JAN 28

EcoGeek isn't much for activism. I mean, we get excited about solar subsidies and carbon caps, and controlling coal. But really we think that the trick to saving the world is just doing it...creating new solutions that are better than the old solutions.

But there's this little thing that George Bush did that irks me greatly. It's not the kind of thing that will destroy the world, more an ideological difference of opinion that makes me dislike the world a little bit more.

He changed NASA's mission statement from

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 explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers … as only NASA can.

He took out the part where it's NASA's job to understand and protect the planet! What the frak! So does NASA have no role in using their science to actually deal with the problems they identify?

So now that Obama's on the job and working hard undoing an awful lot of what Bush did, I think it's time he ads that little sentence back in. Alex Steffan at World Changing is spearheading a campaign to try and get the mission statement changed to:

To understand and protect our home planet for the benefit of all humanity; to explore the universe and search for life; to prepare for the future and to inspire the next generation of explorers.

Which I rather like. In any case...I think it's about time we restored science to it's proper place in America. And I think that we now have a fairly good chance of actually getting that done.

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by RecycledBottle, January 29, 2009

I bet he changed it for budgetary purposes - not some sinister act to ignore Earth

• 
• +0
• 
• 

budgets indeed
written by yorkshirethorn, January 29, 2009

I think RecycledBottle is on to something - considering how many science missions got their budgets slashed in favor of returning to the moon. Not that I don't want to go back to the moon, but does it have to be at the expense of the earth-observing missions? (DFTBA)

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Something missing
written by Sean, January 29, 2009

How about...

To understand and protect our home planet for the benefit of all Life; to explore the universe and search for life; to prepare for the future and to inspire the next generation of explorers.

...?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

technological change is not enough
written by jak, January 29, 2009

Sorry, I understand a lack of enthusiasm for political activism, but no amount of technological progress will mean ecological progress without political change. We could quadruple the efficiency of vehicles, and still accelerate CO2 emissions, unless we actually set caps on vehicle emissions. An efficient engine is just an excuse to build a bigger car.

I urge everyone to contact their congressman, especially if they are republican, to urge passage of Obama's green stimulus package.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

@jak
written by Yoshi, January 29, 2009

Then maybe we need to discuss the mission statement of the states' DOT?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Low on the priority list
written by Kris, January 29, 2009

Yes, please distract the President from the economy to massage effing NASA's mission statement.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Tom, January 29, 2009

Sean, I think I like your version of the statement, with the addition of "Life."

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Rob, January 29, 2009

I would add one sentence to the end: "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before"

Too much? ;)

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Before you go off half cocked
written by MarkR, January 29, 2009

Maybe they should ask the NASA employees what they think their mission is.

It also begs the question what kind of protection?
are we talking protection from Aliens, Astroids or ourselves? because that should be defined as well if you think about it.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

I had no idea
written by Chris, January 30, 2009

They actually changed the NASA mission statement? When did that happen?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by E.P. Grondine, January 30, 2009

Bush changed it under guidance from Griffin as part of the effort to ignore the George Brown Jr. amendment to NASA's charter - the insttructions from the Congress to find the next piece of "stuff" from space before it hits and kills a lot of people.

The language needs to be put back.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

• 
• +0
• 
• 

'Put Back'
written by opit, February 01, 2009

There is a list to the heavens of things that 'went wrong' under the Bu$h (mis)administration.
English land slaves ( serfs) were included in those receiving very limited 'rights' under the Great Charter of 1215. Those ancestors of the Irish who fled the Potato Famine had greater protection from capricious ill-treatment by the state than we have today.
Typical 'joke' = Land of the Free.No Habeas Corpus ( Right to Trial)
Katrina and NOLA sparked an infrastructure watchdog Levees.org. They're busy.
Science and education 'benefited' from false news,fake science, and 'No Child Left Behind' - a program where schools taught kids to take tests so that they would continue to receive funding to teach kids to take tests.
It was an education in the various ways to spell 'Disaster'.
NASA...is a military organization in drag.Had you noticed private industry was capable of engineering feats at costs that made them look silly ?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment