” Many AAS members are concerned about the reaction of NASA to the JWST name and procedure, and we wished to offer a brief update,” stated the AAS Board of Trustees. “In reaction to our most recent letter, Administrator Nelson replied that NASAs Acting Chief Historian along with a contract historian were examining records which NASA would share the findings openly after completion. Nelson likewise concurred that the objective naming policy for NASA must be reexamined and that will likewise be shared. We wait for these results.”
In 2015, the naming of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) ended up being the subject of controversy when it was revealed that the namesake (NASAs administrator between 1961 and 1968) was associated with the notorious “Lavender Scare.” When the U.S. State Department purged thousands of people from their positions due to accusations of homosexuality, this refers to the duration in the late 1940s and early 50s. In 2021, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson requested a public and official report and entrusted NASAs Chief Historian Brian C. Odom with investigating the matter.
In it, NASA declared that their investigation found no direct proof that Webb was a “leader of or an advocate” of the policy; therefore, they would not be renaming the JWST. In a surprise twist, it appears that NASA might reexamine its naming policy and recommend modifications.
Eliminate All Ads on Universe Today
Join our Patreon for as low as $3!
Get the ad-free experience for life
Illustration of NASAs James Webb Space Telescope. Credits: NASA.
For beginners, NASA has a particular policy concerning the identifying of spacecraft, probes, and missions that has been in place considering that the early 1960s and Project Mercury. This policy was established by the then-named Advertisement Hoc Committee to Name Space Projects and Objects, established in 1960. Based upon the precedent established with the Explorer and Pioneer spacecraft, the committee stressed that “flight names should be recommended of the objective and reflect the series of which they were a part.”.
This is understood as the “Cortright” system, which the Project Designation Committee adopted in 1961. According to the NASA Management Instruction 4-3-1 (NMI):.
” Each task name will be a basic euphonic word that will not be or replicate puzzled with other NASA or non-NASA job titles. When possible and if proper, names will be chosen to reflect NASAs objective. Project names will be serialized when proper, hence limiting the number of different names in use at any one time; nevertheless, serialization will be used only after successful flight or achievement has actually been attained.”.
In 2000, the administration set up NASA Policy Directive 7620.1 I (NPD), which made a couple of small addendums to their calling procedure. As per the policy, calling missions is the obligation of NASA administrators and assistant administrators to:.
” Initiate the name choice procedure by putting together an ad hoc name choice team consisting of one member representing the workplace in which a project name is under factor to consider, e.g., Science Mission Directorate, and one member representing every other NASA Headquarters office taking part in the management of a significant aspect of or having other major participation in the project. This will consist of the Public Affairs Officer co-located in the NASA Headquarters program office initiating the name selection process. The Official-in-Charge will lead the team or designate a leader.”.
This is unsurprising, thinking about how the JWST got its name in the first place. Beyond the debate surrounding Webbs function in the Lavender Scare, the naming met backlash from the scientific community due to the fact that it braked with custom. Unlike previous observatories called after the researchers or the principles they were examining (all of NASAs Great Observatories), Webb was called by former NASA Administrator Sean OKeefe (2001 to 2004). OKeefe did this without the typical consultations or contest process and chose a name that had no bearing on the observatorys objective.
NASAs decision not to rename the observatory has actually naturally fulfilled with anger and disappointment from the LGBTQI+, scientific, and other communities. Jason Wright, a Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at Penn State, is also a member of the Sexual and Gender Minority Alliance (SGMA), the committee that encourages the American Astronomical Society (AAS) on LGBTQ+ problems. During the investigation, Wright led the effort to read more about NASAs investigation and even spoke personally to Odom about the matter. As Wright specified on his website (Astroweb):.
” At this point, NASAs resistance has actually gone from stubbornness to recalcitrance. Already, NASA staff members are refusing to use the name in prominent publications. The Royal Astronomical Society says it anticipates authors of MNRAS not to utilize the name. The American Astronomical Society has actually two times asked the administrator to reopen the naming procedure (and got no reaction!). This is a mistake that only grows as NASA declines to fix it.”.
The ASS statement also included a tip about the policy regarding their clinical journals, which mentions that “the acronym JWST need not be spelled out upon its first usage in clinical papers.” At this juncture, its not completely clear if the AAS is agent of any actual plans or if this was merely lip service from the Administrator. Regardless, the administrations refusal to relabel the JWST, paired with their evident willingness to revisit their calling policies, sends an undoubtedly mixed message.
1963 photo revealing Dr. William H. Pickering, (center) JPL Director, President John F. Kennedy, (right). NASA Administrator James Webb in the background. Credit: NASA.
When put together, the ad-hoc special project name group need to solicit tips, particularly from the “responsible NASA Centers and specialists.” After completing considerations, they are required to make specific suggestions to the Associate Administrator for the Office of Communications. The A.A. for the Office of Communications is then responsible for reviewing the recommendations of this special committee, selecting, and submitting it to the Administrator for final approval.
Nevertheless, this process is often implemented informally. As former NASA Chief Historian Bill Barry explained:.
” The Official-in-Charge of the appropriate NASA Headquarters workplace is responsible for identifying objectives that require a name and putting together a committee to advise names. Most of the propositions come with a name chosen by the Principal Investigator and NASA generally embraces these names.”.
In this case, the name was chosen in 2004 by previous NASA Administrator Sean OKeefe (2001-2004) without going through the normal channels. And as noted, it is unclear why a review of the naming procedure is required if NASA firmly insists on keeping the name for the JWST.
In other words, its an undoubtedly blended message and could be little bit more than lip service. Time will inform!
Further Reading: AAS.
Like this: Like Loading …
In 2021, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson asked for a public and official report and entrusted NASAs Chief Historian Brian C. Odom with examining the matter.
“In reaction to our most current letter, Administrator Nelson responded that NASAs Acting Chief Historian as well as an agreement historian were evaluating records and that NASA would share the findings publicly after conclusion. Unlike previous observatories named after the scientists or the concepts they were investigating (all of NASAs Great Observatories), Webb was called by previous NASA Administrator Sean OKeefe (2001 to 2004).” Initiate the name choice process by assembling an advertisement hoc name selection group consisting of one member representing the office in which a job name is under consideration, e.g., Science Mission Directorate, and one member representing every other NASA Headquarters office participating in the management of a substantial element of or having other significant participation in the project. And as kept in mind, it is uncertain why a review of the calling process is needed if NASA firmly insists on keeping the name for the JWST.