Thread by @astrogrant

Paul Hertz' prepared statement on JWST renaming, at APAC right now

"The Administrator made the decision". Brian Odom, Acting Chief Historian, will give more detail into the process right now

Brian speaking now...

"investigation was taken very seriously". "My research history made this uniquely important to me. [Before NASA I did work on humans rights issues, etc]" (quickly paraphrasing here, sorry all)

"In the past 10 years I've looked at NASA relationship to civil rights movement" ... "We looked at Webb's past during the Lavender Scare" ... Brian giving brief overview of Lavender Scare

"What this investigation did was lOoked at Webb's time at NASA and as Undersec. of State. Was there evidence that implicates Webb in forumulation of lavender scare, or enacting any firings..." [BIG paraphrase]

"We found no evidence. That DOESNT mean there ISNT evidenvce. We hired a contract historian to look into archives ... The contract is still in place. Once COVID restrictions are pulled back, we will do more investigation in archives. We understand that past is never closed."

"If new evidence comes to light, we will inform the administrator. But as of right now, there is no evidence we have found"

Question time. Michael Meyer asks: was a committee involved in investigation, or just a few people?

A: It was myself [Odom], contract historian and just a few othrers. No committee.

Lou Strolger: Is there a formal report, and will it be made public?

A: There is no formal report. There is no report to make public.

Lou: Given the outcry, the need for transparency, this feels insufficient to present the findings without the basis. I think a report is warranted.

A: That is certainly fair.

APAC will discuss this as potential formal recommendation.

sorry all: APAC is PUBLIC and you can listen right now here. nasaenterprise.webex.com/nasaenterprise…

"Contract Historian will continue to follow path, especially once a major archive opens up [Grant missed which one, sorry!], we will continue analysis"

Michael Meyer: You said there's nothing to report. Can you give example of kinds of things you found, at least?

A: What we found is a few documents, one presented to the Administrator, that is circumstantial. Said "Webb was in meeting where this particular issue was discussed"

"What we're not finding is evidence of any execution or action linked DIRECTLY to Webb in any of this context"

{Really sorry for my terrible transcriptions all. Apologies to speakers}

Q: What is the mechanism for changing a telescope name?

Paul: Process is written in NASA procedural req. doc. SMD can establish a name change recommendation. It gets submitted to head of comms, then to Admin for decision.

WFIRST was renamed to Roman in this way.

Paul: For JWST, this was the Administrator's decision. This was his preference.

Chick Woodward: You said if new info becomes available, then you'll go back to Admin. Nelson. Do you think avenue for "changing his mind" is still accessible if new info comes about?

Odom: I was impressed by Admin. Nelson, objective nature with which he took decision.

"He did want to see the evidence. He did look objectively. I have no doubt that if the investigation does find new evidence, he will consider that evidence and possibly change his mind"

Paul: Formal administrator statement is "We found no evidence AT THIS TIME", implying potential future for change...

Chick: Getting back to Lou's comment - a written report would help a lot with this. You NEED documents. Lacking documents makes the exercise hearsay. The committee's sense of this serious conversation really warrants a written document.

[BIG paraphrase, sorry Chick!!!]

Chick: The Committee is pleased that Contractor is still available to continue investigation as COVID restrictions abate.

Odom: Contractor has first appointment available to get into this archive [again, I didn't catch WHICH archive Odom is talking about, but he did mention it]

Mark Mozena: What was the time period that invetigation took place?

A: Research in this investigation kicked off at end of Feb 2021.

Chick: As you probably heard from committee, if there are other facts that relate to this issue that might change outcome, APAC wants to bring you back before us. We want the science of JWST not to be distracted from these serious issues. Community is concerned about this".

Chick: Committee might advise, as we move forward with new missions, that NASA not name missions for individuals. Maybe a time for lessons learned.

END of JWST discussion. Paul Hertz now continues his APD update.

Alex caught the specific Archive Brian mentioned. Brian mentioned that Contract historian "had first appointment once COVID restrictions eased". Thanks Alex!

https://twitter.com/alexwitze/status/1448315391982198784?s=20

To take a minute to editorialize: I'm pretty stunned that there's "no report". None? Not even, I dunno, a slide deck? Some notes?

They should just write a report. The government writes reports for everything. Just write a report.

[and then make it public 😉]

Public comment/question period starts now at 1:59 ET.

Top question is about 1200 signatories of JWST renaming petition.

A: We had Brian give report. Administrator has decided that, to date, there is no evidence to justify changing name.

Top 4 questions on the portal are all about JWST renaming.

arc.cnf.io/sessions/m8xp/…

Ryan Hickox asks about comms plan behind renaming decision. It was "really brief". "Gave no context". Why was this? Why not more information about process?

A: Neither Brian nor I [Paul Hertz] can answer that question. But we're aware of the concern.

Lou Strolger echoes Ryan's concern: "it's not enough to just say you're aware of concern. A report needs to be generated.

A: Thank you