Sean O’Keefe, the NASA administrator who named the telescope in 2002, mentioned in an e mail that Webb was “a champion of education, technology, science, aeronautics and human exploration.”
“Arguably, were it not for James Webb’s determination to fulfill the most audacious vision of his time, our capacity to explore today would be starkly different,” Mr. O’Keefe mentioned. “He introduced complex systems management — a discipline to harness the exceptional technical capability of NASA at that time.” Mr. O’Keefe added that he was unaware of any proof that Webb was liable for the Lavender Scare.
In May, NASA promised a full investigation by its appearing chief historian, Brian Odom. On Sept. 27, the company issued an announcement from the present NASA administrator, Bill Nelson, saying, “We have found no evidence at this time that warrants changing the name of the James Webb Space Telescope.” Since then, no intensive report has been forthcoming.
This has infuriated many astronomers, and a few 1,200 have signed a petition calling for the telescope to be renamed. “Under Webb’s leadership, queer people were persecuted,” the petition reads, partly. “Those who would excuse Webb’s failure of leadership cannot simultaneously award him credit for his management of Apollo.”
On listening to Mr. Nelson’s announcement, Dr. Walkowicz abruptly resigned their submit on the NASA Astrophysics Advisory Committee. “This flippant, pathetic response to the very reasonable questions raised by the astronomical community regarding JWST’s name sends a clear message of NASA’s position on the rights of queer astronomers,” they wrote in a web based assertion. “It also speaks clearly to me that NASA does not deserve my time.”
In an e mail, Dr. Prescod-Weinstein mentioned she was annoyed on the lack of promised transparency. Moreover, she mentioned, the declare of “no evidence” was too robust, because it prompt that Webb was not liable for the homophobia — well-documented — that his crew promulgated throughout his tenure at NASA.
“If he’s not responsible for the bad stuff that happened while he was in charge, why is he responsible for the good stuff?” Dr. Prescod-Weinstein mentioned. “It seems there’s a bit of double-think happening here, where people assign him responsibility for the things they like about his legacy and pretend that he’s only responsible for the things they like.”