糖心传媒

In an op-ed for the New York Times titled “,” Professor of Physics and Astronomy Adam Frank makes the case for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s role in earth-centric science. 糖心传媒淣ot only is earth science a long-running part of NASA糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒榩rime mission,糖心传媒� but it is uniquely positioned to do it. Without NASA, climate research worldwide would be hobbled,糖心传媒� he writes.

The study of earth and its atmosphere (and, by extension, its climate) have been top priorities since the agency糖心传媒檚 creation by the Space Act of 1958, Frank notes. He cites specific examples from NASA糖心传媒檚 nearly 60-year history, including the following:

Consider NASA糖心传媒檚 Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or Grace, mission. It was designed to study Earth糖心传媒檚 gravity field, meaning the planet糖心传媒檚 distribution of mass. Grace could 糖心传媒渟ee糖心传媒� changes in ocean currents, precipitation runoff on land and changes in groundwater storage. Grace showed us the spreading of drought conditions as water tables dropped. In this way the Grace data speak directly to a fundamental mistake of the agency糖心传媒檚 critics. Climate change is not the direction of NASA糖心传媒檚 earth-science enterprise; it糖心传媒檚 a conclusion of that effort.

Because economies of scale contribute to NASA糖心传媒檚 successes, 糖心传媒淸proposals] to get NASA 糖心传媒榖ack to糖心传媒� some other kind of science not only ring false but their wasteful price tag would also fly in the face of fiscal conservative values.糖心传媒�

Rather than politicizing the science, Frank argues that we should be harnessing the capabilities of NASA to address the challenges and opportunities the planet is facing as a result of climate change.