Comments on: NASA and balance http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3819 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3819&cpage=1#comment-4484 Eli Rabett Tue, 09 May 2006 01:11:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3819#comment-4484 More interesting developments on this front from nasawatch http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/05/here_comes_anot.html#more Michael Griffin's opinion is: "I've read the report, and there is not much good in it for us. Not surprising, however, coming from Len Fisk." More interesting developments on this front from nasawatch http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/05/here_comes_anot.html#more

Michael Griffin’s opinion is: “I’ve read the report, and there is not much good in it for us. Not surprising, however, coming from Len Fisk.”

]]> By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3819&cpage=1#comment-4483 Eli Rabett Sat, 06 May 2006 02:28:32 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3819#comment-4483 I will merely repeat my commets about NASA from February: NASA is not a particularly political agency, but it would be a mistake to think that internal politics play no role and that administrations have no say in the agency. Historically administrations do this by picking the Administrators and by selecting the Agency mission. Since NASA is chronically underfunded and has more missions than dollars, putting a focus in one area of necessity means taking resources away from another. To parse the recent dust up we need to look at the last two administrators, Sean O'Keefe and Michael Griffin. More at http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/02/everything-is-not-what-it-seems.html For over a year, I have been telling my colleagues at NASA that they should not be surprised if the whole agency went away I will merely repeat my commets about NASA from February:

NASA is not a particularly political agency, but it would be a mistake to think that internal politics play no role and that administrations have no say in the agency. Historically administrations do this by picking the Administrators and by selecting the Agency mission. Since NASA is chronically underfunded and has more missions than dollars, putting a focus in one area of necessity means taking resources away from another. To parse the recent dust up we need to look at the last two administrators, Sean O’Keefe and Michael Griffin.

More at http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/02/everything-is-not-what-it-seems.html

For over a year, I have been telling my colleagues at NASA that they should not be surprised if the whole agency went away

]]> By: Tind Ryen http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3819&cpage=1#comment-4482 Tind Ryen Fri, 05 May 2006 18:43:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3819#comment-4482 The NAS isn't just concerned about exploration eating science's cake... The "big-ticket items" causing so much concern in the Science Mission Directorate include the James Webb Space Telescope and the Global Precipitation Moniter. In addition, the Appropriation for NASA explicitly calls for another potential big ticket space mission, a Europa orbiter. NASA, however, has left this mission out of its current operating plan. As to why have NASA do Earth Science at all, well the short answer is that NOAA and the NSF haven't built and launched satellites before. That could change, of course, but there is a certain sense to having one entity in charge of developing civilian satellites. The NAS isn’t just concerned about exploration eating science’s cake… The “big-ticket items” causing so much concern in the Science Mission Directorate include the James Webb Space Telescope and the Global Precipitation Moniter. In addition, the Appropriation for NASA explicitly calls for another potential big ticket space mission, a Europa orbiter. NASA, however, has left this mission out of its current operating plan.

As to why have NASA do Earth Science at all, well the short answer is that NOAA and the NSF haven’t built and launched satellites before. That could change, of course, but there is a certain sense to having one entity in charge of developing civilian satellites.

]]>