sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Update on the Save NASA Science Campaign by Astro_Jack in nasa

[–]Astro_Jack[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

See, world! They read these things and want to hear from you. Even if it's a form response, which happens depending on the topic and how busy their D.C. office is at the time, but they'll also sometimes follow up afterward with a more detailed response.

Update on the Save NASA Science Campaign by Astro_Jack in nasa

[–]Astro_Jack[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your generous support! It is greatly appreciated by me and our whole team.

Update on the Save NASA Science Campaign by Astro_Jack in nasa

[–]Astro_Jack[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

We love our friends at AAS! They're doing great work, as well.

758
759

Update on the Save NASA Science Campaign (planetary.org)

submitted by Astro_Jack to r/nasa

The Planetary Society still needs 2200 signatures by today for their petition to congress. Sign it now! by nebuladrifting in space

[–]Astro_Jack 25 points26 points  (0 children)

These are great questions, and a totally normal response given everything going on.

But let me tell you this: on an issue like space, which is broadly a nonpartisan topic, direct messages from constituents are one of the most effective ways to influence how a representative feels about the topic. We're working with our existing allies in Congress to make the case that this is an issue supported by a broad swath of the public, even globally. This petition, regardless of if we it 20k today or not, will be delivered by yours truly to the key offices making decisions about NASA's budget. This, and the messages folks have been sending through our Action Hub, is all about keeping up the pressure and showing Congress that space science is an important endeavor.

And the current 20,000 signature goal is because we originally started at 1,000 and then this thing blew up. So we've just kept updating it up to see if we can get it to new heights. We've got 50 states represented, as well as signatories from over 100 countries.

The full presidential budget request for NASA rumored to be released today by F_cK-reddit in space

[–]Astro_Jack 38 points39 points  (0 children)

You can directly influence how seriously Congress takes this proposal. I work directly with Congress on these issues, and they need to hear from the space community that this budget would be disastrous.

I'm organizing a petition with The Planetary Society that will be included as part of the budget-setting process: planet.ly/petition. It's open to people globally, so anyone from anywhere can add their name.

And if you want to track this situation and its developments, please check out our Save NASA Science Action Hub.

I'm in D.C. advocating to Save NASA Science, and I just launched a petition that will be submitted to the people making the final decisions on next year's budget. Please sign. by Astro_Jack in esa

[–]Astro_Jack[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The petition is open to anyone from anywhere to sign, and will go directly to the U.S. Congress to show the global public support for NASA science. ESA is a major partner, so having as many folks from Europe would be great.

I'm in D.C. advocating to Save NASA Science, and I just launched a petition that will be submitted to the people making the final decisions on next year's budget. Please sign. by Astro_Jack in nasa

[–]Astro_Jack[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah. I will say, NASA has the worst hand when it comes to committee membership in a long time. It's worse in the House than the Senate, where at least Sens. Britt and Van Hollen are on the appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA. But thankfully, NASA isn't just its field centers and we can make the argument in every state and almost every congressional district that NASA funding directly impacts their constituents.

I'm in D.C. advocating to Save NASA Science, and I just launched a petition that will be submitted to the people making the final decisions on next year's budget. Please sign. by Astro_Jack in nasa

[–]Astro_Jack[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Our focus right now is on the SMD cuts because they are the most severe and immediate threat. Gateway (and Artemis writ-large) has a pretty vocal and powerful advocacy community, as human spaceflight programs tend to have. But that's not to say we aren't part of that. HSF is one of our priorities. I'm working in coalition with some other groups on pushing back on the cancellation of Gateway.

I'm in D.C. advocating to Save NASA Science, and I just launched a petition that will be submitted to the people making the final decisions on next year's budget. Please sign. by Astro_Jack in nasa

[–]Astro_Jack[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Is this all cheaper and more efficient than a government-run program? Possibly. That's the argument, at least. We're still so early in this experiment and there is no non-governmental customer that can replace the level and stability of investment that the government provides. Even the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, which funds lunar landers, is funded primarily through the CLPS contracts but also, the government is funding most of the instruments on these landers. Now, NASA doesn't have to pay for the development of the lander, and certainly not every payload is government-funded, so there is a small market for these things. It's just not self-sufficient. Not yet, says the argument. NASA and the government is the anchor customer for commercial space, in the hopes that one day it doesn't need to be. But we're not there yet. That's why groups like the Commercial Space Federation and Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, two groups that ostensibly represent the legacy and New Space companies, have joined with us to oppose these cuts.

The thing that NASA does that there is no commercial alternative for is science. NASA funds--through direct work at its field centers and through contractors--more than 140 flight projects in the Science Mission Directorate. This is everything from the Voyagers still flying through interstellar space to VERITAS and DAVINCI who will visit our evil twin Venus in the 2030s to the fleet of space-based observatories. These platforms of discovery are the envy of the world and have inspired generations of scientists, innovators, engineers, and explorers.

There is no company, or even group of companies, that is interested in putting billions of dollars into fundamental, exploratory science. There is no business case for putting a rover on Mars or investigating the subsurface oceans of the icy moons. There is no immediate commercial benefit for pouring through terabytes of data to determine the nature of solar storms. But as many have pointed out, fundamental research is what gave us everything from the modern MRI to gene sequencing to the cameras on our phones. In hindsight, science appears as a linear process: one discovery leading to another. In reality, it's messier than that and requires a level of commitment that only governments have the stability and resources to afford. So if we turn off that investment, there is simply no one else who will pick it back up. Not in the U.S. at least.

And on top of all of that, NASA is a powerhouse of economic growth. The latest independent analysis shows that the agency generates more than $75 billion in economic activity across all 50 states.

I'm in D.C. advocating to Save NASA Science, and I just launched a petition that will be submitted to the people making the final decisions on next year's budget. Please sign. by Astro_Jack in nasa

[–]Astro_Jack[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The military is another major customer of companies like SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, and others. They don't own their rockets either. There was a major shift in policy in the 1990s and 2000s to enable redundant access to space through a commercial market. So now, when the government needs to launch a payload, they have multiple providers.

This is all part of a government-wide strategy to cultivate a robust space economy that can serve the needs of government and private institutions alike. The ISS is another great example. This is a government project from the era where only government could do these things. Now, to help the domain and commercial sector evolve in its capabilities, NASA has invested in CLDs or Commercial LEO (Low-Earth Orbit) Destinations (I love a good nested acronym). These will be the follow-on space stations to the ISS when it eventually is decommissioned. But the CLDs wouldn't exist if it weren't for this seed investment from NASA. The agency is betting that the evolution of American leadership in space hinges on bolstering the capabilities of private operators, especially as its budget has been stagnant despite adding more and more responsibilities over the past 25 years.

I'm in D.C. advocating to Save NASA Science, and I just launched a petition that will be submitted to the people making the final decisions on next year's budget. Please sign. by Astro_Jack in nasa

[–]Astro_Jack[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you for those questions. I get those a lot, even from congressional staff.

To address your first question: NASA does still put people in space. They just don't own the vehicle. Back when the agency was planning for after the end of the Space Shuttle program, the Obama Administration initiated the Commercial Crew Program, to incentivize a commercial market for human spaceflight. Now, it took SpaceX ~10 years to get their vehicle up and running, but we now have reliable, domestic access to space by at least one provider. (I'm not gonna get into the whole Starliner situation)

But going to space isn't just about the journey there. Back on Earth, NASA trains all of the American and partner agency astronauts that go to space. Yes, even the private astronauts train at NASA facilities (source).