I am really pleased to hear that John Mather will be the head of the new NASA Office of the Chief Scientist. He was chosen by incoming NASA Associate Administrator of Science Alan Stern.
As Stern says,
John Mather is a scientist of legendary reputation, technical ability and space science mission experience. His office will provide independent scientific advice to me to guide decision making regarding all aspects of the NASA science program.
Yeah, no kidding. John was the Project Scientist for COBE, a satellite that pretty much nailed it that the Big Bang is right (deal with it, creationists). He’s also the Senior Project Scientist for the James Webb Space Telescope, the observatory that will be NASA’s next great thing (it doesn’t replace Hubble, as many say, but will augment and carry on the work Hubble has done).
And wasn’t there something else? What was it… let me think… oh yeah! He won the 2006 Nobel Prize for physics.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I know John somewhat tangentially. I worked on COBE briefly, and I’ve talked to him now and again about Big Bang stuff. He worked down the hall from me at Goddard Space Flight Center, and I remember one day getting this bright idea about neutrinos and the Big Bang. I stopped by his office to ask him about it, and he patiently explained to me that while my idea was clever and technically correct, it was useless in reality with no real practical applications. And yet I felt better after talking to him! That’s how nice he is.
With Mary Cleave gone (hurray) and Alan Stern in (hurray!), and now John stepping up (w00t!), I’m hoping that the recent turn of events we’ve seen at NASA — the gutting of science — will finally stop, or at least be stemmed. I know these are difficult times, and difficult decisions must be made, but with this kind of firepower this high up in NASA’s hierarchy I see some light on the horizon. The AA and Chief Scientist will probably wind up talking to Congress on occasion, so maybe they can beat some sense into our politicians, and get the money NASA needs to feed all its programs… and maybe wean the programs that need it, too.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:27 am
This is fantastic news!
Aw, lookit him in his tux. I can see how he’d make you just feel good talking to him; like the type of scientist who makes you yearn to know more instead of holding the knowledge away. Definately the kind of news that makes you feel better after this morning’s ickiness.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Big Bang and practical application? Seems like an oxymoron to me.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Is it this monitor at work, or does he look like actor James Cromwell?
(ironic, for those who remember Star Trek:First Contact)
J/P=?
April 5th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
This is fantastic news!
But before everybody gets too excited, bear in mind that even the Associate Administrator of Science and Chief Scientist together can’t *determine* NASA’s science budget. NASA’s budget total is (at best) influenced by the Administrator, and the science folks can “jawbone” him in an attempt to protect / support the science slice of the NASA budget, but they don’t get to just blithely write checks (unfortunately).
Just the same, it’ll be refreshing to actually have a Science AA and Chief Scientist that will act as advocates for science (for a change!).
Sam
April 5th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Good for John.
This made everyone in my office (most of us live in Maryland) cringe:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2007/03/big_bang_or_bust.html
April 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Amy, I heard about that, and forgot to blog about it.
Too bad we can’t simply chuck people out of politics for being twinkies.
But hey- I don’t “believe” in the BB either. It’s not a matter of belief, it’s a matter of scientific fact. Note the word “fact”.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
They are getting some good people but don’t these people have day jobs? I don’t think Alan Stern will be idle just because his space probe is going to be in an extended cruise phase. On the other hand it is impressive maybe the Bush administration is finally looking at credentials instead of orthodoxy and republican/christian credentials! NAHHHH that’s not happening just reading a story about the guy who paid millions of dollars for the swift boat veterans for “truth” is getting a Belgian ambasadorship by using the same back door without Senate confirmation trick they used to get the U.N. head John Bolton in there.
April 6th, 2007 at 7:26 am
BA,
It used to be that I visited your site daily because of the very interesting and educational information you had to share. But then something (Lord knows what) happened and you became this negative Christian bashing idiot. It really bothered me because of the way you lump all ‘Christians’ and their beliefs together like we believe the EXACT same thing.
That was then, this is now…..
Now I visit your site for the interesting and educational information AND to watch you squirm and be all paranoid about anything/everything the Christians have to say or think. Actually I find it rather funny and amusing…
I am a Christian and I DO BELIEVE God created everything - that includes the Big Bang! I DO BELIEVE that things have evolved from the way God originally created them; I believe God wanted things to evolve.
Please try to understand the fact that Christians are people, no two are alike, all have their own ideas/thoughts as to what God did (and continues to do) concerning things like the Big Bang and evolution.
BA, I really like you the Astronomer, you know what you’re talking about. Try to stay on the subject of astronomy, the whole Christian bashing thing is not very becoming of you….
A loyal BA reader.
April 6th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Who’s the babe in the tiara next to the big tall geek?
April 6th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Troy, you mean the same recess appointment loophole that Bill Clinton used to get through unpopular appointments. Bill Clinton made 95 recess appointments to full time positions. So far Bush has made 101. Hypocrisy is alive and well at the BA Blog.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Bernie Burns, you state that not all Christians believe the EXACT same thing. Why then do you lump yourself with the Creationists? Creationist is not a replacement word for Christian. It refers to people who reject science in the name of preserving their brand of faith.
Phil has stated on numerous occasions that he does not have a problem with Christians, or religious believers in general. He has a problem with people who reject science.
You state that you have no trouble accepting the Big Bang or evolution as part of God’s methods. Why, then, do you think Phil is talking about you?
April 6th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Bernie, you are being dishonest. Phil hasn’t used the word “Christian” in this blog post or in the comments up to this point. By calling him a Christian basher, you are just lying, appropriating the tactice of the rest of the religious extremists that make up their own set of facts to support their own weird beliefs about how the universe works. It is too bad that your (Christian?) values include such a perverse morality.
April 6th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Bernie, as others have pointed out, I am very clear when I talk about religion in general versus a specific flavor of religion, like fundamentalism or creationism.
Creationism is wrong. Period. I can’t be any more clear or simple than that. However, that is simply one sect of a much larger and broader spectrum of religion. If some other religion wants to fly against what we know to be real, then they do so at their own peril. I don’t talk too much (or at all) about broad religion here (like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc) unless they do something I want to talk about (like promote homophobia, influence politics, inflict their morals on me, etc.).
I don’t lump all Christians together– in fact, since this is a science site, I’d like to see evidence of your claim. Can you link to where I have done this?
Also, “squirm”? I don’t remember doing that either. A link again would be handy.
April 6th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Anyone interested in the story of the evolving empirical view of the Universe should read Simon Singh’s Big Bang.
It begins with Eratosthenes’ measure of the size of the earth and ends
with the WMAP satellite’s map of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Mather’s role is included and the publishers added a surprise at
the very end that Phil Plait will like.
April 6th, 2007 at 10:43 am
>>>Too bad we can’t simply chuck people out of politics for being twinkies.
What? But then you;d have no politicains left and…
…
Never mind.
April 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
For those curious, the people in the picture are, from left to right:
Crown princess Victoria of Sweden, Dr. George Smoot (co-winner), prince Carl Philip, Mrs. Smoot (I assume), princess Madeleine, Dr. James Cromwell, erm, I mean John Mather, and Mrs. Mather (I assume). Odd that they didn’t include the king and queen, but they may be delegating, these days.
I don’t follow the “evening press”, but I believe the crown princess is taken. Can’t speak for the other two though
April 6th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Christianity is a myth based on a group of radical Jews
who wanted to throw off not only Roman incursion into
their territory but the shackles of old Hebrew law and
its leaders.
They took a leader of their movement and turned him
into the Son of God no less. The rest is history - and a
sordid, messy one at that.
The Middle East and the state of human affairs and
the level of general intelligence hasn’t changed in over
2,000 years. I wonder if we will even make it to another
2,000 years before we wake up and grow up from this
oppressive superstition.
April 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Portrait of Princess Madeleine
April 9th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
John23 (Apr 06 07:31) and AstroSmurf (Apr 06 11:44):
I can confirm that, numbering the figures in the photo from 1 (leftmost) to 7 (rightmost), 2 is George Smoot, 6 is John Mather, and 7 is Jane Mather (John’s wife). Can’t speak to identities of the other four.
BA: I, too, worked on COBE, but for a bit longer (10 yr), and I would like to amplify your assessment of Dr. Mather. He can communicate more substance with less pomp and pretension and at a lower volume level than anyone I have ever met.
I hope it conveys something of John when I report that hearing the news that he was to share the 2006 Physics Nobel, well, it made my year. And I’m once again very pleased to hear of his new appointment at NASA.
As COBE was getting its first results, there were a few half-joking references to a Nobel Prize coming out of this, but I doubt that anyone seriously expected it. Historically, there have been several top people in the field who never won one. But as the results ricochéd through the astrophysics community, and the journal citation count grew, and it became clear that these citations were much more than just the casual kind, they were influencing and pushing the science forward, and, well, let’s just say that the Nobel Committee hit this one square on the head.
John had a simple but effective idea — the CMBR is only briefly and narrowly (in spectrum) measurable from Earth- and atmospheric-based instruments, so let’s get a platform to look at the CMBR that can really look ‘hard’ and long — let’s put a cryo-cooled instrument package in orbit! He then spent practically his whole career attracting plenty of talent and resources to accomplish that, and we are all better off for it.
Kudos to John, and kudos to you for this site. Keep on bein’ Bad!
PS. If you ever want to trade COBE stories, on-blog or off, feel free. I was on the software development team, on and near GSFC, mostly for the FIRAS instrument, from late ‘85 to the end of ‘95. No pressure, I know you’re a busy dude.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Gee Phil,
It almost sounds like you are saying the Bush administration did something right. ;o)
May 26th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Good material about COBE, and NASA. I have studied physics for engineering and the amount of “META”physics and the use of Business terms used to suggest that the people you talk to “know” the subject matter, OR are faking it OR disagree with the speaker when we try to speak to strangers is astounding.
As to the part about netrinos and the Big Bang… he said it wasn’t commercially viable or some such effect…. BUT if you try laser fusion with a supply of neutrino’s “cold fusion” may be more viable than just a funny joke. “Cold fusion lies between Jupiter and the SUN” do I mean graviationally factual or Locationally humorous with our science???? I like science and education and HUMOR often helps contrast where the line between many subjects are.
Here locally I went to a church service by a “comedic” inspirational speaker. When he spoke about the bible he was funny and revealing. When he attempted to tailor his talk to include me and he referenced quantum physics and how “the matter of which we are apart has 2 quarks and they represnt relationships…. well altough he is correct about up and down, he did not get that proton and neutron have three quarks working to make matter and reality the basis of what is. I had to bite my tongue.”
Further it seems the dispute is NOT Darwin evolution VS religion…. BUT ATHESIM vs Religion, and Darwin was NOT an atheist… but psychology and frued are NOT christians either so it seem the debate should be what the psychologists are stirring and why. It seems they tell religion Darwin is wrong, and they tell Darwinists that religion is Wrong, then they watch the sparks fly. When looking at the history of when each was written tells where the difference lies, and adds to the appreciation of each WITHIN the proper context.
But then maybe I am too much of a patriot for my own good, and education shows up so black and white…