Jeff Foust points out a couple of editorials in the DC Examiner that set up the false choice of manned exploration versus, well, other stuff. In the one case, it's earth sciences, though why this is NASA's job (as opposed to, say, NOAA or NSF) isn't said.

And both point out the continuing need for resolving my pet peeve, that we have still not had a national debate on why NASA even exists. Until we can develop some kind of consensus on why we have a government-funded space program, and particularly a manned one, we'll continue have these pointless discussions. As it is now, the purpose is vague and chameleon like, allowing proponents of pork and hobby shops to continue to proliferate.

And both point out the continuing need for resolving my pet peeve, that we have still not had a national debate on why NASA even exists. Until we can develop some kind of consensus on why we have a government-funded space program, and particularly a manned one. . .

Color me O'Neillian. Or as Dennis Wingo says, lunar resources to improve life on Earth, Mars to start the human assimilation of the solar system.

People do science, right? Presumably, people in space can also do science.

This is an argument about money, about whose ox gets gored, not science. Portraying it as "science versus humans in space" is a neat PR trick by people with a vested interest in their own projects.

"though why this is NASA's job (as opposed to, say, NOAA or NSF) isn't said."

It doesn't need to be said in the articles because it has been established by long precedent and experience. Why not read the Aeronautics and Space Act that created NASA and that CLEARLY gives this mission to NASA. You seem to believe that somehow this job ended up at NASA by accident. It didn't. It was put there after substantial discussion and debate.

For starters, NOAA does not have the capability to do space vehicle procurement. Nor does it have rocket experts. Nor ground stations. All those things are needed to run a space program. Plus, NOAA is relatively small, with a budget under $4 billion and a total procurement, acquisition and construction budget of about $1 billion.

As for NSF, I continue to be amazed by the idiotic comments by people on Foust's website who somehow believe that "science" belongs at NSF if only because NSF has "science" in its name. This is the kind of reasoning that makes sense to a five-year-old, but it is bizarre to see it in adults.

Perhaps you should do a little research and see what NSF actually does. It does not do any actual "science" of its own. It provides GRANTS to researchers. It does not operate facilities or equipment or laboratories. It doesn't procure stuff. It doesn't have people who even KNOW how to procure stuff, other than office furniture.

Arguing that space science should be given to NSF is like saying that Air Force transport planes should be given to the Department of Transportation because they have "transportation" in their name. It completely ignores what the agencies actually DO.

"For starters, NOAA does not have the capability to do space vehicle procurement. Nor does it have rocket experts. Nor ground stations. All those things are needed to run a space program.

Which shouldn't matter to since Rand was talking about Earth Science. Why would they need a space program? Even if they needed a boost into orbit, I am sure they could use NASA as a ferry. Earth based geologists don't build trucks to get to sites, they buy them from somebody else.

"Plus, NOAA is relatively small, with a budget under $4 billion and a total procurement, acquisition and construction budget of about $1 billion."

Which wouldn't be true if they had a bigger task. More tasks equals more money.

"[NSF] provides GRANTS to researchers. It does not operate facilities or equipment or laboratories. It doesn't procure stuff."

Good. That is what all "Government" research should do.