|Spake me to Change.Gov re: Griffin vs. Garver
||[Dec. 12th, 2008|02:28 pm]
Mike Griffin and NASA Transition Team Head came to an impasse regarding conflict of visions. I'm an idealist, and NASA, I feel, is an ideal. I probably sound like a complete jackass below, especially considering I actually work at (but not for) NASA, but I wanted to put my two cents in the Change.gov bucket.|
I, by no means, speak for NASA.
Don't take from NASA to feed education; use NASA as a means to divert military funding to education.
I often refer to NASA, where I contract, as the misbegotten lovechild of the Military and the University system. If the military and the universities are black and white, then NASA is the very exciting gray area the spans these two separate entities. It's actually a quite colorful place; an intellectual mecca.
NASA has a lot in common with the military, and research done at NASA can and does benefit both. Progress from the industries behind the military also aide NASA. It has always felt, to me, that the world at large could stand to benefit if we shifted the border that separates NASA from military in favor of NASA. It would certainly increase the visible charity that the US provides to the world; that the US not just sacrificed, but repurposed military resources for space exploration, an international pursuit.
NASA isn't just about space exploration. Space exploration is such a broad pursuit that breakthroughs encountered along the way find their way in to medicine, electronics, aviation, software, automation, fabrication, the list goes on.
I don't know what your plans for NASA are, and I don't know how the friction between the transition team and Griffin will affect NASA going forward. I just want to state that I feel the decisions to fund NASA or Military or Education aren't mutually exclusive, and with a little fore thought, I feel a buck sent to one could be a buck sent to all.