Split science programs out NASA

An editorial in The New York Times entitled "Back to the Moon, Permanently" concludes that:

It would be a shame if an underfinanced program to return to the Moon on a permanent basis and then venture on to Mars forced reductions in research programs of higher scientific value.

I disagree and would like to emphasize that it is a serious mistake to tightly link space travel and science programs within NASA.

I do agree that research programs of high scientific value, especially those related to space and Earth science are essential and must be adequately funded, but I would argue that the two should be funded separately and managed separately and not be bundled together within the one umbrella of NASA.

NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, should stick to a focus on the research, design, development, and operation of air and space vehicles, including rockets, satellites, space stations, and even moon bases, but that all of the science programs should be funded and operated outside of NASA in the relevant government agencies. For example research about the atmosphere, such as is relevant to the debates over global warming and climate change, should be budgeted and operated from within NOAA, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration rather than NASA. In fact, most of the NASA science programs should be organizationally under the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Yes, NASA should be held accountable to meeting the needs of "users" such as NOAA and other science programs, but to have NASA have its fingers in the "science pie" is an egregious conflict of interest. We need to know that science programs are being pursued for their scientific value and not merely because they justify NASA launch vehicles or structures. And, we need to be sure that valuable scientific programs are not lost due to "budget priorities" within NASA.

Restructure NASA and maybe The Times will get what it wants.

-- Jack Krupansky