NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

jonathan wrote:
"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


Gravity probe B, a billion dollars spent on proving whether the
fictional narrative of H.G. Wells 'Time Machine' is correct -


"THE NON-MATHEMATICIAN is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he
hears of "four-dimensional" things, by a feeling not unlike that
awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more
common-place statement than that the world in which we live is a
four-dimensional space-time continuum." albert 1905


http://bartelby.org/173/17.html


"You have all heard what they have to say about this Fourth Dimension
?'I have not,' said the Provincial Mayor. 'It is simply this. That
Space, as our mathematicians have it, is spoken of as having three
dimensions, which one may call Length, Breadth, and Thickness, and is
always definable by reference to three planes, each at right angles to
the others. But some philosophical people have been asking why three
dimensions particularly-why not another direction at right angles to
the other three?-and have even tried to construct a Four-Dimension
geometry. " Wells 1898


http://bartelby.org/1000/1.html

Personally I like the Wells version because the 1905 science fiction
novel has a wonderful ending,the formal 1905 version unfortunately is
proposed as fact.

Nasa ends up being a terrestial ballistics organisation and a very good
one at that.It unfortunately considers itself an authority on astronomy
when it is not hence the absurd missions such as gravity probe B.

If anyone cares to find that the antecedent precepts for the 1905
concept could be found in any science fiction section of a bookstore in
1898 perhaps they will become embarrassed enough to work towards
calling a halt to these terrible theoretical excesses which give rise
to missions like the probe B.





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

Christopher P. Winter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:22:55 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

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


Well, NASA as presently constituted will be hard-pressed to proceed with
Bush's Vision for Space Exploration and still maintain the current science
programs -- even with their expanded budgets of the past two years.

Mission to Planet Earth has produced a lot of valuable environmental data,
much of which still has to be analyzed. Let's hope some other agency can pick
up that task.

Why just agencies? Why not academia as well? EOS data is unclassified
and for all to use.


But for NASA, it looks like the word is: Up with VSE, Out with MPE.

MPE or more correctly, EOS, lives because NASA has teamed up with NOAA
and the DOD for the next generation of EOS missions.

Eric

jonathan wrote:
"jonathan" wrote in message newsKRwg.13101
The big issues in the upcoming elections should be
immigration, Iraq, gas prices and ....global warming.

All are issues that favor the dems.


Now that I think about it, what we need to do is find
a way to connect Nasa with the global warming and
energy issues. Make Nasa a campaign issue.


NASA is connected with global warming through the work at the Goddard.
But making NASA a campaign issue mught backfire.

It could be plausible to tie Nasa to Iraq as well.
As our energy dependence is a part of our
involvement in the Middle East. Make Nasa
a vehicle for reducing the likelihood of future
wars over oil.


That is a stretch as NASA is not the Dept. of Energy.

Restoring the mission to planet earth can be
turned into a matter of national security.

MTPE, now called EOS still does exist as a joint DOD, NOAA and NASA
program called NPOESS. It is just that the NASA mission statement no
longer includes, "earth observation" as a scientific endeavor any
longer. I guess the feeling is that, though NASA better handles the
creation of the space and ground segments of EOS (a provable fact),
earth observation more belongs to NOAA and the DOD. Thus, the
modification of the NASA mission statement.

Eric


Food for thought




Jonathan

s

jonathan wrote:
"jonathan" wrote in message newsKRwg.13101
The big issues in the upcoming elections should be
immigration, Iraq, gas prices and ....global warming.

All are issues that favor the dems.


Now that I think about it, what we need to do is find
a way to connect Nasa with the global warming and
energy issues. Make Nasa a campaign issue.


NASA is connected with global warming through the work at the Goddard.
But making NASA a campaign issue mught backfire.

It could be plausible to tie Nasa to Iraq as well.
As our energy dependence is a part of our
involvement in the Middle East. Make Nasa
a vehicle for reducing the likelihood of future
wars over oil.


That is a stretch as NASA is not the Dept. of Energy.

Restoring the mission to planet earth can be
turned into a matter of national security.

MTPE, now called EOS still does exist as a joint DOD, NOAA and NASA
program called NPOESS. It is just that the NASA mission statement no
longer includes, "earth observation" as a scientific endeavor any
longer. I guess the feeling is that, though NASA better handles the
creation of the space and ground segments of EOS (a provable fact),
earth observation more belongs to NOAA and the DOD. Thus, the
modification of the NASA mission statement.

Eric


Food for thought




Jonathan

s

wrote:
In sci.physics Ken Wood wrote:


NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research
rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid
climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid
place to spend finite resources.

KW

NASA should be directed to research air and space vehicles.

NOAA should be directed to research climate issues.

The successful formula has been that NASA builds it (Earth Observing
Satelites) and launches them and turns them over to NOAA to operate. I
didn't make the formula I just an commenting on what is what.


Just because NASA builds the sensor doesn't mean they are the appropriate
agency to analyze the data from it.

Sensors/instruments are bulit from any number of a group of interested
parties including universities, corporations as well as foreign
scientific agencies. Those principal investigators deserve first rights
to the data because they built the sensor. After that the whole earth
science community should be allowed to see the data.

Eric


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Ken Wood wrote:


NASA should be redirected to supporting EARTH climate change research
rather than worrying about Mars. What has been learned about rapid
climate changes in the last 15 years makes space exploration a stupid
place to spend finite resources.

KW

NASA should be directed to research air and space vehicles.

NOAA should be directed to research climate issues.

According to your position statement, there are no climate issues.

Just because NASA builds the sensor doesn't mean they are the appropriate
agency to analyze the data from it.

NOAA, NASA and the DOD are unfortunately dysfunctional under our current
anti-science regime. This isn't going to change until we have a regime
change.

Well within that trio there has been a regime change. I suspect that
before things really get going that regime that you are referring to
will occur, but that is just a hunch.

Eric


http://cosmic.lifeform.org

oriel36 wrote:
jonathan wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
I survey postings relating to climate imbalances, such as global
warming, to see if one person has enough intelligence to recognise that
the big institutions are still working with 15th century astronomical
notions for climate norms .Even with 21st century data and observence
from space,NASA and NOAA will still use the explanation given by
Copernicus in chapter 11 of De revolutionibus even though that
explanation is counter-productive where global climate is concerned

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/yea...opernicus.html

Temperature signatures reflecting global climate norms are derived from
changing orbital orientation whereas Copernicus explains only
hemispherical cyclical meteorological patterms.The upshot is that
modern observations based on oscillating global temperature signatures
reflect climate norms from astronomical causes whereas human activity
affecting those temperature signatures would be reflected in a
widening of the temperature bands



What also seems to be missing from discussions on global
warming is that the big risk it poses for the future is
an early ice age. The general impression appears to
be the climate will just get warmer.

When a self organized system is pushed fast and hard enough
from equilibrium, it's behavior can become chaotic.
Which means sudden and wild swings in behavior. Bubbles burst
with little warning. It only takes one swing into an ice age
to pretty much wipe our slate clean.


s

The problem is not global warming,the problem is that the working
principles for climate norms and imbalances exists in a 15th century
framework.


I would urge those who are genuine about investigating human related
temperature signatures,such as the increase in CO2 levels,to consider
the original principles which distinguish hemispherical cyclical
climate patterns from global climate norms.

Global climate norms can be subdivided into hemispherical weather
patterns with parameters such as landmass,ocean currents conditioning
the meteorological cycles however the present practice of extending
meorological climate patterns over many years as denoting global
climate norms proves to be an obstacle.

http://www.climateprediction.net/ima...ges/annual.gif

The upshot of using the oscillating temperature bands as a consequence
of the Earth's orbital position and allowing hemispherical parameters
to be conditioned by axial rotation is that it is easier to discern the
difference between normal astronomical signatures for global climate
from those which are created by natural events or human activity.

The sheer inability of climate scientists to alter from 15th century
conceptions is almost as breathtaking as gobal warming itself yet this
may change.

The bottom line is, what does it mean to have no glaciers and a
shrinking ice mass at the poles? No one can agrue that glaciers aren't
melting. That is a fact. What does it mean to to simply have less
natural ice, globally?

Eric

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
Blitzkreig wrote:

What a pity.

Such a dumb****.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Win and we will easily see -- again -- who the real "dumb****" was. Only
this time may be the last time of too many times even for such a country,
and such a civilization, as ours [was]. Remember, Tip O'Neill said there was
no going back, no getting back, no backing up or backing out, anymore.
Deliberately made so: No room whatsoever to maneuver left anymore.
Deliberately made so: No margin whatsoever for error left anymore.
Conservatives own them all now. All the maneuver room. All the margins for
error. Made so by Liberalism. The cost of continuously promising and never
even coming close to delivering "A Better World" on Earth. The cost of
accelerating the whole world ever farther from it, confusing, complicating,
frustrating, angering, ever larger numbers of people, every time your in
power.


I'm reminded of three events in the past 100 years similar to the
GOP-led USA of today.
1) the time of the Great Depression
2) McCarthyism, who was fed by Hoover and funded by the wealthy H.L.
Hunt
3) Nixon during Watergate

Yes, the GOP rules right now until they choke on their own greed like
the above mentioned times in the past. At that point the brain-dead
American voters (ain't democracy great?) will rise up and vote them out
as they did in the past. But only after another debacle.

Eric

GLB

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
jonathan wrote:
It appears to me Nasa can spend fast enough
to lock in the cev, which is fine by me, but the
moon mission and beyond have to get past the democratic party.
Fat chance.

You might be surprised. Space is not a partisan issue to any great
extent. Even shuttle retirement and the Moon/Mars stuff, despite the
strong association with the Great Satan Bush :-), has largely bipartisan
support; it helps that the NASA budget has not grown substantially, and
that a lot of existing jobs are being preserved. Schedules and priorities
might change some, but wholesale gutting of the program is unlikely.

You might want to add that red state NASA (FL, AL, TX) balances out
with blue state NASA (CA, OH, MD) when it comes to space centers as was
designed by Ike when NASA was created so as not to give a partisanship
aspect to the agency.

OTOH, when viewed as manned vs. unmanned spaceflight there clearly is a
partisan aspect.

Eric

--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:

Nasa specializes in pure science.

Since when? And even if so, why should it be that way?

Nasa's mission to help save the planet?

It's been deleted from the charter by some 'clerk'
casually and without notice, like we delete spam.

No, I'm quite sure this came down from on high (i.e., the Bush
administration). But in this particular case, I don't disagree with it
-- understanding climate change should be NOAA's job, not NASA's.

We understand climate change just fine, thank you, with and without
NOAA's help, and regardless of their blatant hindrance, but doing
something about it is definitely NASA's job. Both NOAA and NASA have
done this nation a great disservice, however, under this regime.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

NOAA should plough its own course with global climate norms insofar as
the framework based on cyclical hemispherical weather patterns can be
bumped up to global climate data without the need to wait for Nasa who
operate with a hideous astronomical framework inherited from the late
17th century.

As Keplerian orbital geometry can bypass the exotic Newtonian
ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion ,NOAA can concentrate on
the annual oscillation of temperature bands due to the orbital motion
of the Earth and can reduce the global phenomena to hemispherical
weather patterns in accordance with the original Keplerian insight and
especially the global climate asymmetry that distinguishes Mar/Sept
from Sept /Mar.

Too many windbags surrounding this topic,it is just easier to present
the global temperature oscillation reflecting a new approach or rather
to bring astronomy up to speed with excellent data -

http://www.climateprediction.net/ima...ges/annual.gif

In short,it is easy to subdivide global climate norms into
hemispherical weather patterns when the temperature signatures are
recognised,it is fatal to climate studies to explain hemispherical
weather patterns (seasons) through astronomical causes alone such as
imagining a variable axial tilt to the Sun.

It takes a little effort to be come familiar with this new approach to
climate studies but this is intentionally left in outlines in order to
let others frame it better.