the same time, because you did what you did, I realized a counterpoint and a
continuation of the picture into a certain bigger picture.

Not "that wolf" but those wolves. Usually as sheep proliferate nature
splits the herd out in space and time in two or more herds, the pack of
wolves has to split out in space and time in two or more packs, and the
'evolved' sheepdogs split out in space and time into two or more groups,
making their job, and prices and costs, indistinguishable from what they
were when the whole scenario originated in nature, before inflation.
Inflation again becomes indistinguishable from zero, again for a time that
is.

If the sheep do not proliferate and split out...., proliferate and split
out....., unlimitedly, the prices and costs of that no-growth, or little
growth, and all manner of incredibly countless various causes of rapid fire
attritions, to the sheep, wolves and sheepdogs, will only accelerate in a
vicious inflationary spiral -- unlimitedly -- toward the mass extinction of
all.

I knew I had the key to what's wrong with all those computer programmed
scenarios with regard to populations, but I just couldn't get my hand around
that key for a good grip until now. "All manner of incredibly countless
various causes of rapid fire attritions"!!!

GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:

"Andy Resnick" wrote in message
...

snip

Sigh... satellites are built by Northrop Grumman, LockMart, USA, Boeing,
the military, etc. etc. NASA doesn't even lunch the Shuttle- a contractor
company does.

That contractor company [is] NASA in disguise.

No, it's not. Civil servants can't be laid-off, for example.
Contractors can. Rules for hiring are different. Pay scales are
different. Pension plans and health insurance policies are different.
Due to Al Gore's "Reinventing government" initiative, specifically
Circular A-76, requires that the U.S. government outsource all functions
not demeed to be essential governement functions, "science", "research",
are considered commercial activities. "budget management" is an
essential government function.

NASA pays the lowest price possible to get someone else to accept the
risk of launching a vehicle. Morton-Thiokol engineers got fired due to
a NASA bureaucrat's poor decision.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

jonathan wrote:

"Andy Resnick" wrote in message
snip


NASA should do what NASA does

best- engineering. NASA makes the telescopes for others to use. NASA
makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build. NASA
specializes in knowing how long materials last in the environment above
our atmosphere, the requirements to make sure fluid cooling systems work
in zero-g, and the like.



All necessary to do what? To work, live and do research
in space. Or spend much of it's resources building a space station
for what? Oh yes, for that much heralded pure medical
research that was supposed to transform medical science
with all kinds of breakthroughs.
snip

That's precisely the real issue: what should NASA be doing? NASA sent
several astronauts to the moon. Did we do any science on the moon? No,
grade-school golf demonstrations to the contrary. Did we do any science
in developing the machinery to get to the moon? Again, no.

You correctly identify the current debate- what is the purpose of the
Space Station? Why have human spaceflight at all? Is the cost of NASA
justifiable? Please note that I support NASA's exploration initiative.
NASA needs good engineering to ensure that crews can venture forth and
return to Earth safely.

Don't confuse science and engineering. Engineering is the burner,
science is the burning. Exploration is not science.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

"Andy Resnick" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

"Andy Resnick" wrote in message
snip


NASA should do what NASA does

best- engineering. NASA makes the telescopes for others to use. NASA
makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build. NASA
specializes in knowing how long materials last in the environment above
our atmosphere, the requirements to make sure fluid cooling systems work
in zero-g, and the like.



All necessary to do what? To work, live and do research
in space. Or spend much of it's resources building a space station
for what? Oh yes, for that much heralded pure medical
research that was supposed to transform medical science
with all kinds of breakthroughs.
snip

That's precisely the real issue: what should NASA be doing? NASA sent
several astronauts to the moon. Did we do any science on the moon? No,
grade-school golf demonstrations to the contrary. Did we do any science in
developing the machinery to get to the moon? Again, no.

You correctly identify the current debate- what is the purpose of the
Space Station? Why have human spaceflight at all? Is the cost of NASA
justifiable? Please note that I support NASA's exploration initiative.
NASA needs good engineering to ensure that crews can venture forth and
return to Earth safely.

Don't confuse science and engineering. Engineering is the burner, science
is the burning. Exploration is not science.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Exploration may not be science where you work, but then you will never
discover anything if you do not explore. One must assume that you already
know everything, and therefore do not need to discover. The advances in
science and especially technology that came out of the moon space program
have never been realized in the history of the US. Advances in computers,
aeronautics, materials, metallurgy, etc. were a tremendous leap forward in
scientific endeavors.

And my definition of Engineering is "Applied Science". We make science work
to solve real problems. You dream about it (but obviously don't explore
it). We (Engineers) make it happen in real-time.

jonathan wrote:
snip

Have you even heard of any of these missions?
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/timelin..._missions.html


snip

A glance at this list shows that NASA does not design, build or even
launch the majority of these satellites. Furthermore, NASA did not
decide which of these satellites, out of the thousands proposed, got
funded. And Apollo isn't really a "current mission".

What does NASA contribute? NASA writes checks (as directed). NASA owns
infrastructure- the launchpad, the assembly buildings, etc. NASA has
budgetary and technical "oversight" of the projects- and does those
functions poorly.

Perhaps you are more upset that NASA is (not) funding projects you feel
should'nt (should) be funded. That is not NASA's problem. That is the
problem of the Congress that earmarks funds, the civilian agencies
(National Academies, ad-hoc committees, etc.) that make recommendations,
and the proposal review committees that rank proposals for funding priority.

NASA's internal R&D programs have been systematically de-funded due to
Circular A-76.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

SBC Yahoo wrote:

snip

Exploration may not be science where you work, but then you will never
discover anything if you do not explore. One must assume that you already
know everything, and therefore do not need to discover. The advances in
science and especially technology that came out of the moon space program
have never been realized in the history of the US. Advances in computers,
aeronautics, materials, metallurgy, etc. were a tremendous leap forward in
scientific endeavors.

Advances in technology is not science, it is engineering. Exploration
is not much more that the act of travelling. As such, one may "be
prepared", but that is not science.


And my definition of Engineering is "Applied Science". We make science work
to solve real problems. You dream about it (but obviously don't explore
it). We (Engineers) make it happen in real-time.

I am not trying to say that science is somehow better than engineering,
or should it have funding priorities over engineering. Solutions to the
world-wide energy crisis will come from engineering, not science.

My point is that trying to justify the Space program in terms of
"science" is a poor argument, one that is quickly and easily demolished.
If one cares about the Space program, and NASA in particular, one
should at least make good arguments to support it.


--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University