{"id":3231,"date":"2016-03-06T11:11:50","date_gmt":"2016-03-06T17:11:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/?p=3231"},"modified":"2016-03-06T11:11:50","modified_gmt":"2016-03-06T17:11:50","slug":"a-year-of-the-sun","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/2016\/03\/06\/a-year-of-the-sun\/","title":{"rendered":"A Year of the Sun"},"content":{"rendered":"

NASA Heliophysics<\/strong><\/em> (one of my favorite words, BTW) has released a video<\/a>\u00a0created from observations by the Solar Dynamics Observatory<\/a><\/strong><\/em>\u00a0of the Sun at 171 angstroms<\/a>. \u00a0About 3 minutes in, a researcher begins to explain what we’re seeing. \u00a0Fascinating, gorgeous stuff.<\/p>\n

This also serves to remind me that one of the disappointments of the Obama Administration is their apparent lack of interest in space exploration. \u00a0For example, NewScientist<\/strong><\/em> (20 February 2016) is reporting<\/a> the agency would suffer a funding cut under the latest (and last) proposed budget by the current administration, compared to Congress’ final provision last year. \u00a0Over at The Planetary Society<\/strong><\/em>, Casey Dreier gets into the details<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The President proposes to cut the space agency by roughly $260 million, down to $19.025 billion in 2017. On the plus side, this represents the highest-ever request from the Obama administration, representing a 2.7 percent increase over their 2016 request. That\u2019s a step in the right direction, though NASA needs to grow, not shrink, if we want it to achieve the goals set out for it by the nation. …<\/p>\n

Well, we\u2019re five for five. This is the fifth year in a row that the White House has proposed cutting NASA\u2019s Planetary Science Division.<\/p>\n

While every other science division at NASA would receive a funding boost in this budget, Planetary Science, the year after flying by Pluto and confirming flowing water on Mars, earns a $110 million cut.<\/p>\n

Now, credit where credit is due. The request is for $1.52 billion, which, compared to previous requests, is a marked improvement and very much a step in the right direction. We\u2019ve been advocating for at least $1.5 billion for this program for years now, and it is satisfying to see this number reflected back in the President\u2019s budget.<\/p>\n

But the fact of the matter is that this program has been underfunded for years and needs to rebuild. Congress stepped up and provided $1.631 billion last year, and that number needs to continue to improve in order to position NASA for a spectacular decade of planetary exploration in the 2020s. As expected, most of the cut appears to impact the Europa mission (which would get about $50 million in 2017, down from $175 million in 2016). The Administration is sticking with its intent to launch in the late 2020s. The request tones down some of the optimistic planning for the Europa flyby mission set forth in last year\u2019s budget. NASA runs the numbers to assume an Atlas V launch, not SLS, though SLS is very much under consideration.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is not the first such disappointment. \u00a0Fortunately, Congress does tend to resolve the budget in NASA’s favor, not the Administration’s, although whether this is an honest belief that a stronger NASA is a national asset or simply a partisan reaction to the Obama Administration’s activities is not clear to me. \u00a0Which reminds me of Andrew Sullivan’s general commentary on Obama’s performance vs the GOP: Meep meep<\/em>! \u00a0Perhaps this is precisely what they want to happen…<\/p>\n

And here’s the ultimate aim of astronomy: beautiful pictures.<\/p>\n

\"...\"<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(h\/t Tom Yulsman @ ImaGeo<\/strong>\/Discover Magazine<\/strong><\/em>, who has some lovely information on his blog post<\/a>.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NASA Heliophysics (one of my favorite words, BTW) has released a video\u00a0created from observations by the Solar Dynamics Observatory\u00a0of the Sun at 171 angstroms. \u00a0About 3 minutes in, a researcher begins to explain what we’re seeing. \u00a0Fascinating, gorgeous stuff. This also serves to remind me that one of the disappointments \u2026 Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3231","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3231","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3231"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3231\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3235,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3231\/revisions\/3235"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}