Tweet
Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question
Clue - I give you credit, you know a lot about NASA, but you are just wrong about many things, and perhaps unfair on others.
You give NASA no credit, whenever there are contractors involved, which is often. Only about 15-20% of NASA's funding stays in-house. But if it is NASA funding, and NASA manages the mission, including oversight of multiple contracts and mission integration - you say that NASA gets no credit (and, I guess, should never have received funding for that effort)?
Do you think that Geoff Marcy and Paul Butler would have ever found any exoplanets without the funding NASA provided them?
You give the credit for Kepler to LASP and Ball. Not to take anything away from them, but they were part of a TEAM that included JPL and the Ames Research Center, among others. The Principal Investigator is Bill Borucki at NASA's Ames Research Center. The PI (not LASP or Ball) is the person who submits the initial proposal on behalf of the team, and is ultimately held responsible for mission success or failure. NASA Ames, and Dr. Borucki, are still intimately involved in the daily operation and science of Kepler. But you give them no credit.
About the age of the universe, you say: "this was accomplished via a NASA launched and built satellite, though the actual scientific work was performed by outside parties." Nonsense. NASA civil servant astronomers were intimately involved in not only the building of the COBE and WMAP spacecraft, and their scientific instruments, but also the scientific data analysis. John Mather won a Nobel Prize for COBE, and six scientists from NASA Goddard are on the WMAP team.
On black holes, you seem unaware of the fact that Hubble provided some of the best early observational evidence for their existence. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc.../1994/23/text/
Contrary to your statement, the "copper bullet" into a comet nucleus has already been achieved - in July 2005. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/index.cfm
On #7, you're wrong. Mercury: MESSENGER went into orbit in March after launch in 2004. Venus: last orbited by Magellan from August 1990 to October 1994 after launch in 1989. NASA has 3 operational spacecraft at Mars right now, all launched since 2001. Jupiter: Galileo launched 1989 and arrived in 1995. Saturn: Cassini launched in 1997 and arrived in 2005. Pluto: New Horizons launched in 2006. So by my count, that's 2 missions launched more than 2 decades ago, and 6 launched since then.
On #8, you also ignore many other NASA contributions to the GRACE mission, which are ongoing. http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/ On #9, you ignore numerous NASA contributions, too many to list. #10, the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is responsible for procuring, developing, and testing the spacecraft, instruments and unique ground equipment. On #11, if you don't think it is an achievement to keep 2 spacecraft that are 34 years old and 10 billion miles away, operating and doing meaningful science, well, harumph. Similar comment on #12 - sure, Hubble was launched in 1990, but the research I referenced was published in 1998, after two successful servicing missions.
Almost done now. ;-) You seem to think that $1B for Civil Servants is an indicator that NASA is not focused on its charter? How do you propose that NASA achieve anything, unless they have some employees, and a place for them to work?
Now, finally: NASA's charter is (in short)
The National Aeronautics and Space Act (of 1958)
Sec. 20112. Functions of the Administration
(a) Planning, Directing, and Conducting Aeronautical and Space Activities.--The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this chapter, shall--
(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;
(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof
Generally speaking I think NASA is fulfilling that charter pretty darn well. And not that $17B a year isn't a lot of money, but it is still less than 0.5% of the Federal budget.
Clue - I give you credit, you know a lot about NASA, but you are just wrong about many things, and perhaps unfair on others.
You give NASA no credit, whenever there are contractors involved, which is often. Only about 15-20% of NASA's funding stays in-house. But if it is NASA funding, and NASA manages the mission, including oversight of multiple contracts and mission integration - you say that NASA gets no credit (and, I guess, should never have received funding for that effort)?
Do you think that Geoff Marcy and Paul Butler would have ever found any exoplanets without the funding NASA provided them?
You give the credit for Kepler to LASP and Ball. Not to take anything away from them, but they were part of a TEAM that included JPL and the Ames Research Center, among others. The Principal Investigator is Bill Borucki at NASA's Ames Research Center. The PI (not LASP or Ball) is the person who submits the initial proposal on behalf of the team, and is ultimately held responsible for mission success or failure. NASA Ames, and Dr. Borucki, are still intimately involved in the daily operation and science of Kepler. But you give them no credit.
About the age of the universe, you say: "this was accomplished via a NASA launched and built satellite, though the actual scientific work was performed by outside parties." Nonsense. NASA civil servant astronomers were intimately involved in not only the building of the COBE and WMAP spacecraft, and their scientific instruments, but also the scientific data analysis. John Mather won a Nobel Prize for COBE, and six scientists from NASA Goddard are on the WMAP team.
On black holes, you seem unaware of the fact that Hubble provided some of the best early observational evidence for their existence. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc.../1994/23/text/
Contrary to your statement, the "copper bullet" into a comet nucleus has already been achieved - in July 2005. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/index.cfm
On #7, you're wrong. Mercury: MESSENGER went into orbit in March after launch in 2004. Venus: last orbited by Magellan from August 1990 to October 1994 after launch in 1989. NASA has 3 operational spacecraft at Mars right now, all launched since 2001. Jupiter: Galileo launched 1989 and arrived in 1995. Saturn: Cassini launched in 1997 and arrived in 2005. Pluto: New Horizons launched in 2006. So by my count, that's 2 missions launched more than 2 decades ago, and 6 launched since then.
On #8, you also ignore many other NASA contributions to the GRACE mission, which are ongoing. http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/ On #9, you ignore numerous NASA contributions, too many to list. #10, the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is responsible for procuring, developing, and testing the spacecraft, instruments and unique ground equipment. On #11, if you don't think it is an achievement to keep 2 spacecraft that are 34 years old and 10 billion miles away, operating and doing meaningful science, well, harumph. Similar comment on #12 - sure, Hubble was launched in 1990, but the research I referenced was published in 1998, after two successful servicing missions.
Almost done now. ;-) You seem to think that $1B for Civil Servants is an indicator that NASA is not focused on its charter? How do you propose that NASA achieve anything, unless they have some employees, and a place for them to work?
Now, finally: NASA's charter is (in short)
The National Aeronautics and Space Act (of 1958)
Sec. 20112. Functions of the Administration
(a) Planning, Directing, and Conducting Aeronautical and Space Activities.--The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this chapter, shall--
(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;
(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof
Generally speaking I think NASA is fulfilling that charter pretty darn well. And not that $17B a year isn't a lot of money, but it is still less than 0.5% of the Federal budget.
Comment