NASA Changes Vision Statement

Recently the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) modified its mission statement. NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, removed the phrase "to understand and protect the home planet" in an effort to re-focus the agency on outward-facing space exploration. This small change prompted Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) to write Mr. Griffin and express their concern that this change will negatively impact the field of global climate research. NASA has yet to respond to the senators' concerns, but NASA should not have to respond. Mr. Griffin has done the right thing, both from a practical and political point of view.

Boiled down, NASA's mission is:
• To explore space with both manned and unmanned vehicles
• To encourage education in the sciences; to train the next generation of explorers
By taking earth exploration out of the picture, NASA is now able to focus on what it does best with the funding allotted by Congress.

The practical side of the decision had to be based in part on the fact that NASA's budget has not increased significantly in many years. The 2007 budget request is about the same as 2006. The reality of economics means that NASA has to use the money for what it deems its primary objectives. President Bush, Mr. Griffin's boss, has already outlined his vision for NASA: go back to the moon and then to Mars. In other words, look up and out, not back.

The NASA budget is just under $15.5 billion. To put this in perspective, consider that the IRS has a budget of $10.4 billion just to collect our taxes in the first place. The Office of Homeland Security's budget for border control is $16.5 billion. Without taking too many jabs at the border patrol, it is easy to see that NASA uses its funds a bit more effectively. Regardless of NASA's high-profile disasters, the return on investment is one of the best by the government. The Columbia explosion had an obvious roll in this change. Shifting funds to safety and safety-technology research is imperative to prevent the possibility of future losses. If the money does not increase, the mission scope must decrease for NASA to continue providing outstanding innovations and services to the American public.

The political side of the decision had to be based in part on the President's management agenda to trim government waste and duplication. There are currently dozens of agencies combining their efforts and centralizing their processes under what has been termed "e-Gov" initiatives. NASA has been a pathfinder in many of these e-Gov solutions. They recently did away with their own payroll office and centralized their payroll with other government agencies under the National Business Center. They were the first agency to abandon their proprietary resume system and fully integrate their hiring systems with the Office of Personnel Management's systems, thus moving federal job application closer to the President's vision of one-stop shopping. Removing earth-focused research from the NASA agenda is in keeping with the spirit of e-Gov.

Earth sciences and research are duplicated throughout the government. Though in the past NASA's research has been invaluable, it is now time for other agencies, like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Science Foundation (NSF) to pick up where NASA leaves off. NASA no doubt will continue to support earth research, but they will do it with focus on their primary competency. No one is better equipped to launch and manage the satellites, but the research efforts can be consolidated under other agencies whose primary missions are terra-centric research.

Though the senators' letter was very complimentary of NASA's past participation, there is an undertone of "we have to get this global warming thing under control." No matter what your opinion on the topic, the logical player to field is NOAA, not NASA. Competition between agencies can have some benefit when fresh ideas result from competing methods, but there is a limit to the number of players that can be supported. NASA certainly has the lion's share of great scientific minds in the federal government, but the specialists in other agencies are as smart, dedicated, and able to fulfill the mission of studying planet earth. With just a little coordination and sharing of information, the government stands to save millions in what is now wasted, duplicated effort.

The letter's affirmation that "NASA can, and should, do both [space and earth exploration]," disregards the President's vision and the Congress' budget. Though the Senate certainly brings political pressure, they are neither NASA's executive leadership nor the purse-holders. Being a senator means that you have the luxury of being involved in neither of these two strategic efforts and the best you can do is write a letter in an attempt to undo what is best for the country. It remains to be seen what the removal of the filioque will mean for NASA. Ultimately, we the taxpayers stand to gain through better government efficiency, continued outstanding space research, and technology spin-offs.