Earth? Who Cares?

6 comments July 22nd, 2006at 01:31am Posted by Eli

This surprises… no-one:

From 2002 until this year, NASA’s mission statement, prominently featured in its budget and planning documents, read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers … as only NASA can.”

In early February, the statement was quietly altered, with the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted. 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.”

David E. Steitz, a spokesman for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said the aim was to square the statement with President Bush’s goal of pursuing human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars.

But the change comes as an unwelcome surprise to many NASA scientists, who say the “understand and protect” phrase was not merely window dressing but actively influenced the shaping and execution of research priorities. Without it, these scientists say, there will be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

“We refer to the mission statement in all our research proposals that go out for peer review, whenever we have strategy meetings,” said Philip B. Russell, a 25-year NASA veteran who is an atmospheric chemist at the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. “As civil servants, we’re paid to carry out NASA’s mission. When there was that very easy-to-understand statement that our job is to protect the planet, that made it much easier to justify this kind of work.”


Dr. Hansen said the change might reflect White House eagerness to shift the spotlight away from global warming.

“They’re making it clear that they have the authority to make this change, that the president sets the objectives for NASA, and that they prefer that NASA work on something that’s not causing them a problem,” he said.

The home planet can get bent. I suspected that starving/de-emphasizing inconvenient climate research (as well as offering up false hope of being able to escape if we trash the plane beyond repair) was the goal all along when Bush made his “Mars, Bitches!” State Of The Union address; I never thought he really gave a rat’s ass about space exploration, unless there was oil to be found.

Also, I wonder how long before they add “To boldly go where no man has gone before…”

Entry Filed under: Bush,Politics,Science,Wankers


  • 1. four legs good  |  July 22nd, 2006 at 1:54 am

    Well, I might like to boldly go somewhere else.

    I don’t much like events on the home planet lately.

  • 2. Anonymous  |  July 22nd, 2006 at 3:00 am


    Don’t abandon faith in me.


  • 3. Eli  |  July 22nd, 2006 at 4:24 pm

    Vulcan, bitches!

    Bush wouldn’t last five seconds on the planet of logic.

  • 4. oldwhitelady  |  July 22nd, 2006 at 10:47 pm

    I wonder if there is oil to be found on the moon or other planets. Hmmm. Makes you think. What other resources might they have, that if we could just get there, we could plunder for our benefit?

  • 5. Eli  |  July 23rd, 2006 at 12:10 am

    Definitely metals, but I don’t think we’re going to find any fossil fuels in outer space, unless we can find planets with fossils.

  • 6. Neil Shakespeare  |  July 23rd, 2006 at 2:56 am

    Oh wait. We already went there.

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




July 2006
« Jun   Aug »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *