Space Politics

On the heels of the somewhat overblown story that NASA had changed its mission statement to delete a reference to Earth sciences come some editorials in major newspapers critical of NASA’s overall priorities. The New York Times published one such editorial Friday, claiming that “earth studies seem to be in trouble”. Evidence for this includes the cancellation of Triana (although the spacecraft isn’t mentioned by name), the delay of the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, and cuts in research and analysis funding (something that affects other science programs, not just Earth science.)

A similar editorial appears in today’s Washington Post, although the claims it makes are a little sketchy. The Post claims that the Hydros mission to study soil moisture “got the ax”, although NASA intended that mission only to be a backup should one of two other missions run into problems (albeit with some confusion among the Hydros team about exactly what their status was). The editorial also claims that “NASA’s satellite network that monitors global weather patterns — including hurricane formation — is aging, and replacements may arrive late or not at all.” It’s not clear what satellites they’re referring to, since hurricane monitoring is done principally by NOAA, not NASA. It could be a reference to NPOESS, but that is a joint project among NASA, NOAA, and the DOD, whose problems have largely been beyond the control or blame of NASA. The Post also argues that “NASA is uniquely qualified to do things such as launch and maintain weather satellites.” That statement is debatable: while NASA oversees the development and launch of the GOES weather satellites, they are operated by NOAA, which also manages the overall program.

The two editorials also have slightly different recommendations about what NASA should do to rectify this problem. “Mr. Bush needs to get his head out of the stars,” the Post advises, arguing that “The White House has to either pay responsibly for its exploration programs or cancel them.” The Times, meanwhile, tacitly endorses the Senate’s billion-dollar supplemental funding proposal for NASA, saying that without it Earth sciences, and science programs in general, will be “a casualty of the administration’s insistence on completing the space station.”

I have been trying very hard the last several days to get worked up by the New York Times story Saturday that NASA has quietly changed the mission statement of the space agency, deleting a reference to studying the planet. I haven’t been successful, but a lot of other people, particularly in liberal neighborhoods of [...]