AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1861 times:
According to the New York Times, NASA's Mission Statement has been revised to delete a prior reference to the protection of the Earth. This change has been criticized as harmful to efforts to address global warming.
The revised Mission Statement is easily accessed using NASA's Website.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1810 times:
I used to think a long time ago that government efforts were free from the business atmosphere of controling what gets researched by who does the investing. The fact that NASA does very little to support, or drive the impression of, the first "A" in their acronym is bothersome. Now I get the impression that researching things for long-term is not worth short-term gains. While I want to scream, "DUH", NASA's existence should not be about short-term. It shouldn't be run based on the ignorance of investors either; in this case, taxpayers. If someone doesn't understand the point of NASA, they should inform thermselves or stop speaking altogether. No one should form an opinion based on the lack of understanding, it is far from logical and is unfortunately self-sustained.
Quote: In this year’s budget and planning documents, the agency’s mission is “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.”
While it shouldn't be, it seems to me that government funding is allocated by the stance of each new administration on things. Goals and projects get derailed because of a lack of faith in either the people past-reference or their ignorance on the subject. I mean 'people past reference' as entirely guilt by association. An example could be either going to Mars or making an SST, "if it couldn't be done before, why keep doing it?" It seems to me no one understands the concept/point of research, that nothing is proven unless it is repeated.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1797 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): According to the New York Times, NASA's Mission Statement has been revised to delete a prior reference to the protection of the Earth. This change has been criticized as harmful to efforts to address global warming.
To tell the truth, I've never really understood why Earth Observation and environmental missions are under NASA at all. Shouldn't "Mission to Planet Earth" by under NOAA like the rest of our weather satellites?
RichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1793 times:
NASA does alot of the first "a" items, these are either classified or not noticed as they are not as glorified as missions to Mars. But to keep on topic, this may be good or bad depending on how you look at it. More nuke powered items that tend to blow up every 2-3 flights out of 100. The good would be, more nuke powered items...
Migfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1788 times:
I don't mean to sound like a jack-ass, but who cares???
The lack of intrepidation has taken much of the adventure out of Space travel. Probes and rovers to Mars do not capture the public's attention as men on the Moon did in the sixties an seventies. The political agenda for space exploration is gone, and so is the funding. Now I see NASA inspiring only the geekiest of technology fans.
RichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1719 times:
Since we are bashing NASA a bit, kind of funny bashing though... Most of issues affecting NASA stem from congress and the prez. NASA should be a long term agency unaffected by this terms pet projects. Sad. The orbiter could have been a much better design, but budget contrants lead to the current design. Still an amazing piece of metal.