Caveat: I work with a team of NASA & contractor Earth scientists. I think they'd all tell you they don't need to go search for a justification; justifications are self-evident. Here's one: Maintain the climate record.
Caveat: I work with a team of NASA & contractor Earth scientists. I think they'd all tell you they don't need to go search for a justification; justifications are self-evident. Here's one: Maintain the climate record.
Some of this was a result of remote sensing tech coming into it's golden age, some as a result of climate change needs, and a lot was a result of NASA needing to find a source of funding.
But I can't find anything extensive about that on the web at this moment.
From NASA's 2014 budget request (in millions of dollars):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/750614main_NASA_FY_2014_Budget_Estim...
Science 5,017.8
Aeronautics 565.7
Space Technology 742.6
Exploration 3,915.5
Space Operations 3,882.9
Education 94.2
Cross Agency Support 2,850.3
===============================
Total Request 17,715.4
To break down "Science": Earth Science 1,846.1
Planetary Science 1,217.5
Astrophysics 642.3
James Webb Space Telescope 658.2
Heliophysics 653.7
By comparison, most of the "Exploration" budget is spent on the development of the Space Launch System -- which some sarcastically refer to as the "Senate" Launch System, because it is designed to spread money among the states. Just the SLS alone is bigger than the Earth Science budget.I thought it was because the project was invented in the Senate version of the NASA budget, where Senate staffers made up arbitrary requirements for its design and functionality.
Not sure where I got the impression NASA had adopted such a dramatic shift in focus.