Concerns Raised Over House NASA Authorization Bill

Excellent letter from an esteemed group of mainly space scientists and space explorers.

I disagree with your assessment-many-maybe all of these people are or have been classroom teachers. Perhaps at the post-secondary level, but I doubt you would find too many nobel laureates in the elementary schools.

To bad they didn't ask for more money. The only dollars they mentioned was $3.7 billion for technology development. This is about 0.1% of the U.S. budget. Congress could increase NASA budget by $3.7 billion and fund a robust NASA that could support programs everybody wants and claims are important to the nation's future. Instead, we fight over the redistribution of fund allocated to NASA.

Keith,

Get some facts straight. I was a classroom teacher for 44 years, Jeff Hoffman has been on the MIT faculty for a number of years, Scott Hubbard teaches at Stanford, and Kathy Thornton taught at UVA before becoming a dean (and may still teach.) Most of the nobelists have taught; Doug Osheroff has even taught freshman photography.

Editors' note: College, college, college. How about someone who teaches grammar or Jr. High School - in the 21st century? That is where most students make their most formative decisions that affect their eventual career path.

Editors' note: College, college, college. How about someone who teaches Jr. High School?

How about someone who teaches grammar or Jr. High School - in the 21st century? That is where most students make their most formative decisions that affect their eventual career path.

Citation of supporting evidence, please. I have educated the entrants into aerospace engineering programs for 20 years now, and I cannot say I have ever seen much evidence to support this generalization. Sure there are some (such as myself) who knew exactly what they wanted to do when they were 10 years old. But I do not see that anywhere near a majority. In fact, my unofficial observations as the years have passed is that fewer students enter college really having a grip on what they have a passion for now, than they did in my time as an undergrad.

So I'd just appreciate some substantiation, because I am ALL ABOUT encouraging and teaching the next generation in the areas of STEM.

Not a whole lot of Nobel prize winners under fifty, I'm afraid. It would be nice if there were.

Editor's note: agreed - but I'd be curious to see what recent winners of a Westinghouse Prize would have to say ...

What is wrong with senior people being concerned about the legacy being left for the next generation(s)? If the intent is to influence Congressional decisions, it is likely (for better or worse) that senior people including 14 Nobelists will have more influence than junior high teachers.

If you want elementary and secondary ed teachers from the NASA ranks, there are a few astronauts who have been selected and who have flown and there are a large number of people in the lower echelons of the labor force at NASA. Few have made it into leadership positions even in education and I'd hazard a guess that no one who has taught as a regular classroom teacher in the 21st century.

If you want people from the schools across the country, there are lots who would sign a letter, but finding an organizer outside of NASA, you'd need to look to the Challenger Centers or one of a handful of organizing organizations around the country.

This is a great letter. The only problem is do you really think anyone in Congress is really going to pay attention. If dollars aren't attached, they don't care.

If the major story here is whose name is and isn't at the bottom of the letter, may I assume that all of us fully concur with the position and wish our names, along with everybody else's, appended thereafter? Why not, then-- there's no trademark on letters to your legislature. Tell your friends. Pass it around. This could become a forceful idea.

[quote] Keith's additional note: With all due respect to all the signers, and not to take away from their comments, but I do not see a single person on this list who will spend their entire career in the future referred to by this letter. One would think that their voices would be among the most persuasive.[/quote]

So what? Do you agree or disagree with what they say? I think they're right. Too often the small programs at NASA have been fed to the budget monsters (Cx, JWST, Shuttle).

As for their age, that's immaterial. Visionaries never spend their entire career in the future they recommend, simply because they've already spent time in the current reality and, by announcing their visions of the future, are repudiating the track reality is on.

I actually feel their history makes what they're saying more potent, not less. They've identified serious flaws with how NASA is funded and has recommended a path forward.

I find the letter very realistic and honest. The house space appropriations bill guts R&D and commercial space and the reason why is to keep the status quo and keep the money flowing to the current space states. It also is likely doomed to failure as we will end up with the same thing we have with Constellation. Hugely over budget, far behind schedule, and technologically challenged while developing rockets based on the shuttle legacy. These congressmen do not look ahead, they look at where the check is going to be paid at. While I find Obama's plan be a bit less on a hard goal than I feel is should be, I also believe it does look much better at doing the best we can with the financial resources that are available. There is simply not going to be any significant amount of extra money to spend on space so we have to do the best we can with what we have. And that limited financing is not going to fly Constellation in any meaningful way for many, many years out if Constellation is continued.

JedL: "If the major story here is whose name is and isn't at the bottom of the letter, may I assume that all of us fully concur with the position and wish our names, along with everybody else's, appended thereafter? Why not, then-- there's no trademark on letters to your legislature. Tell your friends. Pass it around. This could become a forceful idea."

This *does* sound like a good idea. I am thinking of pointing the letter's URL to the members of my astronomy club & asking them to send "me too" notes to our senators & representatives.

Keith sounds slightly miffed (even if he doesn't recognize it) that he wasn't asked to sign the letter. It can't be that he disagrees with the content, but simply wants to nit pick at the list of those who did sign it.

Editor's note: Huh? One of my criticisms is that the letter is signed by males over 50. I am a male over 50. So why would I be wanting to sign it?

I can't say that I am totally surprised that a group of university professors who depend upon federal grant dollars to survive, professionally, would ask that dollars for development and operation of actual exploration spacecraft be instead given to them.

We all know what happens to professors who do not attract enought research funds. They are deneyed tenture, and have to learn to fend for themselves in the real world.

Most of these professors don't need to lose sleep over whether or not they'll be tenured. They're Nobelists and/or heads of departments. Once you get tenure-which was a long time ago, for them-it's not like you have to win it over & over again. They're looking to support the next generation of scientists & engineers, who won't have the generational advantages they did.

There they go again asking for generic 'research' funding without real expectations to deliver much beyond a few conference papers, powerpoint presentations ... and followed by a request for yet another research grant.

The content of the letter is pretty much just the usual 'feel good' (and intentionally vague) jargon. Alas universities have evolved into for-profit 'diploma mills'. Anyone remember the days when the title 'Master in Science' actually meant something, or when one could draw useful information (gasp!) from a conference paper?

Quite frankly, it's not worth spending $20B/year in endless R&D (and, at that, more 'R' than 'D') subsidies and a few hops to LEO here and there to try and pass off as a space agency.

I was a student of one of the signers at Stanford, I clearly remember learning that just because you are Nobel Laureate doesn't mean you are inspiring or even polite. One time I remember he almost made a girl cry after asking him about the relevance of the material. Having said that, this is about the professional content of the letter and I mostly agree with it, except with commercial spaceflight. I believe that there are a lot of question marks when it comes to statements like "sharing fixed costs" and "stimulating competition". The truth is that HSF is a very limited market and likely cannot support various suppliers. It is also highly misleading to compare the costs of using Soyouz to paying development costs for commercial crew.

Our entire human technological society is based off the results of generic R&D. However, if folks look at Bobby Braun's plans, etc, you can see that nobody is talking truly generic. The R&D will be focussed on critical needs - things we need to solve if we're going to move from our presently unsustainable set of space exploration technologies to a sustainable set.

Perhaps Congress could help revitalize NASA by providing them the authority to actually *hire* some of these younger scientists and engineers they're so fond of talking about.

NASA hiring quotas (limits) and HQ's hiring policies have resulted in very, very few younger civil servants being hired in recent years - and none as "permanent" employees.

The young NASA employees of the current generation are a continually rotating bank of "Term" employees, guaranteed at most 2 years of service to NASA before budget, politics or the reorganization du-jour forces them into outside employment or, at best, another "2 year renewal".

Come on. The way our society judges expertise is to look at people's accomplishments. That's why the experts tend to be older. I'm not a fan of prizes and awards at all. But even Keith can admit that Nobel Prize winners are more knowledgeable and logical, on average, than the general public.