Why does NASA publish all the results/data it gets?

Question

I was curious about why NASA publishes all the results/data from its operations. Does the USA have a law that mandates it or is it a voluntary contribution to the world?

They don't. "Even though Congress's intention in forming NASA was to establish a purely civilian space agency, according to David a combination of circumstances led the agency to commingle its activities with black programs operated by the U.S. military and Intelligence Community." – NASA's Secret Relationships with U.S. Defense and Intelligence Agencies — Mazura, Sep 19 '19 at 06:53
It's interesting that there seems a significant difference between ESA and NASA with respect to releasing images immediately after acquiring them. For example, there was a big discussion about ESA's decision to delay the Rosetta images at the time https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/tensions-surround-release-new-rosetta-comet-data — user2705196, Sep 19 '19 at 12:22
All data created by the government that is not considered state secrets or privacy sensitive is public domain, so NASA is essentially required to make their data available. In addition, it's explicitly called out in the laws that formed NASA. — stix, Sep 20 '19 at 16:12
Be thankful they do, unlike their European counterparts which demand payment for any piece of data that they have. — JonathanReez, Sep 21 '19 at 00:45

score 91 · Accepted Answer · answered Sep 18 '19 at 16:02

91

It's required to by the legislation that created it, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.

FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 203. (a) The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this Act, shall--

(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;

(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations; and

(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.

Emphasis mine.

answered Sep 18 '19 at 16:02

Organic Marble

181,413
9
626
815

11

I suspect that provision came in response to the Soviet Union's activities during the Cold War which were much more secretive. I remember hearing in a documentary or two about how the United States felt it important to at least appear to be transparent about what all was being developed... an effort to show that what was being built and done was for peaceful purposes. I'll see if I can find a source on that, unless you know one off the top of your head. :-) – Brad Sep 18 '19 at 21:08
@Brad Well, it was the Eisenhower administration - they also had the "open skies" plan. – Organic Marble Sep 18 '19 at 21:15
13

"appropriate dissemination" means not classified. Which afaik, a fair amount of NASA's cargo was/is. So, it ain't "all" of it, not by a long shot. – Mazura Sep 19 '19 at 07:00

score 42 · Answer 2 · answered Sep 19 '19 at 05:03

42

I drive by it every day... We do it for the benefit of all:

Really though, the government has a vested interest in making sure we (the United States) remain a technology leader in the world because it's good for the economy. Private industry is usually too risk-averse to undertake basic research with no current applications even though the payoff can sometimes be huge.

answered Sep 19 '19 at 05:03

Aaron

691
4
11

Venturestar, DC-X... – jwenting Sep 19 '19 at 07:06
19

No, the US government has a vested interest in making sure its citizens think it remains a technology leader. Whether they also delude themselves is just a side effect. The "we haven't already invented it, therefore it doesn't work" attitude which used to pervade some parts of NASA didn't benefit anybody. – alephzero Sep 19 '19 at 09:27
@jwenting I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but in case you are trying to give examples of the private sector taking financial risk by doing basic research, then you should be aware that those are not example of that (because examples rarely exist). If you type those two names into Wikipedia, both articles mention within the first sentences that the government was involved, presumably mostly financially. – Nobody Sep 19 '19 at 17:01
4

@alephzero Perhaps "technology leader" wasn't the most accurate choice of words, because I don't want to take away from the success of other countries. We are certainly still very competitive in many fields, and basic research (by many more organizations than just NASA) contributes to that. Regarding the "attitude"; there are jaded engineers everywhere, but it is not the norm in my experience. – Aaron Sep 19 '19 at 19:45
@Nobody no, those are examples of things where NASA prevented advances in science and engineering, after massive investments by private industry. – jwenting Sep 20 '19 at 15:44
Wouldn't it then be more effective to only provide the data to US enterprises instead of the whole world? – Paŭlo Ebermann Sep 21 '19 at 11:00
@PaŭloEbermann much of the work NASA does is direct collaboration with US companies, and in those cases everything will remain confidential according to however the contract was drawn up with respect to intellectual property. Also restricted release are technologies that are identified as: "Dual use" things not intended for but might inadvertently aide military technology, "Game changing technologies" things that may have an immediate and significant impact on a particular industry, "Itar" things more directly related to military applications, etc... – Aaron Sep 21 '19 at 15:45

score 24 · Answer 3 · answered Sep 19 '19 at 00:58

24

Because they're scientists, and publishing your results is what scientists do. There's a reason why the final step of basically every research methodology used in academia is "publish your results" (and I'm only saying "basically every" because I'm not an expert on the field of research methodologies, so while it's possible that there's one obscure one out there that doesn't, it doesn't seem likely to me).

Also because they're legally obligated to do so by the rules of their government funding, as pointed out in Organic Marble's answer.

answered Sep 19 '19 at 00:58

nick012000

795
5
13

Welcome on the site! Afaik NASA is more engineers than scientists. – peterh Sep 19 '19 at 01:06
Yeah, they publish garbage like "A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus". – RonJohn Sep 19 '19 at 02:16
6

@peterh the number of people is irrelevant. NASA does scientific research and those efforts are invariably led by scientists. – Hobbes Sep 19 '19 at 07:20
@peterh I don't know for sure, or where even I would find reliable numbers, but I would have said the opposite. Much of the engineering is contracted, while NASA does the research (with the possible large exception of the SLS which is a somewhat controversial topic). – Aaron Sep 19 '19 at 21:12
2

Publishing results is standard for most scientists in academia, unless engaged in commercially-sensitive work. But (unfortunately) is is still not standard for scientists to publish all of their data. That data is what they use to continue publishing, and to keep ahead of their academic competition. There are going moves to insist on releasing public data, but that more often comes from the funder end (who want the data to be used widely) than from the scientists, who often have strong incentives to keep it to themselves. NASA operates on a more open model. – Michael MacAskill Sep 19 '19 at 23:47

peterh · Answer 4 · 2019-09-20T04:18:28.967

9

NASA is not a stand-alone thing. It is the civilian part of the space industry, and partially, the military industry of the USA. They work together.

For example: they publish the photos, what the Hubble made. This is very useful for the whole humanity. But the same (or very similar) technologies are used in spy satellites, too. Only the watch not the sky, but the Earth. Of course nothing is known about their capabilities and results. Not even the engineering details of the Hubble are public - only its results.

Most countries have some law enforcing the access of the tax-payers to the results of their tax. This can be avoided on national security reasons, but it needs to have a reason. The law of the USA probably doesn't enforce to publish the results for the whole world, but it is practically impossible to narrow, for example, the availability of the Hubble photos to the USA citizens. It has also much better PR to openly publish it.

edited Sep 20 '19 at 04:18

answered Sep 18 '19 at 16:05

peterh

3,288
4
27
41

18

Regarding openly publishing to the world, I've seen in foreign-language forums how enthusiastically some people out there follow NASA and its science. I've seen people say that it's an American endeavor but they feel like they're a part of it. That is indescribably wonderful, and maybe an under-appreciated PR tool. (I feel the same when, e.g., China puts a lander on the moon, or Japan takes shots at an asteroid. There's just something international about space science.) – Greg Sep 18 '19 at 20:51
11

@Greg "and maybe an under-appreciated PR tool." The Eisenhower administration knew exactly what it was doing in this case. – RonJohn Sep 19 '19 at 02:13
2

Why do you think the engineering details of the Hubble aren't available? Granted, it's probably not that easy to find specific details, but I'd guess that that's more because very few people would actually be interested in the details. – jamesqf Sep 19 '19 at 02:16
@jamesqf I think its more that vendors who actually built the things do not share the data. So NASA does not either. – joojaa Sep 19 '19 at 05:17
4

"Nothing is known of their capabilities" well, until the president tweets them all out. – corsiKa Sep 19 '19 at 07:55
1

@jamesf Afaik there is no such thing that "all hubble details document". What we call Hubble, is in fact a complex network of various hardware/software products, deployed by a huge mass of various companies USA-wide. It depends on their preferences and their NASA contract, how do they publish their details. The unfortunate custom in that industry, that they don't publish anything, or at most very little. It is even so for an infrared TV controller, how would it be done differently for technologies used now to watch the Russians/Chinese? – peterh Sep 19 '19 at 10:21
@peterh: I suppose that depends on how deeply you want to go into detail, and also whether the people responsible think anyone would be interested. So just for instance, if the Hubble control system uses Intel microprocessor X, you likely wouldn't find NASA publishing details of its construction. You'd just go to Intel's web site and download the data sheet for the component. As for TV controllers, it took me about 10 seconds to find specifications, e.g. http://www.numericana.com/answer/ir.htm (Just the first relevant hit of ~11 million.) – jamesqf Sep 19 '19 at 16:38
1

@jamesqf These are specifications and data sheets. They only show, what the thing does, but not the how. Firmware source codes and circuit diagrams, you will see only once in a leap century. I am surprised that an engineer can't understand the difference between the behavior and the working. – peterh Sep 19 '19 at 17:09
@jamesqf Furthermore, all the devices were produced by different manufacturers. As the rule of thumb, all the manufacturers know only their devices and no one knows all of them. It is possible that the NASA prescribes them in the contract, to share all the specifications, source codes and other documents with them, that is not uncommon. Simply publicizing these things is typically unthinkable. Like your intel specs, you won't ever see a single line of VHDL code (even that is not known if they are using VHDL), or a circuit design (they probably create it with an in-house developed secret sw). – peterh Sep 19 '19 at 17:14
Wasn't the complete schematics of the formerly very secret Saturn V rocket released recently? - As far as I know it is regarded as so complex that even NASA themselves wouldn't try to rebuild it, despite it still being the best 'workhorse' rocket ever built. It did bring man to the Moon several times, a feat never repeated by any other rocket. – P. Goetterup Sep 20 '19 at 11:47
@peterh: But the "how" of those sub-components isn't relevant, since you can generally buy them off the shelf. (Perhaps not radiation-hardened versions...) To take it to the lowest level, if I go to the hardware store for a few bolts, do I really need to know the exact alloy it's made from? Or do I just get the right size & grade for the job? – jamesqf Sep 20 '19 at 16:24
@corsiKa "Nothing is known of their capabilities" well, until the president tweets them all out. You're so young. Jimmy Carter went on national television and waved around KH-11 pictures while saying how great our cameras are how we can catch the Sovs cheating on SALT II. – RonJohn Sep 21 '19 at 00:03
@RonJohn Not sure what's more insulting, your ageism or your insulation that I think Carter was a good president. I promise not to get my dirty millennial shoes on your lawn though if you promise not to @ me back. – corsiKa Sep 21 '19 at 03:07
@corsiKa did I really insinuate you thought Carter was a good president? – RonJohn Sep 21 '19 at 12:13

Why does NASA publish all the results/data it gets?

4 Answers4