Yes, I have too much time on my hands. Deal with it.
This is going back to one of the concerns I've voiced previously here about the relationship between NASA and the current administration. Yes, most people reading this probably don't care, but it's an issue that is important to me, and I spent enough time researching it that I'm posting it anyway. So there.
In this past week, the New York Times and other news sources have started covering supposed discrete changes to NASA's mission statement (for example, here and here). The supposed changes are from the old version:
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.
to
To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
Now while the New York Times provides in my opinion the best news coverage in the United States, it has shown in the past that it isn't above portraying the Bush administration in the worst light possible. However, NASA's budget and planning documents are available online (if buried under tons of red tape and poorly designed websites), so with some searching we can verify whether or not these have really changed.
First, NASA's old budget and planning documents can be found here. I poked around several of them and found some examples of the old mission statement proudly placed on those documents:
First, from the April 2002 NASA vision, there is is prominently displayed:
and again in the Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Report:
By now, I was convinced that NASA's mission statement back then is as it was stated. The most recent example I came across was in their February 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, of which my screenshot can be found here.
For some reason, their more recent reports were moved to a different part of the website (right here). Nevertheless, I found their 2006 strategic plan, and was intrigued, though sadly not surprised, to find the following:
This isn't the only case I've found. In any case, I concluded that this recent mission statement change did occur as stated. Now it's entirely possible that the change was entirely benign, that NASA is genuinely refocusing its mission (which wouldn't bode well for the funding of the atmospheric scientists I worked with). However, given everything else I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if the higher-ups were trying to put an end to NASA scientists opposing White House policies.
In this past week, the New York Times and other news sources have started covering supposed discrete changes to NASA's mission statement (for example, here and here). The supposed changes are from the old version:
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.
to
To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
Now while the New York Times provides in my opinion the best news coverage in the United States, it has shown in the past that it isn't above portraying the Bush administration in the worst light possible. However, NASA's budget and planning documents are available online (if buried under tons of red tape and poorly designed websites), so with some searching we can verify whether or not these have really changed.
First, NASA's old budget and planning documents can be found here. I poked around several of them and found some examples of the old mission statement proudly placed on those documents:
First, from the April 2002 NASA vision, there is is prominently displayed:
and again in the Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Report:
By now, I was convinced that NASA's mission statement back then is as it was stated. The most recent example I came across was in their February 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, of which my screenshot can be found here.
For some reason, their more recent reports were moved to a different part of the website (right here). Nevertheless, I found their 2006 strategic plan, and was intrigued, though sadly not surprised, to find the following:
This isn't the only case I've found. In any case, I concluded that this recent mission statement change did occur as stated. Now it's entirely possible that the change was entirely benign, that NASA is genuinely refocusing its mission (which wouldn't bode well for the funding of the atmospheric scientists I worked with). However, given everything else I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if the higher-ups were trying to put an end to NASA scientists opposing White House policies.
