NASA's new mission: public relations w/ the "Muslim world"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I see this as a storm in a tea-cup.

NASA budget for 2010 about $18 billion.

Amount spent on "education", which is where I guess the "making muslims feel good about themselves" program budget will come from - $150 million. So you are talking of a fraction of 1% of NASA's overal budget spent on education and a fraction of that spent on muslim goodwill.

Probably not worth getting worked up over....

Ah, but getting worked up is the whole point of the OP.

We should be worked up about nonsense like this. How worked up would people get if Bush had the former NASA administrator announce that the foremost mission of NASA was to make Christians feel good about their historical contributions?

Yeah - I'm worked up, because what the Obama Administration is doing to science and the space program is nothing short of astonishing, and disgusting.

CIS, I don't get worked up over much. "Outrage" is boring when you've seen it enough. Have fun with it, however.

[Coito ergo sum]

NASA is laying off, because we're cutting and cancelling our "aeronautical and space" programs.

Which is nothing to do with the OP. That's economic reality.

Absolutely not. They wouldn't be getting laid off if the Administration didn't cancel the ongoing programs. There is money in the budget to retain those people, if the programs continued.

And, it does absolutely have everything to do with the OP since this new foremost mission is part and parcel of the Administration's new "policy" regarding space. the Administration is destroying our space program, and this is one bit of that process.

Look, if this "Muslim outreach" was just a bullet point part of the PR campaign, I wouldn't be as upset about it. It is not that - it is the foremost mission of NASA according to Bolden and the President of the United States."

I see this as a bit of spin.

Based on what? You're own supposition?

I'm basing my view on what the NASA administrator actually said. You think he meant something different than what he actually said. This happens on many issues, I've noticed. People imprint what they think would be a reasonable meaning on what some government official actually said. More often than not, however, the words are carefully chosen, and they mean what they say.

You can see which are the "foremost" missions by looking at the budget. The stuf with the most money spent on it? That's the foremost. If this get more than a few tens of millions of dollars, I'll eat my horse.

We'll see if NASA does anything of note in the next few years. Since the major programs are cancelled, we're left only with those that were already in operation before Obama took office. Obama has been in office for 18 months almost, and we haven't heard a peep about what he wants to do with NASA, besides cancel programs.

It also comes on the heels of the cancellation of major space programs that really would fucking "inspire people." People are inspired by "accomplishments" - not namby pamby advertising campaigns and PR blitzes.

I wouldn't disagree with you on the inspirational value of actual achievements but again this doesn't have anything to do wth the OP. Constellation wasn't cancelled to fund "Muslim outreach"....

You're view of the OP is unjustifiably narrow and apologetic. These are calculated steps, and Obama has an overarching policy or plan for NASA. He's not a stupid guy. This isn't isolated from his overall policy and purpose.

Further, what the fuck would be the reaction among atheists and rationalists if the "foremost policy" of NASA was to make CHRISTIANS feel good about historical CHRISTIAN contributions toward science. What if Bush had made that the "foremost mission" of NASA? Would that be a storm in a teacup to you?

I'd agree that the terms of the engagement here are regretable but I guess such nations see themselves as "Muslim world" so it's a not-illogical label to use.

It's not illogical to use the word "Christian" either. The complaint about making Islamic self-esteem a foremost mission is not about whether it is logical or illogical to use the word.

This is yet another insidious entanglement of government with religion. Obama is expanding faith based government programs, expanding government sponsorship of religious schools, expanding government handouts to religious "charities," and now linking NASA policy with religion.

I've no reason to doubt any of this.

It's all true.

Making a religion-based public relations goal the "foremost mission" of NASA is no less ludicrous than making it the foremost mission of any other government agency or administration, and the fact that it's directed at the fucking atrocity known as Islam is no better than directing at the nonsense known as Christianity.

Proof of the pudding, dear boy. I doubt this "foremost mission" will amount to more than a few posters and photo opportunities in Riyadh.....

We'll see. It doesn't look like NASA itself is going to amount to much more than posters and photo ops for the time being anyway. We certainly aren't going to the Moon, we're certainly not building a base at Clavius, we're certainly not building the Ares rocket systems, we're certainly not going to Mars. We're sitting on Earth jerking Muslims off so they "feel good."

[Coito ergo sum]

NASA is not about getting to the Moon or Mars, its about subsidising the US Aerospace industry indirectly.....

It's about, in part, encouraging and expanding the commercial use of space. Sure, that's in the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which I've read, and apparently you have not. Ahead of that purpose, however, is the task of NASA to actually engage in "aeronautics and space activities." That means, getting to the Moon and Mars (or other locations in space). That's why NASA has:

Sent missions to Mercury
Sent missions to Venus
Sent Missions to Mars
Sent rovers to Mars
Sent orbiters to Mars
Sent men to the Moon
Searched for water on the Moon and Mars
Launched hundreds of satellites.
Sent missions to asteroids, like Eros
Sent Missions to a comet - Stardust
Sent missions to Jupiter and Jovian moons
Sent missions to Saturn and Saturnian moons
Sent missions to Uranus
Sent missions to Neptune
Has a probe going to Pluto now
Has Voyager now exiting the solar system
Created the space shuttle and launched a couple hundred missions or thereabouts


Most of that had nothing to do with "subsidizing the private aerospace industry indirectly" and most of that would not have been done without NASA. Private industry would not have developed ion-powered Stardust mission, for example, to go to a Comet. Private industry would not have gone to Eros, or launched Voyager. Private industry would not have gone to the moon.

Christ on a bicycle, NASA's biggest achievement was "going to the Moon," and you're sitting there seriously alleging that NASA is not about going to the Moon?

NASA's biggest projects in the last 20 years have been Mars missions - Spirit, Opportunity, Pathfinder, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and others - and you are sitting there with a straight face alleging that NASA is not about going to Mars?

[Clinton Huxley]

Sorry, CES, but I just don't see any link between NASA spending some of it's PR money on the stuff outlined in the OP and tjhe cancellation of NASA's science programs. There never was going to be a base on Clavius or a mission to Mars. Its far easier to announce such a thing, as Presidents like to do, than actually do (and pay for) it.

[Clinton Huxley]

It's about, in part, encouraging and expanding the commercial use of space. Sure, that's in the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which I've read, and apparently you have not.

Seriously, CES, why would I have read that? I have a finite life span. You read Acts of Parliament much?

Sent missions to Mercury
Sent missions to Venus
Sent Missions to Mars
Sent rovers to Mars
Sent orbiters to Mars
Sent men to the Moon
Searched for water on the Moon and Mars
Launched hundreds of satellites.
Sent missions to asteroids, like Eros
Sent Missions to a comet - Stardust
Sent missions to Jupiter and Jovian moons
Sent missions to Saturn and Saturnian moons
Sent missions to Uranus
Sent missions to Neptune
Has a probe going to Pluto now
Has Voyager now exiting the solar system
Created the space shuttle and launched a couple hundred missions or thereabouts

That's lovely and I knew all about it. And?

Most of that had nothing to do with "subsidizing the private aerospace industry indirectly" and most of that would not have been done without NASA. Private industry would not have developed ion-powered Stardust mission, for example, to go to a Comet. Private industry would not have gone to Eros, or launched Voyager. Private industry would not have gone to the moon.

You could argue that this represents funding for basic science that Boeing etc can then capitalise on.

Christ on a bicycle, NASA's biggest achievement was "going to the Moon," and you're sitting there seriously alleging that NASA is not about going to the Moon?

That's about as relevant as me banging on about the Raj. America went to the Moon as part of a Cold War exercise to beat the Russians. It's not been able to go back to the Moon (manned) since the early 70s and has not made any serious effort to do so.

NASA's biggest projects in the last 20 years have been Mars missions - Spirit, Opportunity, Pathfinder, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and others - and you are sitting there with a straight face alleging that NASA is not about going to Mars?

Its not about sending men to Mars. That was never going to happen.

[JimC]

Even if the reality is only a token amount of money and a few photo opportunities in the Arab world as Clinton suggested, I still see the announcement as a worrying example of valuing political spin over straightforward , mission oriented goals. It does not have to be something that in itself cancels other major programs to be wiorth speaking against.

Mind you, at the same time I have always felt that some of the proposed manned missions have been grandiose and unrealistic, particularly Mars. Good orbital infrastructure, international collaboration with the Space Station, good workhorse vehicles to replace the shuttles, unmanned science missions and possibly an eventual return to the moon, with a realistic time frame are more to the point...

[Clinton Huxley]

Even if the reality is only a token amount of money and a few photo opportunities in the Arab world as Clinton suggested, I still see the announcement as a worrying example of valuing political spin over straightforward , mission oriented goals. It does not have to be something that in itself cancels other major programs to be wiorth speaking against.

You're suggesting a US (or any other) Govt department can be non-political?

Mind you, at the same time I have always felt that some of the proposed manned missions have been grandiose and unrealistic, particularly Mars. Good orbital infrastructure, international collaboration with the Space Station, good workhorse vehicles to replace the shuttles, unmanned science missions and possibly an eventual return to the moon, with a realistic time frame are more to the point...

I agree, IIRC, George Bush Senior and Junior both announce Mars missions but never really provided the funding to make them happen. Election stunts.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry, CES, but I just don't see any link between NASA spending some of it's PR money on the stuff outlined in the OP and tjhe cancellation of NASA's science programs.

I'm not sure how you can not see it. But, if you don't see it, you don't see it.

There never was going to be a base on Clavius or a mission to Mars.

Yes, there was. Once again, you don't appear to know what you're talking about.

Its far easier to announce such a thing, as Presidents like to do, than actually do (and pay for) it.

We were building the equipment, and the mission was, and still is, underway.

Testifying before the United States Congress in 2010, Neil Armstrong opposed an administrative scrap of Constellation, stating "substantial turmoil" has arisen "by the President's proposal ... because a few planners with little or no space operation experience attempted an end run on the normal planning process." Armstrong argued that "a return to the Moon would be a most productive path to expanding the human presence in the solar system."

Constellation was in process, and would return us to the moon with the purpose of staying there longer term. If we can keep the program, we will go there, and we will have a base on the Moon. If Obama's proposed cancelation is adopted by Congress, we won't.

But, to say "there never was going to be a Moon base" is just plain shortsighted nonsense. The plan was, and still is at least until 2011, that we go back to the moon the new Ares rockets and Orion capsules, and explore the surface. Continued missions would in part build a permanent base. The south pole was the likely candidate.

[Clinton Huxley]

We were building the equipment, and the mission was, and still is, underway.

Testifying before the United States Congress in 2010, Neil Armstrong opposed an administrative scrap of Constellation, stating "substantial turmoil" has arisen "by the President's proposal ... because a few planners with little or no space operation experience attempted an end run on the normal planning process." Armstrong argued that "a return to the Moon would be a most productive path to expanding the human presence in the solar system."

Constellation was in process, and would return us to the moon with the purpose of staying there longer term. If we can keep the program, we will go there, and we will have a base on the Moon. If Obama's proposed cancelation is adopted by Congress, we won't.

But, to say "there never was going to be a Moon base" is just plain shortsighted nonsense. The plan was, and still is at least until 2011, that we go back to the moon the new Ares rockets and Orion capsules, and explore the surface. Continued missions would in part build a permanent base. The south pole was the likely candidate.

There is a differnce between an aspiration and a serious attempt to do something.

Sure, the Constellation program would have got people to the Moon (the same system worked for Apollo) but I'm sure the aim in the 60s and 70s was to continue the Apollo progam and have a base on the Moon then. Such things depend upon decades of consistent and stable funding, which cannot be guaranteed. Until the footprints are in the regolith, its all so much vapour-ware.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's about, in part, encouraging and expanding the commercial use of space. Sure, that's in the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which I've read, and apparently you have not.

Seriously, CES, why would I have read that? I have a finite life span. You read Acts of Parliament much?

If I was going to make assertions about the purposes of a government agency, I might think about taking a couple of minutes and reading what it's purposes are. You don't have to read the whole Act, just google it and read the first couple of sections. It's a couple pages of material. Otherwise, you're just making up your own version.

Sent missions to Mercury
Sent missions to Venus
Sent Missions to Mars
Sent rovers to Mars
Sent orbiters to Mars
Sent men to the Moon
Searched for water on the Moon and Mars
Launched hundreds of satellites.
Sent missions to asteroids, like Eros
Sent Missions to a comet - Stardust
Sent missions to Jupiter and Jovian moons
Sent missions to Saturn and Saturnian moons
Sent missions to Uranus
Sent missions to Neptune
Has a probe going to Pluto now
Has Voyager now exiting the solar system
Created the space shuttle and launched a couple hundred missions or thereabouts

That's lovely and I knew all about it. And?

They weren't about subsidizing private industry. They were about going into space, doing science, learning, and exploring.

Most of that had nothing to do with "subsidizing the private aerospace industry indirectly" and most of that would not have been done without NASA. Private industry would not have developed ion-powered Stardust mission, for example, to go to a Comet. Private industry would not have gone to Eros, or launched Voyager. Private industry would not have gone to the moon.

You could argue that this represents funding for basic science that Boeing etc can then capitalise on.

You could argue any crap you want to argue. The argument is stupid. Yes, when Boeing builds something, they build it to make money. They're not a charity. That doesn't change the purpose of the missions.

Christ on a bicycle, NASA's biggest achievement was "going to the Moon," and you're sitting there seriously alleging that NASA is not about going to the Moon?

That's about as relevant as me banging on about the Raj. America went to the Moon as part of a Cold War exercise to beat the Russians. It's not been able to go back to the Moon (manned) since the early 70s and has not made any serious effort to do so.

Constellation is a serious effort, and it's part of the way through. We shifted focus in the 70s to the Shuttle to engage in more low Earth orbit activities. But, it is about being able to go back to the Moon, because if we don't go to the Moon then we will not be able to go much farther than that, as a practical manner. If you listen to Neil Armstrong's testimony to Congress in April, 2010, he'll explain to why that is.

NASA's biggest projects in the last 20 years have been Mars missions - Spirit, Opportunity, Pathfinder, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and others - and you are sitting there with a straight face alleging that NASA is not about going to Mars?

Its not about sending men to Mars. That was never going to happen.

Of course it was. Once again, you really don't know what you're talking about.

[Coito ergo sum]

We were building the equipment, and the mission was, and still is, underway.

Testifying before the United States Congress in 2010, Neil Armstrong opposed an administrative scrap of Constellation, stating "substantial turmoil" has arisen "by the President's proposal ... because a few planners with little or no space operation experience attempted an end run on the normal planning process." Armstrong argued that "a return to the Moon would be a most productive path to expanding the human presence in the solar system."

Constellation was in process, and would return us to the moon with the purpose of staying there longer term. If we can keep the program, we will go there, and we will have a base on the Moon. If Obama's proposed cancelation is adopted by Congress, we won't.

But, to say "there never was going to be a Moon base" is just plain shortsighted nonsense. The plan was, and still is at least until 2011, that we go back to the moon the new Ares rockets and Orion capsules, and explore the surface. Continued missions would in part build a permanent base. The south pole was the likely candidate.

There is a differnce between an aspiration and a serious attempt to do something.

Sure, the Constellation program would have got people to the Moon (the same system worked for Apollo)

Maybe NASA does need a better PR campaign. Apparently, no matter how publicized its activities, even otherwise intelligent people are woefully ignorant. It's not the same system, unless "rocket and space capsule" is considered the "same system." The rockets are new - Ares 1 and 2 - the stages and the fact that there would be 2 of them used is different, and all the systems within the capsule are different. Only the surface is similar.

but I'm sure the aim in the 60s and 70s was to continue the Apollo progam and have a base on the Moon then. Such things depend upon decades of consistent and stable funding, which cannot be guaranteed. Until the footprints are in the regolith, its all so much vapour-ware.

Well, a journey of 1,000 miles begin with a single step. Constellation was and is a real program, NASA was and is (at least until the 2011 budget comes out) going to the Moon with manned missions. NASA has and is continuing to study the lunar surface for water and other materials, and to map and explore the lunar surface from above in order to find an ideal location for a base.

It is not necessary, nor is it even reasonable to expect, a 20 or 30 year budget for NASA that locks in funding for what will be happening in 2025 and 2035. However, the fact that we don't have a budget in place for a lunar base construction in the early 2020's does not mean that the "we never were going to build a Moon base" in the first place. We were. That was one of the purposes of Constellation and returning men to the moon by 2020 in the first place.

[Clinton Huxley]

At federal level, Boeing benefits from numerous types of R&D support provided by NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD). This support includes contracts for R&D work to be carried out by Boeing (ultimately benefiting Boeing's LCA division and Boeing's aircraft models), reimbursement of Boeing's own R&D expenses, extensive cooperation with NASA and DOD engineers at no cost to Boeing, and use of testing facilities and equipment, also at no cost to Boeing. This support is coupled with the transfer of patents and other vital knowledge to Boeing, and reinforced by stringent restrictions on the application and use of such knowledge by foreign competitors. The EU estimates the benefits of US federal research programs to Boeing at around USD 16.6 billion over the last two decades.

From here http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... spute.html

Looks like Boeing does ok out of NASA (and the DOD). Damn it, it all looks a bit socialist to me!

No-one is disputing the great science produced by NASA or the dedication of the scientists but do you think NASA would be funded to the tune it is without commercial spin-offs? MAybe when times are good but when times are hard, every budget has to justify itself in terms of cold, hard dollars.

Maybe the Chinese will let you buy a seat when they go to Mars?

[ChildInAZoo]

Thinking that these statements are controversial is pretty weak. It's like saying that former US government were wrong for reaching out to get other nations to work on the international space station. While I have no love for any religion, the reaction in the press to these statements does seem a little like racism and fear-mongering.

E.g., http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007060005

[Coito ergo sum]

Thinking that these statements are controversial is pretty weak.

Controversial? They're not "controversial." Pathetic, sad and stupid, yes. But, "controversial?" No.

It's like saying that former US government were wrong for reaching out to get other nations to work on the international space station.

It's not like that at all. They're reaching out to a religion here, not another country that has technological or scientific expertise that can be used in a project.

While I have no love for any religion, the reaction in the press to these statements does seem a little like racism and fear-mongering.

E.g., http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007060005

It doesn't seem like racism at all, because it's not racism. It's no more "racism" than saying it is inappropriate for NASA to say that its foremost mission is to make Christians feel better about their historical contributions to science.

[Coito ergo sum]

At federal level, Boeing benefits from numerous types of R&D support provided by NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD). This support includes contracts for R&D work to be carried out by Boeing (ultimately benefiting Boeing's LCA division and Boeing's aircraft models), reimbursement of Boeing's own R&D expenses, extensive cooperation with NASA and DOD engineers at no cost to Boeing, and use of testing facilities and equipment, also at no cost to Boeing. This support is coupled with the transfer of patents and other vital knowledge to Boeing, and reinforced by stringent restrictions on the application and use of such knowledge by foreign competitors. The EU estimates the benefits of US federal research programs to Boeing at around USD 16.6 billion over the last two decades.

From here http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... spute.html

Looks like Boeing does ok out of NASA (and the DOD).

Who said they didn't?

Damn it, it all looks a bit socialist to me!

Really? How so? And, you say that as if it's a bad thing. Is it?

No-one is disputing the great science produced by NASA or the dedication of the scientists but do you think NASA would be funded to the tune it is without commercial spin-offs?

There's nothing wrong with commercial spin-offs. As I mentioned above, one of NASA's purpose is to help the commercial utilization of space. Nobody is disputing that. And, that's a good thing, isn't it? I mean, don't we want to have commercial spin-offs? That's one of the great boons of the space industry, the fact that there have been many technological developments to spin off of the space industry that have been used in private industry.

MAybe when times are good but when times are hard, every budget has to justify itself in terms of cold, hard dollars.

LOL!

Times are hard, so cancel programs that actually employ people in scientific, technical and support roles? My fucking FSM! We're dumping a trillion dollars into programs while "times are hard" and far more dollars than the budge of NASA are being wasted with ZERO return on investment. At least with NASA they actually DO something, and accomplish things, and those things are in areas which require science, technology, raw materials, assembly, manufacturing, electronics, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe the Chinese will let you buy a seat when they go to Mars?

When the Chinese actually accomplish something in space, then we'll talk about the Chinese. Until then, what did you call it? Vapour-something-or other? I find it curious that you conclude about NASA, despite its accomplishments, current plans, current ongoing projects, etc., that it was "never going to go to the Moon or Mars," but the Chinese, who have done absolutely Jack-and-Squat in space are going to let us buy a seat when they go to Mars. So, we "never were going to Mars," but China is? Your evidence for that is..........?